Journal of Food Biosciences and Technology,
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, 1, 55-62, 2011
Shelf-Life of Apples Coated with Whey Protein Concentrate-
Gellan Gum Edible Coatings
M. Javanmard*
.ir
Department of Food Science, Institute of Chemical Technologies, Iranian Research Organization for Science &
Technology (IROST)
Received 1 November 2010; Accepted 15 March 2011
ac
ABSTRACT: Edible coatings made from whey protein concentrate (WPC) and gellan gum (G) were
investigated for their capacity to preserve the quality of Malus domestica cv Golab apples. WPC and gellan gum
coatings at different concentrations plasticized with glycerol (Gly) were tested. Postharvest storage quality
condition testes included weight loss, color and texture changes, titratable acidity and soluble solids content and
consumer acceptance. The results indicated that WPC-gellan-coated fruits were rated highest for taste,
glossiness, colour and overall acceptability and were lowest for weight loss in this study. Results also showed no
weeks at 4°C.
u.
significant difference in soluble solids content and titratable acidity between control and the coated apples after 4
Keywords: Apple, Edible Coating, Gellan Gum, Shelf-Life, Whey Protein Concentrate.
Introduction1
ia
performed by producing a modified
Edible coatings, which are defined as thin atmosphere surrounding the product. This
layers of wax or other materials are applied modified atmosphere can serve several
to the surface of food and have been used for purposes, including reducing oxygen
rb
over 800 years. Records dated as early as the availability and increasing the fruit or
12th and 13th centuries showed that wax vegetable’s internal carbon dioxide
coatings were applied to citrus fruits in concentration (Smith et al., 1987). Modified
China (Hardenburg, 1967). Coatings of atmospheres created by coatings are
edible materials applied as a thin layer to produced by the physical trapping of carbon
t.s
enhance the quality, extend the shelf-life of dioxide gas within the fruit tissues during
fruit and work as a barrier in reducing both respiration (Ball, 1997).
respiration and water loss (Olivas et al., Edible films have been proven to be an
2007). Edible coatings can provide an elective preservation technique that cannot
additional protective coating for fresh only keep fruit plumpness, fresh appearance
jfb
products and they can also give the same and hardness but also improve the luster of
effect as modified atmosphere storage in fruits surface thereby increasing the
modifying internal gas composition commercial value of fruits (Xu & Chen,
(Baldwin, 1994). 2003).
Recently, several edible coatings for More recently waxes and edible coatings
preserving fruits such as oranges, apples and made from proteins, polysaccharides and
grapefruits were successfully applied (Park, various combinations of these products have
1998). The mechanism by which coatings been used on many other fruit and vegetable
preserve fruits and vegetables, were commodities, as well as for other food
applications, including nuts and meat
*
Corresponding Author: javanmard@[Link] products (Kester & Fennema, 1986). Such
M. Javanmard
coatings have been used to reduce moisture Fruit selection and preparation
loss and surface wounding, as well as to Apples were bought at a local market in
reduce a variety of diseases in apple Tehran and immediately transported to the
varieties (Hardenburg, 1967; Kester & laboratory for the experiments. The Malus
Fennema, 1986; Bai et al., 2003). pumila cv Golab was chosen for this
Protein films and coatings possess experiment because of its short shelf life.
excellent oxygen barrier properties Selected apples of uniform size and color
comparable to synthetic polymer,such as were washed in distilled water, dried, and
polyvinylidene chloride and ethylene vinyl defective ones were eliminated before
.ir
alcohol films (Trezza & Krochta, 2002). treatments. Coated and uncoated fruits were
Whey Protein Concentrate (WPC) edible kept at 4±1 °C for 28 days.
coatings in combination with anti-browning
agents effectively extended the shelf-life of Experimental design
ac
minimally processed apple slices by 2 weeks Initial baseline values of each tested
when stored in packed trays at cold storage variable were established on day 0 of the test
(Lee et al., 2003).Whey protein-based period using 10 apples. The five coated
coatings without incorporation of groups and the control group were
antioxidants were more effective in reducing subsequently tested every seven days.
enzymatic browning of ‘Golden Delicious’ u.
apples than hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-
based coatings (P´erez-Gago et al., 2005).
Many gums and their derivatives have
Weight was measured on the 7th, 14th, 21st
and 27th days.
Coating formulations
been used for coating purposes. Coatings Five coating treatments were applied to
ia
which have been used for apple coating Malus pumila cv Golab Apples. The control
based on hydrocolloids include: treatment had no coating. The remaining 5
Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) dust and treatments were variations such as: (T1) 4gr
starch for freshly cut pieces of fruits (Mason, Gellan +1 gr Calcium Chloride + 195 gr
rb
1969) and chitosan and lauric acid (pennisi, DW, (T2) 10gr WPC+0.05 gr Gellan + 90 gr
1992) for apple slices. distilled water (DW), (T3) 12gr WPC+3 gr
The objectives of this investigation were Gly+ 0.05 gr Gellan + 88 gr DW, (T4) 11gr
to develop methodologies for forming WPC +3 gr Gly+ 89 gr DW and (T5) 4 gr
t.s
simple protein and composite protein-gum Gellan + 3 gr Gly + 193 gr DW. Coating
films based on WPC on apple and to study treatments were made by heat denaturing a
the shelf life and sensory analysis of coated 10percent (wt/wt) aqueous solution of WPC
apples. in a 90 °C water bath for 30 min (McHugh
& Krochta, 1994) (Fig.2). The solutions
were cooled to room temperature in an ice
jfb
Materials and Methods
bath. The appropriate amounts of glycerol
plasticizer were added and stirred for 30 min
Materials to achieve total dissolution. Deionized water
WPC (85 percent protein) was supplied was used for all solutions.
by Arla Foods (Videbeak, Denmark). Gellan
gum was purchased from Fisher Scientific, Soluble solids content and titratable acidity
Inc. (Fair Lawn, USA). Glycerol and Soluble solids content was quantified
calcium chloride (CC) by Merck (Darmstadt, every 7 days for 28 days in triplicate order.
Germany) were added as a plasticizer to all Soluble solids in the juice were determined
film-forming solutions. using a refractometer. The amount of juice
56
J. FBT, IAU, 1, 55 -62, 2011
obtained was decreased during the storage as puncture the apple sample was recorded.
water loss in the apple slices was increased. Two samples per apple were tested and
These higher concentrated juices were analyzed as subsamples equipped with a
conducive to higher values of citric acid and rounded 2 mm diameter flat-head steel
soluble solids. Therefore, the amount of probe. Peel firmness measurements were
soluble solids obtained was compensated for taken as the first peak force value obtained
weight loss as follows: during the test to penetrate the fruit 7 mm at
1.5 mm/s and pulp firmly as the medium
V = X (100 − %WLt) 100 force. Three samples per apple were tested
.ir
and analyzed as subsamples.
Where X is the value for soluble solids
obtained from apple juice before weight loss Statistical analyses
compensation, % WL is the percentage of Data were analyzed using a factorial
ac
weight loss at time t, and V is the analysis in order to determine whether the
corresponding true value for soluble solids post harvest coated apples' quality
or citric acid content after weight loss parameters differed from the uncoated
compensation. control apples. Factorial analysis was also
Titratable acidity,which was analyzed used to determine if any of the parameters
titratable acidity and the results were
u.
according the to method described by Lees
(1971) was used for the determination of
expressed as the percentage of citric acid.
tested changed over time. Analysis of
variance (ANOVA) calculations was used
for the factorial analysis. Days or treatments
that differed significantly at the P=0.05 level
were subjected to Duncan’s difference test to
ia
Weight loss determination compare each treatment to the nontreated
Ten fruits for each specific condition control.
were randomly selected and the fruits were
weighed during the study with a laboratory
rb
Results and Discussion
balance (Mettler AE 200-S Greifensee,
Switzerland) and the results were expressed Soluble solids content and titratable acidity
as the percentage of weight loss. Soluble solids content of coated and un-
coated apples stored under cold condition
t.s
Sensory evaluation was decreased at the end of the storage
Fruit colour was measured by the CIE period. The loss of soluble solids during the
L*a*b* system using a chroma meter storage period is as natural as sugars which
Minolta Model CR-300 (Minolta. Co. Ltd., are the primary constituent of the soluble
Japan) at 6 h intervals for 24 h. A white tile solids content of a product, consumed by
(L*: 97.46; a*: -0.02; b*: 1.72) was used as respiration and used for the metabolic
jfb
a reference. Firmness was evaluated by a activities of the fruits (Özden & Bayindirli,
puncture test on the sides of the cubes 2002).
prepared from quarters using a TA-XT2 The major sugar in ‘Golab’ apples was
texture analyser from Stable Micro Systems fructose which was 1.68±0.42 gkg-1 (fresh
with the cross head speed of 100 mm/min weight basis). Coated fruit had lower sugar
and the load cell used was 50 kg. The levels therefore no significant differences
maximum amount of force needed to were found due to the treatments (Table 1).
57
M. Javanmard
Table 1. Average soluble solids and citric acid content of coated and un-coated (control) apples after 28 days
cold storage
Sample S.S (%) citric acid (g/kg)
Control 11 1.68
T1 9 1.4
T2 11 1.4
T3 10 1.4
.ir
T4 9 1.3
T5 11 1.3
ac
Generally all apples exhibited an storage better than fruit with uninhibited
increase, when their initial titratable acidity respiration rates (Baritelle & Hyde, 2001).
contents (expressed as citric acid) were
compared to the final ones at the end of Weight loss of coated apple
storage period, to varying extents, depending Edible coatings produced on T3 and T4
on the applied specific treatment.
There were no significant differences in
the titratable acidity and soluble solids
among the coatings for all of the varieties,
u. were suited to extending lower fruit weight
loss (1.3 percent). The fruits coated with T1,
T2 and T5 solutions presented results similar
to the uncoated apples. Weight loss was the
possibly because of the relatively brief highest for fruit without any coatings after
ia
storage time. This is somewhat unexpected. 14 days and for T2 due to the second week
Apples with inhibited respiration generally of the storage time. (Fig. 1).
maintain organic acid levels during the
rb
Table 2. Sensory attributes of apples coated with WPC/Gellan gum edible coatings and uncoated (control) apples
after 4 week at 4°C
Sensory
Control T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
attribute
t.s
Taste 6.16±0.06a 4.33±0.23b 4.27±0.37b 7.50±0.56c 7.00±0.06c 4.14±0.02b
Glossiness 6.33±0.40a 4.88±0.12b 4.48±0.62b 7.14±0.42c 6.58±0.26c 5.12±0.44b
Sweetness 6.06±0.40a 5.88±0.12a 6.18±0.62a 7.14±0.42b 5.58±0.26a 6.12±0.44a
jfb
Overall
5.04±0.08b 5.32±0.14b 5.450.12b 8.02±0.54c 6.86±0.30d 5.23±0.52b
acceptability
Means with same superscript are not significantly different (P > 0.05)
58
J. FBT, IAU, 1, 55 -62, 2011
.ir
Fig. 1. Weight loss evolution in apple samples during cold storage period. Data shown are the means (6 standard
deviation)
ac
u.
ia
A B C
rb
t.s
D E F
jfb
Fig. 2. Changes in glossiness, shrinkage and shriveling in coated (A) and un-coated (B: T1, C: T2, D: T3, E:
T4 & F: T5) apples after 28 days storage in 4±1 °C and 70± 2 % relative humidity
Post harvest weight changes in fruits and semi-permeable barrier to gases and water
vegetables are usually due to the loss of vapor, and therefore, they can reduce
water through transpiration. This loss of respiration, enzymatic browning and water
water can lead to wilting and shriveling loss (Guilbert, 1986; Baldwin & Nisperos-
which both reduce a commodity CarriedoBaker, 1995).
marketability. Edible films and coatings can No shrinkage was detected for WPC-
also offer a possibility to extend the shelf gellan and gellan (T3 and T4) coated fruits
life of fresh-cut produced by providing a (Fig.2).
59
M. Javanmard
Table 3. Color attribute for basic material (BM) at day 0 vs uncoated and coated apples at 28th day
L* b* FMAX
BM 83.6±0.44 42.3±0.34 3.6±0.30
Uncoated 67.2±0.30 44.3±0.47 1.1±0.20
T1 68.7±0.45 47.12±0.50 2.3±0.10
T2 65.6±0.18 45.1±0.57 1.8±0.10
.ir
T3 79.8±0.80 58.2±0.40 2.8±0.08
T4 76.26±0.22 56.21±0.37 2.1±0.06
T5 65.82±0.50 48.6±0.24 1.6±0.11
ac
Hatfield and Knee (1988) and Maguire et Taste of T3 and T4 samples was
al (2000) reported that even as little as 3.5-5 significantly (P<0.05) higher than the other
percent weight loss can lead to shriveling in treatments and uncoated apples. In T3,
apples. Only T3 and T4 apples lost lower apples gave significant difference in the
than 1.5percent of initial weight, which was
considered not enough to induce shriveling.
Sensory evaluation
u. firmness, crunchiness and
acceptability as compared to other
treatments and control.
overall
Table 3 shows the sensory evaluations of Conclusion
ia
apples in different coatings and uncoated The present work studied the effects of
apples. The result of sensory evaluation dipping in the innovative coating solutions
conducted on uncoated (control) and coated on apple in the cold storage. WPC-gellan
apples after 28 days of storage. coatings with added plasticizer effectively
rb
Concerning colour measurement, the maintained color, firmness, glossiness and
score for T3 and T4 was significantly higher overall acceptability of apple during the
than the score for the fresh sample, while storage. The collected data showed that in
those for the other treatments were the uncoated apple samples, sensory
significantly similar to uncoated apples (Fig.
t.s
attributes were lower than in the coated
3). Although some T2 samples showed samples. No differences were detected in the
significant brownish dots or streaks on the changes in chemical parameters (weight
flesh; this is difficult to be detected with the loss, soluble solids and citric acid) values
colorimeter, which integrates the entire between both samples during the storage.
surface exposed for measurement and
jfb
probably for diluting the visible incipient References
browning effect. Bai, J., Alleyne, V., Hagenmaier, R. D.,
After 28 days, the control and sample T1, Mattheis, J. P. & Baldwin, E.A. (2003).
T2 and T5 had a loose skin and they had Formulation of zein coatings for apples
been peeled easily from fruit flesh with a (Malus domestica Borkh). Postharvest
knife and even with hands. T3 and T4 Biology and Technology, 28, 259-268.
Samples had a firm skin. Texture loss is the Baldwin, E. A. (1994). Edible coatings
most noticeable change occurring in fruits for fresh fruits and vegetables: past, present,
and vegetables during prolonged storage and and future. In: Krochta, J.M., Baldwin, E.A.,
it is related to metabolic changes and water Nisperos-Carriedo, M.O. (Eds.), Edible
content (Garcı´a & Martino´, 1998) Coatings and Films to Improve Food
60
J. FBT, IAU, 1, 55 -62, 2011
Quality. Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, Lees, R. (1971). The laboratory handbook
PA, pp. 25-64. of methods of food analyses, 2nd edn.
Baldwin, E. A., Nisperos-Carriedo, M. O. Leonard Hill, London.
& Baker, R. A. (1995). Use of edible Maguire, K. M., Banks, N. H., Alexander,
coatings to preserve quality of lightly (and L. & Gardon, I. L. (2000). Harvest date,
slightly) processed products. Critical Review cultivar, orchard, and tree effects on water
Food Science Nutrition 35, 509–524. vapor permeance in apples. Journal of
Ball, J. A. (1997). Evaluation of Two American Society of Horticulture Science,
Lipid-Based Edible Coatings for Their 125, 100-104.
.ir
Ability to Preserve Post Harvest Quality of Mason, D. F. (1969). Fruit preservation.
Green Bell Peppers. Master of Science in United States Patent 3, 472, 662.
Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise. McHugh, T. H. & Krochta, J. M. (1994).
Baritelle, A. L., Hyde, G. M., Fellman, J. Milk-Protein-Based edible films and
ac
K. & Varith, J. (2001). Using 1-MCP to coatings. Food Tecnology, January, 97-103.
inhibit the influence of ripening on impact Olivas, G. I., Mattinson, D. S. &
properties of pear and apple tissue. Barbosa-C´anovas, G. V. (2007). Alginate
Postharvest Biology Technology, 23, 153- coatings for preservation of minimally
160. processed ‘Gala’ apples. Postharvest
Garcı´a, M. A., Martino´, M. N. &
based coatings to improve strawberry
u.
Zaritzky, N. E. (1998). Plasticized starch-
(Fragaria ananassa) quality and stability.
Biology and Technology, 45, 89–96.
Özden, C. & Bayindirli, L. ( 2002).
Effects of combinational use of controlled
atmosphere, cold storage and edible coating
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, applications on shelf life and quality
ia
46, 3758–3767. attributes of apples, European Food
Guilbert, S. (1986). Technology and Research Technology, 214, 320–326.
application of edible protective films. In: P´erez-Gago, M. B., Serra, M. & del R´ıo,
Matholouthi, M. (Ed.), Food Packaging and M. A. (2006). Color change of fresh-cut
rb
Preservation: Theory and Practice. Elsevier apples coated with whey protein
Applied Science Publishing Co., London, concentrate-based edible coatings.
pp. 371–393. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 39,
Hardenburg, R. E. (1967). Wax and 83–92.
t.s
related coatings for horticulture products. A P´erez-Gago, M. B., Serra, M., Alonso,
bibliography. Agricultural Research Service M., Mateos, M. & del R´ıo, M. A. (2005).
Bulletin 51-15. USDA, Washington, D.C. Effect of whey protein and hydroxypropyl
Hatfield, S. G. S. & Knee, M. (1988). methylcellulosebased edible composite
Effects of water loss on apple in storage. coatings on color change of fresh-cut apples.
International Journal of Food Science Postharvest Biology and Technology, 36,
jfb
Technology, 23, 575-583. 77–85.
Kester, J. J. & Fennema, O. R. (1986). Park, H. J. (1998). Development of
Edible films and coatings: a review. Food advanced edible coatings for fruits. Trends
Technology, 12, 47-59. in Food Science & Technology, 10, 254-
Lee, J. Y., Park, H. J., Lee, C. Y. & 260.
Choi, W. Y. (2003). Extending shelf-life of Pennisi, M. (1992). sealed in edible film.
minimally processed apples with edible Science News, 141, p.12.
coatings and antibrowning agents, Smith, S., Geeson, J. & Stow, J. (1987).
Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und- Production of modified atmospheres in
Technologie, 36, 323–329.
61
M. Javanmard
deciduous fruits by the use of films and Gennadios, ed.) pp. 91–127, CRC Press,
coatings. HortScience, 22, 5, 772-776. Boca Raton, FL.
Trezza, T. A. & Krochta, J. M. (2002). Xu S., Xu, L. D. & Chen, X. (2003).
Application of edible protein coatings to Determining optimum edible films for
nuts and nut-containing food products. In kiwifruits using an analytical hierarchy
Protein-based Films and Coatings (A. process. Computers & Operations Research,
30, 877–886.
.ir
ac
u.
ia
rb
t.s
jfb
62