Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2185
Abstract: Effects of the various coatings (whey protein isolate, chitosan and shellac) on fresh eggs quality
were evaluated based on the interior quality and sensory evaluation during 4 weeks of storage. During
storage, all egg weights and albumen heights decreased and albumen pH increased. The lowest weight
loss (0.75%) was observed in shellac-coated eggs. Eggs coated with chitosan and whey protein also had
significantly lower weight loss than uncoated (UC) eggs (p < 0.05). The albumen pH of the UC eggs was
significantly higher than that of coated eggs and increased during storage time. The Haugh unit and
yolk-index values of all coated eggs were significantly higher than those of UC. Among the coated eggs,
the shellac eggs had the highest value of Haugh unit and yolk index. Chitosan and shellac effectively
maintained grade ‘A’ eggs for at least 2 weeks more than control and 1 week more than whey protein
isolate. On the basis of sensory evaluation, shellac has highest glossiness, but lowest general acceptability.
Eggs coated with whey protein had significantly higher general acceptability. Yolk lightness (L∗ ) (a∗ ) and
∗
(b∗ ) of coated eggs were not different from UC after 4 weeks. The Eab values of color differences were
similar to controls. The study demonstrated that various coatings improved the shelf life of eggs.
2005 Society of Chemical Industry
Keywords: shell eggs; edible films; coating; shelf life; Haugh unit; yolk index
∗ Correspondence to: Cengiz Caner, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Engineering–Architecture Faculty, Department of Food
Engineering, 017020-Canakkale, Turkey
E-mail: ccaner@comu.edu.tr
(Received 23 November 2004; revised version received 17 December 2004; accepted 24 January 2005)
Published online 4 May 2005
2005 Society of Chemical Industry. J Sci Food Agric 0022–5142/2005/$30.00 1897
C Caner
and yolk and shell color after 4 weeks of storage); (2) to Where H is the height of the thick albumen in
evaluate the consumer perception and acceptability on millimeters and G is the mass of the whole egg in
coated eggs. grams. The parameter H was estimated by averaging
three measurements carried out in different points
of thick albumen at the distance of 10 mm from the
MATERIALS AND METHODS yolk using a digital caliper (CD-15CP, Mitutoya Ltd,
Clean, white-shell, fresh, hens eggs were used in the Hampshire, UK).
present study. A local egg producer provides fresh Yolk index was calculated as yolk height/yolk width.
eggs in Canakkale. Shell eggs were washed to remove Yolk width was measured with digital caliper (CD-
debris from the surface. Treatments consisted of eggs 15CP, Mitutoya Ltd, UK).4
coated with chitosan, whey protein or shellac as well
as uncoated eggs as control. Measurement was carried pH measurement
out at 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks at room temperature. After albumen height (mm) had been measured,
albumen was separated from yolk. The volumes (ml)
Preparation of coating solution of firm and thin albumen were homogenized for 20 s
Chitosan coating solutions were prepared according to with a Waring Blender Model 32 BL 80 (Waring Com,
Caner et al 8 using 3 g (3% w/w) of chitosan (Vanson Torrington, CT) prior to being measured for pH. The
HaloSource, Redmond, WA) in 100 ml of water while pH of the homogenized albumen was measured by a
stirring on magnetic stirrer/hotplate. Acetic acid was pH 210 meter (Hanna Inst, Woonsocket, RI).
added at 1% concentration. Glycerol was added at
0.25 ml glycerol g−1 chitosan. The solution was stirred
with low heat for 60 min.8 Shell and yolk color
Whey protein films were prepared at 12% (w/w The color of shell and yolk was measured with a
protein) using whey protein isolate (WPI) (Davisco Minolta Chroma Meter Model CR-300 (Minolta Co
Foods International, Eden Prairie, MN) in 100 ml of Ltd, Osaka, Japan). Five eggshells were crushed so that
water. Glycerol was then added to give plasticizer: the coated shell surface could be evenly distributed
protein ratios of 2:1 w/w in solution while the solution inside the measurement cup. The shell4 and yolk6
was stirred continuously on a magnetic stirrer at 80 ◦ C were scanned at four different locations and the
for 30 min under neutral pH.11 – 13 Shellac coating measurements averaged. Results were expressed as L
were obtained from Mantrose-Haeuser Co, (Westport value (Lightness) and a (redness), b value (yellowness).
∗
CT). Commercial shellac was mixed with ethyl alcohol A single numerical value, Eab indicates the size of
(25:75 v/v). Preparation of all coatings was based on color differences when compared with control and can
optimum conditions of film-forming properties. be calculated by the following equation:
∗
Coating of eggs with coating solutions Eab = (L∗ )2 + (a∗ )2 + (b∗ )2
After washing with water, the dried eggs were
immersed in the coating solutions by hand for 1 min, Where L∗ = Lcoating − Lcontrol ; a∗ = acoating −
this process repeated once more and than dried acontrol ; b∗ = bcoating − bcontrol
at ambient temperature for 1 day. The eggs were
placed in a mold-pulp container, and then stored
at ambient laboratory conditions (around 25 ◦ C for Sensory analysis
4 weeks) during the experiment. Sensory properties were evaluated using a hedonic
Samples were divided into four groups, one of them scale for sensory evaluation of coated and uncoated
for uncoated (control) and the others used for the (commercial) eggs by 98 panelists. A 9-point hedonic
coatings. Ten separate eggs for each group (control, scale was used with 1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither
chitosan, whey and shellac) were drawn each week for like nor dislike, 9 = like extremely. Each panelist was
the 4 weeks for measurement. asked to evaluate the eggs groups in terms of surface
smoothness, surface glossiness, odor, adhesiveness and
Moisture loss overall acceptability.
Weight loss of eggs during storage was calculated by
subtracting the final weight from the initial weight and Data analysis
then dividing by the initial weight. Percentage moisture This study evaluated the combined effect of coatings
loss was calculated by multiplying the moisture loss by and storage time on the properties of eggs. Analysis
100.4 Measurement were recorded to within 0.001 g. of variance was carried out on all the measured
parameters among the control and coated eggs during
Haugh unit and yolk index the storage time. Every treatment was performed
Haugh unit was calculated by the following twice. Statistical procedures were done using least-
formula:4,16 square means of the statistical analysis software
program LSM-PROG GLM.17 p-values of 0.05 or
Haugh unit = 100 log(H − 1.7 G0.37 + 7.6) less were considered significant.
Table 1. Effect of coating on least-square mean (SE) values of the percentage weight loss
Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
WPI: whey protein isolate.
Control 7.48 (0.08)a 7.83 (0.07)b 9.04 (0.06)e,f 9.22 (0.07)e,g 9.3 (0.06)g
WPI 7.48 (0.1)a 7.86 (0.06)b 8.79 (0.07)c,h 8.96 (0.07)d,f,h 9.10 (0.05)g,f
Chitosan 7.49 (0.08)a 7.81 (0.131)b 8.67 (0.07)c 8.79 (0.06)c,d 8.83 (0.04)c,d
Shellac 7.50 (0.06)a 7.83 (0.06)b 8.69 (0.07)c 8.81 (0.07)c,h 8.82 (0.05)c,h
Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
WPI: whey protein isolate.
Control 70.52 (2.11)a 55.64 (1.72)b 47.25 (1.49)c,d 44.29 (1.49)c 38.87 (1.49)e
WPI 70.52 (2.11)a 59.87 (1.33)b,g 56.81 (1.49)b,j 50.66 (1.49)d,h 46.35 (1.33)c
Chitosan 70.52 (0.01)a 66.31 (1.49)a,f 61.99 (1.49)g 59.29 (1.49)b,g 51.19 (1.21)h
Shellac 70.52 (2.11)a 66.61 (1.49)a,i 63.30 (1.49)f,g,i 60.84 (1.49)g,j 52.50 (1.49)b,h
Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
WPI: whey protein isolate.
WPI treatment showed a significant decrease in HU. and liquefaction of the yolk caused by diffusion of
No significant differences were observed in HU of water from the albumen.4,18,20 A fresh, good quality
chitosan- and shellac-coated eggs between 1 and egg has a yolk index of around 0.45 and an older
2 weeks and between 2 and 3 weeks. (Table 3). The yolk would have a lower index.16 The yolk index of
HU of coated eggs ranging from 46.35 to 52.50 after the control eggs was significantly lower than those
4 weeks of storage and was similar to the control HU of all coated eggs. Eggs coated with shellac have a
(47.25) eggs after 2 weeks of storage. Eggs coated with significantly higher YI than eggs coated with WPI
WPI, chitosan and shellac remained at 46, 51 and 52 but not than coated with chitosan (Table 5). Storage
HU, respectively, after 4 weeks of storage compared time has a significant effect on the YI (p < 0.05).
with control eggs with a Haugh unit of 38 (Table 3). After 2 weeks of storage, YI values of control eggs
The HU of the uncoated eggs decreased more rapidly decreased from 0.37 to 0.28. While the YI value of
than that of coated eggs. These result agreed with WPI after 4 weeks of storage, chitosan- and shellac-
those of Bahale et al 4 and also Wong et al.2 coated eggs were 0.28, 0.29 and 0.31, respectively;
While eggs coated with chitosan and shellac the YI of the control was 0.24. These YI values
maintained a grade A (HU > 55) through 3 weeks, at 4 weeks were similar to those at 2 weeks for the
eggs coated with WPI maintained grade A through control. The YI values of the coated eggs after 1 week
2 weeks. The uncoated eggs dropped from A to B (HU were significantly higher than the control (Table 5).
from 31 to 54) after 1 week of storage (Table 4). These Coating with shellac gave significantly higher YI values
result were in agreement with those of Bahale et al 4 and at 2 weeks. No significant differences in yolk index
also Wong et al.2 Wong et al 2 reported that uncoated among the three different coatings at 3 and 4 weeks
eggs changed from grade A to B after 1 week and, (p < 0.05). However, the YI values of eggs coated
coated with different coating materials (soy, corn), with shellac are higher than those coated with WPI
were still in grade B after 28 days of storage. and chitosan. Chitosan gave the second highest YI
values. According to these results coating with shellac
Yolk index helps to preserve the yolk quality for at least 2–3 weeks
Yolk index (YI), by measuring the yolk height and longer than control at room temperature.
width, is an indication of freshness. YI indicates a
progressive deterioration of the vitelline membranes
Shell color
Table 4. Grade of coated eggs during 4 weeks of storage based on A functional property such as color is one of the
the HU main factors responsible for the final acceptance
of products by consumers in making a decision to
Coating 0 week 1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks
purchase products. Discoloration of products may
Control A A B B B lead to dissatisfaction and additional expense for
WPI A A A B B replacement. Color values of the shell such as L∗ , a∗ ,
Chitosan A A A A B and b∗ provide objective evaluation of appearance of
Shellac A A A A B coated eggs. The shell color of the coated and uncoated
The grade A, or B is given an egg based upon interior and exterior eggs after 4 weeks of storage are shown in Table 6.
quality, not size. A grade >55, B ranges from 31 to 54; C <30. The L∗ value ranged form 85.75 to 88.16, indicating
WPI: whey protein isolate. lightness (light-colored shell). All coated eggs have
Table 5. Effect of coating on least-square mean (SE) values of the yolk index
Control 0.37 (0.01)a,f,k 0.31 (0.01)c,d,g 0.28 (0.01)e,h 0.27 (0.007)h 0.24 (0.007)I
WPI 0.37 (0.01)a,f,m 0.34 (0.007)b,g,l,n 0.32 (0.007)c,d,n 0.30 (0.009)d,e 0.28 (0.09)e,h
Chitosan 0.37 (0.01)a,f,k 0.35 (0.006)b 0.34 (0.007)b,c 0.31 (0.006)d 0.29 (0.006)e,h
Shellac 0.37 (0.01)a,f,k 0.36 (0.007)a,b,m 0.35 (0.006)b 0.32 (0.007)c,d,l 0.31 (0.006)d,e
Mean (SE: standard error) in the table followed by different letters differ significantly at p < 0.05.
WPI: whey protein isolate.
Table 6. Color parameters lightness (L), greenness (-a) and can judge the acceptability of product appearance.
yellowness (b) values of uncoated and coated eggshell after 4 weeks There were no significant difference in acceptability
of storage at room temperature of surface smoothness among the control and
Samples L∗ a∗ b∗ ∗
Eab coated eggs except for the WPI-coated eggs. These
samples had significantly higher surface smoothness
Uncoated 85.75 −2.09 4.58 — than others (p < 0.05). Control had significantly
WPI 87.41 −2.247 6.51 2.55 lower surface glossiness and surface odor (p <
Chitosan 88.16 −2.380 5.46 2.58
0.05). Shellac-coated shells had significantly higher
Shellac 87.73 −2.361 5.84 2.36
surface glossiness (p < 0.05). Eggs coated with
WPI: whey protein isolate. chitosan had highest surface odor followed by those
with shellac. Shellac- and WPI-coated eggs had
Table 7. Color parameters (lightness (L), greenness (-a) and higher values for stickiness (p < 0.05). Consumers
yellowness (b) values of uncoated and coated eggs yolk after 4 weeks preferred some surface glossiness but not the high
of storage at room temperature glossiness from shellac coating. Eggs coated with
WPI had significantly higher general acceptability.
Samples L∗ a∗ b∗ ∗
Eab
Even though eggs coated with shellac had lower
Uncoated 52.26 −0.674 40.65 — general acceptability, some of consumers gave very
WPI 51.74 −0.923 39.18 1.58 high scores while some of them gave very low scores
Chitosan 53.27 −0.555 40.98 1.07 (Table 8).
Shellac 53.72 −2.521 38.85 2.96
Control 5.73 (0.142)a 4.40 (0.09)a 0.86 (0.126)a 0.77 (0.125)a 6.02 (0.149)a
WPI 6.14 (0.142)b 6.39 (0.08)b 1.99 (0.11)b 3.47 (0.122)b 6.44 (0.147)b
Chitosan 5.63 (0.142)a 5.37 (0.08)c 4.14 (0.13)c 1.94 (0.123)c 5.95 (0.147)a
Shellac 5.69 (0.142)a 7.58 (0.08)d 2.60 (0.135)d 3.88 (0.124)d 4.31 (0.146)c
Least-square mean (SE: standard error) in same column followed by different letters differ significantly at p < 0.05.
WPI: whey protein isolate.
package types so as to minimize shell egg breakage 10 Krochta JM and DeMulder JC, Edible and biodegradable
during transportation. polymer films: challenges and opportunities. Food Technol
51:61–74 (1997).
11 Anker M, Edible and biodegradable films and coatings based
on proteins, in Edible and Biodegradable films and coatings for
REFERENCES food packaging —a literature review, SIK, Göteborg. pp 5–60
1 Kamel B, Bond C and Diab M, Egg quality as affected by (1996).
storage and handling methods. J Food Qual 3:261–273 12 McHugh TH, Aujard JF and Krochta JM, Plasticized whey–
(1980). protein edible films—water-vapor permeability properties.
2 Wong YC, Herald TJ and Hachmeister KA, Evaluation of J Food Sci 59:416–419, 423 (1994).
mechanical and barrier properties of protein coating on 13 McHugh TH and Krochta JM, Sorbitol-plasticized vs glycerol-
eggshell. Poultry Sci 75:417–422 (1996). plasticized whey–protein edible films—integrated oxygen
3 Xie L, Hettiarachchy NS, Ju ZY, Meullenet J, Wang H, Slavik permeability and tensile property evaluation. J Agric Food
MF and Janes ME, Edible film coating to minimize eggshell Chem 42:841–845 (1994).
breakage and reduce post-wash bacterial contamination 14 Yoshida CM P, Antunes ACB and Antunes AJ, Moisture
measured by dye penetration in eggs. J Food Sci 67:280–284 adsorption by milk whey protein films. Int J Food Sci Technol
(2002). 37:329–332 (2002).
4 Bhale S, No HK, Prinyawiwatkul W, Farr AJ, Nadarajah K and 15 Mat JI and Krochta JM, Oxygen uptake model for uncoated and
Meyers SP, Chitosan coating improves shelf life of eggs. coated peanuts. J Food Eng 35:299–312 (1998).
J Food Sci 68:2378–2383 (2003). 16 Senkoylu N, Yumurta Teknolojisi in Modern Tavuk Uretimi.
5 Hisil Y and Otles S, Changes of vitamin B-1 concentrations Trakya Üniv Zirrat Fakültesi. 3. Baskı, Tekirday, Turkey
during storage of hen eggs. Food Sci Technol-Leb 30:320–323 pp 276–290 (2001).
(1997). 17 SAS Institute Inc, SAS User Guide, version 6, Statistical Analysis
6 Herald TJ, Gnanasambandam R, McGuire BH and Hachmeis- Systems Institute, Cary, NC.
ter KA, Degradable wheat gluten films—preparation, prop- 18 Silversides FG and Scott TA, Effect of storage and layer age
erties and applications. J Food Sci 60:1147–1150 (1995). on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poultry Sci
7 Cho JM, Park SK, Lee YS and Rhee CO, Effects of soy protein 80:1240–1245 (2001).
isolate coating on egg breakage and quality of eggs during 19 Freeland-Graves JH and Peckman GC, Eggs in Foundation
storage. Food Sci Biotechnol 11:392–396 (2002). of Food Preparation. Macmillan, New York, pp 415–440
8 Caner C, Vergano PJ and Wiles JL, Chitosan film mechanical (1987).
and permeation properties as affected by acid, plasticizer, and 20 Scott TA and Silversides FG, The effect of storage and
storage. J Food Sci 63:1049–1053 (1998). strain of hen on egg quality. Poultry Sci 79:1725–1729
9 Park HJ, Development of advanced edible coatings for fruits. (2000).
Trends Food Sci Technol 10:254–260 (1999).