Postharvest Biology and Technology 58 (2010)

42–47

Contents lists available at

ScienceDirect

Postharvest Biology and

Technology
journal homepage:
www.elsev ier.com/lo cate/postharvbi o

Gum arabic as a novel edible coating for enhancing shelf-life and

improving postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit
Asgar Ali ∗ , Mehdi Maqbool, Senthil Ramachandran, Peter G. Alderson
School of Biosciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

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

Article history: Coating of tomato fruit with gum arabic has been found to enhance their shelf-life and postharvest
Received 21 December quality. Gum arabic in aqueous solutions of 5, 10, 15 and 20% was applied as a novel edible coating
2009 to green-mature tomatoes which were stored at 20 ◦ C and 80–90% RH for 20 d. Fruit coated with
Accepted 16 May 2010 10% gum arabic showed a significant (P ≤ 0.05) delay in changes of weight, firmness, titratable
acidity, soluble solids concentration, ascorbic acid content, decay percentage and colour
Keywords: development compared to uncoated control fruit. Sensory evaluation proved the efficacy of 10%
Decay gum arabic coating by maintaining the overall quality of tomato fruit during the storage period. The
Gum arabic results suggest that by using 10% gum arabic as an edible coating, the ripening process can be
Postharvest delayed and the storage life of tomatoes stored at 20 ◦ C and at the breaker stage can be extended
quality Shelf-life up to 20 d without any spoilage and off-flavour.
Sensory evaluation © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Tomato

1. been used as edible coatings and are commonly based on proteins,

Introduction lipids or polysaccharides (Bai et al., 2003). The additional
benefit conferred by edible coatings is that these are natural
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), being a climacteric fruit,
products and are not chemically synthesized (Falcao-Rodrigues
has a relatively short postharvest life since many processes
et al., 2007).
affecting quality loss take place after harvest (Zapata et al., 2008),
Gum arabic or gum acacia is a dried, gummy exudate from
storage life being limited by several factors including
the stems or branches of Acacia species. It is the least viscous
transpiration, posthar- vest diseases, increased ripening and
and most soluble of the hydrocolloids (Nisperos-Carriedo, 1994),
senescence. The main factor associated with tomato postharvest
and is used extensively in the industrial sector because of its
shelf-life, particularly in tropi- cal regions where the
emulsifi- cation, film forming and encapsulation properties
temperature is high, is increased respiration which results in
(Motlagh et al.,
faster fruit ripening and deterioration of fruit qual- ity (Bailén et
2006). More than one half of the world’s supply is used in
al., 2006).
con- fectionary to retard sugar crystallization and to thicken
Generally, tomato fruit ripening is controlled through the use
candies, jellies, glazes and chewing gums (Fogarty, 1988). The
of gas, temperature and humidity control. Low temperature
main gum commercially used is derived from Acacia senegal
storage is reliable for retention of freshness and extension of
because it has good emulsification properties (Elmanan et al.,
shelf-life as it reduces the rate of respiration and thermal
2008). It has been used for coating pecan nuts to eliminate
decomposition. How- ever, chilling injury may affect the quality
their moist, oily appear- ance and at the same time providing a
of fruit if storage occurs below 12.5 ◦ C (Cheng and Shewfelt,
low-calorie product (Arnold,
1988). Controlled atmosphere and hypobaric storage can
1963). El-Anany et al. (2009) showed that apple fruit coated
lengthen the storage life of tomatoes but these processes are
with soybean gum, jojoba wax, glycerol and gum arabic
capital intensive and costly to run (Artés et al.,
resulted in a sig- nificant delay in change of weight loss, firmness,
2006). A cheaper alternative is required for both extending
titratable acidity, total soluble solids, decay and colour during cold
posthar- vest life and keeping production costs low, hence the
storage compared to uncoated control.
possibility of using edible coatings (Baldwin et al., 1995).
In a recent study by Zapata et al. (2008), alginate or zein as
Edible coatings generate a modified atmosphere by creating a
edi- ble coatings on tomato fruit showed beneficial effects of
semi-permeable barrier against O2 , CO2 , moisture and solute
retarding the ripening process by slowing the respiration rate
move- ment, thus reducing respiration, water loss and oxidation
and ethylene production, and changes triggered by this plant
reaction rates (Martínez-Romero et al., 2006). Various
hormone, such as colour change and loss of firmness.
compounds have
To our knowledge, there is not yet any published study on
the use of gum arabic as an edible coating for the preservation
and extension of storage life of fresh fruit. The aim of this study
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 8924 8219; fax: +60 3 8924 8018. there- fore was to determine whether gum arabic has
E-mail address: Asgar.Ali@nottingham.edu.my (A. Ali). properties that
0925-5214/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.05.005
4 A. Ali
A. Ali
et al.
et al.
/ Postharvest
/ Postharvest
Biology
Biology
andand
Technology
Technology
58 (2010)
58 (2010) 4
3 42–47
42–47 3
enable it to be used as a novel edible coating for the extension
of the postharvest life of tomatoes while maintaining the Colour was determined according to McGuire (1992) using
physico- chemical properties of the fruit. the
Hunter Lab System, Miniscan XE Plus colorimeter model
2. Materials and (Model:
methods

2.1. Plant material

Freshly harvested tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Money

Maker) fruit at the mature-green stage of ripening
according to the USDA standard tomato colour classification
chart (USDA, 1991) were obtained from a commercial supplier
in Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia. The fruit were visually selected
for uniformity in size, colour, absence of blemishes and fungal
infection, and transported to the laboratory within 1 h. Before
treatment was applied, fruit were washed with a solution of
sodium hypochlorite (0.05%) for
3 min, and air-dried at ambient
temperature.

2.2. Gum arabic and coating treatments

Gum arabic powder (KB-120, Food Grade) was supplied

by Jumbo Trading Co., Ltd. Bangkok, Thailand. To prepare gum
ara- bic coating solutions at 5, 10, 15, 20% (w/v), 5, 10, 15
and 20 g of powder was dissolved in 100 mL purified water. The
solutions were stirred with low heat (40 ◦ C) for 60 min on a
magnetic stirrer/hot plate (Model: HTS-1003), then filtered to
remove any undissolved impurities using a vacuum flask. After
cooling to 20 ◦ C, glycerol monostearate (1.0%) (Sigma) was
added as a plasticiser to improve the strength and flexibility of
the coating solutions. The pH of the solutions was maintained
at 5.6 using 1N NaOH. The coating treatments were selected
according to preliminary experiments in tomatoes to assure
adherence and steadiness of the coatings.
Forty fruit were immersed in each concentration of gum
ara- bic coating solution (5, 10, 15 and 20%) for 2–3 min and the
coating solution was applied uniformly on the whole surface,
while control fruit were dipped in purified water. Gum arabic
films were pre- pared according to the method described by
Miranda et al. (2004) and the thickness was measured with
a micrometer (Mitutoyo, Kanagawa, Japan) to the nearest 0.01
mm at five locations; average values were (5%: 0.011 ± 0.001
mm; 10%: 0.014 ± 0.001 mm; 15%:
0.017 ± 0.002 mm; 20% 0.022 ± 0.001 mm). After treatment,
fruit were air-dried, packed in cardboard boxes (10 fruit per
box) and stored at 20 ± 1 ◦ C and 80–90% RH for 20 d. The data
were recorded before treatment (day 0) and at 4-d intervals for
20 d.

2.3. Weight loss percentage

Tomato samples (10 fruit per replication) were weighed at

day
0 and at the end of each storage interval. The difference
between initial and final fruit weight was considered as total
weight loss during that storage interval and calculated as
percentages on a fresh weight basis by the standard AOAC (1984)
method.

2.4. Fruit firmness

Fruit firmness was determined by measuring the

amount of force (N) to puncture a hole in the fruit on
each sampling day, using an Instron Universal Testing Machine
with 6.00 mm plunger tip, Single Column Model (Norwood, MA,
USA) interfaced with a computer. The machine was set for
maximum compression with a speed of 20 mm/min as in Zapata
et al. (2008).

2.5. Colour
4 A. Ali
A. Ali
et al.
et al.
/ Postharvest
/ Postharvest
Biology
Biology
andand
Technology
Technology
58 (2010)
58 (2010) 4
445/0-5, Reston Virginia, USA). Values 42–47 42–47recorded
were as L* 40 years was set up. Panelists were asked to score the 4
[white (100) to black (0)] and hue angle (h◦ ) [h◦ represents red- difference between samples where 0–2 represented extreme
purple at an angle of 0◦ , yellow at 90◦ , bluish green at 180◦ , and dislike; 3–5 fair;
blue at 270◦ ]. The mean values of L* and h◦ were obtained 6–8 good; and 9 excellent for pulp colour, texture, flavour and
from two different points along the tomato circumference. over- all acceptability.
Before readings were taken during each sampling day, the Miniscan
XE Plus colorimeter was calibrated using calibration black and 2.9. Statistical analysis
white tiles with values of X = 79.0, Y = 83.9 and Z = 87.9.
The experiment was conducted using a completely
2.6. Soluble solids, titratable acidity and ascorbic acid random- ized design (CRD) with four replications. The data were
subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the computer
The tomatoes from each treatment were ground in a blender software MSTAT-C (Freed and Scott, 1986), while least significant
and juice from the fruit was used to determine the soluble difference (LSD) tests were used to compare differences
solids concentration (SSC) using a Palettle Digital Refractometer between treatments at the 95% confidence level of each
(Model: PR-32 , Atago Co., Ltd. Japan). The machine was variable (Chase and Brown,
standardised using purified water before readings were taken. 1997).
Titratable acidity (TA) was determined using the method of
Ranggana (1977) by mea- suring the amount of 0.1N NaOH. 3. Results and
Ascorbic acid contents were estimated using the dye 2,6- discussion
dichlorophenol–indophenol titration (DCPIP) method after
Ranggana (1977). 3.1. Weight loss

2.7. Decay percentage
The decay percentage of coated and uncoated fruit was calcu-
lated as the number of decayed fruit divided by initial number
of all fruit multiplied by 100 (El-Anany et al., 2009).
2.8. Sensory evaluation
Sensory evaluation of the fruit for pulp colour, texture,
flavour and overall acceptability for all the samples was done at
the end of the storage period using the method of Bai et al.
(2003) with some modifications. Based on their consistency
and reliability of judgment, a panel of seven judges with
age ranging from 25 to
Fruit coated with 10 and 15% gum arabic had less weight
loss during storage than the control (Fig. 1a; P ≤ 0.05) and
weight loss increased gradually during the storage period. The
basic mecha- nism of weight loss from fresh fruit and
vegetables is by vapour pressure at different locations (Yaman
and Bayoindirli, 2002), although respiration also causes a
weight reduction (Pan and Bhowmilk, 1992). This reduction
in weight loss was probably due to the effects of the coating as
a semi-permeable barrier against O2 , CO2 , moisture and solute
movement, thereby reducing res- piration, water loss and
oxidation reaction rates (Baldwin et al.,
1999; Park, 1999). The results are in agreement with the
findings of Ben-Yehoshua (1969) for oranges coated with wax
and those of Banks (1984), who reported that sucrose ester-
based coatings
4 A. Ali
A. Ali
et al.
et al.
/ Postharvest
/ Postharvest
Biology
Biology
5 42–47
42–47
Fig. 1. Effect of gum arabic coatings on (a) weight loss, (b) firmness and
(c) hue angle of tomato fruit during storage (20 ◦ C, 80–90% RH). Values
are the mean ± SE.
on banana fruit extended their storage life through reduction
in water loss and a modification of the internal atmosphere. A
sig- nificantly higher weight loss in 5 and 20% gum arabic
coatings was observed compared to 10 and 15% gum arabic
coatings, which could be explained by the thickness of coatings.
The 5% gum ara- bic coating was not so thick that it provided a
sufficient barrier against moisture loss while the 20% gum
arabic coating was so thick that it completely covered the
surface of the fruit. Similar results were reported by Park et al.
(1993) who found that tomato fruit coated too thickly with a
corn-zein film resulted in O2 con- centrations which were too
low and excessive CO2 concentrations, resulting in ethanol
production. The primary reason for increased weight loss of
thickly coated tomatoes might be the generation of heat and
production of end-products from anaerobic fermentation
(Weichmann, 1987).
andand
Technology
Technology
58 (2010)
58 (2010) 4
5
3.2. Fruit firmness
Firmness of fruit significantly (P ≤ 0.05) decreased with
stor- age period for both treated and control fruit (Fig.
1b). At the end of storage, control fruit clearly showed
the lowest firmness. The maximum firmness was
maintained by the 20% gum arabic treated tomato fruit
until day 12, and after that time no significant differences
were found among coated toma- toes.
Softening of fruit is due to deterioration in the cell structure,
cell wall composition and intracellular materials (Seymour et al.,
1993) and is a biochemical process involving the hydrolysis of
pectin and starch by enzymes e.g. wall hydrolases. As the
process of fruit ripen- ing progresses, depolymerisation or
shortening of chain length of pectin substances occurs with
an increase in pectinesterase and polygalacturonase activities
(Yaman and Bayoindirli, 2002). Low levels of O2 and high
levels of CO2 limit the activities of these enzymes and allow
retention of the firmness during storage (Salunkhe et al., 1991).
In agreement with these findings, Park et al. (1994) reported
that respiration and O2 consumption of corn-zein coated tomatoes
were lower than for non-coated tomatoes. Reduc- tion in
respiration rates of coated tomatoes could be responsible for
delaying ripening which resulted in retention of firmness during
storage. Similarly, Tanada-Palmu and Grosso (2005) reported
that refrigerated strawberries coated with wheat gluten-based
films retained their firmness better than control fruit.
3.3. Colour
The lightness (L*) gradually decreased during storage
in both coated and uncoated fruit (data not shown). The
high- est decrease in lightness was observed in uncoated
tomatoes followed by 5% coated fruit, while the fruit
coated with 10,
15 and 20% gum arabic retained their lightness values at
the end of the experiment. There was a significant (P ≤
0.05) decrease in lightness during the storage period. As
the con- centrations of gum arabic increased the lightness
value also increased.
Significant (P ≤ 0.05) changes were found in hue angle,
and the value of h◦ decreased sharply in control as well
as 5% gum arabic coated tomatoes until day 8 of storage,
thereafter the reduc- tion was slower (Fig. 1c). The hue angle
was maintained in fruit coated with 10, 15 and 20% gum
arabic until day 16 of stor- age, with a subsequent slight
decrease, however no significant differences were found
between 15 and 20% gum arabic treated tomatoes.
The colour change in uncoated tomatoes was enhanced and
they attained pink to red colour within 4–8 d of storage
compared to the fruit coated with 5 and 10% gum arabic (12–
16 d) while the fruit coated with 15 and 20% remained green
even after 20 d of storage. The mechanism behind this is not
fully understood and needs fur- ther investigation. It is possible
that gum arabic provided a thick barrier against ethylene
production and gas exchange between inner and outer
environments, and therefore delayed the ripening of the fruit
during storage. Similar results were observed by Park et al.
(1994) when they stored tomatoes coated with a corn-zein film
at 21 ◦ C. Colour is an important criterion of quality and consumer
acceptability, especially with respect to tomatoes (Aked, 2000).
During ripening, the green chlorophyll pigment is degraded and
there is accumulation of carotenoids, particularly lycopene giving
the red colour to the ripe tomato (Khudairi, 1972). During
ripening of tomatoes, high CO2 levels decrease ethylene
synthesis, which can delay colour changes (Buescher, 1979). In
this study, coating of tomatoes with gum arabic delayed
colour change, which was probably due to an increase in CO2
and decrease in O2 levels.
4 A. Ali
A. Ali
et al.
et al.
/ Postharvest
6 42–47
42–47
Fig. 2. Effect of gum arabic coatings on (a) soluble solids concentration,
(b) titratable acidity and (c) ascorbic acid contents of tomato fruit during
storage (20 ◦ C, 80–90% RH). Values are the mean ± SE.
3.4. Soluble solids, titratable acidity and ascorbic acid
In general, there was a gradual increase in SSC during the
com- plete storage period (Fig. 2a). The SSC
significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) in control compared to coated
fruit and the reduction in SSC in coated fruit was directly
proportional to the concen- tration of the coating. The
lowest SSC at the end of the storage period was recorded
in fruit coated with 20% gum arabic, and showed that the
coatings provided an excellent semi-permeable film around the
fruit, modifying the internal atmosphere by reduc- ing O2
and/or elevating CO2 and suppressing ethylene production.
Decreased respiration rates also slow down the synthesis
and use of metabolites resulting in lower SSC (Yaman and
Bayoindirli,
2002).
The titratable acidity (TA) values of coated and uncoated fruit
during storage decreased with storage time (Fig. 2b) and the
value
/ Postharvest
Biology
Biology
andand
Technology
Technology
58 (2010)
58 (2010) 4
6
was significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) in 20% gum arabic treated
fruit compared to the control. The increase in TA was directly
propor- tional to the gum arabic concentration. The low level of
TA in control fruit compared to coated fruit suggests that the
gum arabic coat- ing delayed ripening by providing a semi-
permeable film around the fruit. Since organic acids, such as
malic or citric acid, are pri- mary substrates for respiration, a
reduction in acidity is expected in highly respiring fruit (El-
Anany et al., 2009). It is also consid- ered that coatings reduce
the rate of respiration and may therefore delay the utilization of
organic acids (Yaman and Bayoindirli, 2002). Retention of
titratable acidity has been reported previously for various fruit
treated with edible coatings and films (Yaman and Bayoindirli,
2002; Tanada-Palmu and Grosso, 2005).
The ascorbic acid (vitamin C) content of coated and uncoated
tomato fruit increased to a maximum after 16 d of storage and
sub- sequently declined after 20 d (Fig. 2c). The highest levels of
ascorbic acid were observed in control fruit, closely followed by
fruit coated with 5% gum arabic. This increase in ascorbic
acid content was in parallel with the increase in other
parameters associated with ripening. In tomato fruit, ascorbic acid
content increases with matu- rity and stage of ripening
(Mathooko, 2003), however once fruit reach the full ripe stage,
ascorbic acid content starts to decline (AOAC, 1984). The
slower increase in ascorbic acid in coated fruit suggests that the
coating slowed down but did not prevent the syn- thesis of
ascorbic acid during ripening. Similar slowing down of the
increase in ascorbic acid during ripening has been reported
with high CO2 storage atmospheres for tomatoes (Mathooko,
2003).
3.5. Decay percentage
There was no visible sign of decay in coated or control fruit
until day 4 of the storage period (Table 1). Thereafter, the
coatings signif- icantly (P ≤ 0.05) reduced decay compared to
control fruit and fruit treated with 10% gum arabic coating
remained disease free even after 20 d of storage. Many of the
control fruit (67%) were spoiled after 16 d of storage. The
decrease in decay percentage was proba- bly due to the effect
of the coating on delaying senescence, which makes the
commodity more vulnerable to pathogenic infection as a result
of loss of cellular or tissue integrity (Tanada-Palmu and Grosso,
2005). Bai et al. (2003) found that ‘Gala’ apples coated with
10% zein maintained their quality, similar to that achieved
with the use of commercial shellac formulation, and extended
apple shelf- life compared with non-coated controls. Also,
Tanada-Palmu and Grosso (2005) noted that wheat gluten
coatings and films extended the shelf-life of strawberries and
delayed senescence for up to 16 d when stored at 7–10 ◦ C.
3.6. Sensory evaluation
was
Sensory evaluation of coated and uncoated fruit at the end
of the storage period revealed significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences
in pulp colour, texture, flavour and overall acceptability (Table 2).
The 10% gum arabic coated fruit had the highest scores in all
parameters after 20 d of storage, while those coated with
15 and 20% gum arabic developed poor pulp colour and inferior
texture and had off- flavours. The latter fruit were not acceptable
to the panel of experts. Compared with 10% gum arabic, control
fruit and fruit treated with
5% gum arabic had lower scores for flavour and overall
acceptability. These results suggest that gum arabic up to 10% can
be used success- fully as an edible coating for prolonging the
shelf-life and improving tomato fruit quality during storage at
20 ◦ C. Similar results were observed by El-Anany et al. (2009)
when they treated ‘Anna’ apples with gum arabic coating.
Table 1
Effect of different concentrations of gum arabic coatings on tomato fruit decay (%) during storage († ).

Treatments Time of storage (d)

0 4 8 12 16 20

Control 0.00 k 0.00 k 20.0 e 40.0 c 66.67 b 100.0 a

5% gum arabic 0.00 k 0.00 k 0.00 k 11.11 hi 17.78 ef 24.44 d
10% gum arabic 0.00 k 0.00 k 0.00 k 0.00 k 0.00 k 0.00 k
15% gum arabic 0.00 k 0.00 k 0.00 k 2.22 k 8.89 ij 13.33 gh
20% gum arabic 0.00 k 0.00 k 0.00 k 6.67 j 8.89 ij 15.55 fg
†
Values in columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05), according to the ANOVA and LSD test. Storage conditions (20 ◦
C,
80–90% RH). LSD
value: 1.689.

Table 2
Sensory evaluation of tomato fruit after treatment with different concentrations of gum arabic and 20 d of storage († ).
Treatments Pulp colour Flavour Texture Overall acceptability

Control 2.0 d 1.5 e 1.0 d 1.5 e

5% gum arabic 4.5 b 4.0 b 3.5 c 3.5 c
10% gum arabic 8.0 a 8.0 a 8.5 a 8.0 a
15% gum arabic 4.5 b 3.0 c 4.5 b 4.5 b
20% gum arabic 4.0 c 2.5 d 3.5 c 3.0 d
LSD value 0.871 0.924 0.792 0.940
†
Values in columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05), according to the ANOVA and LSD test. Storage conditions (20
◦
C, 80–90% RH).
4. volatiles, degrees brix and ascorbic acid levels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 43,
Conclusion 1321–1331.
Banks, N.H., 1984. Some effects of TAL-Prolong coating on ripening
bananas. J. Exp.
The results of this study indicate that tomato fruit coated Bot. 35, 127.
with Ben-Yehoshua, S., 1969. Gas exchange, transportation and the commercial
deterio- ration in storage of orange fruit. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 94,
10% gum arabic showed a significant delay in the change of 524.
weight, firmness, titratable acidity, soluble solids concentration
and colour during storage at 20 ◦ C as compared to uncoated
control fruit. In addition, sensory evaluation showed that 10%
gum arabic coating maintained the overall quality of the tomato
fruit during storage. Further studies should be conducted on
the gaseous exchange of gum arabic coatings in relation to
the development of new for- mulations and their application
to different climacteric fruit and vegetables. Research is also
needed into the influence of this coating on microbial growth
and on the physiological processes of ripen- ing.

Acknowledgemen
ts

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of

Agriculture (MOA) Malaysia for providing financial support
under the project grant (05-02-12-SF0031).

Reference
s

Aked, J., 2000. Fruits and vegetables. In: Kilcast, D., Subramaniam,
P. (Eds.), The
Stability and Shelf-life of Food. Woodhead Publish. Ltd., pp. 249–278.
AOAC, 1984. Official Methods of Analysis, 14th ed. Association of Official
Analytical
Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.
Arnold, F.W., 1963. U.S. Patent 3,
383, 220.
Artés, F., Gómez, P.A., Artés-Hernández, F., 2006. Modified atmosphere
packaging of fruits and vegetables. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2, 1–13.
Bai, J.V., Alleyne, Hagenmaier, R.D., Mattheis, J.P., Baldwin, E.A., 2003.
Formulation of zein coatings for apple (Malus domestica Borkh).
Postharvest Biol. Technol. 28,
259–268.
Bailén, G., Guillén, F., Castillo, S., Serrano, M., Valero, D., Martínez-
Remero, D.,
2006. Use of activated carbon inside modified atmosphere packages to
maintain tomato fruit quality during cold storage. J. Agric. Food Chem.
54, 2229–2235.
Baldwin, E.A., Burns, J.K., Kazokas, W., Brecht, J.K., Hagenmaier, R.D.,
Bender, R.J., Pesis, E., 1999. Effect of two edible coatings with different
permeability char- acteristics on mango (Mangifera indica L.) ripening
during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 17, 215–226.
Baldwin, E.A., Nisperos-Carriedo, M., Shaw, P.E., Burns, J.K., 1995. Effect
of coatings and prolonged storage conditions on fresh orange flavour
Buescher, R.W., 1979. Influence of carbon dioxide on postharvest ripening
and dete- rioration of tomatoes. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 104, 545.
Chase, W., Brown, F., 1997. General Statistics, 3rd ed. John Willey and
Sons, Inc., NY, pp. 491–523.
Cheng, T.S., Shewfelt, R.L., 1988. Effect of chilling exposure of tomatoes
during sub- sequent ripening. J. Food Sci. 53, 1160–1162.
El-Anany, A.M., Hassan, G.F.A., Rehab Ali, F.M., 2009. Effects of edible
coatings on the shelf-life and quality of Anna apple (Malus domestica
Borkh) during cold storage. J. Food Technol. 7, 5–11.
Elmanan, M., Al-Assaf, S., Philips, G.O., Williams, P.A., 2008. Studies of
Acacia exu- dates gums: Part IV. Interfacial rheology of Acacia senegal
and Acacia seyal. Food Hydrocol. 22, 682–689.
Falcao-Rodrigues, M.M., Moldao-Martins, M., Beirao-da-Costa, M.L., 2007.
DSC as a tool to assess physiological evolution of apples preserved by
edible coatings. Food Chem. 102, 475–480.
Fogarty, D., 1988. No longer a raw deal. Food, Flavor, Ingred. Proc. Pack.
10, 25. Freed, R.D., Scott, D.E., 1986. MSTAT-C. Crop and Soil Sci. Dept.
Michigan State Uni-
versity, Michigan,
USA.
Khudairi, A.K., 1972. The ripening of tomatoes. Am. Sci. 60, 696.
Martínez-Romero, D., Alburquerque, N., Valverde, J.M., Guillén, F., Castillo,
S., Valero, D., Serrano, M., 2006. Postharvest sweet cherry quality and
safety maintenance by Aloe vera treatment: a new edible coating.
Postharvest Biol. Technol. 39,
92–
100.
Mathooko, F.M., 2003. A comparative study of the response of tomato
fruit to low temperature storage and modified atmosphere packaging.
Afr. J. Food, Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2, 34–41.
McGuire, R.G., 1992. Reporting of objective color measurements.
HortScience 27,
1254–
1260.
Miranda, S.P., Garnica, O., Lara-Sagahon, V., Cárdenas, G., 2004. Water
vapor perme- ability and mechanical properties of chitosan composite
films. J. Chil. Chem. Soc.
49, 173–
178.
Motlagh, S., Ravines, P., Karamallah, K.A., Ma, Q., 2006. The analysis of
Acacia gums using electrophoresis. Food Hydrocol. 20, 848–854.
Nisperos-Carriedo, M.O., 1994. Edible coatings and films based on
polysaccharides.
In: Krochta, J.M., Baldwin, E.A., Nisperos-Carriedo, M.O. (Eds.), Edible
Coatings and Films to Improve Food Quality. Technomic Publish. Co. Inc.,
Lancaster, USA, pp. 322–323.
Pan, J.C., Bhowmilk, S.R., 1992. Shelf-life of mature green tomatoes stored
in con- trolled atmosphere and high humidity. J. Food Sci. 57, 948–
953.
Park, H.J., 1999. Development of advanced edible coatings for fruits. Trends
Food Sci.
Technol. 10, 254–
260.
Park, H.J., Chinnan, M.S., Shewfelt, R.L., 1994. Edible coating effects on
storage life and quality of tomatoes. J. Food Sci. 59, 568–570.
Park, J.H., Weller, C.L., Vergano, P.J., Testin, R.F., 1993. Permeability and
mechan- ical properties of cellulose-based edible films. J.
Food Sci. 58, 1361–
1364.
Ranggana, S., 1977. Manual analysis of fruit and vegetable products. Tata
McGraw- Hill Publish. Comp. Ltd., New Delhi, pp. 77–78.
Salunkhe, D.K., Boun, H.R., Reddy, N.R., 1991. Storage processing and
nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables. CRC Press Inc., Boston, USA,
pp. 156–161.
Seymour, G.B., Taylor, J.E., Tucker, G.A. (Eds.), 1993. Biochemistry of Fruit
Ripening.
Chapman and Hall, London, New
York.
Tanada-Palmu, P.S., Grosso, C.R.F., 2005. Effect of edible wheat gluten-
based films and coatings on refrigerated strawberry (Fragaria ananassa)
quality. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 36, 199–208.
USDA, 1991. United States Standard for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. US Zapata, P.J., Guillén, F., Martínez-Romero, D., Castillo, S., Valero, D., Serrano,
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, M., 2008.
DC. Use of alginate or zein as edible coatings to delay postharvest ripening
Weichmann, J., 1987. In: Weichmann, J. (Ed.), Low Oxygen process and to maintain tomato (Solanum lycopersicon Mill) quality. J.
Effects. Posthar- vest Physiology of Vegetables. Marcel Dekker, Sci. Food Agric. 88,
Inc., New York, pp. 231– 1287–1293.
237.
Yaman, O., Bayoindirli, L., 2002. Effects of an edible coating and cold
storage on shelf-life and quality of cherries. Lebnsm. -Wiss. Und.
Technol. 35, 146–150.