Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Muhammad Aaqil
 -- 2426 2024-01-25 07:46:14 |
2 format correct
Wendy Huang
 Meta information modification 2426 2024-01-26 09:10:09 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Aaqil, M.; Peng, C.; Kamal, A.; Nawaz, T.; Gong, J. Edible Coatings for Postharvest Application of Peach Fruit. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54327 (accessed on 06 July 2024).
Aaqil M, Peng C, Kamal A, Nawaz T, Gong J. Edible Coatings for Postharvest Application of Peach Fruit. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54327. Accessed July 06, 2024.
Aaqil, Muhammad, Chunxiu Peng, Ayesha Kamal, Taufiq Nawaz, Jiashun Gong. "Edible Coatings for Postharvest Application of Peach Fruit" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54327 (accessed July 06, 2024).
Aaqil, M., Peng, C., Kamal, A., Nawaz, T., & Gong, J. (2024, January 25). Edible Coatings for Postharvest Application of Peach Fruit. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54327
Aaqil, Muhammad, et al. "Edible Coatings for Postharvest Application of Peach Fruit." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 January, 2024.
Edible Coatings for Postharvest Application of Peach Fruit
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/foods13020267

Peaches are among the most well-known fruits in the world due to their appealing taste and high nutritional value. Peach fruit, on the other hand, has a variety of postharvest quality issues like chilling injury symptoms, internal breakdown, weight loss, decay, shriveling, and over-ripeness, which makes a challenging environment for industries and researchers to develop sophisticated strategies for fruit quality preservation and extending shelf life. All over the world, consumers prefer excellent-quality, high-nutritional-value, and long-lasting fresh fruits that are free of chemicals. An eco-friendly solution to this issue is the coating and filming of fresh produce with natural edible materials. The edible coating utilization eliminates the adulteration risk, presents fruit hygienically, and improves aesthetics. Coatings are used in a way that combines food chemistry and preservation technology.

peach fruit edible coating lipids proteins polysaccharides bi-layer composite coatings

1. Introduction

Peach (Prunus persica L.) is a tropical stone fruit from the Rosacea family cultivated throughout the world. It is assumed that in 1000 B.C., the fruit had originated from China. Across Europe, the peaches were grown by Romans, who later spread them to the rest of the world [1]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) [2] declared that about 22.8 million tons raised in peach and nectarine production were found across the globe, of which 9.9% were produced in the U.S., 19.8% were produced in Europe, and 66.1% were produced in Asia. China is the leading producer, with a production of 57.9%, having an area of 51.1%. Peach fruit is also termed a drupe (simple fleshy fruit that usually contains a single seed). The structure of the fruit consists of a delicate exocarp, a flesh or pulp that is juicy and fleshy called a mesocarp, and a hard pit called an endocarp. Color, flavor, texture, aesthetic, nutritional value, aroma, and food safety are important quality parameters for peach fruit marketability (Table 1). Peaches are considered highly valued fruits because of their delicious taste and flavor [3]. Peach fruit is regarded as one of the most valuable fruits because of its appealing taste and high nutritional value. Peach fruit’s major constituents include 86.9 g water, 11.4 g carbohydrates, and 0.7 g and 0.2 g protein and fats, respectively. It is also composed of 0.02 mg thiamine, 0.04 mg riboflavin, 7 mg calcium, 0.1 mg zinc, 0.7 mg niacin, 24 mg phosphorous, 11 mg iron, 0.9 g fiber, 9 mg ascorbic acid, and an edible part that contains 59 mg β-carotene per 100 g [4]. 
Table 1. Fresh peach fruit’s major quality attributes for marketability.
Quality Aspect Primary Concern
Texture (mouth feel) Fibrousness/toughness
  Juiciness
  Crispness
  Softness/firmness
Appearance (visual) Defects
  Gloss
  Size
  Form and shape
  Color (uniformity, intensity)
Nutritional value Minerals
  Vitamins
Flavor (aroma, taste) Astringency
  Acidity
  Bitterness
  Sweetness
  Volatile compounds
Safety Chemical contaminants
  Toxic substances
  Microbial contamination
Peach fruit has a high respiration rate and quick ripening process because of its climacteric nature, so it has a shorter shelf life at ambient temperature. The main reasons associated with postharvest life reduction include firmness loss, reduction in fruit quality, and decay. With time, the quality of fruit is reduced because of postharvest factors such as softening of fruit and rot development; that is why peaches are marketed soon after harvesting [5]. Because of high respiration, peach fruit has a fast ripening process, so it cannot be stored for a long period at ambient temperature. It has a shorter storage life of 3–5 days at room temperature [6]. There are approximately 40% postharvest losses in peach fruit [7]. As a result, huge financial losses are faced because there are abundant peaches in the market during peak season, and a huge portion goes wasted. At ambient temperature, peach fruit quickly ripens and spoil, so storing peach fruit at a cold storage of 0 °C results in the chilling injury of peach fruit; once the fruit moves from cold storage to room temperature, it looks normal but does not ripen well, which results in quality losses such as dry, mealy texture, tissue browning, failure to ripen, abnormal flesh color, and loss of flavor [8][9][10]. Peaches also have dynamic living tissues like other fruits, so they have a shorter shelf life and are highly perishable [11]. Physiological disorders, metabolic changes, decay, mechanical damage, and reduced firmness in stored peaches result in postharvest quality loss of peach fruit. Several factors affect these losses, such as handling, storage conditions, and ripeness stage at harvest time [12]. Without any treatment or low temperature, the storage life of peaches is much shorter at ambient temperature, which results in color and texture degradation of peach fruits during the storage period [13]. There are about 40–50% postharvest losses of peaches. In third-world nations, this value rises due to a lack of postharvest handling facilities [14]. According to Sridhar et al. [15], the wastage of different food commodities was expressed in percentages based on rapid spoilage (Figure 1). Fresh produce (fruits and vegetables) was found to be a less expensive and quickly spoiling commodity, followed by dairy items. Postharvest diseases result in around 20% of peach fruit losses because of Rhizopus rot and brown rot caused by Rhizopus stolonifera and Molinia fructi cola, respectively [16]. Botrytis cinerea results in grey mold rot in peach fruit during postharvest storage [17]. Fruit storage life is extended through low-temperature storage or shipping. Still, fruit from some cultivars results in flesh translucency, flesh browning, red pigment (bleeding), black pit cavity, failure to ripen, lack of juiciness/mealiness/wooliness, and loss of flavor after ripening at room temperature or after long-term cold storage [18]. In developing countries, the world population is increasing at a high rate, and those nations are already facing food safety and food security issues. It is a big challenge for mankind to meet the food requirements of an increasing population. By 2050, it is expected that the population across the globe will exceed 9.1 billion inhabitants, which requires about a 70% increase in fresh produce to meet the needs [19]. Excluding some plum cultivars like “Sweet Miriam” and cherries, stone fruits are considered climacteric [20]. During the ripening process, ethylene biosynthesis, which accelerates fruit enzymatic and biochemical reactions, was observed in climacteric fruits [21]. For those reactions, oxygen serves as substrate; that is why, with a rise in ethylene production, the respiration rate also rises [22]. During respiration, carbohydrates and other substrates like proteins, organic acids, and fats are metabolized. After metabolism, these substances cannot be replenished once the fruit or vegetable is cut off from the plant [23]; with the passage of time, the quality of food results in deterioration in terms of color, flavor, weight, and nutritional value. Water loss is the major factor that plays a vital role in quality deterioration in fruits and vegetables, leading to wilting, shriveling, texture loss, flaccidness, and loss of nutritional value [24]. Over the past few decades, fresh agricultural products and processed foods have benefited greatly from the widespread use of conventional petroleum-based plastic packaging. This is primarily due to the manufacturing simplicity, cheaper cost, ease of use, and favorable physico-chemical properties of the material [25]. Still, as public awareness grows related to the harmful effects of plastic on the environment, consumers are diverted toward biodegradable, renewable, and environmentally friendly packaging material [26]. Using edible films and coating is one of the ways to meet the current demand for coatings [27].
Foods 13 00267 g001
Figure 1. Quickly spoiled food products expressed in percentage.
On fruit surfaces, the edible coating acts as a barrier to moisture or gas, reducing moisture loss and oxygen uptake from the surroundings, which slows down the respiration process. Food additives like antimicrobials and antioxidants were also added to the coating, so the layer acts as a career for additives that retards decay without affecting food quality. It is almost a century-old technique to use edible coatings on fruits. Wax was used for lemons and oranges in the early 12th century to maintain quality for a prolonged time [28], so for a long period of storage, the best postharvest practices are required to preserve the quality of a product.
The formulation of edible coatings can be made from different materials with desired properties. Polysaccharides (pectin, starch, gums, alginate, chitosan, cellulose, etc.), proteins (gelatin, egg albumin, wheat gluten, zein, whey protein, casein, soy protein, etc.), and lipid compounds (fatty acids, waxes, etc.) are three major categories that can be considered to classify the basic materials that are used to make edible coatings. Another coating is called composite coating, which results from combining more than one substance or material [29][30][31][32]. Classification of various edible coatings is depicted in (Figure 2). Edible coatings also enhance functional properties by incorporating antioxidants, antimicrobial compounds, vitamins, and minerals into a polymer matrix [33].
Foods 13 00267 g003
Figure 2. Classification of various edible coatings into different types on the basis of formulation.

2. Lipids

The lipid-based edible coating has low water affinity as it is hydrophobic and has excellent moisture barrier properties [34]. However, it has been reported that lipid-based edible coatings have poor gas barriers and mechanical properties [35]. Apart from preventing water loss, lipid-based edible coatings reduce respiration rate, prolong postharvest life, and enhance the aesthetic of fresh produce by imparting shine on the surface [28]. Coatings made of lipids have been used for more than 800 years. In the past, coatings made of lipids were used to coat confectionery items and waxing fruits. Beeswax and paraffin wax were considered the most effective. Lipids prevent the chilling injuries that often occur in cold storage [36]. In various edible coatings, carnauba wax and beeswax (natural waxes) have been utilized as lipid components [37]. Because of their hydrophobic nature, these compounds help to prevent weight loss caused by dehydration during storage and impart gloss to the fruit’s surface. Compared to protein and polysaccharide coating, a lipid-based coating has excellent barrier properties and the best compatibility with other coating agents. The lipid-based coating leads to unacceptable organoleptic properties because of its greasy nature and lipid rancidity [38]. Widely used materials for coatings include beeswax, acetylated monoglycerides, carnauba wax, mineral oil, vegetable oil, surfactants, and paraffin wax [36].

3. Proteins

Proteins are classified into two groups based on the source from which they are obtained, i.e., globular protein and fibrous protein. Globular proteins are attained from plant sources (e.g., cotton seed protein, wheat gluten, cotton seed protein, corn-zein, peanut protein, soy protein) and are soluble in bases, salts, and aqueous solutions of acids or water, while fibrous proteins are attained from animal sources (e.g., collagen, whey protein, keratin, gelatin, casein) and are insoluble in water [39]. The coatings obtained from animal sources (such as milk protein) and plant sources (such as zein, wheat gluten, and soy protein) have excellent lipid, oxygen, and carbon dioxide barrier properties, especially at low RH [40]. Edible coatings from protein sources possess excellent gas barrier and mechanical properties, but their use is limited due to allergenic risks and ethical or religious beliefs [35]. Additionally, edible coatings obtained from protein sources were susceptible to cracking and brittle [38]. Various fruits and vegetables can be coated with proteins based on edible coatings derived from gelatin, milk, corn, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, or gelatin. Most protein-based films have good results on hydrophilic surfaces, but they rarely resist water vapor diffusion. Coatings derived from proteins have poor mechanical and water barrier properties but excellent oxygen and carbon dioxide barrier properties [41]. Compared to polysaccharide films, the protein coating has good mechanical and excellent gas barrier properties. Still, as it is hydrophile, like polysaccharide films, the protein coating is considered to have a poor moisture barrier [42]. It has been assumed that it has a great potential for aromatic and organoleptic attribute retention, develops a barrier against mechanical strength, and has a high oxygen permeability, but because of its hydrophilic nature, it is not a good moisture barrier that can be strengthened by the addition of hydrophobic substance like lipids [43].

4. Polysaccharides

Polysaccharides are biodegradable macromolecules that are safe, non-toxic, and highly stable [28]. Polysaccharides are naturally occurring polymers used in the production of edible coatings. Chitosan, starch, and gums are important ingredients used for food preservation in polysaccharide-based edible natural coatings. This coating has many advantages, like easy availability and cheap cost. However, different polysaccharides were found to have a lower water barrier quality. Some polysaccharides like carrageenan and alginate are thick-filmed and have a hygroscopic nature. Polysaccharide-based edible coatings possess antimicrobial and antioxidant characteristics, which are considered efficient in keeping fruits and vegetables fresh and improving quality. Because of its hydrophilic nature, it cannot act as a barrier to moisture [44]. Throughout the literature, polysaccharides, such as starches, gums, cellulose derivatives, and pectins, are widely mentioned and highly favored for use as an edible coating in all types of stone fruit [45]. Polysaccharides are excellent coating materials because of their easy availability, allergen-free nature, and typically water-soluble nature. Their strong hydrogen-bonded and orderly network structure leads to a good gas barrier and mechanical properties [35]. A variety of polysaccharides can be utilized in the production of edible coating. The most often available polymers are extracted from agricultural plants, animals, and marine sources. During short-term storage, these coatings have been used to prevent some food moisture loss [36].

5. Composites or Bi-Layer Natural Edible Coatings

For improved functional qualities in coatings, the development of bi-layer and composite coatings containing proteins, lipids, and polysaccharides has received much attention in the past few years. Multiple coating materials are combined in a composite edible coating, resulting in the improved functionality of the coating due to several advantageous properties [35]. Because each coating material serves a distinct but limited function, the functionality can be enhanced by combining two distinct coating materials. The main goal of composites is to maximize the benefits of the mixture’s highest possible performance while maintaining the quality as stable as an individual component. Combining multiple materials can create composite edible coatings with distinctive properties [43]. Multi-component or composite films possess both features of hydrocolloid (proteins or polysaccharides) and lipid components; hydrocolloid serves as a selective barrier to oxygen and carbon dioxide, while lipid components serve as an excellent barrier to water vapor [46]. A coating composed of just one material, such as a protein, polysaccharide, or lipid, may be effective in exhibiting a specific property but may not possess several properties or barriers simultaneously. For example, hydrocolloids (proteins and polysaccharides) are excellent film-forming materials with good structural and mechanical properties. Still, they often have a poor moisture barrier, so to enhance the hydrophobicity, lipids are often added to the edible coating to create a barrier to postharvest moisture loss. As a result, the hydrophobic nature of the lipids may play a significant role by acting as an excellent barrier to water. In other words, bi-layer or composite coatings are designed to integrate the benefits of lipids and hydrocolloid coatings to reduce or mask each limitation [41]. Edible coatings comprised of protein, polysaccharides, and lipid blends may vary in nature. This strategy assists an individual in taking advantage of the different functional properties of each film class [47].

References

  1. Ferguson, B.; Hldelorand, R.; Hespendheild, G. All about Growing Fruits, Berries and Nuts; Ortho Books: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1987.
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Ed.) The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017; ISBN 978-92-5-109551-5.
  3. Zhao, H.; Jiao, W.; Cui, K.; Fan, X.; Shu, C.; Zhang, W.; Cao, J.; Jiang, W. Near-Freezing Temperature Storage Enhances Chilling Tolerance in Nectarine Fruit through Its Regulation of Soluble Sugars and Energy Metabolism. Food Chem. 2019, 289, 426–435.
  4. Stacewicz-Sapuntzakis, M.; Bowen, P.E.; Hussain, E.A.; Damayanti-Wood, B.I.; Farnsworth, N.R. Chemical Composition and Potential Health Effects of Prunes: A Functional Food? Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2001, 41, 251–286.
  5. Kluge, R.A.; Jacomino, A.P. Shelf Life of Peaches Treated with 1-Methylcyclopropene. Sci. Agric. 2002, 59, 69–72.
  6. Bakshi, P.; Masoodi, F.A. Effect of Pre-Storage Heat Treatment on Enzymological Changes in Peach. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 47, 461–464.
  7. Zeb, J.; Khan, Z. Peach Marketing in NWFP. Sarhad J. Agric. 2008, 24, 161.
  8. Akbudak, B.; Eris, A. Effect of some postharvest treatments and controlled atmosphere (ca) storage on basic quality criteria of peaches and nectarines. Acta Hortic. 2003, 599, 297–303.
  9. Awad, M.A.; Al-Qurashi, A.D.; Elsayed, M.I. Effect of Pre-Storage Salicylic Acid and Oxalic Acid Dipping on Chilling Injury and Quality of ‘Taify’ Pomegranates during Cold Storage. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 1111, 117–122.
  10. Infante, R.; Meneses, C.; Defilippi, B.G. Effect of Harvest Maturity Stage on the Sensory Quality of ‘Palsteyn’ Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) after Cold Storage. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 83, 828–832.
  11. Crisosto, C.H.; Valero, D. Harvesting and Postharvest Handling of Peaches for the Fresh Market. In The Peach: Botany, Production and Uses; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2008; pp. 575–596.
  12. Girardi, C.L.; Corrent, A.R.; Lucchetta, L.; Zanuzo, M.R.; da Costa, T.S.; Brackmann, A.; Twyman, R.M.; Nora, F.R.; Nora, L.; Silva, J.A.; et al. Effect of Ethylene, Intermittent Warming and Controlled Atmosphere on Postharvest Quality and the Occurrence of Woolliness in Peach (Prunus persica Cv. Chiripá) during Cold Storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2005, 38, 25–33.
  13. Zzaman, W.; Yang, T.A. Moisture, Color and Texture Changes in Cocoa Seeds duringSuperheated Steam Roasting. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2013, 9, 1–7.
  14. Ziedan, E.S.; Farrag, E. Fumigation of Peach Fruits with Essential Oils to Control Postharvest Decay. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2008, 4, 512–519.
  15. Sridhar, A.; Ponnuchamy, M.; Kumar, P.S.; Kapoor, A. Food Preservation Techniques and Nanotechnology for Increased Shelf Life of Fruits, Vegetables, Beverages and Spices: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 1715–1735.
  16. Moniharapon, E.; Hashinaga, F. Antimicrobial Activity of Atung (Parinarium Glaberrimum Hassk) Fruit Extract. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2004, 7, 1057–1061.
  17. Coates; Johnson, G.; Coates, L.M.; Johnson, G.I.; Dale, M. Postharvest Pathology of Fruit and Vegetables. In Plant Pathogens and Plant Diseases; Brown, J., Ogle, H., Eds.; Rockvale Publications: College Grove, TN, USA, 1997; pp. 533–547.
  18. Crisosto, C.H.; Mitchell, F.G.; Ju, Z. Susceptibility to Chilling Injury of Peach, Nectarine, and Plum Cultivars Grown in California. HortScience 1999, 34, 1116–1118.
  19. Kumar, D.; Kalita, P. Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries. Foods 2017, 6, 8.
  20. Farcuh, M.; Rivero, R.M.; Sadka, A.; Blumwald, E. Ethylene Regulation of Sugar Metabolism in Climacteric and Non-Climacteric Plums. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 139, 20–30.
  21. Minas, I.S.; Font i Forcada, C.; Dangl, G.S.; Gradziel, T.M.; Dandekar, A.M.; Crisosto, C.H. Discovery of Non-Climacteric and Suppressed Climacteric Bud Sport Mutations Originating from a Climacteric Japanese Plum Cultivar (Prunus salicina Lindl.). Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 316.
  22. Guillén, F.; Díaz-Mula, H.M.; Zapata, P.J.; Valero, D.; Serrano, M.; Castillo, S.; Martínez-Romero, D. Aloe Arborescens and Aloe Vera Gels as Coatings in Delaying Postharvest Ripening in Peach and Plum Fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 83, 54–57.
  23. Wills, R.B.H.; McGlasson, W.B.; Graham, D.; Lee, T.H.; Hall, E.G. Postharvest Handling and Physiology of Horticultural Crops. Available online: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/11491312/postharvest-handling-and-physiology-of-horticultural-crops (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  24. Nunes, C.N.; Emond, J.-P. Relationship between Weight Loss and Visual Quality of Fruits and Vegetables. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 2007, 120, 235–245.
  25. de Moura, I.G.; de Sá, A.V.; Abreu, A.S.L.M.; Machado, A.V.A. Bioplastics from Agro-Wastes for Food Packaging Applications. In Food Packaging; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 223–263. ISBN 978-0-12-804302-8.
  26. Tavassoli-Kafrani, E.; Shekarchizadeh, H.; Masoudpour-Behabadi, M. Development of Edible Films and Coatings from Alginates and Carrageenans. Carbohydr. Polym. 2016, 137, 360–374.
  27. Liu, W.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B. Nanotechnology—A Shelf Life Extension Strategy for Fruits and Vegetables. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 1706–1721.
  28. Mahajan, B.V.C.; Tandon, R.; Kapoor, S.; Sidhu, M.K. Natural Coatings for Shelf-Life Enhancement and Quality Maintenance of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables—A Review. J. Postharvest Technol. 2018, 6, 12–26.
  29. Donhowe, I.G.; Fennema, O. The effects of plasticizers on crystallinity, permeability, and mechanical properties of methylcellulose films. J. Food Process. Preserv. 1993, 17, 247–257.
  30. Guilbert, S.; Gontard, N.; Gorris, L.G.M. Prolongation of the Shelf-Life of Perishable Food Products Using Biodegradable Films and Coatings. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 1996, 29, 10–17.
  31. Kurek, M.; Ščetar, M.; Galić, K. Edible Coatings Minimize Fat Uptake in Deep Fat Fried Products: A Review. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 71, 225–235.
  32. Li, P.; Barth, M.M. Impact of Edible Coatings on Nutritional and Physiological Changes in Lightly-Processed Carrots. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1998, 14, 51–60.
  33. Cha, D.S.; Chinnan, M.S. Biopolymer-Based Antimicrobial Packaging: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2004, 44, 223–237.
  34. Ncama, K.; Magwaza, L.S.; Mditshwa, A.; Tesfay, S.Z. Plant-Based Edible Coatings for Managing Postharvest Quality of Fresh Horticultural Produce: A Review. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2018, 16, 157–167.
  35. Arnon-Rips, H.; Poverenov, E. Improving Food Products’ Quality and Storability by Using Layer by Layer Edible Coatings. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 75, 81–92.
  36. Dhall, R.K. Advances in Edible Coatings for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 53, 435–450.
  37. Rojas-Argudo, C.; del Río, M.A.; Pérez-Gago, M.B. Development and Optimization of Locust Bean Gum (LBG)-Based Edible Coatings for Postharvest Storage of ‘Fortune’ Mandarins. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 227–234.
  38. Lin, D.; Zhao, Y. Innovations in the Development and Application of Edible Coatings for Fresh and Minimally Processed Fruits and Vegetables. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2007, 6, 60–75.
  39. Gennadios, A. Edible Coating and Film Based on Proteins. In Edible and Coating and Films to Improved Food Quality; Intech: London, UK, 1994; Chapter 9; pp. 201–277.
  40. Baldwin, E.A.; Baker, R.A. Use of Proteins in Edible Coatings for Whole and Minimally Processed Fruits and Vegetables. In Protein-Based Films and Coatings; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 501–515.
  41. Yousuf, B.; Qadri, O.S.; Srivastava, A.K. Recent Developments in Shelf-Life Extension of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables by Application of Different Edible Coatings: A Review. LWT 2018, 89, 198–209.
  42. Gennadios, A. Protein-Based Films and Coatings; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-1-4200-3198-0.
  43. Armghan Khalid, M.; Niaz, B.; Saeed, F.; Afzaal, M.; Islam, F.; Hussain, M.; Mahwish; Muhammad Salman Khalid, H.; Siddeeg, A.; Al-Farga, A. Edible Coatings for Enhancing Safety and Quality Attributes of Fresh Produce: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2022, 25, 1817–1847.
  44. Galgano, F. Biodegradable Packaging and Edible Coating for Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2015, 27, 1–20.
  45. Riva, S.C.; Opara, U.O.; Fawole, O.A. Recent Developments on Postharvest Application of Edible Coatings on Stone Fruit: A Review. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 262, 109074.
  46. Baldwin, E.A.; Nisperos-Carriedo, M.O.; Baker, R.A. Use of Edible Coatings to Preserve Quality of Lightly (and Slightly) Processed Products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1995, 35, 509–524.
  47. Kester, J.J.; Fennema, O.R. Edible Films and Coatings: A Review. Food Technol. 1986, 40, 47–59.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Food Science & Technology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Muhammad Aaqil
,
Chunxiu Peng
,
Ayesha Kamal
,
Taufiq Nawaz
,
Jiashun Gong
View Times: 141
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 26 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback