Next Article in Journal
Rapid Identification of Corn Sugar Syrup Adulteration in Wolfberry Honey Based on Fluorescence Spectroscopy Coupled with Chemometrics
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Vacuum and Modified Atmosphere Packaging on the Shelf Life and Quality of Gutted Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) during Refrigerated Storage
Previous Article in Journal
The Desalting Process for Table Olives and Its Effect on Their Physicochemical Characteristics and Nutrient Mineral Content
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Ratiometric Fluorescent Sensor Based on Silicon Quantum Dots and Silver Nanoclusters for Beef Freshness Monitoring
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/foods12122308
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Edible Films and Coatings in the Shelf-Life Improvement of Chicken Meat

by
Márcio Moura-Alves
1,2,*,
Alexandra Esteves
1,2,
Maria Ciríaco
1,2,
José A. Silva
1,2 and
Cristina Saraiva
1,2
1
CECAV—Animal and Veterinary Research Centre, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), 5000801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
AL4AnimalS—Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences, 5000801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(12), 2308; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122308
Submission received: 5 May 2023 / Revised: 2 June 2023 / Accepted: 6 June 2023 / Published: 7 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meat Preservation and Intelligent Packaging)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Meat deterioration during processing, distribution, and display can compromise the quality and safety of products, causing several undesirable changes and decreasing products’ shelf-life, which has a negative impact on the industry and consumers. In recent years, studies have been carried out using decontamination techniques and new packaging methodologies to overcome deterioration problems, increase sustainability, and reduce waste. Edible films and coatings obtained from biopolymers such as polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids, combined with active compounds, can be an alternative approach. This article focused on recent studies that used alternative biodegradable polymeric matrices in conjunction with natural compounds with antioxidant/antimicrobial activity on chicken meat. Its impact on physicochemical, microbiological, and sensory characteristics was evident, as well as the effect on its shelf-life. In general, different combinations of active edible films or coatings had a positive effect on the chicken meat. Different studies reported that the main results were a decrease in microbial growth and pathogen survival, a slowdown in lipid oxidation evolution, and an improvement in sensory quality and shelf-life (an increase from 4 to 12 days).

1. Introduction

Chicken meat was the most produced meat worldwide in 2020, representing 35% of the global production, followed by 33% of pork and 20% of beef [1]. Despite that, chicken meat is highly perishable, and it has a limited shelf-life even in refrigerated storage. Spoilage and sensory changes caused by physical, chemical, and biological agents lead to meat and meat products being unacceptable for consumers, which also contributes to food waste [2,3]. Meat spoilage is mostly caused by microbial deterioration, lipid oxidation, and autolytic, enzymatic reactions [4,5]. Spoilage results in color and texture changes, and the formation of off-flavors, off-odors, and slime, among other undesired characteristics [2].
Food packaging plays an important role in food protection and shelf-life extension. The environmental concerns about the use of plastic and derivates lead to the need to search for new packaging solutions [6,7]. Non-degradable plastic accounts for 73% of litter in any aquatic habitat on a global scale [8], with about 4.8–12.7 million metric tons of plastic waste entering the oceans per year [9]. In recent years, studies have been directed toward the use of biopolymers, and to replace synthetic polymers due to their capacity for recycling and degradation [10,11]. The interest in the use of edible films and coatings has grown due to promising results in food preservation since they are biodegradable, biocompatible, recyclable, and of renewable origin [12,13,14]. The technology has been used in food preservation for centuries. The first record found was the preservation of citrus fruits by coating them with molten wax made in China in the 12th and 13th centuries (Anonymous, 1944) [15]. The technology was also used to preserve and increase meat products’ shelf-life in the 16th century (Contreras-Medellin and Labuza, 1981, in [16]). Later in the 19th century, the use of gelatin to preserve meat was patented in the United States [17].
Edible films and coatings can be produced from polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, or biocomposites [12,16,18]. It is also possible to incorporate functional agents in the packaging that enables the creation of active packaging, improving the product’s characteristics and consequently increasing its shelf-life [18,19]. They are designed to deliberately incorporate components that release substances to the packaged foods or the environment that surrounds them or that absorb substances from these foods/environments.
Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities on edible films and coatings are promising forms of active packaging. There are several groups of antimicrobial and/or antioxidant compounds capable of being incorporated into edible films. However, due to the potentially toxic effects of synthetic additives, there is a growing interest in their substitution for natural additives [20,21,22,23].
Natural antimicrobial compounds obtained from microorganisms, animals, and plants have been tested for their antimicrobial potential against pathogens and spoilage bacteria in various food products [24,25]. Antimicrobial agents can enhance food safety and shelf-life by inhibiting, reducing, or retarding the growth of spoilage or pathogenic microorganisms on food surfaces [26,27,28,29]. Bactericidal and fungicide capacity, stability at temperature and pH, activity at low concentrations, non-transmitting color and taste, and low toxicity are some of the criteria that should be considered when choosing an antimicrobial compound [22,23].
Natural antioxidant agents can be obtained from plant extracts, essential oils (EO) from herbs and spices, and a wide variety of polyphenolic concentrates from waste biosources [23,30]. They contain active compounds that prevent lipid oxidation, delay the development of off-flavors, and improve color stability [20,31,32]. Moreover, they also have good antimicrobial and antifungal properties [30,33].
This review discusses recent advances and new solutions in meat packaging, focusing on edible films and coatings with the incorporation of compounds with antimicrobial and antioxidant properties to improve chicken meat sensory characteristics, safety, and shelf-life.

2. Edible Films and Coatings Definition and Obtention

Edible films and coatings are defined as thin layers made of natural polymers, used for wrapping or coating foods, representing an important role in their conservation, distribution, and marketing [34,35,36].
Edible films and coatings have different applications and a wide range of properties that could help the food industry to enhance quality and shelf-life. The addition of flavors, aromas, antimicrobial agents, antioxidants, pigments, and vitamins can improve food quality and reduce many problems with a direct impact on shelf-life [37]. The extensive use of petroleum-derived polymers and consequent packaging wastes cause adverse effects on environmental pollution [38]. These concerns allow the approach and the intensification of studies to other more sustainable, biodegradable, and non-polluting alternatives, such as edible films and coatings based on biopolymers. The films can be produced by wet or dry methods [39,40]. By wet processing, films (dried over a surface) and coatings (dried over foods) can be obtained [39]. Wet methods consist in spreading and solvent evaporation or “casting.” Edible coatings are formed by dipping, spraying, panning, fluidized bed, and enrobing, depending on the characteristics of the foods [39,41,42].
The production of edible films by dry methods can be achieved through extrusion or thermopressing/thermoforming [12,39]. The thermopressing/thermoforming technique is normally used for the production of plastic utensils and also involves high temperatures and pressure [12]. The technology has been recently applied to the production of bioactive films [43,44].

2.1. Types and Materials

Edible films and coatings can be obtained from hydrocolloids, lipids, and their composites [12,16,18]. The use of this type of material can have several purposes, such as a barrier to moisture migration and gas flow, preservation of mechanical properties, and protection against microbial oxidation and deterioration, which can be increased by the addition of functional compounds [45,46]. Hydrocolloids usually provide better mechanical properties than lipids and hydrophobic substances [16]. Polysaccharide hydrocolloids are the most used components in the production of edible films and coatings [47]. However, these and other natural film-forming substances may need film additives such as plasticizers, crosslinking agents, emulsifiers, and reinforcements to improve or modify the basic functionality of the material film, such as mechanical resistance, water resistance, and elasticity [16,48]. Due to the limited function of a single-component edible film, composite films can be obtained by multiple biopolymers combined to create edible films with desirable properties [18,40]. Table 1 summarizes the film-forming materials of films and coatings.
Furthermore, active edible films can be created by the addition of functional compounds as anti-browning agents, colorants, flavors, nutrients, probiotics, nutraceuticals, antimicrobial and antioxidant compounds, etc. [60,61,62]. Table 2 summarizes the main functional and bioactive ingredients of active films and coatings.

2.2. Functions, Properties, and Applications

Films and coating obtained by biopolymers have several benefits due to their edible nature, availability, low cost, and biodegradability [67]. They are designed to deal with food’s susceptibility to physical/mechanical impacts, chemical reactions, and microbial development [68,69,70].
The main characteristics of edible films and coatings are related to (1) edibility and biodegradability; (2) physical and mechanical protection, pressure, vibrations, and other mechanical factors; (3) prevent and control of mass transfer or barrier functions (e.g., water vapor barrier, oxygen barrier, UV light barrier, organic vapor barrier, fat barrier); (4) active substance carriers and controlled release; (5) improvement of sensory properties; (6) shelf-life extension and safety enhancement; and (7) convenience and quality preservation [39,71,72].

2.3. Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Edible Films for Chicken Meat

Meat spoilage can be mainly caused by lipid oxidation, autolytic, enzymatic reactions, and microbial deterioration [4,5]. Several factors influence meat spoilage, such as storage temperature, presence of oxygen, moisture, light, endogenous enzymes, and microorganisms [2,3]. Alone or in combination, the action of these factors can cause changes in the color, odor, texture, and flavor of meat [2]. Compared to red meat, chicken meat has a shorter shelf-life mainly due to lipid oxidation and resulting off-flavors because of its higher content of unsaturated fatty acids [73]. Additionally, the original microbiota and meat processing conditions may contribute to the shorter shelf-life [73].
Edible films and coatings can present some benefits and economic impact on the meat industry. The prevention of moisture and weight loss, sensory changes in texture, flavor, odor, color, and dripping reduction can positively influence meat quality. Furthermore, the low oxygen permeability leads to the reduction of lipids oxidation, myoglobin oxidation, spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms, and partial inactivation of deteriorative proteolytic enzymes [74].
The addition of plant extracts and essential oils has gained prominence due to their antimicrobial and antioxidant potential. The use of antioxidant biocompounds in edible films and coatings formulations is mainly to prevent lipid oxidation, delay the development of off-flavors, and improve color stability [20]. Their activity has the ability to prevent chain reactions that initiate peroxidation, scavenging oxygen-reactive species, inhibit pro-oxidative enzymes, breaking auto-oxidative chain reactions, capturing O2− radicals and preventing the development of peroxides, and chelate metal ions, preventing the generation of reactive species or lipid peroxides decomposition [20,75].
Antimicrobial compounds can be obtained from microorganisms, animals, and plants. The main bioactive compounds of vegetal origin with antimicrobial activity include phenolics, terpenes, aliphatic alcohols, aldehydes, acids, and isoflavonoids [21,76]. These compounds may have different mechanisms of action in microbial cells, such as changes in cell membrane permeability, cytoplasmic membrane disintegration, the release of cellular constituents, changes in phospholipid and fatty acid composition, changes in DNA and RNA synthesis, and destruction in protein translocation [74,77].
Table 3 presents studies with different types of edible films and coatings on chicken meat and the main results obtained in each study.
Overall, different combinations of edible films or coatings had a beneficial effect on chicken meat. According to the results presented in Table 3, this is mainly due to the control of microbiological and lipid oxidation development.
Typical levels encountered at the processing step for aerobic colony count are <105 CFU/g, and for E. coli, <102 CFU/g [91]. Spoilage can be detected when the microbial population reaches about 107–108/cm2 [92], which may result mainly in off-flavors, off-odors, and slime [2]. According to different authors, the combination of edible films/coatings with bioactive ingredients allowed to slow down the development of deteriorative and pathogenic microorganisms. It was possible to identify similarities in the behavior of spoilage indicator microorganisms. In general, the increase of counts over time is common among the developed works; however, it is also common the slowing down the development of counts compared to samples without the application of films, or with the application of films without the addition of antimicrobial compounds. Khan et al. [78] reported counts for aerobic mesophilic bacteria above 6 log CFU/g in broiler meat samples contained in plastic bags after 11 days, whereas samples packed in composite gelatin films with curcumin remained below 6 log CFU/g until 18 days.
Pseudomonas spp. are the most important group of microorganisms responsible for the spoilage of fresh meat when their counts reach 7–8 log [28]. Mehdizadeh and Langroodi [66] reported a 2.81 log to reduce Pseudomonas spp. compared to the control samples with the use of chitosan combined with propolis extract (1%) and Zataria multiflora Boiss EO (1%). In another study, Raeisi et al. [28] reported that samples coated with alginate + 5 mg/mL rosemary EO; alginate + 5 mg/mL cinnamon EO + 2000 IU/mL nisin; alginate + 5 mg/mL rosemary EO + 2000 IU/mL nisin; and alginate + 5 mg/mL cinnamon EO + 5 mg/mL rosemary EO never reached to 7 log CFU/g for Pseudomonas spp, throughout the storage period (15 days, 4 °C).
Coating and film laying has also been demonstrated to have a beneficial effect in the reduction of pathogenic microorganisms populations. Nouri Ala and Shahbazi [32] performed a study of chicken breast samples immersed in Listeria monocytogenes suspension and then coated in carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) with the incorporation of Ziziphora clinopodioides EO (ZEO) and Mentha spicata EO (MEO). Significantly bacterial reductions were observed in groups with CMC + ZEO 0.5% + MEO 0.5% and CMC + ZEO 0.25% + MEO 0.5% on day 14 compared to day 0 at 4 °C by 2.44–2.62 and 2.91–3.03 log CFU/g, respectively. The same authors reported count reductions for Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, and Campylobacter jejuni. In another study, Ca-alginate coatings combined with nisin, cinnamon EO, and rosemary EO delayed the development of L. monocytogenes in more than 2 log CFU/g in the last day of storage of chicken meat (15 days, 4 °C) [28].
The measurement of thiobarbituric acid reactive substance (TBARS), peroxide value (PV), and total volatile basic nitrogen (TVBN) has been widely used to estimate the extent of meat deterioration. Several authors have reported lower values in TBARS, PV, and TVBN values in samples treated with films/coatings compared with samples without any treatment [29,32,65,66,80,83,89,90]. The presence of antioxidants and very low permeability to oxygen and carbon dioxide are justified as the main reasons for these results, according to the authors.
There are no reference values for thresholds TBARS values because the numbers are influenced by some variables such as animal species, dietary status, age of the animals, type of meat (raw or cooked), and types of TBA methods used [93]. Although, some authors used values between 1 and 2 mg MDA/kg as the maximum acceptable values for chicken meat at which rancid off-flavors become noticeable [29,53,89]. Zhou et al. [90] refer that TBARS values of more than 0.5 mg/kg in chicken meat may be detectable by consumers as off-flavor. All studies for TBARS, represented in Table 3, showed lower values for samples with films incorporated with antioxidant compounds compared without any treatment, and almost all studies showed a similar increasing trend during the time for all treatments applied. Dalvandi et al. [89] reported values between 0.29 and 1.21 mg MDA/kg in chicken breast meat for 16 days at 4 °C. In another study, values for TBARS of chicken samples at 4 °C were between 0.207 mg/kg and 1.823 mg/kg. The highest value was obtained for control samples on day 10. For films with konjac glucomannan and Kappa-carrageenan incorporated with camellia oil, TBARS values were always lower than 1 mg/kg [90].
Different thresholds for TVBN are used in the scientific community in different studies. Yousefi et al. [83] used a threshold of 15 mg/100 g. Mehdizadeh and Langroodi [66] used a threshold of 28 mg/100 g. Nouri Ala and Shahbazi [32] and Dalvandi et al. [89] used 25 mg/100 g as a threshold that assures meat product freshness. Nouri Ala and Shahbazi [32] reported values always below the threshold established in samples coated with carboxymethylcellulose incorporated with Mentha spicata and Ziziphora clinopodioides during 14 days at 4 °C. Bacterial spoilage may increase TVBN values; thus, microbial control through the application of films or coatings with active compounds may contribute to a substantial reduction of TVBN [89,90].
Other indicators, such as a decrease in pH changes, a reduction in cooking losses, and a decrease in weight and moisture losses in samples treated with films or coatings incorporated with natural extracts or EO, are also reported by several authors [29,80,83,85]. The use of films or coatings can delay moisture and weight loss due to the barrier effect, such as low moisture absorption and water vapor permeability [19]. However, this is only possible until the film/coating is saturated [86].
It is known that the pH of meat affects its microbial stability and shelf-life. Some studies with the application of chitosan have demonstrated the ability of pH stability over the total storage time. The authors mention that this result may be due to the use of acetic acid in the preparation of the solution [87,88]. By regulating and stabilizing the pH, edible films and coatings can help maintain the desired color of meat. Color is one of the main attributes to determine food acceptance by consumers. The color properties of meat packed with films or coated depend on the film-forming materials, but mainly on the concentration of the natural compounds added. The addition of compounds that influences the color can have a negative effect on the samples. However, over storage time, this impact may be lower than the impact of color changes in the untreated samples, as their deterioration due to lipid oxidation, pigment degradation, and microbial growth provides very pronounced color changes, unlike samples where films or coating with natural compounds are applied as demonstrated by Mehdizadeh and Langroodi [66]. Additionally, the barrier properties of edible films and coatings mentioned before can prevent the escape of juices and minimize the contact of meat with oxygen. This can help preserve the natural color of fresh meat, limiting oxidation and maintaining its desirable appearance.
Whenever sensory analysis was carried out, the application of films or coatings showed an improvement in the product, namely in the color stability, taste, texture, odor, and total acceptance of the product [31,32,66,83,85,87,88]. However, some authors reported that the increase of EO or extract concentrations decreased sensory ratings. According to Mahdavi et al. [29], the use of chitosan and anise EO at 1% did not change the chicken burgers’ odor, but sensory ratings decreased with the increase of EO concentrations. Mehdizadeh and Langroodi [66] reported that concentrations higher than 1% of propolis extract and Zataria multiflora Boiss EO affects the taste and reduces sensory ratings of chicken breast fillets. Thus, the choice of film-forming materials and their concentrations, especially antimicrobial/antioxidant compounds, is very important to avoid negatively influencing the meat’s organoleptic characteristics.
As a consequence of the reported results of several studies, an increase in shelf-life is also expected. Several studies have demonstrated an increase in the shelf-life of chicken meat with different combinations of films or coatings with the addition of antioxidant and antimicrobial compounds. Garavito et al. [86] prepared edible coatings from guar gum, nisin, and oregano EO and conducted preservation tests of chicken breast fillets. According to them, the application of the coating increased the product shelf-life to 9 days compared to the control samples (6 days). Khan et al. [78], in a study with films made of bovine gelatin + carrageenan and curcumin, reported a shelf-life increase of up to 17 days in fresh broiler meat compared to control samples (10 days). Raeisi et al. [28] reported an extended shelf-life of about 6 days in chicken breast meat coated with alginate solution containing 5 mg/mL of cinnamon EO and 5 mg/mL rosemary EO. Mehdizadeh and Langroodi [66] reported an extension of the shelf-life of chicken breast meat to approximately 16 days with the use of chitosan, propolis extract (1%), and Zataria multiflora Boiss EO (1%). Considering the microbiological results, and comparing them with the limits considered acceptable (6–7 log CFU/g) mentioned in these studies, it was possible to increase meat’s shelf life between 4 and 12 days. In some of them, the shelf-life was longer than 15 days [28,66,78,80,83,89]. These results are promising, since the shelf-life of chicken meat is about 4–5 days. However, the other parameters should also be taken into consideration, especially the sensory evaluation. Although some authors report acceptable results for sensory evaluation throughout storage, others do not present data. Despite the observed results pointing to an increase in the shelf-life, there are differences among them. These differences are probably due to the antimicrobial and antioxidant capacity of the different active compounds used, as well as the ability of the film-forming materials to maintain their integrity throughout the storage time.
The enhanced moisture retention, reduced microbial growth, and improved barrier properties provided by edible films can contribute to a longer shelf-life, allowing for a longer period of safe consumption. However, some disadvantages must be overcome. It is important to carefully consider the specific application and formulation of edible films to minimize any potential disadvantages and ensure their compatibility with chicken meat. Sensory changes due to film or coating composition may affect the appearance, texture, and taste of the meat. The adhesion and uniform coverage on the chicken surface can also be challenging. The quality and stability of edible films can be affected by environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and light. Changes in these conditions during storage can lead to film degradation, loss of barrier properties, or decreased effectiveness over time. Despite these considerations, edible films and coatings remain excellent solutions for the future and should continue to be studied.

3. Conclusions

Environmental concerns demand the search for different approaches to food packaging. Edible films or coatings are a promising emerging packaging system as an alternative to the existing conventional petroleum-based systems. They can be made from biodegradable polymers and combined with functional compounds that can also be obtained from agroindustry waste which contributes to the circular economy and relieve environmental problems.
The use of edible films and coatings with antimicrobial/antioxidant properties on chicken meat has shown promising results. Based on recent studies, edible films and coatings can reduce the weight loss of chicken meat, thereby improving its overall sensory attributes and increasing consumer acceptability. Additionally, the incorporation of various antimicrobial agents, such as essential oils, bacteriocins, and plant extracts, helps control microbial growth and extend chicken meat’s shelf-life up to 12 days, according to recent studies. Furthermore, antimicrobial activity against common foodborne pathogens has been demonstrated, providing an additional layer of protection.
The results also showed improved oxidative stability of chicken meat with films or coatings with active compounds compared to untreated samples. The reduction in lipid oxidation helps maintain the overall quality and sensory attributes of the chicken meat, including its color, texture, and flavor.
Despite the promising results, further research is needed to optimize the formulation and application of edible films on chicken meat to overcome some obstacles related to film integrity and adhesion, as well as the product’s sensory characteristics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.-A., J.A.S., A.E. and C.S.; Validation, J.A.S., A.E. and C.S.; Data Curation, M.M.-A.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.M.-A.; Writing—Review and Editing, J.A.S., A.E., M.C. and C.S.; Visualization, J.A.S., A.E., M.C. and C.S.; Supervision, J.A.S., A.E. and C.S.; Project Administration, C.S.; Funding Acquisition, C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the projects UIDB/CVT/00772/2020 and LA/P/0059/2020 funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), The authors would also like to thank the scientific collaboration under the FCT AgriFood XXI (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000041) and the financial support for author M, Moura-Alves by a Ph.D. fellowship UI/BD/150835/2021 (FCT).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the project AgriFood XXI (NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000041). Alexandra Esteves, Cristina Saraiva and José A. Silva would like to thank CECAV and the support of the projects UIDB/CVT/00772/2020 and LA/P/0059/2020, funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). Márcio Moura-Alves would also like to thank the financial support of a fellowship UI/BD/150835/2021 (FCT).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. Agricultural production statistics 2000–2020. In FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 41; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Erkmen, O.; Bozoglu, T.F. Spoilage of Meat and Meat Products. In Food Microbiology: Principles into Practice; Erkmen, O., Bozoglu, T.F., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 279–295. [Google Scholar]
  3. Odeyemi, O.A.; Alegbeleye, O.O.; Strateva, M.; Stratev, D. Understanding spoilage microbial community and spoilage mechanisms in foods of animal origin. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 311–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Addis, M. Major Causes Of Meat Spoilage and Preservation Techniques: A Review. Food Sci. Qual. Manag. 2015, 41, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  5. Iulietto, M.F.; Sechi, P.; Borgogni, E.; Cenci-Goga, B.T. Meat Spoilage: A Critical Review of a Neglected Alteration Due to Ropy Slime Producing Bacteria. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 14, 4011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wohner, B.; Pauer, E.; Heinrich, V.; Tacker, M. Packaging-Related Food Losses and Waste: An Overview of Drivers and Issues. Sustainability 2019, 11, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Salimiraad, S.; Safaeian, S.; Basti, A.A.; Khanjari, A.; Nadoushan, R.M. Characterization of novel probiotic nanocomposite films based on nano chitosan/ nano cellulose/ gelatin for the preservation of fresh chicken fillets. LWT 2022, 162, 113429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bergmann, M.; Tekman, M.B.; Gutow, L. Sea change for plastic pollution. Nature 2017, 544, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Worm, B.; Lotze, H.K.; Jubinville, I.; Wilcox, C.; Jambeck, J. Plastic as a Persistent Marine Pollutant. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Domínguez, R.; Barba, F.J.; Gómez, B.; Putnik, P.; Bursać Kovačević, D.; Pateiro, M.; Santos, E.M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Active packaging films with natural antioxidants to be used in meat industry: A review. Food Res. Int. 2018, 113, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Battisti, R.; Fronza, N.; Vargas Júnior, Á.; Silveira, S.M.d.; Damas, M.S.P.; Quadri, M.G.N. Gelatin-coated paper with antimicrobial and antioxidant effect for beef packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2017, 11, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barbosa, C.H.; Andrade, M.A.; Vilarinho, F.; Fernando, A.L.; Silva, A.S. Active Edible Packaging. Encyclopedia 2021, 1, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Venkatachalam, K.; Lekjing, S. A chitosan-based edible film with clove essential oil and nisin for improving the quality and shelf life of pork patties in cold storage. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 17777–17786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yıldırım-Yalçın, M.; Sadıkoğlu, H.; Şeker, M. Characterization of edible film based on grape juice and cross-linked maize starch and its effects on the storage quality of chicken breast fillets. LWT 2021, 142, 111012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hardenburg, R.E. Wax and Related Coatings for Horticultural Products: A Bibliography; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, UDA, 1967; Volume 15. [Google Scholar]
  16. Umaraw, P.; Verma, A.K. Comprehensive review on application of edible film on meat and meat products: An eco-friendly approach. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 1270–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Havard, C.; Harmony, M.X. Improved Process for Preserving Meat, Fowls, Fish, etc. U.S. Patent US90,944, 8 June 1869. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumar, A.; Hasan, M.; Mangaraj, S.; Pravitha, M.; Verma, D.K.; Srivastav, P.P. Trends in Edible Packaging Films and its Prospective Future in Food: A Review. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marzlan, A.A.; Muhialdin, B.J.; Zainal Abedin, N.H.; Manshoor, N.; Ranjith, F.H.; Anzian, A.; Meor Hussin, A.S. Incorporating torch ginger (Etlingera elatior Jack) inflorescence essential oil onto starch-based edible film towards sustainable active packaging for chicken meat. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 184, 115058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aminzare, M.; Hashemi, M.; Ansarian, E.; Bimkar, M.; Azar, H.H.; Mehrasbi, M.R.; Daneshamooz, S.; Raeisi, M.; Jannat, B.; Afshari, A. Using natural antioxidants in meat and meat products as preservatives: A review. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2019, 7, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Aziz, M.; Karboune, S. Natural antimicrobial/antioxidant agents in meat and poultry products as well as fruits and vegetables: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 486–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carocho, M.; Morales, P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Natural food additives: Quo vadis? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 284–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Manzoor, A.; Yousuf, B.; Pandith, J.A.; Ahmad, S. Plant-derived active substances incorporated as antioxidant, antibacterial or antifungal components in coatings/films for food packaging applications. Food Biosci. 2023, 53, 102717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Arshad, M.S.; Batool, S.A. Natural Antimicrobials, their Sources and Food Safety. In Food Additives; Karunaratne, D.N., Pamunuwa, G., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  25. Quinto, E.J.; Caro, I.; Villalobos-Delgado, L.H.; Mateo, J.; De-Mateo-Silleras, B.; Redondo-Del-Río, M.P. Food Safety through Natural Antimicrobials. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Irkin, R.; Esmer, O.K. Novel food packaging systems with natural antimicrobial agents. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 6095–6111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rawdkuen, S. Edible Films Incorporated with Active Compounds: Their Properties and Application. In Active Antimicrobial Food Packaging; Var, I., Uzunlu, S., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 71–85. [Google Scholar]
  28. Raeisi, M.; Tabaraei, A.; Hashemi, M.; Behnampour, N. Effect of sodium alginate coating incorporated with nisin, Cinnamomum zeylanicum, and rosemary essential oils on microbial quality of chicken meat and fate of Listeria monocytogenes during refrigeration. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 238, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mahdavi, V.; Hosseini, S.E.; Sharifan, A. Effect of edible chitosan film enriched with anise (Pimpinella anisum L.) essential oil on shelf life and quality of the chicken burger. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Rangaraj, M.V.; Rambabu, K.; Banat, F.; Mittal, V. Natural antioxidants-based edible active food packaging: An overview of current advancements. Food Biosci. 2021, 43, 101251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hamedi, H.; Kargozari, M.; Shotorbani, P.M.; Mogadam, N.B.; Fahimdanesh, M. A novel bioactive edible coating based on sodium alginate and galbanum gum incorporated with essential oil of Ziziphora persica: The antioxidant and antimicrobial activity, and application in food model. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 72, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nouri Ala, M.A.; Shahbazi, Y. The effects of novel bioactive carboxymethyl cellulose coatings on food-borne pathogenic bacteria and shelf life extension of fresh and sauced chicken breast fillets. LWT 2019, 111, 602–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shaaban, H.A. Essential Oil as Antimicrobial Agents: Efficacy, Stability, and Safety Issues for Food Application. In Essential Oils-Bioactive Compounds, New Perspectives and Applications; Oliveira, M.S.d., Costa, W.A.d., Silva, S.G., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  34. Aguirre-Joya, J.A.Á.; Berenice; Ventura, J.M.G.-G.; Jesús, O.; León-Zapata, M.A.D.; Rojas, R.; Saucedo, S.; Aguilar, C.N. Edible Coatings and Films from Lipids, Waxes, and Resins. In Edible Food Packaging: Materials and Processing Technologies; Cerqueira, M.Â.P.R., Pereira, R.N.C., Ramos, Ó.L.d.S., Teixeira, J.A.C., Vicente, A.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 121–152. [Google Scholar]
  35. Erkmen, O.; Barazi, A.O. General Characteristics of Edible Films. J. Food Biotechnol. Res. 2018, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  36. Da Costa, R.D.S.; Da Cruz Rodrigues, A.M.; Borges Laurindo, J.; Da Silva, L.H.M. Development of dehydrated products from peach palm–tucupi blends with edible film characteristics using refractive window. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 560–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Regubalan, B.; Pandit, P.; Maiti, S.; Nadathur, G.T.; Mallick, A. Potential Bio-Based Edible Films, Foams, and Hydrogels for Food Packaging. In Bio-Based Materials for Food Packaging: Green and Sustainable Advanced Packaging Materials; Ahmed, S., Ed.; Springer Singapore: Singapore, 2018; pp. 105–123. [Google Scholar]
  38. Otoni, C.G.; Avena-Bustillos, R.J.; Azeredo, H.M.C.; Lorevice, M.V.; Moura, M.R.; Mattoso, L.H.C.; McHugh, T.H. Recent Advances on Edible Films Based on Fruits and Vegetables—A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 1151–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Blanco-Pascual, N.; Gómez-Estaca, J. Production and Processing of Edible Packaging: Stability and Applications. In Edible Food Packaging: Materials and Processing Technologies; Cerqueira, M.Â.P.R., Pereira, R.N.C., Ramos, Ó.L.d.S., Teixeira, J.A.C., Vicente, A.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 153–180. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chen, W.; Ma, S.; Wang, Q.; McClements, D.J.; Liu, X.; Ngai, T.; Liu, F. Fortification of edible films with bioactive agents: A review of their formation, properties, and application in food preservation. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 5029–5055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Suhag, R.; Kumar, N.; Petkoska, A.T.; Upadhyay, A. Film formation and deposition methods of edible coating on food products: A review. Food Res. Int. 2020, 136, 109582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Pastrana, L.M.R.; Maria, L.; Fajardo, P.; Fuciños, P.; Amado, I.R.; Fuciños, C. Antimicrobial Edible Packaging. In Edible Food Packaging: Materials and Processing Technologies; Cerqueira, M.Â.P.R., Pereira, R.N.C., Ramos, Ó.L.d.S., Teixeira, J.A.C., Vicente, A.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 243–286. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mohan, T.; Kanny, K. Thermoforming studies of corn starch-derived biopolymer film filled with nanoclays. J. Plast. Film. Sheeting 2016, 32, 163–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Romagnolli, C.M.; Leite, G.P.; Rodrigues, T.A.; Morelli, C.L. Blend of cassava starch and high-density polyethylene with green tea for food packaging. Polym. Renew. Resour. 2020, 11, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schumann, B.; Schmid, M. Packaging concepts for fresh and processed meat–Recent progresses. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 47, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Falguera, V.; Quintero, J.P.; Jiménez, A.; Muñoz, J.A.; Ibarz, A. Edible films and coatings: Structures, active functions and trends in their use. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kocira, A.; Kozłowicz, K.; Panasiewicz, K.; Staniak, M.; Szpunar-Krok, E.; Hortyńska, P. Polysaccharides as Edible Films and Coatings: Characteristics and Influence on Fruit and Vegetable Quality—A Review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Galus, S.; Arik Kibar, E.A.; Gniewosz, M.; Kraśniewska, K. Novel Materials in the Preparation of Edible Films and Coatings—A Review. Coatings 2020, 10, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hassan, B.; Chatha, S.A.S.; Hussain, A.I.; Zia, K.M.; Akhtar, N. Recent advances on polysaccharides, lipids and protein based edible films and coatings: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 109, 1095–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, W.; Rhim, J.-W. Recent progress in konjac glucomannan-based active food packaging films and property enhancement strategies. Food Hydrocoll. 2022, 128, 107572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chiralt, A.; González-Martínez, C.; Vargas, M.; Atarés, L. 18-Edible films and coatings from proteins. In Proteins in Food Processing, 2nd ed.; Yada, R.Y., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; pp. 477–500. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mihalca, V.; Kerezsi, A.D.; Weber, A.; Gruber-Traub, C.; Schmucker, J.; Vodnar, D.C.; Dulf, F.V.; Socaci, S.A.; Fărcaș, A.; Mureșan, C.I.; et al. Protein-Based Films and Coatings for Food Industry Applications. Polymers 2021, 13, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Giteru, S.G.; Oey, I.; Ali, M.A.; Johnson, S.K.; Fang, Z. Effect of kafirin-based films incorporating citral and quercetin on storage of fresh chicken fillets. Food Control. 2017, 80, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Milani, J.M.; Nemati, A. Lipid-Based Edible Films and Coatings: A Review of Recent Advances and Applications. J. Packag. Technol. Res. 2022, 6, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yousuf, B.; Sun, Y.; Wu, S. Lipid and Lipid-containing Composite Edible Coatings and Films. Food Rev. Int. 2022, 38, 574–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vieira, M.G.A.; da Silva, M.A.; dos Santos, L.O.; Beppu, M.M. Natural-based plasticizers and biopolymer films: A review. Eur. Polym. J. 2011, 47, 254–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Azeredo, H.M.C.; Waldron, K.W. Crosslinking in polysaccharide and protein films and coatings for food contact—A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 52, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shamsuri, A.A.; Md Jamil, S.N.A. Functional Properties of Biopolymer-Based Films Modified with Surfactants: A Brief Review. Processes 2020, 8, 1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Guillard, V.; Guillaume, C.; Kurek, M.; Gontard, N. Mass Transfer Measurement and Modeling for Designing Protective Edible Films. In Edible Food Packaging: Materials and Processing Technologies; Cerqueira, M.Â.P.R., Pereira, R.N.C., Ramos, Ó.L.d.S., Teixeira, J.A.C., Vicente, A.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 181–213. [Google Scholar]
  60. Chawla, R.; Sivakumar, S.; Kaur, H. Antimicrobial edible films in food packaging: Current scenario and recent nanotechnological advancements—A review. Carbohydr. Polym. Technol. Appl. 2021, 2, 100024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Umaraw, P.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Verma, A.K.; Barba, F.J.; Singh, V.P.; Kumar, P.; Lorenzo, J.M. Edible films/coating with tailored properties for active packaging of meat, fish and derived products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 98, 10–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pereira, J.O.; Pintado, M.M. Edible Packaging, A Vehicle for Functional Compounds. In Edible Food Packaging: Materials and Processing Technologies; Cerqueira, M.Â.P.R., Pereira, R.N.C., Ramos, Ó.L.d.S., Teixeira, J.A.C., Vicente, A.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 215–242. [Google Scholar]
  63. Benbettaïeb, N.; Karbowiak, T.; Debeaufort, F. Bioactive edible films for food applications:Influence of the bioactive compounds on film structure and properties. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 1137–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Molayi, R.; Ehsani, A.; Yousefi, M. The antibacterial effect of whey protein-alginate coating incorporated with the lactoperoxidase system on chicken thigh meat. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 878–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Serrano-León, J.S.; Bergamaschi, K.B.; Yoshida, C.M.P.; Saldaña, E.; Selani, M.M.; Rios-Mera, J.D.; Alencar, S.M.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J. Chitosan active films containing agro-industrial residue extracts for shelf life extension of chicken restructured product. Food Res. Int. 2018, 108, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Mehdizadeh, T.; Langroodi, A.M. Chitosan coatings incorporated with propolis extract and Zataria multiflora Boiss oil for active packaging of chicken breast meat. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 141, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, S.; Lu, A.; Zhang, L. Recent advances in regenerated cellulose materials. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2016, 53, 169–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Guimarães, A.; Abrunhosa, L.; Pastrana, L.M.; Cerqueira, M.A. Edible Films and Coatings as Carriers of Living Microorganisms: A New Strategy Towards Biopreservation and Healthier Foods. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 594–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Fu, Y.; Dudley, E.G. Antimicrobial-coated films as food packaging: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 3404–3437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Sahraee, S.; Milani, J.M.; Regenstein, J.M.; Kafil, H.S. Protection of foods against oxidative deterioration using edible films and coatings: A review. Food Biosci. 2019, 32, 100451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Han, J.H. Chapter 9-Edible Films and Coatings: A Review. In Innovations in Food Packaging, 2nd ed.; Han, J.H., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 213–255. [Google Scholar]
  72. Díaz-Montes, E.; Castro-Muñoz, R. Edible Films and Coatings as Food-Quality Preservers: An Overview. Foods 2021, 10, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wójcik, W.; Łukasiewicz-Mierzejewska, M.; Damaziak, K.; Bień, D. Biogenic Amines in Poultry Meat and Poultry Products: Formation, Appearance, and Methods of Reduction. Animals 2022, 12, 1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sánchez-Ortega, I.; García-Almendárez, B.E.; Santos-López, E.M.; Amaro-Reyes, A.; Barboza-Corona, J.E.; Regalado, C. Antimicrobial Edible Films and Coatings for Meat and Meat Products Preservation. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 248935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Verni, M.; Verardo, V.; Rizzello, C.G. How Fermentation Affects the Antioxidant Properties of Cereals and Legumes. Foods 2019, 8, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Dutta, D.; Sit, N. Application of natural extracts as active ingredient in biopolymer based packaging systems. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 60, 1888–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Reygaert, W.C. An overview of the antimicrobial resistance mechanisms of bacteria. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 482–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Khan, M.R.; Sadiq, M.B.; Mehmood, Z. Development of edible gelatin composite films enriched with polyphenol loaded nanoemulsions as chicken meat packaging material. CyTA J. Food 2020, 18, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Zabihollahi, N.; Alizadeh, A.; Almasi, H.; Hanifian, S.; Hamishekar, H. Development and characterization of carboxymethyl cellulose based probiotic nanocomposite film containing cellulose nanofiber and inulin for chicken fillet shelf life extension. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 160, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sogut, E.; Seydim, A.C. The effects of Chitosan and grape seed extract-based edible films on the quality of vacuum packaged chicken breast fillets. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2018, 18, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Farhan, A.; Hani, N.M. Active edible films based on semi-refined κ-carrageenan: Antioxidant and color properties and application in chicken breast packaging. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 24, 100476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Molaveisi, M.; Taheri, R.A.; Dehnad, D. Innovative application of the Echinacea purpurea (L.) extract-phospholipid phytosomes embedded within Alyssum homolocarpum seed gum film for enhancing the shelf life of chicken meat. Food Biosci. 2022, 50, 102020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yousefi, M.; Farshidi, M.; Ehsani, A. Effects of lactoperoxidase system-alginate coating on chemical, microbial, and sensory properties of chicken breast fillets during cold storage. J. Food Saf. 2018, 38, e12449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Malvano, F.; Montone, A.M.I.; Capuano, F.; Colletti, C.; Roveri, N.; Albanese, D.; Capparelli, R. Effects of active alginate edible coating enriched with hydroxyapatite-quercetin complexes during the cold storage of fresh chicken fillets. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2022, 32, 100847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Noori, S.; Zeynali, F.; Almasi, H. Antimicrobial and antioxidant efficiency of nanoemulsion-based edible coating containing ginger (Zingiber officinale) essential oil and its effect on safety and quality attributes of chicken breast fillets. Food Control 2018, 84, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Garavito, J.; Moncayo-Martínez, D.; Castellanos, D.A. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Coatings on Preservation and Shelf Life of Fresh Chicken Breast Fillets Under Cold Storage. Foods 2020, 9, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ruíz-Cruz, S.; Valenzuela-López, C.C.; Chaparro-Hernández, S.; Ornelas-Paz, J.d.J.; Del Toro-Sánchez, C.L.; Márquez-Ríos, E.; López-Mata, M.A.; Ocaño-Higuera, V.M.; Valez-Hurtado, S. Effects of chitosan-tomato plant extract edible coatings on the quality and shelf life of chicken fillets during refrigerated storage. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 39, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hassanzadeh, P.; Tajik, H.; Rohani, S.M.R.; Moradi, M.; Hashemi, M.; Aliakbarlu, J. Effect of functional chitosan coating and gamma irradiation on the shelf-life of chicken meat during refrigerated storage. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2017, 141, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dalvandi, F.; Almasi, H.; Ghanbarzadeh, B.; Hosseini, H.; Karimian Khosroshahi, N. Effect of vacuum packaging and edible coating containing black pepper seeds and turmeric extracts on shelf life extension of chicken breast fillets. J. Food Bioprocess Eng. 2020, 3, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhou, X.; Zong, X.; Zhang, M.; Ge, Q.; Qi, J.; Liang, J.; Xu, X.; Xiong, G. Effect of konjac glucomannan/carrageenan-based edible emulsion coatings with camellia oil on quality and shelf-life of chicken meat. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. Poultry Products. In Microorganisms in Foods 8: Use of Data for Assessing Process Control and Product Acceptance; Swanson, K.M.J., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 95–106. [Google Scholar]
  92. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods. Poultry products. In Micro-Organisms in Foods 6: Microbial Ecology of Food Commodities; Roberts, T.A., Cordier, J.L., Gram, L., Tompkin, R.B., Pitt, J.I., Gorris, L.G.M., Swanson, K.M.J., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 107–173. [Google Scholar]
  93. Fernández, J.; Pérez-Álvarez, J.A.; Fernández-López, J.A. Thiobarbituric acid test for monitoring lipid oxidation in meat. Food Chem. 1997, 59, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Examples of film-forming materials of active films and coatings.
Table 1. Examples of film-forming materials of active films and coatings.
TypesSourcesFil-Forming Materials
PolysaccharidesSeaweed ProductsAlginate, carrageenans, agar.
[31,47,49,50]GumsGum arabic, guar gum, basil seed gum, galbanum gum.
Cellulose DerivativesMethylcellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose.
OthersPectin, starch, chitosan, pullulan, konjac glucomannan.
Proteins
[49,51,52,53]		Plant-derivedCorn zein, kafirin, wheat gluten, soy mung bean, pea, grass pea, wild and Pasankalla quinoa, bitter vetch.
Animal-derivedCollagen, gelatin, caseins, whey, egg white, myofibrillar protein, keratin, surimi.
Lipids
[49,54,55]		Oil, Fat,
Shortening,
Margarine		Animal and vegetable native oil and fats: peanut, corn, olive, sunflower, rapeseed, coconut, palm, palm kernel oil, cocoa, milk butter, lard, tallow, etc.
Fractionated, concentrated, or reconstituted oils and fats: fatty acids, mono, di, and triglycerides, cocoa butter substitute, etc.
Hydrogenated or trans-esterified oil: margarine, shortening, etc.
WaxesNatural vegetable waxes: candelilla, carnauba, jojoba, sugar cane, rice bran.
Natural animal waxes: bees, whales, lanolin, insects, spermaceti.
Nonnatural waxes: paraffin, mineral, microcrystalline, oxidized, or non-oxidized polyethylene.
Natural ResinsAsafoetida, benjoin, chicle, guarana, myrrh, olibanum (incense), opoponax, sandarac, styrax resins.
PlasticizersMonosaccharidesGlucose, mannose, fructose.
[56]DisaccharidesSucrose.
Oligosaccharides
PolyolsSorbitol, glycerol, mannitol, xylitol, glycerol derivatives and polyethylene glycols.
Lipids and DerivativesPhospholipids, fatty acids, surfactants, etc.
Crosslinking Agents
[57]		Chemical CrosslinkingDisulfide bonds, aldehydes (formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, cinnamaldehyde), oxidized polysaccharides, phenolic compounds in covalent crosslinking, TGase, alginic acid, Di- or polycarboxylic acids in covalent crosslinking (citric acid), genipin, condensation involving cystamine/cysteine, zero-length crosslinking induced by 1-methyl-3(3-dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide.
Physical CrosslinkingIonic crosslinking involving divalent cations, polyphenols with polysaccharides, polyelectrolyte complexes, di- or polycarboxylic acids in ionic crosslinking, TPP-chitosan ionic interactions.
Surfactants and
Emulsifiers [58]		 Glycerol monostearate, sucrose ester, sodium stearoyl lactate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, ethyl lauroyl arginate HCl, Span 20 to 80, Tween-20 to 80, soy lecithin.
Solvents [47,59] Water, ethanol, acetic acid, water-ethanol mixtures.
Table
Table 2. Examples of bioactive ingredients of active films and coatings [29,40,63,64,65,66].
Table 2. Examples of bioactive ingredients of active films and coatings [29,40,63,64,65,66].
SourcesBioactive Ingredients
Essential oils (EO)Basil, cinnamon, clove, garlic, ginger, lemon, oregano, anise, Zataria multiflora Boiss.
Plant extractsCinnamon, clove, garlic, grape seed, green tea, pomegranate, rosemary, sage, thyme, peanut skin extract, pink pepper residue extract, propolis.
Phenolic compoundsTannins, flavonoids, simple phenols, phenolic acids, volatile phenols.
EnzymesLysozyme, lactoperoxidase.
BacteriocinsNisin, natamycin
VitaminsAscorbic acid, α-tocopherol
Natural pigmentsAnthocyanin, β-carotene, curcumin
Table
Table 3. Recent studies in edible films and coatings with antimicrobial/antioxidant properties on chicken meat.
Table 3. Recent studies in edible films and coatings with antimicrobial/antioxidant properties on chicken meat.
Film-Forming Base MaterialsBioactive
Ingredients		ProcessMeat and PreservationMain ResultsRef.
Bovine gelatin+
carrageenan		Curcumin; Gallic acid; QuercetinCastingBroiler meat
(4 °C/18 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB;
↑ Shelf-life		[78]
Carboxymethyl
cellulose+
Cellulose nanofiber		InulinCastingChicken fillets
(4 °C/8 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB, TC;
↑ Shelf-life		[79]
ChitosanPeanut skin EXT;
Pink pepper
residue EXT		CastingGround chicken meat
(3 °C/7 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB;
↓ TBARS and PV increase; ↔ pH;
↑ Shelf-life		[65]
ChitosanGrape seed EXTCastingChicken breast fillets
(4 °C/15 days,
vacuum)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TC; ↔ pH;
↓TBARS increase; ↑ Shelf-life		[80]
ChitosanAnise EOCastingChicken burger
(4 °C/12 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli O157:H7;
↓ Moisture decrease;
↓ TBARS increase; ↑ Shelf-life		[29]
Chitosan nanofibers+
Bacterial cellulose
nanofibers+
Bovine gelatin		Lactobacillus casei;
Bacillus coagulans		CastingChicken breast fillets
(4 °C/14 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB, LAB;
Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas spp.;
↓ Survival of pathogens:
Listeria monocytogenes; ↓ pH increase;
↓ PV and TVBN increase; ↑ Sensory quality;
↑ Shelf-life		[7]
KafirinCitral;
Quercetin		CastingChicken fillets
(2 °C/4 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB;
↓ TBARS increase (except for citral)
↑ Shelf-life		[53]
K-carrageenanFenugreek seeds EXTCastingChicken breast fillets
(5 °C/7 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB; ↑ Shelf-life[81]
StarchTorch ginger EOCasting(3 °C/6 days)↓ Microbial growth: TC; ↓ Weight loss; ↓ pH;
↓ TBARS increase; ↔ Sensory quality		[19]
Seed gum
(Alyssum homolocarpum)		Echinacea purpurea
(L.) EXT		CastingChicken meat
(fridge temperature/14 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB; TC; S. aureus;
↓ pH increase; ↓ TBARS increase;
↑ Sensory quality		[82]
Ca-AlginateNisin;
Cinnamon EO;
Rosemary EO		CoatingChicken meat
(4 °C/15 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB, LAB, MY,
Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas spp.;
↓ Survival of pathogens: L. monocytogenes;
↑ Shelf-life		[28]
Ca-AlginateLactoperoxidaseCoatingChicken breast
(4 °C/16 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB,
Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa;
↓ TVBN increase; ↔ TBARS and PV;
↓ pH changes;
↑ Sensory quality; ↑ Shelf-life		[83]
Ca-AlginateQuercetin;Coating(6 °C/11 days)↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB,
Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas spp.;
↓ pH increase; ↓ TVBN increase;
↑ Sensory quality		[84]
Ca-Alginate +
whey protein		LactoperoxidaseCoatingChicken thigh
(4 °C/8 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB,
Enterobacteriaceae; ↑ Shelf-life		[64]
Sodium caseinateGinger EOCoatingChicken breast fillets
(4 °C/12 days)		↓ Microbial growth: TPB, MY;
↔ TBARS; ↓ Cooking loss;
↑ Sensory quality; ↑ Shelf-life		[85]
Sodium Alginate;
Galbanum
Leo-resin gum		Ziziphora
persica EO		CoatingChicken fillets
(4 °C/12 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB, LAB, MY,
Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas spp.;
↓ Survival of pathogens:
L. monocytogenes;
↓ TBARS, TVBN, and PV increase;
↑ Sensory quality; ↑ Shelf-life		[31]
Guar gumNisin; Oregano EOCoatingChicken breast fillets
(4 °C/16 days)		↓ Microbial growth: Pseudomonas spp.;
↑ Sensorial quality; ↓ Weight loss;
↓ pH changes; ↑ Shelf-life		[86]
ChitosanTomato plant EXTCoatingChicken fillets
(4 °C/16 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB, TC;
↓ pH changes; ↑ Sensory quality;
↑ Shelf-life		[87]
ChitosanPropolis EXT;
Zataria multiflora Boiss EO		CoatingChicken breast fillets
(4 °C/16 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB, LAB;
Pseudomonas spp.; ↓ TBARS and TVBN
increase; ↓ pH increase;
↑ Sensory quality; ↑ Shelf-life		[66]
ChitosanGrape seed EXTCoatingChicken breast
(4 °C/21 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB
↓ TBARS increase; ↓ pH changes;
↑ Sensory quality; ↑ Shelf-life		[88]
Carboxymethyl
cellulose		Ziziphora clinopodioides EO;
Mentha spicata EO		CoatingChicken breast fillets
(4 °C/14 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB,
Pseudomonas spp., P. fluorescens,
Enterobacteriaceae; ↓ Survival of pathogens:
L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, Campylobacter jejuni; ↓ TVBN and PV increase; ↑ Sensory quality;
↑ Shelf-life		[32]
Carboxymethyl
cellulose		Black pepper seed EXT;
Turmeric EXT		CoatingChicken breast fillets
(4 °C/16 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB;
↓ TBARS, TVBN, and PV increase;
↑ Sensory quality ↑ Shelf-life		[89]
Konjac
glucomannan +
Carrageenan		Camellia EOCoatingChicken meat
(4 °C/10 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB, LAB;
↓ Weight loss; ↓ pH increase;
↓ TBARS and TVBN increase;
↑ Sensory quality; ↑ Shelf-life		[90]
Maize starch +
sodium trimetaphosphate		Grape juiceCoatingChicken breast
(4 °C/8 days)		↓ Microbial growth: AMB, TPB,
Enterobacteriaceae; ↓ pH increase;
↓ TBARS increase		[14]
Ref.—References; ↑—Increase; ↓—Decrease; ↔—Without changes; TBARS—Thiobarbituric acid reactive substance; TVBN—Total volatile basic nitrogen; PV—Peroxide value; EXT—Extract; EO—Essential oil; TPB—Total psychrotrophic bacteria; AMB—Aerobic mesophilic bacteria; MY—Molds and yeasts; TC—Total coliform; LAB—Lactic acid bacteria.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moura-Alves, M.; Esteves, A.; Ciríaco, M.; Silva, J.A.; Saraiva, C. Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Edible Films and Coatings in the Shelf-Life Improvement of Chicken Meat. Foods 2023, 12, 2308. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122308

AMA Style

Moura-Alves M, Esteves A, Ciríaco M, Silva JA, Saraiva C. Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Edible Films and Coatings in the Shelf-Life Improvement of Chicken Meat. Foods. 2023; 12(12):2308. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122308

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moura-Alves, Márcio, Alexandra Esteves, Maria Ciríaco, José A. Silva, and Cristina Saraiva. 2023. "Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Edible Films and Coatings in the Shelf-Life Improvement of Chicken Meat" Foods 12, no. 12: 2308. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122308

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