Next Article in Journal
Natural Materials for 3D Printing and Their Applications
Next Article in Special Issue
The Use of Biopolymers as a Natural Matrix for Incorporation of Essential Oils of Medicinal Plants
Previous Article in Journal
In Vitro and Ex Vivo Evaluation of Fluocinolone Acetonide–Acitretin-Coloaded Nanostructured Lipid Carriers for Topical Treatment of Psoriasis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Physicochemical, Morphological, and Functional Characterization of Edible Anthocyanin-Enriched Aloevera Coatings on Fresh Figs (Ficus carica L.)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Composite Chitosan/Sodium Alginate Gel Coatings on the Quality of Fresh-Cut Purple-Flesh Sweet Potato

by
Chit-Swe Chit
1,†,
Ibukunoluwa Fola Olawuyi
1,†,
Jong Jin Park
1,2 and
Won Young Lee
1,3,*
1
School of Food Science and Biotechnology, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Republic of Korea
2
Coastal Agricultural Research Institute, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Republic of Korea
3
Research Institute of Tailored Food Technology, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors are considered the first author.
Gels 2022, 8(11), 747; https://doi.org/10.3390/gels8110747
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 10 November 2022 / Accepted: 16 November 2022 / Published: 17 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Gel Films and Coatings Applied in Active Food Packaging)

Abstract

:
In this study, single-layer coating using chitosan (Ch) and sodium alginate (SA) solutions and their gel coating (ChCSA) formed by layer-by-layer (LbL) electrostatic deposition using calcium chloride (C) as a cross linking agent were prepared to improve storage qualities and shelf-life of fresh-cut purple-flesh sweet potatoes (PFSP). The preservative effects of single-layer coating in comparison with LbL on the quality parameters of fresh-cut PFSP, including color change, weight loss, firmness, microbial analysis, CO2 production, pH, solid content, total anthocyanin content (TAC), and total phenolic content (TPC) were evaluated during 16 days of storage at 5 °C. Uncoated samples were applicable as a control. The result established the effectiveness of coating in reducing microbial proliferation (~2 times), color changes (~3 times), and weight loss (~4 times) with negligible firmness losses after the storage period. In addition, TAC and TPC were better retained in the coated samples than in the uncoated samples. In contrast, quality deterioration was observed in the uncoated fresh cuts, which progressed with storage time. Relatively, gel-coating ChCSA showed superior effects in preserving the quality of fresh-cut PFSP and could be suggested as a commercial method for preserving fresh-cut purple-flesh sweet potato and other similar roots.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Purple flesh sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) is a very nutritious root vegetable native to the tropical regions of America. They are an abundant source of carbohydrates, dietary fiber, vitamins including A, B1, B2, C, and E, and minerals including Ca, Mg, K, and Zn [1]. In addition, purple flesh sweet potatoes (PFSP) contain a large amount of anthocyanins, an antioxidant whose long-term dietary intake can prevent cancer, cardiovascular diseases, viral infections, Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes [2]. The growing consciousness among consumers about what they eat, especially the health benefits, has led to an increase in the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Combined with busy lifestyle patterns, the demand for fresh-cut produce has increased significantly in recent years [3]. Ready-to-use fresh-cut produce is convenient, eliminates consumer waste, and saves time. However, the minimal processing of fresh-cut produce results in tissue softening and discoloration. It increases microbiological deterioration due to the exposed tissues, which makes them vulnerable to metabolism, microbial invasion, and mechanical damage [4]. These factors impact a product’s storage and shelf life [5,6]. Therefore, a suitable packaging technique effective to reduce these factors influence and preserve the quality of fresh-cut produce during marketing and storage is required [4].
Antimicrobial coatings/films (inedible or edible) and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) have been applied to fresh produce to maintain their qualities and extend their shelf life [7,8,9,10]. In particular, edible coatings have been investigated for their potential to enhance the quality and shelf life of food items [3,11]. Edible coatings can preserve fresh-cut food from mechanical and microbial damage, delay biochemical changes, and enhance their surface appearance [12]. Moreover, edible coatings can meet additional requirements, such as having antimicrobial activity and acting as good moisture and oxygen barriers. These requirements are beneficial for whole or fresh-cut fruits and vegetables that are often prone to microbial harm and highly susceptible to water loss, which causes size shrinkage and texture degradation [5]. Thus, coatings intended for fruit and vegetable preservation are expected to have good gas permeability for typical CO2/O2 exchange, low water vapor permeability to minimize moisture leakage, and antibacterial properties to inhibit microbial proliferation. It is, however, challenging for a single coating material to satisfy all these requirements [13]
The composite layer-by-layer (LbL) coating technique, which is based on electrostatic deposition technology, was developed to incorporate numerous preservatives derived from various polymer components [5,14]. This approach is based on the alternate deposition of oppositely charged polyelectrolytes in the presence of a cross linking agent, resulting in a novel gel coating with improved properties and functionalities [11]. Due to the effectiveness of the LbL coating technique, its commercial implementation has been suggested for preserving minimally processed fruits. Cationic biopolymers such as chitosan and poly-L-lysine, and anionic biopolymers such as pectin and alginate are commonly used for LbL coating of foods [15]. Alginate is a hydrophilic biopolymer with excellent film-forming properties due to its unusual colloidal properties, including thickening, suspension formation, gel formation, and emulsion stabilization [16]. In addition, sodium alginate coating was beneficial in preserving the post-harvest quality of tomatoes [17] and peaches [18]. However, alginate has no antimicrobial properties, and their poor mechanical properties and water vapor resistance has limited their industrial applications [19]. In contrast, chitosan, a cationic polysaccharide with a high molecular weight and soluble in organic acids, is applicable as a preservative coating material for fruits due to its anti fungal mechanisms [20,21,22,23].
Some studies have examined the effect of alginate and chitosan on fresh-cut melon, mangoes, blueberries [24], guavas, and nectarines [25]. The combination of alginate and chitosan displayed various preservative effects depending on the fresh-cut fruit. However, the application of the sequential coating of chitosan and alginate on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes has not been studied. This study aimed to investigate the effect of chitosan coating (Ch), sodium alginate gel coating (SA + C), and their composite gel coating (ChCSA) on the quality and shelf life of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes during refrigerated storage at 5 °C for 16 days.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Effect of Coatings on the Color Change during Storage

Color is one of the significant visual characteristics of fresh-cut food items. Excessive discoloration often impacts consumer acceptance, and indicates poor performance packaging techniques used to preserve products [26]. The color change (ΔE) value of the samples was used to evaluate discoloration in samples during storage (Figure 1). Change in color was observed in all samples, which was more pronounced in CON (uncoated fresh-cuts). During the first 12 days of storage, no significant difference was observed in coated samples (Ch, SA + C, and ChCSA). However, at the end of storage, notable differences were observed between all samples. The ΔE values for CON, Ch, SA + C, and ChCSA coated fresh-cuts were 22.90, 16.86, 13.05, and 8.97, respectively, indicating that ChCSA gel coating was more efficient in retaining the color of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes than their single coatings. Biochemical reactions responsible for the degradation of color pigments in sweet potatoes require oxygen and light [1]. The inner and outer film layers of chitosan and alginate, respectively, form a protective barrier on the surface of the coated fresh cuts, which impacts the selective permeability of gas and light [27,28]. Moreover, Ch and SA coatings have been reported to improve the storage quality of various fruits by inhibiting color changes such as browning in papaya, apple, and melon [29,30,31].

2.2. Effect of Coatings on Weight Loss during Storage

Fresh-cut products are susceptible to weight loss by transpiration [32]. In addition, excessive weight loss reduces valuation and consumers’ perception of purchasing a product [33]. Thus, evaluating weight loss during storage is crucial. Weight loss was gradually increased in all samples according to the storage time (Figure 2). Higher weight loss was recorded in the control samples throughout the storage period, whereas the coated samples had minor weight losses. Significantly, SA + C and ChCSA gel coatings slowed down the weight loss during storage, having the lowest weight loss value (~1.4%) after 16 days of storage. The formation of gel films on the surface of fresh-cut samples improved moisture retention and prevented excess transpiration. Similar to this study, weight loss reduction in coated fresh-cut nectarines [34] and blueberries [24] have been reported.

2.3. Effect of Composite Edible Coatings on Firmness

The firmness of roots and vegetables is also an indicative quality parameter significant for consumer acceptance. The firmness of the control sample decreased throughout the storage period from 341.96 to 254.30 N, whereas CH- and SA + C-coated samples retained their hardness until day 12 (Figure 3). After 16 days of storage, a slight decrease in firmness was observed in Ch (from 384.42 to 314.19 N) and SA + C (411.21 to 306.02 N). However, no noticeable decrease was observed for the ChCSA-coated samples, indicating the beneficial and synergetic effect of multilayer gel coating over their single-layer film coatings. Previous studies reported that layer-by-layer coating enhanced the cell-wall structure and slowed down the cell degradation of fresh-cut products [35,36]. In addition, the combined antimicrobial and adhesion effects of Ch and SA inhibited the production and activities of microbial hydrolytic enzymes associated with cell wall components hydrolysis [11]. Moreover, the use of calcium chloride as a cross linking agent in ChCSA could have further enhanced firmness of coated samples [24].

2.4. Effect of Composite Edible Coatings on Microbial Growth

Microbial contamination is the major reason for the deterioration of fresh-cut products. The presence and growth of microorganisms during product storage and distribution affects food quality and safety [5]. However, some edible coatings have shown barrier properties, inhibiting their proliferation in coated foods [35]. Notably, the application of coatings reduced the initial population of aerobic bacteria (Figure 4) and total fungi (Figure 5). However, an increase in bacteria (3.48 log CFU/mL in CON) and fungi (up to ~4.57 log CFU/mL in CON) were observed in samples at the end of storage. However, all coated samples showed lower microbial concentration. For instance, after 16 days of storage, ChCSA-coated samples had aerobic bacteria and total fungi counts of 2.44 log CFU/mL, and 2.37 log CFU/mL, respectively. The antimicrobial properties of ChCSA coatings could be attributed to the intrinsic bacteriostatic and fungistatic characteristics of chitosan, combined with the oxygen barrier properties of Ch and SA coatings which limited oxygen requirement for microbial proliferation [3,5]

2.5. Effect of Coatings on CO2 Production

The thin film layer formed by coatings on the food surface controls gas permeability, and provides a delicate balance between inhibiting over-ripening and preventing senescence. In addition, it regulates normal gas exchange to avoid the buildup of CO2, which promotes anaerobic conditions that lead to off flavors [37]. High rate of respiration is one of the problems for fresh-cut products [11]. The composition of CO2 in the headspace gas was used to explain the rate of respiration in packaged samples (Figure 6). There were no noticeable differences in CO2 production during the first 8 days of storage. Thereafter, CO2 concentration slowly increased in all samples until the end of storage. Notably, a sharp increase in CO2 production was observed in uncoated fresh-cuts compared to the coated samples. Gel coatings (SA + C and ChCSA) showed better effectiveness in retarding CO2 production. High CO2 production in fruits corresponds to high oxygen consumption. Thus, the low oxygen permeability of coated samples resulted in tissue respiration, and subsequently, low CO2 production [38].
By modifying the gas atmosphere around the fruit tissue, polysaccharide coatings with semipermeable properties on the surface of fruits impede the rate of respiration and ripening during storage, thus retaining the quality attributes of products [39]. Similar gaseous barrier effects of polysaccharide-based coatings on fresh-cut products have been reported [33,40].

2.6. Effect of Coatings on Soluble Solid Concentration and pH

As shown in Figure 7, the total soluble solid (TSS), measured as oBrix value, increased in all samples during the storage period. The increase in TSS is due to the conversion of starch and non-starch polysaccharides to simple sugar by hydrolytic processes [27]. After 16 days of storage, TSS was highest in CON (21.3 oBrix) and lowest in ChCSA (14.3 oBrix). Chitosan- and alginate-based coatings were observed to inhibit metabolic and hydrolytic reactions associated with TSS increase in various fruits, including Chinese winter jujube, longan, and fig fruits [27,40,41,42].Thus, low TSS in ChCSA-coated samples could be attributed to the effective combination of Ch and SA, which reduced metabolic reactions and retarded polysaccharides breakdown processes [13].
Noticeable changes in the pH value of samples occurred after 16 days of storage (Figure 8). CON sample showed a sharp decrease (6.5 to 4.9), while coated samples showed marginal pH changes after the storage period. During post-harvest storage, a decrease in pH is typical and attributed to the production of organic acids by respiratory metabolism [34]. Low pH in CON may be related to the utilization of polysaccharide substrates by microorganisms, which led to the increased production of acidic metabolites [6]. Similar marginal changes in pH value were observed for coated nectarine slices [25] and fresh-cut watermelon [43].

2.7. Effect of Coatings on Total Anthocyanin Content and Total Phenolic Content

Variations in the total anthocyanin content (TAC) were observed in samples during storage, with a more pronounced decrease in CON from 11.1 to 8.4 mg cyanidin-3-glucoside/g after 16 days of storage (Figure 9). These data are consistent with previous studies which showed that anthocyanin content was influenced by the storage time as well as the coating treatment [24]. Moreover, edible coatings have been reported to be beneficial in inhibiting the degradation pathways of anthocyanins in various anthocyanin-rich produce [44,45,46]. Moreover, variations in TAC during storage according to different edible coatings have been previously observed [27,47].
Similar trends were observed for TPC, in which coated samples prevented phenolic compounds oxidation and degradation, having higher TPC values (2.27–3.56 mg GAE/g) compared to uncoated samples (1.41 mg GAE/g) throughout the storage period (Figure 10). Connor et al. [48] reported that several causes of physiological stress could promote the enzymatic oxidation of phenolic compounds during storage. However, coatings, especially composite coatings, could be beneficial in alleviating these oxidation processes [49]. Similar to the reports of Kou et al. [27], composite ChCSA-coated samples maintained a higher phenolic content throughout 16 days of storage. Moreover, the increase in the phenolic contents could be explained by the effect of Ch/SA coating in promoting phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) activity which led to the accumulation of phenolic compounds [27].

3. Conclusions

This study examined the effect of chitosan-, sodium alginate-, and their composite gel- coatings on the post harvest quality and shelf life of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. During 16 days of storage, various physiological and biochemical reactions associated with quality deterioration were effectively controlled in coated samples. For instance, improved quality retention and microbial inhibitions were observed in samples preserved with gel coating formed by Ch and SA multilayer solutions in the presence of CaCl2, as a cross linking agent. The observed effects were attributed to enhanced barrier properties and antimicrobial properties, which regulated quality losses by transpiration, respiration, oxidation, and cellular degradation. In summary, ChCSA gel coating achieved the best preservative effect on the post harvest quality and shelf life of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes, indicating the superiority of layer-by-layer coating over single-layer coating.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Materials

The experiments were performed with mature purple flesh sweet potato (PFSP) from a farm in Haenam-gun in Korea. The samples were stored at 5 °C. In addition, sodium alginate (32–250 kDa, Duksan Chemicals, Ansan-si, Republic of Korea), high molecular weight chitosan (≥75% deacetylation, Sigma Aldrich, USA), calcium chloride, glacial acetic acid, and Tween-80 were obtained from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA).

4.2. Coating Solutions Preparation

The chitosan solution was prepared according to the method described by [50]. Chitosan powder was mixed with distilled water containing glacial acetic acid (0.5% v/v) at 70 °C under stirring until fully dissolved to produce a 2% chitosan solution. Finally, the pH of the solution was adjusted to 5.6 with 1 N NaOH.
The sodium alginate solution was prepared according to the method described by [11], with some modifications. Sodium alginate powder was dissolved in 100 mL of distilled water to obtain a 2% concentration. Then, the solution was stirred in a 70 °C water bath for 2 h to dissolve completely. Finally, the sodium alginate solution was cooled at room temperature.
Calcium chloride was used as the cross linking agent to produce gel coatings via layer-by-layer treatment. Calcium chloride was weighed and dissolved in 100 mL of distilled water to obtain a 2% solution. Then, the solution was shaken in the incubator to become dissolved entirely.

4.3. Sample Preparation

Purple flesh sweet potatoes without mechanical injuries or fungal infections were selected and washed in running water. Then, they were peeled and diced to get 1 cm pieces for flesh-cut coating.

4.4. Coating Application on the Samples

The coating procedure is illustrated in Figure 11. For a single-layer Ch coating, approximately 2 kg of flesh-cut purple sweet potatoes were dipped in 5 L of Ch solution for 2 min and dried at room temperature for 30 min. For SA gel coating, flesh-cuts were dipped in SA solution, rinsed for 30 s to remove the residual solution, and thereafter immersed in calcium chloride solution and dried. For the multilayer gel coating (ChCSA), the fresh-cuts were dipped in Ch solution for 2 min, rinsed for 30 s to remove the residual solution, immersed in calcium chloride for 2 min, then rinsed for 30 s and finally dipped in SA solution for 2 min before air-drying. Lastly, distilled water was used as an immersion solution for uncoated samples.
For each coating treatment, approximately 200 g of coated fresh-cuts were weighed and stored in triplicate in Ziploc bags (5 °C). Stored samples were removed at 4-days interval during a 16-day storage period and analyzed for quality parameters.

4.5. Color Measurement

The surface color of the samples was determined by randomly selecting 3 samples and taking 3 readings for each treatment using a chromameter (CR-300, Minolta Co., Osaka, Japan). The L*, a*, b* value (CIE L a b) system was numerically specified in a three-dimensional spherical space defined by the three perpendicular axes: the L-axis (brightness) ranged from 0 (black) to 100% (white); the a-axis ranged from − a (green) to + a (red); and the b-axis ranged from − b (blue) to + b (yellow). Total color difference (ΔE) was calculated using L, a, and b values with the following equation [51]:
Δ E = L 2 L 1 ) 2 + ( a 2 a 1 2 + b 2 b 1 2
where subscripts 1 and 2 represent the final and initial readings, respectively at a particular storage interval.

4.6. Weight Loss Measurement

The coated and control fresh-cut sweet purple potatoes were individually weighed using a digital laboratory scale (Mettler Toledo, CH/PL 3002) at each data collection interval. The weight loss was calculated as follows:
Weight   loss   ( % ) = w in w fin w in × 100
where win and wfin represent the initial and the final weight, respectively, measured at a particular storage interval.

4.7. Firmness Measurement

The firmness of the fresh-cut purple sweet potato samples was measured using a texture analyzer (Compac-100, Scientific Co., Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a 3 mm cylinder probe was used to assess the hardness of a fresh-cut purple sweet potato. A puncture test was carried out on a horizontally-positioned sample over a 13 mm hole at the speed of 60 mm/min and a travel distance of 20 mm [3]. The maximum force required to penetrate the sample was recorded for seven randomly selected fresh-cut PFSP per treatment group.

4.8. Microbial Analysis

The microbial growth in samples during storage was evaluated by counting the total number of aerobic bacteria and total fungi (yeast and mold). Ten g of the sample was taken aseptically from each treatment and transferred into sterile plastic bags with 30 mL of 0.1% peptone in water. The materials were homogenized in a Stomacher blender (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA) and filtered to obtain the sample stock for microbial analysis. Dilutions were done using 0.1% peptone water prior to plating.
Total aerobic bacteria counts were determined by inoculating 100 μL of the diluted extract on the surface of plate count agar (PCA; Becton Dickinson, NJ, USA). The plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Total fungi counts were determined using the surface inoculation of potato dextrose agar (PDA; Becton Dickinson, NJ, USA), supplemented with ampicillin to control bacterial growth. The plates were also incubated at 30 °C for 48 h [11]. Afterward, the colonies were enumerated, and the results were expressed as the logarithm of colony-forming unit per mL (Log CFU g/mL) of sweet potato.

4.9. Carbon Dioxide Production

The samples were analyzed using a digital gas analyzer (Quantek Gas Analyzer Model 902D, Quantek Instruments, Grafton, MA, USA) by inserting the device’s needle probe into the packaging film, enclosing the sample to determine the CO2 concentration. The CO2 concentration was displayed on the device screen and was computed as the % CO2 produced using the following equation [3]:
CO2 produced (%) = CO2fin − CO2in
where CO2in and CO2fin are CO2 concentration on the first day, and at each storage interval.

4.10. Soluble Solid Concentration and pH

The soluble solid concentration (TSS) and pH of a sample were measured using the juice extracted from 1 g of the treated sample blended with 20 mL of distilled water in a tissue homogenizer. Soluble solid concentration was determined using a digital refractometer (Atago refractometer model PAL-1, Co., Ltd., Saitama, Japan), and the results were described as oBrix. The pH was measured using a pH meter (METTLER TOLEDO AG8608, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland).

4.11. Sample Extraction for Total Anthocyanin Content and Total Phenolic Content

Before analyzing the TAC and TPC of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes, the sample pieces were frozen (−80 °C) and freeze-dried (FDS8518, Ilsin BioBase Co. Ltd., Dongducheon-si, Republic of Korea) for 7 days. Finally, the freeze-dried samples were ground, and their powder was stored in a freezer at −20 °C using extraction. 0.5 g of dried powder was weighed into a centrifuge tube and dissolved in 10 mL of 50% ethanol. Next, the sample solutions were homogenized for 30 min using an ultrasonic cleaner (JAC-3010; KODO, Hwaseong, Republic of Korea). The tube was placed in a centrifuge (45,000 rpm for 15 min), and finally, clear supernatant was obtained after filtration.

4.11.1. Total Anthocyanin Content

Total anthocyanin content was determined using the pH differential method [52]. Anthocyanin content was measured at the absorbance of 530 and 700 nm at pH 1.0 and 4.5. The results were described as mg of cyanidin-3-glucoside/g (Cy3G/g) of fresh purple sweet potato.

4.11.2. Total Phenolic Content

Total Phenolic Content (TPC) was analyzed using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent as described in our previous study [9]. TPC values were presented in mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per g of fresh-cut purple sweet potato.

4.12. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS (V.20, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA); The Tukey’s HSP test (honest significant differences) was used to determine the significance of the differences among the treatment means. The results were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (Turkey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.F.O., C.-S.C. and W.Y.L.; methodology, C.-S.C. and I.F.O.; software, C.-S.C.; validation, I.F.O. and J.J.P.; formal analysis, C.-S.C., I.F.O. and J.J.P.; investigation, C.-S.C. and I.F.O.; resources, W.Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, I.F.O. and C.-S.C.; writing—review and editing, I.F.O., and W.Y.L.; visualization, C.-S.C. and I.F.O.; supervision, I.F.O. and W.Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The co-first author Olawuyi I.F acknowledges the scholarship support received from Samsung Dream Scholarship Foundation, Republic of Korea.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hu, Y.; Deng, L.; Chen, J.; Zhou, S.; Liu, S.; Fu, Y.; Yang, C.; Liao, Z.; Chen, M. An analytical pipeline to compare and characterise the anthocyanin antioxidant activities of purple sweet potato cultivars. Food Chem. 2016, 194, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fossen, T.; Andersen, Ø. Spectroscopic techniques applied to flavonoids. Flavonoids Chem. Biochem. Appl. 2006, 37–142. [Google Scholar]
  3. Olawuyi, I.F.; Park, J.J.; Lee, J.J.; Lee, W.Y. Combined effect of chitosan coating and modified atmosphere packaging on fresh-cut cucumber. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 7, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Zhang, H.; Han, M.; Xie, Y.; Wang, M.; Cao, C. Application of ethylene-regulating packaging in post-harvest fruits and vegetables storage: A review. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2022, 35, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Arnon-Rips, H.; Poverenov, E. Improving food products’ quality and storability by using Layer by Layer edible coatings. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 75, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Olawuyi, I.F.; Lee, W. Influence of chitosan coating and packaging materials on the quality characteristics of fresh-cut cucumber. Korean J. Food Preserv. 2019, 26, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Aayush, K.; McClements, D.J.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, R.; Singh, G.P.; Sharma, K.; Oberoi, K. Innovations in the development and application of edible coatings for fresh and minimally processed Apple. Food Control 2022, 141, 109188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Olawuyi, I.F.; Kim, S.R.; Lee, W.Y. Application of plant mucilage polysaccharides and their techno-functional properties’ modification for fresh produce preservation. Carbohydr. Polym. 2021, 272, 118371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Park, D.H.; Park, J.J.; Olawuyi, I.F.; Lee, W.Y. Quality of White mushroom (Agaricus bisporus) under argon-and nitrogen-based controlled atmosphere storage. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 265, 109229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dhall, R. Advances in edible coatings for fresh fruits and vegetables: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 53, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Poverenov, E.; Danino, S.; Horev, B.; Granit, R.; Vinokur, Y.; Rodov, V. Layer-by-layer electrostatic deposition of edible coating on fresh cut melon model: Anticipated and unexpected effects of alginate–chitosan combination. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2014, 7, 1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bourtoom, T. Edible films and coatings: Characteristics and properties. Int. Food Res. J. 2008, 15, 237. [Google Scholar]
  13. Medeiros, B.G.d.S.; Pinheiro, A.C.; Carneiro-da-Cunha, M.G.; Vicente, A.A. Development and characterization of a nanomultilayer coating of pectin and chitosan–Evaluation of its gas barrier properties and application on ‘Tommy Atkins’ mangoes. J. Food Eng. 2012, 110, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Brasil, I.; Gomes, C.; Puerta-Gomez, A.; Castell-Perez, M.; Moreira, R. Polysaccharide-based multilayered antimicrobial edible coating enhances quality of fresh-cut papaya. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vargas, M.; Pastor, C.; Chiralt, A.; McClements, D.J.; Gonzalez-Martinez, C. Recent advances in edible coatings for fresh and minimally processed fruits. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 48, 496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Acevedo, C.A.; López, D.A.; Tapia, M.J.; Enrione, J.; Skurtys, O.; Pedreschi, F.; Brown, D.I.; Creixell, W.; Osorio, F. Using RGB image processing for designing an alginate edible film. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012, 5, 1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zapata, P.J.; Guillén, F.; Martínez-Romero, D.; Castillo, S.; Valero, D.; Serrano, M. Use of alginate or zein as edible coatings to delay postharvest ripening process and to maintain tomato (Solanum lycopersicon Mill) quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008, 88, 1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maftoonazad, N.; Ramaswamy, H.S.; Marcotte, M. Shelf-life extension of peaches through sodium alginate and methyl cellulose edible coatings. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 43, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nehchiri, N.; Amiri, S.; Radi, M. Improving the water barrier properties of alginate packaging films by submicron coating with drying linseed oil. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2021, 34, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ouattara, B.; Simard, R.; Piette, G.; Begin, A.; Holley, R. Diffusion of acetic and propionic acids from chitosan-based antimicrobial packaging films. J. Food Sci. 2000, 65, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Devlieghere, F.; Vermeulen, A.; Debevere, J. Chitosan: Antimicrobial activity, interactions with food components and applicability as a coating on fruit and vegetables. Food Microbiol. 2004, 21, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Han, C.; Lederer, C.; McDaniel, M.; Zhao, Y. Sensory evaluation of fresh strawberries (Fragaria ananassa) coated with chitosan-based edible coatings. J. Food Sci. 2005, 70, S172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chien, P.-J.; Sheu, F.; Yang, F.-H. Effects of edible chitosan coating on quality and shelf life of sliced mango fruit. J. Food Eng. 2007, 78, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chiabrando, V.; Giacalone, G. Quality evaluation of blueberries coated with chitosan and sodium alginate during postharvest storage. Int. Food Res. J. 2017, 24, 1553–1561. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chiabrando, V.; Giacalone, G. Effect of different coatings in preventing deterioration and preserving the quality of fresh-cut nectarines (cv Big Top). CyTA-J. Food 2013, 11, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Soison, B.; Jangchud, K.; Jangchud, A.; Harnsilawat, T.; Piyachomkwan, K. Characterization of starch in relation to flesh colors of sweet potato varieties. Int. Food Res. J. 2015, 22, 2302. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kou, X.; He, Y.; Li, Y.; Chen, X.; Feng, Y.; Xue, Z. Effect of abscisic acid (ABA) and chitosan/nano-silica/sodium alginate composite film on the color development and quality of postharvest Chinese winter jujube (Zizyphus jujuba Mill. cv. Dongzao). Food Chem. 2019, 270, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aider, M. Chitosan application for active bio-based films production and potential in the food industry. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 43, 837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tapia, M.; Rojas-Graü, M.; Carmona, A.; Rodríguez, F.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Martin-Belloso, O. Use of alginate-and gellan-based coatings for improving barrier, texture and nutritional properties of fresh-cut papaya. Food Hydrocoll. 2008, 22, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rojas-Graü, M.A.; Tapia, M.S.; Martín-Belloso, O. Using polysaccharide-based edible coatings to maintain quality of fresh-cut Fuji apples. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oms-Oliu, G.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Martín-Belloso, O. Using polysaccharide-based edible coatings to enhance quality and antioxidant properties of fresh-cut melon. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Azarakhsh, N.; Osman, A.; Ghazali, H.M.; Tan, C.P.; Adzahan, N.M. Lemongrass essential oil incorporated into alginate-based edible coating for shelf-life extension and quality retention of fresh-cut pineapple. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2014, 88, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Souza, M.P.; Vaz, A.F.; Cerqueira, M.A.; Texeira, J.A.; Vicente, A.A.; Carneiro-da-Cunha, M.G. Effect of an edible nanomultilayer coating by electrostatic self-assembly on the shelf life of fresh-cut mangoes. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2015, 8, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Chiabrando, V.; Giacalone, G. Anthocyanins, phenolics and antioxidant capacity after fresh storage of blueberry treated with edible coatings. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 66, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Embuscado, M.E.; Huber, K.C. Edible Films and Coatings for Food Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 9. [Google Scholar]
  36. Baldwin, E.A.; Hagenmaier, R.; Bai, J. Edible Coatings and Films to Improve Food Quality; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mishra, B.; Khatkar, B.; Garg, M.; Wilson, L. Permeability of edible coatings. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 47, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Ghidelli, C.; Mateos, M.; Rojas-Argudo, C.; Pérez-Gago, M.B. Extending the shelf life of fresh-cut eggplant with a soy protein–cysteine based edible coating and modified atmosphere packaging. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2014, 95, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Xing, Y.; Li, X.; Xu, Q.; Jiang, Y.; Yun, J.; Li, W. Effects of chitosan-based coating and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) on browning and shelf life of fresh-cut lotus root (Nelumbo nucifera Gaerth). Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2010, 11, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shi, S.; Wang, W.; Liu, L.; Wu, S.; Wei, Y.; Li, W. Effect of chitosan/nano-silica coating on the physicochemical characteristics of longan fruit under ambient temperature. J. Food Eng. 2013, 118, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vieira, T.M.; Moldão-Martins, M.; Alves, V.D. Composite coatings of chitosan and alginate emulsions with olive oil to enhance postharvest quality and shelf life of fresh figs (Ficus carica L. cv.‘Pingo De Mel’). Foods 2021, 10, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Al-Hilifi, S.A.; Al-Ali, R.M.; Al-Ibresam, O.T.; Kumar, N.; Paidari, S.; Trajkovska Petkoska, A.; Agarwal, V. Physicochemical, Morphological and Functional Characterization of Edible Anthocyanin-Enriched Aloe Vera Coatings on Fresh Figs (Ficus carica L.). Gels 2022, 8, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sipahi, R.; Castell-Perez, M.; Moreira, R.; Gomes, C.; Castillo, A. Improved multilayered antimicrobial alginate-based edible coating extends the shelf life of fresh-cut watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 51, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zam, W. Effect of alginate and chitosan edible coating enriched with olive leaves extract on the shelf life of sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.). J. Food Qual. 2019, 2019, 8192964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Qamar, J.; Ejaz, S.; Anjum, M.A.; Nawaz, A.; Hussain, S.; Ali, S.; Saleem, S. Effect of Aloe vera gel, chitosan and sodium alginate based edible coatings on postharvest quality of refrigerated strawberry fruits of cv. Chandler. J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2018, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Valero, D.; Díaz-Mula, H.M.; Zapata, P.J.; Guillén, F.; Martínez-Romero, D.; Castillo, S.; Serrano, M. Effects of alginate edible coating on preserving fruit quality in four plum cultivars during postharvest storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 77, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nair, M.S.; Saxena, A.; Kaur, C. Effect of chitosan and alginate based coatings enriched with pomegranate peel extract to extend the postharvest quality of guava (Psidium guajava L.). Food Chem. 2018, 240, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Connor, A.M.; Luby, J.J.; Hancock, J.F.; Berkheimer, S.; Hanson, E.J. Changes in fruit antioxidant activity among blueberry cultivars during cold-temperature storage. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Song, H.; Yuan, W.; Jin, P.; Wang, W.; Wang, X.; Yang, L.; Zhang, Y. Effects of chitosan/nano-silica on postharvest quality and antioxidant capacity of loquat fruit during cold storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 119, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ali, A.; Muhammad, M.T.M.; Sijam, K.; Siddiqui, Y. Effect of chitosan coatings on the physicochemical characteristics of Eksotika II papaya (Carica papaya L.) fruit during cold storage. Food Chem. 2011, 124, 620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Arroyo, B.J.; Bezerra, A.C.; Oliveira, L.L.; Arroyo, S.J.; de Melo, E.A.; Santos, A.M.P. Antimicrobial active edible coating of alginate and chitosan add ZnO nanoparticles applied in guavas (Psidium guajava L.). Food Chem. 2020, 309, 125566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, J.; Durst, R.W.; Wrolstad, R.E.; Eisele, T.; Giusti, M.M.; Hach, J.; Hofsommer, H.; Koswig, S.; Krueger, D.A.; Kupina, S.; et al. Determination of total monomeric anthocyanin pigment content of fruit juices, beverages, natural colorants, and wines by the pH differential method: Collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 2005, 88, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the changes in total color difference value (ΔE) of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 1. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the changes in total color difference value (ΔE) of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g001
Figure 2. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the percentage of weight loss of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 2. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the percentage of weight loss of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g002
Figure 3. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the flesh firmness of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 3. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the flesh firmness of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g003
Figure 4. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the aerobic bacteria on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 4. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the aerobic bacteria on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g004
Figure 5. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the yeast and mold on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 5. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the yeast and mold on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g005
Figure 6. The effect of layer-by-layer and single-layer coatings on the percentage of carbon dioxide gas emission on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6. The effect of layer-by-layer and single-layer coatings on the percentage of carbon dioxide gas emission on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g006
Figure 7. The effect of layer-by-layer and single-layer coatings on the percentage of oBrix of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 7. The effect of layer-by-layer and single-layer coatings on the percentage of oBrix of fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g007
Figure 8. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the pH on fresh-cut purple sweet potato potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 8. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the pH on fresh-cut purple sweet potato potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g008
Figure 9. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the anthocyanin content on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 9. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the anthocyanin content on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g009
Figure 10. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the total phenolic content on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 10. The effect of single-layer and gel coatings on the total phenolic content on fresh-cut purple sweet potatoes. Vertical bars represent means and standard deviation. Bars with different alphabets within the same storage day (lower case) or same treatment group at different storage days (upper case) are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD Test, p ≤ 0.05).
Gels 08 00747 g010
Figure 11. Illustration of coating procedure for fresh-cut purple flesh sweet potatoes.
Figure 11. Illustration of coating procedure for fresh-cut purple flesh sweet potatoes.
Gels 08 00747 g011
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chit, C.-S.; Olawuyi, I.F.; Park, J.J.; Lee, W.Y. Effect of Composite Chitosan/Sodium Alginate Gel Coatings on the Quality of Fresh-Cut Purple-Flesh Sweet Potato. Gels 2022, 8, 747. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels8110747

AMA Style

Chit C-S, Olawuyi IF, Park JJ, Lee WY. Effect of Composite Chitosan/Sodium Alginate Gel Coatings on the Quality of Fresh-Cut Purple-Flesh Sweet Potato. Gels. 2022; 8(11):747. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels8110747

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chit, Chit-Swe, Ibukunoluwa Fola Olawuyi, Jong Jin Park, and Won Young Lee. 2022. "Effect of Composite Chitosan/Sodium Alginate Gel Coatings on the Quality of Fresh-Cut Purple-Flesh Sweet Potato" Gels 8, no. 11: 747. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels8110747

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop