Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

DOI 10.1007/s11947-007-0014-1

Influence of Whey Protein Composite Coatings

on Plum (Prunus Domestica L.) Fruit Quality
Elsy Reinoso & Gauri S. Mittal & Loong-Tak Lim

Received: 31 May 2007 / Accepted: 1 August 2007 / Published online: 14 September 2007
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This study evaluated the quality of plums

(Prunus domestica L.) coated with whey protein isolate
(WPI) and WPI composite coatings containing 5 or 10%
(w/w) flaxseed oil blended with beeswax. WPI and 10%
lipid composite coatings were less susceptible to crack,
flake, and blister defects during the 15 days storage at 5C
compared to the 5% lipid formulation. The firmness of
plums, determined by the penetration force using a 10-mm
probe, was not significantly affected by the coating types
except for the WPI-coated samples, which showed a
significantly higher penetration force because of the higher
strength for WPI film. Mass loss of plums during storage
was substantially reduced because of coating, especially
when coatings of higher lipid content were used. This was
consistent with the water permeability for the standalone
films, which decreased considerably when flaxseed and
beeswax were added. The incorporation of lipid phase to
WPI also significantly weakened oxygen barrier and
mechanical properties. Migration of plasticizer and lipid
phase to the film surface was observed during water vapor
permeability tests, especially when the films were exposed
to elevated humidity conditions. Overall, sensory evaluation showed that the coated plums were more acceptable
than the uncoated controls.
E. Reinoso
Iovate Health Sciences Research Inc,
5100 Spectrum Way, Mississauga, ON L4W 5S2, Canada
G. S. Mittal
School of Engineering, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
L.-T. Lim (*)
Department of Food Science, University of Guelph,
Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
e-mail: llim@uoguelph.ca

Keywords Whey protein isolate films . Lipid composite

films . Beeswax . Flaxseed oil . Barrier and mechanical
properties . Plum . Edible coatings

Introduction
An edible film is a continuous thin layer of edible polymer,
which can be applied as a coating or used as a standalone
membrane for improving food quality. It is often used to
preclude unwanted mass transports (e.g., moisture, oxygen,
aroma, and flavor), enhance visual attributes (e.g., gloss and
color), and function as a carrier to deliver active materials
(e.g., antimicrobial agents and nutraceuticals). Over the past
decade, edible films have been subjected to intensive
research because of their potential for reducing the use of
synthetic thermoplastics in food packaging.
Edible films can be derived from proteins, polysaccharides, lipids, and resins. By and large, proteins have received
the most attention in edible film research because of their
abundance as agricultural by-products and food processing
residuals. The presence of reactive amino acid residuals
also enable protein to be modified and crosslinked through
physical and chemical treatments to produce novel polymeric structures (Gennadios 2002; Lundblad 2005). Whey
proteins from bovine milk have been studied to a great
extent because of their ability to form transparent and
flexible films, which exhibit good barrier and mechanical
properties (Krochta 2002). Whey proteins are globular
proteins, which remain soluble after precipitation of casein
at pH 4.6 during cheese making. In bovine milk, these
thermal-labile proteins consist of mainly -lactalbumin, lactoglobulin, and other proteins present in smaller fractions
(e.g., bovine serum albumin, immunoglobulins, proteasepeptones). Whey proteins are commercially available as

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

whey protein isolates (WPI) or whey protein concentrates

(WPC), which have protein contents of >90 and 2085%,
respectively (Khwaldia et al. 2004).
Studies on whey protein films have been mainly focused
on improving their barrier and mechanical properties
through optimization of protein denaturation conditions
(e.g., temperature, pH, time, and protein content), addition
of cross-linking agents, and judicious use of plasticizers and
additives. Perez-Gago and Krochta (2001) studied the effect
of denaturation conditions and concluded that denaturation
of WPI at 90C for 30 min provided stronger films in
terms of tensile properties than films cast from solutions
denaturized at lower temperatures and for shorter heating
time. Shaw et al. (2002b) compared the effect of glycerol,
xylitol, and sorbitol plasticizers for forming WPI films and
found that glycerol imparted the best stress-strain properties
to the film. Because of the hydrophilic nature of whey
protein, various lipids have also been added to the filmforming solution to reduce the water-sensitivity of the films
(McHugh 2000; Shaw et al. 2002a). Materials such as
beeswax, candelilla wax (McHugh 2000; Shellhammer and
Krochta 1997), and soy oil (Shaw et al. 2002a) were
investigated, among which beeswax is most effective for
reducing the water vapor permeation rate.
To date, end use applications of whey protein films are
mainly targeted for use as carriers for antimicrobial agents
(Min et al. 2005, 2006; Min and Krochta 2005; Seydim and
Sarikus 2006) and as protective barrier coatings to increase
the shelf-life of food products (Cisneros-Zevallos and
Krochta 2003; Martin-Diana et al. 2006; Moldao-Martins
et al. 2003). Several studies concluded that whey protein
coatings, when applied to fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts, and
meat, are capable of extending their shelf life (Le Tien et al.
2001; Lee et al. 2003; Lee and Krochta 2002; Martin-Diana
et al. 2006; Perez-Gago et al. 2003b).
Because whey protein films are edible, they are ideal
carriers for nutraceuticals to enhance the nutritional value
of the coated food product. Properties of calcium caseinate
and WPI films, added with vitamin E (-tocopheryl
acetate) and a mixture of calcium lactate and calcium
gluconate, were investigated by Mei and Zhao (2003). They
reported that high nutraceutical contents can compromise
tensile and permeability properties of the film; however,
these properties are mainly influenced by the nature of the
coating materials and the type and concentration of
nutraceuticals incorporated into the coating formulations.
In another study, fresh and frozen strawberries and
raspberries were coated with chitosan added with calcium
and Vitamin E to increase the nutritional values of these
fruits (Han et al. 2004). These authors showed that chitosan
coatings extended the shelf-life of fresh strawberries and
raspberries by reducing the weight loss. Furthermore,
changes in properties such as acidity and color were

315

delayed during storage. Edible coatings also have been

used as oxygen barriers and carriers for antibrowning
agents to delay the browning of apple and potato slices
(Le Tien et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2003).
In this study, the main objective was to develop an edible
WPI coating for plum (P. domestica L) to improve its
quality and nutritional value by incorporating flaxseed oil
to the coating formulation. Plum was chosen for this study
over other fruits because: (1) its skin can be consumed
together with the flesh and therefore provides an opportunity for carrying nutraceuticals; (2) it has a relatively short
shelf life, and (3) its dull skin appearance can be improved
to enhance consumer appeals. Flaxseed oil was used in this
study because it has been recognized as a significant source
of omega-3 fatty acids, which is important for stroke and
heart disease prevention (Health Canada 2006). Furthermore, the lipid phase also reduces the hydrophilicity of the
coating to enhance its water barrier properties.

Materials and Methods

Materials
Plums were obtained from a local supermarket from the
same batch. Visual inspection was conducted to ensure
consistent ripeness and absence of major defects or physical
damages that could interfere with the experiments. Plums
were stored in a refrigerator at 5C. WPI was supplied by
Davisco International, Inc. (BiPro, Le Seur, MN, USA)
with a protein content of 93.2%. USP grade glycerol was
supplied by Fisher Scientific (Nepean, ON, Canada).
Flaxseed oil was supplied by Heartland (Toronto, ON,
Canada) as received without further purification. Polyoxyethylene sorbitan monostearate was supplied by Somerset
Company (Tween 60, Renton, WA, USA) with a purity
>95%. Beeswax was supplied by Somerset Company
(Renton, WA, USA) with a purity >98%.
Coating Preparation
The film-forming solutions were prepared after the procedure of Banerjee and Chen (1995), which allowed a quick
and uniform dispersion of WPI powder in water. The
process involved adding WPI to ice-water (1:1 w/w)
mixture that had been preblended for 1 s using a Braun
hand-held blender (Model MR400, Kronberg, Germany).
The protein and ice-water mixture was blended in the
blender for 15 s, followed by manual mixing for 30 s, and
further blended for 15 s. The solution was then stirred using
a magnetic stirrer for 8 min to ensure the formation of a
uniform solution. To denature the WPI, the solution was
heated at 90C for 30 min in a Cole-Parmer water bath

316

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

(Model 12501-01, Montreal, QC, Canada) and then cooled

down to room temperature. At this point, glycerol was added
at a ratio of 1 g of glycerol per g of protein. To prepare the
solution for lipid composite film, the WPI/glycerol solution
was heated to 70C and Tween 60 emulsifier was added.
Beeswax was melted separately and added to flaxseed oil at
70C. The resulting lipid blend was then added to the WPI/
glycerol while providing mixing with a blender. The
formulations of the coating are shown in Table 1.

Table 2 Criteria to evaluate film defects on plums applied with WPI

and WPI-FS coatings
Rank

Flaking

Cracking

Blistering

None

No visual
evidence of
flaking
One spot is
affected with an
area less than
10% of the
plum surface
area
More than one
spot where
flaking
occurred but
affects less than
20% of the
plum surface
area
More than one
spot where
flaking
occurred that
affects more
than 20% of the
plum surface
area

No visual
evidence of
cracking
Presence of a
small crack

No visual
evidence of
blistering
Presence of a
small blister
(<1 mm)

Small cracks
that affect less
than 20% of
the plum
surface area

Presence of
blisters that
affect less than
20% of the
plum surface
area

Cracks affect
more than
20% of the
plum surface
area

Presence of
blisters that
affect more
than 20% of the
plum surface
area

Slight

Coating Procedure
Plums were previously washed using tap water and then
allowed to dry at room temperature. Coating was applied by
dipping each plum into the solution for 5 min and drained.
After the coating process, plums were dried using a fan
(Airworks Model FFH2, Markham, ON, Canada) at an air
velocity of 1.5 m/s for 30 min at 212C. Coated plums
were stored at 5C for 15 days.

Moderate

High

Film Casting
Film-forming solutions were cast on Plexiglas plates of
1730 cm. The total solids content per area was maintained
at 0.028 g/cm2 to minimize thickness variations. Cast
solutions were allowed to dry on a leveled granite surface
for 48 h at 233C. Dried films were then peeled intact.
Tests on Coated Plums

Firmness

Coating Stability

Puncture tests were conducted for the coated and control

samples to determine the effects of coating on fruit firmness
at the end of 15 days storage at 5C. Firmness was
measured using an Instron Universal Testing Machine
(Instron Corp., Model 1122, Canton, MA, USA) equipped
with a 10-mm diameter cylinder probe, which was set to
penetrate the sample for 20 mm. The maximal force
required to penetrate the fruit was measured for 15 plums
from each treatment. The test was repeated twice by
puncturing once on each opposite face of the fruits. To
evaluate the effect of coating on the firmness of fruit, the
plums coated with WPI were divided into two groups. One
group was tested with the intact coating (WPI), whereas the
other group was tested with the coating peeled off (WPI-P).

The purpose of this test was to evaluate the visual quality of

the coatings during storage at 5C. Three main defects
occurred were identified: (1) flakingpresence of flakes,
which can be dislodged readily from the plum surface; (2)
blisteringlocal loss of adhesion and lifting of coating
from the plum skin; and (3) crackingbreaks or splits in
the coating surface. These defects were visually evaluated
after 2, 6, 9, 12, and 15 days of storage using the criteria
given in Table 2.
Table 1 Coating formulations used for coating plums
Formulation

WPI
Protein
GLY
FS
Emulsifier (Tween 60)
BW

WPI (%)

10
9.1
9
0.0
0.20
0.00

WPI-5FS
(%)

WPI-10FS
(%)

9.2
8.6
9
5.0
0.20
0.50

8.7
8.1
8
10.0
0.20
1.00

WPI Whey protein isolate, GLY glycerol, FS flaxseed oil, BW beeswax

Mass Loss
Sample sizes of 18 fruits per treatment, including the
control samples, were used for mass loss evaluation. The
plums were weighed at 0, 2, 6, 9, 12, and 15 days during
storage. The mass loss was expressed as percentage loss of
initial mass. The precision balance used for weight
measurement had an accuracy of 0.1 mg.

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

Sensory Analysis
Sensory evaluation of the coated and control samples was
conducted on the 15th day of storage using a sensory panel
consisted of 29 individuals with age ranging from 20 to
45 years old. Panel members were previously screened for
allergic reactions to the ingredients used in the coatings.
Samples were removed from refrigeration 1 h before the
sensory evaluation to allow them to equilibrate to room
temperature. Coded samples were presented to the panelist
who was asked to score appearance, overall impression,
flavor, sweetness, and firmness using a hedonic scale of 0
10 (0dislike; 10like). The panel was also asked if the
use of edible films and the incorporation of nutraceuticals
in coating would influence their purchase decision.

317

Minneapolis, MN, USA). The films were previously

conditioned at 45% RH before testing. To prevent the
coulometric sensor from overloading, the films were
masked with aluminum foil to reduce the exposed area to
24.6 cm2. The permeation test was conducted isostatically
by sandwiching the films in the permeability cell, where the
upstream side of the film was exposed to a continuous flow
of air (21% oxygen) and the downstream side to a carrier
gas of 2% H2/98%N2 gas mixture. The test was conducted
at 50% RH, and two replicates for each film type were
evaluated. Oxygen permeability was calculated as follows:
PO2

OTR
:t
p

Tests on Films

where OTR is in cm3/(m2 d), P is partial pressure of oxygen

(21.3 kPa), and t is film thickness in mm (average of five
readings).

Tensile Properties

Statistical Analysis

Films were cut into dumbbell shape specimens (24

110 mm) using a sharp razor blade to introduce a stress
concentration in the middle section. The narrow section was
used to calculate the cross-sectional area. The specimens
were conditioned at 232C and 505% relative humidity
(RH) for 48 h before testing.
Tensile test was conducted in accordance with ASTM
method D882-02 (ASTM 2002). The film strips were
attached to the pneumatically actuated grips of an Instron
tester. The crosshead speed was set at 200 mm/min, and the
initial gauge length was 70 mm. The test was performed at
232C and 505% RH. Seven samples per film type were
tested, and the average values were reported.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS Release 14.0

software (Chicago, IL, USA). Analysis of variance and
multiple comparison test (Duncan) were applied to analyze
the data for coating stability, sensory analysis, mass loss,
firmness, oxygen transmission, and tensile properties.
Analysis of covariance was applied to water transmission
rate data to determine difference between slopes. All
statistical analyses were conducted at a significant level of
p=0.05.

Results and Discussion

Coating Stability

Water Vapor Transmission Rate

Water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) was determined
based on ASTM E96/E96M-05 (ASTM 2005b) using
anhydrous calcium sulfate as a desiccant. Twenty grams
of the desiccant were placed in each aluminum dish with
flanged rim, on which the test films were sealed using
molten wax. Samples were placed in controlled environment chambers set at 232C and RH of 30, 43, 60, and
75%. Samples were weighed within an accuracy of
0.0001 g at 0, 6, 14, 20, 24, 38, 44, 62, 68, and 86 h.
Three replicates for each film were tested, and the mean
values were reported.
Oxygen Transmission Rate
Oxygen transmission rate (OTR) values were determined in
accordance with ASTM D3985-05 (ASTM 2005a) using
Ox-Tran 2/20 modular system (Modern Control Inc.,

During the 15-day storage at 5C, WPI-5FS coating

exhibited the highest incidence of defects, whereas WPI
coating produced the least (Figs. 1, 2, and 3). We observed
that cracking and flaking tended to occur concurrently
because the formation of cracks also resulted in a poor
adhesion between the coating and the plum skin, which led
to flaking (Fig. 4). In contrast, the presence of blisters did
not correlate with the formation of cracks (Fig. 5).
Nevertheless, blistering could lead to flaking, and there
was a significant interaction between cracking and flaking.
Cracks and flakes not only substantially diminished the
visual appeal of the fruit but also compromised the ability
of the coating to protect the fruit.
The poor stability of WPI-5FS coating during storage at
5C may be attributed to the migration of oil to the coating
surface. This created voids in the protein matrix and led to
material shrinkage, causing the coating to dislodge from the
skin surface (blistering) and also promote cracking. The

318

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

Fig. 1 Frequency of film cracking during 15 days storage at 5C

for plums coated with WPI,
WPI-FS, and WPI-10FS formulations. Refer to Table 1 for
formulation codes

stability of the film-forming emulsion was also important

for achieving a uniform coating during the dipping and
drying processes. Emulsions that were unstable could
undergo phase separation, which introduced considerable
coating thickness variation when applied to the plum
surface. The progressive development of coating defects
during storage for the WPI-5FS-coated plums appeared to
support these hypotheses.
The better coating stability of WPI-10FS than WPI-5FS
can be attributed to the higher content of the lipid phase in
the former formulation. Beeswax is made up of mainly wax
acid esters, wax acids, and hydrocarbon, the viscous
properties of which are primarily because of free fatty acid
fraction (Shellhammer et al. 1997). It has been shown that
beeswax is capable of plasticizing whey protein film, which
is hypothesized to be caused by the free fatty acids fraction
in beeswax (Talens and Krochta 2005). We speculated that
the enhanced plasticization caused by the additional
Fig. 2 Frequency of film flaking during 15 days storage at
5C for plums coated with WPI,
WPI-FS, and WPI-10FS formulations. Refer to Table 1 for
formulation codes

beeswax, along with the increased hydrophobic interaction

of the lipid phase with the cuticle layer of the skin, might
have contributed to the better coating stability of WPI-10FS
compared to WPI-5FS.
Fruit Firmness
After 15 days of storage at 5C, the effect of coating on
fruit firmness was insignificant, except that plums with the
intact WPI coating exhibited a significant higher firmness
value (Table 3). This can be attributed to the higher tensile
strength of WPI films in comparison to other films
(Tensile Properties). This observation agreed with a study
conducted by Perez-Gago et al. (2003a) in which plums
were coated with hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-lipid
edible composite films. They reported that the firmness
was similar between the coated and control fruits after
6 weeks of storage at 1C. This effect was attributed to the

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

319

Fig. 3 Frequency of film blistering during 15 days storage at

5C for plums coated with WPI,
WPI-FS, and WPI-10FS formulations. Refer to Table 1 for
formulation codes

Mass loss was substantially reduced during storage for the

coated plums (Fig. 6). Moreover, the mass loss rates (slope

of the plots) were different. Uncoated plums and plums

coated with WPI exhibited the highest mass loss rate of
0.0074 g/day. On the other hand, plums coated with WPI5FS and WPI-10FS showed lower mass loss rates of 0.0061
and 0.0055 g/day, respectively. The reduced mass loss rate
for the composite coatings was attributable to the reduced
moisture loss because of the increased film hydrophilicity
imparted by flaxseed oil and beeswax. This hypothesis was
supported by the lowering of water vapor transmission
values when flaxseed oil and beeswax were added to the
coating formulation (Water Vapor Permeability).
After 15 days of storage at 5C, control samples had a
mass loss of 3.7% compared to plums coated with WPI10FS, which lost 2.7% of their original mass. Although the
difference in mass loss was relatively small under the
conditions tested, the mass loss is expected to become more
prominent for the uncoated plums if the storage duration

Fig. 4 Photo showing cracking and flaking of WPI-5FS coating

applied to a plum after 15 days of storage at 5C. Refer to Table 1 for
formulation codes

Fig. 5 Photo showing blistering of WPI-5FS coating applied to a

plum after 15 days of storage at 5C. Refer to Table 1 for coating
formulation codes

reduced respiration rate of the fruit under cold condition

and that the natural waxes present on the skin were
effective in preventing the moisture loss. However, when
plums were exposed to 20C, the coated fruits were
significantly much firmer than the uncoated control, which
was attributed to low O2 modified atmosphere created by
the edible film. Under the modified atmosphere condition,
respiration rate of the fruit was reduced, and consequently,
plum softening decelerated (Perez-Gago et al. 2003a).
Thus, the effects of edible coating on plum firmness are
expected to be more pronounced during prolonged storage,
especially at elevated temperatures.
Mass Loss

320

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

Table 3 Firmness of uncoated and coated plums measured by

puncture test
Sample

Force (N)

Uncoated plums
WPI-Pa
WPI
WPI-5FS
WPI-10FS

6.50.8b
6.01.4b
8.52.0a
6.51.1b
6.00.9b

Table 4 Tensile properties of WPI and WPI-FS films

Thickness
(mm)

Tensile strength
(MPa)

Elongation at
break (%)

WPI
WPI-5FS
WPI-10FS

0.229
0.280
0.266

6.100.18a
1.840.24b
1.830.51b

19.491.2c
12.042.8d
7.501.2e

Means with the same letters in a column are not significantly different.

Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Plums coated with WPI where film was removed for the test

(WPI-10FS) flaxseed oil, although the elongation values

were significantly different among the three formulations
(Table 4). Overall, WPI-10FS films showed the lowest
mechanical properties, which appeared to be inconsistent
with the coating stability data. The relatively higher
temperature used during film testing compared to the
storage temperature for the coated plums may be another
reason for this inconsistency. In addition, the tensile
properties of the standalone films determined here were
likely not adequate for reflecting the mechanical properties
of the coating because of filmskin interaction for the latter.

were to be extended and the temperature increased. This

has commercial significance because mass loss is one of the
critical quality degradation factors for fresh produce.
Tensile Properties
The tensile strength of WPI film was around three times
higher than the other two composite films (Table 4). The
addition of the lipid phase dramatically weakened the film
strength, which is in agreement with the results reported
previously (Banerjee and Chen 1995; Cisneros-Zevallos
and Krochta 2003; Mei and Zhao 2003). The dispersed
flaxseed oil-beeswax in WPI matrix and the crystalline
nature of beeswax might have contributed to the reduced
film strength because of the heterogeneous structure and the
lack of interfacial interaction between the dispersed lipid
and continuous WPI phases.
In this study, no significant difference was observed on
tensile strength of films containing 5% (WPI-5FS) and 10%
Fig. 6 Mass loss of uncoated
and coated plums during a 15day storage at 5C

Film

Water Vapor Permeability

The addition of lipid phase significantly depressed the
Water vapor permeability (WVP) values (Fig. 7). For
example, at 30% RH, the average WVP values for WPI
film decreased from 0.91 to 0.75 and 0.29 gmm/hm2kPa
when 5 and 10% flaxseed oil fractions were added,
respectively. Similar trends were observed for 43 and 60%
RH. Overall, the WVP values for the WPI and WPI
composite films were in the same order of magnitude as

4.5
4.0

Control
WPI

Mass loss [%]

3.5

WPI-5FS
WPI-10FS

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

8
Time [days]

10

12

14

16

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

4
WPI

3.5

WPI-5FS

Water vapour permeability [g.mm/h.m .kPa]

Fig. 7 Water vapor permeability values for WPI and WPI-FS

films at 23C and under 30, 43,
60, and 73% RH. Refer to
Table 1 for film formation codes

321

WPI-10FS

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
25

35

45

55

65

75

Relative Humidity [%]

those reported by Talens and Krochta (2005; Table 5). As

shown, the water barrier properties of the resulting
composite films were much weaker than the typical
petroleum-based polymers.
It is noteworthy that when exposed to 75% RH, WPI and
WPI-5FS films exhibited similar WVP values, indicating
that the protein phase for these films was plasticized
extensively, which created free volumes large enough for
water to diffuse rather easily. In comparison, when a greater
flaxseed oil fraction was used, the WPI-10FS films resisted
the plasticization effect of water more effectively at the
same RH, suggesting that the existence of proteinlipid
interaction that enhanced water barrier properties. Qualitatively, during the WVP tests at 75% RH, the WPI films
were plasticized and swelled considerably and became
wavy in appearance (Fig. 8a). WPI-FS films also exhibited

a similar behavior but to a much lesser extent, especially

when the lipid phase content was increased (Fig. 8b and c).
The plasticization of the protein films also increased the
diffusivity of glycerol and the lipid phase in the film matrix,
resulting in greasy and hazy surfaces. The absorbed water,
which increased the polarity of the film matrix, may have
expelled the lipid phase out of the film. This hypothesis
was supported by the fact that these structural defects were
not observed when the films were tested at 30% RH
(Fig. 8ac).
Oxygen Gas Transmission
Oxygen permeability values were significantly different
between the three films (Table 6). WPI films have the
lowest permeability values but increased considerably as

Table 5 Comparison of water vapor permeability values of WPI and synthetic films
Film

Test conditions

Permeability (g mm/m2
h kPa)

Source

WPI:GLY (1:1)
WPI:GLY:FS:BW: (1:1:0.6:0.06)
WPI:GLY:FS:BW: (1:1:1.24:0.124)
WPI:GLY 1:1
WPI:BW:GLY 1:1:1
WPI:BW:GLY 3:3:1
Beeswax
PVC
LDPE

23C,
23C,
23C,
23C,
23C,
23C,
26C,
26C,
26C,

1.9600.024a
1.2100.094b
0.5700.056c
2.5700.34
1.5100.27
0.1300.09
0.004
0.026
0.001

Current study

43% RH
43% RH
43% RH
4020%
4020%
4020%
100% RH
100% RH
100% RH

Talens and Krochta (2005)

Shellhammer and Krochta (1997)

Current study values are means of three replicates. Means with the different letters are significantly different at 5% level.
WPI Whey protein isolate, GLY glycerol, FS flaxseed oil, BW beeswax

322

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

promising carrier for protecting flaxseed oil against

oxidation. However, the issue of oil migration to the
surface still needs to be resolved, especially when the
polymer is exposed to elevated RH conditions.
Sensory Analysis

c
Fig. 8 Appearance of films after water vapor transmission test. a WPI
films, b WPI-5FS films, and c WPI-10FS films. Samples on the left
and right were exposed to 75 and 30% RH for 86 h, respectively.
Refer to Table 1 for formulation codes

the lipid content increased. The dispersed lipid material in

the protein might have resulted a heterogeneous structure
that facilitated oxygen transmission. In addition, the
migration of oil to film surfaces can also create holes that
reduced the resistance to oxygen transmission. As shown in
Table 6, WPI films exhibited a reasonable oxygen barrier
property under low to intermediate RH. They also compared favorably with other synthetic thermoplastics, such as
LDPE and HDPE films. This characteristic makes WPI a
Table 6 Comparison of
oxygen permeability values of
WPI and synthetic films

Current study values are means

of two replicates. Means with
the different letters are significantly different at 5% level.
WPI Whey protein isolate, GLY
glycerin, FS flaxseed oil, BW
beeswax

Before coating, the surface finish of plums was dull (picture

not shown). Treating the fruit with WPI coating enhanced
considerably its visual appearance by imparting a glossy
finish (Fig. 9). Although the addition of flaxseed oil and
beeswax decreased the gloss produced by the WPI coating,
the appearance scores for plums coated with these composite films were still higher than the uncoated controls.
The coated plums also had higher average flavor and
overall impression scores than the uncoated samples. In
contrast, the effects of coating on sweetness and firmness
were less pronounced. It is noteworthy that, whereas the
puncture test detected a higher penetration force for the
WPI coated plums (Fruit Firmness), the panelist did not
perceive any difference in firmness among all plum
samples. This appeared to imply that the texture of the
flesh played a more important role than the toughness of the
skin in determining the perception of fruit firmness.
Overall, this survey showed that the coatings tested did
not have a negative impact on consumer perception. This
finding, along with the improved appearance, has an
important implication on the marketability for the coated
products because consumers tend to buy fruits with good
visual attributes.
Table 7 summarizes the responses of three questions to
evaluate the effects of coating on the purchase decision of
consumer. Although, the majority of the surveyed consumers (85%) bought plums either occasionally, only in
season, or once in a while, 73% of them considered
plums with longer shelf life a benefit. Only 31% indicated
that their tendency to purchase would increase if the fruits
were added with nutritional substances. Interestingly, 77%
of the surveyed consumers favored the incorporation of
natural ingredient for coating plums to extend their shelf
life. Based on this survey, it appears that consumers may be

Film

Test conditions

Permeability coefficient
(cm3 m/m2 d kPa]

Source

WPI:GLY(1:1)
WPI:GLY:FS:BW: (1:1:0.6:0.06)
WPI:GLY:FS:BW: (1:1:1.24:0.124)
WPI:Gly (2.3:1)
LDPE
HDPE
EVOH (70% VOH)
PVDC-Based films

23C;
23C;
23C;
23C;
23C;
23C;
23C;
23C;

120.010.0a
278.410.1b
525.740.3c
76.1
1870.0
427.0
12.0
0.45.1

Current study

50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%

RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH
RH

Miller and Krochta

(1997)

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

323

Fig. 9 Results of sensory evaluation of plums coated with WPI and WPI-FS formulations after 15 days of storage at 5C. Average scores are
presented in the box located in each figure. Refer to Table 1 for formulation codes

Table 7 Responses for surveyed questions related to coated plums

Questions
How often do you buy plums?

Often
(15%)

Occasionally
(27%)

When buying plums, would it be a benefit to have a longer refrigerated life?

Yes,
increase
(73%)
Yes,
increase
(31%)
Yes,
increase
(77%)

No (12%)

Would it affect your buying decision to know that the plums were added
with a nutritional substance?
Would it affect your purchasing decision if you knew in advance that the
plums were coated with natural ingredients to extend shelf-life?

No (38%)

No (12%)

Only in
season
(27%)
Do not
care
(15%)
Do not
care
(27%)
Do not
care
(12%)

Once in a
while
(31%)

Never
(0%)

324

more willing to buy coated plums with an extended shelf

life than plums added with a nutraceutical in the coating.
One reason could be due to the consumers perception of
fruits as natural products; the addition of nutritional
substances might be viewed as a lost of naturalness of
the fruit.

Conclusions
The addition of flaxseed oil and beeswax in WPI film
reduced mass loss from plums by providing a better water
vapor barrier. Shelf life of plums can be extended because
phenomena associated with mass loss such as shriveling
and firmness loss were delayed. Coating of plums with WPI
films enhanced appearance of plums by creating glossy
surfaces. Although the presence of beeswax decreased
glossiness, a better appearance was observed in comparison
with the uncoated plums. Overall, coating of plum did not
impact the perceived flavor and firmness of the plums.
Plums coated with WPI showed least significant coating
defects over a storage period of 15 days at 5C. WPI-10FS
formulation also exhibited a low incidence of defects,
making this coating stable as well. The addition of a lipid
phase consisting of 5% flaxseed oil and 0.5% beeswax to
the WPI matrix compromised the film physical stability by
the formation of defects that weakens its barrier properties.
This study confirmed the feasibility of applying edible
films containing flaxseed oil to enhance the nutritional
value of plums; however, flaxseed oil migration to the
surface pose important stability issues that need to be
addressed. Future studies should take this into consideration
to determine the ability of the WPI films to preserve the
stability of the added nutraceutical.

References
ASTM (2002). D882-02 Standard test methods for tensile properties of
thin plastic sheeting. In Annual book of ASTM Standards American
Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
ASTM (2005a). D3985-05 Standard test method for oxygen gas
transmission rate through plastic film and sheeting using a
coulometric sensor. In Annual book of ASTM Standards
American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA:
ASTM.
ASTM (2005b). E96/E96M-05 Standard test methods for water vapor
transmission of materials. In Annual book of ASTM Standards
American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA:
ASTM.
Banerjee, R., & Chen, H. (1995). Functional properties of edible films
using whey protein concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science, 78,
16731683.
Cisneros-Zevallos, L., & Krochta, J. M. (2003). Whey protein
coatings for fresh fruits and relative humidity. Journal of Food
Science, 68(1), 176181.

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

Gennadios, A. (Ed.) (2002). Protein-based films and coatings. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC.
Han, C., Zhao, Y., Leonard, S. W., & Traber, M. G. (2004). Edible
coatings to improve storability and enhance nutritional value of
fresh and frozen strawberries (Fragaria ananassa) and raspberries
(Rubus ideaus). Postharvest Biology and Technology, 33, 6778.
Health Canada (2006). Transforming the food supplyReport of the
trans fat task force submitted to the Minister of Health June 2006.
Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca. Accessed 23 May 2007.
Khwaldia, K., Perez, C., Banon, S., Desobry, S., & Hardy, J. (2004).
Milk proteins for edible films and coatings. Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, 44, 239251.
Krochta, J. M. (2002). Proteins as raw materials for films and
coatings: Definitions, current status and opportunity. In A.
Gennadios (Ed.), Protein-based films and coatings (pp. 142).
Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Le Tien, C., Vachon, C., Mateescu, M. A., & Lacroix, M. (2001). Milk
protein coatings prevent oxidative browning of apples and
potatoes. Journal of Food Science, 66(4), 512516.
Lee, S. Y., & Krochta, J. M. (2002). Accelerated shelf-life testing of
whey-protein-coated peanuts analyzed by static headspace gas
chromatography. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
50, 20222028.
Lee, J. Y., Park, H. J., Lee, C. Y., & Choi, W. Y. (2003). Extending
shelf-life of minimally processed apples with edible coatings and
antibrowning agents. LebensmitteWissenschaft und- Technologie, 36(3), 323329.
Lundblad, R. L. (Ed.) (2005). Chemical reagents fr protein modification (3rd Ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Martin-Diana, A. B., Rico, D., Frias, J., Mulcahy, J., Henehan, G. T. M.,
& Barry-Ryan, C. (2006). Whey permeate as a bio-preservative for
shelf-life maintenance of fresh-cut vegetables. Innovative Food
Science and Emerging Technologies, 7, 112123.
McHugh, T. H. (2000). Proteinlipid interactions in edible films and
coatings. Nahrung, 44(3), 148151.
Mei, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Barrier and mechanical properties of milk
protein-based edible films containing nutraceuticals. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51, 19141918.
Miller, K., & Krochta, J. M. (1997). Oxygen and aroma barrier
properties of edible films: A review. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 81, 228237.
Min, S., Harris, L., & Krochta, J. M. (2005). Antimicrobial effects of
lactoferrin, lysozyme, and the lactoperoxidase system and edible
whey protein films incorporating the lactoperoxidase system
against Salmonella enterica and Escherichia coli O157:H7.
Journal of Food Science, 70, M332M338.
Min, S., Harris, L. J., & Krochta, J. M. (2006). Inhibition of Salmonella
enterica and Escherichia coli O157:H7 on roasted turkey by edible
whey protein coatings incorporating the lactoperoxidase system.
Journal of Food Protection, 69(4), 784793.
Min, S., & Krochta, J. M. (2005). Inhibition of Penicillium commune
by edible whey protein films incorporating lactoferrin, lactoferrin
hydrolysate, and lactoperoxidase systems. Journal of Food
Science, 70, M87M94.
Moldao-Martins, M., Beirao-da-Costa, S. M., & Beirao-da-Costa, M.
L. (2003). The effects of edible coatings on postharvest quality of
the Bravo de Esmolfe apple. European Food Research and
Technology, 217, 325328.
Perez-Gago, M. B., & Krochta, J. M. (2001). Denaturation time and
temperature effects on solubility, tensile properties, and oxygen
permeability of whey protein edible films. Journal of Food
Science, 66(5), 705710.
Perez-Gago, M. B., Rojas, C., & Del Rio, M. A. (2003a). Effect of
hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-lipid edible composite coatings
on plum (cv. Autumn giant) quality during storage. Journal of
Food Science, 68(3), 879883.

Food Bioprocess Technol (2008) 1:314325

Perez-Gago, M. B., Serra, M., Alonso, M., Mateos, M., & Del Rio, M.
A. (2003b). Effect of solid content and lipid content of whey
protein isolate-beeswax edible coatings on color change of freshcut apples. Journal of Food Science, 68(7), 21862191.
Seydim, A. C., & Sarikus, G. (2006). Antimicrobial activity of whey
protein based edible films incorporated with oregano, rosemary and
garlic essential oils. Food Research International, 39, 639644.
Shaw, N. B., Monahan, F. J., ORiordan, E. D., & OSullivan, M.
(2002a). Effect of soya oil and glycerol on physical properties of
composite WPI films. Journal of Food Engineering, 51, 299304.
Shaw, N. B., Monahan, F. J., ORiordan, E. D., & OSullivan, M.
(2002b). Physical properties of WPI films plasticized with

325
glycerol, xylitol, or sorbitol. Journal of Food Science, 67, 164
167.
Shellhammer, T. H., & Krochta, J. M. (1997). Whey protein emulsion
film performance as affected by lipid type and amount. Journal
of Food Science, 62(2), 390394.
Shellhammer, T. H., Rumsey, T. R., & Krochta, J. M. (1997).
Viscoelastic properties of edible lipids. Journal of Food
Engineering, 33, 305320.
Talens, P., & Krochta, J. M. (2005). Plasticizing effects of beeswax
and carnauba wax on tensile and water vapor permeability
properties of whey protein films. Journal of Food Science, 70(3),
E239E243.