Submitted:
21 July 2023
Posted:
25 July 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Plant Materials
2.1.2. Chemicals
2.2. Experimental Design
2.2.1. Preparation of CMCS-GL-Based Edible Coating Solutions
2.2.2. Method for Determination of Mechanical Properties and Barrier Properties of CMCS-GL Based Edible Film
- Determination of film thickness
- 2.
- Determination of TS and EAB
- 3.
- Determination of WVP
- 4.
- Determination of OP
- 5.
- Determination of comprehensive scores for film mechanical and barrier performance
2.2.3. Single Factor Test for Performance Optimization of CMCS-GL-Based Edible Film
2.2.4. Response Surface Optimization Test of Performance of CMCS-GL-Based Edible Film
2.2.5. Experimental Design of the Fresh-Keeping Effect of Edible Coating on Sweet Cherry
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Univariate Tests Results and Analysis
3.1.1. Effect of CMCS: GL (w:w) on Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Edible Film
3.1.2. The Effect of Glycerol Addition on the Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Edible Films
3.1.3. Effect of CaCl2 Addition on the Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Edible Films
3.1.4. Effect of Tween-20 Addition on the Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Edible Films
3.1.5. Effect of AA Addition on the Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Edible Films
3.2. Determination of the Comprehensive Scores of the Mechanical and Barrier Properties of the Edible Film
3.2.1. Results of Principal Component Analysis
3.2.2. Determination of Comprehensive Scores of Mechanical and Barrier Properties of Edible Membranes
3.3. Response Surface Optimization Test Results and Analysis
3.4. Response Surface Optimization Test Graph Analysis
3.5. Determination and Verification of the Optimal Formulation of CMCS-GL-Based Edible Film
3.6. Fresh-Keeping Effects of Different CMCS-GL-Based Edible Films on Sweet Cherries
3.6.1. Effects of Different CMCS-GL-Based Edible Coatings on Fruit Decay Rate of Sweet Cherry during Storage
3.6.2. Effects of Different CMCS-GL-Based Edible Coatings on the Weight Loss Rate and Hardness of Sweet Cherries during Storage
3.6.3. Effects of Different CMCS-GL-Based Edible Coatings on Peel Color of Sweet Cherries during Storage
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Blando, F. and B.D. Oomah, Sweet and sour cherries: Origin, distribution, nutritional composition and health benefits. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2019. 86: p. 517-529. [CrossRef]
- Mujtaba, M., et al., Current advancements in chitosan-based film production for food technology; A review. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2019. 121: p. 889-904. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C., H. Gong, and Y. Liu, Effects of postharvest coating using chitosan combined with natamycin on physicochemical and microbial properties of sweet cherry during cold storage. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2022. 214: p. 1-9. [CrossRef]
- Tokatli, K. and A. Demirdoven, Effects of chitosan edible film coatings on the physicochemical and microbiological qualities of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Scientia Horticulturae, 2020. 259: p. 7. [CrossRef]
- Cazón, P., et al., Polysaccharide-based films and coatings for food packaging: A review. Food Hydrocolloids, 2017. 68: p. 136-148. [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J., et al., Carboxymethyl chitosan incorporated with gliadin/phlorotannin nanoparticles enables the formation of new active packaging films. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2022. 203: p. 40-48. [CrossRef]
- Bai, R.Y., et al., Development and characterization of antioxidant active packaging and intelligent Al3+-sensing films based on carboxymethyl chitosan and quercetin. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 2019. 126: p. 1074-1084. [CrossRef]
- Dayarian, S., et al., Physico-Mechanical Properties of Films of Chitosan, Carboxymethyl Chitosan, and Their Blends. Journal of Polymers and the Environment, 2014. 22(3): p. 409-416. [CrossRef]
- Fan, S., et al., Incorporation of cinnamon essential oil-loaded Pickering emulsion for improving antimicrobial properties and control release of chitosan/ gelatin films. Food Hydrocolloids, 2023. 138. [CrossRef]
- Yadav, S., et al., Preparation, physicochemical and biological evaluation of quercetin based chitosan-gelatin film for food packaging. Carbohydr Polym, 2020. 227: p. 1-9. [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, V.B., D.H.H. Nguyen, and H.H. Nguyen, Combination effects of calcium chloride and nano-chitosan on the postharvest quality of strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.). Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2020. 162(1): p. 1-8. [CrossRef]
- Kou, X.H., et al., Effects of Chitosan, Calcium Chloride, and Pullulan Coating Treatments on Antioxidant Activity in Pear cv. "Huang guan" During Storage. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 2014. 7(3): p. 671-681. [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.D., et al., Combined effects of ascorbic acid and chitosan on the quality maintenance and shelf life of plums. Scientia Horticulturae, 2014. 176: p. 45-53. [CrossRef]
- Aleryani-Raqeeb., A., et al., Effects of Calcium Infiltration and Chitosan Coating on Storage Life and Quality Characteristics During Storage of Papaya (Carica papaya L.). International Journal of Agricultural Research, 2008. 3(4): p. 296-306. [CrossRef]
- Tian, Z., et al., Nano Calcium-Deficient Hydroxyapatite/O-carboxymethyl Chitosan-CaCl2 Microspheres Loaded with Rhein for Bone Defect Repair. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2022. 19(4): p. 1087-1099. [CrossRef]
- Tuan Mohamood, N.F.A.-Z., A.H. Abdul Halim, and N. Zainuddin, Carboxymethyl Cellulose Hydrogel from Biomass Waste of Oil Palm Empty Fruit Bunch Using Calcium Chloride as Crosslinking Agent. Polymers, 2021. 13(23). [CrossRef]
- Ozdemir, K.S. and V. Gokmen, Effect of Chitosan-Ascorbic Acid Coatings on the Refrigerated Storage Stability of Fresh-Cut Apples. Coatings, 2019. 9(8): p. 1-12. [CrossRef]
- Martinez-Camacho, A.P., et al., Chitosan composite films: Thermal, structural, mechanical and antifungal properties. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2010. 82(2): p. 305-315. [CrossRef]
- Pereda, M., et al., Chitosan-gelatin composites and bi-layer films with potential antimicrobial activity. Food Hydrocolloids, 2011. 25(5): p. 1372-1381. [CrossRef]
- Rocha, G.O., et al., Biodegradable Composite Films Based on Cassava Starch and Soy Protein. Polimeros-Ciencia E Tecnologia, 2014. 24(5): p. 587-595. [CrossRef]
- Zugravu, M.V., et al., Physical properties and in vitro evaluation of collagen-chitosan-calcium phosphate microparticle-based scaffolds for bone tissue regeneration. Journal of Biomaterials Applications, 2013. 28(4): p. 566-579. [CrossRef]
- Maringgal, B., et al., Recent advance in edible coating and its effect on fresh/fresh-cut fruits quality. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2020. 96: p. 253-267. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y., X.B. Xie, and L.E. Long, The effect of postharvest calcium application in hydro-cooling water on tissue calcium content, biochemical changes, and quality attributes of sweet cherry fruit. Food Chemistry, 2014. 160: p. 22-30. [CrossRef]
- Conway, W.S., et al., Inhibition of Penicillium expansum polygalacturonase activity by increased apple cell wall calcium. Phytopathology, 1988. 78(8): p. 1052-1055. [CrossRef]
- Sogvar, O.B., M. Koushesh Saba, and A. Emamifar, Aloe vera and ascorbic acid coatings maintain postharvest quality and reduce microbial load of strawberry fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 2016. 114: p. 29-35. [CrossRef]
- Chiabrando, V. and G. Giacalone, Effect of alginate edible coating on quality and antioxidant properties in sweet cherry during postharvest storage. Italian Journal of Food Science, 2015. 27(2): p. 173-180. [CrossRef]
- Riva, S.C., U.O. Opara, and O.A. Fawole, Recent developments on postharvest application of edible coatings on stone fruit: A review. Scientia Horticulturae, 2020. 262: p. 1-10. [CrossRef]
- Maftoonazad, N., H.S. Ramaswamy, and M. Marcotte, Shelf-life extension of peaches through sodium alginate and methyl cellulose edible coatings. International Journal of Food ence & Technology, 2008. 43(6): p. 951-957. [CrossRef]
- Goncalves, B., et al., Effect of ripeness and postharvest storage on the evolution of colour and anthocyanins in cherries (Prunus avium L.). Food Chemistry, 2007. 103(3): p. 976-984. [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H., et al., Enhancement of quality and antioxidant metabolism of sweet cherry fruit by near-freezing temperature storage. Postharvest Biology & Technology. 2019. 147: p. 113-122. [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P., et al., Effect of chitosan coating on postharvest life and quality of plum during storage at low temperature. Scientia Horticulturae, 2017. 226: p. 104-109. [CrossRef]




| Levels | The quality ratio between CMCS and GL |
Glycerol addition amount/% |
CaCl2 addition amount /% |
Tween-20 addition amount /% |
AA addition amount /% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6:0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 4:2 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 1 |
| 3 | 3:3 | 1 | 2 | 0.2 | 2 |
| 4 | 2:4 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 3 |
| 5 | 0:6 | 2 | 3 | 0.4 | 4 |
| The quality ratio between CMCS and GL |
Glycerol addition amount/% |
CaCl2 addition amount/% |
|---|---|---|
| 1:1(1) | 0.5 | 1.5 |
| 2:1(2) | 1 | 2 |
| 3:1(3) | 1.5 | 2.5 |
| Number | Treatments | Abbreviation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clean with tap water only | C |
| 2 | CMCS-GL(2 min) | CMCS-GL |
| 3 | CaCl2-CMCS-GL(2 min) | CaCl2-CMCS-GL |
| 4 | AA-CaCl2-CMCS-GL(2 min) | AA-CaCl2-CMCS-GL |
| Factors | AA addition amount /% | Thickness/mm | TS/MPa | EAB/% | WVP/ 10-12g-cm /(cm2-s-Pa) |
OP/ 10-11cm3-cm /(m2-s-Pa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMCS:GL(w:w) | 6:0 | 0.052±0.006a | 17.61±0.57a | 41.74±1.77a | 1.85±0.12a | 6.51±0.19a |
| 4:2 | 0.053±0.005a | 20.09±0.71b | 79.84±2.54b | 1.53±0.08b | 5.37±0.16b | |
| 3:3 | 0.053±0.006a | 16.03±0.38c | 70.95±2.14c | 1.38±0.07bc | 5.19±0.15b | |
| 2:4 | 0.050±0.005a | 13.08±0.29d | 64.15±2.50d | 1.29±0.08c | 5.23±0.10b | |
| 0:6 | 0.053±0.006a | 8.40±0.38e | 62.15±1.96d | 1.23±0.13c | 4.52±0.40c | |
| Glycerol addition amount/% | 0 | 0.055±0.004a | 20.17±0.63a | 45.06±1.99a | 1.75±0.09a | 6.46±0.09a |
| 0.5 | 0.053±0.003a | 18.10±0.79b | 52.51±1.38b | 1.54±0.07b | 5.66±0.11b | |
| 1 | 0.057±0.004a | 16.18±0.43c | 70.91±1.97c | 1.41±0.03c | 5.18±0.13b | |
| 1.5 | 0.055±0.003a | 14.36±0.79d | 74.64±1.94d | 1.58±0.05b | 5.84±0.11b | |
| 2 | 0.054±0.003a | 13.06±0.67e | 76.20±1.81d | 1.81±0.08a | 6.38±0.15a | |
| CaCl2 addition amount/% | 1 | 0.055±0.004a | 13.37±0.58ab | 78.66±1.93a | 1.88±0.07ad | 6.61±0.24a |
| 1.5 | 0.052±0.005a | 14.84±0.80b | 75.68±1.69a | 1.61±0.06b | 5.66±0.19b | |
| 2 | 0.055±0.003a | 16.22±0.52c | 71.92±1.83b | 1.45±0.08c | 5.20±0.15c | |
| 2.5 | 0.053±0.004a | 14.14±0.73b | 57.37±1.46c | 1.75±0.08a | 5.82±0.25bd | |
| 3 | 0.054±0.003a | 12.45±0.66a | 46.82±1.96d | 1.96±0.09d | 6.19±0.21d | |
| Tween-20 addition amount /% | 0 | 0.053±0.004a | 15.83±0.54a | 66.23±1.50a | 1.45±0.03a | 5.36±0.20a |
| 0.1 | 0.054±0.003a | 15.75±0.50a | 65.61±1.70a | 1.47±0.06a | 5.25±0.25a | |
| 0.2 | 0.055±0.003a | 15.77±0.93a | 66.01±1.61a | 1.49±0.08a | 5.33±0.20a | |
| 0.3 | 0.054±0.003a | 15.92±0.21a | 65.64±1.46a | 1.46±0.06a | 5.38±0.21a | |
| 0.4 | 0.055±0.002a | 16.06±0.67a | 65.20±1.84a | 1.42±0.04a | 5.35±0.12a | |
| AA addition amount /% | 0 | 0.056±0.004a | 15.41±0.31ab | 64.42±1.04a | 1.44±0.04a | 5.34±0.23a |
| 1 | 0.055±0.004a | 15.55±0.28b | 64.47±0.62a | 1.42±0.05a | 5.50±0.08a | |
| 2 | 0.053±0.003a | 15.50±0.33b | 64.99±1.17a | 1.45±0.05a | 5.44±0.10a | |
| 3 | 0.056±0.005a | 14.92±0.21ab | 64.30±1.08a | 1.47±0.05a | 5.46±0.12a | |
| 4 | 0.057±0.006a | 14.73±0.66a | 64.38±1.20a | 1.49±0.07a | 5.47±0.06a |
| Types | Number | TS/MPa | EAB/% | WVP/ 10-12g-cm/(cm2-s-Pa) |
OP 10-11cm3-cm/(m2-s-Pa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw test data | 1 | 17.61±0.57 | 41.74±1.77 | 1.85±0.12 | 6.51±0.19 |
| 2 | 20.09±0.71 | 79.84±2.54 | 1.53±0.08 | 5.37±0.16 | |
| 3 | 18.10±0.79 | 52.51±1.38 | 1.54±0.07 | 5.66±0.11 | |
| 4 | 16.18±0.43 | 70.91±1.97 | 1.41±0.03 | 5.18±0.13 | |
| 5 | 16.22±0.52 | 71.92±1.83 | 1.45±0.08 | 5.20±0.15 | |
| 6 | 14.14±0.73 | 57.37±1.46 | 1.75±0.08 | 5.82±0.25 | |
| Standardized Test data | 1 | 0.55±0.08 | 0.04±0.04 | 0.20±0.19 | 0.11±0.11 |
| 2 | 0.90±0.24 | 0.93±0.49 | 0.73±0.19 | 0.79±0.45 | |
| 3 | 0.82±0.24 | 0.63±0.47 | 0.51±0.29 | 0.64±0.0.36 | |
| 4 | 0.65±0.10 | 0.51±0.06 | 0.80±0.14 | 0.67±0. 09 | |
| 5 | 0.73±0.21 | 0.72±0.40 | 0.78±0. 06 | 0.71±0.09 | |
| 6 | 0.59±0.15 | 0.45±0.42 | 0.77±0.03 | 0.69±0.03 |
| Component | Eigenvalues | Variance contribution rate /% |
Cumulative variance contribution rate /% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Z1 | 2.619 | 65.475 | 65.475 |
| Z2 | 1.008 | 25.188 | 90.663 |
| Z3 | 0.280 | 6.993 | 97.656 |
| Z4 | 0.094 | 2.344 | 100.000 |
| Component | TS(X1) | EAB(X2) | WVP(X3) | OP(X4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z1 | 0.922 | 0.186 | 0.914 | 0.948 |
| Z2 | 0.044 | 0.981 | -0.030 | -0.206 |
| Component | TS | EAB | WVP | OP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 | 0.570 | 0.115 | 0.565 | 0.948 |
| Y2 | 0.044 | 0.997 | -0.030 | -0.205 |
| H | 0.423 | 0.115 | 0.565 | 0.586 |
| W | 0.251 | 0.068 | 0.334 | 0.347 |
| Number | CMCS:GL (w:w,X1) |
Glycerol addition amount/% (X2) | CaCl2 addition amount/% (X2) | Comprehensive Score Y |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.76 | ||
| 2 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0.62 | ||
| 3 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0.45 | ||
| 4 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0.40 | ||
| 5 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0.49 | ||
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.75 | ||
| 7 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0.38 | ||
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.74 | ||
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.33 | ||
| 10 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0.42 | ||
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.71 | ||
| 12 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0.41 | ||
| 13 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0.36 | ||
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.73 | ||
| 15 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0.56 | ||
| 16 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0.37 | ||
| 17 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.31 | ||
| Source of Variance |
Sum of Squares |
DF | Mean Square |
F Value | p Value | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.44 | 9 | 0.049 | 188.15 | < 0.0001 | ** |
| X1 | 2.1×10-3 | 1 | 2.1×10-3 | 8.10 | 0.0248 | * |
| X2 | 7.2×10-3 | 1 | 7.2×10-3 | 27.78 | 0.0012 | ** |
| X3 | 4.22×10-3 | 1 | 4.22×10-3 | 1.63 | 0.2427 | |
| X1X2 | 2.5×10-3 | 1 | 2.5×10-3 | 0.096 | 0.7652 | |
| X1X3 | 0.018 | 1 | 0.018 | 68.01 | < 0.0001 | ** |
| X2X3 | 0.013 | 1 | 0.013 | 51.02 | 0.0002 | ** |
| 0.085 | 1 | 0.085 | 325.98 | < 0.0001 | ** | |
| 0.18 | 1 | 0.18 | 690.45 | < 0.0001 | ** | |
| 0.040 | 1 | 0.040 | 155.97 | < 0.0001 | ** | |
| Residual | 1.815×10-3 | 7 | 2.592×10-3 | |||
| Lack of fit | 3.345×10-3 | 3 | 1.115×10-3 | 0.30 | 0.8240 | no |
| Pure Error | 1.48×10-3 | 4 | 3.7×10-3 | |||
| Cor total | 0.44 | 16 | ||||
| R2 | 0.9959 | |||||
| 0.9906 | ||||||
| CV/% | 3.11 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).