Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture J Sci Food Agric 84:1229–1234 (online: 2004)

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.1755

Effects of sodium caseinate- and milk protein

concentrate-based edible coatings on the
postharvest quality of Bing cherries
Muharrem Certel, Mustafa K Uslu∗ and Feramuz Ozdemir
Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University, 07059 Antalya, Turkey

Abstract: Bing cherries were coated with sodium caseinate- or milk protein concentrate-based edible
coatings. Besides the proteins (100 g kg−1 ), the coating formulations also included glycerol (about 300 g kg−1
protein) and either beeswax or a stearic–palmitic acid blend at a concentration of 0, 100 or 300 g lipid
phase kg−1 of protein. All coatings, especially those containing 300 g kg−1 stearic–palmitic acid blend,
successfully reduced water loss of the fruits. The edible coatings had a beneficial effect on the sensory
quality of the cherries, and there were significant (p < 0.05) effects of the coating treatments on soluble
solids, titratable acidity and pH.
 2004 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: sodium caseinate; milk proteins; beeswax; stearic–palmitic acid blend; edible coating; Bing cherry;
postharvest quality

INTRODUCTION the internal atmosphere of the plant tissues. The

During storage, fruits and vegetables use up oxygen
and release carbon dioxide by respiration. In addition,
fruit and vegetable tissues ‘perspire’, ie release
moisture into the air, and are subject to attack by
micro-organisms. The rates of respiration and water
loss depend partly on the temperature, gaseous make-
up and humidity of the environment surrounding the
commodity.1 In order to extend the shelf-life of fruits
and vegetables, both respiration rate and water loss
must be minimised. To reduce the respiration rate,
either the temperature of the environment can be
decreased or the gas composition can be modified (ie
depleted of oxygen and enriched in carbon dioxide).
Increasing the relative humidity (RH) can reduce the
loss of water.
A controlled atmospheric environment can be
established around commodities in storage rooms,
whilst a modified atmosphere may be produced by
using selectively permeable plastic packaging. During
modified atmosphere storage, fruit respiration itself
causes a depletion of O2 and a build-up of CO2 .
On the other hand, in controlled atmosphere storage,
specific levels of gases are maintained and regulated
by external sources.1 However, care must be taken
that O2 levels do not become so low that the fruits
or vegetables undergo anaerobic reactions, which
can result in off-flavours, abnormal ripening and
spoilage.2 Alternatively, edible films and coatings
can be used to control respiration and thus modify
effectiveness of edible films and coatings for fruits
and vegetables depends primarily on the selection
of appropriate coating formulations which results in a
beneficial internal gas composition and which provides
a sufficient barrier to water vapour permeability
(WVP).3
Several types of edible coatings have been applied
successfully to the preservation and conservation
of fresh produce. The shelf-life of tomatoes was
extended by 6 days at 21 ◦ C by using a coating
based on corn zein,3 and by 3 days at 23 ◦ C and
6 days at 12 ◦ C with Semperfresh coating (AgriCoat
Industries Ltd, Berkshire, UK), which is composed of
sucrose esters of fatty acids, sodium carboxymethyl
cellulose and mono/diglycerides of fatty acids.4
Coating cherries with Semperfresh increased their
shelf life by 21% at 30 ◦ C and 26% at 0 ◦ C
without perceptible loss of quality.5 Carrots treated
with cellulose-based coatings were protected against
surface discolouration and retained their quality
during storage at 2 ◦ C.6 Chitosan coating application
on strawberries significantly reduced their decay
in comparison with control groups.7 Coating with
irradiated (32 kGy) calcium caseinate/whey protein
isolate (1:1) solution resulted in a significant reduction
in mould growth on fresh strawberries; visible mould
contamination was observed at day 3 on uncoated
control samples but not until day 9 on coated
samples.8 Caseinate/acetylated monoglyceride (1:1)

∗ Correspondence to: Mustafa K Uslu, Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University, 07059 Antalya, Turkey
E-mail: mkuslu@akdeniz.edu.tr
Contract/grant sponsor: Research Fund of Akdeniz University; contract/grant number: 99.02.0121.15
(Received 9 June 2003; revised version received 6 January 2004; accepted 24 February 2004)
Published online 10 June 2004
 2004 Society of Chemical Industry. J Sci Food Agric 0022–5142/2004/$30.00 1229
M Certel, MK Uslu, F Ozdemir

edible coating produced a reduction (75%) in moisture Table 1. Compositions and identifiers of sodium caseinate- and milk
loss from celery sticks but did not decrease water protein concentrate-based coating solutions
loss from apples; the edible coating did not modify Composition Identifier
respiration or ethylene production by apples or celery
sticks.9 During storage at 10 ◦ C and 80–85% RH, 50 g sodium caseinate No lipid S0
bell pepper fruits seemed not to benefit from any +15 ml glycerol Beeswax 5g S1
of three different milk protein-based edible coatings +450 ml water 15 g S2
Stearic–palmitic 5g S3
(whey protein isolate, sodium caseinate, sodium
acid blend 15 g S4
caseinate/beeswax emulsion).10 50 g milk proteins concentrate No lipid A0
Sweet cherries (Prunus avium) are highly perishable, +15 ml Glycerol Beeswax 5g A1
containing about 900 g kg−1 water which is lost rapidly, +450 ml Water 15 g A2
leading to softening of the fruits, loss of sugar from the Stearic–palmitic 5g A3
cells and darkening of the stem.11 acid blend 15 g A4
Our main objectives were to coat Bing cherries Control (uncoated) U
with milk protein concentrate- or sodium caseinate-
based coating formulations, in order to produce a
modified atmosphere condition under the coatings, SC- and MPC-based coating solutions are given in
and to determine their effects on weight loss, pH, Table 1.
soluble solids, titratable acidity and sensory quality.
Coating applications
Before coating, the cherries with stems were washed
MATERIALS AND METHODS and dried. The fruits were dipped completely into
Materials the coating solutions at room temperature for 1 min,
Sodium caseinate (SC) containing 896 g kg−1 protein allowed to drain (by hanging than by the stems on
was purchased from Dairy Food Co. (Kaltenkirchen, a wire) and then dried at room temperature with the
Germany). Alaplex 1235, which is a milk protein aid of a fan, in order to hasten drying, and also to
concentrate (MPC) containing 926 g kg−1 protein, allow a film layer to form on the fruits. The fruits were
was donated by New Zealand Milk Products, Inc. then placed in polystyrene trays (125 × 90 × 50 m3 )
(Rellingen, Germany). The blend of stearic acid and kept in storage at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH until they
(652 g kg−1 ) and palmitic acid (294 g kg−1 ) (SA–PA) spoiled.
and the beeswax (BW) used in the emulsion coatings
were purchased from Faci Co (Carasco, Italy) and
Sensory evaluation
a local seller respectively. Glycerol and sodium
Sensory evaluations were carried out by seven
hydroxide (analytically pure) were obtained from
panellists trained in this procedure. The fruits were
Sigma Chemical Co. (St Louis, Mo, USA).
served on white polystyrene trays in random order and
In June 2000, 50 kg of Bing cherries were harvested
labelled with three-digit random numbers. Sensory
by us from a smallholder’s orchard in the village of
evaluation was carried out from 10:00 to 11:00 in
Aglasun (30◦ 2 E, 36–−37 ◦ N) near Burdur, Turkey.
individual booths under white light. A 2 min break
Aglasun is one of the most intensive cherry production
was taken between samples, during which the panelists
areas in Turkey and is located in a valley about 105 km
rinsed their mouths with sterile water. The panel
from the Mediterranean Sea coast at around 1050 m
evaluated the colour, appearance, firmness and taste
above sea level. Harvested cherries were transported
of the fruits. Each panellist rated each sample by
immediately to the laboratory in cardboard containers
giving grades from 0 (the lowest grade; for colour,
and stored at 4 ◦ C for about 2–4 h until they were
the lightest) to 5 (the highest grade; for colour, the
coated. Only cherries of uniform size and free from
darkest) for each quality attribute.13
physical damage were used.

Water loss
Preparation of coating solutions
Duplicate groups of 14 fruits, taken from both the
Dipping solutions were prepared by dissolving 50 g
coated and uncoated (control) groups, were weighed
of SC or MPC in 450 ml of distilled water and
in parallel. The weighing of the cherries was repeated
then adding 15 ml of glycerol (G) as a plasticicer.
every 6 days to determine water loss during a 60 day
The protein/glycerol ratio was selected according to
period. Water loss was calculated by the equation
previous works.10,12 The solutions were kept in a water
bath at 90 ◦ C for 30 min. Next, BW or SA–PA was
added to the coating solutions at a concentration of W0 − Wf
water loss(%) = × 100
0,100 or 300 g lipid phase kg−1 protein. Finally, the W0
solutions were homogenised in an UltraTurrax T25
(IKA Labortechnik, Staufen, Germany) at 22 000 rpm where W0 is the initial weight and Wf is the final
for 5 min. The compositions and identifiers of the weight.

1230 J Sci Food Agric 84:1229–1234 (online: 2004)

 Effects of edible coatings on Bing cherry quality

Titratable acidity and pH
Titratable acidity and pH were determined according
to Özkaya.14 Fourteen fruits were squeezed in
cheesecloth, then 10 ml of squeezed fruit juice was
diluted to 50 ml with distilled water and titrated against
0.1 M NaOH to pH 8.1. The results were expressed
as malic acid equivalents (mg ml−1 ). The pH value
of the fruit juice was determined using a pH-meter
(WTW pH 537, WTW Wissenschaftlich-Technische
Werkstätten GmbH, Weilheim, Germany).
Soluble solids
Soluble solids were measured by means of a
temperature-controlled Abbe-type refractometer (2
WAJ, Zjcof, Hangzhou, China) at 20 ◦ C.14
Statistical analysis
All experiments were done in duplicate, and 14
fruits were analysed at each sampling time. Data
were subjected to analysis of variance and Duncan’s
multiple range test, using PROC GLM of the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute, Cary, NC,
USA).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sensory quality
All coatings were transparent and the fruits became
brighter and more attractive in appearance after
coating. The coatings stuck to the fruits very well
because of the smooth surface of the cherries.
The mean scores for sensory attributes during
storage at 4 ◦ C were determined (Table 2). The edible
coating treatments had beneficial effects on the sensory
properties of the cherries.
The Duncan test results, showing the effects of the
different edible coatings on the colour, appearance,
firmness and taste of the cherries, are given in Table 3.
The cherry is a fruit that, while it is decaying, turns
from an attractive red colour to a darker colour.
Less darkening was observed on all coated cherries
than on the control samples. Cherries coated with
S0, S1 and A2 kept their original colour for the
longest period. All coatings successfully reduced and
delayed both shrivelling and softening of the cherries
during storage. S4 and A4, which are the coatings
containing 300 g kg−1 fatty acids, were, however, less
effective than the other coating formulations in terms
of delaying shrivelling and softening. S0, S1, A0 and
A1 reduced shrivelling more effectively, and S1 was
the most successful in prolonging cherry firmness.
The coated fruits, except for those coated with S4
and A4, got higher taste scores than the control fruits.
Specifically, the Duncan test results showed that S4
had a negative effect, A4 had a neutral affect and the
other coatings had positive effects, although these were
not significantly different among the various coatings.

Table 2. Effect of storage on sensory qualitiesa of coated cherries and control at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH

Storage (days) Colour Appearance Firmness Taste

0 3.13 ± 0.027a 5.00 ± 0.017a 5.00 ± 0.009a 5.00 ± 0.009a

7 3.46 ± 0.031b 4.44 ± 0.062b 4.49 ± 0.033b 4.33 ± 0.026b
14 3.91 ± 0.093c 4.05 ± 0.114c 4.01 ± 0.121c 3.65 ± 0.119c
21 3.91 ± 0.090c 4.10 ± 0.114c 4.13 ± 0.115c 3.72 ± 0.094c
35 3.74 ± 0.121c 3.83 ± 0.124d 3.84 ± 0.124c 3.29 ± 0.117d
49 4.38 ± 0.107a 3.70 ± 0.138d 3.56 ± 0.134d 2.91 ± 0.139e
63 4.24 ± 0.155a 3.12 ± 0.166e 3.23 ± 0.179e 2.61 ± 0.156f

Values in a column followed by different letters are significantly (p < 0.05) different (Duncan’s multiple range test). Values are mean ± standard error
(n = 77).
a 5 = highest grade and 0 = lowest grade; for colour, 5 = darkest and 0 = lightest.

Table 3. Effect of coatings on sensory qualitiesa of cherries during storage at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH for 63 days

Coating Colour Appearance Firmness Taste

Control (U) 4.17 ± 0.146a 2.44 ± 0.214e 2.93 ± 0.212d 3.60 ± 0.169ab
S0 3.30 ± 0.130c 4.60 ± 0.112a 4.29 ± 0.157ab 3.72 ± 0.169a
S1 3.71 ± 0.122b 4.57 ± 0.092a 4.49 ± 0.112a 3.88 ± 0.147a
S2 3.88 ± 0.115ab 4.16 ± 0.095bc 4.21 ± 0.115ab 3.75 ± 0.148a
S3 3.82 ± 0.123ab 4.21 ± 0.127bc 4.20 ± 0.149ab 3.85 ± 0.161a
S4 3.97 ± 0.134ab 3.64 ± 0.147d 3.73 ± 0.164c 3.26 ± 0.181b
A0 3.86 ± 0.125ab 4.27 ± 0.156b 4.17 ± 0.155ab 3.69 ± 0.228a
A1 3.93 ± 0.108ab 4.40 ± 0.135ba 4.33 ± 0.141ab 3.76 ± 0.172a
A2 3.67 ± 0.141b 4.29 ± 0.101ba 4.14 ± 0.132ab 3.82 ± 0.161a
A3 3.98 ± 0.118ab 4.37 ± 0.115ba 4.29 ± 0.134ab 3.67 ± 0.172a
A4 3.81 ± 0.147ab 3.95 ± 0.134c 4.05 ± 0.126bc 3.60 ± 0.149ab

Values in a column followed by different letters are significantly (p < 0.05) different (Duncan’s multiple range test). Values are mean ± standard error
(n = 46).
a
5 = highest grade and 0 = lowest grade; for colour, 5 = darkest and 0 = lightest.

J Sci Food Agric 84:1229–1234 (online: 2004) 1231

M Certel, MK Uslu, F Ozdemir

Water loss glycerol. Since BW and SA–PA are hydrophobic

The effects of the sodium caseinate- and milk protein
concentrate-based coatings on the weight loss of the
cherries during storage at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH are
compared in Fig 1.
Weight loss increased progressively with storage
time. The magnitude of this effect (p < 0.05) can be
seen from the Duncan test results (Table 4). Water
is lost by transpiration due to differences in the
vapour pressure of water between the atmosphere and
the cherry surface.3 Respiration also causes weight
reduction, because carbon atoms, in the form of
carbon dioxide molecules, leave the fruits.1
From the analysis of variance it was determined
that there were statistically significant (p < 0.01)
effects of the edible coatings on weight loss. There
were also significant (p < 0.05) differences in weight
loss among the cherries coated with different edible
coatings (Table 5). The MPC-based coating solution
containing 300 g kg−1 stearic–palmitic acid blend
(A4) was the most successful in reducing water
loss. In general, the coatings containing BW and
SA–PA were more successful in reducing water
loss than those composed only of protein and
Table 4. Effect of storage on weight loss of coated cherries and
control at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH
Storage (days)
6 2.40 ± 0.145a
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
Values followed by different letters are significantly (p < 0.05) different
(Duncan’s multiple range test). Values are mean ± standard error
(n = 22).
materials, their addition probably decreased the
WVP of the surface of the coatings. The addition
of different types of wax to whey protein and
sodium caseinate films15,16 and the addition of
different types of fatty acid to methyl cellulose/corn
zein film17 decreased the WVP of the films. The
WVP of whey protein film decreased from 1.85 to
0.451 g mm h−1 m−2 kPa−1 when 400 g kg−1 beeswax
was added to the film solution.16 McHugh et al 15
reported that the WVP of a film containing 560 g kg−1
whey protein, 160 g kg−1 sorbitol and 280 g kg−1
beeswax (0.85 g mm h−1 m−2 kPa−1 ) was much lower
than that of a film containing 500 g kg−1 whey protein
and 500 g kg−1 glycerol (5.16 g mm h−1 m−2 kPa−1 ).
The WVP of laminated methyl cellulose/corn zein
film (2.48 g mm h−1 m−2 kPa−1 ) was reduced by
0.482, 0.126, 0.076 and 0.094 g mm h−1 m−2 kPa−1
respectively when 100, 200, 300 and 400 g kg−1
SA–PA was added to the corn zein layer of the film.17
As observed by sensory analysis, the coated fruits
were free from shrivelling while the uncoated cherries
darkened and shrivelled after a 20 day storage period
at 4 ◦ C.
Soluble solids, titratable acidity and pH
Weight loss (%) From the analysis of variance it was determined that
there were statistically significant (p < 0.01) effects
of storage, coating treatment and their interaction
4.80 ± 0.340b
on the soluble solids, pH and titratable acidity of
5.73 ± 0.340c
7.92 ± 0.388d the cherries. There were variations in the values for
9.70 ± 0.438e soluble solids, titratable acidity and pH. While the
12.27 ± 0.535f soluble solids and pH of both coated and uncoated
16.10 ± 0.706g fruits increased during storage, their titratable acidity
19.95 ± 0.896h decreased significantly (Table 6).
22.12 ± 1.003i Because soluble solids act as a rough index of the
24.02 ± 1.247j amount of sugar in cherries, it would be expected
that these values would increase during ripening and
then decrease as a result of respiration.18 While both
coated and uncoated cherries lost a significant amount

a b
U S0 S1 U A0 A1
35 35 A2 A3 A4
S2 S3 S4
30 30

25 25
Weight loss
Weight loss

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Days Days

Figure 1. Weight loss (%) of control cherries and cherries coated with (a) sodium caseinate-based and (b) milk protein concentrate-based coatings
during storage at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH (for coating identifiers see Table 1).

1232 J Sci Food Agric 84:1229–1234 (online: 2004)

 Effects of edible coatings on Bing cherry quality

Table 5. Effect of coatings on weight loss, soluble solids, pH and titratable acidity of cherries during storage at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH for 63 days

Titratable
Coating Weight loss (%) Soluble solids % pH acidity (mg ml−1 )

Control (U) 16.80 ± 2.183a 18.89 ± 0.749bc 4.11 ± 0.037bcd 5.54 ± 0.145bcd
S0 16.25 ± 2.076a 19.20 ± 0.616bc 4.17 ± 0.068a 5.84 ± 0.195a
S1 13.21 ± 1.714b 18.48 ± 0.305cd 4.15 ± 0.048ab 5.40 ± 0.250cd
S2 10.29 ± 1.345d 18.06 ± 0.305d 4.11 ± 0.053bcd 5.54 ± 0.222bcd
S3 11.41 ± 1.658c 18.58 ± 0.572cd 4.13 ± 0.063abcd 5.56 ± 0.273bcd
S4 10.12 ± 1.323d 17.85 ± 0.467d 4.10 ± 0.062cd 5.53 ± 0.258bcd
A0 13.93 ± 2.172b 20.20 ± 0.504a 4.13 ± 0.103abc 5.87 ± 0.302a
A1 13.17 ± 1.943b 19.67 ± 0.722ab 4.12 ± 0.088bcd 5.32 ± 0.391cd
A2 11.71 ± 1.476c 19.60 ± 0.576ab 4.09 ± 0.074d 5.59 ± 0.213abc
A3 11.21 ± 1.610c 18.59 ± 0.602cd 4.13 ± 0.089abc 5.26 ± 0.337d
A4 8.87 ± 1.185e 19.06 ± 0.330bc 4.09 ± 0.064d 5.60 ± 0.302abc

Values in a column followed by different letters are significantly (p < 0.05) different (Duncan’s multiple range test). Values are mean ± standard error
(n = 14; for weight loss, n = 20).

Table 6. Effect of storage on soluble solids, pH and titratable acidity of coated cherries and control at 4 ◦ C and 80–85% RH

Titratable
Storage (days) Soluble solids % pH acidity (mg ml−1 )

0 17.32 ± 0.109a 3.91 ± 0.039a 6.39 ± 0.046a

7 17.70 ± 0.312a 3.94 ± 0.021b 5.83 ± 0.093b
14 18.03 ± 0.328b 3.97 ± 0.020c 6.06 ± 0.105b
21 18.63 ± 0.205c 3.97 ± 0.016c 6.06 ± 0.072b
28 19.12 ± 0.347c 4.09 ± 0.025d 5.92 ± 0.107b
42 19.98 ± 0.482d 4.39 ± 0.014e 4.78 ± 0.159c
63 21.69 ± 0.406e 4.56 ± 0.001f 3.82 ± 0.158d

Values in a column followed by different letters are significantly (p < 0.05) different (Duncan’s multiple range test). Values are mean ± standard error
(n = 22).

of water during storage, their soluble solids content
increased continuously (Table 6).
Although the coating which was most successful in
preventing weight loss was also expected to be most
successful in preventing an increase in the soluble
solids content, it did not do so (Table 5). It is
hypothesised that the gas permeabilities of the coatings
might be different, thereby affecting the respiration
rate and also the subsequent changes occurring in the
soluble solids content during storage. Lerdthanangkul
and Krochta10 reported that the respiration rate of
bell peppers coated with sodium caseinate/beeswax
(3:1) was lower than that of sodium caseinate-coated
fruits (about 6 ml CO2 kg−1 h−1 ) but comparable to
that of uncoated controls (about 4 ml CO2 kg−1 h−1 ).
Calcium caseinate/acetylated monoglyceride edible
coating did not significantly affect the respiration rate
of apples, while it reduced the respiration rate of celery
sticks.9
Organic acids are substrates for the enzymatic
reactions of respiration, so a reduction in acidity and an
increase in pH are expected. The coating formulations
without lipid addition (A0 and S0) were able to
significantly (p < 0.05) prevent the decomposition of
organic acids. However, there were no differences
among the other coating formulations and controls in
terms of titratable acidity (Table 5). The addition
of lipids may have increased oxygen permeability,
so that the coatings containing lipids may have
been unsuccessful in reducing the respiration rate
and the resulting decomposition of organic acids.
Many studies have been carried out to quantify the
gas permeability of protein-based edible films,19 – 22
but to our knowledge there are no reports on the
permeability of protein-based edible films containing
lipids. Therefore further research is required to verify
this supposition.
CONCLUSIONS
Sodium caseinate- and milk protein concentrate-
based coatings significantly prolonged the shelf life
of cherries stored at 4 ◦ C. In general, milk protein
concentrate-based coatings were more successful than
sodium caseinate-based coatings in preventing weight
loss of the fruits. The milk protein concentrate-based
coating containing 300 g kg−1 stearic acid–palmitic
acid blend was the most successful formulation.
There were no significant effects of the coatings on
the soluble solids content, pH and titratable acidity of
the cherries, except for those of the sodium caseinate-
based coatings containing 300 g kg−1 lipids on soluble
solids content, that of the coating composed of only
sodium caseinate and glycerol on pH, and those of the
coatings without lipids on titratable acidity.

J Sci Food Agric 84:1229–1234 (online: 2004) 1233

M Certel, MK Uslu, F Ozdemir
All coatings successfully delayed darkening, shrivel-
ling and softening of the cherries. However, there was
no significant effect of the coating treatments on taste.
In conclusion, these edible coatings might be
successful in prolonging the shelf life of cherries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Research
Fund of Akdeniz University for a grant (project
99.02.0121.15).
REFERENCES
1 Krochta J, Baldwin E and Nisperos M, Edible Coating and Film
to Improve Food Quality. Technomic Publ, Lancaster, PA, pp
25–28 (1994).
2 Kader AA, Biochemical and physiological basis for effects of
controlled and modified atmospheres on fruits and vegetables.
Food Technol 40(5):99–104 (1986).
3 Park HP, Chinnan MS and Shewfelt RL, Edible coating effect
on storage life and quality of tomatoes. J Food Sci 59:568–570
(1994).
4 Taşdelen Ö and Bayındırlı L, Controlled atmosphere storage
and edible coating effects on storage life and quality of
tomatoes. J Food Process Preserv 22:303–320 (1998).
5 Yaman Ö and Bayındırlı L, Effects of edible coating and cold
storage on shelf life and quality of cherries. Lebensm Wiss
Technol 35:146–150 (2002).
6 Howard LR and Dewi T, Sensory, microbiological and chemical
quality of mini-peeled carrots as affected by edible coating
treatment. J Food Sci 60:142–144 (1995).
7 El Ghaouth A, Arul J, Ponnampalam R and Boulet M, Chitosan
coating effect on storability and quality of fresh strawberries.
J Food Sci 56:1618–1620 (1991).
8 Ouattara B, Sabato SF and Lacroix M, Use of gamma-
irradiation technology in combination with edible coating
to produce shelf-stable foods. Radiat Phys Chem 52:81–84
(2002).
9 Avena-Bustillos RJ, Krochta JM and Saltveit ME, Water vapor
resistance of Red Delicious apples and celery sticks coated
1234
with edible caseinate–acetylated monoglyceride films. J Food
Sci 62:351–354 (1997).
10 Lerdthanangkul S and Krochta JM, Edible coating effects
on postharvest quality of green bell peppers. J Food Sci
61:176–179 (1996).
11 Drake SR, Kupferman EM and Felmman JK, Bing sweet cherry
quality as influenced by wax coating and storage temperature.
J Food Sci 53:124–126 (1988).
12 Avena-Bustillos RJ and Krochta JM, Water vapor permeability
of caseinate-based edible films as affected by pH, calcium
crosslinking and lipid content. J Food Sci 58:904–907 (1993).
13 Meilgaard M, Civille VG and Carr TB, Sensory Evaluation
Techniques, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp
202–245 (1991).
14 Özkaya H, Analytical Food Quality Control. Ankara University
Publ House, Ankara, pp 44–60 (1998).
15 McHugh TH, Avena-Bustillos R and Krochta JM, Hydrophilic
edible films: modified procedure for water vapor permeability
and explanation of thickness effects. J Food Sci 58:899–903
(1993).
16 Shellhammer TH and Krochta JM, Whey protein emulsion film
performance as affected by lipid type and amount. J Food Sci
62:390–394 (1997).
17 Park JW, Testin RF, Park HJ, Vergano PJ and Weller CL,
Fatty-acid concentration-effect on tensile-strength, elonga-
tion, and water-vapor permeability of laminated edible films.
J Food Sci 58:916–919 (1994).
18 Cemeroǧlu B, Yemenicioǧlu A and Özkan M, Composition of
Fruits and Vegetables; Cold Storage. Ankara University Publ
House, Ankara, pp 241–243 (2001).
19 Gennadios A, Weller CL and Testin RF, Temperature effect on
oxygen permeability of edible protein-based films. J Food Sci
58:212–214 (1993).
20 Mate JI and Krochta JM, Comparison of oxygen and water
vapor permeability of whey protein isolate and β-lactoglobulin
edible films. J Agric Food Chem 44:3001–3004 (1996).
21 Lim LT, Mine Y and Tung MA, Barrier and tensile properties
of transglutaminase cross-linked gelatin films as affected by
relative humidity, temperature, and glycerol content. J Food
Sci 64:616–622 (1999).
22 Jangchud A and Chinnan MS, Properties of peanut protein film:
sorption isotherm and plasticizer effect. Lebensm Wiss Technol
32:89–94 (1999).
J Sci Food Agric 84:1229–1234 (online: 2004)