You are on page 1of 6

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture J Sci Food Agric 85:1897–1902 (2005)

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2185

The effect of edible eggshell coatings on egg


quality and consumer perception
Cengiz Caner∗
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Engineering–Architecture Faculty, Department of Food Engineering, 017020-Çanakkale, Turkey

Abstract: Effects of the various coatings (whey protein isolate, chitosan and shellac) on fresh eggs quality
were evaluated based on the interior quality and sensory evaluation during 4 weeks of storage. During
storage, all egg weights and albumen heights decreased and albumen pH increased. The lowest weight
loss (0.75%) was observed in shellac-coated eggs. Eggs coated with chitosan and whey protein also had
significantly lower weight loss than uncoated (UC) eggs (p < 0.05). The albumen pH of the UC eggs was
significantly higher than that of coated eggs and increased during storage time. The Haugh unit and
yolk-index values of all coated eggs were significantly higher than those of UC. Among the coated eggs,
the shellac eggs had the highest value of Haugh unit and yolk index. Chitosan and shellac effectively
maintained grade ‘A’ eggs for at least 2 weeks more than control and 1 week more than whey protein
isolate. On the basis of sensory evaluation, shellac has highest glossiness, but lowest general acceptability.
Eggs coated with whey protein had significantly higher general acceptability. Yolk lightness (L∗ ) (a∗ ) and

(b∗ ) of coated eggs were not different from UC after 4 weeks. The Eab values of color differences were
similar to controls. The study demonstrated that various coatings improved the shelf life of eggs.
 2005 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: shell eggs; edible films; coating; shelf life; Haugh unit; yolk index

INTRODUCTION damage. As edible films provide a semi-permeable


Eggs are an inexpensive source of high quality barrier against oxygen, carbon dioxide, moisture and
protein and other nutrients. However, they are highly solute movement, they reduce respiration rate, water
perishable and can rapidly lose their quality.1 Losses to loss and reaction rates.8 – 10 Barrier properties of edible
the egg industry as the result of problems with egg and films depend on their structures and their composition
eggshell quality have been estimated to be in excess of such as solvents and plasticizers.11 Therefore, it is
ten million dollars annually. With the large number of important to choose a film that will provide the
eggs produced, even a small percentage improvement appropriate protection for the product. In the case of
in the overall quality of eggs and eggshells could result egg, the film should provide a barrier property against
in significant savings to the industry.2 moisture and carbon dioxide to reduce evaporation
Eggshells are breathable material; therefore they and the rate at which albumen pH increases.5
allow moisture and carbon dioxide to permeate Edible films and coatings can be derived from several
through the shell. The permeation causes changes sources such as polysaccharides, proteins, lipids or
in albumen and yolk as well as weight loss. The pores resins. An edible film from chitosan, a polysaccharide
on eggshell need to be sealed to reduce evaporation obtained from shellfish waste, provides excellent
and escape of carbon dioxide.2 oxygen barrier properties as well as possessing some
Improved protection methods such as coating may level of antimicrobial activity. This film, when used
have minimized losses.2 – 4 Oil coating of the shell as a coating, can modify the internal atmosphere and
has been documented as a method of preserving egg reduce the transpiration rate in food.8 Whey protein
quality and is used in practice.5 Studies in the past films have excellent oxygen and carbon dioxide barrier
have evaluated the interior quality and mechanical properties,12 – 14 with comparable that of ethylene vinyl
properties of eggshell and may help reduce economic alcohol copolymer.15 Shellac, which is a resin, is an
loss from breakage.2,4,6,7 Edible film also has the FDA-approved coating for apples and other fruits and
potential to be used to improve the quality of eggs.2 – 5 can provide high gloss to fruit skin and prolong the
There has been increasing interest in using an edible shelf life of fruits.11
film as a food preservation method as well as a means The goals of this research were: (1) to evaluate the
to enhance food quality, safety and stability. Such film eggshell coatings (chitosan, whey and shellac) on the
is used as a skin to protect food from mechanical quality of egg (weight loss, pH, Haugh unit, yolk index

∗ Correspondence to: Cengiz Caner, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Engineering–Architecture Faculty, Department of Food
Engineering, 017020-Canakkale, Turkey
E-mail: ccaner@comu.edu.tr
(Received 23 November 2004; revised version received 17 December 2004; accepted 24 January 2005)
Published online 4 May 2005
 2005 Society of Chemical Industry. J Sci Food Agric 0022–5142/2005/$30.00 1897
C Caner

and yolk and shell color after 4 weeks of storage); (2) to Where H is the height of the thick albumen in
evaluate the consumer perception and acceptability on millimeters and G is the mass of the whole egg in
coated eggs. grams. The parameter H was estimated by averaging
three measurements carried out in different points
of thick albumen at the distance of 10 mm from the
MATERIALS AND METHODS yolk using a digital caliper (CD-15CP, Mitutoya Ltd,
Clean, white-shell, fresh, hens eggs were used in the Hampshire, UK).
present study. A local egg producer provides fresh Yolk index was calculated as yolk height/yolk width.
eggs in Canakkale. Shell eggs were washed to remove Yolk width was measured with digital caliper (CD-
debris from the surface. Treatments consisted of eggs 15CP, Mitutoya Ltd, UK).4
coated with chitosan, whey protein or shellac as well
as uncoated eggs as control. Measurement was carried pH measurement
out at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks at room temperature. After albumen height (mm) had been measured,
albumen was separated from yolk. The volumes (ml)
Preparation of coating solution of firm and thin albumen were homogenized for 20 s
Chitosan coating solutions were prepared according to with a Waring Blender Model 32 BL 80 (Waring Com,
Caner et al 8 using 3 g (3% w/w) of chitosan (Vanson Torrington, CT) prior to being measured for pH. The
HaloSource, Redmond, WA) in 100 ml of water while pH of the homogenized albumen was measured by a
stirring on magnetic stirrer/hotplate. Acetic acid was pH 210 meter (Hanna Inst, Woonsocket, RI).
added at 1% concentration. Glycerol was added at
0.25 ml glycerol g−1 chitosan. The solution was stirred
with low heat for 60 min.8 Shell and yolk color
Whey protein films were prepared at 12% (w/w The color of shell and yolk was measured with a
protein) using whey protein isolate (WPI) (Davisco Minolta Chroma Meter Model CR-300 (Minolta Co
Foods International, Eden Prairie, MN) in 100 ml of Ltd, Osaka, Japan). Five eggshells were crushed so that
water. Glycerol was then added to give plasticizer: the coated shell surface could be evenly distributed
protein ratios of 2:1 w/w in solution while the solution inside the measurement cup. The shell4 and yolk6
was stirred continuously on a magnetic stirrer at 80 ◦ C were scanned at four different locations and the
for 30 min under neutral pH.11 – 13 Shellac coating measurements averaged. Results were expressed as L
were obtained from Mantrose-Haeuser Co, (Westport value (Lightness) and a (redness), b value (yellowness).

CT). Commercial shellac was mixed with ethyl alcohol A single numerical value, Eab indicates the size of
(25:75 v/v). Preparation of all coatings was based on color differences when compared with control and can
optimum conditions of film-forming properties. be calculated by the following equation:


Coating of eggs with coating solutions Eab = (L∗ )2 + (a∗ )2 + (b∗ )2
After washing with water, the dried eggs were
immersed in the coating solutions by hand for 1 min, Where L∗ = Lcoating − Lcontrol ; a∗ = acoating −
this process repeated once more and than dried acontrol ; b∗ = bcoating − bcontrol
at ambient temperature for 1 day. The eggs were
placed in a mold-pulp container, and then stored
at ambient laboratory conditions (around 25 ◦ C for Sensory analysis
4 weeks) during the experiment. Sensory properties were evaluated using a hedonic
Samples were divided into four groups, one of them scale for sensory evaluation of coated and uncoated
for uncoated (control) and the others used for the (commercial) eggs by 98 panelists. A 9-point hedonic
coatings. Ten separate eggs for each group (control, scale was used with 1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither
chitosan, whey and shellac) were drawn each week for like nor dislike, 9 = like extremely. Each panelist was
the 4 weeks for measurement. asked to evaluate the eggs groups in terms of surface
smoothness, surface glossiness, odor, adhesiveness and
Moisture loss overall acceptability.
Weight loss of eggs during storage was calculated by
subtracting the final weight from the initial weight and Data analysis
then dividing by the initial weight. Percentage moisture This study evaluated the combined effect of coatings
loss was calculated by multiplying the moisture loss by and storage time on the properties of eggs. Analysis
100.4 Measurement were recorded to within 0.001 g. of variance was carried out on all the measured
parameters among the control and coated eggs during
Haugh unit and yolk index the storage time. Every treatment was performed
Haugh unit was calculated by the following twice. Statistical procedures were done using least-
formula:4,16 square means of the statistical analysis software
program LSM-PROG GLM.17 p-values of 0.05 or
Haugh unit = 100 log(H − 1.7 G0.37 + 7.6) less were considered significant.

1898 J Sci Food Agric 85:1897–1902 (2005)


Effect of edible eggshell coatings on egg quality

RESULTS pH to 8.9–9.4.16,18,19 Egg yolks have a pH of about


Weight loss 6.0 which stays relatively constant as the egg ages
Weight loss of eggs during storage is mainly caused by as there is no CO2 loss. The effects of storage on
evaporation of water and loss of carbon dioxide from egg quality can also be measured by the increase
the albumen through the porous shells. Shell eggs in albumen pH. The effects of storage were also
coated with chitosan, WPI and shellac or uncoated expected18,20 as material from the albumen passed
during 4 weeks at room temperature exhibited a time through the yolk membrane and was lost through the
by treatment interaction for weight loss (Table 1). shell. The range of values of pH data was clarified by
The weight loss increased with storage time over the effect of coatings on the shelf life of eggs (Table 2).
the range 0.750 to 6.785% after 4 weeks. Uncoated Statistical analyses indicate that pH values of the egg
eggs have significantly higher weight loss during stor- albumen at room temperature increased significantly
age periods (p < 0.05). Shellac has significantly lower during storage time (p < 0.05). When the egg ages, the
weight loss as well as the two other coatings (p < 0.05) CO2 escapes which increases the pH (Table 2). The
(Table 1). Coating with shellac did not show a signif- coated eggs exhibited a significantly lower pH than
icant moisture loss until 3 weeks of storage and served UC (Table 2). Uncoated eggs exhibited a significantly
as the most effective in preserving water diffusion higher pH after 2 weeks of storage. According to these
through the pores of the eggshell. After 4 weeks of result, eggshell coating decreased CO2 release through
storage, eggs coated with shellac had a 0.75% mois- the shell by acting as a barrier for CO2 . Coatings
ture loss, whereas the chitosan, WPI and control had of may help some gasses diffuse less rapidly than others
4.216, 4.251 and 6.78% losses respectively (p < 0.05). through the shell. After 2 weeks of storage, the average
No significant difference was observed between WPI pH of the albumen in control (uncoated) increased and
and chitosan after 4 weeks of storage (Table 1). reached 9.04; however, after week 4 the average pH of
Bhale and others4 reported that weight loss of the albumen in eggs coated with chitosan and shellac
uncoated eggs was 7.84% and that losses for differently did not reach 9 (Table 2). This control albumen pH
chitosan-coated eggs were around 6.8% after 5 weeks. increase during storage was very similar to that found
Wong et al 2 reported that the weight loss of the by Silversides and Scott.18
uncoated eggs and mineral oil coated shells were
11 and 9.2%, respectively, after 28 days of storage. Haugh units
Differences in weight loss between studies may be Haugh unit (HU) is related to albumen quality and
due to the storage period, temperature, egg size is often measured as a function of the height of the
or shell porosity.4 Different coating material can inner thick albumen and egg weight. A fresh, good
enhance protective barrier properties against transfer quality egg has a HU index of around 70 and an
of moisture and carbon dioxide through eggshell, and older yolk would have a lower HU.16 The HU of
minimize the weight loss and help to extend the shelf the control eggs was significantly lower than that
life. of the coated eggs. Eggs coated with shellac and
chitosan have significantly higher values than control
pH measurements eggs and those coated with WPI (Table 3). The HU
The pH of albumen is initially about 7.6. As the significantly decreased during the 4 weeks of storage
egg ages, the CO2 escapes and this increases the (Table 3). After 1 week of storage, the control and

Table 1. Effect of coating on least-square mean (SE) values of the percentage weight loss

Coating 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week

Control 1.819 (0.125)b 3.397 (0.147)c 4.648 (0.170)d 6.785 (0.208)g


WPI 1.039 (0.125)a,f 1.997 (0.125)b 3.019 (0.157)c 4.251 (0.208)d
Chitosan 1.314 (0.131)a 2.108 (0.147)b 3.055 (0.170)c 4.216 (0.208)d
Shellac 0.286 (0.131)e 0.447 (0.157)e,f 0.6002 (0.170)e,f 0.750 (0.208)f

Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
WPI: whey protein isolate.

Table 2. Effect of coating on least-square mean (SE) values of the pH

Coating 0 week 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks

Control 7.48 (0.08)a 7.83 (0.07)b 9.04 (0.06)e,f 9.22 (0.07)e,g 9.3 (0.06)g
WPI 7.48 (0.1)a 7.86 (0.06)b 8.79 (0.07)c,h 8.96 (0.07)d,f,h 9.10 (0.05)g,f
Chitosan 7.49 (0.08)a 7.81 (0.131)b 8.67 (0.07)c 8.79 (0.06)c,d 8.83 (0.04)c,d
Shellac 7.50 (0.06)a 7.83 (0.06)b 8.69 (0.07)c 8.81 (0.07)c,h 8.82 (0.05)c,h

Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
WPI: whey protein isolate.

J Sci Food Agric 85:1897–1902 (2005) 1899


C Caner

Table 3. Effect of coating on least-square mean (SE) values of the HU

Coating 0 week 1 week 2 week 3 week 4 week

Control 70.52 (2.11)a 55.64 (1.72)b 47.25 (1.49)c,d 44.29 (1.49)c 38.87 (1.49)e
WPI 70.52 (2.11)a 59.87 (1.33)b,g 56.81 (1.49)b,j 50.66 (1.49)d,h 46.35 (1.33)c
Chitosan 70.52 (0.01)a 66.31 (1.49)a,f 61.99 (1.49)g 59.29 (1.49)b,g 51.19 (1.21)h
Shellac 70.52 (2.11)a 66.61 (1.49)a,i 63.30 (1.49)f,g,i 60.84 (1.49)g,j 52.50 (1.49)b,h

Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
WPI: whey protein isolate.

WPI treatment showed a significant decrease in HU. and liquefaction of the yolk caused by diffusion of
No significant differences were observed in HU of water from the albumen.4,18,20 A fresh, good quality
chitosan- and shellac-coated eggs between 1 and egg has a yolk index of around 0.45 and an older
2 weeks and between 2 and 3 weeks. (Table 3). The yolk would have a lower index.16 The yolk index of
HU of coated eggs ranging from 46.35 to 52.50 after the control eggs was significantly lower than those
4 weeks of storage and was similar to the control HU of all coated eggs. Eggs coated with shellac have a
(47.25) eggs after 2 weeks of storage. Eggs coated with significantly higher YI than eggs coated with WPI
WPI, chitosan and shellac remained at 46, 51 and 52 but not than coated with chitosan (Table 5). Storage
HU, respectively, after 4 weeks of storage compared time has a significant effect on the YI (p < 0.05).
with control eggs with a Haugh unit of 38 (Table 3). After 2 weeks of storage, YI values of control eggs
The HU of the uncoated eggs decreased more rapidly decreased from 0.37 to 0.28. While the YI value of
than that of coated eggs. These result agreed with WPI after 4 weeks of storage, chitosan- and shellac-
those of Bahale et al 4 and also Wong et al.2 coated eggs were 0.28, 0.29 and 0.31, respectively;
While eggs coated with chitosan and shellac the YI of the control was 0.24. These YI values
maintained a grade A (HU > 55) through 3 weeks, at 4 weeks were similar to those at 2 weeks for the
eggs coated with WPI maintained grade A through control. The YI values of the coated eggs after 1 week
2 weeks. The uncoated eggs dropped from A to B (HU were significantly higher than the control (Table 5).
from 31 to 54) after 1 week of storage (Table 4). These Coating with shellac gave significantly higher YI values
result were in agreement with those of Bahale et al 4 and at 2 weeks. No significant differences in yolk index
also Wong et al.2 Wong et al 2 reported that uncoated among the three different coatings at 3 and 4 weeks
eggs changed from grade A to B after 1 week and, (p < 0.05). However, the YI values of eggs coated
coated with different coating materials (soy, corn), with shellac are higher than those coated with WPI
were still in grade B after 28 days of storage. and chitosan. Chitosan gave the second highest YI
values. According to these results coating with shellac
Yolk index helps to preserve the yolk quality for at least 2–3 weeks
Yolk index (YI), by measuring the yolk height and longer than control at room temperature.
width, is an indication of freshness. YI indicates a
progressive deterioration of the vitelline membranes
Shell color
Table 4. Grade of coated eggs during 4 weeks of storage based on A functional property such as color is one of the
the HU main factors responsible for the final acceptance
of products by consumers in making a decision to
Coating 0 week 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks
purchase products. Discoloration of products may
Control A A B B B lead to dissatisfaction and additional expense for
WPI A A A B B replacement. Color values of the shell such as L∗ , a∗ ,
Chitosan A A A A B and b∗ provide objective evaluation of appearance of
Shellac A A A A B coated eggs. The shell color of the coated and uncoated
The grade A, or B is given an egg based upon interior and exterior eggs after 4 weeks of storage are shown in Table 6.
quality, not size. A grade >55, B ranges from 31 to 54; C <30. The L∗ value ranged form 85.75 to 88.16, indicating
WPI: whey protein isolate. lightness (light-colored shell). All coated eggs have

Table 5. Effect of coating on least-square mean (SE) values of the yolk index

Coating 0 week 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks

Control 0.37 (0.01)a,f,k 0.31 (0.01)c,d,g 0.28 (0.01)e,h 0.27 (0.007)h 0.24 (0.007)I
WPI 0.37 (0.01)a,f,m 0.34 (0.007)b,g,l,n 0.32 (0.007)c,d,n 0.30 (0.009)d,e 0.28 (0.09)e,h
Chitosan 0.37 (0.01)a,f,k 0.35 (0.006)b 0.34 (0.007)b,c 0.31 (0.006)d 0.29 (0.006)e,h
Shellac 0.37 (0.01)a,f,k 0.36 (0.007)a,b,m 0.35 (0.006)b 0.32 (0.007)c,d,l 0.31 (0.006)d,e

Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly at p < 0.05.
WPI: whey protein isolate.

1900 J Sci Food Agric 85:1897–1902 (2005)


Effect of edible eggshell coatings on egg quality

Table 6. Color parameters lightness (L), greenness (-a) and can judge the acceptability of product appearance.
yellowness (b) values of uncoated and coated eggshell after 4 weeks There were no significant difference in acceptability
of storage at room temperature of surface smoothness among the control and
Samples L∗ a∗ b∗ ∗
Eab coated eggs except for the WPI-coated eggs. These
samples had significantly higher surface smoothness
Uncoated 85.75 −2.09 4.58 — than others (p < 0.05). Control had significantly
WPI 87.41 −2.247 6.51 2.55 lower surface glossiness and surface odor (p <
Chitosan 88.16 −2.380 5.46 2.58
0.05). Shellac-coated shells had significantly higher
Shellac 87.73 −2.361 5.84 2.36
surface glossiness (p < 0.05). Eggs coated with
WPI: whey protein isolate. chitosan had highest surface odor followed by those
with shellac. Shellac- and WPI-coated eggs had
Table 7. Color parameters (lightness (L), greenness (-a) and higher values for stickiness (p < 0.05). Consumers
yellowness (b) values of uncoated and coated eggs yolk after 4 weeks preferred some surface glossiness but not the high
of storage at room temperature glossiness from shellac coating. Eggs coated with
WPI had significantly higher general acceptability.
Samples L∗ a∗ b∗ ∗
Eab
Even though eggs coated with shellac had lower
Uncoated 52.26 −0.674 40.65 — general acceptability, some of consumers gave very
WPI 51.74 −0.923 39.18 1.58 high scores while some of them gave very low scores
Chitosan 53.27 −0.555 40.98 1.07 (Table 8).
Shellac 53.72 −2.521 38.85 2.96

WPI: whey protein isolate.


CONCLUSIONS
During storage, albumen pH increased and albumen
higher L values because of a glossier surface on the
height decreased. Both albumen height and albumen
shell. While the a∗ values ranged from −2.09 to −2.4,
pH are used to determine albumen quality. The
they were indicating (−a∗ ) intensity of greenness. The
albumen height can give a measure of the freshness
+b∗ values were indicating yellowness of the sample
of the egg, because the height of the inner thick
(Table 6). The L, a, and b values were converted to
∗ albumen decreases with storage time. Coatings
total color difference (Eab ) values with the substrates
∗ effectively extended the shelf life of eggs by at
as reference. The coated eggs had Eab values of 2.36
least 2 weeks when stored at room temperature.
to 2.58 (Table 6). However, it is known that E ∗
Chitosan and shellac effectively maintained eggs at
values less than 3.0 cannot easily be detected by the
grade A for at least 2 weeks more than control
naked human eye.
and 1 week more than WPI-coated egg at room
temperature. These coatings, except shellac, were
Yolk color shown to give positive sensory analysis results. Eggs
The L values for different coated and uncoated coated with WPI had significantly higher consumer
eggs yolk ranged from 51.74 to 53.72 after 4 weeks acceptability (p < 0.05), but eggs coated with shellac
of storage and are presented in Table 7. The a∗ did not. Coating materials have potential use in
values, indicative of the greenness/redness of the delaying charges in the interior quality of eggs and
sample, varied from −0.55 to −2.52 indicating (−a∗ ) maintaining their shelf life. However, it would also
greenness. The b∗ values ranged form 38.85 to 40.98 be desirable to use different and better coating
with (+b∗ ) indicating yellowness. The Eab∗
values formulations such as those containing antioxidants
of coated egg yolks varies from 1.07 to 2.96 that and antimicrobial compounds in evaluations of the
cannot be easily detected by the naked human eye shelf life of eggs.
(Table 7). Further work is needed to evaluate the puncture
strength, the percentage breakage reduction of
Consumer acceptability eggshell and also microbial contamination. The truck-
The sensory evaluation of the products is an simulation vibration tests also need to be performed to
important quality criteria by which the consumer determine the effect of the various coating in different

Table 8. Sensory acceptability of eggshell based on a 9-point hedonic scale

Surface Surface Surface Surface General


Coating smoothness glossiness Odor stickiness acceptability

Control 5.73 (0.142)a 4.40 (0.09)a 0.86 (0.126)a 0.77 (0.125)a 6.02 (0.149)a
WPI 6.14 (0.142)b 6.39 (0.08)b 1.99 (0.11)b 3.47 (0.122)b 6.44 (0.147)b
Chitosan 5.63 (0.142)a 5.37 (0.08)c 4.14 (0.13)c 1.94 (0.123)c 5.95 (0.147)a
Shellac 5.69 (0.142)a 7.58 (0.08)d 2.60 (0.135)d 3.88 (0.124)d 4.31 (0.146)c

Least-square mean (SE: standard error) in same column followed by different letters differ significantly at p < 0.05.
WPI: whey protein isolate.

J Sci Food Agric 85:1897–1902 (2005) 1901


C Caner

package types so as to minimize shell egg breakage 10 Krochta JM and DeMulder JC, Edible and biodegradable
during transportation. polymer films: challenges and opportunities. Food Technol
51:61–74 (1997).
11 Anker M, Edible and biodegradable films and coatings based
on proteins, in Edible and Biodegradable films and coatings for
REFERENCES food packaging —a literature review, SIK, Göteborg. pp 5–60
1 Kamel B, Bond C and Diab M, Egg quality as affected by (1996).
storage and handling methods. J Food Qual 3:261–273 12 McHugh TH, Aujard JF and Krochta JM, Plasticized whey–
(1980). protein edible films—water-vapor permeability properties.
2 Wong YC, Herald TJ and Hachmeister KA, Evaluation of J Food Sci 59:416–419, 423 (1994).
mechanical and barrier properties of protein coating on 13 McHugh TH and Krochta JM, Sorbitol-plasticized vs glycerol-
eggshell. Poultry Sci 75:417–422 (1996). plasticized whey–protein edible films—integrated oxygen
3 Xie L, Hettiarachchy NS, Ju ZY, Meullenet J, Wang H, Slavik permeability and tensile property evaluation. J Agric Food
MF and Janes ME, Edible film coating to minimize eggshell Chem 42:841–845 (1994).
breakage and reduce post-wash bacterial contamination 14 Yoshida CM P, Antunes ACB and Antunes AJ, Moisture
measured by dye penetration in eggs. J Food Sci 67:280–284 adsorption by milk whey protein films. Int J Food Sci Technol
(2002). 37:329–332 (2002).
4 Bhale S, No HK, Prinyawiwatkul W, Farr AJ, Nadarajah K and 15 Mat JI and Krochta JM, Oxygen uptake model for uncoated and
Meyers SP, Chitosan coating improves shelf life of eggs. coated peanuts. J Food Eng 35:299–312 (1998).
J Food Sci 68:2378–2383 (2003). 16 Senkoylu N, Yumurta Teknolojisi in Modern Tavuk Uretimi.
5 Hisil Y and Otles S, Changes of vitamin B-1 concentrations Trakya Üniv Zirrat Fakültesi. 3. Baskı, Tekirday, Turkey
during storage of hen eggs. Food Sci Technol-Leb 30:320–323 pp 276–290 (2001).
(1997). 17 SAS Institute Inc, SAS User Guide, version 6, Statistical Analysis
6 Herald TJ, Gnanasambandam R, McGuire BH and Hachmeis- Systems Institute, Cary, NC.
ter KA, Degradable wheat gluten films—preparation, prop- 18 Silversides FG and Scott TA, Effect of storage and layer age
erties and applications. J Food Sci 60:1147–1150 (1995). on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poultry Sci
7 Cho JM, Park SK, Lee YS and Rhee CO, Effects of soy protein 80:1240–1245 (2001).
isolate coating on egg breakage and quality of eggs during 19 Freeland-Graves JH and Peckman GC, Eggs in Foundation
storage. Food Sci Biotechnol 11:392–396 (2002). of Food Preparation. Macmillan, New York, pp 415–440
8 Caner C, Vergano PJ and Wiles JL, Chitosan film mechanical (1987).
and permeation properties as affected by acid, plasticizer, and 20 Scott TA and Silversides FG, The effect of storage and
storage. J Food Sci 63:1049–1053 (1998). strain of hen on egg quality. Poultry Sci 79:1725–1729
9 Park HJ, Development of advanced edible coatings for fruits. (2000).
Trends Food Sci Technol 10:254–260 (1999).

1902 J Sci Food Agric 85:1897–1902 (2005)

You might also like