Applied Food Research 3 (2023) 100355

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Food Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/afres

Preservation of chicken egg quality using pectin derived from

water hyacinth
Nattha Jariyapamornkoon *, Chayaporn Phongthajitr , Niparat Sritharet , Wichai Sutthitham
Department of Agricultural Technology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study investigates the potential of pectin derived from water hyacinth, an aquatic floating weed, as a coating
Chicken eggs material for chicken eggshells to preserve egg quality and extend shelf life. A total of 240 fresh chicken eggs were
Coating divided into four groups: 1) uncoated (control), 2) coated with a 2 % chitosan solution, 3) coated with a 1.5 %
Egg quality
solution of pectin from water hyacinth, and 4) coated with a 2.5 % solution of pectin from water hyacinth. The
Pectin
Water hyacinth
eggs were stored at room temperature for 35 days before egg quality parameters, including weight loss, Haugh
unit, yolk index, and albumen pH, were measured on a weekly basis. The results showed that eggs coated with
water hyacinth pectin exhibited significantly lower weight loss and albumen pH (p < 0.05) compared to the
uncoated eggs. Furthermore, the water hyacinth pectin coating effectively maintained the Haugh unit at Grade A
levels for up to 28 days of storage. These findings suggest that the water hyacinth pectin coating acts as a
protective barrier, limiting the transfer of water and carbon dioxide through the eggshell, thereby preserving egg
quality and extending shelf life. In summary, water hyacinth pectin demonstrated promising potential as an
environmentally friendly coating material, offering an alternative approach to maintaining egg quality and
extending shelf life.

1. Introduction functional properties. Because of its diverse functional groups, structural

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms) is a fast-growing,
floating aquatic weed characterized by short, bulbous leaf petioles. It
thrives in various environmental conditions, causing challenges in
agriculture, irrigation, and the ecological system, including public
health (Gaurav et al., 2020; Harun et al., 2021). The dense coverage of
water hyacinth on the water’s surface reduces sunlight penetration and
diminishes dissolved oxygen levels (Datta et al., 2021). Controlling and
eradicating this weed is challenging, but using water hyacinths for
value-added products offers an eco-friendly solution to the problem of
weed invasion.
Pectin, a natural polysaccharide found in plant tissues, often coexists
with cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (Lopes da Silva & Rao, 2006;
Valdés et al., 2015). The structure of pectin primarily consists of gal­
acturonic acid molecules forming the backbone, with a few rhamnose
molecules in the main chain, while arabinose, galactose, and xylose form
the side chains (Kohli & Gupta, 2015). Galacturonic acid constitutes
approximately 70 % of the pectin composition (Mohnen, 2008). Pectin is
derived from various plants, each offering pectin variants with distinct
modifications, ease of accessibility, nontoxic characteristics, and
cost-effective production, pectin serves a wide range of applications
(Chandel et al., 2022; Freitas et al., 2021). In the food industry, pectin
acts as a gelling agent, stabilizer, emulsifier, and thickener (Belkheiri
et al., 2021). It also plays a role in the development of edible food
coatings and biodegradable films (Nastasi et al., 2022; Otoni et al.,
2017). Abundant natural sources of pectin include water hyacinth. In its
dried form, this readily available plant contains pectin, constituting
approximately 10–40 % of the leaves and 5–14 % of the float (Naohara &
Ishii, 1989). Therefore, water hyacinth serves as a cost-effective and
plentiful source of pectin.
Eggs begin to lose quality from the moment they are laid, and pro­
longed storage further deteriorates their quality (da Silva Pires et al.,
2022; Saleh et al., 2020). The eggshell’s surface is covered in numerous
small, scattered pores that act as pathways for the escape of water and
carbon dioxide. This leads to moisture loss and an increase in pH levels.
As a result, egg quality declines, leading to an overall decrease (Sta­
delman, 2017a; Stadelman, 2017b). Several factors, including temper­
ature, humidity, and packaging type, can influence egg quality. Higher

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jnattha@tu.ac.th (N. Jariyapamornkoon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2023.100355
Received 22 August 2023; Received in revised form 13 October 2023; Accepted 28 October 2023
Available online 2 November 2023
2772-5022/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
N. Jariyapamornkoon et al.
temperatures can speed up egg spoilage, reducing their shelf life (de
Araújo et al., 2023; NarinÇ et al., 2022; Samli et al., 2005). The type of
packaging used for egg storage affects egg quality. Plastic packaging
maintains egg quality at room temperature, similar to refrigerated
cardboard boxes. This is possibly due to the lower permeability of plastic
containers compared to their cardboard counterparts (Drabik et al.,
2021). Additionally, microorganisms can impact egg quality by infil­
trating eggs through the pores in the eggshell and contaminating their
contents. One strategy to mitigate this risk involves managing the
eggshell (Chousalkar et al., 2021). The application of antimicrobial
substances such as essential oils or propolis to the eggshell can help
reduce eggshell microorganisms (de Araújo et al., 2023; Oliveira et al.,
2022a).
Coating agents provide an alternative method to extend the storage
life of eggs while preserving their quality (da Silva Pires et al., 2022;
Guilbert et al., 1997; Oliveira et al., 2022b; Sharaf Eddin et al., 2019).
These coatings seal the pores on the eggshell, slowing down moisture
and carbon dioxide loss. Substances like edible oils (Nongtaodum et al.,
2013), soy protein Xu et al., 2017, chitosan (Bhale et al., 2003; Caner
et al., 2022; Suresh et al., 2015) and pectin da et al., 2020; De Leo et al.,
2018; Didar, 2019; Yuan et al., 2022 have been studied for this purpose.
Using biodegradable films made from water hyacinth pectin can be a
highly effective approach to preserving egg quality, allowing for the
beneficial utilization and value enhancement of these weeds. This study
aims to assess the capacity of water hyacinth pectin coating to maintain
egg quality and extend the shelf life of chicken eggs.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Material preparation
Water hyacinth waste was obtained from Thammasat University,
Pathum Thani, Thailand. The plants were cleaned with water, roots and
leaves were removed, and the remaining stems or petioles were chopped
into pieces measuring 0.5–1.0 cm. The prepared plant material was then
dried using a hot air oven (Binder FD 240, Binder GmbH, Tuttlingen,
Germany) at 60 ◦ C for 24 h and subsequently ground into a dry powder.
The water hyacinth powder was packed into sealable plastic bags and
stored in a desiccator for further testing.
2.2. Pectin extraction
Pectin extraction from water hyacinth was conducted following a
modified method based on Méndez et al. (2021) and Hasem et al.
(2019). The dried water hyacinth powder was mixed with an aqueous
solution of hydrochloric acid (Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany) in a
ratio of 1:12 (w/v) and adjusted to pH 2 using a 1 M HCl solution. The
resulting solution was extracted at 80 ◦ C for 60 min, followed by
filtration through muslin cloth. It was then allowed to cool to room
temperature. To precipitate the pectin, the pectin-based solution was
mixed with 95 % ethanol (Duksan pure chemicals, Ansan, South Korea)
at a ratio of 1:2 (v/v). The precipitated pectin underwent multiple
washings (approximately 3–5 times) using 95 % ethanol and acetone
(Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) to remove water and polar com­
pounds. The moist pectin was dried in a hot air oven at 40 ◦ C until a
constant weight was achieved. Subsequently, it was ground and stored
in a desiccator for further analysis. The percentage of pectin yield (PY%)
was determined using the following equation:
PY% =
Weight of dry pectin (g)
× 100 (1)
Weight of dry water hyacinth (g)
2.3. Determination of degree of esterification
The degree of esterification (DE %) of the extracted water hyacinth
pectin was determined using the titrimetric method from Food Chemical
2
Applied Food Research 3 (2023) 100355
Codex (1981) (National Research Council, 1981).
. A dried pectin sample weighing 0.2 g was placed in a flask con­
taining 2 mL of 95 % ethanol, and 100 mL of deionized water was added.
The mixture was stirred using a magnetic stirrer to dissolve the dried
pectin. Subsequently, 5 drops of phenolphthalein were added, and the
sample solution was titrated with 0.5 M NaOH (QRëC, Chonburi,
Thailand). The volume of NaOH solution consumed was noted as the
initial titer, designated as titer NaOH 1 (mL). Next, 10 mL of 0.5 M NaOH
was vigorously mixed into the solution and left at room temperature for
15 min. Following this, 10 mL of 0.5 M HCl was added and shaken until
the pink color dissipated. Then, an additional 5 drops of phenolphtha­
lein were added, and the sample solution was titrated with 0.5 M NaOH
until a color change occurred. The volume of NaOH consumed during
this step was recorded as the final titer, labeled as titer NaOH 2 (mL).
The DE% of the pectin sample was calculated using the following
equations:
titer NaOH 2
DE% = × 100 (2)
titer NaOH 1 + titer NaOH 2
2.4. Determination of the galacturonic acid contents
Galacturonic acid (GalA) content was determined using the high-
performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) technique. Initially, 0.2 g
of the extracted water hyacinth pectin was dissolved in 4 mL of distilled
water by placing it in an incubator shaker at 30 ◦ C and 150 rpm for 1 h.
Following this, the solution was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 120 min
at 4 ◦ C. The supernatant was then filtered through a 0.4 µm syringe filter
before undergoing HPLC analysis (Shimadzu Prominence LC-20A,
Kyoto, Japan). For HPLC analysis, the separation of compounds was
conducted on a Shodex SUGAR SH1011 column (6 µm, 8.0 × 300 mm)
maintained at 40 ◦ C. The mobile phase consisted of 10 mM H2SO4 in
deionized water, with a flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. A 10 µl sample was
injected into the HPLC system, and the analytes were detected using UV
detectors set at 210 nm. GalA quantification was determined by
measuring the peak height. A standard curve was generated using GalA
at concentrations ranging from 1 to 100 mg/L.
2.5. Egg samples
A total of 240 AA-grade chicken eggs, with weights ranging between
55 and 59 g, were purchased from a local commercial farm (Chonburi,
Thailand) which adheres to animal welfare criteria. These egg samples
were carefully inspected to ensure they had no cracks and featured clean
eggshells, determined through visual observation. Any broken eggs were
excluded from the study. All the eggs were tested within 24 h of being
laid by the hens. The study consisted of four treatments: 1) uncoated
eggs, serving as the control group, 2) eggs coated with a 2 % chitosan
solution, 3) eggs coated with a 1.5 % solution of water hyacinth pectin,
and 4) eggs coated with a 2.5 % solution of water hyacinth pectin. Egg
quality analyses were performed on days 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 of the
storage periods. For each treatment, there were 10 replicates, with each
individual egg considered a replicate. Thus, each group consisted of 60
eggs in total.
2.6. Preparation of coating solutions and egg coating
The dried water hyacinth pectin was dissolved in distilled water to
reach final concentrations of 1.5 % and 2.5 % (w/v). Glycerol was then
added to the pectin solution, reaching a concentration of 0.9 % (w/v) in
the total solution. Sodium alginate and calcium chloride were subse­
quently introduced to the solution to attain concentrations of 1.0 % (w/
v) and 3.0 % (w/v), respectively. The coating solution was continuously
mixed at 70 ◦ C using a magnetic stirrer until all compounds dissolved
completely.
To serve as a positive control group, eggs coated with chitosan were
N. Jariyapamornkoon et al.
selected due to their known ability to preserve egg quality, as reported in
several publications (Bhale et al., 2003; Caner et al., 2022; Suresh et al.,
2015). The chitosan coating formulation was modified based on the
research publication by Bhale et al. (Bhale et al., 2003). The chitosan
coating solution was prepared by dissolving chitosan powder (S.A.P.
chitosan, Surat Thani, Thailand) in 2 % (v/v) acetic acid, resulting in a
final concentration of 2 % (w/v). The pH of the chitosan solutions was
then adjusted to 5.6 using NaOH.
Three distinct coating solutions, consisting of a 2 % chitosan solution
and 1.5 % and 2.5 % water hyacinth pectin solutions, were used to coat
chicken eggs. The eggs were immersed in the prepared coating solutions
for 2 min. After coating, the eggs were air-dried at room temperature for
approximately 1 h. Subsequently, all the eggs were placed in plastic egg
racks and stored at room temperature (around 25 - 29 ◦ C) for duration of
35 days (5 weeks). Ten eggs from each treatment were selected at
weekly intervals to assess parameters related to egg quality.
2.7. Eggs quality parameters
2.7.1. Weight loss
The percentage of weight loss (%) of whole eggs during storage was
determined by calculating the difference between the initial weight on
day 0 (g) and the weight on the designated storage day (g), using the
following equation:
weight at day 0 − weight at storage day
Weight loss (%) = × 100 (3)
weight at day 0
2.7.2. Haugh unit
The Haugh unit (HU), a measure of albumen quality, was determined
using the Digital Egg Tester DET6500 (Nabel, Kyoto, Japan). HU was
calculated using the albumen height (H) (mm) and the egg weight (W)
(g) with the formula: HU = 100 log (H - 1.7W0.37 + 7.6) (Haugh, 1937).
2.7.3. Yolk index
The yolk index (YI), an indicator of yolk quality, was determined
using the yolk height (H) (mm) and the yolk diameter (D) (mm) with the
formula: YI = H/D (Funk, 1948). This parameter was measured using
the Digital Egg Tester (DET 6500, Nabel, Kyoto, Japan).
2.7.4. Albumen pH
After separation from the yolk, the albumen was homogenized using
a blender to achieve a uniform consistency. Subsequently, the pH level
of the albumen was measured using a pH meter (SI Analytics Lab 855,
Washington, DC, USA).
2.8. Statistical analysis
The experiment for egg quality analysis was conducted using a
completely randomized design. Egg samples were examined with 10
replicates per treatment. The results of the egg quality tests for each
experimental group were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD).
To assess the differences in egg quality among the experimental groups,
an analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) was performed. Post-hoc
multiple comparisons were conducted using Duncan’s Multiple Range
Test at a 95 % confidence level (p < 0.05). All statistical analyses were
carried out using the SPSS program (IBM SPSS Statistics V22.0, Chicago,
IL, USA). Graphs depicting weight loss and albumen pH were created
using GraphPad Prism 8.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Pectin extraction
Pectin extracted from water hyacinth using hydrochloric acid pro­
vided the results presented in Table 1, which includes associated
3
Applied Food Research 3 (2023) 100355
Table 1
The pectin yield and the chemical substances present in water hyacinth pectin.
Substances Unit Amount
Pectin yield % 5.42 ± 0.73
Galacturonic acid g/100 g 21.27 ± 0.18
Degree of esterification % 62.26 ± 1.32
chemical substances. The obtained water hyacinth pectin exhibited a
high methoxyl content, indicated by a degree of esterification exceeding
50 %. The pectin’s quality was evident from the presence of galacturonic
acid, constituting 21 g/100 g of the pectin composition.
3.2. Weight loss
The weight loss percentages of control (uncoated), chitosan-coated
(2 % concentration), and water hyacinth pectin-coated (1.5 % and
2.5 % concentration) eggs during a 35-day storage period are depicted in
Fig. 1. Over the storage duration, weight loss gradually increased,
ranging from 1.21 % to 9.09 %. Uncoated eggs showed significantly
higher weight loss compared to coated eggs. Chitosan-coated eggs dis­
played the lowest weight loss, and there was no significant difference
between the 1.5 % and 2.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs.
3.3. Haugh unit
The Haugh unit (HU) values of uncoated (control) and three different
coated eggs during a 35-day storage period are summarized in Table 2.
As the storage duration increased, the HU showed a gradual decline,
with uncoated eggs experiencing a more rapid decrease compared to
coated eggs. On days 28 and 35 of storage, uncoated eggs had signifi­
cantly lower HU values than the coated eggs. However, there was no
significant difference in HU between the chitosan-coated eggs and the
1.5 % and 2.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs.
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
standards, eggs are classified into four grades based on HU: AA (≥ 72), A
(71 to 60), B (59 to 31), and C (< 30) (USDA, 2000). Both water hyacinth
pectin-coated and chitosan-coated eggs maintained HU at Grade A from
day 7 to 28 before dropping to Grade B by day 35. In contrast, uncoated
eggs had already reached Grade B by day 7.
3.4. Yolk index
The yolk index (YI) data for control or uncoated eggs, 2 % chitosan-
coated eggs, and 1.5 % and 2.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs are
provided in Table 3. Over the storage period, all treatments
Fig. 1. Mean (±SD) weight loss (%) of eggs over a 35-day storage period.
Control or uncoated eggs (⬤ circle symbols), 2 % chitosan-coated eggs (■
square symbols), 1.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs (▴ triangle symbols),
and 2.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs (◆ rhombus symbols). Different
letters (a, b, and c) within a column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
N. Jariyapamornkoon et al. Applied Food Research 3 (2023) 100355

Table 2
Haugh units over a 35-day storage period with different treatments.
Storage time Haugh unit

control 2 % chitosan 1.5 % pectin 2.5 % pectin

Day 0 83.32 ± 6.91 85.42 ± 5.75 83.12 ± 7.67 82.06 ± 6.45

Day 7 56.63 ± 6.06a 69.94 ± 6.84b 64.09 ± 7.25ab 65.82 ± 7.32ab
Day 14 56.62 ± 8.4aa 64.58 ± 7.11b 61.24 ± 0.32ab 62.23 ± 6.19b
Day 21 53.03 ± 6.33a 62.95 ± 8.00b 60.40 ± 2.37ab 61.55 ± 3.98b
Day 28 51.78 ± 7.63a 61.08 ± 5.46b 62.77 ± 8.14b 61.03 ± 6.96b
Day 35 47.23 ± 5.26a 59.01 ± 6.34b 57.74 ± 6.13b 57.99 ± 5.41b

Mean (±SD) Haugh unit of eggs over a 35-day storage period. Different letters within each row indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 3
Yolk index over a 35-day storage period with different treatments.
Storage time Yolk index

control 2 % chitosan 1.5 % pectin 2.5 % pectin

Day 0 0.43 ± 0.05 0.44 ± 0.05 0.43 ± 0.04 0.44 ± 0.05

Day 7 0.29 ± 0.02a 0.37 ± 0.02c 0.32 ± 0.03b 0.33 ± 0.03b
Day 14 0.22 ± 0.03a 0.32 ± 0.04c 0.25 ± 0.03b 0.27 ± 0.03b
Day 21 0.17 ± 0.03a 0.29 ± 0.03c 0.21 ± 0.02b 0.22 ± 0.03b
Day 28 0.15 ± 0.06a 0.25 ± 0.03b 0.18 ± 0.03a 0.25 ± 0.08b
Day 35 0.13 ± 0.02a 0.23 ± 0.03c 0.14 ± 0.03a 0.19 ± 0.01b

Mean (±SD) yolk index of eggs over a 35-day storage period. Different letters within each row indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

demonstrated a gradual decrease in YI. Among these treatments, control 4. Discussion

eggs exhibited the lowest YI values, whereas chitosan-coated eggs dis­
played the highest YI values during the 35-day storage period. The 2.5 %
water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs showed significantly higher YI values
than the 1.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs on both day 28 and
day 35 of storage.
3.5. Albumen pH
Albumen pH results for the four different treatments during the 35-
day storage period are displayed in Fig. 2. Over time, all treatments
exhibited a gradual increase in albumen pH. Among the four treatments,
uncoated eggs demonstrated the highest pH levels, starting at 8.49 on
day 0 and reaching 9.11 by day 35. In contrast, chitosan-coated eggs
consistently maintained significantly lower pH levels throughout the
storage period, beginning at 8.42 on day 0 and rising to 8.67 by day 35.
As for the 1.5 % and 2.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs, their
albumen pH levels increased from 8.58 to 8.59 to 8.92 and 8.94,
respectively, over the storage period. No significant difference in
albumen pH was observed between the 1.5 % and 2.5 % water hyacinth
pectin-coated eggs.
Fig. 2. Mean (±SD) albumen pH of eggs over a 35-day storage period. Control
or uncoated eggs (⬤ circle symbols), 2 % chitosan-coated eggs (■ square
symbols), 1.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs (▴ triangle symbols), and
2.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs (◆ rhombus symbols). Different let­
ters (a, b, and c) within a column indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
The extraction of pectin from plant materials, such as mango peel
(Chaiwarit et al., 2018), lime peel (Dash et al., 2019), and citrus pomace
(Go & Song, 2020), has become increasingly popular as a natural
coating. Pectin from plants can be used to create water-soluble, low-­
opacity food coatings that are both edible and biodegradable (Espitia
et al., 2014). These pectin coatings have versatile applications and can
be utilized on a variety of food products, including beef (Bermúdez-Oria
et al., 2017), pork (Xiong et al., 2020), fruits, and vegetables (Alvarez
et al., 2014; Ben-Fadhel et al., 2020; Radi et al., 2018), effectively
extending their shelf life. Another advantage of these coatings is their
flexibility when combined with plant extracts (Nastasi et al., 2022). This
adaptability allows for enhancements such as mixing with essential oils
to provide antimicrobial properties (Alvarez et al., 2014; Chaiwarit
et al., 2018) or blending with phenolic compounds to enhance antioxi­
dant capacity (Go & Song, 2020; Kurek et al., 2021), ultimately pre­
serving the quality of food products. Pectin extraction from raw
materials can be accomplished through methods such as acid extraction,
microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), ultrasound-assisted extraction
(UAE), and enzymatic techniques (Chandel et al., 2022). The quality and
yield of extracted pectin depend on factors such as temperature,
extraction time, pH levels, and raw material characteristics (Munarin
et al., 2012).
In this study, we utilized a hydrochloric acid-mediated hot extraction
method for pectin extraction from water hyacinth. This method offers
several advantages, including a high pectin yield and reduced extraction
time (Chandel et al., 2022). Our choice of the stem or petiole part of
water hyacinth was based on pilot experiments, which indicated a
higher pectin yield (%) compared to the stem with leaves. Our study’s
pectin yield of 5.4 % closely aligns with the findings of a previous
investigation (Naohara & Ishii, 1989), which reported pectin yields
ranging from 2.1 % to 8.6 % from water hyacinth float extracted with
hydrochloric acid. However, pectin extraction using acid methods can
pose environmental challenges, the disposal of acidic wastewater. While
food-grade organic acids like acetic and citric acids offer alternative
options, their milder acidity may lead to lower hydrolyzing abilities,
potentially affecting pectin yield (Roy et al., 2023). Therefore, further
research is needed to identify the optimal pectin extraction method from
water hyacinth, considering both maximizing yield and environmental
concerns.

4
N. Jariyapamornkoon et al.
Pectin, a polysaccharide composed of galacturonic acid (GalA),
forms the structural foundation of the pectin chain Kohli and Gupta
(2015). The GalA content serves as a key indicator of pectin quality. In
our study, we found that the GalA content in water hyacinth pectin was
approximately 21 %, a figure comparable to the content obtained from
previous studies on soy hull (approximately 19 %) and passion fruit peel
(approximately 23 %) (de Moura et al., 2017). The degree of esterifi­
cation (DE) measures the carboxyl groups on the galacturonic acid main
chain, which can be esterified with methyl or acetyl groups (Farris et al.,
2009). Pectin is classified into two main groups based on its DE: 1)
pectin with DE > 50 % is termed high methoxyl pectin (HMP), and 2)
pectin with DE < 50 % is known as low methoxyl pectin (LMP). In our
study, the pectin extracted from water hyacinth was identified as HMP,
with a DE of 62.26 %. HMP is typically naturally occurring, while LMP is
generated through demethylation processes involving enzymatic or
alkaline treatments of HMP (Belkheiri et al., 2021). The addition of
calcium has been observed to influence the gelation, gelling speed, and
gel strength of HMP (Yang et al., 2013). Sodium alginate, with its ver­
satile thickening and gelling capabilities, can form heat-stable gels when
combined with calcium chloride (CaCl2), making it a favored option for
edible films and coatings (Rojas-Graü et al., 2008). The polysaccharide
coating, comprising pectin and sodium alginate, demonstrates the ca­
pacity to control gas transmission (De Leo et al., 2018). To improve the
flexibility and performance of the pectin coating, glycerol was intro­
duced as a plasticizer (da et al., 2020). In this study, we created a
composite coating formulation by blending water hyacinth pectin, so­
dium alginate, glycerol, and calcium chloride with the aim of enhancing
the coating material’s performance through synergistic effects in film
formation.
In this study, we compared chitosan and water hyacinth pectin so­
lutions to assess their effectiveness in preserving egg quality. Chitosan, a
well-known material used in edible films and coatings, with documented
capabilities in extending the shelf life of eggs (Bhale et al., 2003), was
chosen for assessment. Shell pores can significantly impact egg dura­
bility by increasing water permeability, resulting in higher egg weight
loss through evaporation, ultimately affecting shelf life (da Silva Pires
et al., 2022; Stadelman, 2017a; Stadelman, 2017b). As carbon dioxide is
released from the egg through carbonic acid dissociation, it leads to an
increase in albumen pH, creating an alkaline environment (Yuceer &
Caner, 2014). To address these issues, various coating substances, such
as edible oil (Nongtaodum et al., 2013), glycerol (Drabik et al., 2018),
and chitosan-propolis (Ezazi et al., 2021) have been utilized to seal these
pores.
Our findings suggest that a water hyacinth pectin coating effectively
reduces weight loss. Additionally, the significantly lower albumen pH
compared to uncoated eggs suggests its capability to minimize carbon
dioxide leakage. These results are consistent with a previous study,
which demonstrated that a pectin film can decrease gas permeability
and weight loss during a 35-day storage period at both ambient and
refrigerated conditions (da et al., 2020). The findings of our study sug­
gest that the application of a water hyacinth pectin coating establishes
an effective barrier, blocking the passage of water and carbon dioxide
through the eggshell.
The Haugh unit (HU) serves as a crucial indicator of egg freshness
and quality, primarily determined by albumen proteins (Sheng et al.,
2016). As eggs are stored for longer periods, their HU tends to decrease
due to the breakdown of ovalbumin’s structure (Sheng et al., 2018),
resulting in a higher proportion of liquid albumen and a reduction in its
denser component. This transition to a more fluid state is caused by the
breakdown of amino acid chains, releasing water that was previously
bound to large protein molecules (da Silva Pires et al., 2022). These
protein changes are linked to the proteolysis of dense proteins and an
increase in albumen pH, influenced by water and carbon dioxide losses
during storage (Omana et al., 2011). The application of shell coating has
been shown to effectively delay carbon dioxide leakage, internal content
alkalization, and mitigate adverse changes in albumen quality. Previous
5
Applied Food Research 3 (2023) 100355
studies have demonstrated that coating substances (Drabik et al., 2018;
Ezazi et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2017) are effective in preserving Haugh unit
levels.
In this study, water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs consistently main­
tained their Haugh Unit (HU) above 60 for a 28-day storage period,
retaining a Grade A rating. In contrast, uncoated eggs saw their HU drop
below 60 starting from day 7 of storage. These findings are consistent
with a previous study that reported significantly higher HU values
(71.27 ± 10.78) for pectin-coated eggs compared to uncoated eggs
(59.11 ± 15.97) after 35 days of storage at room temperature (da et al.,
2020). The utilization of the water hyacinth pectin coating effectively
reduced water and carbon dioxide loss, subsequently slowing the in­
crease in albumen pH and protein structure changes. Furthermore, our
study indicated that HU values for water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs
closely resembled those of chitosan-coated eggs, implying that water
hyacinth pectin could serve as a promising alternative to chitosan for
preserving HU.
The Yolk Index (YI) is a measure of egg freshness, reflecting yolk
quality. As storage progresses, yolk changes occur, characterized by the
deterioration of the vitelline membrane and the liquefaction of the yolk
due to the release of water from the hydrolysis of amino acids in the
albumen. This leads to an increased yolk mass and a decreased Yolk
Index (YI) value (Menezes, Lima, Medeiros, Oliveira, & Evêncio-Neto,
2012; Oliveira & Oliveira, 2013). Fresh eggs typically have a YI falling
within the range of 0.30 to 0.45 (Santo et al., 2017).
Our study found that water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs maintained
a YI above 0.3 for the first 7 days of storage, while uncoated eggs
dropped below 0.3 by day 7. Chitosan-coated eggs consistently main­
tained a YI above 0.3 for the initial 14 days, consistent with previous
research that used a combination of whey protein-pectin
(Dávalos-Saucedo et al., 2018), and chitosan (Xu et al., 2018) coating.
These findings indicate that the water hyacinth pectin coating reduced
water and carbon dioxide loss, which slowed down yolk deterioration.
However, its effectiveness was found to be lower compared to the chi­
tosan coating.
Water hyacinth pectin coating effectively forms a protective barrier,
preventing the transfer of water and carbon dioxide through the
eggshell. The 1.5 % and 2.5 % water hyacinth pectin-coated eggs
exhibited no significant differences in weight loss, Haugh unit, and
albumen pH. However, the 2.5 % coated eggs showed a significantly
higher yolk index. Therefore, the choice of the appropriate concentra­
tion depends on the specific purpose: 1.5 % for economical options to
maintain overall egg quality or 2.5 % for focusing on yolk quality.
Furthermore, chitosan coating surpasses water hyacinth pectin coating
in various aspects, including lower weight loss, lower albumen pH, and a
higher yolk index. These findings suggest that water hyacinth pectin
coating may not be as potent as chitosan in preserving egg quality by
delaying water and carbon dioxide leakage. Chitosan’s ability to main­
tain egg weight, albumen pH, and yolk index can be attributed to its
films’ good mechanical strength, gas barrier properties, and antimicro­
bial effects, making it highly beneficial for food preservation (Jovanović
et al., 2021), while pectin can create films with varying degrees of
mechanical strength and barrier properties (Chandel et al., 2022). Thus,
additional research should focus on devising an improved pectin coating
formulation with the aim of achieving optimal effectiveness in preser­
ving water and carbon dioxide within eggs.
5. Conclusions
The application of water hyacinth pectin coating at concentrations of
1.5 % and 2.5 % effectively forms a protective barrier, preventing the
passage of water and carbon dioxide through the eggshell. This pectin
coating demonstrates its value in maintaining egg quality by minimizing
weight loss, preserving albumen pH, and sustaining the yolk index,
including a Grade A Haugh unit, for up to 28 days of storage.
N. Jariyapamornkoon et al.
Ethical statement
The authors declare that this study did not involve human or animal
research subjects.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nattha Jariyapamornkoon: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,
Methodology, Software, Validation, Investigation, Resources, Visuali­
zation, Supervision, Project administration, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. Chayaporn Phongthajitr: Conceptualiza­
tion, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Visuali­
zation. Niparat Sritharet: Methodology. Wichai Sutthitham:
Methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Department of Agricultural Technology,
Faculty of Science and Technology, Thammasat University for labora­
tory instruments.
References
Alvarez, M. V., Ortega-Ramirez, L. A., Gutierrez-Pacheco, M. M., Bernal-Mercado, A. T.,
Rodriguez-Garcia, I., Gonzalez-Aguilar, G. A., & Ayala-Zavala, J. F. (2014). Oregano
essential oil-pectin edible films as anti-quorum sensing and food antimicrobial
agents [Original Research]. Frontiers in Microbiology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2014.00699
Belkheiri, A., Forouhar, A., Ursu, A. V., Dubessay, P., Pierre, G., Delattre, C., &
Michaud, P. (2021). Extraction, characterization, and applications of pectins from
plant by-products. Applied Sciences, 11(14), 6596. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app11146596
Ben-Fadhel, Y., Maherani, B., Manus, J., Salmieri, S., & Lacroix, M. (2020).
Physicochemical and microbiological characterization of pectin-based gelled
emulsions coating applied on pre-cut carrots. Food Hydrocolloids, 101, Article
105573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105573
Bermúdez-Oria, A., Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, G., Vioque, B., Rubio-Senent, F., & Fernández-
Bolaños, J. (2017). Physical and functional properties of pectin-fish gelatin films
containing the olive phenols hydroxytyrosol and 3,4-dihydroxyphenylglycol.
Carbohydrate polymers, 178, 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
carbpol.2017.09.042
Bhale, S., No, H. K., Prinyawiwatkul, W., Farr, A. J., Nadarajah, K., & Meyers, S. P.
(2003). Chitosan coating improves shelf life of eggs. Journal of Food Science, 68(7),
2378–2383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb05776.x
Caner, C., Coşkun, B. M., & Yüceer, M. (2022). Chitosan coatings and chitosan
nanocomposite to enhance the storage stability of fresh eggs during storage. Journal
of Food Processing and Preservation, 46(7), e16642. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jfpp.16642
Chaiwarit, T., Ruksiriwanich, W., Jantanasakulwong, K., & Jantrawut, P. (2018). Use of
Orange oil loaded pectin films as antibacterial material for food packaging. Polymers,
10(10), 1144. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/10/10/1144.
Chandel, V., Biswas, D., Roy, S., Vaidya, D., Verma, A., & Gupta, A. (2022). Current
advancements in pectin: Extraction, properties and multifunctional applications.
Foods, 11(17), 2683. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11172683
Chousalkar, K. K., Khan, S., & McWhorter, A. R. (2021). Microbial quality, safety and
storage of eggs. Current Opinion in Food Science, 38, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cofs.2020.10.022
6
Applied Food Research 3 (2023) 100355
da, S., Oliveira, G., dos Santos, V. M., Rodrigues, J. C., & Santana, Â. P. (2020).
Conservation of the internal quality of eggs using a biodegradable coating. Poultry
Science, 99(12), 7207–7213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.09.057
da Silva Pires, P. G., Bavaresco, C., Wirth, M. L., & Moraes, P. O. (2022). Egg coatings:
Trends and future opportunities for new coatings development. World’s Poultry
Science Journal, 78(3), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2022.2075298
Dash, K. K., Ali, N. A., Das, D., & Mohanta, D. (2019). Thorough evaluation of sweet
potato starch and lemon-waste pectin based-edible films with nano-titania inclusions
for food packaging applications. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules,
139, 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.07.193
Datta, A., Maharaj, S., Prabhu, G. N., Bhowmik, D., Marino, A., Akbari, V., &
Kleczkowski, A. (2021). Monitoring the spread of water hyacinth (Pontederia
crassipes): Challenges and future developments. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.631338
Dávalos-Saucedo, C. A., Rossi-Márquez, G., Regalado-González, C., Alonzo-Macías, M., &
Di Pierro, P. (2018). Application of transglutaminase crosslinked whey
protein–pectin coating improves egg quality and minimizes the breakage and
porosity of eggshells. Coatings, 8(12), 438. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6412/8/12
/438.
de Araújo, M. V., Oliveira, G. D. S., McManus, C., Vale, I. R. R., Salgado, C. B., Pires, P. G.
d. S., & dos Santos, V. M. (2023). Preserving the internal quality of quail eggs using a
corn starch-based coating combined with basil essential oil. Processes, 11(6), 1612.
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/11/6/1612.
De Leo, R., Quartieri, A., Haghighi, H., Gigliano, S., Bedin, E., & Pulvirenti, A. (2018).
Application of pectin-alginate and pectin-alginate-laurolyl arginate ethyl coatings to
eliminate Salmonella enteritidis cross contamination in eggshells. Journal of Food
Safety, 38(6). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfs.12567. Article e12567.
de Moura, F. A., Macagnan, F. T., Dos Santos, L. R., Bizzani, M., de Oliveira
Petkowicz, C. L., & da Silva, L. P. (2017). Characterization and physicochemical
properties of pectins extracted from agroindustrial by-products. Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 54(10), 3111–3117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-
2747-9
Didar, Z. (2019). Effects of coatings with pectin and cinnamomum verum hydrosol
included pectin on physical characteristics and shelf life of chicken eggs stored at
30◦ C [Research]. Nutrition and Food Sciences Research, 6(4), 39–45. https://doi.org/
10.29252/nfsr.6.4.39
Drabik, K., Chabroszewska, P., Vasiukov, K., Adamczuk, A., & Batkowska, J. (2018).
Glycerin as a factor for moderating quality changes in table eggs during storage.
Archives Animal Breeding, 61(3), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-61-285-
2018
Drabik, K., Próchniak, T., Spustek, D., Wengerska, K., & Batkowska, J. (2021). The
impact of package type and temperature on the changes in quality and fatty acids
profile of table eggs during their storage. Foods, 10(9), 2047. https://www.mdpi.
com/2304-8158/10/9/2047.
Espitia, P. J. P., Avena-Bustillos, R. J., Du, W. X., Chiou, B. S., Williams, T. G., Wood, D.,
& Soares, N. F. F. (2014). Physical and antibacterial properties of açaí edible films
formulated with thyme essential oil and apple skin polyphenols. Journal of Food
Science, 79(5), M903–M910. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12432
Ezazi, A., Javadi, A., Jafarizadeh-Malmiri, H., & Mirzaei, H. (2021). Development of a
chitosan-propolis extract edible coating formulation based on physico-chemical
attributes of hens’ eggs: Optimization and characteristics edible coating of egg using
chitosan and propolis. Food Bioscience, 40, Article 100894. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.fbio.2021.100894
Farris, S., Schaich, K. M., Liu, L., Piergiovanni, L., & Yam, K. L. (2009). Development of
polyion-complex hydrogels as an alternative approach for the production of bio-
based polymers for food packaging applications: A review. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 20(8), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.04.003
Freitas, C.M.P., Coimbra, J.S.R., Souza, V.G.L., & Sousa, R.C.S. (2021). Structure and
applications of pectin in food, biomedical, and pharmaceutical industry: A review.
Coatings, 11(8), 922. doi:10.3390/coatings11080922.
Funk, E. M. (1948). The relation of the yolk index determined in natural position to the
yolk index as determined after separating the yolk from the albumen. Poultry Science,
27(3), 367. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0270367
Gaurav, G. K., Mehmood, T., Cheng, L., Klemeš, J. J., & Shrivastava, D. K. (2020). Water
hyacinth as a biomass: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, Article 122214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122214
Go, E. J., & Song, K. B. (2020). Development and Characterization of citrus junos pomace
pectin films incorporated with Rambutan (Nephelium Lappaceum) peel extract.
Coatings, 10(8), 714. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6412/10/8/714.
Guilbert, S., Cuq, B., & Gontard, N. (1997). Recent innovations in edible and/or
biodegradable packaging materials. Food Additives & Contaminants, 14(6–7),
741–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/02652039709374585
Harun, I., Pushiri, H., Amirul-Aiman, A. J., & Zulkeflee, Z. (2021). Invasive water
hyacinth: ecology, impacts and prospects for the rural economy. Plants, 10(8), 1613.
https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10081613
Hasem, N. H., Mohamad Fuzi, S. F. Z., Kormin, F., Abu Bakar, M. F., & Sabran, S. F
(2019). Extraction and partial characterization of durian rind pectin. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 269(1), Article 012019. https://doi.org/
10.1088/1755-1315/269/1/012019
Haugh, R. (1937). A new method for determining the quality of an egg. US Egg Poultry,
39, 27–49.
Jovanović, J., Ćirković, J., Radojković, A., Mutavdžić, D., Tanasijević, G., Joksimović, K.,
& Branković, Z. (2021). Chitosan and pectin-based films and coatings with active
components for application in antimicrobial food packaging. Progress in Organic
Coatings, 158, Article 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2021.106349
N. Jariyapamornkoon et al.
Kohli, P., & Gupta, R. (2015). Alkaline pectinases: A review. Biocatalysis and Agricultural
Biotechnology, 4(3), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2015.07.001
Kurek, M., Repajić, M., Marić, M., Ščetar, M., Trojić, P., Levaj, B., & Galić, K. (2021). The
influence of edible coatings and natural antioxidants on fresh-cut potato quality,
stability and oil uptake after deep fat frying. Journal of Food Science and Technology,
58(8), 3073–3085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04811-w
Lopes da Silva, J., & Rao, M. (2006). Pectins: Structure, functionality, and uses. In
A. M. Stephen, G. O. Phillips, & P. A. Williams (Eds.), Food polysaccharides and their
applications (pp. 353–411). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420015164.
Méndez, D. A., Fabra, M. J., Gómez-Mascaraque, L., López-Rubio, A., & Martinez-
Abad, A. (2021). Modelling the extraction of pectin towards the valorisation of
watermelon rind waste. Foods, 10(4), 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040738
Menezes, P. C.d., Lima, E. R. D., Medeiros, J. P. D., Oliveira, W. N. K.d., & Evêncio-
Neto, J. (2012). Egg quality of laying hens in different conditions of storage, ages
and housing densities. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 41. https://doi.org/10.1590/
S1516-35982012000900014
Mohnen, D. (2008). Pectin structure and biosynthesis. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 11
(3), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2008.03.006
Munarin, F., Tanzi, M. C., & Petrini, P. (2012). Advances in biomedical applications of
pectin gels. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 51(4), 681–689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2012.07.002
Naohara, J., & Ishii, T. (1989). Contents of pectic substances in water hyacinth. Nippon
Shokuhin Kogyo Gakkaishi, 36(7), 583–586. https://doi.org/10.3136/
nskkk1962.36.7_583
NarinÇ, D., Aygun, A., sarıyel, v., Akbulut, M., & Çoklar, H (2022). Effects of prestorage
application of gum arabic coating on the quality of table eggs during storage. Kafkas
Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(3), 363–370. https://doi.org/10.9775/
kvfd.2022.27077
Nastasi, J.R., Kontogiorgos, V., Daygon, V.D., & Fitzgerald, M.A. (2022). Pectin-based
films and coatings with plant extracts as natural preservatives: A systematic review.
Trends in Food Science & Technology, 120, 193–211. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.014.
National Research Council. (1981). Food chemicals codex (3 ed.) Retriveved from
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/19642/chapter/1#ii Accessed October 1,
2023.
Nongtaodum, S., Jangchud, A., Jangchud, K., Dhamvithee, P., No, H. K., &
Prinyawiwatkul, W. (2013). Oil coating affects internal quality and sensory
acceptance of selected attributes of raw eggs during storage. Journal of Food Science,
78(2), S329–S335. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12035
Oliveira, B. L., & Oliveira, D. D. (2013). Egg quality and technology. UFLA: Lavras, 223.
Oliveira, G. D. S., McManus, C., & Dos Santos, V. M. (2022a). Essential oils and propolis
as additives in egg coatings. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 78(4), 1053–1066.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2022.2119914
Oliveira, G. D. S., McManus, C., Pires, P. G.d. S., & dos Santos, V. M. (2022b).
Combination of cassava starch biopolymer and essential oils for coating table eggs
[Original Research]. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fsufs.2022.957229
Omana, D. A., Liang, Y., Kav, N. N. V., & Wu, J. (2011). Proteomic analysis of egg white
proteins during storage. Proteomics, 11(1), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/
pmic.201000168
Otoni, C. G., Avena-Bustillos, R. J., Azeredo, H. M. C., Lorevice, M. V., Moura, M. R.,
Mattoso, L. H. C., & McHugh, T. H. (2017). Recent advances on edible films based on
fruits and vegetables—A review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety, 16(5), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12281
Radi, M., Akhavan-Darabi, S., Akhavan, H. R., & Amiri, S. (2018). The use of orange peel
essential oil microemulsion and nanoemulsion in pectin-based coating to extend the
shelf life of fresh-cut orange. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 42(2),
Article e13441. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13441
Rojas-Graü, M. A., Tapia, M. S., & Martín-Belloso, O. (2008). Using polysaccharide-based
edible coatings to maintain quality of fresh-cut Fuji apples. LWT - Food Science and
Technology, 41(1), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2007.01.009
Roy, S., Priyadarshi, R., Łopusiewicz, Ł., Biswas, D., Chandel, V., & Rhim, J. W. (2023).
Recent progress in pectin extraction, characterization, and pectin-based films for
Applied Food Research 3 (2023) 100355
active food packaging applications: A review. International journal of biological
macromolecules, 239, Article 124248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijbiomac.2023.124248
Saleh, G., El Darra, N., Kharroubi, S., & Farran, M. T. (2020). Influence of storage
conditions on quality and safety of eggs collected from Lebanese farms. Food Control,
111, Article 107058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.107058
Samli, H. E., Agma, A., & Senkoylu, N. (2005). Effects of storage time and temperature on
egg quality in old laying hens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 14(3), 548–553.
https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/14.3.548
Santo, L. S.d. E., Correa, G.d. S. S., Vieites, F. M., Romani, A., Tavares, J. M. N.,
Silva, G. M.d. M., & Oliveira, C. F. S.d. (2017). Performance and egg quality
parameters of laying hens submitted to different rearing densities. Semina: Ciências
Agrárias, 38(2), 831–841. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2017v38n2p831
Sharaf Eddin, A., Ibrahim, S. A., & Tahergorabi, R. (2019). Egg quality and safety with an
overview of edible coating application for egg preservation. Food Chemistry, 296,
29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.05.182
Sheng, L., Huang, M., Wang, J., Xu, Q., Hammad, H. H. M., & Ma, M. (2018). A study of
storage impact on ovalbumin structure of chicken egg. Journal of Food Engineering,
219, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.08.028
Sheng, L., Wang, J., Huang, M., Xu, Q., & Ma, M. (2016). The changes of secondary
structures and properties of lysozyme along with the egg storage. Int J Biol Macromol,
92, 600–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.07.068
Stadelman, W. J. (2017a). The preservation of egg quality in shell eggs. N. L. In
W. J. Stadelman, & D. Newkirk (Eds.), Egg science and technology (pp. 67–80). CRC
Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203758878.
Stadelman, W. J. (2017b). Quality identification of shell eggs. N. L. In W. J. Stadelman, &
D. Newkirk (Eds.), Egg science and technology (pp. 39–66). CRC Press. https://doi.
org/10.1201/9780203758878.
Suresh, P. V., Raj, K. R., Nidheesh, T., Pal, G. K., & Sakhare, P. Z. (2015). Application of
chitosan for improvement of quality and shelf life of table eggs under tropical room
conditions. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52(10), 6345–6354. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13197-015-1721-7
USDA. (2000). United States Standards, grades, and weight classes for shell eggs AMS 56.
Retrieved from https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Shell
_Egg_Standard%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2023.
Valdés, A., Burgos, N., Jiménez, A., & Garrigós, M.C. (2015). Natural pectin
polysaccharides as edible coatings. Coatings, 5(4), 865–886. doi:10.3390/coatin
gs5040865.
Xiong, Y., Li, S., Warner, R. D., & Fang, Z. (2020). Effect of oregano essential oil and
resveratrol nanoemulsion loaded pectin edible coating on the preservation of pork
loin in modified atmosphere packaging. Food Control, 114, Article 107226. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107226
Xu, D., Wang, J., Ren, D., & Wu, X. (2018). Effects of chitosan coating structure and
changes during storage on their egg preservation performance. Coatings, 8(9), 317.
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings8090317
Xu, L., Zhang, H., Lv, X., Chi, Y., Wu, Y., & Shao, H. (2017). Internal quality of coated
eggs with soy protein isolate and montmorillonite: Effects of storage conditions.
International Journal of Food Properties, 20(8), 1921–1934. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10942912.2016.1224896
Yang, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, Y., Gu, Z., & Fang, F. (2013). Calcium cation triggers and
accelerates the gelation of high methoxy pectin. Food Hydrocolloids, 32(2), 228–234.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2013.01.003
Yuan, X., Li, Y., Mo, Q., Zhang, B., Shu, D., Sun, L., & Zang, Y. (2022). A combined
approach using slightly acidic electrolyzed water spraying and chitosan and pectin
coating on the quality of the egg cuticle, prevention of bacterial invasion, and
extension of shelf life of eggs during storage. Food Chemistry, 389, Article 133129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133129
Yuceer, M., & Caner, C. (2014). Antimicrobial lysozyme–chitosan coatings affect
functional properties and shelf life of chicken eggs during storage. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 94(1), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6322