Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement: Food
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meafoo

Edible composite bi-layer coating based on whey protein isolate, xanthan

gum and clove oil for prolonging shelf life of tomatoes
Ashish Kumar, Charanjiv Singh Saini∗
Department of Food Engineering and Technology, Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology (SLIET), Longowal, Sangrur, Punjab148106, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Coatings plays an imperative role in increasing shelf life of fruit and have potential to minimize postharvest
Firmness losses. In this study, impact of coating formulated from whey protein isolate, xanthan gum, clove oil and glycerol
Acidity monostearate on tomato was evaluated. The tomatoes were divided in six groups and coated by dipping technique.
Plasticizer
Non-coated and differently treated tomatoes were evaluated under controlled environmental conditions (20 °C
Quality
and 85% RH). The effectiveness of coatings on different quality attributes was investigated at time interval of
Postharvest
3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 days of storage. Storage life of coated samples exhibited improvement in firmness and color.
The titrable acidity, ascorbic acid content, total phenolics content, total sugars and reducing sugars showed
better retention in coated samples than non-coated sample. The results depicted that all formulated coatings
have potential to maintain quality characteristics and increase the shelf life of tomatoes. The coatings made from
whey protein isolate and xanthan gum in equal proportion exhibited best combination among all the coating as
maximum quality attributes were retained by this coating because of inhibiting respiration and minimize starch
conversion into sugar. Therefore, coatings were proven to be feasible for application due to edible, non-reactive
and biodegradable nature.

Introduction obstructing transmission of gas, reducing loss of moisture and aroma,

deferring color variations, and improving the general appearance of the
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is climacteric crop belonging to the product during storage [7]. A variety of materials is used to prepare coat-
Solanaceae family. It has comparatively shorter postharvest life since ings. They are extracted from animals and plants e.g. lipids, polysaccha-
numerous physical and biological factors such as transpiration, produc- rides and proteins [8]. The added benefit exhibited by edible coatings
tion rate of ethylene and senescence come afterwards harvesting [1]. is that they are natural products and not chemically synthesized [9].
The primary aspects correlated to tomato deterioration in tropical area Protein based coatings hold finer moisture barrier and mechanical
is high temperature, upsurged respiration which leads to rapid ripen- characteristics than polysaccharide-based coatings [10]. Due to out-
ing and detrimental effect on quality of fruit [2]. Normally, ripening standing carbon dioxide, oxygen, and lipid barrier characteristics, whey
in tomato fruit is regulated by use of gas, temperature and control of protein makes superior coatings and grasp unique properties like pro-
humidity [3]. Storage at low temperature is responsible for retention of tection against moisture and loss of aroma. Xanthan gum is a vital ex-
freshness and extension of storage life as it decreases the respiration rate opolysaccharide developed by Xanthomonas campestris in controlled
and decomposition. Nevertheless, injury by chilling may affect the fruit conditions. Xanthan gum provides texture, viscosity, release of flavor,
quality if storage temperature is under 12 °C [1]. Cold storage in partial appearance and water regulating properties which food products require
vacuum extends storage life of tomatoes but this is expensive to run [4]. these nowadays [11]. In addition to these properties, xanthan gum acts
Therefore, affordable substitute is essential for both prolonging posthar- as emulsifier which ameliorates final product’s rheology by its pseudo
vest life and keeping costs of production low, hence consequently the plastic nature in solutions and as a result of more Newtonian features
probability of using edible coatings is more [5]. [12]. Also, plasticizers have capability to position itself in the middle
The coating material is composed of thin layer of edible material, of polymer molecule and interfere with polymer-polymer interaction
which can be put in application precisely on the epidermis of food prod- to improve flexibility and workability. Primarily, plasticizers escalate
uct [6]. Edible coating applied on whole fruit or minimally processed the free space of polymer molecules. Montes and Munoz [13] showed
fruits comprises of the application of layer of material on the epidermis that incorporation of additives into these edible coatings increases their
of a fruit with the motive of providing it with a modified atmosphere, effectiveness, for example, essential oils and their constituents exhibits

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.S. Saini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meafoo.2021.100005
Received 29 June 2021; Received in revised form 2 September 2021; Accepted 3 September 2021
2772-2759/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

antimicrobials, antiviral and free radicals scavenging features have been Table 1
proven. Several categories of antimicrobials plant essential oils are used Ratio of coating formulations in tomatoes.
like cinnamon, clove and lemongrass oil. The foremost aim of involve- Coatings Whey protein isolate : Xanthan Gum
ment of oils and their constituents into edible coatings is to use their an-
Non-coated 0 : 0
tioxidant and antimicrobial capacity to aid in the preservation of fresh
TC1 1 : 0
and fresh-cut horticultural commodities and by deferring their storage TC2 3 : 1
life [14]. In clove oil, eugenol compound is main component responsi- TC3 1 : 1
ble for curative properties which impede E. coli 0157:H7 from thriving TC4 1 : 3
TC5 0 : 1
[15]. However, the clove is used commercially to make clove oil, which
has active ingredients that have antioxidant, antifungal, antiviral, anti-
diabetic, anti-inflammatory, antithrombotic, anesthetic, pain-relieving,
and insect repellent qualities [16]. Application of coatings on tomatoes
In the present evaluation, the objective was to study the effective-
ness of coatings composed of whey protein isolate in combination with The tomatoes were gently washed with tap water to detach any dust
xanthan gum and clove oil on postharvest life of tomato while sustaining residues and soil. The samples were then immersed in 0.1% sodium
its physiochemical attributes. hypochlorite solution for 10 min. Tomatoes were then dried at room
temperature. Tomatoes were coated with the help of dipping method.
Methods and materials The coating was accomplished on the same day, taken as day zero.
Two coats were applied on the fruit with drying after an interval of
Whey protein isolate used in the study was procured from Ripped 20 min. Fruits dipped in distilled water and surface dried were taken as
Foods, Chanalon, Mohali, India. The protein content in whey protein non-coated samples. The attributes were studied from day 0 until both
isolate was 87.95%. Xanthan gum was procured from Hi Media Labo- the non-coated and coated fruits were regarded unfit for consumption.
ratories, Mumbai, whereas clove oil used was procured from Longowal, Tomatoes were divided into six groups as control, TC1 (Tomato Coat-
Sangrur, India. All other chemicals, solvents such as sodium hypochlo- ing 1), TC2 (Tomato Coating 2), TC3 (Tomato Coating 3), TC4 (Tomato
rite and glycerol monosterate were of analytical grade obtained from Coating 4) and TC5 (Tomato Coating 5) as presented in Table 1. After
Merck. coatings, tomatoes were air dried at ambient temperature. Both coated
Freshly harvested tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) samples (variety and non-coated fruits were stored in environmental chamber under con-
Punjab Ratta) were procured from Longowal, Sangrur, India. Fresh trolled environmental conditions of 20 °C temperature and 85% RH.
tomatoes were selected of equal size, disease free, absence of blemishes
and of uniform color for experiment. Maturity indices for assessing har- Physiological and chemical analysis
vest time of tomato is a combination of fruit age of tomato, diameter and
color, because these are associated significantly with physicochemical Weight loss, firmness and color values
and nutritional characteristics. The tomatoes were transported to lab-
oratory within one hour. All materials including surfaces and utensils The tomatoes of each treatment were weighed at the starting and
which are in contact with tomatoes were previously sanitized. subsequently at 0, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th and 15th day of experiment with
digital balance. The loss in weight was calculated as difference between
Formulations of coating solutions initial and final weight of sole fruit, divided by starting mass. The cu-
mulative weight loss was reported in percentage [19]. Tomato firmness
Whey protein isolate (WPI) solution used in the evaluation was (5%, was measured using a Texture Profile Analyzer (TA-XT2i, Stable Mi-
w/v or 5g/100 ml) prepared in distilled water and pH was adjusted to crosystems, Godalming, England) with (P/5) probe. Pre-test speed was
9. Whey protein isolate solution was prepared according to method em- 2 mm/s and post-test speed was 20 mm/s. Flesh firmness was reported
ployed by Duan et al. [17]. The denaturation was carried out at 65 °C by a mean force (N). Colour assessments of tomatoes in terms of L∗ , a∗ ,
for 20 min on magnetic stirrer and then cooled at 25 °C. Xanthan gum b∗ values were carried out using a Hunter colorimeter Model D25 opti-
(XG) (on protein isolate basis 1% w/v or 1 g/100 ml) was used to pro- cal Sensor (Hunter Associates Laboratory Inc., Reston, VA, USA). More-
vide stability and consistency prepared by the method described by [1]. over, hue (overall intensity to how light or dark a color) and chroma
Actually, it develops a highly viscous solution in hot or cold water at (strength or dominance of the hue) were measured by given equations
low concentration with excellent stability over a varying range of tem- Eq. 1, Eq. 2 [20].
perature and pH. Glycerol monostearate (GMS) (on protein basis 2%
Hue angle(h ∗) = tan−1 (b ∗ ∕a ∗) (1)
w/v or 2g/100 ml) was added to all the solutions as plasticizer agent. It
increases the free volume of polymer structure. Clove oil (CO) 2 ml was
√
incorporated to all the solutions for protection against microorganisms. Chroma(C ∗) = 𝑎∗2 + 𝑏∗2 (2)
The coating techniques were chosen based on preliminary experiments
to ensure coating adhesion and steadiness of coatings. Total soluble solids (TSS), titrable acidity (TA), pH and ascorbic acid
These coating solution formulations (WPI, XG, GMS, CO) were com-
bined in different combinations for preparation of edible coatings ac- TSS content was analysed as Brix with digital refractometer (Model.
cording to procedure similar to Murmu and Mishra [18]. The first and PR-32 𝛼, Atago Co., Ltd. Japan) calibrated with distilled water. The
foremost step was to make solutions in sufficient amount to achieve titrable acidity was assessed by titrating samples with solution of 0.1 N
different combinations. For this, whey protein isolate was dissolved in NaOH. The results were reported as percentage of citric acid Eq. 3 [21].
distilled water and kept at magnetic stirrer at 65 °C for 20 min. Xanthan
gum was dissolved in distilled water and kept at 40 °C for 90 min on
Titre × N of alkali × Equivalent weight of acid × 100
magnetic stirrer’s hot plate as procedure adopted by Murmu and Mishra Titrable acidity(%) =
Volume of sample × 1000
[18]. Clove oil and Glycerol Monostearate were added later on. The fol-
(3)
lowing six formulations of coatings were prepared as shown in Table 1.
In control (non-coated) samples, clove oil and glycerol monostearate Acid factor of citric acid is 0.0064. pH of tomato was measured us-
were not added. After different combinations were prepared, the solu- ing a digital pH meter (Hanna Instruments Inc., Romania), by direct
tion was stirred on a magnetic stirrer for 30 min for uniform mixing. immersion of electrode, respectively. Ascorbic acid content (mg/100 g)

2
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

of tomato samples were determined with 2–6 Dichlorophenolindophe- 12.0, TIBCO, New York, USA) was used to evaluate data by analysis
nol (DCPIP) visual titration method [22]. DCPIP dye, which appears of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple range test was employed
to be blue in alkaline solution, is transformed by ascorbic acid to a to evaluate significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.
colourless form. 10 g of tomato sample was initially blended with 3%
metaphosphoric acid to make volume 100 ml. Then, 5 mL of that extract Results and discussion
of tomato samples was titrated with Dichlorophenolindophenol dye to
a pink colour end point. The ascorbic acid content was evaluated using Weight loss
dye factor, determined by the titration of standard ascorbic acid solution
with Dichlorophenolindophenol dye Eq. 4.
Titre × Volume made up × 100 × Dye factor
mg of ascorbic acid∕100 ml = (4)
Aliquot of extract taken for estimation × Volume of sample

Total sugars, reducing sugars, total phenolic content and total flavonoid The principal shortcomings in tomato fruit is rapid weight loss during
content storage, which ultimately leads to decrease in storage life [27]. Weight
loss also indicates freshness of fruits [28]. Weight loss increased during
Total sugars (%) and reducing sugars (%) of tomatoes were eval- storage in all samples as expected (Table 2). In all the fruits, weight loss
uated according to Lane and Eynon method [22]. Total phenols were increased with storage. The weight reduction and softening of tomato
evaluated in tomatoes spectrophotometrically using standardized tech- fruit are closely related to the water loss, which leads to loss of crisp-
nique by application of Folin- Ciocalteu reagent with gallic acid as a ness of fresh fruit. The percentage increase in weight loss was highest for
standard [23]. 5 mg sample of tomato was grounded in tissue homoge- non-coated samples (10.34%) on 15th day of storage. Among the coated
nizer and then diluted in 20 ml of methanol and lasted on the hot water tomato samples, the lowest percentage weight loss was observed for TC3
bath for 24 h for extract preparation. 50 𝜇L of tomato extract were in- (9.13%) sample. The trend was perpetual. Furthermore, in comparison
corporated to 3 ml of deionized water plus 250 𝜇L of Folin- Ciocalteu to control and coated samples, upsurge in loss of weight was reported
reagent (1N). After a five min of reaction time, 750 𝜇L of 20% Na2 CO3 maximum in TC2 and minimum in TC3 samples. This may be owing
solution was added. The mixture was increased to 5 ml by adding deion- to good barrier characteristics of coating made from whey protein iso-
ized water. The phenols were measured in spectrophotometer (UV-2100 late, xanthan gum and clove oil. Moreover, these coatings led to reduced
UV/VIS Spectrophotometer, USA) at 760 nm after a 30 min incubation weight loss in tomato due to enhanced atmosphere around fruit surface
time. The results were expressed as mg GAE/ g. Total flavonoid content and surrounding transpiration phenomena, which is examined by gra-
was determined by using method of Behbahani et al. [24] with improve- dient of water vapour pressure between the fruit and the surrounding
ment. Extraction from 5 g of the sample was done using 50 ml methanol. air is actually accountable for the loss of mass in fruits [29]. The epider-
The reaction mixture consisted of 0.5 ml of methanol extracts of tomato mal cell layer and cuticle layer are helpful in reduction of transpiration
pulp and 1 ml of 2% aluminium chloride solution in methanol and kept [30]. Although, coating of fruits minimized the transpiration owing to
for 15 min at normal room temperature. The absorbance was carried coating formation on the surface of fruit, which completely or partially
out in spectrophotometer (UV-2100 UV/VIS Spectrophotometer, USA) covers the stomata, lenticels and micro pores resulting in formation of
at 430 nm against methanol as blank. semipermeable barrier to the gas exchange and eventually transpiration
decreases [31]. All coated samples showed effective reduction in loss
Total plate count of mass in contrast to non-coated samples. Similar trend was noticed in
case of other coated fruits such as tomatoes [32] and strawberries [33].
Total plate count was carried for microbiological analysis of coated
and non-coated tomato samples during 15 days of storage by using pour Total soluble solids (TSS)
plate method and plate count agar (PCA) (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany)
as medium. The plates were incubated at 35 °C for 2 days. The microbi- Predominantly, there was gradual increase in total soluble solids in
ological analysis was carried out in triplicate and results were indicated both coated and non-coated tomato samples. The TSS was particularly
as log10 colony forming units per grams (log10 CFU/g) [25]. higher in non-coated fruits as it is indicative of fruit maturity. The coated
tomatoes exhibited significantly lesser increase in TSS during storage pe-
Decay percentage riod of 15 days (Table 2). TSS increased in all the samples at 15th day of
storage. The TC1 coating showed better results among all coated samples
To assess the effect of coatings on tomato samples in the posthar- as lesser increase in TSS was seen during storage life. TC1 coating sig-
vest storage, decay percentage was determined. The decay percentage nificantly retained the TSS (5.01 °Brix) in contrast to control (5.81°Brix)
of coated and uncoated fruits was calculated by dividing decayed sam- sample in which TSS increases rapidly with storage. It is anticipated that
ples by initial day’s samples multiplied by 100 [26]. coating repress the ethylene production, decreases the respiration rate
and slows the synthesis and utilization of metabolites, which leads to
Sensory analysis
lower TSS. Furthermore, coatings provide an excellent semi-permeable
film around the fruit, which leads to the modification of inside environ-
Sensory analysis of coated tomato fruits was carried out on 0 and
ment of fruit by reduction in O2 and elevating CO2 production. Similar
15th day of storage. The sensory attributes selected were colour, tex-
effects were reported by Yan et al. [34] for strawberries coated with
ture, taste, flavour and overall acceptability. A group of trained panel-
chitosan.
lists were selected for sensory analysis from the Department of Food En-
gineering and Technology, SLIET, Longowal. The sensory analysis was
carried out by using nine-point Hedonic Scale. The assessors recorded Titrable acidity (TA)
their responses on paper scorecards.
Titrable acidity is the measure of the content of acid present in a so-
Statistical analysis lution and this parameter is known to be the indicative of fruit maturity.
It shows that titrable acidity of all the samples decreased with increase
Triplicate runs were carried out for each experiment and the data in storage time (Table 2). The percentage decrease in titrable acidity was
were subjected to statistical analysis. Statistical software (Statistica highest in non-coated samples. The best coating combination among all

3
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

Table 2
Effect of (a) weight loss (%), (b) Total soluble solids (°Brix), (c) Titrable acidity (%) and (d) pH on both coated
and non-coated tomatoes during storage.

Parameters Storage time (days)

0 3 6 9 12 15

Weight loss
NC - 4.31 ± 0.06a 5.91 ± 0.23a 7.83 ± 0.19a 9.48 ± 0.07b 10.34 ± 0.06a
TC1 - 3.94 ± 0.03a 4.68 ± 0.10f 6.28 ± 0.16f 8.61 ± 0.13d 10.01 ± 0.08c
TC2 - 4.04 ± 0.05b 5.38 ± 0.07e 7.71 ± 0.06a 9.23 ± 0.19b 10.26 ± 0.05b
TC3 - 3.59 ± 0.23d 5.63 ± 0.22c 7.29 ± 0.08b 8.37 ± 0.09f 9.13 ± 0.10f
TC4 - 4.08 ± 0.07b 5.72 ± 0.11b 7.59 ± 0.11d 8.59 ± 0.10e 9.92 ± 0.10d
TSS
NC 4.34 ± 0.03b 4.40 ± 0.01b 4.51 ± 0.02b 4.82 ± 0.03b 4.89 ± 0.02b 5.81 ± 0.06a
TC1 4.29 ± 0.04c 4.37 ± 0.05c 4.49 ± 0.05d 4.59 ± 0.02e 4.78 ± 0.03e 5.01 ± 0.02f
TC2 4.22 ± 0.01d 4.35 ± 0.03d 4.50 ± 0.05c 4.57 ± 0.02f 4.76 ± 0.01f 5.13 ± 0.02d
TC3 4.15 ± 0.04e 4.28 ± 0.03e 4.47 ± 0.05e 4.75 ± 0.02c 4.83 ± 0.04d 5.05 ± 0.04e
TC4 4.11 ± 0.03f 4.23 ± 0.02f 4.42 ± 0.01f 4.70 ± 0.01d 4.88 ± 0.03c 5.29 ± 0.04c
TC5 4.73 ± 0.02a 5.01 ± 0.02a 5.19 ± 0.02a 5.29 ± 0.02a 5.30 ± 0.03a 5.33 ± 0.02b
Titrable acidity
NC 0.614 ± 0.006a 0.524 ± 0.008a 0.512 ± 0.005a 0.486 ± 0.007a 0.473 ± 0.009a 0.448 ± 0.004a
TC1 0.614 ± 0.006 a 0.512 ± 0.009b 0.499 ± 0.006b 0.473 ± 0.006b 0.460 ± 0.008b 0.435 ± 0.005b
TC2 0.614 ± 0.009a 0.499 ± 0.007c 0.486 ± 0.005c 0.473 ± 0.006b 0.448 ± 0.003c 0.422 ± 0.008c
TC3 0.614 ± 0.004a 0.499 ± 0.008c 0.486 ± 0.007c 0.460 ± 0.006c 0.435 ± 0.007d 0.409 ± 0.006d
TC4 0.614 ± 0.005a 0.512 ± 0.005b 0.460 ± 0.002d 0.448 ± 0.008d 0.422 ± 0.005e 0.396 ± 0.006e
TC5 0.614 ± 0.006a 0.499 ± 0.004c 0.486 ± 0.005c 0.460 ± 0.003c 0.448 ± 0.001c 0.384 ± 0.009f
pH
NC 3.92 ± 0.12a 3.99 ± 0.23b 4.04 ± 0.32a 4.39 ± 0.14a 4.48 ± 0.23a 4.75 ± 0.27a
TC1 3.92 ± 0.15 a 3.98 ± 0.12b 4.03 ± 0.31a 4.31 ± 0.02c 4.39 ± 0.04c 4.62 ± 0.17b
TC2 3.94 ± 0.20 a 3.96 ± 0.70b 4.01 ± 0.60a 4.29 ± 0.44c 4.34 ± 0.21c 4.59 ± 0.11b
TC3 3.89 ± 0.21 a 3.97 ± 0.13b 4.02 ± 0.21a 4.16 ± 0.32d 4.25 ± 0.28c 4.48 ± 0.37c
TC4 3.91 ± 0.32 d 3.93 ± 0.39b 3.99 ± 0.21b 4.12 ± 0.27d 4.23 ± 0.34c 4.34 ± 0.16d
TC5 3.93 ± 0.18 a 3.96 ± 0.25b 4.01 ± 0.13b 4.26 ± 0.25b 4.32 ± 0.31b 4.58 ± 0.32b

NC= 0:0; TC1=1:0; TC2= 3:1; TC3= 1:1; TC4= 1:3; TC5= 0:1; Values that do not bear the same letters are
significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). Results are mean of triplicate findings.

was TC5 as percentage decrease in titrable acidity reported lowest in factor, which affects consumer’s acceptability and influenced by time,
this coating combination. TC5 coatings attained titrable acidity content treatment and their interaction during storage. The main reason, which
of 0.384% as compared to control sample (0.448%) in which there is is responsible for reduction in firmness is loss of mass and moisture
greater loss of acidity of tomato. Moreover, in comparison to control and loss. As we know tomato is moisture prone fruit that loses its firmness
coated samples, decrease in total soluble solids was reported maximum in the course of ripening, which is linked with its short shelf life [38].
in TC1 and minimum in TC5. Organic acid such as citric acid are pre- Firmness is an indication that the enzymatic activities of polygalactur-
dominant substances for respiration and reduction in acidity is expected onase and pectin methylesterase presented significant changes that are
in highly respiring fruits and coating treatments reduce respiration rates directly associated with decomposition of the pectins in the tomato that
and may therefore delay the utilization of organic acids during storage. mostly contribute to the firmness of the product [39]. Actually, hydro-
Basically, coatings defer the rate of transpiration, which consequently lase and pectinase enzymes activity decrease the firmness of tomato,
decreases the consumption of organic acids, eventually titrable acidity thereupon causing cell wall structure to degrade [40]. Also, hemicel-
decreased. Retention in titrable acidity in tomatoes was found by Bhanu luloses undergo solubilization and depolymerization during ripening of
et al. [35] in seaweed. fruit, which leads to cell wall disruption and disintegration. Decrease in
water loss is expected to be linked with effective reduction in the motion
Juice pH of water molecules (water stress) from the cell structure of the tomato
flesh [32]. The unbound water along with the bound water remaining in
The pH value (control parameter) is basically measurement of acid- the cells, also maintains the firmness of the fruits. Edible coatings assist
ity, which effects the taste and flavor of fruits and hence is a vital pa- in sustaining firmness by decreasing the rate of respiration and transpi-
rameter to examine shelf-life quality of tomatoes. pH indicates about ration, decelerate ripening, delaying senescence and impeding degrada-
the fruit maturity. pH of both coated and non-coated fruits were found tion of cell walls. The reduction in firmness was showed by non-coated
to increase during storage (Table 2). The initial pH of all the samples samples, which might be result of degradation of cell wall, loss in cell
was 3.93, which increased during 15 days of storage life. The best coat- turgidity pressure and loss of extracellular and vascular air (Fig. 1a). All
ing combination among all was TC4 as increase in pH was found lowest coated samples of tomatoes succeeded to sustain the fruit firmness in
in this coating combination. The reason due to which pH increases is contrast to non-coated samples and start decreasing their firmness on
due to break up of acids with respiration during storage and increase in 6th day of storage. The results depicted that in comparison to control
concentration of organic acids during maturation. The small variation (8.83%) firmness was reported maximum in TC5 (14.63%) and min-
in pH of tomatoes owes to buffering impact of simultaneous presence of imum in TC3 (9.23%). Among the coated samples, TC5 coated sam-
organic acids and their salts. These results are in agreement with Sharma ples sustains its firmness better at 15th day of storage as compared to
and Rao [36] where shelf life of pears was prolonged by edible coatings other coatings. Tanada- Palmu and Grosso [41] observed that refriger-
of xanthan gum and cinnamic acid. ated strawberries coated with wheat gluten-based films sustained their
firmness to a better extent than non-coated fruit. These findings are also
Fruit firmness
in concurrence with potential of gum arabic in combination with essen-
tial oil of cinnamon for ameliorating the qualitative characteristics and
Softening of fruit is due to degradation in the cell structure, cell wall
storability of guava fruit [42].
composition and intracellular materials [37]. Firmness is an imperative

4
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

Fig. 1. Effect of edible coatings on (a) firmness (force in

N) and (b) ascorbic acid (mg/100 g) (c) total sugars (%)
and (d) reducing sugars (%) of both coated and non-coated
tomatoes during storage. Values that do not bear the same
letter are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). Error bars de-
pict the standard deviations. Results are mean of triplicate
findings.

Ascorbic acid tistical analysis reveals that best coating combination among all was
TC3 as mg/100 g decrease in ascorbic acid content was found lowest in
Ascorbic acid oxidase is the major enzyme responsible for the oxi- this coating combination. TC3 sample has 12.92 mg/100 g as compared
dation of ascorbic acid in fruits, as a result, reduction of ascorbic acid to control that is about 8.32 mg/100 g at the end of the storage. During
content takes place. Ascorbic acid of both coated and non-coated fruits respiration of fruits, ascorbic acid comes in direct contact with oxygen
gradually dropped due to degradation during storage life (Fig. 1b). Sta- and autoxidation occurs, which is responsible for reduction in ascorbic

5
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

acid content during ripening. Thus, edible coatings seem to have been ef- aloe vera gel coating in combination with Fagonia indica plant extract on
fective to retard the ascorbic acid degradation, at least until some point maintaining phenolic activity of sapodilla fruit in the course of storage.
of storage life. This was owing to formation of covering layer of coating
and decreased ease of oxygen to tomato skin. Tigist et al. [43] showed Total flavonoid content (TFC)
that ascorbic acid increased during ripening and after ripening it starts
decreasing. These findings are also in concurrence with results obtained Flavonoids are one class of secondary plant metabolites. These
by Pawar et al. [44] in reduction of ascorbic acid in sapota fruit during metabolites are mostly used in plants to produce yellow and other pig-
ripening. ments which play an important role in the colors of plants. Flavonoids
are the most studied group of polyphenols. This group has a struc-
Total sugars and reducing sugars (%) ture which is basic and composed of two aromatic rings bound to-
gether by three carbon atoms that form an oxygenated heterocycle.
Inherently, sugars are present in fruits and vegetables and may be Flavonoids are assorted group of phytonutrients (plant chemicals) found
added during formulation of different products. They are incorporated in almost all fruits and vegetables and have more than 6000 types.
in fruit products to improve the taste and also act as preservative. Glu- Some of main flavonoids known are quercetin and kaempferol and
cose and fructose in the fruits represent reducing sugars, on the other major flavonoids in tomato fruit are chalcone (naringenin chalcone)
hand sucrose or cane sugar added represents the non-reducing sugar. and flavonol. Flavonoids are antioxidant agents, which function as free
Total sugars include reducing sugars and non-reducing di and oligosac- radical eradicator and their bioactivities are linked to their capabil-
charides like sucrose, which on mild acid hydrolysis are changed into ities to chelate metals, impede lipoxygenase and scavenge free radi-
reducing sugars. Starch is hydrolyzed by strong acids into glucose. Hy- cals. The flavonoids have two benzene rings segregated by a propane
drolysis of different polysaccharides is liable for increase in total sugar unit. Flavonoids are especially useful, acting as antioxidants and giving
and reducing sugars. Both coated and non-coated samples depicted grad- protection against cardiovascular disease, certain forms of malignant
ual increase in total sugars (Fig. 1c) and reducing sugars (Fig. 1d) during growth and age-related degeneration of cell components. TFC in all sam-
storage life of 15 days. Highest increase was found in non-coated or con- ples decreased with increase in storage life (Fig. 2b). But the decrease in
trol sample followed by other coatings. Lowest percentage increase in total flavonoid content for coated samples was found to be considerably
total sugars was exhibited by coating TC3 (4.52%) as compared to con- less in contrast with non-coated samples. The total flavonoid content
trol in which increase was found highest (4.98%) on 15th day of storage. (mg QE/g) decreased during 15 days of storage life. The best coating
The percent increase for reducing sugar was observed highest for non- combination among all was TC4 (0.0364 mg QE/g) as decrease in to-
coated fruits. In case of reducing sugars lowest increase was showed by tal flavonoid content was found lowest in this coating combination as
TC3 (3.74%) in contrast to control in which increase was found high- compared to control in which increase was found maximum (0.0386 mg
est (3.98%) on 15th day of storage study. Basically, the coatings com- QE/g). Furthermore, some flavonoids exhibit inhibitory activity against
posed of whey protein isolate, xanthan gum and clove oil, which act as organisms that give rise to plant diseases. The less air prone environment
semipermeable membrane on the surface of the fruit, which decreases provided by coatings might be the reason to sustain flavonoid content
the respiration rate and hence reduces the biosynthesis of tomato and re- for longer time. Similar findings were obtained by Murmu and Mishra
sponsible for slow conversion of polysaccharides to sugars. Pawar et al. [18] during studying the effect of coatings of arabic gum, cinnamon oil
[44] noticed same trends of escalation in reducing sugar and total sugar and sodium caseinate on guava. The above findings are also in concur-
with ripening of sapota during storage life. Formiga et al. [21] showed rence with antioxidant activity in different fractions of tomatoes [46].
similar trends of reducing and total sugars, when red guava was coated
with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and beeswax. Total plate count

Total phenolic content (TPC) Basically, total plate count method is the counting of the microor-
ganisms that grows under aerobic conditions generally at temperature
Phenolics are the compounds which contain phenolic group. It may of 20–40 °C. Plate count method is the best method to perform micro-
be mono-phenol, di-phenol, tri-phenol or polyphenol. Phenolic com- biological analysis. In this, the tomato samples are placed on cultural
pounds are significant plant constituents with redox properties account- medium plate and after a certain period of time, number of colonies can
able for antioxidant activity. They are the most abundant secondary be counted by naked eyes. The results finally proved that the coated sam-
metabolites in plants, assuming a key role in pigmentation, develop- ples exhibited lesser increase in plate count in contrast to control sam-
ment and generation of the plant along with protection from pathogens. ples (Fig. 2c). The best coating combination among all was TC3 as (7.31
These compounds exhibit wide range of chemical and different biolog- log CFU/g) increase in total plate count was found lowest in this coating
ical characteristics. Total phenolic content (TPC) relies on the species, combination as compared to control in which increase was found max-
environmental conditions and temperature. TPC in all the samples de- imum (8.61 log CFU/g) on 15th day of storage study. This effect could
creased with increase in storage life (Fig. 2a). But the decrease in to- be due to low water permeability properties of coatings. Antimicrobial
tal phenolic content for coated fruits was found to be considerably less effect in coated samples was also due to clove oil. Basically, over ripen-
in contrast with non-coated fruits. The decrease in total phenolic con- ing leads to increase in total plate count and hence spoilage of fruits
tent could be a result of higher respiration rates in fruit. The initial take place. Azarakhsh et al. [47] noticed the effect of alginate depen-
total phenolic content (mg GAE/g) in non-coated and coated samples dent coatings with lemongrass essential oil to ameliorate the storage life
was reported as 1.472 (mg GAE/g), which reduced in all the samples of fresh cut pineapple. These results are in agreement with Vieira et al.
during 15 days of storage life. The best coating combination among all [48] in coating of chitosan and aloe vera liquid fraction and found lesser
was TC2 as decrease in total phenolic content (1.255 mg GAE/g) was increase in total plate count in blueberry.
found lowest in this coating combination. Phenolic compounds also pre-
vent human body from oxidative attack. Furthermore, these compounds Color
play an imperative role in protective mechanism and increase during
stress condition and also have ability to inhibit pathogen infection. The Tomato is a fruit that get into climacteric phase and continue to ripen
higher phenolic content in plants is closely linked with increased resis- after plucking from the field. Tomato become overripe very promptly,
tance to pathogens. Analogous outcomes were noticed by Chauhan et al. which results in loss of quality. They are brought from the field at differ-
[45] where sapodilla retained phenolic content during storage by coat- ent phases of maturity relying on the motive for which they are needed.
ing application. Similar results were observed by Khaliq et al. [42] in So, tomatoes color attribute is vital in view of consumers also. Color is

6
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

Fig. 2. Effect of edible coatings on (a) total phenolic

content (mg GAE/g) (b) total flavonoid content (mg
QE/g) and (c) total plate count (log CFU/g) of both
coated and non-coated tomatoes during storage. Val-
ues that do not bear the same letter are significantly
different (p ≤ 0.05). Error bars depict the standard de-
viations. Results are mean of triplicate findings.

the first and foremost quality attribute a consumer perceives in a con- sents total color difference in sample, which explicitly shows that with
tainer of food. It is often considered as an index of general quality of the increase in storage life, the values of ∆E were highest for non-coated
pack and impact the consumer’s judgement of other attributes such as samples and diminished slowly for coated samples [50]. Hue is defined
flavor. Enzymatic browning is a major cause of degradation of quality as the difference of a certain color with reference to grey color with the
of fruit, which occurs due to peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase. Color same lightness. Chroma is illustrated as amount of difference in hue in
variation is an indication of ripening that occurs due to ethylene action contrast to gray color with equipoise lightness. More the chroma val-
that quicken lycopene production in presence of O2 [49]. The variation ues, more it is recognized by humans. L∗ value decreased for all the
in color of coated and non-coated tomatoes is well shown by L∗ , a∗ , b∗ , samples up to 15th day of storage life. The control exhibits L∗ value of
hue and chroma values (Table 3). L∗ represents the level of intensity 34.29, whereas the value was 37.87, 39.28, 41.36, 40.73, 41.21 in TC1,
of lightness and darkness (white to black), a∗ shows difference in red TC2, TC3, TC4 and TC5 samples at the end of storage. The decrease
and green color and b∗ inculcate about yellow and blue color. ∆E repre- in lightness was more observed in non- coated sample and among all

7
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

Table 3
Effect of coatings on color of both coated and non-coated tomatoes
during storage.

Coatings L∗ a∗ b∗ ∆E Hue Chroma

Day 0
NC 54.39 21.32 24.65 —- 48.95 32.56
TC1 54.74 21.35 24.45 —- 48.93 32.49
TC2 54.43 21.32 24.53 —- 48.92 32.51
TC3 54.92 21.75 24.23 —- 48.75 32.58
TC4 54.14 21.21 24.51 —- 48.82 32.48
TC5 54.34 21.76 24.47 —- 48.73 32.61
Day 3
NC 49.28 22.08 21.43 5.99 44.14 30.76
TC1 50.53 21.92 22.31 4.45 45.50 31.27
TC2 51.59 21.52 22.02 3.74 45.65 30.78
TC3 52.58 21.46 21.68 3.76 45.29 30.50
TC4 52.55 21.43 21.79 3.29 45.47 30.56
TC5 52.87 21.49 21.97 2.98 45.63 30.73 Fig. 3. Effect of edible coatings on decay rate of tomato during storage.
Day 6
NC 43.68 23.89 19.79 11.94 39.63 31.02
TC1 47.71 23.02 20.59 7.89 41.81 30.88
TC2 48.19 22.76 19.32 8.19 40.32 29.85 served in coated tomato fruits. Similar outcomes were observed with al-
TC3 49.78 21.87 19.13 7.10 41.17 29.05
TC4 49.36 21.59 19.58 7.04 42.20 29.14
ginate coatings [56]. In the course of ripening, the color of outer surface
TC5 49.71 21.83 19.37 6.96 41.58 29.18 of tomato fruit transformed from green (mature green) to red (ripen).
Day 9 Decreased values of L∗ implied skin darkening during storage probably
NC 39.53 25.32 18.25 16.57 35.78 31.21 due to faster advance in ripening and senescence.
TC1 44.21 24.15 19.76 11.54 39.29 31.20
TC2 45.72 23.56 18.87 10.55 38.69 30.18
TC3 47.21 22.53 18.47 9.44 39.34 29.13
Decay percentage
TC4 46.98 22.12 18.29 9.69 39.58 28.70
TC5 46.59 22.54 18.15 10.12 38.84 28.93
Day 12 Edible coating formulations prepared from whey protein isolate, xan-
NC 36.78 26.78 17.12 19.82 32.59 31.78 than gum and clove oil has successfully deferred the senescence and
TC1 40.43 25.57 18.36 15.79 35.67 31.47 ripening of the whole tomato fruit till 15th days of storage. Non-coated
TC2 42.43 24.78 17.23 14.39 34.81 30.18
TC3 44.34 23.39 17.01 12.69 36.02 28.92
tomatoes were completely decayed on 10th day of storage as shown in
TC4 43.79 23.07 17.37 12.87 36.97 28.87 (Fig. 3). The non- coated tomatoes exhibited more visible decay rate
TC5 44.43 23.43 17.05 12.60 36.04 28.97 than the fruit coated with whey protein isolate, xanthan gum and clove
Day 15 oil coatings during the storage study. Best coating among all was TC3
NC 34.29 27.93 15.76 26.66 29.43 32.06
as it maintained the quality till 15th day of storage study The possible
TC1 37.87 26.82 17.12 18.87 32.55 31.81
TC2 39.28 25.54 16.71 17.48 33.19 30.52 reason for the delayed ripening in coated samples may be due to the
TC3 41.36 24.27 16.38 15.61 34.01 29.28 formation of semi-permeable film around the tomato, which acts as a
TC4 40.73 23.67 16.43 16.01 34.76 28.81 barrier against gas movement specifically against oxygen, carbon diox-
TC5 41.21 23.72 16.48 15.59 34.79 28.88 ide and water vapors and might have modified the atmosphere around
NC= 0:0; TC1=1:0; TC2= 3:1; TC3= 1:1; TC4= 1:3; TC5= 0:1 tomato samples, suitable to sustain the minimum level of their basic
metabolism during storage at 20 °C. Early ripening in non-coated sam-
ples is due to availability of oxygen, which leads to cell tissue rupture
and making tomato more prone to fungal growth spoilage. Duan et al.
coated samples, TC3 exhibited better L∗ value which exhibited better [17] reported similar findings on the effect of edible coatings on the
brightness till end of the storage. The coated samples of tomatoes were quality of fresh blueberries under ambient environment.
found to be brighter then uncoated samples as they exhibit higher L∗
value. The b∗ (blue to yellow) values for non-coated and coated sam-
ples gradually decreased during 15 days of storage life. The decrease in Sensory evaluation
b∗ is due to genesis of carotenoid pigments [51]. The a∗ values (red/
green color) for non-coated guavas were higher than the coated ones The sensory evaluation of whole tomato was carried out on 0 and
and decreased accordingly with storage life. The reduction in a∗ values 15th day of storage. All the samples on which coating was done were
indicates that coatings retained color in a better way [52]. This could acceptable at end of storage life (Table 4). Colour scores for all the sam-
be connected to the modified atmosphere in the fruit generated by the ples diminished throughout storage with significant (p ≤ 0.05) differ-
whey protein isolate, xanthan gum and clove oil coating which impact ence between the non-coated and samples coated with whey protein
the respiration rate deferring color disparity among samples more than isolate, xanthan gum and clove oil. The coated samples exhibited the
on the storage period itself. Similar results were obtained by Athma- higher score of colour, texture, taste, flavour and overall acceptabil-
selvi et al. [53] for aloe vera based edible coatings for tomato. The ity scores as compared to non-coated samples after 15 days of storage
higher C∗ values on non-coated samples are linked to the redness phase study. There was a significant (p ≤ 0.05) difference in all sensory pa-
of ripening [54]. The chroma was better retained by TC1 sample as sig- rameters. At the end of storage study, the coated samples of tomatoes
nificant (p < 0.05) decrease in intensity of colour was found lowest for were found acceptable, whereas non-coated samples were observed to
this coating as compared to non-coated samples. The chroma results are be non-acceptable with low sensory scores, as non-coated samples got
in accordance with Miranda-Linares et al. [55] in which lipid nanoparti- shriveled and had desiccated appearance. The coating solution contain-
cle coating was used for increasing tomato post-harvest life. The change ing whey protein isolate, xanthan gum and clove oil showed no adverse
from green to yellow or red at the fruit level corresponds to the drop in effect on colour, texture, taste and flavour scores. The results are in
chlorophyll pigments and increased carotenoid synthesis [50]. Also, hue agreement with El-Anany et al. [57] while studying “Anna” apples with
value decreased hastily for non-coated fruits and slow decrease was ob- gum arabic coating.

8
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

Table 4
Sensory evaluation scores of non-coated and coated tomatoes.

Days NC TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5

b d c a e
Color 0 8.5 ± 0.2 8.3 ± 0.3 8.4 ± 0.2 8.8 ± 0.5 8.2 ± 1.2 8.3d ± 1.6
15th 3.4e ± .1.1 6.0d ± 0.4 7.7a ± 0.4 6.5c ± 0.5 6.0d ± 2.4 7.4b ± 1.6
Texture
0 8.5b ± 0.6 7.6d ± 0.3 8.1c ± 0.2 7.6d ± 0.13 8.6a ± 0.7 8.5b ± 0.1
15th 3.9f ± 0.6 6.5d ± 1.0 7.0c ± 0.1 6.0e ± 0.6 7.5a ± 0.2 7.3b ± 0.3
Taste
0 8.7b ± 0.2 8.6c ± 0.1 8.1d ± 0.1 8.7b ± 1.2 8.7b ± 0.3 8.9a ± 0.3
15th 4.1f ± 1.3 7.1d ± 0.1 6.9e ± 0.5 8.1a ± 1.5 7.4b ± 0.2 7.2c ± 1.1
Flavor
0 8.4b ± 0.3 8.2c ± 0.6 8.4b ± 0.2 8.8a ± 0.3 8.1d ± 0.5 8.4b ± 0.6
15th 5.9f ± 0.8 7.3b ± 0.6 7.2c ± 0.2 8.2a ± 0.1 7.1d ± 1.6 7.0e ± 0.8
OA
0 8.5b ± 0.5 8.3d ± 0.2 8.4c ± 0.1 8.7a ± 1.2 8.4c ± 1.4 8.5b ± 0.7
15th 4.3e ± 0.5 7.2c ± 0.5 7.0d ± 0.2 8.1a ± 0.1 7.4b ± 0.5 7.2c ± 0.6

NC= 0:0; TC1=1:0; TC2= 3:1; TC3= 1:1; TC4= 1:3; TC5= 0:1; Values that do not bear the
same letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). Results are mean of triplicate findings.

Conclusions [3] S. Khubber, M. Chaturvedi, N. Sharma, S.K. Yadav, Composite edible coatings from
commercial pectin, corn flour and beetroot powder minimize post-harvest decay,
reduces ripening and improves sensory liking of tomatoes, Int. J. Biol. Macromol.
The results of the study proved that combined effect of coatings 133 (2019) 284–293.
based on whey protein isolate, xanthan gum and clove oil is the suc- [4] M.S.N. Kabir, K. Rasool, W.H. Lee, S.I. Cho, S.O. Chung, Influence of delayed cooling
cessful and effective method for prolonging the shelf life, sustaining on the quality of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) stored in a controlled chamber,
J. Agric. Food Inf. 5 (2020) 272–285.
quality attributes of tomato during storage of 15 days at 20 °C temper- [5] F.S. Mostafavi, The surface characteristics of biopolymer-coated tomato and cucum-
ature and 85% RH. All the coated samples exhibited lower degradation ber epicarps: effect of guar, persian and tragacanth gums, J. Food Meas. Charact. 23
in ascorbic acid, total phenolic and flavonoid content, pH, TSS, titrable (2018) 115–120.
[6] A. Saxena, L. Sharma, T. Maity, Enrichment of edible coatings and films with plant
acidity in contrast to non-coated samples. Moreover, significant delay
extracts or essential oils for the preservation of fruits and vegetables, Biopolym.
was found in weight loss, total sugars and reducing sugars. The best Based Form. 10 (2020) 859–881.
coating combination in case of maintaining microbial quality is TC3 as [7] A.D. Tripathi, R. Sharma, A. Agarwal, R. Haleem, Nanoemulsions based edible coat-
ings with potential food applications, Int. J. Biobased Plast. 3 (2021) 112–125.
(log CFU/g) increase in total plate count was found lowest in this coat-
[8] N. Kumar, P. Neeraj, A.T. Petkoska, Improved shelf life and quality of tomato
ing combination. Firmness was sustained better by all coated samples (Solanum lycopersicum L.) by using chitosan-pullulan composite edible coating en-
owing to delayed senescence and respiration. Total color difference in- riched with pomegranate peel extract, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1 (2021) 500–510.
creased hastily for non-coated samples and diminishes slowly for coated [9] S. Panahirad, M. Dadpour, H.S. Peighambardoust, M. Soltanzade, B. Gullon,
K. Alirezalu, M.J. Lorenzo, Applications of carboxymethyl cellulose- and pect-
samples. The best coating combination among all was TC3 as it slows in-based active edible coatings in preservation of fruits and vegetables: a review,
down respiration rate and was found effective in inhibiting the prolif- Trends Food Sci. Technol. 110 (2021) 663–673.
eration of aerobic microorganisms in tomatoes. Overall, all the coated [10] A.D. Obiri, L. Matthews, H.M. Azahrani, Application of protein based edible coatings
for fat uptake reduction in deep-fat fried foods with an emphasis on muscle food
samples were acceptable at end of storage study for 15 days whereas proteins, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 80 (2018) 167–174.
non-coated samples were acceptable till day 10. [11] F. Salehi, Edible coating of fruits and vegetables using natural gums: a review, Int.
J. Fruit Sci. 145 (2020) 1553–1562.
[12] S. Rosalam, Review of xanthan gum production from unmodified starches by Xan-
Declaration of Competing Interest thomonas camprestris, Enz. Microb. Technol. 39 (2006) 197–207.
[13] E.D. Montes, R.C. Munoz, Edible films and coatings as food-quality preservers: an
overview, J. Food Sci. 10 (2021) 249.
Authors declare no conflict of interest. [14] A. Anis, K. Pal, S.M. Al-Zahrani, Essential oil-containing polysaccharide-based edible
films and coatings for food security applications, J. Polym. 13 (2021) 575.
[15] D.M. Antunesa, C.M. Gagoa, A.M. Cavacob, M.G. Miguela, Edible coatings enriched
CRediT authorship contribution statement with essential oils and their compounds for fresh and fresh-cut Fruit, Recent Pat.
Food Nutr. Agric. 4 (2012) 114–122.
Ashish Kumar: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – original [16] F.N. Alfikri, R. Pujiarti, M.G. Wibisono, E.B. Hardiyanto, Yield, quality, and antioxi-
dant activity of clove (Syzygium aromaticum L.) bud oil at the different phenological
draft. Charanjiv Singh Saini: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing stages in young and mature trees, J. Sci. Res. 10 (2020) 11–19.
– review & editing, Supervision. [17] J. Duan, R. Wua, B.C. Strik, Y. Zhaoa, Effect of edible coatings on the quality of
fresh blueberries (Duke and Elliott) under commercial storage conditions, Posthar-
vest Biol. Technol. 59 (2011) 71–79.
Research involving human participants and/or animals [18] S.B. Murmu, H.N. Mishra, The effect of edible coating based on arabic gum, sodium
caseinate and essential oil of cinnamon and lemon grass on guava, Food Chem. 245
(2018) 820–828.
Not applicable.
[19] AOACOfficial Methods of Analysis, 14th ed., Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, Washington, DC, USA, 1984.
[20] P.B. Pathare, U.L. Opara, F.A. Al-Said, Color measurement and analysis in fresh and
Informed consent
processed foods: a review, Food Bioprocess Tech. 6 (2013) 36–60.
[21] A.S. Formiga, J.S.P. Junior, E.M. Pereira, I.N.F. Cordeiro, B. Mattiuz, Use of edible
Not applicable. coatings based on hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and beeswax in the conservation
of red guava ‘Pedro Sato, Food Chem. 290 (2019) 144–151.
[22] S. Ranganna, Proximate constituents, in: Handbook of Analysis and Quality Con-
References trol for Fruit and Vegetable, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited, 1986,
pp. 12–16.
[1] A. Ali, M. Maqbool, S. Ramachandran, P.G Alderson, Gum arabic as a novel ed- [23] H. Gao, N. Cheng, J. Zhou, B. Wang, J. Deng, W. Cao, Antioxidant activities and
ible coating for enhancing shelf-life and improving postharvest quality of tomato phenolic compounds of date plum Persimmon fruits, J. Food Sci. Technol. 51 (2011)
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 53 (2010) 42–47. 950–956.
[2] G. Bailen, F. Guillen, S. Castillo, M. Serrano, D. Valero, D. Martinez-Remero, Use [24] B.A. Behbahani, F.T. Yazdi, F. Shahidi, M.A. Hesarinejad, S.A. Mortazavi, M. Mo-
of activated carbon inside modified atmosphere packages to maintain tomato fruit hebbi, Plantago major seed mucilage: optimization of extraction and some physico-
quality during cold storage, J. Agric. Food Chem. 54 (2006) 2229–2235. chemical and rheological aspects, Carbohydr. Polym. 155 (2017) 68–77.

9
A. Kumar and C.S. Saini Measurement: Food 2 (2021) 100005

[25] G.I. Olivas, D.S. Mattinson, G.V. Barbosa-Canovas, Alginate coatings for preservation [42] G. Khaliq, M. Ramzan, A.H. Baloch, Effect of Aloe Vera gel coating enriched with
of minimally processed “Gala” apples, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 45 (2007) 89–96. Fagonia indica plant extract on physicochemical and antioxidant activity of sapodilla
[26] A. Nawab, F. Alam, A. Hasnain, Mango kernel starch as a novel edible coating for fruit during postharvest storage, Food Chem. 286 (2019) 346–353.
enhancing shelf- life of tomato fruit, Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 103 (2018) 581–586. [43] M. Tigist, T. Workneh, K. Woldetsadik, Effects of variety on the quality of tomato
[27] W.N.S. Azmai, N.S.A. Latif, N.M. Zain, Efficiency of edible coating chitosan and stored under ambient conditions, Food Sci. Technol. 318 (2011) 378–379.
cinnamic acid to prolong the shelf life of tomatoes, J. Trop. Resour. Sustain. Sci. 7 [44] C.D. Pawar, A.A. Patil, G.D. Joshi, Physico-chemical parameters of sapota fruits at
(2019) 47–52. different maturity stages, Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 24 (2011) 420–421.
[28] H.F. Kabir, F.K. Sabir, Chitosan coating for extending postharvest quality of tomatoes [45] S. Chauhan, K.C. Gupta, M. Agrawal, Application of biodegradable Aloe Vera gel to
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) maintained at different storage temperatures, J. Sci. control postharvest decay and longer the shelf life of grapes, Int. J. Curr. Microbiol.
Food Agric. 3 (2018) 97–108. Appl. Sci. 3 (2014) 632–642.
[29] X. Ruelas-Chacon, J.C. Contreras-Esquivel, J. Montañez, A.F. Aguilera-Carbo, [46] M.A. Taher, E.A. Mennatallah, L.K. Tadros, S. Mostafa, The effects of new formula-
M.L. Reyes-Vega, R.D. Peralta-Rodriguez, G. Sanchéz-Brambila, Guar gum as an tions based on gum Arabic on antioxidant capacity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum
edible coating for enhancing shelf-life and improving postharvest quality of roma L.) fruit during storage, J. Food Meas. Charact. 7 (2020) 65–78.
tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), J. Food Qual. 7 (2017) 9–19. [47] N.A. Azarakhsh, H.M. Osman, C.P.T. Ghazali, N.M. Adzahan, Optimization of algi-
[30] D. Khatri, J. Panigrahic, A. Prajapati, H. Bariya, Attributes of aloe vera gel and chi- nate and gellan-based coating formulations for fresh-cut pineapples, Int. Food Res.
tosan treatments on the quality and biochemical traits of post-harvest tomatoes, Sci. J. 19 (2012) 279–285.
Hortic. 259 (2020) 10–88. [48] J.M. Vieira, M.L. Flores-Lopez, D.J. Rodriguez, M.C. Sousa, A.A. Vicente, J.T. Mar-
[31] R.M. Vignesh, R.N. Bindu, Improvement of shelf-life quality of tomatoes using a tins, Effect of chitosan-Aloe Vera coating on postharvest quality of blueberry (Vac-
novel edible coating formulation, Plant Sci. Today 6 (2019) 84–90. cinium corymbosum) fruit, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 116 (2016) 88–97.
[32] R. Kondle, P.K. Paul, S. Gurung, Effect of edible coatings for enhancing shelf-life and [49] R. Vunnam, A. Hussain, G. Nair, R. Bandla, Y. Gariepy, D.J. Donnelly, G.S.V. Ragha-
quality in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruits at ambient condition, Int. J. Chem. van, Physico-chemical changes in tomato with modified atmosphere storages and
7 (2019) 3666–3671. UV treatment, J. Food Sci. Technol. 51 (2014) 2106–2112.
[33] V.I.R. Aguilar, B.S. Banos, F.G. Garcia, Z.L. Avejar, Impact of chitosan based edible [50] Y.D. Adjouman, C. Nindjin, K.N. Kouassi, F.A. Tetchi, N.G.G. Amani, M. Sindic, Effect
coatings functionalized with natural compounds on Colletotrichum fragariae devel- of edible coating based on improved cassava starch on post-harvest quality of fresh
opment and the quality of strawberries, Food Chem. 262 (2018) 142–149. tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum l.), Int. J. Nutr. Sci. Food Tech. 4 (2018) 1–10.
[34] J. Yan, Z. Luo, Z. Banb, H. Lu, D. Li, S.M.A D.Yang, L. Li, The effect of the layer by [51] E. Palou, A. Lopez- Malo, G.V. Barbosa-Canovas, J. Welti-Chanes, B.G. Swanson,
layer (LBL) edible coatings on strawberry quality and metabolites during storage, Polyphenoloxidase activity and color of blanched and high hydrostatic pressure
Postharvest Biol. Technol. 147 (2019) 29–38. treated bnana puree, Food Sci. Technol. 64 (1999) 42–45.
[35] A.T. Bhanu, P.S. Ramani, A. Murugan, Effect of seaweed coating on quality char- [52] N.A.A A.Ullah, M. Shafique, A.A. Qureshi, Influence of edible coatings on biochem-
acteristics and shelf life of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill), Food Sci. Hum. ical fruit quality and storage life of Bell Pepper cv. “Yolo Wonder, J. Food Qual. 46
Wellness 221 (2020) 8. (2017) 2142–2409.
[36] S. Sharma, R.V.T. Rao, Xanthan gum based edible coating enriched with cinnamic [53] K.A. Athmaselvi, P. Sumitha, B. Revathy, Development of Aloe Vera based edible
acid prevents browning and extends the shelf life of fresh- cut pears, LWT Food Sci. coating for tomato, Int. Agrophys. 27 (2013) 369–375.
Technol. 62 (2015) 791–800. [54] A.S.H. Atress, M.M. El-Mogy, H.E. Aboul-Anean, B.W. Alsanius, Improving straw-
[37] M.M. Alenazi, M. Shafiq, A.A. Alsadon, I.M. Alhelal, A.M. Alhamdan, T.H.I. Solie- berry fruit storability by edible coating as a carrier of thymol or calcium chloride,
man, A.A. Ibrahim, M.R. Shady, W.A. Al-Selwey, Improved functional and nutri- J. Hortic. Sci. Ornam. Plants 2 (2010) 88–97.
tional properties of tomato fruit during cold storage, Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 27 (2020) [55] V. Miranda-Linares, P. Escamilla-Rendón, A.D. Real-López, R.M. González-Reza,
1067–1074. M.L. Zambrano-Zaragoza, Solid lipid nanoparticles based edible coating for saladette
[38] P. Xylia, I. Ioannou, A. Chrysargyris, M.C. Stavrinides, T. Tzortzakis, Quality at- tomato preservation, Acta Hortic. 1194 (2018) 305–312.
tributes and storage of tomato fruits as affected by an eco-friendly, essential oil-based [56] Y. Fan, Y. Xu, D. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Sun, L. Sun, Effect of alginate coating com-
product, J. Plant Stud. 10 (2021) 11–25. bined with yeast antagonist on strawberry (Fragaria x Ananassa) preservation qual-
[39] C. Changwal, T. Shukla, Z. Hussain, N. Singh, A. Kar, V.P. Singh, M.Z. Abdin, ity, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 53 (2009) 84–90.
A. Arora, Regulation of postharvest tomato fruit ripening by endogenous salicylic [57] A.M. El-Anany, G.F.A. Hassan, F.M. Rehab Ali, Effects of edible coatings on the
acid, Front. Plant Sci. 10 (2021) 33–89. shelf-life and quality of Anna apple (Malus domestica Borkh) during cold storage,
[40] M. Saekow, M. Naradisorn, W. Tongdeesoontorn, Y. Hamauzu, Effect of car- J. Food Technol. 7 (2009) 5–11.
boxymethyl cellulose coating containing ZnO-nanoparticles for prolonging shelf life
of persimmon and tomato fruit, J. Food Sci. Agric. Technol. 5 (2019) 41–48.
[41] P.S. Tanada-Palmu, C.R.F. Grosso, Effect of edible wheat gluten-based films and
coatings on refrigerated strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) quality, Postharvest Biol.
Technol. 36 (2005) 199–208.

10