490 International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010, 45, 490–495

Original article
Effects of mineral oil coating on internal quality of chicken eggs
under refrigerated storage

Wannita Jirangrat,1 Damir Dennis Torrico,1 June No,1 Hong Kyoon No2 & Witoon Prinyawiwatkul1*
1 Department of Food Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4200, USA
2 Department of Food Science and Technology, Catholic University of Daegu, Hayang 712–702, South Korea
(Received 16 September 2009; Accepted in revised form 27 November 2009)

Summary The selected internal qualities (weight loss, Haugh unit, yolk index, and albumen pH) of noncoated and
mineral oil-coated chicken eggs during 15 weeks of storage at 4 C and ⁄ or during 5 weeks of storage at
25 C were evaluated. Results indicated that, without refrigeration, the noncoated and mineral oil-coated
eggs rapidly changed from AA to C and B grades as measured by Haugh unit, respectively, after 5 weeks of
storage. However, the AA quality of the noncoated eggs could be maintained under refrigerated storage
(4 C) for at least 5 weeks. The mineral oil coating and refrigerated storage (4 C) synergistically minimised
weight loss and preserved the albumen and yolk qualities of chicken eggs during a long-term storage. At
4 C, the mineral oil-coated eggs preserved the initial AA grade for at least 15 weeks with l.19% weight loss.
Keywords Egg, Haugh unit, mineral oil coating, refrigerated storage, shelf life, yolk index.

mineral oil had significantly better quality than non-

Introduction
Eggs provide a unique, well-balanced source of nutri-
ents, including essential unsaturated fatty acids (linoleic
18:2n6), oleic acid, iron, phosphorus, trace minerals,
and vitamins (A, D, E, K and B), for people of all ages
(Watkins, 1995). However, eggs are highly perishable
and their internal quality starts to deteriorate immedi-
ately after they have been laid due to loss of moisture
and carbon dioxide through the 7000–17 000 pores on
the shell surface (Caner & Cansiz, 2008; Kim et al.,
2009). Therefore, a protective barrier against transfer of
moisture and carbon dioxide is needed to preserve the
egg quality.
Many coating materials have been applied on the
surface of egg shells to preserve the internal quality of
eggs, such as chitosan (No et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2006,
2009; Caner & Cansiz, 2008), proteins (Xie et al., 2002;
Rhim et al., 2004; Biladeau & Keener, 2009), and oils
(Kamel et al., 1980; Obanu & Mpieri, 1984; Biladeau &
Keener, 2009). Among these coating materials, mineral
oil makes a great egg shell sealant and is currently used
for coating of commercial table eggs (Stadelman,
1995b). Earlier studies (Stadelman & Wilson, 1958;
Kamel et al., 1980) revealed that eggs coated with
*Correspondent: Fax: +225 578 5300;
e-mail: wprinya@lsu.edu
coated eggs.
Quality changes of eggs during storage are affected by
various factors and one of them could be storage
temperature. To date, there is little information avail-
able on the effect of refrigerated temperature on the
internal quality of eggs coated with mineral oil during a
long-term storage, except for Biladeau & Keener (2009)
who reported that the mineral oil-coated eggs main-
tained AA quality for the entire 12 weeks of refrigerated
storage (7 C) compared with only 4 weeks for the
noncoated eggs. Recently, our research group (Waima-
leongora-Ek et al., 2009) studied quality and shelf-life of
eggs coated with mineral oil with six different viscosities
(7, 11, 14, 18, 22 and 26 mPa s) and stored at 25 C for
5 weeks. We (Waimaleongora-Ek et al., 2009) observed
that mineral oil (26 mPa s viscosity) coating reduced
weight loss of eggs by more than ten times (approxi-
mately 0.85% for coated and 8.78% for noncoated
eggs), and extended the shelf-life of chicken eggs by at
least 3 more weeks compared with the noncoated eggs,
i.e. a shelf life of 5 weeks compared with 2 weeks,
respectively.
Seventy-three billion chicken eggs are produced
annually in the United States; nevertheless, only minute
quantity (0.1%) of these eggs is exported (Biladeau &
Keener, 2009). Increasing the shelf life of eggs, either by
food-grade coating or refrigerated storage, may encour-
age export sales. Thus, further studies on the effects of a

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2009.02150.x
 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation  2010 Institute of Food Science and Technology

long-term refrigerated storage on the internal quality of
mineral oil-coated eggs will certainly provide valuable
information to egg industry as well as consumers.
The objective of the present research was to evaluate
the effect of refrigerated temperature (4 C) on the
selected quality (weight loss, Haugh unit, yolk index,
and albumen pH) of mineral oil-coated eggs during
15 weeks of storage. In our previous work
(Waimaleongora-Ek et al., 2009), eggs coated with
mineral oil (26 mPa s viscosity) maintained the internal
quality up to 5 weeks of storage at 25 C. Therefore,
quality of mineral oil-coated eggs stored at 4 C was
also compared with that at 25 C after 5 weeks of
storage.
Materials and methods
Materials
Mineral oil (viscosity of 26 mPa s) used as a coating
material was obtained from Penreco (Karns City, PA.,
USA). The mineral oil was transparent, odourless and
food grade. Unwashed, faeces-free, white-shell eggs
(from 58-weeks old, Hyline W-36 hens; a weight range
of 50–70 g) were obtained from Cal-Maine Foods
(Jackson, MS, USA). Immediately after collected from
the farm and screened for defects and desirable weight
range, eggs were stored in the cold room (approximately
7 C) before the next day coating. Before coating, eggs
were kept at room temperature (approximately 25 C)
for a couple of hours to avoid water condensation on the
egg surface that could interfere with coating.
Coating treatment and storage of eggs
Eggs were weighed individually, coated with mineral oil
using a sponge brush, wiped to remove excess oil, and
allowed to dry overnight at room temperature. The
noncoated eggs served as the control group. All eggs
were placed in a small-end down position (Kim et al.,
2009) in cardboard egg racks, and stored in a refriger-
ator at 4 C for 15 weeks or at room temperature
(25 ± 2 C) for 5 weeks. Ten eggs per each treatment
were taken at 5-week intervals for determination of
weight loss, Haugh unit, yolk index, and albumen pH.
Determination of weight loss
Weight loss (%) of the coated whole egg during storage
was calculated as {[initial whole egg weight (g) after
coating at day 0 – whole egg weight (g) after stor-
age] ⁄ initial whole egg weight (g) after coating at day
0} · 100. Weight loss (%) of the noncoated whole egg
was calculated as {[initial whole egg weight (g) at day
0 – whole egg weight (g) after storage] ⁄ initial whole egg
weight (g) at day 0} · 100. The weight of whole eggs was
 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation  2010 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Quality of mineral oil-coated eggs W. Jirangrat et al. 491
measured with a balance (TS400S, Ohaus Corp., Flor-
ham Park, NJ, USA). Ten measurements per treatment
were taken. At 4 C storage, the averaged increasing
rate of weight loss (%) was calculated as [(total weight
loss (%) after 15 weeks storage) ⁄ 15 week].
Determination of Haugh unit and yolk index
The height of albumen and yolk was measured with a
tripod micrometer (Model S-6428, B.C. Ames Inc.,
Melrose, MA, USA). The yolk width was measured with
a digital caliper (General Tools & Instruments, New
York, NY, USA). The Haugh unit was calculated as 100
log (H – 1.7 W0.37 + 7.57), where H is the albumen
height (mm) and W is the weight of egg (g) (Haugh,
1937). The yolk index was calculated as yolk height ⁄ yolk
width (Stadelman, 1995a; Lee et al., 1996). At 4 C
storage, the averaged decreasing rate of Haugh unit was
calculated as [(Haugh unit at week 0 – Haugh unit at
week 15) ⁄ 15 week]. Ten measurements per treatment
were taken.
Measurement of albumen pH
After measurement of Haugh unit and yolk index, the
albumen was separated from the yolk. The thin and
thick albumen were mixed thoroughly prior to measur-
ing pH with a pH meter (IQ150, IQ Scientific Instru-
ments, San Diego, CA, USA). Ten measurements per
treatment were taken.
Statistical analysis
For internal quality (weight loss, Haugh unit, yolk
index, and albumen pH) of eggs, experiments were
carried out in ten replicates per each treatment, and
mean ± SD values were reported. Data were analysed
using Analysis of Variance, followed by the Tukey’s
studentised range test (a = 0.05) using the statistical
analysis software (SAS, 2003). Relationships between
weight loss and storage time and between Haugh unit
and storage time were established by a linear regression
model along with the R2 value. Pearson correlation
coefficients (r) among weight loss, Haugh unit, yolk
index, and albumen pH were calculated.
Results and discussion
Effects of mineral oil coating and storage temperature on
weight loss
Changes in weight loss of the control noncoated and
mineral oil-coated eggs during 15 weeks of storage at
4 C are presented in Table 1. Overall, the weight loss
significantly increased with increased storage periods;
however, mineral oil coating markedly reduced the
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010
492 Quality of mineral oil-coated eggs W. Jirangrat et al.

Table 1 Internal quality* of mineral oil-coated eggs during 15 weeks of storage at 4 C compared with 5 weeks of storage at 25 C

4 °C 25 °C

†
Quality Treatment 0 week 5 weeks 10 weeks 15 weeks 5 weeks

Weight loss (%) Control – 4.11 ± 0.29Ca 8.71 ± 0.64Ba 12.44 ± 1.18Aa 9.23 ± 1.64Ba
MO – 0.51 ± 0.12Cb 0.54 ± 0.18Cb 1.19 ± 0.35Ab 0.85 ± 0.23Bb
Haugh unit Control 84.12 ± 4.52A 77.96 ± 3.84Ba 67.56 ± 2.89Ca 62.90 ± 4.53Cb 20.13 ± 6.69Db
MO 84.12 ± 4.52A 80.85 ± 3.05ABa 76.02 ± 2.66BCa 74.44 ± 2.53Ca 55.80 ± 5.95Da
Egg grade Control AAà AA A A C
MO AAà AA AA AA B
Yolk index Control 0.47 ± 0.01A 0.47 ± 0.04Aa 0.44 ± 0.01Aa 0.41 ± 0.02Bb 0.21 ± 0.03Cb
MO 0.47 ± 0.01A 0.47 ± 0.02Aa 0.46 ± 0.02ABa 0.43 ± 0.02Ba 0.37 ± 0.03Ca
Albumen pH Control 8.71 ± 0.10D 9.33 ± 0.08Ba 9.00 ± 0.04Ca 8.53 ± 0.04Ea 9.42 ± 0.05Aa
MO 8.71 ± 0.10A 8.49 ± 0.07Bb 8.30 ± 0.06Cb 7.96 ± 0.09Db 8.64 ± 0.12Ab

A–E
Means with different uppercase superscripts within each row indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
a–b
Means with different lowercase superscripts within a column for each quality indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).
*Means ± SD of ten measurements.
†
Control = noncoated eggs; MO = mineral oil-coated eggs.
à
Egg grade based on the Haugh unit value: AA > 72; 60 £ A £ 72; 31 £ B £ 59 and C £ 30.

weight loss of eggs compared with that of the noncoated
eggs, as also observed by previous workers (Kamel
et al., 1980; Waimaleongora-Ek et al., 2009). After
15 weeks of storage, the weight loss of noncoated and
mineral oil-coated eggs was 12.44% and 1.19%, respec-
tively. Since the weight loss of both noncoated and
mineral oil-coated eggs linearly increased (R2 > 0.9)
with storage time at 4 C (Fig. 1), the averaged increas-
ing rate of weight loss (%) was calculated to be 0.829%
and 0.079% per week, respectively, for the noncoated
and mineral oil-coated eggs.
Refrigerated storage (4 C) inserted a significant effect
in minimising the weight loss of eggs (Table 1). For
example, the weight loss (8.71%) of noncoated eggs
after 10 weeks of storage at 4 C was slightly lower (not
14
12
10
Weight loss
significant) than that (9.23%) of noncoated eggs after
5 weeks of storage at 25 C. The synergistic effect of
mineral oil coating and refrigerated storage was also
observed (Table 1). For example, the weight loss
(0.54%) of mineral oil-coated eggs even after 10 weeks
of storage at 4 C was significantly lower than that
(0.85%) of mineral oil-coated eggs after 5 weeks of
storage at 25 C. Compared with the noncoated eggs,
the mineral oil coating effectively reduced the weight
loss of eggs by at least ten times after 15 weeks at 4 C
(1.19% for coated and 12.44% for noncoated eggs) or
after 5 weeks at 25 C (0.85% for coated and 9.23% for
noncoated eggs) (Table 1). The latter was also observed
by Waimaleongora-Ek et al. (2009).
Jones & Musgrove (2005) reported that the weight
loss of noncoated eggs after 10 weeks of storage at 4 C
was 6.6%. This value is slightly lower than that (8.71%)
observed in this study with noncoated eggs after
10 weeks of storage at 4 C. Kamel et al. (1980)
reported that the total weight loss of mineral oil-coated
eggs after 33 days was 0.5% and 3.5% at 5 C and
25 C, respectively. In the present study, the weight loss

8 of mineral oil-coated eggs after 5 weeks was 0.51% and

6
0.85% at 4 C and 25 C, respectively (Table 1). Wong
et al. (1996) reported that the weight loss of noncoated
4 and mineral oil-coated eggs after 4 weeks of storage at
room temperature was 11.1% and 9.2%, respectively.
2 These values, especially the latter one, are much higher
0
than those (9.23% and 0.85%, respectively) observed
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 after 5 weeks of storage at 25 C in our present study
(Table 1). Discrepancies in observed weight loss of
Storage time (week)
noncoated or mineral oil-coated eggs among our present
Figure 1 Relationships between weight loss (%) and storage time study and other previous studies are likely due to
(week) of the control noncoated (C) and mineral oil-coated (MO) eggs differences in mineral oil products used and their
during 15 weeks of storage at 4 C. physicochemical properties, initial egg quality (egg

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010,  2010 The Authors. Journal compilation  2010 Institute of Food Science and Technology

Table 2 Pearson correlation coefficients (r) among internal qualities of
noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs during 15 weeks of storage at
4 C
Weight Haugh Yolk
loss (%) unit index
Noncoated
Weight loss (%) 1.00 )0.92** )0.58**
Haugh unit 1.00 0.43**
Yolk index 1.00
Albumen pH
Oil-coated
Weight loss (%) 1.00 )0.61** )0.43**
Haugh unit 1.00 0.28
Yolk index 1.00
Albumen pH
**Significant at P < 0.01 for the null hypothesis (Ho): r = zero.
grade, Haugh unit, yolk index), and egg size (Mueller,
1958, 1959) as well as storage conditions.
Based on the correlation matrix of four internal
quality parameters (weight loss, Haugh unit, yolk index
and albumen pH) in Table 2, the increasing weight loss
of egg was negatively related with the decreasing Haugh
unit, yolk index and albumen pH. Weight loss of eggs
during storage is caused mainly by the evaporation of
water and, to a lesser extent, by loss of carbon dioxide
from the albumen through the shell (Obanu & Mpieri,
1984; Stadelman, 1995b). Loss of carbon dioxide, in
turn, affects Haugh unit, yolk index and albumen pH.
According to FAO (2003), a weight loss of 2–3% is
common in marketing eggs and is hardly noticeable to
consumers. A weight loss of 1.19% (Table 1) was
observed with mineral oil-coated eggs after 15 weeks
of storage at 4 C. This study, thus, demonstrated that
both mineral oil coating and refrigerated storage at 4 C
were synergistically effective in minimising weight loss of
eggs during a long-term storage.
Effects of mineral oil coating and storage temperature on
Haugh unit
Changes in the Haugh unit of the control noncoated and
mineral oil-coated eggs during 15 weeks of storage at
4 C and during 5 weeks of storage at 25 C are shown
in Table 1. Overall, the Haugh unit significantly
decreased with increased storage periods; however, this
decrease progressed at a much slower rate for mineral
oil-coated eggs (Fig. 2). After 15 weeks of storage at
4 C, the Haugh unit of noncoated and mineral oil-
coated eggs decreased from the initial value of 84.12 to
62.90 and 74.44, respectively. Since the Haugh unit of
both noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs linearly
decreased (R2 > 0.9) with storage time at 4 C (Fig. 2),
the averaged decreasing rate of Haugh unit was calcu-
 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation  2010 Institute of Food Science and Technology
Quality of mineral oil-coated eggs W. Jirangrat et al. 493
90
80
70
Albumen 60
Haugh units
pH
50
40
)0.30
0.26 30
0.50** 20
1.00
10
)0.85** 0
0.68** 0 5 10 15 20
0.42** Storage time (week)
1.00
Figure 2 Relationships between Haugh units and storage time (week)
of the control noncoated (C) and mineral oil-coated (MO) eggs during
15 weeks of storage at 4 C.
lated to be 1.415 and 0.645 per week, respectively, for
the noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs.
Mineral oil coating was effective in preserving the
albumen quality of eggs at 25 C. The Haugh unit of
noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs dropped from
the initial value of 84.12 to 20.13 and 55.80, respectively,
after 5 weeks of storage at 25 C (Table 1). As with the
mineral oil coating, refrigerated storage (4 C) also
inserted a significant effect in preserving the albumen
quality. After 5 weeks of storage, the Haugh unit of the
noncoated eggs was at least 3.5 times higher when stored
at 4 C compared with that at 25 C. The synergistic
effect of mineral oil coating and refrigerated storage
(4 C) in preserving the albumen quality was obvious
after 15 weeks of storage.
Eggs can be classified into four grades based on the
Haugh unit: AA (above 72), A (72–60), B (59–31), and C
(below 30) grades (Lee et al., 1996). The higher the
Haugh unit value, the better the albumen quality of
eggs. Table 1 shows changes in classified egg grade
during 15 weeks of storage at 4 C and during 5 weeks
of storage at 25 C. The grade generally decreased with
increasing storage time; however, the pattern differed
depending on the storage temperature. At 4 C, the
noncoated eggs changed from the AA to A grade after
10 weeks; this A grade remained until the end of
15 weeks of storage (Table 1). In contrast, the mineral
oil-coated eggs preserved the initial AA grade for the
entire 15 weeks of storage at 4 C. Biladeau & Keener
(2009) similarly observed that mineral oil-coated eggs
maintained AA grade for the entire 12 weeks of storage
at 7 C. The noncoated eggs maintained the initial AA
grade for 5 weeks when stored at 4 C (Jones et al.,
2002; Jones & Musgrove, 2005) and for 4 weeks at 7 C
(Biladeau & Keener, 2009). At 25 C, the grade of
noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs rapidly decreased
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010
494 Quality of mineral oil-coated eggs W. Jirangrat et al.
from AA to C and B, respectively, after 5 weeks
(Table 1). Since the noncoated eggs were inappropriate
for consumption after 5 weeks of storage at 25 C, no
further measurements were made.
Based on the collective data of weight loss, Haugh
unit and egg grade (Table 1), it can be concluded that
mineral oil coating and refrigerated storage (4 C)
synergistically minimised weight loss and preserved the
albumen quality of chicken eggs during a long-term
storage. At 4 C, the mineral oil-coated eggs preserved
the initial AA grade for at least 15 weeks with only
1.19% weight loss.
Effects of mineral oil coating and storage temperature on
yolk index
Yolk index is used to evaluate the degree of freshness of
eggs (Stadelman, 1995a). A decrease in a yolk index
value during storage indicates a progressive weakening
of the vitelline membranes and liquefaction of the yolk
caused mainly by diffusion of water from the albumen
(Obanu & Mpieri, 1984). Changes in yolk index values
of the control noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs
during 15 weeks of storage at 4 C and during 5 weeks
of storage at 25 C are shown in Table 1. Overall, the
yolk index values gradually decreased with increased
storage periods.
The effect of mineral oil coating in preserving the egg
yolk quality was more pronounced at 25 C, where the
yolk index value (0.37) of the mineral oil-coated eggs
was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than that (0.21) of
the noncoated eggs after 5 weeks of storage. At 4 C,
significant difference in the yolk index values between
noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs was not observed
until after 10 weeks of storage (Table 1). Refrigerated
storage (4 C) also inserted a significant effect in
preserving the yolk quality of chicken eggs. The yolk
index values of both noncoated and mineral oil-coated
eggs after 15 weeks of storage at 4 C were higher than
those after 5 weeks at 25 C.
Effects of mineral oil coating and storage temperature on
albumen pH
The albumen pH can be used to determine freshness of
egg albumen (Scott & Silversides, 2000). Freshly laid
eggs contain 1.44–2.05 mg CO2 g)1 of albumen (Keener
et al., 2001; Biladeau & Keener, 2009) and have the
albumen pH value of 7.6–8.5 (Goodwin et al., 1962;
Rhim et al., 2004). During storage, the loss of carbon
dioxide from eggs through the eggshell pores results in
an increase in albumen pH value to 9.6 (Knight et al.,
1972; Heath, 1977; Li-Chan et al., 1995; Kemps et al.,
2007). In contrast, egg yolks have a pH range of 6.0–6.5
that was relatively constant during storage (Caner,
2005).
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010,
Changes in the albumen pH of noncoated and mineral
oil-coated eggs during 15 weeks of storage at 4 C were
dissimilar as shown in Table 1. The albumen pH of
noncoated eggs increased from the initial value of 8.71
to 9.33 after 5 weeks and then continuously decreased to
8.53 after 15 weeks of storage. On the other hand, the
albumen pH of mineral oil-coated eggs gradually
decreased from 8.71 to 7.96 after 15 weeks of storage.
Biladeau & Keener (2009) observed that the pH of
mineral oil-coated eggs decreased from an initial value
of 8.35 to 7.96 after 12 weeks of storage at 7 C. The
decrease in albumen pH may be due to the continuing
breakdown of the constituents of the egg white and ⁄ or a
change in the bicarbonate buffer system (Sharp &
Powell, 1931; Obanu & Mpieri, 1984; Biladeau &
Keener, 2009).
At 25 C, the albumen pH of noncoated eggs mark-
edly increased from 8.71 to 9.42 (P < 0.05) while that
of mineral oil-coated eggs slightly decreased (but not
significant, P ‡ 0.05) from 8.71 to 8.64 after 5 weeks of
storage. At a given storage period, the albumen pH of
mineral oil-coated eggs was significantly (P < 0.05)
lower than that of noncoated eggs, regardless of the
storage temperature. These results implied that mineral
oil coating may retard a loss of carbon dioxide through
shell pores by acting as a good gas barrier.
Sharp & Powell (1931) observed that the albumen pH
of noncoated eggs increased from the initial value of 7.6
to 8.95–9.49 after 94 days of storage regardless of
storage temperature between 3 C and 25 C. Kamel
et al. (1980) reported that the albumen pH of noncoated
eggs increased from the initial value of 8.64 to 9.29 and
9.51 after 33 days of storage at 5 C and 25 C,
respectively. These pH values are comparable to those
(9.33 and 9.42, respectively) observed for noncoated
eggs after 5 weeks of storage at 4 C and 25 C in our
present study (Table 1). However, differences in initial
egg quality, egg size, and storage conditions (tempera-
ture and period) may affect albumen pH before and
after storage (Mueller, 1958; Goodwin et al., 1962;
Sabrani & Payne, 1978; Scott & Silversides, 2000;
Silversides & Scott, 2001).
Conclusions
This study indicated that, without refrigeration, the
noncoated and mineral oil-coated eggs rapidly changed
from AA to C and B grades as measured by Haugh unit,
respectively, after 5 weeks of storage. However, the AA
quality of noncoated eggs can be maintained under
refrigerated storage (4 C) for at least 5 weeks. The
mineral oil coating and refrigerated storage (4 C)
synergistically minimised weight loss and preserved the
albumen and yolk quality of chicken eggs during a long-
term storage. At 4 C, the mineral oil-coated eggs
preserved the initial AA grade for at least 15 weeks
 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation  2010 Institute of Food Science and Technology
 Quality of mineral oil-coated eggs W. Jirangrat et al. 495

with less than 2% weight loss. There were no observed Knight, D.W., Bowrey, M. & Cooke, D.J. (1972). The preservation of
black spots or moulds on the egg surface during the internal egg quality using silicone fluids. British Poultry Science, 13,
587–593.
long-term storage. This information will be valuable to Lee, S.H., No, H.K. & Jeong, Y.H. (1996). Effect of chitosan coating
egg industries for the purpose of egg sales export. on quality of egg during storage. Journal of the Korean Society of
Further long-term storage studies are needed with Food and Nutrition, 25, 288–293.
different initial egg qualities and egg sizes since the Li-Chan, E.C.Y., Powrie, W.D. & Nakai, S. (1995). The chemistry of
eggs and egg products. In: Egg Science and Technology, 4th edn
quality and shelf life of eggs may vary depending on the (edited by W.J. Stadelman & O.J. Cotterill). Pp. 105–175. New
initial egg qualities, particularly Haugh units, and egg York: Food Products Press.
size under refrigerated temperature. Further studies are Mueller, W.J. (1958). Shell porosity of chicken eggs. Poultry Science,
also needed under realistic commercial scale conditions 37, 437–444.
as conditions used in a large-scale commercial egg Mueller, W.J. (1959). Factors affecting the quality loss in egg albumen
during storage. Poultry Science, 38, 843–846.
production will, in all likelihood, vary from those based No, H.K., Prinyawiwatkul, W. & Meyers, S.P. (2005). Comparison of
on laboratory-scale trials. shelf life of eggs coated with chitosans prepared under various
deproteinization and demineralization times. Journal of Food
Science, 70, S377–S382.
References Obanu, Z.A. & Mpieri, A.A. (1984). Efficiency of dietary vegetable oils
in preserving the quality of shell eggs under ambient tropical
Biladeau, A.M. & Keener, K.M. (2009). The effects of edible coatings
conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 35, 1311–
on chicken egg quality under refrigerated storage. Poultry Science,
1317.
88, 1266–1274.
Rhim, J.W., Weller, C.L. & Gennadios, A. (2004). Effects of soy
Caner, C. (2005). The effect of edible eggshell coatings on egg quality
protein coating on shell strength and quality of shell eggs. Food
and consumer perception. Journal of the Science of Food and
Science and Biotechnology, 13, 455–459.
Agriculture, 85, 1897–1902.
Sabrani, M. & Payne, G.G. (1978). Effect of oiling on internal quality
Caner, C. & Cansiz, Ö. (2008). Chitosan coating minimises eggshell
of eggs stored at 28 and 12 C. British Poultry Science, 19, 567–571.
breakage and improves egg quality. Journal of the Science of Food
SAS (2003). SAS ⁄ STAT User’s Guide, Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS
and Agriculture, 88, 56–61.
Institute Inc.
FAO (2003). Egg marketing – a guide for the production and sale of
Scott, T.A. & Silversides, F.G. (2000). The effect of storage and strain
eggs. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 150.
of hen on egg quality. Poultry Science, 79, 1725–1729.
Goodwin, T.L., Wilson, M.L. & Stadelman, W.J. (1962). Effects of
Sharp, P.F. & Powell, C.K. (1931). Increase in the pH of the white and
oiling time, storage position, and storage time on the condition of
yolk of hens’ eggs. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 23, 196–199.
shell eggs. Poultry Science, 41, 840–844.
Silversides, F.G. & Scott, T.A. (2001). Effect of storage and layer age
Haugh, R.R. (1937). The Haugh unit for measuring egg quality. US
on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poultry Science, 80, 1240–
Poultry Magazine, 43, 522–525, 572–573.
1245.
Heath, J.L. (1977). Chemical related osmotic changes in egg albumen
Stadelman, W.J. (1995a). Quality identification of shell eggs. In: Egg
during storage. Poultry Science, 56, 822–828.
Science and Technology, 4th edn (edited by W.J. Stadelman & O.J.
Jones, D.R. & Musgrove, M.T. (2005). Effects of extended storage on
Cotterill). Pp. 37–65. New York: Food Products Press.
egg quality factors. Poultry Science, 84, 1774–1777.
Stadelman, W.J. (1995b). The preservation of quality in shell eggs. in:
Jones, D.R., Tharrington, J.B., Curtis, P.A., Anderson, K.E., Keener,
Egg Science and Technology, 4th edn (edited by W.J. Stadelman &
K.M. & Jones, F.T. (2002). Effects of cryogenic cooling of shell eggs
O.J. Cotterill). Pp. 67–79. New York: Food Products Press.
on egg quality. Poultry Science, 81, 727–733.
Stadelman, W.J. & Wilson, M.L. (1958). An oil dispensing aerosol for
Kamel, B., Bond, C. & Diab, M. (1980). Egg quality as affected by
quality preservation of shell eggs. Poultry Science, 37, 731–733.
storage and handling methods. Journal of Food Quality, 3, 261–273.
Waimaleongora-Ek, P., Garcia, K., No, H.K., Prinyawiwatkul, W. &
Keener, K.M., LaCrosse, J.D. & Babson, J.K. (2001). Chemical
Ingram, D. (2009). Selected quality and shelf-life of eggs coated with
method for determination of carbon dioxide content in egg yolk and
mineral oil with different viscosities. Journal of Food Science, 74,
egg albumen. Poultry Science, 80, 983–987.
S423–S429.
Kemps, B.J., De Ketelaere, B., Bamelis, F.R. et al. (2007). Albumen
Watkins, B.A. (1995). The nutritive value of the egg. In: Egg Science
freshness assessment by combining visible near-infrared transmis-
and Technology, 4th edn (edited by W.J. Stadelman & O.J. Cotterill).
sion and low-resolution proton nuclear magnetic resonance spec-
Pp. 177–194. New York: Food Products Press.
troscopy. Poultry Science, 86, 752–759.
Wong, Y.C., Herald, T.J. & Hachmeister, K.A. (1996). Evaluation of
Kim, S.H., No, H.K., Kim, S.D. & Prinyawiwatkul, W. (2006). Effect
mechanical and barrier properties of protein coating on shell eggs.
of plasticizer concentration and solvent types on shelf-life of eggs
Poultry Science, 75, 417–422.
coated with chitosan. Journal of Food Science, 71, S349–S353.
Xie, L., Hettiarachchy, N.S., Ju, Z.Y. et al. (2002). Edible film coating
Kim, S.H., Youn, D.K., No, H.K., Choi, S.W. & Prinyawiwatkul, W.
to minimize eggshell breakage and reduce post-wash bacterial
(2009). Effect of chitosan coating and storage position on quality
contamination measured by dye penetration in eggs. Journal of
and shelf life of eggs. International Journal of Food Science and
Food Science, 67, 280–284.
Technology, 44, 1351–1359.

 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation  2010 Institute of Food Science and Technology International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2010