Next Article in Journal
Beyond Proteins—Edible Insects as a Source of Dietary Fiber
Previous Article in Journal
Heparin in Acid and Alkaline Environments—A Study of the Correlations between Hydrodynamic Properties and Desulphation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polysaccharides
Volume 4
Issue 2
10.3390/polysaccharides4020008
polysaccharides-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

Application of Polysaccharide-Based Edible Coatings on Fruits and Vegetables: Improvement of Food Quality and Bioactivities

by
Rosy G. Cruz-Monterrosa
1,
Adolfo A. Rayas-Amor
1,
Ricardo M. González-Reza
2,
María L. Zambrano-Zaragoza
2,
José E. Aguilar-Toalá
1,* and
Andrea M. Liceaga
3,*
1
Departamento de Ciencias de la Alimentación, División de Ciencias Biológicas y de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Lerma, Av. de las Garzas 10, Col. El Panteón, Lerma de Villada 52005, Estado de México, Mexico
2
Laboratorio de Procesos de Transformación y Tecnologías Emergentes de Alimentos, FES-Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuautitlán Izcalli 54714, Estado de México, Mexico
3
Protein Chemistry and Bioactive Peptides Laboratory, Department of Food Science, Purdue University, 745 Agriculture Mall Dr., West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polysaccharides 2023, 4(2), 99-115; https://doi.org/10.3390/polysaccharides4020008
Submission received: 9 February 2023 / Revised: 8 March 2023 / Accepted: 19 March 2023 / Published: 27 March 2023
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Most foods derived from plant origin are very nutritious but highly perishable products. Nowadays, the food industry is focusing on the development of efficient preservation strategies as viable alternatives to traditional packaging and chemical treatments. Hence, polysaccharide-based edible coatings have been proposed because of their properties of controlled release of food additives and the protection of sensitive compounds in coated foods. Thus, this technology has allowed for improving the quality parameters and extends the shelf life of fruits and vegetables through positive effects on enzyme activities, physicochemical characteristics (e.g., color, pH, firmness, weight, soluble solids), microbial load, and nutritional and sensory properties of coated foods. Additionally, some bioactive compounds have been incorporated into polysaccharide-based edible coatings, showing remarkable antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. Thus, polysaccharide-based edible coatings incorporated with bioactive compounds can be used not only as an efficient preservation strategy but also may play a vital role in human health when consumed with the food. The main objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of materials commonly used in the preparation of polysaccharide-based edible coatings, including the main bioactive compounds that can be incorporated into edible coatings, which have shown specific bioactivities.

1. Introduction

Overall quality and shelf life of foods are reduced by several factors depending on their nature (e.g., animal, plant, solid, liquid), water loss, enzymatic reactions, auto-oxidation, texture deterioration, senescence processes, and microbial growth, among others [1]. For example, fruits and vegetables are very susceptible to mechanical damage, thermal damage, or disease, whereas foods of animal origin are more vulnerable to microbial growth [2,3]. On the other hand, in the case of some foods, these events are accelerated due to tissue lesions inflicted by some processing steps applied to particular foods, including peeling, slicing, and cutting [1]. In addition, there are some foods such as sensitive fruits (e.g., strawberries, blackberries) or vegetables (e.g., tomatoes, lettuce) that are highly perishable with a short shelf life because of their high metabolism and microbial decay [4].
Over the years, the food industry has applied some preservation techniques in order to increase the shelf life and maintain freshness of perishable foods, including the use of refrigeration and modified/controlled atmospheres (e.g., modification of the gas composition, use of noble and inert gases), chemicals (e.g., acidic electrolyzed water, ozone), thermal and non-thermal treatments (e.g., electron beam irradiation, pulsed light, ultraviolet light, cold plasma), biopreservation techniques (e.g., bacteriophages, bacteriocins, and bioprotective microorganisms), and genetic manipulation (e.g., pectinase activity modification, ethylene synthesis control) [5,6,7]. However, new promising technologies such as edible coatings are being applied not only for the improvement of the quality and shelf life of foods but also as potential carriers of additives (e.g., flavors, colors) and bioactive compounds (e.g., antimicrobial, antioxidant), which can improve the shelf life of food products and generate high value-added foods [8,9]. Additionally, the edible coating technology is considered a more eco-friendly and user-friendly form of packaging compared with other technologies or conventional packaging materials [10,11]. In this context, conventional packaging material generates environmental pollution, and its manufacturing processes requires non-renewable resources such as glass, metals (e.g., aluminum, foils, and laminates), paper (e.g., paperboards, paper bags) [12], and petroleum-based plastics [10]. In contrast, edible coatings are considered user-friendly packaging alternatives because they provide convenience to the consumers and generate less waste as well as show easy handling, opening, and dispensing. In terms of their eco-friendly aspect, this technology generates a lower environmental impact because it uses biodegradable and/or bio-based polymers as materials [10,13].
The most common materials used in edible coatings include polysaccharides (e.g., chitosan, alginate, cellulose, starch, pectin), lipids (e.g., wax, oil), and proteins (e.g., collagen, zein, casein) [14]. For the abovementioned materials, polysaccharides show some clear advantages. These polymeric carbohydrates unveil biodegradability and biocompatibility and are non-toxic for living organisms [15]. For example, chitosan films sourced from shrimp and edible crickets have demonstrated water resistance, mechanical, and light barrier properties, highlighting their potential to be used as bio-based packaging materials for food and pharmaceutical applications [16,17]. Furthermore, some polysaccharides have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States of America (USA) and given generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status, including alginate, cellulose, starch, gums (e.g., guar gum, gum arabic), and carrageenan [18]. Although in Mexico there are national standards (Official Mexican Standards: NOM) that require that food products have approved additives in their formulation and that these be reported on their labeling, there is no specific regulatory framework related to the type of polysaccharides approved for their direct use on food products (i.e., as coatings). Thus, polysaccharides must be classified as GRAS substances for their use as edible coatings [19]. Currently, other polysaccharides that are in practical use, such as chitosan, are not permitted as food-contact material in the European Union (EU) [20].
In the following sections, this review provides new perspectives and current advances in the application of polysaccharide-based edible coatings towards the improvement of food quality as well as their bioactivities considering the main scientific literature available. For this purpose, a comprehensive search of published original scientific studies dating from 2018 to 2022 was carried out using Google Scholar, PudMed, and Scopus databases. In addition, the FDA databases were consulted for information on regulatory status. The main search terms used were “polysaccharides” AND “coating(s)” OR “film(s)” AND “fruit(s)” OR “vegetable(s)” AND “bioactivities” “bioactive” OR “quality” consulting scientific studies published in English. The literature collected was carefully screened based on the title, abstract, and keywords of the selected articles, and studies unrelated to the rationale of the review were excluded.

2. Improvement of Quality Parameters of Foods by Polysaccharide-Based Edible Coating

Some beneficial effects have been reported for the application of polysaccharide-based edible coating on fruits and vegetables; these include extending the shelf life period, lowering respiration rate, maintaining firmness, reducing weight/mass loss, protecting sensitive compounds (e.g., soluble solids, vitamins), protecting bioactive compounds (e.g., flavonoids, anthocyanins, phenolics), decreasing microbial growth (e.g., fungal, bacterial), maintaining sensory properties (e.g., flavor, aroma, color), maintaining the activity of antioxidant enzymes (e.g., superoxide dismutase [SOD], catalase [CAT]), imparting antioxidant activity and decreasing oxidative cellular damage (e.g., malondialdehyde [MDA]), delay browning (e.g., UV-shielding), and decrease overall food damage (e.g, chill injury indicators, disease incidence/severity) (Figure 1). According to Table 1, these polysaccharide-based coatings can provide protective effects on a diverse group of fruits and vegetables, and the protective effect will depend on various factors such as the coating material (e.g., type of material, concentration, presence of bioactive compounds) and the type of coated food. Among the materials used for coatings include chitosan, alginate, cellulose, starch, and to a lesser extent, Aloe vera gel, gums (e.g., guar, gum arabic, xanthan), and carrageenan.
In the majority of studies (Table 1), coatings formulated with different polysaccharides decreased the weight/mass loss of coated fruits and vegetables because they generated a semi-permeable barrier reducing the respiration and transpiration rates of coated foods. In view of the above, coatings avoid the loss of dry matter and moisture [26]. Overall, it has been reported that transpiration in fruits and vegetables is responsible for 90% of the total water loss, while respiration is responsible for less than 10% of this loss [23]. On the other hand, in practical terms, the consequences of weight/mass loss could translate into significant economic losses during postharvest and quality deterioration (e.g., texture loss), particularly in those fruits and vegetables with high water content or those with a thin skin protective layer (e.g., peaches, tomatoes), resulting in lower market value and consumer acceptability of horticultural crops [38]. In addition, edible coatings can provide weight/mass stability increases during storage [42]. At a cellular level, the structures in the epidermis of plants, called stomata, control the rate of water loss. In this context, Oyom, Xu, Liu, Long, Li, Zhang, Bi, Tahergorabi, and Prusky [56] observed a reduction in stomata density and opening in uncoated pears (Pyrus bretchneideri Rehd.) compared to pears coated with an edible composite of sweet potato starch and cumin essential oil. In contrast, at a molecular level, this type of polysaccharide-based edible coating decreased the weight/mass loss through the formation of hydrogen bonds with the skin (peel) of the fruit/vegetable or in the coating solution itself [55,58].
In other studies, Batista Silva, Cosme Silva, Santana, Salvador, Medeiros, Belghith, da Silva, Cordeiro, and Misobutsi [43] coated guava (Psidium guajava L.) with an edible coating composed of chitosan, which decreased the weight/mass loss values at 3% compared with uncoated guava (10% weight/mass loss). Similarly, Robledo, López, Bunger, Tapia, and Abugoch [47] applied an edible coating formulated with thymol nanoemulsion, quinoa protein, and chitosan to strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa), obtaining values of about 12–13% of weight/mass loss compared with the uncoated treatment (36%). Rodrigues, Cedran, and Garcia [26] evaluated the influence of edible coatings based on linseed mucilage, alginate, and Lactobacillus casei LC-01 on the shelf life of fresh-cut yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius). Their results showed that the weight/mass loss value (4.09%) of the control was significantly higher than that of the coated fruit (2.7%). Duong, Uthairatanakij, Laohakunjit, Jitareerat, and Kaisangsri [21] reported that the weight loss (7%) of coated rose apple (Syzygium samarangenese cv. Tabtimchan) with alginate was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the uncoated fruits (11%). Similar results were obtained by Shivangi, Dorairaj, Negi, and Shetty [54], reducing the weight loss from 10% (control) to 6% (treated) on Capsicum annum L. coated with an edible composite of pectin and crude mulberry (Morus alba) leaf extract (deoxynojirimycin and chlorogenic acid). On the other hand, table grapes (Vitis vinifera cv. Italia) coated with a composite of alginate, galactomannans, cashew gum, and gelatin showed less weight/mass loss (20%) compared with uncoated fruits (30%) [24]. Likewise, peaches (Prunus persica) coated with an alginate-based coating enriched with rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) extract exhibited a weight/mass loss of 7% compared with the control treatment (13%) [27]. In contrast, Zambrano-Zaragoza, Quintanar-Guerrero, González-Reza, Cornejo-Villegas, Leyva-Gómez, and Urbán-Morlán [41] used a combined treatment of UV-C and a cellulose-based coating enriched with lemon essential oil nanocapsules made of alginate-pectin, on fresh-cut cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Their results showed that the weight/mass loss of uncoated treatment (1.5%) was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than that of the coated vegetable (0.3%).
Conversely, the loss of weight/mass is considered a main factor that affects firmness in fruits and vegetables. In some studies, an association between weight/mass loss and firmness of horticultural crops has been reported; when there is less weight/mass loss, the firmness is maintained. This phenomenon was reported for mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) [48], guavas (Psidium guajava L.) [43], potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) [23], table grapes (Vitis vinifera) [24], peaches (Prunus persica) [27], cherry tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) [40], kiwifruits (Actinidia deliciosa) [42], eggplants (Solanum melongena), and strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa) [51,57]. In this context, it is known that moisture loss is the major cause of firmness changes during postharvest of horticultural crops [59]. It is also reported that the firmness reduction can happen due to cell wall (hemicellulose and pectin) degradation caused by increased activity of endogenous autolysins by cell wall enzymes glucanases, pectin-methylesterase, and polygalacturonase [50]. Thus, edible coatings on fruits and vegetables probably slow the depolymerization of pectin due a decrease of O2 and high CO2 concentration, which inhibits the activity of the enzymes [13,36]. On the other hand, it also contributes to the semi-permeable barrier properties of coatings, which restrict gas exchange, including water vapor [51].
Another important effect of edible coating on fruits and vegetables is the ability to maintain compounds (e.g., soluble solids, vitamins), including bioactive compounds (e.g., flavonoids, anthocyanins, phenolic compounds). In some fruits and vegetables, soluble solids include sugars, small quantities of acids, vitamins, minerals, and soluble pectin, among others [46]. In this regard, Gao, Kan, Wan, Chen, Chen, and Chen [44] demonstrated that a cinnamaldehyde-chitosan coating applied to oranges (Citrus sinensis L., Osbeck) maintained vitamin C and total soluble solids at the end of the storage period (120 d). Similar results were obtained by Xu, Qin, and Ren [46], who found that vitamin C and total soluble solids were preserved during the 11 days storage period of tangerines coated with (Citrus tangerine Hort. ex Tanaka) a composite of chitosan and montmorillonite. Likewise, Li, Ye, Hou, and Zhang [45] reported that total soluble solids content of mandarins (Citrus unshiu Marc.) coated with chitosan and ε-polylysine, was maintained, while the vitamin C concentration decreased more slowly in the coated fruit than in the control treatment. In another study, Ebrahimi and Rastegar [50] found that a guar-based edible coating enriched with Spirulina platensis extract applied to mango was able to maintain the vitamin C content after 3 weeks of storage. This effect could be partially explained by the semi-permeable barrier properties of the coating, which inhibited the permeation of oxygen, and thus redox reactions were suppressed, leading to a lower loss of compounds [45]. The results of these studies suggested that the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables can be overall maintained when edible coatings are applied. Similar observations were reported for bioactive compounds in coated fruits and vegetables. For example, anthocyanin and phenolic compounds for strawberries [51] and lychees [31], mushrooms [48], table grapes [24], pears [37], apricots [34], shogun mandarins [35], and mangoes [50], as well as phenolic compounds and flavonoids for strawberries [25,30] and anthocyanin for blackberries [36].
Edible coatings make a significant impact on enzyme activities of fruits and vegetables. Particularly, studies have demonstrated that edible coatings maintained or increased the activity of some antioxidant enzymes. Some enzymes maintained in fruits and vegetables by the effect of edible coatings reported in the literature include SOD, which catalyzes the conversion of superoxide radicals to hydrogen peroxide, and CAT/ascorbate peroxidase (APX), which converts the H2O2 to H2O and O2. Thus, this antioxidant system is interlinked and can repair/prevent the cellular damage due to oxidative stress [60]. Other enzymes that were maintained or decreased in some studies (Table 1) are peroxidase (POD), polyphenol oxidase (PPO), and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL). These three enzymes are related with the browning in fruits and vegetables. PPO catalyzes the oxidation of phenols to quinones that form brown pigments, while POD can also oxidize phenols to quinines in the presence of H2O2. On the other hand, PAL catalyzes the browning substances biosynthesis of phenolic components [61]. In this context, Gao, Kan, Wan, Chen, Chen, and Chen [44] found that the activity of SOD and CAT in oranges coated with chitosan and cinnamaldehyde was maintained. Similar results were obtained by Zhang, Liu, Sun, Wang, and Li [48], who applied an edible coating on mushrooms, preserving the activity of SOD and CAT enzymes. For their part, Ali, Khan, Nawaz, Anjum, Naz, Ejaz, and Hussain [31] reported the presence of APX in addition to SOD and CAT activities, which were maintained in lychee fruit after coating it with an Aloe vera gel. Batista Silva, Cosme Silva, Santana, Salvador, Medeiros, Belghith, da Silva, Cordeiro, and Misobutsi [43] observed that the PAL activity decreased in guava coated with chitosan. Similarly, POD and PPO activities were reduced after application of an edible coating on oranges (chitosan, cinnamaldehyde) [44], the mushrooms Agaricus bisporus (chitosan, zein, tocopherol) [48] and Pholiota nameko (alginate, thyme essential oil, nisin, and L-cysteine), strawberries (cellulose nano-fiber, chia seed mucilage) [30], and pears (starch) [37]. Interestingly, a relationship was observed between the increased activity of antioxidant enzymes (e.g., CAT, APX, SOD) and the decrease of malondialdehyde (MDA) values in fruits and vegetables coated with different polysaccharide-based edible coatings, including Kinnow mandarins [38], lychees [31], and rose apples [21]. The above indicates that these antioxidant enzymes may play a major role in the defense mechanism against lipid peroxidation through the delayed generation of reactive oxygen species and/or interruption of the lipid peroxidation process occurring in fruits and vegetables. This scientific evidence suggests that edible coatings contribute to increased activity of antioxidant enzymes while decreasing the activity of enzymes involved in browning.
Finally, edible coatings can offer protective effects towards food damage, namely, decreasing the chill-injury effects, postharvest decay, and disease incidence/severity. A decrease in chill-injury and disease incidence was observed by Ali, Anjum, Ejaz, Hussain, Ercisli, Saleem, and Sardar [38] after applying a cellulose-based coating on Kinnow mandarins. Likewise, postharvest decay was decreased in strawberries coated with chitosan, thymol, and quinoa protein [47] strawberries coated with xanthan gum and beeswax [57]; and tangerines coated with chitosan and montmorillonite [46]. Some studies also reported a reduction on the incidence of disease of coated citrus fruits [38,45], mangoes [39], and papayas [32]. Overall, the beneficial results listed demonstrate that the shelf life period is favorably extended. For example, the shelf life period significantly increased (p < 0.05) for coated tomatoes [22,33], potatoes [23], papayas [32], eggplants [53], chili peppers [54], and cucumbers [41].
The selection of the type of polysaccharide to be used to prepare an edible coating needs to be based on the coating functions/applications as well as the type of fruit or vegetable that will be coated. Table 2 summarizes the main advantages and disadvantages of polysaccharides commonly used in edible coatings. Common advantages shared by most polysaccharides used in edible coatings are that they are considered as renewable, biodegradable, biocompatible, and non-toxic. In contrast, the main disadvantages are the limiting information available for their formulation and application in fruits and vegetables. For example, some coatings exhibit poor mechanical properties (e.g., chitosan, starch, carrageenan), while others showed solubility issues (e.g., alginate, cellulose); therefore, some of these coatings may require the use of a combination with other biopolymers in order to improve their physico-chemical properties. In this context, alginate shows good gelation properties for the development of edible coatings, while it does not have anti-fungal and antioxidant activities. It also showed lower UV-protecting properties and poor water barrier, and thus it is typically combined with Aloe vera in order to improve the UV-protecting, antioxidant, and antimicrobial properties [22]. Others have shown that alginate combined with galactomannans improved the gas barrier properties of the developed edible coatings [24]. In contrast, cellulose shows excellent film-forming properties, but its gas permeability properties are lower, and thus it is typically combined with beeswax in order to increase its permeability to gases [39]. Similarly, chitosan was combined with cellulose in order to reinforce the network structure of the formed edible coating [42]. As observed in Table 1, this improvement of the physicochemical properties of edible coatings has a positive impact on the overall quality of coated fruits and vegetables.

3. Bioactivities Exhibited by Edible Coatings

Consumer demand for less use of chemicals in fruits and vegetables has led to more research efforts towards using naturally occurring compounds with antioxidant and antimicrobial properties that can be applied to produce [73]. Edible coatings can also exhibit some bioactive properties because biologically active compounds can be incorporated into composites with antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. Generally, these bioactive compounds are incorporated into edible coatings as pure compounds, essential oils, or plant extracts. The next section highlights some of main bioactive properties such as antioxidant and antimicrobial activities reported for edible coatings.
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and other oxidant compounds can decrease the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables and change their sensory properties, triggering an overall decrease in consumer acceptance [74]. For example, ROS can react with fruit and vegetable components, producing undesirable volatile compounds, damaging essential nutrients, and changing the function of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates, which can lead to changes in color, texture, and flavor [75]. Thus, antioxidant compounds incorporated into edible coatings can interact with coated fruits and vegetables either by trapping or neutralizing ROS and pro-oxidant compounds or releasing the antioxidants into the coated products [74]. For example, Wani, Gull, Ahad, Malik, Ganaie, Masoodi, and Gani [51] found that the antioxidant activity (22–25% DPPH inhibition) of strawberries was preserved after being coated with an edible composite compared with the uncoated fruit (18% DPPH inhibition). Similarly, Ebrahimi and Rastegar [50] reported that mangoes coated with a guar-based edible coating enriched with Spirulina platensis showed a higher antioxidant activity (95% DPPH inhibition) compared with the 87% DPPH inhibition observed in the control (uncoated) treatment. For their part, Nourozi and Sayyari [34] demonstrated that the application of an Aloe vera gel with basil seed mucilage onto apricots conserved their antioxidant properties (35% DPPH inhibition) compared with the control fruits (20% DPPH inhibition). Likewise, Shivangi, Dorairaj, Negi, and Shetty [54] developed a pectin-based edible coating enriched with mulberry leaf extract that exhibited significant antioxidant activity (IC50 = 2.67 mg/mL) than that of the coating with no bioactive extract added (IC50 = 28.46 mg/mL). Additionally, Divya, et al. [76] reported that an edible coating prepared with chitosan nanoparticles exhibited up to 50% DPPH inhibition. In contrast, the antioxidant activity of starch-coated papaya was reported to be higher than the uncoated papaya samples [77]. The authors explained that this may be due to the lower oxidation of phenolic compounds and ascorbic acid in the coated samples.
The antimicrobial activity of edible coatings is also widely studied. Antimicrobial properties of edible coatings are of great interest not only in the prevention of food-borne diseases but also towards food spoilage [28,54,56]. For example, a pectin-based coating containing mulberry leaf extract exhibited antimicrobial properties against two food-borne pathogens (Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Bacillus cereus), compared to the control coating, which did not show any antimicrobial activity against the tested pathogens [54]. On the other hand, Oyom, Xu, Liu, Long, Li, Zhang, Bi, Tahergorabi, and Prusky [56] found that an edible coating consisting of sweet potato starch and cumin essential oil exhibited in vivo antifungal efficacy by growth inhibition of Aternaria alternata in coated pears. Similarly, Sarengaowa, Hu, Feng, Xiu, Jiang, and Lao [28] reported that the total plate counts, total coliform counts, and yeast and mold counts on fruits treated with an alginate-based edible coating containing thyme oil were significantly lower than the fruits that had the alginate-based edible coating without bioactive (thyme) oil added. These studies demonstrate the benefit of incorporating bioactive compounds, such as those derived from essential oils, into edible coatings to impart bioactive (e.g., antioxidant, antimicrobial) properties in addition to preserving the physico-chemical features of fruits and vegetables.

4. Conclusions and Future Prospects in Polysaccharide-Based Edible Coatings

Polysaccharide-based edible coatings made with chitosan, alginate, cellulose, starch, and to a lesser extent Aloe vera gel, gums (e.g., guar, gum arabic, xanthan) and carrageenan have shown promising beneficial effects on coated fruits and vegetables. These beneficial effects are related with the preservation of quality attributes including increased shelf life period, lower respiration rates, maintaining firmness, reducing weight/mass loss, preserving soluble solids, vitamins, and bioactive compounds (e.g., flavonoids, anthocyanins, phenolic compounds), decreasing microbial growth (e.g., fungal, bacterial), maintaining antioxidant enzyme activities (e.g., SOD, CAT), delaying browning degree, and de-creasing overall food damage (e.g, chill-injury, disease incidence/severity). Furthermore, the addition of plant extracts and essential oils (with bioactive compounds) into polysaccharide-based edible coatings, showed remarkable antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. Thus, polysaccharide-based edible coatings with added bioactive compounds can be used not only as an efficient preservation strategy, but also may play a vital role in food safety when consumed with the food.
Emerging trends in polysaccharide-based edible coatings should be focused on the development of highly functional bioactive, nanostructured, and multilayered composite materials with different combinations. This will lead to new multifunctional edible coatings that not only contribute to the food quality but also show beneficial bioactivities towards human health. In this context, bioactive compounds that are incorporated into edible coatings as essential oils or plant extracts should be evaluated for their in vitro cytotoxicity following by their evaluation using in vivo models for their safety and efficacy for human consumption. On the other hand, another concern regarding the use of essential oils or plant extracts is that they may affect the sensory properties of produce (e.g., imparting aromas and/or flavors from the essential oils to the produce). Therefore, future studies should focus on enhancing sensory qualities by using appropriate combinations of edible coating components and/or the use of masking agents in the composite.
Furthermore, the majority of studies have focused on the development of edible coatings in early stage of development with applications at laboratory (bench) scale, as shown in Table 1. However, further studies are needed to establish trials at pilot-plant and industrial scales, which must be accompanied by an economic feasibility analysis for their commercial applications. On the other hand, studies are also needed to optimize reaction parameters in order to find the best conditions to obtain ideal mechanical and physicochemical properties of edible coatings for specific use in fruits and vegetables.
The edible coating technology is beginning to gain momentum as the industry seeks to use more user- and environmental-friendly approaches to shelf life extension of fruits and vegetables. However, there is limited information available on how the intrinsic physico-chemical properties of different polysaccharides affect the mechanical and permeability properties of films and/or coatings. Additional research in this area would elucidate the potential functionality of polysaccharide-based coatings for use as a strategy to extend the shelf life period of fresh fruits and vegetables during postharvest storage. Moving forward, attention should also be paid to what is referred to as “smart edible coatings” (e.g., those that are temperature sensitive). For example, smart color-changing temperature-sensitive nanoparticles are of increasing interest for the improvement of food quality and bioactivities. These temperature nanoindicators change their color when the products are heated above or cooled below certain temperature ranges. This allows them to be used as critical reference, indicating potential food spoilage to consumers. Finally, careful consideration needs to be made on the regulatory requirements by country for the different polysaccharides being used in edible coating formulations as this limits the application of such novel polysaccharide compounds.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.L. and J.E.A.-T.; bibliographic search, R.G.C.-M., A.A.R.-A., R.M.G.-R. and M.L.Z.-Z.; resources, A.M.L. and J.E.A.-T.; visualization, A.A.R.-A., R.M.G.-R. and M.L.Z.-Z.; writing—original draft preparation, R.G.C.-M. and J.E.A.-T.; writing—review and editing, A.M.L., J.E.A.-T. and M.L.Z.-Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Act formula funds project 1019794.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the academic resources and databases provided by Purdue University and Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tripathi, A.; Singh, D.; Pandey, K.; Singh, J. Postharvest diseases of leguminous vegetable crops and their management. In Postharvest Handling and Diseases of Horticultural Produce; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 387–396. [Google Scholar]
  3. Stoops, J.; Ruyters, S.; Busschaert, P.; Spaepen, R.; Verreth, C.; Claes, J.; Lievens, B.; Van Campenhout, L. Bacterial community dynamics during cold storage of minced meat packaged under modified atmosphere and supplemented with different preservatives. Food Microbiol. 2015, 48, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Guerreiro, A.C.; Gago, C.M.; Faleiro, M.L.; Miguel, M.G.; Antunes, M.D. The use of polysaccharide-based edible coatings enriched with essential oils to improve shelf life of strawberries. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2015, 110, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sridhar, A.; Ponnuchamy, M.; Kumar, P.S.; Kapoor, A. Food preservation techniques and nanotechnology for increased shelf life of fruits, vegetables, beverages and spices: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2020, 19, 1715–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Amit, S.K.; Uddin, M.; Rahman, R.; Islam, S.M.R.; Khan, M.S. A review on mechanisms and commercial aspects of food preservation and processing. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Masarirambi, M.T.; Nxumalo, K.; Earnshaw, D.M.; Musi, P.J.; Dlamini, B. Genetic manipulation and product shelf life: Is there a connection? A developing world perspective. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2019, 41, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Zambrano-Zaragoza, M.L.; González-Reza, R.; Mendoza-Muñoz, N.; Miranda-Linares, V.; Bernal-Couoh, T.F.; Mendoza-Elvira, S.; Quintanar-Guerrero, D. Nanosystems in edible coatings: A novel strategy for food preservation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Jafarzadeh, S.; Nafchi, A.M.; Salehabadi, A.; Oladzad-Abbasabadi, N.; Jafari, S.M. Application of bio-nanocomposite films and edible coatings for extending the shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2021, 291, 102405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nešić, A.; Cabrera-Barjas, G.; Dimitrijević-Branković, S.; Davidović, S.; Radovanović, N.; Delattre, C. Prospect of polysaccharide-based materials as advanced food packaging. Molecules 2020, 25, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Sharma, P.; Shehin, V.P.; Kaur, N.; Vyas, P. Application of edible coatings on fresh and minimally processed vegetables: A review. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2019, 25, 295–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Millican, J.M.; Agarwal, S. Plastic pollution: A material problem? Macromolecules 2021, 54, 4455–4469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Monteiro Fritz, A.R.; de Matos Fonseca, J.; Trevisol, T.C.; Fagundes, C.; Valencia, G.A. Active, eco-friendly and edible coatings in the post-harvest—A critical discussion. In Polymers for Agri-Food Applications; Gutiérrez, T.J., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 433–463. [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Liu, J.; Willför, S.; Xu, C. A review of bioactive plant polysaccharides: Biological activities, functionalization, and biomedical applications. Bioact. Carbohydr. Diet. Fibre 2015, 5, 31–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, H.; Qian, J.; Ding, F. Emerging chitosan-based films for food packaging applications. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 395–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Malm, M.; Liceaga, A.M.; Martin-Gonzalez, F.S.; Jones, O.G.; Garcia-Bravo, J.M.; Kaplan, I. Development of chitosan films from edible crickets and their performance as a bio-based food packaging material. Polysaccharides 2021, 2, 744–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. FDA. SCOGS (Select Committee on GRAS Substances). 2022. Available online: https://www.cfsanappsexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=SCOGS (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  19. Díaz-Montes, E. Polysaccharide-based biodegradable films: An alternative in food packaging. Polysaccharides 2022, 3, 761–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Butnaru, E.; Stoleru, E.; Brebu, M.A.; Darie-Nita, R.N.; Bargan, A.; Vasile, C. Chitosan-based bionanocomposite films prepared by emulsion technique for food preservation. Materials 2019, 12, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Duong, N.T.C.; Uthairatanakij, A.; Laohakunjit, N.; Jitareerat, P.; Kaisangsri, N. An innovative single step of cross-linked alginate-based edible coating for maintaining postharvest quality and reducing chilling injury in rose apple cv. ‘Tabtimchan’ (Syzygium samarangenese). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 292, 110648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aziz, M.S.A.; Salama, H.E. Developing multifunctional edible coatings based on alginate for active food packaging. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 190, 837–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Emragi, E.; Kalita, D.; Jayanty, S.S. Effect of edible coating on physical and chemical properties of potato tubers under different storage conditions. LWT 2021, 153, 112580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. de Souza, W.F.C.; de Lucena, F.A.; da Silva, K.G.; Martins, L.P.; de Castro, R.J.S.; Sato, H.H. Influence of edible coatings composed of alginate, galactomannans, cashew gum, and gelatin on the shelf- life of grape cultivar ‘Italia’: Physicochemical and bioactive properties. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 152, 112315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, C.; Jin, T.; Liu, W.; Hao, W.; Yan, L.; Zheng, L. Effects of hydroxyethyl cellulose and sodium alginate edible coating containing asparagus waste extract on postharvest quality of strawberry fruit. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 148, 111770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rodrigues, F.J.; Cedran, M.F.; Garcia, S. Influence of linseed mucilage incorporated into an alginate-base edible coating containing probiotic bacteria on shelf life of fresh-cut yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius). Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1605–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, X.-Y.; Du, X.-L.; Liu, Y.; Tong, L.-J.; Wang, Q.; Li, J.-L. Rhubarb extract incorporated into an alginate-based edible coating for peach preservation. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 257, 108685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sarengaowa; Hu, W.; Feng, K.; Xiu, Z.; Jiang, A.; Lao, Y. Thyme oil alginate-based edible coatings inhibit growth of pathogenic microorganisms spoiling fresh-cut cantaloupe. Food Biosci. 2019, 32, 100467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, D.; Guo, R.; Li, W.; Song, J.; Cheng, F. Improved postharvest preservation effects of Pholiota nameko mushroom by sodium alginate-based edible composite coating. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2019, 12, 587–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mousavi, S.R.; Rahmati-Joneidabad, M.; Noshad, M. Effect of chia seed mucilage/bacterial cellulose edible coating on bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of strawberries during cold storage. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 190, 618–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ali, S.; Khan, A.S.; Nawaz, A.; Anjum, M.A.; Naz, S.; Ejaz, S.; Hussain, S. Aloe vera gel coating delays postharvest browning and maintains quality of harvested litchi fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 157, 110960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Parven, A.; Sarker, R.; Megharaj, M.; Meftaul, I.M. Prolonging the shelf life of Papaya (Carica papaya L.) using Aloe vera gel at ambient temperature. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 265, 109228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Salama, H.E.; Aziz, M.S.A. Optimized alginate and Aloe vera gel edible coating reinforced with nTiO2 for the shelf life extension of tomatoes. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 165, 2693–2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nourozi, F.; Sayyari, M. Enrichment of Aloe vera gel with basil seed mucilage preserve bioactive compounds and postharvest quality of apricot fruits. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 262, 109041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jiwanit, P.; Pitakpornpreecha, T.; Pisuchpen, S.; Leelasuphakul, W. The use of Aloe vera gel coating supplemented with Pichia guilliermondii BCC5389 for enhancement of defense-related gene expression and secondary metabolism in mandarins to prevent postharvest losses from green mold rot. Biol. Control 2018, 117, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bersaneti, G.T.; Prudencio, S.H.; Mali, S.; Celligoi, M.A.P.C. Assessment of a new edible film biodegradable based on starch-nystose to increase quality and the shelf life of blackberries. Food Biosci. 2021, 42, 101173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dai, L.; Zhang, J.; Cheng, F. Cross-linked starch-based edible coating reinforced by starch nanocrystals and its preservation effect on graded Huangguan pears. Food Chem. 2020, 311, 125891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ali, S.; Anjum, M.A.; Ejaz, S.; Hussain, S.; Ercisli, S.; Saleem, M.S.; Sardar, H. Carboxymethyl cellulose coating delays chilling injury development and maintains eating quality of ‘Kinnow’ mandarin fruits during low temperature storage. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 168, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sousa, F.F.; Junior, J.S.P.; Oliveira, K.T.; Rodrigues, E.C.; Andrade, J.P.; Mattiuz, B.-H. Conservation of ‘Palmer’ mango with an edible coating of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and beeswax. Food Chem. 2020, 346, 128925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sganzerla, W.G.; Ribeiro, C.P.P.; Uliana, N.R.; Rodrigues, M.B.C.; da Rosa, C.G.; Ferrareze, J.P.; Veeck, A.P.D.L.; Nunes, M.R. Bioactive and pH-sensitive films based on carboxymethyl cellulose and blackberry (Morus nigra L.) anthocyanin-rich extract: A perspective coating material to improve the shelf life of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. var. cerasiforme). Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2021, 33, 101989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zambrano-Zaragoza, M.L.; Quintanar-Guerrero, D.; González-Reza, R.M.; Cornejo-Villegas, M.A.; Leyva-Gómez, G.; Urbán-Morlán, Z. Effects of UV-C and edible nano-coating as a combined strategy to preserve fresh-cut cucumber. Polymers 2021, 13, 3705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ghosh, T.; Nakano, K.; Katiyar, V. Curcumin doped functionalized cellulose nanofibers based edible chitosan coating on kiwifruits. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 184, 936–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Silva, W.B.; Silva, G.M.C.; Santana, D.B.; Salvador, A.R.; Medeiros, D.B.; Belghith, I.; da Silva, N.M.; Cordeiro, M.H.M.; Misobutsi, G.P. Chitosan delays ripening and ROS production in guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruit. Food Chem. 2018, 242, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gao, Y.; Kan, C.; Wan, C.; Chen, C.; Chen, M.; Chen, J. Quality and biochemical changes of navel orange fruits during storage as affected by cinnamaldehyde -chitosan coating. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 239, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, Y.-N.; Ye, Q.-Q.; Hou, W.-F.; Zhang, G.-Q. Development of antibacterial ε-polylysine/chitosan hybrid films and the effect on citrus. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 118 Pt B, 2051–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xu, D.; Qin, H.; Ren, D. Prolonged preservation of tangerine fruits using chitosan/montmorillonite composite coating. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 143, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Robledo, N.; López, L.; Bunger, A.; Tapia, C.; Abugoch, L. Effects of antimicrobial edible coating of thymol nanoemulsion/quinoa protein/chitosan on the safety, sensorial properties, and quality of refrigerated strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa) under commercial storage environment. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1566–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, L.; Liu, Z.; Sun, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, L. Combined antioxidant and sensory effects of active chitosan/zein film containing α-tocopherol on Agaricus bisporus. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 24, 100470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rodrigues, F.A.M.; dos Santos, S.B.F.; Lopes, M.M.D.A.; Guimarães, D.J.S.; Silva, E.D.O.; Filho, M.D.S.M.D.S.; Mattos, A.L.A.; da Silva, L.M.R.; de Azeredo, H.M.C.; Ricardo, N.M.P.S. Antioxidant films and coatings based on starch and phenolics from Spondias purpurea L. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 182, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ebrahimi, F.; Rastegar, S. Preservation of mango fruit with guar-based edible coatings enriched with Spirulina platensis and Aloe vera extract during storage at ambient temperature. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 265, 109258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wani, S.M.; Gull, A.; Ahad, T.; Malik, A.R.; Ganaie, T.A.; Masoodi, F.A.; Gani, A. Effect of gum arabic, xanthan and carrageenan coatings containing antimicrobial agent on postharvest quality of strawberry: Assessing the physicochemical, enzyme activity and bioactive properties. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 183, 2100–2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, C.; Chi, W.; Meng, F.; Wang, L. Fabricating an anti-shrinking κ-carrageenan/sodium carboxymethyl starch film by incorporating carboxylated cellulose nanofibrils for fruit preservation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021, 191, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kumar, R.; Ghoshal, G.; Goyal, M. Effect of basil leaves extract on modified moth bean starch active film for eggplant surface coating. LWT 2021, 145, 111380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shivangi, S.; Dorairaj, D.; Negi, P.S.; Shetty, N.P. Development and characterisation of a pectin-based edible film that contains mulberry leaf extract and its bio-active components. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 121, 107046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sucheta; Chaturvedi, K.; Sharma, N.; Yadav, S.K. Composite edible coatings from commercial pectin, corn flour and beetroot powder minimize post-harvest decay, reduces ripening and improves sensory liking of tomatoes. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 133, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oyom, W.; Xu, H.; Liu, Z.; Long, H.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Bi, Y.; Tahergorabi, R.; Prusky, D. Effects of modified sweet potato starch edible coating incorporated with cumin essential oil on storage quality of ‘early crisp’. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 153, 112475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zambrano-Zaragoza, M.L.; Quintanar-Guerrero, D.; Del Real, A.; González-Reza, R.M.; Cornejo-Villegas, M.A.; Gutiérrez-Cortez, E. Effect of nano-edible coating based on beeswax solid lipid nanoparticles on strawberry’s preservation. Coatings 2020, 10, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Arnon, H.; Granit, R.; Porat, R.; Poverenov, E. Development of polysaccharides-based edible coatings for citrus fruits: A layer-by-layer approach. Food Chem. 2015, 166, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Paniagua, A.; East, A.; Hindmarsh, J.; Heyes, J. Moisture loss is the major cause of firmness change during postharvest storage of blueberry. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 79, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Qamer, Z.; Chaudhary, M.T.; DU, X.; Hinze, L.; Azhar, M.T. Review of oxidative stress and antioxidative defense mechanisms in Gossypium hirsutum L. in response to extreme abiotic conditions. J. Cotton Res. 2021, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yingsanga, P.; Srilaong, V.; Kanlayanarat, S.; Noichinda, S.; McGlasson, W. Relationship between browning and related enzymes (PAL, PPO and POD) in rambutan fruit (Nephelium lappaceum Linn.) cvs. rongrien and see-chompoo. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 50, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dutta, P.K.; Tripathi, S.; Mehrotra, G.K.; Dutta, J. Perspectives for chitosan based antimicrobial films in food applications. Food Chem. 2009, 114, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sahariah, P.; Másson, M. Antimicrobial chitosan and chitosan derivatives: A review of the structure—Activity relationship. Biomacromolecules 2017, 18, 3846–3868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Garg, U.; Chauhan, S.; Nagaich, U.; Jain, N. Current advances in chitosan nanoparticles based drug delivery and targeting. Adv. Pharm. Bull. 2019, 9, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Campos, C.A.; Gerschenson, L.N.; Flores, S.K. Development of edible films and coatings with antimicrobial activity. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2011, 4, 849–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pawar, S.N.; Edgar, K.J. Alginate derivatization: A review of chemistry, properties and applications. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 3279–3305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gheorghita Puscaselu, R.; Lobiuc, A.; Dimian, M.; Covasa, M. Alginate: From food industry to biomedical applications and management of metabolic disorders. Polymers 2020, 12, 2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. 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]
  69. Cruz-Romero, M.; Kerry, J.P. Crop-based biodegradable packaging and its environmental implications. CABI Rev. 2009, 2008, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zarski, A.; Bajer, K.; Kapuśniak, J. Review of the most important methods of improving the processing properties of starch toward non-food applications. Polymers 2021, 13, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Necas, J.; Bartosikova, L. Carrageenan: A review. Vet. Med. 2013, 58, 187–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Tabernero, A.; Cardea, S. Microbial exopolysaccharides as drug carriers. Polymers 2020, 12, 2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ponce, A.G.; Roura, S.I.; del Valle, C.E.; Moreira, M.R. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of edible coatings enriched with natural plant extracts: In vitro and in vivo studies. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 49, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Yong, H.; Liu, J. Active packaging films and edible coatings based on polyphenol-rich propolis extract: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 2106–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Choe, E.; Min, D.B. Chemistry and reactions of reactive oxygen species in foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2006, 46, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Divya, K.; Smitha, V.; Jisha, M. Antifungal, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of chitosan nanoparticles and its use as an edible coating on vegetables. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 114, 572–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Islam, M.Z.; Saha, T.; Monalisa, K.; Hoque, M.M. Effect of starch edible coating on drying characteristics and antioxidant properties of papaya. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2019, 13, 2951–2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Polysaccharides 04 00008 g001 550
Figure 1. Beneficial effects of the application of polysaccharides-based edible coating on fruits and vegetables. Created with Biorender.com (accessed on 30 January 2023).
Figure 1. Beneficial effects of the application of polysaccharides-based edible coating on fruits and vegetables. Created with Biorender.com (accessed on 30 January 2023).
Polysaccharides 04 00008 g001
Table
Table 1. Beneficial effect of polysaccharide-based edible coatings on fruits and vegetables.
Table 1. Beneficial effect of polysaccharide-based edible coatings on fruits and vegetables.
Coating MaterialFood CoatedPrincipal Effect of CoatingReferences
AlginateRose apple (Syzygium samarangenese) cv. Tabtimchan↓ weight loss, respiration rate, MDA and H2O2 content
↓ LOX activity
↑ CAT and APX		Duong, et al. [21]
Alginate, Aloe vera, garlic oilTomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.)↑ shelf life period
↑ UV-shielding, barrier, thermal, and mechanical properties		Abdel Aziz and Salama [22]
Alginate, chitosan, zein, potato starch, essential oil (oregano and cinnamon)Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars (Rio Grande Russet, Yukon Gold, and Purple Majesty)↓ weight loss
≈ firmness
↑ sensory properties, particularly with colored skin potatoes
↑ shelf life period by sprout inhibition		Emragi, et al. [23]
Alginate, galactomannans, cashew gum, and gelatinTable grapes (Vitis vinifera) cv. Italia↓ weight loss
≈ firmness and color
↑ phenolic compound content and antioxidant potential		de Souza, et al. [24]
Alginate, hydroxyethyl cellulose, asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) waste extractStrawberry (Fragaria × ananassa)↓ color change, weight loss
≈ total phenolic and flavonoid contents		Liu, et al. [25]
Alginate, linseed mucilage, probiotic bacteria (Lactobacillus casei LC-01), fructooligosacharidesFresh-cut yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius)↓ weight loss and browningRodrigues, et al. [26]
Alginate, rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) extractPeaches (Prunus persica)↓ weight loss, respiration rate, MDA content, and PPO activity
↑ firmness and the TSS content		Li, et al. [27]
Alginate, thyme oilFresh-cut cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.)≈ respiration, color, and sensory characteristicsSarengaowa, et al. [28]
Alginate, thyme essential oil, nisin, and L-cysteine* Mushroom (Pholiota nameko)↓ weight loss, degree of browning, and MDA content
↓ PPO and POD activities
≈ soluble sugar, ascorbic acid, and soluble protein contents		Zhu, et al. [29]
Bacterial cellulose nano-fiber (Gluconacetobacter xylinu), chia (Salvia hispanica) seed mucilageStrawberry (Fragaria × ananassa)≈ the phenolic, flavonoids, and ascorbic acid
↓ PPO and POD activities		Mousavi, et al. [30]
Aloe vera gelLychee (Litchi chinensis Sonn. cv. Gola)↓ browning index, weight loss, superoxide anion, relative electrolyte leakage, H2O2 and MDA content
≈ total anthocyanin, total phenolic and ascorbic acid, CAT, SOD, and APX activities		Ali, et al. [31]
Aloe vera gelPapaya (Carica papaya L.)↑ shelf life period
↓ weight loss and disease severity		Parven, et al. [32]
Aloe vera gel, alginate, titanium oxide nanoparticles (nTiO2)Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.)↑ shelf life period
↓ weight loss		Salama and Abdel Aziz [33]
Aloe vera gel, basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) seed mucilageApricot (Prunus armeniaca L. cv. Nouri)≈ firmness, TA, total phenolic and ascorbic acid contentsNourozi and Sayyari [34]
Aloe vera gel, Pichia guilliermondii BCC5389Shogun mandarins (Citrus reticulate Blanco cv. Shogun)↓ weight loss
≈ shikimic acid, total phenolics, and lignin content		Jiwanit, et al. [35]
Cassava starch, nystoseBlackberries (Rubus spp. cv. Tupy)↓ increase in pH
≈ firmness and anthocyanin content
↓ counts of psychrotrophic microorganisms, molds, and yeast		Bersaneti, et al. [36]
Cassava starch, starch nanocrystalsPear (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai)≈ color, texture, cell membrane permeability, total phenolic, TSS, and TA contents
↓ POD and PPO activities		Dai, et al. [37]
CelluloseKinnow mandarin fruit (Citrus nobilis L. × Citrus deliciosa T.)↓ chilling injury symptoms, disease incidence, weight loss, MDA content, H2O2 and electrolyte leakage
≈ APX, POD, SOD, and CAT activities		Ali, et al. [38]
Cellulose, beeswaxMango (Mangifera indica L. cv. Palmer)↓ fruit ripening
≈ peel and pulp color and firmness
≈ TA, and TSS
↓ weight loss and the disease incidence		Sousa, et al. [39]
Cellulose, blackberry (Morus nigra L.) anthocyanin rich-extractCherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. var. Cerasiforme)≈ constant weight and firmnessSganzerla, et al. [40]
Cellulose, lemon essential oil, alginate, pectinCucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)↓ weight loss
↑ shelf life period		Zambrano-Zaragoza, et al. [41]
Cellulose nanofiber, iron, chitosan, curcuminKiwifruits (Actinidia deliciosa cv. Hayward)↓ mass loss, firmness loss, respiration rate, and microbial countGhosh, et al. [42]
ChitosanGuava (Psidium guajava L.)↓ weight loss, browning index, and respiration rate
≈ firmness and skin color were maintained
↓ PAL activity
↑ POD activity		Batista Silva, et al. [43]
Chitosan, cinnamaldehydeOrange (Citrus sinensis L., Osbeck)≈ SOD, CAT, POD, and PPO activities
↓ postharvest decay and mass loss
≈ vitamin C and TSS		Gao, et al. [44]
Chitosan and ε-polylysineSatsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu Marc.)≈ TSS, ascorbic acid content
↓ disease incidence		Li, et al. [45]
Chitosan and montmorilloniteTangerine (Citrus tangerine Hort. ex Tanaka)↓ weight loss and decay rate
≈ TSS and TA contents		Xu, et al. [46]
Chitosan, thymol and quinoa proteinStrawberries (Fragaria × ananassa Duch. cv. Albion)↓ mass loss and fungal decay
≈ flavor and aroma		Robledo, et al. [47]
Chitosan, zein and tocopherol* Mushroom (Agaricus bisporus)↓ weight loss, browning index, and respiration rate
↓ POD and PPO activities
≈ firmness, CAT, SOD activities, total phenolic content and DPPH radical scavenging activity		Zhang, et al. [48]
Fruit starch and phenolic stem bark extract (both from Spondias purpurea L.)Mango (Mangifera indica L. cv. Tommy Atkins)↓ browning index and reduced fungus attackRodrigues, et al. [49]
Guar gum, Aloe vera gel, and extracts of Spirulina platensisMango (Mangifera indica L.)↓ weight loss
≈ ascorbic acid, the total phenol content, and firmness		Ebrahimi and Rastegar [50]
Gum arabic, carrageenan, xanthan gum, lemon grass essential oilStrawberry (Fragaria × ananassa)↓ weight loss
≈ ascorbic acid, anthocyanin, phenolic compound contents, and firmness		Wani, et al. [51]
κ-carrageenan, starch, cellulose nanofibrils
Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa)↓ weight loss
≈ vitamin C, TSS, hardness, TA and pH		Zhang, et al. [52]
Moth bean starch, basil leaves extractEggplant (Solanum melongena)↓ moisture loss and firmness
↓ increase in TSS and color changes
↑ shelf life period		Kumar, et al. [53]
Pectin, crude mulberry (Morus alba) leaf extract (deoxynojirimycin and chlorogenic acid)Capsicum annum L.↑ shelf life period
↓ mass loss		Shivangi, et al. [54]
Pectin, corn flour, and beetroot powderTomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.)↓ weight loss and respirationSucheta, et al. [55]
Sweet potato starch and cumin essential oilPear (Pyrus bretchneideri Rehd.)↓ rot lesion on infected pear caused by Alternaria alternata
↓ changes in color, firmness, and chlorophyll degradation		Oyom, et al. [56]
Xanthan gum, beeswaxStrawberry (Fragaria × ananassa cv. Camarosa)↓ weight loss, firmness loss, and decay indexZambrano-Zaragoza, et al. [57]
SOD: superoxide dismutase; CAT: catalase; POD: peroxidase; PPO: polyphenol oxidase: PAL: phenylalanine ammonia-lyase; TSS: total soluble solids; TA: titratable acidity; MDA: malondialdehyde; LOX: lipoxygenase; APX: ascorbate peroxidase. Displayed symbols indicate: ↑ increased; ↓ decreased; ≈ maintained. * Mushrooms were included in the table because they are commercially considered a vegetable, even though strictly speaking they are not plants and are classified in the Fungi kingdom.
Table
Table 2. Main advantages and disadvantages and FDA regulation status of proposed polysaccharides used in edible coatings for fruits and vegetables.
Table 2. Main advantages and disadvantages and FDA regulation status of proposed polysaccharides used in edible coatings for fruits and vegetables.
Polysaccharides CharacteristicsFDA 21 CFR Regulation 1References
AdvantagesDisadvantages
Chitosan
(N-acetyl-D-glucosamine)
  • Renewable and biodegradable
  • Biocompatible, biologically adhesive, and non-toxic
  • Antimicrobial and antioxidant properties
  • Low mechanical resistance
  • Low solubility in neutral and alkaline pH
Not currently available 2Dutta, et al. [62], Sahariah and Másson [63], Garg, et al. [64]
Alginate
  • Renewable, biodegradable, biocompatible, and non-toxic
  • Low cost
  • High gelation properties
  • Unpleasant odor
  • Poor tear strength, needs combination with other biopolymers
  • Precipitate at low pH
184.1187Campos, et al. [65], Pawar and Edgar [66], Gheorghita Puscaselu, et al. [67]
Cellulose
  • Renewable, biodegradable, and biocompatible
  • Soluble dietary fiber
  • Highly water sensitive
  • High cost of production
182.90Hassan, et al. [68], Nešić, Cabrera-Barjas, Dimitrijević-Branković, Davidović, Radovanović, and Delattre [10]
Starch
  • Biodegradable, non-toxic
  • Low cost and widely available
  • Transparent, odorless, and tasteless
  • Insoluble in cold water
  • High viscosity
  • Poor resistance and mechanical properties
172.892, 182.70Campos, Gerschenson, and Flores [65], Cruz-Romero and Kerry [69], Zarski, et al. [70]
Carrageenan
  • Hydrophilic
  • Biodegradable
  • Properties depending on the carrageenan type
  • Poor mechanical properties
172.620Campos, Gerschenson, and Flores [65], Necas and Bartosikova [71], Tabernero and Cardea [72]
1 21CFR regulations obtained from the Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) database: https://www.cfsanappsexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=SCOGS&sort=Sortsubstance&order=ASC&startrow=51&type=basic&search= (accessed on 3 January 2023). 2 under 21CFR216 (as Human Drug Compounding, for topical use only; not listed for food packaging or coatings).
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

Cruz-Monterrosa, R.G.; Rayas-Amor, A.A.; González-Reza, R.M.; Zambrano-Zaragoza, M.L.; Aguilar-Toalá, J.E.; Liceaga, A.M. Application of Polysaccharide-Based Edible Coatings on Fruits and Vegetables: Improvement of Food Quality and Bioactivities. Polysaccharides 2023, 4, 99-115. https://doi.org/10.3390/polysaccharides4020008

AMA Style

Cruz-Monterrosa RG, Rayas-Amor AA, González-Reza RM, Zambrano-Zaragoza ML, Aguilar-Toalá JE, Liceaga AM. Application of Polysaccharide-Based Edible Coatings on Fruits and Vegetables: Improvement of Food Quality and Bioactivities. Polysaccharides. 2023; 4(2):99-115. https://doi.org/10.3390/polysaccharides4020008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cruz-Monterrosa, Rosy G., Adolfo A. Rayas-Amor, Ricardo M. González-Reza, María L. Zambrano-Zaragoza, José E. Aguilar-Toalá, and Andrea M. Liceaga. 2023. "Application of Polysaccharide-Based Edible Coatings on Fruits and Vegetables: Improvement of Food Quality and Bioactivities" Polysaccharides 4, no. 2: 99-115. https://doi.org/10.3390/polysaccharides4020008

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop