Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Postharvest Biology and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/postharvbio

Dynamic behaviour of starch-based coatings on fruit surfaces T

a,b,c,⁎ a b c a
Ewelina Basiak , Manfred Linke , Frédéric Debeaufort , Andrzej Lenart , Martin Geyer
a
Department of Horticultural Engineering, Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
b
Food and Wine Physical Chemistry Lab, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 1 Esplanade Erasme, 21000 Dijon, France
c
Department of Food Engineering and Process Management, Faculty of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW (WULS-SGGW), Nowoursynowska 159c
Street, 02-786 Warsaw, Poland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A method to characterising the surface water relations of coated fresh fruit has been developed. Based on a
Plum modification of the Fick’s law of diffusion, application of this method allows for a quantitative assessment of the
Edible coatings impact of produce type and of production method of coating, and environment on water losses both of the fruit
Starch body and the coating. Resistances in the water vapour pathway were analysed to determine the effects of coating
Whey protein
on the surface water relations of plums. Experiments were conducted, evaluating the dynamic behaviour of two
Water relations
Postharvest behaviour
different starch-based coatings both at high and low potential water losses. Applying three layer-coatings, both
starch and starch-whey protein coatings increased the total resistance in the water vapour pathway of individual
plums by 60–75% at high transpiration potentials. Even at low transpiration potentials, an increase of 11–20%
was observed. The starch coating tended to have a slightly lower effectiveness than the coating enriched with
20% whey protein.

1. Introduction particularly low oxygen permeability and, in combination with a sui-

The application of edible coatings can be an excellent technique for
prolonging the shelf-life and preserving the quality and freshness of
minimally processed foods (Chiumarelli and Hubinger, 2012; Versino
et al., 2016). Surface coatings have already been experimental applied
to many food products (Navarro-Tarazaga et al., 2011), especially fruits
and vegetables. These coatings increase skin resistance to the diffusion
of gases (O2, CO2, H2O), thereby delaying the natural physiological ri-
pening processes (Banks et al., 1993; Valero et al., 2013), and pro-
tecting against water loss. Depending on the constituents, such mem-
branes have different physical and chemical properties. Under low
relative humidity conditions (below 75%), polysaccharides and pro-
teins can successively replace plastic materials (Debeaufort et al.,
1998). In addition, various active ingredients can be incorporated into
the biopolymers of biodegradable membranes and safely consumed
with the food product (Rojas-Graü et al., 2009). Among the renewable
sources with film-forming ability, starch satisfies all the principal as-
pects, such as easy availability, high extraction yield, nutritional value,
low cost, biodegradability, biocompatibility, and edibility with func-
tional properties (Shah et al., 2016).
When using edible coatings on fruit surfaces, gas permeability is of
particular importance. Edible starch coatings are distinguished by a
table plasticiser, a sufficiently low CO2-permeability. By contrast, the
water vapour permeability is relatively high (Liu, 2005; Pagella et al.,
2002). Edible coatings composed of two or more components have been
developed to take advantage of the complementary functional proper-
ties of the constituent materials, and to overcome their respective
drawbacks (Cazon et al., 2017; Guilbert and Gontard, 2005). Composite
starch-based coatings have been successfully used to extend the shelf
life of various fruits such as strawberries (García et al., 2001; Ribeiro
et al., 2007), grapes (Fakhouri et al., 2015), plums (Eum et al., 2009)
and avocados (Aguilar-Mendez et al., 2008). An improvement of both
gas permeability and mechanical properties could be achieved by the
combination of polysaccharides (e.g. starch) and whey proteins (Basiak
et al., 2015; Yoo and Krochta, 2011).
There are a number of parameters that are used to describe the
barrier properties of films, such as permeability, permeance, transmis-
sion rate, and resistance (Greener Donhowe and Fennema, 1994).
Nevertheless, evaluations of the effectiveness of coatings on fruit sur-
faces (in relation to transpiration losses) can only provide reliable re-
sults if comparable properties of the coating and the fruit are con-
sidered. Therefore, water vapour permeability (WVP), widely used in
coatings, is not particularly suitable for several reasons. The perme-
ability of the coating (in the majority of cases determined by the cup

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Horticultural Engineering, Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100,
14469 Potsdam, Germany.
E-mail address: ewelina.basiak@interia.pl (E. Basiak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2018.09.020
Received 22 June 2018; Received in revised form 28 September 2018; Accepted 29 September 2018
0925-5214/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E. Basiak et al.
method) is usually not directly measured on the fruit surface. Trans-
ferring data, it is assumed that saturated water vapour (RH = 100%) is
present on the side, which is oriented towards the fruit (Han et al.,
2004; Medeiros et al., 2012; Osorio et al., 2011; Xu et al., 2001).
The conditions on the fruit surface are dependent on the properties
of the produce itself (e.g. water relations of the fruit, surface tem-
perature), the properties of the surrounding air (temperature, humidity)
and the flow conditions against and around the produce (Linke and
Geyer, 2001). Thus, it can easily be shown that the surface conditions
may considerably differ from the saturation state under certain cir-
cumstances.
In order to characterise the transpiration properties of fruit, WVP is
generally not used because, on the one hand, the thickness of the epi-
dermal layers cannot be measured non-destructively. On the other
hand, the water distribution inside the fruit may not always be uniform.
Water status profiles may be present depending on tissue properties and
external conditions (Nguyen et al., 2006; Peiris et al., 1999;
Veraverbeke et al., 2003). The air in intercellular spaces of the layers
close to the epidermis is not necessarily saturated with water vapour.
Consequently, the resistance to the transfer of water vapour on the fruit
surface tissue, supplemented by the resistance of the coating, should be
determined. These calculations are based on the assumption that the air
in the intercellular spaces (in the centre of the produce) is saturated.
This assumption is certainly justified in the freshness range considered
here as long as there are no external indications of wilting (loss of gloss,
shrinkage, softening).
The aim of the present study was primarily to develop an alternative
method for the characterisation of water relations on the surface of
freshly coated fruit. Thus, it should be possible to quantitatively assess
the impact of all involved components (produce, coating, environment)
on water loss of the fruit (and the coating), based on a modification of
Fick’s law of diffusion in terms of resistance (Cussler, 2003; Gates,
1980). In this context, the experiments were focused on measuring the
dynamics of various changes (water content, thickness, resistance) that
occurred on two different coating materials depending on the relevant
properties of the produce and the ambient conditions.
Using a similar approach Ben Yehoshua et al. (1985) investigated
the effects of coatings and films on citrus fruit (wax, HDPE film) using
another modified Fick’s equation. Because the convective mass transfer
conditions are not described in detail here, the reference to environ-
mental conditions is missed. Other authors used a comparable approach
to demonstrate the effect of coatings on the postharvest behaviour of
zucchini (Avena-Bustillos et al., 1994), and of apples and celery sticks
(Avena-Bustillos et al., 1997). Within the scope of these experiments
both the single-layer-coated and uncoated fruits or vegetables were
stored at forced convection (air velocity of 3.0 ms−1) to disable the
boundary layer resistance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental design
In order to characterise the dynamics of water relations on the
surface of fruit immediately after dipping, the weight changes of in-
dividual plums were recorded under pre-determined ambient condi-
tions. At the same time, the surface temperature distribution was
measured by means of a thermal imaging camera. Within a measuring
cycle, the weight loss of individual fruit at unrestricted free convection
was initially recorded over a 6 h period without a coating, and over 24 h
periods thereafter with one, two and three layers consecutively.
Overall, two different starch-based coatings were studied under two
different ambient conditions (room temperature, relative humidity le-
vels). Each measuring cycle was repeated three times (with 3 different
plums), yielding a total test period of approx. 48 d.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the coating materials, various re-
sistances in the water vapour pathway were analysed. In principle, the
167
Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173
Fig. 1. Water loss potentials and resistances in the water vapor pathway of a
coated plum fruit (E – area related transpiration rate; rb – boundary layer re-
sistance; rc – coating resistance;rT – tissue resistance; xa – volume related water
content of the ambient air in sufficient distance to the produce; xp – volume
reated water content of air in the intercellular spaces in the center of the pro-
duce; xps – volume related water content of the air at the produce surface).
coatings may be considered as additional to the tissue resistance and
the boundary layer resistance as a serial resistance (see Fig. 1). After
dipping, only water from the surface of the coatings would initially
evaporate until an equilibrium state between fruit, coating and sur-
rounding air was established. From then on, water vapour would be
released from inside the fruit to the environment again. Under constant
ambient conditions, fruit transpiration is now somewhat lower due to
the additional resistance.
Starting from an initial 95% water content of the coating, its de-
crease can be followed consistently to the equilibrium state. The equi-
librium water content of both coating materials depending on outside
conditions was determined in preliminary experiments for a wide range
of external humidity levels (Basiak et al., 2017).
The initial film thickness was determined from the mass difference
before and after dipping, assuming that the distribution of the film-
forming solution on the fruit surface was uniform. As long as the
equilibrium was not reached, the decrease (change) in the thickness of
the coating was calculated from the respective mass loss.
For the investigations, plums (Prunus salicina L.) from South Africa
were used, which were bought at a nearby wholesale market. The fruit
(such as cv. Angeleno) normally arrive in Central Europe in a pre-mature
stage and continue to ripen slowly. Thus, it can be assumed that the
produce properties change only slightly during one 4 d measuring cycle.
All fruits were very firm during the relevant period.
Individual fruit were equipped with a special holding mechanism
(thin suspension wire) and mounted to the port of a BP 210S precision
balance (Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany). For this purpose, the under-
floor weighing function of the balance placed on a special rack was
used. The balance (measuring range 210 g, resolution 0.001 g) was
connected directly to a Almemo 2590-4S data logger (Ahlborn,
Holzkirchen, Germany) via the serial data interface. All mass changes,
as well as the climate parameters of the surrounding air, were recorded
at time intervals of 2 min.
At the beginning of the measuring cycle, the product, coating ma-
terial and surrounding air were in thermal equilibrium (produce tem-
perature = temperature of film forming solution = air temperature).
Changes in the surface temperature of the fruit and subsequent changes
in the temperature of the coating after dipping were measured by
means of a ThermoCAM® HD 600 thermal imaging camera (Infratec,
Dresden, Germany). Thermal images (768 × 576 pixels; < 0.03 K
thermal resolution) were recorded at 5 min intervals over a period of
E. Basiak et al.
4 h in the first phase and at 40 min intervals (over 12 h) in the second
phase. The analysis of thermal images (temperature distribution and
averaging) was performed using the IRBIS Professional 3 software
package (Infratec, Dresden, Germany). When determining the tem-
perature, an emissivity of the fruit surface of 0.96 was considered
(Hellebrand et al., 2001).
The climate parameters in sufficient distance to the produce surface
were measured using a FHAD 36 combination sensor (Ahlborn,
Holzkirchen, Germany) for air temperature (measuring range is -100 to
+200 °C, accuracy ± 0.02 K) and relative humidity (measuring range
∼0 to 100% RH, accuracy ± 1.8% RH) as well as an FDA 612SA
barometric pressure sensor (measuring range 700–1050 hPa, accu-
racy ± 0.5% of full scale) and logged with the above mentioned
Almemo 2590-4S.
The produce surface area of plums as a function of the fresh mass
was calculated using an approximation equation. In preliminary ex-
periments, 30 plums were captured consecutively with a camera-sup-
ported ScanBook3D measuring system (Scanbull, Hameln, Germany) on
a turntable (max. 72 images per revolution), each from two camera
perspectives. From the maximum 144 shots, the 3D ScanWare
Enterprise 3.8 software generates a wire frame model with more than
30.000 nodes and calculates the surface area of the object inter alia. Via
a correlation and regression analysis using TableCurve 2d (Systat
Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) a relationship between surface area
and fresh mass was determined and used to calculate the surface area
from the measured fresh mass of the produce.
2.2. Coating materials
2.2.1. Preparation of starch/whey protein edible films and coatings
Wheat starch was supplied by Hortimex (Konin, Poland). The whey
protein isolate (WPI, ∼90% protein) BiPRO was obtained from Davisco
Foods International Inc. (Le Sueur, MN., USA). Anhydrous glycerol
(99.9% of purity) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Germany).
Film-forming aqueous solutions were prepared by casting wheat
starch and whey protein isolate in the following proportions: 100-0%
and 80-20%. Glycerol was used as a plasticiser at 50% w/w of biopo-
lymer dry mass (i.e. 50% of total dry basis). Wheat starch film-forming
solutions were prepared by dissolving 5 g of wheat starch powder in
100 mL distilled water. Whey protein film-forming solutions were also
prepared by dissolving 5 g of whey protein isolate in 100 mL distilled
water. The solutions were heated in separately beakers in a water bath
under a 700 s−1 stirring at 85 °C for 30 min to denature the whey
protein and to obtain complete gelatinisation of the starch. Then, film-
forming solutions were cooled down to 40 °C and glycerol was added.
Solutions were cooled down to reach equilibrium with the room con-
ditions (∼20 °C). The fruit were immersed for 60 s in the obtained so-
lutions, just before starting the climatic treatment. The coating solution,
the fruit and the environment had almost the same temperature.
Table 1
Basic psychrometric relations for the determination of various air parameters from measured temperature, relative humidity and barometric pressure (Berliner,
1979).
Number Formula Unit Description
a
2 (6.4142801 + 0.0996709 × Ta) Pa Partial pressure of water vapour at saturation depending on air temperature (Ta)
psa = e (1 / 0.004197225 × Ta)
3 pda = psa × (rH /100) Pa Partial pressure of water vapour (pda) depending on saturation vapour pressure (psa) and relative humidity (rH); partial
pressure of water vapour (pda)
4 (Ra / Rwv × pda ) kg kg−1 Mass related water content depending on partial pressure of water vapour (pda) and barometric pressure (pbar)
xa =
(pPa − pda )
5 (1 + x a) × pPa kg m−3 Density of air depending on water content (xa), temperature (Ta) and barometric pressure (pPa)
ρa =
(Ra / Rwv + x a) × Ta
6 xa* = x a × ρa kg m−3 Volume related water content depending on mass related water content (xa) and density (ρa)
**Symbols used in formulas: ´Ra … Gas constant of air; Rwv … Gas constant of water vapour.
a
Calculated approximation equation based on data from (Baehr, 1961).
168
Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173
2.2.2. Equilibrium water content
The sorption isotherm of films was determined to be 25 °C. Samples
of films were cut into small pieces (2 cm × 2 cm) and weighed to the
nearest 0.1 mg into pre-weighed vials. Films were brought up to the
equilibrium humidity and stored to equilibrium humidity in desicca-
tors, containing a saturated salt solution that fixed the relative hu-
midity. A wide range of relative humidity (RH) was selected: lithium
chloride (11%), potassium acetate (22%), magnesium chloride (33%),
potassium carbonate (43%), magnesium nitrate (53%), sodium nitrite
(65%), sodium chloride (75%), ammonium sulphate (81%) and am-
monium dihydrogenphosphate (93%). Film samples were weighted
periodically, until the equilibrium was reached. The final (equilibrium)
water content was measured by drying the films at 105 °C for 24 h. The
amount of water absorbed is expressed as kg of water per kg of dry
matter. Measurements were taken in triplicate for each film recipe.
2.3. Methodological fundamentals
The determination of the resistance in water vapour pathways is
based on the modified Fick's law of diffusion in terms of resistance,
describing the rate of water loss E as the ratio of a potential difference
Δx to the total resistance rtot (Gates, 1980; Woodward and Sheehy,
2013). For uncoated fruits, E is known as the area related to the tran-
spiration rate (in kg m−2s-1).
x p−x a Δx
E= =
rT + rB rtot (1)
The potential difference Δx as the driving force for mass transfer
consists of two components: the water vapour concentration of the air
in the centre of the produce (in intercellular spaces) xp and the water
vapour concentration of the ambient air in sufficient distance to the
produce xa (Fig. 1). It can be assumed that the air in the centre of fresh
horticultural produce (in the intercellular spaces) is saturated (100%
RH) or very close to the saturation state (Ben-Yehoshua and Rodov,
2003; Maguire et al., 2001; Pearcy et al., 2000). However, this argu-
ment is only valid as long as there are no external indications of wilting.
The water vapour concentration of the air can be expressed as
partial pressure of water vapour, water potential or in terms of the
absolute water content. For further considerations the volume related
water content (in g water per m³ dry air) is used due to compatibility
with the transpiration rate and the resistance.
The surface temperature of the fruits will be below the temperature
of the surrounding air particularly at relatively low humidity, because
during the evaporation process heat will be removed from the site of
evaporation (fruit and coating). The surface temperature is measured
by the camera without contact. For the calculations, it is assumed that
the mean value of this temperature corresponds to the produce tem-
perature. Based on this value the volume related water content inside
the produce xp* is determined. The water vapour concentration of the
ambient air xa* is determined from the measured values of relative
E. Basiak et al.
humidity, air temperature and barometric air pressure following the
same basic relations (Table 1).
ΔFM
E=
A × Δt (7)
The changes in fresh matter ΔFM were measured by means of a
precision balance (0.1 mg).
The surface area of the produce item A is determined from produce-
specific, easily measurable parameters such as fresh weight and / or
possibly geometric dimensions (diameter, length) in the preliminary
test. From the measured mean air temperature and relative air humidity
in sufficient distance to the produce surface, the volume related water
content of air (sometimes referred to absolute humidity, moisture ratio
or specific humidity (Singh and Heldman, 2009)) is determined ap-
plying the known laws of psychrometry. Similarly, the parameters of
the air in the intercellular spaces were calculated from the produce
temperature at saturation state. Thus, the total resistance of an in-
dividual fruit can be determined by equating and rearranging Eqs. (1)
and (7).
The tissue resistance rT of an individual produce item is determined
from the difference between the total resistance rtot and the boundary
layer resistance rB at unrestricted free convection.
The boundary layer resistance characterises the flow conditions
adjacent to the produce surface. This resistance is exclusively depen-
dent on the shape, dimensions and surface structure of the object
(produce), and the known properties of the fluid (air) (Kays, 1991).
The phase after application of the coating material (initially con-
sisting 95% of water) to the fruit surface is characterised by the fact that
for certain periods, moisture is released into the surrounding air ex-
clusively from the coating. During this time, the tissue resistance can be
set to zero (rT = 0 s m−1). Thus, with Eqs. (1) and (7) the boundary
layer resistance can be calculated from the linear slope down in fresh
material (fruit + coating) (see also Fig. 2 below). The following tran-
sition phase is caused by different local mass transfer due to varying
local flow conditions (Gottschalk and Meszaros, 2012).
After application of the coating material, a third series resistance rC
in the water vapour pathway in addition to tissue resistance and
boundary layer resistance is present (Fig. 1).
xP −x a
E=
rT + rB + rC (8)
However, this resistance is not effective until an equilibrium state
between the produce, coating and environment is reached.
Subsequently, when several layers are applied, these layers will have
implications as more additional series resistance.
Fig. 2. Mass loss of a single plum, uncoated and coated with 1, 2, and 3 layers
of starch film-forming solution, at unrestricted free convection during one
measuring cycle.
169
Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173
rc = rC1 + rC 2 + …. + rCn (9)
The values of these resistances are determined in each case from the
difference to the previous value. In the case of fruits without coating, if
the boundary layer resistance rB is known, the water vapour con-
centration at the produce surface xpS can be determined by the mod-
ification and rearranging of Eq. (1).
x pS −x a
E=
rB (10)
After substituting xpS into Eq. (4) and rearranging, the partial
pressure of water vapour can be calculated. The relative humidity at the
produce surface is then calculated using Eq. (3). Similarly, the humidity
on the surface can be determined in the case of fruits with coating,
taking into account the partial resistances of the individual layers of the
coating.
2.4. Determination of coating thickness
When calculating the thickness of the coatings, it is assumed that
the coating material is uniformly distributed over the fruit surface. The
thickness of the coating on the fruit surface changes primarily de-
pending on its water content. The percentage water content of the
coating material WC was calculated from the mass of water in the
coating MW and the total mass of the coating MC according to the re-
lationship
MW
WC = × 100
MC (11)
The mass of the coating material MC initially present on the fruit
surface is determined by differential weighing between the coated and
uncoated fruit.
MC = FMpC−FMp (12)
The initial water content of 95% is quickly reduced because water
from the coating evaporates until a balance between produce, coating
and environment is established. Diffusion of water from the coating into
the outer tissues of the fruit is neglected. The variable density of the
coating ρC was determined from the mass fractions of the two compo-
nents starch and water. The density of starch was considered with
1500 kg m−3(Marousis and Saravacos, 1990) and the density of water
with 998 kg m-3 (VDI-Wärmeatlas, 2002).
ρC = 0.998 × WC + 1.50 × (100−WC ) (13)
From the mass and density, the volume of the coating material VC
can then be calculated according to the known relationship.
MC
VC =
ρC (14)
The mean thickness of the coating e is subsequently determined
from the volume of the coating Vc and the fruit surface area Ap.
VC
e=
Ap (15)
2.5. Statistical analyses
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out using SPSS 19
(IBM Germany, Ehningen, Germany) software. Tukey’s tests were ap-
plied to determine the significance of differences (p < 0.05) between
the means both of resistances in the water vapour pathway and coating
thickness.
E. Basiak et al. Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effect of coatings on the mass loss of plums

As an example, the mass loss of a single fruit without coating and

with starch-coatings (3 layers) at 20.8 °C, 33.9% RH, 99.8 kPa and
unrestricted free convection are shown in Fig. 2. The linear mass loss of
fruit without coating is an indication that produce and environment
were in equilibrium.
It is assumed that a mass loss of the plum is solely caused by water
loss. Mass losses due to respiration may be negligible due to the low
respiration intensity of the plums and the relatively short cycle time.
After application of the coating material (dipping) and approaching
water evaporation, two characteristic phases can be distinguished. Fig. 3. Ambient air temperature (circles) and surface temperature (diamonds)
While in the first phase water evaporates exclusively from the coating, profiles at high potential water losses (20.66 °C; 34.5% RH; unrestricted free
convection) after dipping of a third starch layer.
water losses in the second phase are significantly lower and result from
fruit transpiration at a significantly lower slope down. The linear part of
the first phase was used for the determination of the boundary layer according to equations Eqs. (1)–(7). The fruit surface Ap (in cm2) was
resistance. determined according to the method described in 2.1 as a function of
The transition between the two phases is characterised by different the fresh mass FM. The approximation equation determined in the
local intensities of mass and heat transfer. This is due to flow conditions linear regression analysis (r2 = 0.987) with 30 fruits is
caused by differences in air density surrounding the approx. spherical Ap = 0.809 × FM + 19.405 (16)
shape of the plums. Under these conditions, an equilibrium state be-
tween fruit, coating and environment was achieved after 1 h at the The approximate equation is valid only in the fresh mass range
earliest. With an increasing number of layers, this period increased to between 40 and 80 g.
approximately 2 h in the above example. Profiles of fruit surface temperatures (mean values calculated from
At higher air humidity, it can be expected that equilibrium, char- the measured surface temperature distribution) and ambient air tem-
acterised by a linear weight loss over time, will be likewise achieved perature are given as models in Fig. 3. Initially after dipping in a
later. For horticultural products in the relevant range of freshness, the coating layer, a relatively large amount of water evaporates, resulting
criterion of linearity is valid under constant environmental conditions in a correspondingly noticeable decrease in heat at the site of eva-
as long as sufficient water can be supplied from inside the product poration. After the transition phase, equilibration with the ambient air
(Linke and Geyer, 2001; Lownds et al., 1993). temperature can be observed. As long as a constant transpiration po-
The reduction of the slope down of mass loss (dashed lines) with an tential is present, the surface temperature will remain lower than the
increasing number of layers (Fig. 2) clearly highlights the effects of ambient air temperature. The difference between surface and ambient
coatings on fruit transpiration. The slope down is reduced from air temperature decreases with increased air humidity. After exceeding
-0.13 mg s−1 for the uncovered plum to approx. – 0.08 mg s−1 for the a compensation point between heat loss due to water evaporation and
plum with 3 layers of coatings. respiration heat, the surface temperature can also be somewhat higher
than the air temperature at relative humidity levels near or equal to
100%.
3.2. Heat and mass transfer conditions
The air humidity in direct contact with the produce surface and on
the coating surface (interface between coating and environment) are
The effects of variations in air humidity on the behaviour of the
shown as examples for each measuring cycle with high and low water
coating material were tested under two different climatic conditions in
loss potential in Table 3. The values were calculated for the equilibrium
an air-conditioned laboratory. Mean values of the climatic parameters
state between produce, coating and environment. The humidity on the
and the associated potentials for the water and transpiration losses are
surface is only slightly higher than the ambient atmospheric humidity,
listed in Table 2.
depending on the comparatively small boundary layer resistance at
unrestricted free convection (250–300 s m−1).
3.3. Surface parameters These considerations demonstrate that, in the case of individual
produce and free convection even at low water loss potential (approx.
Both the temperature and humidity were directly measured as 80% RH), the humidity values directly on the produce surface can be
surface parameters or determined from corresponding balances
Table 3
Table 2 Surface parameters at equilibrium state.
Mean values of climatic parameters and potentials of transpiration loss at un-
Surface Air humidity at Air humidity at
restricted free convection. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. temperature produce surface coating surface
High transpiration Low transpiration [°C] [%] [%]
potential potential
High transpiration potential
Air temperature 20.86 ± 0.17 °Cb 20.10 ± 0.11 °Ca Uncoated fruit 21.24 36.1
Relative humidity 33.3 ± 0.6%a 80.8 ± 1.1%b 1 coating layer 20.58 47.1 36.4
Barometric pressure 100.0 ± 0.22 kPaa 100.0 ± 0.66 kPaa 2 coating layers 20.68 53.5 37.8
Water vapour partial 1641 ± 3 Pab 451 ± 21 Paa 3 coating layers 20.50 56.2 36.0
pressure difference Low transpiration potential
Difference in volume 12.30 ± 0.02 g m−3b 3.43 ± 0.17 g m−3a Uncoated fruit 20.13 81.8
related water content 1 coating layer 20.10 83.2 82.3
2 coating layers 20.08 83.8 82.3
*Values denoted by the same letter for a given parameter of the ambient air 3 coating layers 19.98 84.1 82.4
were not significantly different (p < 0.05).

170
E. Basiak et al. Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173

far below the saturation state of the air. Thus, for appropriate post-
harvest scenarios (for example in the selection of suitable films or
coatings) it needs to be examined to what extent the assumption of a
saturation state on one side of the film is justified. With larger boundary
layer resistance (several produce items contacting each other at re-
stricted free convection in packages) relevant higher air humidity will
be present adjacent to the produce surface (Linke and Geyer, 2001).
As the number of layers increases, the humidity at the produce
surface increases as expected. At high transpiration potential, an in-
crease in the humidity at the produce surface of slightly more than 20%
was achieved by the protective effect of the 3 coating layers. The lower
protective effect at low transpiration potential can also be recognised
by the only slightly higher humidity values at the produce surface.
Fig. 4. Relative changes (fruit = 100%) in the resistances in the water vapor
3.4. Resistance in the water vapour pathway pathway (mean values ± SD of coated plums with 3 layers each) at high water
loss potentials (20.86 °C; 33.3% rH; unrestricted free convection) after coating
3.4.1. Boundary layer resistance at unrestricted free convection process. Values denoted by the same letter were not significantly different
The boundary layer resistance of single fruits (in s m−1) at unrest- (p < 0.05).
ricted free convection was calculated as follows: Eqs. (1) and (7) based
on the linear slope down immediately after dipping (see also Fig. 2). In the experiments undertaken at low transpiration potential, the
The values determined in this way were related to the respective fresh coating materials protected against water losses less effectively. Starch
mass (in g). In the context of a linear correlation and regression ana- films are hydrophilic and their properties will change with variations in
lysis, the following relationship using TableCurve 2d was found: RH, i.e. their barrier properties decrease with increasing RH (Olivas and
rB = 0.0167 × FM + 1.758 (17) Barbosa-Cánovas, 2009).
Irrespective of the coating materials, any further increase in re-
Eq. (17) for which a coefficient of determination of R² = 0.96 was sistance became smaller with the addition of further layers; no effect at
calculated is valid in the fresh-mass range between 40 and 80 g. Thus, all could be detected in case of the addition of a third layer (Fig. 5).
for example, a boundary layer resistance of 250 s m−1 is obtained for a Nevertheless, starch plus whey protein coatings are slightly but sig-
fruit with a fresh mass of 45 g, and this value increases to 300 s m−1at a nificantly more effective than pure starch coatings. As in the case of
fresh mass of 75 g. high potential for water loss, the efficiency with respect to the protec-
tion against water loss decreases as the number of layers increases.
3.4.2. Tissue resistance of uncoated plums
The initial tissue resistance of the plums ranged from 3900 to 8900 s
3.5. Equilibrium water content and thickness of coating layers
m−1. The changes within one measuring cycle were negligibly small
compared to others as a result of the additional protection by the
For starch coatings, equilibrium water contents were at 0.342 kg
coating layers.
kg−1 or 0.870 kg kg−1 for high and low water loss potentials (Fig. 6;
In addition to a pronounced varietal dependence, tissue resistance
Table 2), while those for starch-whey protein (80/20 ratio) coatings
depend in particular on the pre-harvest conditions. Such relatively large
were 0.334 kg kg−1 and 0.770 kg kg−1 respectively.
variations in produce properties are primarily caused by pre-harvest
The average thickness of the coatings at a state of equilibrium,
factors (natural variability, position on the tree, climate, water and
calculated according to Eqns. 11–15, is dependent on the composition
nutrient supply etc.) but also in postharvest effects such as climatic
of the individual components as well as the ambient conditions
variations (in particular the air flow close to the produce) or different
(Table 4).
packaging units (Linke and Geyer, 2001).
At low air humidity and a correspondingly low equilibrium, the
moisture content of the mean layer thickness was 30.5 μm for starch
3.4.3. Resistance of coated plums coatings or 12.1 μm for starch-whey protein coatings, while the layer
Changes in the water vapour transfer resistance of coated relative to thickness for starch coatings was 35.5 μm and 19.3 μm for starch-whey
uncoated plums at high water loss potential are shown in Fig. 4. This
type of presentation was chosen due to varying initial tissue resistances
of the investigated plums.
The total resistance at unrestricted free convection increased to
160% (starch) and 175% (starch-whey protein) as a result of the three
coating layers. Coatings from pure starch tend to have a slightly but
significantly lower effectiveness than those enriched with whey protein
(Basiak et al., 2015; Versino et al., 2016).
Irrespective of the coating material use, the first layer produced the
greatest effects. It is presumed that this layer at least partially closed the
preferred gas exchange pathways between produce and environment.
Fruit surfaces are normally covered with epicuticular waxes to protect
against water loss amongst other factors. However, this is not a com-
pletely homogeneous layer, because the protective mechanisms of the
plant (the tree) are formed depending on pre-harvest conditions (water
supply, climate conditions…). By such means an inhomogeneous wax
layer consisting of wax platelets is produced in the growth phase of the Fig. 5. Relative changes (fruit = 100%) in the resistances in the water vapor
fruit, with the preferred paths (lenticels, microcracks…) for gas ex- pathway (mean values ± SD of coated plums) at low water loss potentials
change (Ben-Yehoshua and Rodov, 2003; Riederer and Schreiber, (20.10 °C; 80.8% rH; unrestricted free convection) after coating process. Values
2001). denoted by the same letter were not significantly different (p < 0.05).

171
E. Basiak et al. Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173

"(Dadzie et al., 1993).

The advantages of the modified atmosphere on the preservative
quality of fruit and vegetables are adequately described in the literature
of the last 30 years and do therefore not need to be discussed in great
depth here.
One of the aims of this study was primarily to elaborate on meth-
odological principles that allow for a quantitative assessment of the
protective effects of coatings on fruit surfaces. This can only be
achieved if comparable parameters for fruits and coating materials are
applied. Such parameters, which can be determined simultaneously
with simple measuring equipment, represent the resistance in the water
vapour pathway. In a similar manner, it should also be possible to de-
termine the resistance in the carbon dioxide or oxygen pathway, if this
is of particular interest.
Fig. 6. Equilibrium water content (in kg water per kg dry matter) of starch At the same time, the results show that the protective effect of
coating and starch whey protein (80/20) coating depending on relative hu- coatings is strongly dependent on the ambient conditions (Cisneros-
midity (water activity). Zevallos and Krochta, 2002). The equilibrium state between the pro-
Adopted from Basiak et al. (2017). duce, coating and environment will always change as the surrounding
conditions (temperature, humidity, air flow) are altered. During this
Table 4 process, the mass transfer between the product and its environment is
Mean thickness of single coatings on plums at equilibrium state. Data are ex- delayed and simultaneously restricted. The dynamics of these changes
pressed as mean ± SD. are decisively influenced by the boundary layer resistance.
Within the scope of the present study, it was not investigated to
Starch coating Starch-whey protein coating [μm]
[μm] what extent an adequate rehydration of the coating on the fruit surface
is possible.
High water loss potential
Layer 1 7.1 ± 1.2a 4.2 ± 1.2c
Funding sources
Layer 2 11.1 ± 1.5ab 3.8 ± 0.3c
Layer 3 12.4 ± 3.2b 4.2 ± 0.1c
All layers 30.5 ± 4.6a 12.1 ± 1.5b This work was a partially supported (award) by the Polish
Low water loss potential
Federation of Food Producers (Polska Federacja Producentów Żywności
Layer 1 8.9 ± 0.7a 6.5 ± 0.4c Związek Pracodawców), Warsaw, Poland.
Layer 2 11.6 ± 1.1ab 6.3 ± 1.2c
Layer 3 15.0 ± 3.7b 6.5 ± 0.5c Declarations of interest
All layers 35.5 ± 2.5a 19.3 ± 1.8c

*Values denoted by the same letter were not significantly different (p < 0.05;
treatments: capital letters; layers: small letters).
protein combinations at relative humidity in the range of 80% RH.
Nevertheless, these differences were not significant for starch. The
thickness of the coating layers was significantly higher in all cases with
starch coatings than with starch coatings enriched with 20% whey
protein.
Previous experiments on films also confirmed that the incorporation
of proteins reduces thickness, and systems with protein addition have a
higher density than pure starch matrices (Basiak et al., 2015, 2017).
While the thickness of individual layers increased with an increasing
number of layers for starch coatings, no uniform trend could be ob-
served with starch-whey protein coatings.
4. Conclusions
Edible coatings on the surface of perishable fruit can significantly
contribute to an extended shelf life. It has been shown that starch and
starch-whey protein coatings increase the total resistance in the water
vapour pathway of individual plums by 60–75% at high transpiration
potentials. Even at low transpiration potentials, an increase of 11–19%
is still possible. Starch coating tends to have a slightly lower effec-
tiveness than coating enriched with 20% whey protein.
Directly related to these effects is the lower transpiration loss of the
fruits. At the same time, changes in the internal gas atmosphere in the
intercellular spaces, which can restrict respiration, are associated this
(Montheith and Unsworth, 2001). The internal atmospheres of fruits
always differ in composition tothe external atmospheres in which the
fruits are kept.The fruits are kept in an atmosphere where the para-
meters were changed and, as a consequence, the tissues were modified.
None.
References
Aguilar-Mendez, M.A., San Martin-Martinez, E., Tomas, S.A., Cruz-Orea, A., Jaime-
Fonseca, M.R., 2008. Gelatine–starch films: physicochemical properties and their
application in extending the post-harvest shelf life of avocado (Perseaamericana). J.
Sci. Food Agric. 88, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3068.
Avena-Bustillos, R.J., Krochta, J.M., Saltveit, M.E., Rojas-Villegas, R., Sauceda-Perez, J.A.,
1994. Optimization of edible coating formulations on zucchini to reduce water loss. J.
Food Eng. 21, 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-8774(94)90186-4.
Avena-Bustillos, R.J., Krochta, J.M., Saltveit, M.E., 1997. Water vapor resistance of Red
Delicious apples and celery sticks coated with edible caseinate-acetylated mono-
glyceride films. J. Food Sci. 62 (2), 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.
1997.tb03999.x.
Baehr, H.D., 1961. Mollier-i,x-Diagramme für feuchte Luft in den Einheiten des
Internationalen Einheitensystems. Springerverlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-12532-8.
Banks, N.H., Dadzie, B.K., Cleland, D.J., 1993. Reducing gas exchange of fruits with
surface coatings. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 3, 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0925-5214(93)90062-8.
Basiak, E., Galus, S., Lenart, A., 2015. Characterisation of composite edible films based on
wheat starch and whey-protein isolate. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2, 372–380. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12628.
Basiak, E., Lenart, A., Debeaufort, F., 2017. Effects of carbohyrate/protein ratio on the
microstructure and the barrier and sorption properties of wheat starch–whey protein
blend edible films. J. Sci. Food Agric. 97, 858–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.
7807.
Ben-Yehoshua, S., Rodov, V., 2003. Transpiration and water stress. In: Bartz, J.A., Brecht,
J.K. (Eds.), Postharvest Physiology and Pathology of Vegetables, 2nd ed. Marcel
Dekker Inc., New York, pp. 111–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.
09.004.
Ben-Yehoshua, S., Burg, S.P., Young, R., 1985. Resistance of citrus fruit to mass transport
of water vapor and other gases. Plant Physiol. 79, 1048–1053. https://doi.org/10.
1104/pp.79.4.1048.
Berliner, P., 1979. Psychrometrie – Die Thermodynamik der lufttechnischen Prozesse.
Verlag C. F. Müller, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Cazon, P., Velazquez, G., Ramírez, J.A., Vazquez, M., 2017. Polysaccharide-based films
and coatings for food packaging: a review. Food Hydrocoll. 68, 136–148. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.09.009.

172
E. Basiak et al.
Chiumarelli, M., Hubinger, M.D., 2012. Stability, solubility, mechanical and barrier
properties of cassava starch – carnauba wax edible coatings to preserve fresh-cut
apples. Food Hydrocoll. 28, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.12.006.
Cisneros-Zevallos, L., Krochta, J.M., 2002. Internal modified atmospheres of coated fresh
fruits and vegetables: understanding relative humidity effects. J. Food Sci. 67 (8),
2792–2797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09490.x.
Cussler, E.L., 2003. Fundamentals of mass transfer. In: Cussler, E.L. (Ed.), Diffusion, Mass
Transfer in Fluid Systems, 2nd ed. University Press Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, pp.
211–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805134.001.
Dadzie, B.K., Banks, N.H., Cleland, D.J., Hewett, E.W., 1993. Role of skin resistance to gas
diffusion in the response of fruits to modified atmospheres. Acta Hortic. 343,
129–133. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1993.343.29.
Debeaufort, F., Quezada-Gallo, J.A., Voilley, A., 1998. Edible films and coatings: to-
morrow packaging. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 38, 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.food.080708.100836.
Eum, H.L., Hwang, D.K., Linke, M., Lee, S.K., Zude, M., 2009. Influence of edible coating
on quality of plum (PrunussalicinaLindl. cv. ‘Sapphire’). Eur. Food Res. Technol. 229,
427–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-009-1054-8.
Fakhouri, F.M., Martelli, S.M., Caon, T., Velasco, J.I., Mei, L.H.I., 2015. Edible films and
coatings based on starch/gelatin: film properties and effect of coatings on quality of
refrigerated Red Crimson grapes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 109, 57–64. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.05.015.
García, M.A., Martino, M.N., Zaritzky, N.E., 2001. Composite starch-based coatings ap-
plied to strawberries (Fragaria Ananassa). NahrungFood 45 (4), 267–272. https://
doi.org/10.1002/1521-3803(20010801)45:4<267::AID-FOOD267>3.0.
Gates, D.M., 1980. Evaporation and transpiration. In: Gates, D.M. (Ed.), Biophysical
Ecology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 307–344. https://doi.
org/10.1029/RG017i006p01175.
Gottschalk, K., Meszaros, C., 2012. IR thermometry for heat and mass transfer analysis of
surface drying of fruit. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Quantitative InfraRed Thermography. https://doi.org/10.21611/qirt.2012.327.
Greener Donhowe, I., Fennema, O., 1994. Edible films and coatings: characteristics,
formation, definitions, and testing methods. In: Krochta, J.M., Baldwin, E.A.,
Nisperos-Carriedo, M.O. (Eds.), Edible Coatings and Films to Improve Food Quality
Lancaster. Technomic Publishing Inc., Basel, pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
0-387-92824-1.
Guilbert, S., Gontard, N., 2005. Agro-polymers for edible and biodegradable films: review
of agricultural polymeric materials, physical and mechanical characteristics. In: Han,
J.H. (Ed.), Innovations in Food Packaging. Elsevier Academic Press, London, pp.
263–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2173-0_9.
Han, C., Zhao, Y., Leonard, S.W., Traber, M.G., 2004. Edible coatings to improve stor-
ability and enhance nutritional value of fresh and frozen strawberries (Fragaria
Ananassa) and raspberries (Rubusideaus). Postharvest Biol. Technol. 33 (1), 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.01.008.
Hellebrand, H.-J., Beuche, H., Linke, M., 2001. Determination of thermal emissivity and
surface temperature distribution of horticultural products. Zude, M., Herold, B.,
Geyer, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Fruit, Nut, and
Vegetable Engineering 363–368.
Kays, S., 1991. Movement of gases, solvents, and solutes within harvested products and
their exchange between the product and its external environment. In: Kays, S. (Ed.),
Postharvest Physiology of Perishable Plant Products. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, pp. 409–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700019803.
Linke, M., Geyer, M., 2001. Determination of flow conditions close to the produce. In:
Artes, F., Gil, M.I., Conesa, M.A. (Eds.), Improving Postharvest Technologies of Fruits,
Vegetables and Ornamentals. International Institute of Refrigeration, Murcia, Spain,
pp. 872–878.
Liu, Z., 2005. Edible films and coatings from starches. In: Han, J.H. (Ed.), Innovations in
Food Packaging. Elsevier Academic Press, London, pp. 320–337. https://doi.org/10.
1016/B978-0-12-311632-1.X5031-1.
Lownds, N.K., Banaras, M., Bosland, P.W., 1993. Relationships between postharvest water
loss and physical properties of pepper fruit (Capsicum annuum L.). Hort Sci. 28,
1182–1184.
Maguire, K.M., Banks, N.H., Opara, L.U., 2001. Factors affecting weight loss of apples.
Hort. Rev. 25, 197–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470650783.ch4.
Marousis, S.N., Saravacos, G.D., 1990. Density and porosity in drying starch materials. J.
Food Sci. 55 (5), 1367–1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb03939.x.
Medeiros, B.G.S., Pinheiro, A.C., Teixeira, J.A., Vicente, A.A., Carneiro-da-Cunha, M.G.,
2012. Polysaccharide/Protein nanomultilayer coatings: construction, characteriza-
tion and evaluation of their effect on ‘Rocha’ Pear (Pyruscommunis L.) shelf-life. Food
173
Postharvest Biology and Technology 147 (2019) 166–173
Bioprocess Technol. 5, 2435–2445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-010-0508-0.
Montheith, J.L., Unsworth, M., 2001. Mass transfer – gases and water vapor. In:
Montheith, J.L., Unsworth, M. (Eds.), Principles of Environmental Physics, 2nd ed.
Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0014479700001381.
Navarro-Tarazaga, M.L., Massa, A., Pérez-Gago, M.B., 2011. Effect of beeswax on hy-
droxypropyl methylcellulose-based edible film properties and postharvest quality of
coated plums (cv. Angeleno). LWT – Food Sci. Technol. 44, 2328–2334. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.03.011.
Nguyen, T.A., Verboven, P., Scheerlinck, N., Vandewalle, S., Nicolai, B.M., 2006.
Estimation of effective diffusivity of pear tissue and cuticle by means of a numerical
water diffusion model. J. Food Eng. 72, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.
2004.11.019.
Olivas, G.I., Barbosa-Cánovas, G., 2009. Edible films and coatings for fruits and vege-
tables. In: Embuscado, M.E., Huber, K.C. (Eds.), Edible Films and Coatings for Food
Applications. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, pp. 211–244.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-92824-1.
Osorio, F.A., Molina, P., Matiacevich, S., Enrione, J., Skurtys, O., 2011. Characteristics of
hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose (HPMC) based edible film developed for blueberry
coatings. Procedia Food Sci. 1, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2011.09.
045.
Pagella, C., Spigno, G., De Faveri, D.M., 2002. Charcterization of starch based edible
coatings. Food Bioprod. Process. 80, 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1205/
096030802760309214.
Pearcy, R.W., Ehleringer, J.R., Mooney, H.A., Rundel, P.W., 2000. Plant Physiological
Ecology – Field Methods and Instrumentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2221-1.
Peiris, K.H.S., Dull, G.G., Leffler, R.G., Kays, S.J., 1999. Spatial variability of soluble solids
or dry-matter content within individual fruits, bulbs, or tubers: Implications for the
development and use of NIR spectrometric techniques. Hortc. Sci. 34 (1), 114–118.
https://doi.org/10.1071/AR05285.
Ribeiro, C., Vicente, A.A., Teixeira, J.A., Miranda, C., 2007. Optimization of edible
coating composition to retard strawberry fruit senescence. Post. Biol. Technol. 44,
63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.11.015.
Riederer, M., Schreiber, L., 2001. Protecting against water loss: analysis of the barrier
properties of plant cuticles. J. Expe. Bot. 52, 2023–2032. https://doi.org/10.1093/
jexbot/52.363.2023.
Rojas-Graü, M.A., Oms-Oliu, G., Soliva-Fortuny, R., Martin-Belloso, O., 2009. The use of
packaging techniques to maintain freshness in fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: a re-
view. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 44, 875–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.
2009.01911.x.
Shah, U., Naqash, F., Gani, A., Masoodi, F.A., 2016. Art and science behind modified
starch edible films and coatings: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 15 (3),
568–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12197.
Singh, R.P., Heldman, D.R., 2009. Psychrometrics. Introduction to Food Engineering, 4th
ed. Academic Press, Burlington, San Diego, London, pp. 571–593. https://doi.org/10.
1016/C2012-0-01661-4.
Valero, D., Díaz-Mula, H.M., Zapata, P.J., Guillén, F., Martínez-Romero, D., Castillo, S.,
Serrano, M., 2013. Effects of alginate edible coating on preserving fruit quality in four
plum cultivars during postharvest storage. Post. Biol.Technol. 77, 1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.10.011.
VDI-Wärmeatlas, 2002. Berechnungsblätter für die Wärmeübertragung, 9. erw. Aufl. VDI
Verlag Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-
10743-0.
Veraverbeke, E.A., Verboven, P., Scheerlinck, N., Hoang, M.L., Nicolai, B.M., 2003.
Determination of the diffusion coefficient of tissue, cuticle, cutin and wax of apple. J.
Food Eng. 58 (3), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.553.121.
Versino, F., Lopez, O.V., Garcia, M.A., Zaritzky, N.E., 2016. Starch-based films and food
coatings: an overview. Starch/Stärke 68, 1026–1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/star.
201600095.
Woodward, F.I., Sheehy, J.E., 2013. Kinetic theory, gas laws and diffusion. In: Woodward,
F.I., Sheehy, J.E. (Eds.), Principles and Measurements in Environmental Biology.
Butterworth, London, UK, pp. 56–74.
Xu, S., Chen, X., Sun, D.-W., 2001. Preservation of kiwifruit coated with an edible film at
ambient temperature. J. Food Eng. 50, 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-
8774(01)00022-X.
Yoo, S.R., Krochta, J.M., 2011. Whey protein–polysaccharide blended edible film for-
mation and barrier, tensile, thermal and transparency properties. J. Environ. Sci.
Health B 91, 2628–2636. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4502.