To appear in:
Accepted Manuscript
Preserving Apple (Malus domestica var. Anna) Fruit Bioactive Substances Using Olive Wastes Extract-Chitosan Film Coating
Ibrahim Khalifa, Hassan Barakat, Hamdy A. El-Mansy, SolimanA. Soliman
PII: DOI:
Reference:
S2214-3173(16)30061-0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2016.11.001 INPA 68
Information Processing in Agriculture
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
26 June 2016 25 October 2016 10 November 2016
Please cite this article as: I. Khalifa, H. Barakat, H.A. El-Mansy, SolimanA. Soliman, Preserving Apple (Malus domestica var. Anna) Fruit Bioactive Substances Using Olive Wastes Extract-Chitosan Film Coating, Information Processing in Agriculture (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2016.11.001
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
10 11 12
Preserving Apple (Malus domestica var. Anna) Fruit Bioactive Substances Using Olive Wastes Extract-Chitosan Film Coating
Ibrahim Khalifaa*, Hassan Barakatab, Hamdy A. El-Mansya, Soliman A. Soliman: aFood Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Moshtohor, 13736 Qaliuobia, Egypt.
Food Science and Human Nutrition Department, College of Agriculture and
7 Veterinary Medicine, Qassim University, Buraidah, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail: hassan.barakat@fagr.bu.edu.eg, Hamdy.elmansy@fagr.bu.edu.eg, Soliman.soliman@fagr.bu.e *Corresponding author: Mr. Ibrahim Khalifa Tel. +20122 Fax. +20132467786, E-mail: Ibrahiem.khalifa@fagr.bu.edu.eg
15 Address: Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University,
16 Moshtohor, 13736 Qaluiobia, Egypt.
17 Abstract
19 Apple fruits have components of therapeutic nature. Such components, to a great
20 extent, decline or decompose during post-harvest that negatively affect fruit shelf-life.
21 Chitosan fruit-filming has proved useful in maintaining these compounds. This study
22 aims, therefore, at enhancing Chitosan coating-film performance by mixing with some
23 olive wastes extracts of leaf and pomace extracts. Apple fruits were sprayed with six
24 different coating formulas including chitosan-water wax coating, in addition to the
25 uncoated fruits. Then, the total phenolic, flavonoids, antioxidants, pigments, weight
26 loss, decay area, and microstructure were assayed. The bioactive substances
27 drastically changed in uncoated rather than coated fruits. Conversely, weight loss and
28 decay area significantly increased in uncoated fruits. Amazingly, the addition of olive
29 leaf extract to chitosan coating films meaningfully reduced the gradual decline in total
30 phenolic, flavonoids and antioxidants. Olive pomace extract recorded the lowest
31 influencing on anthocyanins during storage at 4±1 °C for 35 d. Also, both olive leaf
32 and pomace extracts enhanced the coating distribution, due to no pores were observed
33 in the fruits' surfaces. Decidedly, incorporation of olive leaf extracts with 2% into
34 chitosan coating solution was the best formula comparable with the others. Thus,
35 olive wastes extracts, incorporated into chitosan fruit coatings; relatively improve the 6 nutritional quality of apple fruits during post-harvest.
7 Keywords: Olive wastes extracts; chitosan; coating; nutritional quality;
38 microstructure analysis.
39 Chemical compounds:
40 DPPH* (PubChem CID: 2735032), Trolox (PubChem CID: 40634), Gallic acid
41 (PubChem CID: 370), Quercetin (PubChem CID: 5280343), Chitosan (PubChem
42 CID: 3086191) and Thiabendazole (PubChem CID: 5430).
44 1. Introduction
45 Apple (Malus domestica var. Anna) fruits greatly vary in the bioactive substances like
46 polyphenols, flavonoids, vitamins, pigments and others [1, 2] which provide high
47 nutritional values. Unfortunately, these components dramatically decline during post-
48 harvest times [3, 4-5]. This might refer to the activity of some microorganisms which
49 grow on the fruit surfaces' during post-harvest time. They produce mycotoxins and
50 degrade phytochemicals [6]. Additionally, other factors may responsible for
51 phytochemicals degradation includes cultivar type, environmental and agronomic
52 conditions, harvest and food processing operations, and storage factors [7].
53 Commonly, these challenges might be fixed using coating fruits with commercial
54 waxes such as water wax incorporated with artificial additives like thiabendazole
55 (WW-TBZ). But, such materials might cause some dangerous side effects related to
56 bladder cancer [8]. Switching to using some natural polymers, such as chitosan (CH)
57 (poly #-(1,4) N-acetyl-D-glucosamine) incorporated with natural additives like food
58 processing wastes, has recently been applied to fruit coating techniques [9, 10-11].
59 The CH, following cellulose, is the second most abundant polysaccharide found in
60 nature [12]. In addition to being environmentally safe, it has good film-forming
61 properties, antimicrobial activity, and has been recommended as GRAS food additive
62 [13, 14,15-16].
63 Olive (Olea europaea var. Kronakii) plant extracts has been one of these natural
64 additives which play a functional role in fruit film-coating components. Olive oil
65 processing wastes (OOW) contain considerable amounts of bioactive substances,
66 although it causes some economic losses and some environmental problems. [17, 18,
67 19-20]. However, OOW are promoting by-products for functional food and/or
68 nutraceuticals. They can be used as antioxidants, antifungal and antibacterial agents
69 [20, 21]. Thus, OOW has been valued before in edible-film approach as in the cases
70 of polyesters and polylactic films [22, 23]. Incorporating OOW extracts into chitosan
71 coating materials may be one safe approach to maintaining quality of cold-stored
72 apple fruits. The objective of this study was to infer how both olive wastes extracts,
73 when incorporated into Chitosan film coating, enhance apple fruits shelf-life during
74 post-harvest cold storage time by maintaining fruit nutritional and keeping quality.
ruit nutrit
Materials and methods
77 2.1. Reagents and solutions
78 1, 1-diphenyl-2 picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH*), 2-(3, 4-dihydroxyphenyl)-3, 5, 7-
79 trihydroxy-4H-chro
men-4-c
(Quercetin)
6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-
80 tetramethylchroman carboxylic acid (Trolox) were obtained from Sigma Aldrich, Co.,
81 Germany. Chitosan 95% deacetylation, high molecular weight (viscosity 500-2000
82 cps) was procured from Oxford Co., India. Folin-Ciocalteu reagent was purchased
83 from Fluka Biochemical, Co., Switzerland. Gallic acid Serva was obtained from iochemical, Co., New York. Thiabendazole and water wax® WW-TBZ were
obtained from Fomesa Fruitech, Co., Spain. All reagents and indicators are pure and
86 analytical grade.
87 2.2. Microbial strain and media
maturity form
88 Penicillium expansum ATCC 7861 was obtained from Cairo Microbiological
89 Resource Center (MIRCEN), Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo,
90 Egypt. Sabouraud agar No. 402005 was obtained from Biolife, Co., Italy.
91 2.3. Raw materials
92 a. Olive (Olea europaea var. Kronakii) wastes including olive leaves and olive
93 pomace were obtained from Cairo for Oil Industry, Co., Industrial Zone, 6th October
94 City, Egypt.
95 b. Apple fruits (Malus domestica var. Anna) eatable maturity form was obtained
96 from the Alexandria Agriculture Farm, Co., Egypt.
97 2.4. Analytical techniques
98 2.4.1. Olive oil processing wastes preparation and extraction
99 Olive leaves and olive pomace were oven-dried (Tit Axon S.R.L via Canova, Italy) at
100 40-50 °C gradually till the weight constant (4.37 and 7.60% moisture, respectively).
101 Subsequently, they were milled by grinder (Severin, type 3871, Germany). They were
102 passed through a 60 mesh sieve to obtain a fine homogenous powder, then packed in
103 dark glass jars then kept at -20±1 °C until use. Both olive leaves and pomace were
104 mixed with ethanol 80% (1:20, w/v) in dark bottles, and shacked at 120 rpm for 86400
105 s (Centrifuge (MLM Zentrifugenbau.TS21, Germany). The mixtures were filtered
106 through filter paper Whatman No.1. The filtrates were collected, then solvents were emoved by rotary evaporator (NE-1-Rikakikai Co., LTD, Japan) at 40 °C according
8 to [24]. The residue was collected and kept at -18+1 °C.
109 2.4.2. Film forming solution
110 The incorporated CH solutions with both ethanolic olive leaf and olive pomace
111 extracts were prepared according to [25] with some modifications. Chitosan 2% was
112 dispersed in an aqueous solution of glacial acetic acid (0.5%, v/v) at 40 °C. The
107 r 10
113 solution was heated and agitated constantly for 43200 s. Then the pH was adjusted to
114 5.6 with 1 M NaOH. Subsequently, glycerol 1.6% was added as a plasticizer [26]. The
115 solution was stirred overnight at room temperature. Finally, olive leaves and olive
116 pomace extracts at 1 and 2% were added and mixed to achieve the complete
117 dispersion.
118 2.4.3. Apple fruits coating applying
119 Apple fruits were sorted for uniform size, full color, % maturities, and for being free
120 of visible defect and of decay. Then, they were sanitized by inundation on sodium
121 hypochlorite solution 250 ppm for 2 min and washed with distilled water to eliminate
122 chlorine traces. Subsequently, cross-shaped wounds (2, 0.1 and 0.5 mm for length,
123 width and depth, respectively) were made to the fruits using sterilized Spatula
124 (Dynalon 1212W16CS 391905) and inoculated by 10 |jL P. expansum spore
125 suspension (105 CFU/ mL). The coating solutions (as described above section 2.4.2)
126 were sprayed twice on the whole fruit surface using a multi-function hand 2L pressure
127 sprayer (Ningbo Synkemi Co., type SK-2B, China) and allowed to be air-dried at
128 ambient temperature for 7200 s. Seven groups of samples were prepared in total:
129 uncoated (control), CH (2% w/v), Chitosan-Olive leaves extracts CH-OLE (1 and 2%
130 w/v), Chitosan-Olive pomace extracts CH-OPE (1 and 2% w/v), and WW-TBZ 0.1%
131 -coated fruits as a positive control, according to [27]. Fruits were packed in boxes
32 (~3 fruit per box) as a three replicate and wrapped with polyethylene sheets, then
33 stored at 4±1 °C for 35 d. The nutritional characteristics, keeping parameters and
134 weight loss of fruits were evaluated at the beginning of the experiment (i.e, 0 d) then
135 at a 7 d interval up to 35 d.
136 2.4.4. Bioactive substances of coated apple fruits
137 2.4.4.1. Anthocyanins content
138 The anthocyanins content of apple fruits was determined according to [28]. A 0.005
139 kg apple samples were extracted with 45 mL of acidified ethanol (95% ethanol: HCl
140 1.5 N 85:15) for 7200 s at room temperature in the dark, filtered and measured at 535
141 nm using spectrophotometer (CE599- Automatic Scanning Spectrophotometer,
142 GECIL, England) .
143 2.4.4.2. Carotenoids and chlorophylls content
144 A 0.01 kg apple sample was mixed with 50 mL acetone 85% in dark bottle and left to
145 stand for 54000 s at room temperature. The mixture was filtered through glass wool
dark bottle and ] d throu
146 into a 100 mL volumetric flask and made up to appropriate volume by the same
147 solvent. The chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids wert immediately measured at 440, 644
148 and 662 nm using the same spectrophotometer according to [29].
149 2.4.4.3. Total phenolic compounds content
150 The total phenolic compounds (TPC) for acetone extracts of apple were determined
151 according to [30]. In brief, 200 ^L of each sample was mixed with 1 mL of 10-fold
152 diluted Folin-Ciocalteu reagent; the reaction was terminated after 300 s by 1 mL of
153 Na2CO3 7.5%, then 1.5 mL distilled water was added. The mixtures were incubated in
154 dark for 3600 s then the absorbance at 760 nm was measured using the same
155 spectrophotometer. The TPC was expressed as gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE 100 g-1)
156 using the following straight-line linear regression equation based on the calibration
157 curve:
58 Y= 0.0201 x + 0.0538 (R2= 0.99)....................................(1)
159 Where, Y is the concentration and X is the absorbance.
160 2.4.4.4. Total flavonoids content
161 The total flavonoids content (TF), for acetone extracts of apple, was determined
162 according to [31]. A 0.5 mL aliquot of AICI3 2% ethanolic solution was added to 0.5
163 mL of extracts and mixed well. Then it was kept for 3600 s at room temperature and
164 the absorbance at 420 nm was measured using the same spectrophotometer. The final
165 concentration of TF was expressed as quercetin equivalent (mg QE g-1) which was
166 calculated using the following straight line linear regression equation based on the
167 calibration curve:
168 Y = 0.037x+0.1363 (R2= 0.98) ...................................(2)
169 Where, Y is the concentration and X is the absorbance.
170 2.4.4.5. Antioxidant activity
171 The antioxidant activity (AOA) of apple acetonic extracts was evaluated according to
172 [32]. A 0.1 mL extract was added to 3.9 mL of DPPH* methanolic solution, then the
173 absorbance at 517 nm was measured after the solution had been allowed to stand in
174 the dark for 600 s at 517 nm using the same spectrophotometer. The final results were
g the same spectr g the same spectr
(RmoL TE g
175 expressed as Trolox equivalents (^moL TE g-1).
176 2.4.4.6. Decay area determination
177 Mold growth area of inoculated apple was checked by measuring in terms of the
178 decay area every seven days using micrometric ruler according to [33].
179 2.4.4.7. ^M icrostructure analysis
180 The surface and cross-section microstructures of apple skins, which had been coated
181 by selected formulas such as CH 2%, CH-OLE 2%, CH-OPE 2%, and uncoated fruits,
182 were examined and scanned using an electron microscope. Tissues from different 3 treatments were fixed in 4% glutaradehyde in 0.2 M sodium cocodylate buffer (pH
184 4.1) for 14400 s, formerly fixated later in osmium tetraoxide for 7200 s. Fixed tissues
185 were rinsed in the same buffer three times and dehydrated through a graded ethanol
186 series 10 to 100% for 600 s up to 1800 s in final concentration. The specimens were
187 transferred on cupper slide and dehydrated using critical point dryer with liquid
188 carbon dioxide, then coated with gold using (S150A Sputter coater-Edwards-
189 England). The specimens were examined and photographed using scanning electron
190 microscope with proper magnification (JXA-840A, Electron Probe Micro analyzer
191 JEOL, Japan).
192 2.4.5. Statistical analysis
193 The statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS program with multi-function
194 utility regarding to the experimental design and multiple comparisons were carried
195 out applying LSD according to [34].
196 3. Results and discussions
197 3.1. Weight loss
198 The effect of CH-incorporated films on weight loss of apple fruits during cold storage » „ ^ in T* we^, 10SS Ste.„y ^ «ng a Prol0„8ed ^
200 period either coated or uncoated fruits. Significant difference (p<0.05) was observed
201 between uncoated and coated fruits with the progression of storage period. Uncoated
202 apples fruits showed weight loss was as high during storage period. Significant
203 difference (p<0.05) was found between CH incorporated film and WW-TBZ.
204 Statistically, uncoated apples evident the highest weight loss to be 3.03% during the
205 whole storage period and 8.50% after 35 days. Conversely, the lowest observed loss
206 was 2.66 % using CH-OLE 2%. The formed CH film on surface of coated fruits 07 delayed the migration of moisture. These CH- based coating strategies to reduce the
8 weight loss during storage and its concept were used before as mentioned [10].
209 3.2. Anthocyanins content
210 The initial anthocyanins of coated apple with CH-OPE 2% and uncoated apple were
211 20.83 and 19.00 mg 100g-1, respectively (Fig.2). Indeed, during the preliminary stage
212 of cold storage the uncoated and coated fruits show a significant increase in
parisons
eight loss of ap
loss steadily incr fruits. Sign
213 anthocyanins content. [35] reported that fruits become darker during storage due to
214 releasing cell anthocyanins' after its decomposition. Following 14 d of storage, there
215 were, generally, plodding declines of anthocyanins. At 35 d, CH-OPE 2% film had
216 relatively higher anthocyanins content. Based on Fig. 2, the control had about 41%
217 less anthocyanin relative to both CH-OPE 2% and CH-OLE 2% at 35 d. Applying
218 CH-OOW films maintained the anthocyanins better than WW-TBZ films. Coating
219 acts as a gas barrier, thus lowering internal O2 levels and increasing CO2. Under these
220 conditions, metabolism and catabolism are slowed down which contribute to
221 preserving nutraceuticals for longer periods [36]. Also, olive pomace extracts contains
222 a lot of AOA that prevent cell wall oxidation [37].
223 3.3. Carotenoids contents
224 Over the 35 d period, a decremental rate has been observed during cold storage in
225 either uncoated or coated fruits (Fig. 3). Between both CH-OLE 2% and CH-OPE 2%
226 on one side and the rest of the other films, there were marginal differences (p<0.05).
227 The coated apple with CH-OPE 2% was the lowest decreases in carotenoids contents
228 (1.59 mg g-1) compared with uncoated apple (0.52 mg g-1) at the end of storage
229 period. So far, there are no studies on the effect of the coating materials on the content
230 of carotenoids in fruits. However, [38] found that cold storage was decreased the
231 carotenoids in some vegetable and fruits. 32^3.4. Chlorophylls contents
33 The differences among coatings were quite trivial up to 21 d; however, a sharp
234 upward content of Chlorophyll a (~2.5 to ~4.5 mg g-1), and for Chloroyphyl b (~4.5 to
235 ~ 9.0 mg g-1) occurred towards the 28 d for the uncoated fruits (Fig.4 A, B). However,
236 the uncoated apple scored the highest chlorophyll a and b regardless the storage
237 periods. Then it was followed by CH 2% for chlorophyll a and WW-TBZ for
238 chlorophyll b. In contrarily, CH-OOW led to decrease the increasing of chlorophylls
239 releasing during storage. These changes may occur because so-called weight losses in
240 fruits during post-harvest related to the result mentioned before (3.1). There are no
241 studies on the effect of the coating materials on apples' chlorophylls content.
242 3.5. Total phenolic compounds
243 The initial TPC content was varied, for instance the mean value of TPC in uncoated
244 and CH-OLE 2% for apple fruits were (1.62 and 1.71) mg GAE g-1, respectively.
245 These differences owing to the phenolic were involved in the composition of OOW
246 which used in film formation and fruits coating. However, it was 0.43 mg GAE g-1 at
247 the end of storage. Over the 35 d trial period, all coating films had varying positive
248 impacts (p<0.05) on slowing down apple fruit total TPC degradation rate relative to
249 that of the Control (Fig. 5). All four CH-OPE/OLE films caused TPC degradation
250 rates steadily drop towards the 35 d time; yet CH 2%, TBZ 0.1%, and control, all
251 exhibited relatively faster downward degradation rates. Both olive extracts, as basic
252 components of CH coating thereby had potentials in maintaining fruit TPC as intact as
253 possible in relation to CH coating impact by itself. The lowest decreases in TPC were
254 showed in coated apple with CH-OLE 2% to be 1.24 mg GAE g-1. Otherwise the
255 highest decreases in TPC were observed in uncoated fruits reached to 028 mg GAE g-1 at
256 end of storage period. [39] explained how cell breakdown releases phenolic
57 compounds that are exposed to enzymatic oxidation. CH-OOW compounds might
58 function as protective barriers on the fruits surface to reduce oxygen supply. This
259 finding was similar to what [40] had found in apple fruits.
260 3.6. Total flavonoids content
261 The variation in TF content during cold storage of uncoated and coated fruits is
262 exhibited in Fig.6. The TF content progressively decreased during storage period,
263 recording a relatively greater reduction in uncoated fruits. The loss in TF in uncoated
264 fruits was extremely rapid compared with the CH-OLE 2% coated fruits to be 0.02 vs
265 0.93 mg QE 100g-1, respectively at the end of storage period. Indeed, significant
266 difference (P<0.05) in TF content was noticed between all coated and uncoated fruits.
267 Otherwise, no significant difference (p>0.05) was found between both CH-OLE 1%
268 and CH-OPE 1%, or between CH-OLE 2% and CH-OPE 2%. Yet there are rarely
269 available studies have examined the effect of coating on TF in apple fruits, whereas,
270 [40] mentioned that the TF was decreased during cold storage.
271 3.7. Antioxidant activity
272 Similarly, during the storage period the AOA sharply decreased especially in
273 uncoated fruits compared to the coated ones (Fig. 7). The AOA significantly
274 decreased (P<0.05) from 13.80 to 6.90 ¡moL TE g-1 in uncoated apple after 14 d.
to 6.90 ¡imoL TE was observ
275 However, low decremental rate was observed in coated fruits. Coating apple fruits
276 with CH-OLE 2% or CH-OPE 2% exhibit the lowest decreases rather than WW-TBZ
277 0.1%. [3, 39] stated valuable finding about the preventing of AOA losses in apple
278 fruits during cold storage using edible coating.
279 3.8. Decay area
280 Generally, the infected area gradually increased by extending storage periods (Fig.8
281 A, B). Regardless the coating treatments the initial and the final infected area was 3 82 iand 13.28 mm2 13.28, respectively. The decayed area of coated apple was smaller
3 significantly reduced compared to the uncoated fruits. For example the early signs of
284 mold development in uncoated apple appeared after 7 d of storage and it was delayed
285 in the others fruits. CH-OLE 2% had a relatively low decay area compared to each of
286 CH, WW-TBZ, and uncoated fruits. Mean decayed area on the control vs CH-OLE2%
287 fruits was about 3-folds as much. Obviously, the highest observed areas were 25.33
288 mm2 in uncoated apple at the end of storage. While, the lowest observed areas were
289 7.33 mm2 in coated apple with CH-OLE 2%. Both CH and CH- OOW were more
290 effective than the commercial coating material of WW-TBZ regarding growth of
291 fungal strains Fig.8. This is due to its antifungal activity [41]. [42] suggested that CH
292 induces chitinase, as defense enzyme catalyzes the hydrolysis of chitin, a common
293 component of fungal cell walls, preventing or delayed the growth of fungi on the fruit.
294 Also, these results are complimentary to those of [43] who reported that significant
295 antimycotic activity of methylcellulose and CH composite films incorporated with 4%
296 of sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate. JO
297 3.9. Microstructure examination
298 The homogeneity of both CH and CH-OOW coatings, micrographs of both the
299 surface and the cross-section areas are shown in Fig.9. Coated apples, especially with
300 CH-OOW, showed uniform coating distribution, and pores were not observed
301 compared with uncoated fruits Fig.9 A, B. The higher percentage of covered surface
302 relates to the higher water vapor resistance which slowed respiration process and
303 water loss as observed in coated apple with CH-OLE 2% and CH-OPE 2% Fig. 9 E to
304 H. In addition, both CH Fig .9 C, D and CH-OOW coatings covered all irregularities
305 in the fruits skin. [44] argued that the extensibility of the liquid dispersion on the
306 covered fruit surface plays an important role in limiting water migration from the ruits.
8 4. Conclusion
309 The results of the present study asserted that the incorporation of OOW into CH
310 improved the nutritional quality for cold-stored apple fruits. Also, the coatings of CH
311 or CH-OOW have beneficial impacts on the quality retention of cold storage apple
307 f]
312 fruits especially CH-OLE 2%. The use of OOW also maintained lower weight loss.
313 Likewise, CH-OOW resulted in effectively delaying anthocyanins, total phenolic,
314 flavonoids, carotenoids, chlorophylls and antioxidants activities. Moreover, CH-OOW
315 fully covered the whole surface of apple fruits in term of skin irregularities and/or
316 pores. Hence, coatings of apple fruit with CH-OOW may be relatively more useful for
317 improving apple post-harvest quality and shelf-life stability compared to both only
318 CH and WW-TBZ coatings. These motivated results may encourage the food handlers
319 to replace the chemical coating materials with the presented coatings formulas of the
320 current study. Moreover, the applicability of such formulas on different fruits and
321 vegetables surfaces' has to further reviewing.
322 Acknowledgments
323 The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Benha university
324 project [Utilization of some agricultural wastes in food and feed processing - A/1/2]
325 2013-2015.
326 Conflict of interest
327 Authors have declared that there are no conflict of interest.
328 References
329 [1] Kalinowska M, Bielawska A, Lewandowska-Siwkiewicz H, Priebe W,
330 Lewandowski W. Apples: Content of phenolic compounds vs. variety, part of
331 apple and cultivation model, extraction of phenolic compounds, biological
332 properties. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2014;84:169-188
333 [2] Mumoli N. An Apple A Day Will Keep the Doctor away. The Journal of
334 Emergency Medicine. 2014; 46: e103
335 [3] Carbone K, Giannini B, Picchi V, Lo Scalzo R, Cecchini F. Phenolic composition
336 and free radical scavenging activity of different apple varieties in relation to the
337 cultivar, tissue type and storage. Food Chemistry. 2011; 127: 493-500
338 [4] Fawbush F, Nock JF, Watkins CB. Antioxidant contents and activity of 1339 methylcyclopropene (1-MCP)-treated 'Empire' apples in air and controlled
340 atmosphere storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2009; 52: 30-37
341 [5] Supapvanich S, Pimsaga J, Srisujan P. Physicochemical changes in fresh-cut wax
342 apple (Syzygium samarangenese [Blume] Merrill & L.M. Perry) during
343 storage. Food Chemistry. 2011; 127: 912-917
344 [6] Matthes A, Schmitz-Eiberger, M. Polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity of
345 apple fruit: effect of cultivar and storage conditions. Journal of applied botany
346 and food quality. 2012; 82: 152-157 [7] Tiwari U, Cummins E. Factors influencing levels of phytochemicals in selected
fruit and vegetables during pre-and post-harvest food processing operations. Food
349 Research International. 2013; 50(2): 497-506
350 [8] List D. Reregistration eligibility decision for thidiazuron. Environmental
351 Protection. 2005; 4: 1-12
[9] Khalifa I, Barakat H, El-Mansy HA, Soliman, SA. Enhancing the keeping quality of fresh strawberry using chitosan-incorporated olive processing wastes. Food Bioscience. 2016; 13: 69-75
[10] Shao XF, Tu K, Tu S, Tu J. A combination of heat treatment and chitosan coating delays ripening and reduces decay in "GALA" apple fruit. Journal of Food Quality. 2012; 35: 83-92
. Blueberr
372 373
[11] Yang G, Yue J, Gong X, Qian B, Wang H, Deng Y, Zhao Y. Blueberry leaf extracts incorporated chitosan coatings for preserving postharvest quality of fresh blueberries. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2014; 92: 46-53
[12] Martínez-Camacho AP, Cortez-Rocha MO, Ezquerra-Brauer JM, Graciano-Verdugo AZ, Rodriguez-Félix F, Castillo-Ortega MM, Yépiz-Gómez MS, Plascencia-Jatomea M. Chitosan composite films: thermal, structural, mechanical and antifungal properties. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2010; 82: 305-315
[13] Aider M. Chitosan application for active bio-based films production and potential in the food industry: Review. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2010;43:837-842
[14] Fernandez-Saiz P, Lagaron JM, Ocio MJ. Optimization of the biocide properties of chitosan for its application in the design of active films of interest in the food area. Food Hydrocolloids. 2009; 23: 913-921
[15] Kean T, Thanou M. Biodegradation, biodistribution and toxicity of chitosan. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2010; 62: 3-11
[16] Ojagh SM, Rezaei M, Razavi SH, Hosseini SMH. Effect of chitosan coatings enriched with cinnamon oil on the quality of refrigerated rainbow trout. Food chemistry. 2010; 120: 193-198
¿Ult,
376 [17] Apostolakis A, Grigorakis S, Makris DP. Optimisation and comparative
377 kinetics study of polyphenol extraction from olive leaves (Olea europaea) using
378 heated water/glycerol mixtures. Separation and Purification Technology. 2014;
379 128: 89-95
380 [18] Guinda Á, Castellano JM, Santos-Lozano JM, Delgado-Hervás T, Gutiérrez-
381 Adánez P, Rada M. Determination of major bioactive compounds from olive leaf.
382 LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2015;64(1):431-438
383 [19] Paini M, Aliakbarian B, Casazza AA, Lagazzo A, Botter R, Perego P.
384 Microencapsulation of phenolic compounds from olive pomace using spray
385 drying: A study of operative parameters. LWT - Food Science and Technology.
386 2015;62: 177-186
387 [20] Moudache M, Colon M, Nenn C, Zaidi F. Phenolic content and antioxidant
388 activity of olive by-products and antioxidant film containing Olive Leaf extract.
389 Food Chemistry. 2016; 212: 521-527
390 [21] Talhaoui N, Taamalli A, Gómez-Caravaca M, Fernández-Gutiérrez A,
391 Segura-Carretero A. Phenolic compounds in olive leaves: Analytical
392 determination, biotic and abiotic influence, and health benefits. Food Research
393 International. 2015;77: 92-108
394 |[22] Talhaoui N, Gómez-Caravaca AM, León L, De la Rosa R, Segura-Carretero
95 A, Fernández-Gutiérrez A. Determination of phenolic compounds of 'Sikitita'
96 olive leaves by HPLC-DAD-TOF-MS. Comparison with its parents 'Arbequina'
397 and 'Picual' olive leaves. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2014;58: 28-34
398 [23] Marcos B, Sárraga C, Castellari M, Kappen F, Schennink G, Arnau J.
399 Development of biodegradable films with antioxidant properties based on
polyesters containing a-tocopherol and olive leaf extract for food packaging applications. Food Packaging and Shelf Life. 2014; 1: 140-150 [24] Ozge EZ, Çam B, Turhan KN. Characterization of antimicrobial polylactic acid based films. Journal of Food Engineering. 2013;119: 308-315
[25] Lafka T, Lazou AE, Sinanoglou VJ, Lazos ES. Phenolic and antioxidant
potential of olive oil mill wastes. Food Chemistry. 2011 ;125: 92-98
[26] Gol NB, Patel PR, Rao TVR. Improvement of quality and shelf-life of strawberries with edible coatings enriched with chitosan. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2013;85: 185-195
[27] Sánchez-González L, Pastor C, Vargas M, Chiralt A, González-Martínez C, Cháfer M. Effect of hydroxypropylmethylcellulose and chitosan coatings with and without bergamot essential oil on quality and safety of cold-stored grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2011; 60: 57-63
[28] Zhang D, Quantick PC. Effects of chitosan coating on enzymatic browning and decay during postharvest storage of litchi (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 1997;12: 195-202
[29] Fuleki T, Francis FJ. Quantitative methods for anthocyanins. Journal of Food Science. 1968;33: 266-274
30] Raghuramulu N, Madhavan K, Kalyanasundaram S. Manual of laboratory techniques. National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India; 1983. p. 42.
[31] Khalifa I, Barakat H, El-Mansy H A, Soliman SA. Influencing of Guava Processing Residues Incorporation on Cupcake Characterization. J Nutr Food Sci. 2016; 6:513-521
423 [32] Khalifa I, Barakat H, El-Mansy HA, Soliman SA. Physico-Chemical,
424 Organolyptical and Microbiological Characteristics of Substituted Cupcake by
425 Potato Processing Residues. Food and Nutrition Sciences. 2015; 601-83
426 [33] Gniewosz M, Synowiec A, Krasniewska K, Przybyl JL, B^czek K, W^glarz Z.
427 The antimicrobial activity of pullulan film incorporated with meadowsweet
428 flower extracts (Filipendulae ulmariae flos) on postharvest quality of apples.
429 Food Control. 2014;37: 351-361
430 [34] Steel R, Torrie J, Dickey D. Principles and procedures of statistics: a
431 biometrical approach. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY; 1997, 3rd ed.
432 [35] Shao XF, Cao B, Xu F, Xie S, Yu D, Wang H. Effect of postharvest
433 application of chitosan combined with clove oil against citrus green mold.
434 Postharvest Biology and Technolog ;y. 2015;99: 37-43
435 [36] Tzoumaki MV, Biliaderis CG, Vasilakakis M. Impact of edible coatings and
436 packaging on quality of white asparagus ( Asparagus officinalis L.) during cold
437 storage. Food chemistry. 2009;117: 55-63
438 [37] Yang FM, Li HM, Li F, Xin ZH, Zhao LY, Zheng YH, Hu QH. Effect of
439 Nano-Packing on preservation quality of fresh strawberry (Fragaria ananassa
440 Duch. cv Fengxiang) during storage at 4° C. Journal of food science. 2010;75:
441 C236-C240
42 [38] Anjum F, Khan BA, Noreen N, Masood T, Faisal S. Effect of boiling and
43 storage on Beta-Carotene content of different vegetables. Pakistan Journal of Life
444 and Social Sciences 2008; 6:63-67
445 [39] Rodrigues F, Pimentel FB, Oliveira MBPP. Olive by-products: Challenge
446 application in cosmetic industry. Industrial Crops and Products. 2015;70: 116-124
447 [40] Macheix JJ, Fleuriet A. Fruit Phenolics. USA:CRC Press LLC; 1990. p.1-10.
448 [41] Hoang NT, Golding JB, Wilkes MA. The effect of postharvest 1-MCP
449 treatment and storage atmosphere on 'Cripps Pink' apple phenolics and
450 antioxidant activity. Food Chemistry. 2011;127: 1249-1256
451 [42] El-Ghaouth A, Arul J, Ponnampalam R, Boulet M. Chitosan coating effect on
452 storability and quality of fresh strawberries. Journal of Food Science. 1991; 56:
453 1618-1620.
454 [43] Park SL, Stan SD, Daeschel MA, Zhao Y. Antifungal coatings on fresh
455 strawberries (Fragaria x ananassa) to control mold growth during cold storage.
456 Journal of Food Science. 2005; 70: 202-207.
457 [44] Khalifa I, Barakat H, El-Mansy HA, Soliman SA. Improving the shelf-life
458 stability of apple and strawberry fruits applying chitosan-incorporated olive oil
459 processing residues coating. Food Packaging and Shelf Life. 2016; 9: 10-19
Figure Captions:
Fijgp!. Effect of CH, CH-OOW and WW-TBZ coating solution on weight loss in apple fruits during cold storage at 4±1 °C, (Mean±SD, «=3).
Fig6>4E. Monitoring of anthocyanins for coated and uncoated apple fruits with different chifösan based coating formulas during cold storage at 4±1 °C, (Mean±SD, n=3). Figi3. Changing of carotenoids in coated and uncoated apple fruits with different chitosan based coating formulas during cold storage at 4±1 °C, (Mean±SD, n=3). Fig>4. Changing of chlorophyll a (A) and chlorophyll b (B) in coated and uncoated apple frftte with different chitosan based coating formulas during cold storage at 4±1 °C, (Mean+SD, n=3).
Fig.5. Monitoring of TPC for coated and uncoated apple fruits with different chitosan based coating formulas during cold storage at 4+1 °C, (Mean±SD, n=3).
pple fruits
ncoated
Fig.6. Monitoring of TF for coated and uncoated apple fruits with different chitosan based coating formulas during cold storage at 4+1 °C, (Mean+SD, n=3).
Fig.7. Monitoring of AOA for coated and uncoated apple fruits with different chitosan based coating formulas during cold storage at 4+1 °C, (Mean+SD, n=3).
Fig78. Decay area in uncoated apple and coated with CH and WW-TBZ (A), CH-OOW (B) in478ted with R. stolonifer during cold storage at 4+1 °C, (Mean+SD, n=3). Fig.9. Scanning electron micrographs of surface and cross-section of uncoated; (A, B) and coated apple fruits with CH; (C, D), CH-OLE 2%; (E, F) and CH-OPE 2%; (G, H) formulas, 1).
Surface Cross section
Uncoated A B
CH 2% C D
CH-OLE 2% E F
CH-OLP 2% G H
Uncoated TBZ 0.1% CH-OPEl% CH-OPE2%
—CH2% ♦CH-OLE1 % -•-CH-OLE2 %
o w»1 25
"S a 19
w o 16
■Uncoated •TBZO.1% ■CH-OPEl% •CH-OPE2%
•CH 2%
■CH-OLEl%
■CH-OLE2%
Storage period (day)
— 1 J IHMIIlii'il
-I It^ (K 1 -< -1 i -* > f: ■ ^ < II -< * l"l ? -vs.
I 'll ( >| I- ■
ttjj £
I -* 2 I 2 K
»toi'HRe period (<lny)
• Uncww « wd ■■ < ' I ■
ft. I -v;, —« »■ ■ 'S^,
——« -■ ■-€ ■ -^-i, —« -i » ■
"7 ■ -» 2 ■ 2H
Mtn>-»K«' ■ ■ < <• »»>' >
'Lmcontfca — c - ■ ■ z - vs.
O.I ■! C^l ■ ~ ^ > ■ ^ ■■ "i-"!»
* a • —< » a - a-- a « * - ■ a - * » a - ica -s^-sp
r^ * f ■ ■ > * « fc * II < >' >
-a-Uncoated -a-CH 2%
-a-TBZ 0.1% *CH-OLEl%
♦CH-OPEl% -o-CH-OLE2% ♦CH-OPE2%
7 14 21 28
Storage period (day)
7 14 21
Storage period (day)
■Uncoated rTBZ 0.1% <H-OPEl%
CH-OLEl%
CH-OLE2%
Storage period (day)
-♦-U n coated -*-TBZ 0.1% -•■CH-OPE1 % ♦CH-OPE2%
-CH 2%
i-CH-OLEl%
t-CH-OLE2%
—i—
Storage period (day)
■Uncoated ■TBZ 0.1% ■CH-OPEl% ■CH-OPE2%
•CH 2%
■CH-OLEl%
■CH-OLE2%
Uncoated TBZ 0.1% CH-OPEl% CH-OPE2%
•CH 2%
■CH-OLEl%
•CH-OLE2%
£ 20 S3 is
- C I ■ 2%
* XBZ 0.1%
Storage per
iod ( (Iay)
CH-OLE1 % CH-OPEl% CH-OLE2% CH-OPE2%
7 14 21
Storage period (day)
OOR + CH CH-OOR Spray coating
Highlights: 518
519 Revalorization of olive leaves and pomace has been concerned.
520 A novel edible coating solution of chitosan based had been developed.
521 CH-OLE 2% was the best emulsion coating rather than other formulas.
522 CH-OOW was significantly preserving the nutritional compounds of apple fruits. 528 CH-OOW was gradually kept bioactive substances in apple compared to WW-TBZ.