1Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
JOURNAL VITAE
School of Pharmaceutical and
Food Sciences
ISSN 0121-4004 | ISSNe 2145-2660
University of Antioquia
Medellin, Colombia
Filliations
1 Chemical Engineering, Institute Sains &
Teknologi Al-Kamal, Jakarta, Indonesia
2 SMK Negeri 3 Tarakan, Tarakan City,
North Kalimantan, Indonesia
3 SMK Negeri 3 Madiun, Madiun City,
East Java, Indonesia
4 SMK Negeri 1 Cilegon, Banten,
Indonesia.
*Corresponding
Budianto
budianto_delta@yahoo.com
Received: 16 November 2021
Accepted: 26 August 2022
Published: 31 August 2022
Effectiveness Comparison of
Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as
Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality
of Food Products
Comparación de la Efectividad de Polisacáridos, Proteínas y
Lípidos como Recubrimientos Compuestos Comestibles en
la Calidad de los Productos Alimenticios
Budianto 1,3* , Anik Suparmi 2,3 , Muh Jaenal Arifin1,3 , Ratna Haryani 4
ABSTRACT
Background: This research was motivated by the complaints of tomato farmers
about their crops that quickly rotted before being sold, as well as the many
research results (raw materials and methods) that edible coating films could not
be applied optimally. Objectives: The research was a practical recommendation
by comparing the effectiveness of raw materials (polysaccharides, proteins, and
lipids) with the dipping and spray methods. Materials and methods used in
the comparison process were the application of Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) with the Partial Least Square (PLS) approach. Results: Dipping has a
strong effect (f2 ≥ 0.35; p<0.05), while spray had a moderate effect (f 2: 0.15-
0.35; p<0.05). Thus, the role of dipping as a mediator was more dominant
than spray. Compared to proteins and lipids, polysaccharides had the best
effectiveness (β:0.460-0.584; f 2: 0.15-0.35; p<0.05). Conclusion: the three
ingredients improved the quality of tomatoes, and the dipping method was
easier to apply by farmers than the spray method, which had many obstacles
in its application.
Keyword: Edible coating film, Dipping, Spray, and Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Published 31 August 2022
Doi: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.vitae.v29n3a348111
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
JOURNAL VITAE
School of Pharmaceutical and
Food Sciences
ISSN 0121-4004 | ISSNe 2145-2660
University of Antioquia
Medellin, Colombia
Filliations
1 Chemical Engineering, Institute Sains &
Teknologi Al-Kamal, Jakarta, Indonesia
2 SMK Negeri 3 Tarakan, Tarakan City,
North Kalimantan, Indonesia
3 SMK Negeri 3 Madiun, Madiun City,
East Java, Indonesia
4 SMK Negeri 1 Cilegon, Banten,
Indonesia.
*Corresponding
Budianto
budianto_delta@yahoo.com
Received: 16 November 2021
Accepted: 26 August 2022
Published: 31 August 2022
Effectiveness Comparison of
Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as
Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality
of Food Products
Comparación de la Efectividad de Polisacáridos, Proteínas y
Lípidos como Recubrimientos Compuestos Comestibles en
la Calidad de los Productos Alimenticios
Budianto 1,3* , Anik Suparmi 2,3 , Muh Jaenal Arifin1,3 , Ratna Haryani 4
ABSTRACT
Background: This research was motivated by the complaints of tomato farmers
about their crops that quickly rotted before being sold, as well as the many
research results (raw materials and methods) that edible coating films could not
be applied optimally. Objectives: The research was a practical recommendation
by comparing the effectiveness of raw materials (polysaccharides, proteins, and
lipids) with the dipping and spray methods. Materials and methods used in
the comparison process were the application of Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) with the Partial Least Square (PLS) approach. Results: Dipping has a
strong effect (f2 ≥ 0.35; p<0.05), while spray had a moderate effect (f 2: 0.15-
0.35; p<0.05). Thus, the role of dipping as a mediator was more dominant
than spray. Compared to proteins and lipids, polysaccharides had the best
effectiveness (β:0.460-0.584; f 2: 0.15-0.35; p<0.05). Conclusion: the three
ingredients improved the quality of tomatoes, and the dipping method was
easier to apply by farmers than the spray method, which had many obstacles
in its application.
Keyword: Edible coating film, Dipping, Spray, and Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM)
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Published 31 August 2022
Doi: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.vitae.v29n3a348111
2Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111Budianto, Anik Suparmi, Muh Jaenal Arifin, Ratna Haryani
INTRODUCTION
The background of this research was based on the
complaints of many farmers in Indonesia against
tomatoes that quickly rot before they are sold
out. This condition resulted in farmers selling their
crops immediately before the spoilage occurred.
Paying attention to this phenomenon, researchers
offer a preservation process with a packaging
method that can be eaten, namely edible coating
film (ECF). The number of edible coating research
references will assist in selecting edible coating raw
materials, application methods, and the results of
the preservation process. This research focused on
applying previous research if it is widely applied,
not just a theory or concept. This research helps in
selecting raw materials and methods that are cheap
and easy to apply.
S o f ar t he r aw mate r ial s of te n u s e d ar e
polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids. Polysaccharide-
based materials include starch, cellulose, pectin,
alginate, carrageenan, chitosan, pullulan, gellan
gum, and xanthan gum [1–4]. A mixture of two
polysaccharides (chitosan and pectin) can increase
the shelf life of fruit and vegetable products [5].
Sodium alginate and pectin (2%) can increase the
shelf life of fruit [6]. Cassava flour with calcium
chloride can maintain the color of French fries [7].
Aloe vera plus carrageenan can increase the lifespan
of fruit and vegetable products [8]. The use of
polysaccharides as ECF ingredients is not only for
vegetables and fruit but also for products such as
bread, crackers, and other dry processed products.
Protein-based ECF ingredients include caseins,
whey proteins, collagen, gelatin, plasma proteins,
myofibrillar proteins, egg white proteins, soy
protein, wheat gluten, and zein [9]moisture and oil
diffusion, gas permeability (O2, CO2. Using whey
protein concentrate mixed with glycerol in various
concentrations can prolong the strawberries’
life [10]20% and 40% with respect to the solids
contained in the mixture WPC/glycerol. Whey
protein mixed with glycerol and trehalose inhibited
fruits’ total phenolics, browning, and weight loss
[11]. A whey protein comparison has been made
to extend Kilka fish’s shelf life [12]. Mixing protein-
based ECF ingredients with antioxidants can
maintain the quality of fruits and vegetables [13]. Its
use extends not only to perishable food products.
Lipid-based ECF ingredients include beeswax,
paraffin, polyethylene, jojoba oil, and rice bran wax
[13–15]. Lipid-based materials in several layers are
used to obtain ideal quality [14]. The mix of ECF and
antibacterial substances succeeded in suppressing
the growth of mesophilic aerobic bacteria, molds/
yeasts, and Salmonella enterica in apples [15]. The
use of natural waxes (rice bran, carnauba, candelilla,
and bees), petroleum-based waxes (paraffin and
polyethylene), mineral oils, petroleum-based oils,
vegetable oils, acetoglycerides, and fatty acids have
been proven effective for ECF ingredients [16]. The
use of lipid-based ECF has been widely used in
improving the quality and shelf life of food products.
The effectiveness of ECF is influenced by the
composition and the ECF application method
[3]. In this research, we used the dipping and
spray method. Dipping is the most common ECF
application method [3,17], which comprises 3
RESUMEN
Antecedentes: esta investigación está motivada por las quejas de los productores de tomate sobre
sus cultivos que se pudren rápidamente antes de ser vendidos, así como por los muchos resultados de
la investigación (materias primas y métodos) de que las películas de recubrimiento comestibles no se
pudieron aplicar de manera óptima. Objetivos: La investigación consiste en recomendaciones prácticas
mediante la comparación de la eficacia de las materias primas (polisacáridos, proteínas y lípidos) con los
métodos de inmersión y aspersión. Métodos: El método utilizado en el proceso de comparación es la
aplicación del modelo de ecuaciones estructurales (SEM) con el enfoque de mínimos cuadrados parciales
(PLS). Resultados: La inmersión tiene un efecto fuerte (f2 ≥ 0,35; p<0,05), mientras que la pulverización
tiene un efecto moderado (f 2: 0,15-0,35; p<0,05). Por lo tanto, el papel de la inmersión como mediador es
más dominante que el del rociado. Los polisacáridos tienen la mejor eficacia (β:0,460-0,584; f2: 0,15-0,35;
p<0,05) en comparación con las proteínas y los lípidos. Conclusión: es que los tres ingredientes pueden
mejorar la calidad de los tomates, y el método de inmersión es más fácil de aplicar por los agricultores
que el método de aspersión, que tiene muchos obstáculos en su aplicación.
Palabra clave: película de recubrimiento comestible, inmersión, pulverización y modelado de ecuaciones estructurales (SEM)
INTRODUCTION
The background of this research was based on the
complaints of many farmers in Indonesia against
tomatoes that quickly rot before they are sold
out. This condition resulted in farmers selling their
crops immediately before the spoilage occurred.
Paying attention to this phenomenon, researchers
offer a preservation process with a packaging
method that can be eaten, namely edible coating
film (ECF). The number of edible coating research
references will assist in selecting edible coating raw
materials, application methods, and the results of
the preservation process. This research focused on
applying previous research if it is widely applied,
not just a theory or concept. This research helps in
selecting raw materials and methods that are cheap
and easy to apply.
S o f ar t he r aw mate r ial s of te n u s e d ar e
polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids. Polysaccharide-
based materials include starch, cellulose, pectin,
alginate, carrageenan, chitosan, pullulan, gellan
gum, and xanthan gum [1–4]. A mixture of two
polysaccharides (chitosan and pectin) can increase
the shelf life of fruit and vegetable products [5].
Sodium alginate and pectin (2%) can increase the
shelf life of fruit [6]. Cassava flour with calcium
chloride can maintain the color of French fries [7].
Aloe vera plus carrageenan can increase the lifespan
of fruit and vegetable products [8]. The use of
polysaccharides as ECF ingredients is not only for
vegetables and fruit but also for products such as
bread, crackers, and other dry processed products.
Protein-based ECF ingredients include caseins,
whey proteins, collagen, gelatin, plasma proteins,
myofibrillar proteins, egg white proteins, soy
protein, wheat gluten, and zein [9]moisture and oil
diffusion, gas permeability (O2, CO2. Using whey
protein concentrate mixed with glycerol in various
concentrations can prolong the strawberries’
life [10]20% and 40% with respect to the solids
contained in the mixture WPC/glycerol. Whey
protein mixed with glycerol and trehalose inhibited
fruits’ total phenolics, browning, and weight loss
[11]. A whey protein comparison has been made
to extend Kilka fish’s shelf life [12]. Mixing protein-
based ECF ingredients with antioxidants can
maintain the quality of fruits and vegetables [13]. Its
use extends not only to perishable food products.
Lipid-based ECF ingredients include beeswax,
paraffin, polyethylene, jojoba oil, and rice bran wax
[13–15]. Lipid-based materials in several layers are
used to obtain ideal quality [14]. The mix of ECF and
antibacterial substances succeeded in suppressing
the growth of mesophilic aerobic bacteria, molds/
yeasts, and Salmonella enterica in apples [15]. The
use of natural waxes (rice bran, carnauba, candelilla,
and bees), petroleum-based waxes (paraffin and
polyethylene), mineral oils, petroleum-based oils,
vegetable oils, acetoglycerides, and fatty acids have
been proven effective for ECF ingredients [16]. The
use of lipid-based ECF has been widely used in
improving the quality and shelf life of food products.
The effectiveness of ECF is influenced by the
composition and the ECF application method
[3]. In this research, we used the dipping and
spray method. Dipping is the most common ECF
application method [3,17], which comprises 3
RESUMEN
Antecedentes: esta investigación está motivada por las quejas de los productores de tomate sobre
sus cultivos que se pudren rápidamente antes de ser vendidos, así como por los muchos resultados de
la investigación (materias primas y métodos) de que las películas de recubrimiento comestibles no se
pudieron aplicar de manera óptima. Objetivos: La investigación consiste en recomendaciones prácticas
mediante la comparación de la eficacia de las materias primas (polisacáridos, proteínas y lípidos) con los
métodos de inmersión y aspersión. Métodos: El método utilizado en el proceso de comparación es la
aplicación del modelo de ecuaciones estructurales (SEM) con el enfoque de mínimos cuadrados parciales
(PLS). Resultados: La inmersión tiene un efecto fuerte (f2 ≥ 0,35; p<0,05), mientras que la pulverización
tiene un efecto moderado (f 2: 0,15-0,35; p<0,05). Por lo tanto, el papel de la inmersión como mediador es
más dominante que el del rociado. Los polisacáridos tienen la mejor eficacia (β:0,460-0,584; f2: 0,15-0,35;
p<0,05) en comparación con las proteínas y los lípidos. Conclusión: es que los tres ingredientes pueden
mejorar la calidad de los tomates, y el método de inmersión es más fácil de aplicar por los agricultores
que el método de aspersión, que tiene muchos obstáculos en su aplicación.
Palabra clave: película de recubrimiento comestible, inmersión, pulverización y modelado de ecuaciones estructurales (SEM)
3Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
steps: i) immersion & dwelling, ii) precipitation,
and iii) solvent evaporation [18]. In the first step,
the substrate is immersed in an emulsion/solution
layer. The volume of the solution is sufficient to wet
the substrate [19]. During evaporation, solvents and
excess liquid are evaporated from the surface of the
food product using heating and drying procedures
[20]. Generally, fruits and vegetables are submerged
for 5-30 seconds [21] to extend the shelf life [22].
Spraying is the most common method used in
applications for coatings on food products on
an industrial scale [20]. There are three types of
spraying techniques used in the food industry.
The first is air spray atomization. This method uses
a high-velocity air spray surrounding the liquid
flowing from the tube. Fluid-air friction accelerates,
disrupts the fluid flow, and induces atomization
[19]. This method includes cost-effective spraying.
The presence of an air jet nozzle is to break water
(deflector) into fine droplets in spraying. The second
is air-assisted airless atomization. In this spray
method, the coating sample is atomized and evenly
distributed on the substrate surfaces [23]. The third
is Pressure atomization. This method does not use air
or what is known as airless atomization. Small nozzles
with high pressure will provide surface tension and
coating viscosity on food products [20].
The spray method is greatly influenced by the
size and type of the nozzle. Parameters that affect
spraying efficiency include pressure, viscosity,
surface temperature, and coating solution stress
[24]. In some ECF processes, the spray method
may be used for multiple applications, for example,
gel layers formed with alginate or calcium chloride
solutions [25]. All ECF raw materials play a role in
packing food products, and the method used in its
application.
Product quality which is the measure in this study,
includes a) product age, b) water activity (aw), c)
total plate count (TPC), and d) Escherichia coli
contaminants. These indicators are used to describe
the food products quality to find the effectiveness of
composite edible coatings and application methods
in the ECF process [26, 27].
Based on the description above, the raw materials
used can improve the quality and protect food
products from being damaged quickly through the
dip and spray application methods. No research
compares the effectiveness of raw materials
against the methods used as practical, efficient,
and inexpensive efforts. This study evaluates the
effectiveness of several variables from previous
researchers and explores the ECF method failures,
especially in Indonesia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Composite edibles: a) Polysaccharides (starch,
cellulose, carrageenan, and pectin); b) Proteins (soy,
egg white, casein, gluten, and whey protein; c) Lipids
(bee wax, rice bran wax, and paraffin).
Mater ials for applic ations: solvent s water
(polysaccharides) and ethanol (proteins and lipids).
Laboratory test materials: Tomato variety of Zamrud
(LV 2508), plate count agar (PCA), tryptic soy agar
(TSA), buffered peptone water (BPW), distilled water,
alcohol 90%.
Equipment: a set of spray tools, a bucket for the
dipping process, an autoclave, Petri dishes, an Water
Activity meter (Aw) model EZ 200 - Freund, and a
microscope MSC-B107.
Research framework
The research framework is shown in Figure 1. There
are 14 hypothesis based on the relationship between
variables.
9: Polisaccharide ==> Spray ==> Product Quality
10. Polisaccharide ==> Dipping ==> Product Quality
11. Protein ==> Spray ==> Product Quality
12. Protein ==> Dipping ==> Product Quality
13. Lipid ==> Spray ==> Product Quality
14. Lipid ==> Dipping ==> Product Quality
Figure 1. Research framework: Effect of Composite Edible on
Product Quality with the Mediation of Application Methods. It has
2 lines of relationship, namely a direct relationship (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)
and an indirect / mediational relationship (9,10,11,12,13,14).
Independent variables (polysaccharide, protein, and lipid)
are expected to increase/significantly positive effect on the
dependent variable (product quality) through intervening/
mediation variables (spray and dipping).
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
steps: i) immersion & dwelling, ii) precipitation,
and iii) solvent evaporation [18]. In the first step,
the substrate is immersed in an emulsion/solution
layer. The volume of the solution is sufficient to wet
the substrate [19]. During evaporation, solvents and
excess liquid are evaporated from the surface of the
food product using heating and drying procedures
[20]. Generally, fruits and vegetables are submerged
for 5-30 seconds [21] to extend the shelf life [22].
Spraying is the most common method used in
applications for coatings on food products on
an industrial scale [20]. There are three types of
spraying techniques used in the food industry.
The first is air spray atomization. This method uses
a high-velocity air spray surrounding the liquid
flowing from the tube. Fluid-air friction accelerates,
disrupts the fluid flow, and induces atomization
[19]. This method includes cost-effective spraying.
The presence of an air jet nozzle is to break water
(deflector) into fine droplets in spraying. The second
is air-assisted airless atomization. In this spray
method, the coating sample is atomized and evenly
distributed on the substrate surfaces [23]. The third
is Pressure atomization. This method does not use air
or what is known as airless atomization. Small nozzles
with high pressure will provide surface tension and
coating viscosity on food products [20].
The spray method is greatly influenced by the
size and type of the nozzle. Parameters that affect
spraying efficiency include pressure, viscosity,
surface temperature, and coating solution stress
[24]. In some ECF processes, the spray method
may be used for multiple applications, for example,
gel layers formed with alginate or calcium chloride
solutions [25]. All ECF raw materials play a role in
packing food products, and the method used in its
application.
Product quality which is the measure in this study,
includes a) product age, b) water activity (aw), c)
total plate count (TPC), and d) Escherichia coli
contaminants. These indicators are used to describe
the food products quality to find the effectiveness of
composite edible coatings and application methods
in the ECF process [26, 27].
Based on the description above, the raw materials
used can improve the quality and protect food
products from being damaged quickly through the
dip and spray application methods. No research
compares the effectiveness of raw materials
against the methods used as practical, efficient,
and inexpensive efforts. This study evaluates the
effectiveness of several variables from previous
researchers and explores the ECF method failures,
especially in Indonesia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Composite edibles: a) Polysaccharides (starch,
cellulose, carrageenan, and pectin); b) Proteins (soy,
egg white, casein, gluten, and whey protein; c) Lipids
(bee wax, rice bran wax, and paraffin).
Mater ials for applic ations: solvent s water
(polysaccharides) and ethanol (proteins and lipids).
Laboratory test materials: Tomato variety of Zamrud
(LV 2508), plate count agar (PCA), tryptic soy agar
(TSA), buffered peptone water (BPW), distilled water,
alcohol 90%.
Equipment: a set of spray tools, a bucket for the
dipping process, an autoclave, Petri dishes, an Water
Activity meter (Aw) model EZ 200 - Freund, and a
microscope MSC-B107.
Research framework
The research framework is shown in Figure 1. There
are 14 hypothesis based on the relationship between
variables.
9: Polisaccharide ==> Spray ==> Product Quality
10. Polisaccharide ==> Dipping ==> Product Quality
11. Protein ==> Spray ==> Product Quality
12. Protein ==> Dipping ==> Product Quality
13. Lipid ==> Spray ==> Product Quality
14. Lipid ==> Dipping ==> Product Quality
Figure 1. Research framework: Effect of Composite Edible on
Product Quality with the Mediation of Application Methods. It has
2 lines of relationship, namely a direct relationship (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)
and an indirect / mediational relationship (9,10,11,12,13,14).
Independent variables (polysaccharide, protein, and lipid)
are expected to increase/significantly positive effect on the
dependent variable (product quality) through intervening/
mediation variables (spray and dipping).
4Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111Budianto, Anik Suparmi, Muh Jaenal Arifin, Ratna Haryani
Research Sample
95 tomato farmers from various regions in Indonesia
were involved as respondents in this study. The
number and areas of research were: East Java
(15), North Sumatra (20), West Java (15), East Nusa
Tenggara (20), Jogjakarta (12), and Banten (13).
East Nusa Tenggara was the largest contributor of
tomatoes in Indonesia, the six regions had uniformity
in rainfall (750-1250 mm/year), daytime temperature
(18-29o C), relative humidity (25-35%), and soil acidity
(pH in the range of 5.5 - 7). This research was assisted
by an independent team spread across the area.
Our team has obtained permission from the farmers,
and the team did not ask for permission from
government agencies. Respondents were involved
in the application of the ECF method with team
assistance. The team analyzed product age, total
plate count (TPC), water activity (aw), and Escherichia
coli contaminants. The study was performed from
April 2019 to February 2020.
Work procedures
1. Preparation of ECF referred by Rosida et al. [40]: (i)
extracts of polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids, as
well as solvents/diluents, were weighed to obtain a
concentration of 5% (w/v); (ii) Polysaccharide material
used water and glycerol as solvent (3:1); (iii) protein
ingredients used ethanol (60%), water, and glycerol
(2:3:1) as the solvent; (iv) lipids materials used ethanol
and glycerol (3:1); (v) heating was employed for
materials that were poorly soluble (proteins and
lipids); (vi) then cooled and filtered, and finally, the
ECF material was ready to be applied.
2. The dipping method (referred by Kowalczewski
et al. [18]): (i) Tomatoes were put into the reservoir
one by one so that the ECF layer covered the
entire surface of the tomatoes; (ii) Tomatoes were
soaked in ECF solution for 20-30 seconds (MA7)
and 30-60 seconds (iii) Tomatoes coated with
ECF were removed and placed in an open, well-lit
room (without direct sunlight); (iv) The material was
drained at room temperature (25-27oC) for 1-2 hours;
(v) Ensuring that the ECF layer was dry evenly by
physical observation (prick test)
3. The spray method used air-assisted airless
atomization, pressure atomization, air spray
atomization and air spray-air assisted airless. The
process steps, referred by Embuscado [24], were: (i)
The ECF solution is made with a viscosity of 0.35–
0.60 (10-3 Pa.s); (ii) spray tomatoes with a pressure of
1-2 kPa, additional pressure may be applied if there
is a blockage of the spray nozzle; (iii) The thickness
of the layer is made between 30-50 μm. Air-assisted
airless atomization and pressure atomization can be
done in layers because they are easily clogged in the
nozzles. (iv) the tomatoes are drained and dried at
25-27o C with enough light (without direct sunlight)
for 1-2 hours. Drying time may continue if the prick
test shows uneven drying.
Descriptive Statistics
Description analysis was made through SPSS
software. The composite edible variable and
application methods explore how easy it was to
apply ECF. In contrast, the product quality variable
based on laboratory analysis results included post-
harvest product age, Escherichia coli, water activity,
and total plate count.
Sorting indicators on each variable using the
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) test with
SPSS software. The function of PCA in this study
is to reduce several variables into new variables or
dimensions, which result from indicator extraction
[28–30].
Variable Effect Test
The effect of variables was tested using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Square
(PLS) approach with Smart PLS software version 6.0.
The validity test used a cross-loading value > 0.7
[31]W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach
to structural equation modeling. Modern methods
for business research, 295(2 and a Square Root of
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value > 0.50 [32].
Reliability test was done with Cronbach’s Alpha value
> 0.6, Composite Reliability > 0.7 [33]. Structural
model testing accommodates all construct variables
formulated in hypothesis testing. All standard
parameters refer to Hair et al. [33].
RESULT
Descriptive Statistics
The following are the results of descriptive analysis
of several polysaccharide, protein, lipid, spray,
dipping, and product quality variables. This analysis
includes indicators of each variable.
Research Sample
95 tomato farmers from various regions in Indonesia
were involved as respondents in this study. The
number and areas of research were: East Java
(15), North Sumatra (20), West Java (15), East Nusa
Tenggara (20), Jogjakarta (12), and Banten (13).
East Nusa Tenggara was the largest contributor of
tomatoes in Indonesia, the six regions had uniformity
in rainfall (750-1250 mm/year), daytime temperature
(18-29o C), relative humidity (25-35%), and soil acidity
(pH in the range of 5.5 - 7). This research was assisted
by an independent team spread across the area.
Our team has obtained permission from the farmers,
and the team did not ask for permission from
government agencies. Respondents were involved
in the application of the ECF method with team
assistance. The team analyzed product age, total
plate count (TPC), water activity (aw), and Escherichia
coli contaminants. The study was performed from
April 2019 to February 2020.
Work procedures
1. Preparation of ECF referred by Rosida et al. [40]: (i)
extracts of polysaccharides, proteins, and lipids, as
well as solvents/diluents, were weighed to obtain a
concentration of 5% (w/v); (ii) Polysaccharide material
used water and glycerol as solvent (3:1); (iii) protein
ingredients used ethanol (60%), water, and glycerol
(2:3:1) as the solvent; (iv) lipids materials used ethanol
and glycerol (3:1); (v) heating was employed for
materials that were poorly soluble (proteins and
lipids); (vi) then cooled and filtered, and finally, the
ECF material was ready to be applied.
2. The dipping method (referred by Kowalczewski
et al. [18]): (i) Tomatoes were put into the reservoir
one by one so that the ECF layer covered the
entire surface of the tomatoes; (ii) Tomatoes were
soaked in ECF solution for 20-30 seconds (MA7)
and 30-60 seconds (iii) Tomatoes coated with
ECF were removed and placed in an open, well-lit
room (without direct sunlight); (iv) The material was
drained at room temperature (25-27oC) for 1-2 hours;
(v) Ensuring that the ECF layer was dry evenly by
physical observation (prick test)
3. The spray method used air-assisted airless
atomization, pressure atomization, air spray
atomization and air spray-air assisted airless. The
process steps, referred by Embuscado [24], were: (i)
The ECF solution is made with a viscosity of 0.35–
0.60 (10-3 Pa.s); (ii) spray tomatoes with a pressure of
1-2 kPa, additional pressure may be applied if there
is a blockage of the spray nozzle; (iii) The thickness
of the layer is made between 30-50 μm. Air-assisted
airless atomization and pressure atomization can be
done in layers because they are easily clogged in the
nozzles. (iv) the tomatoes are drained and dried at
25-27o C with enough light (without direct sunlight)
for 1-2 hours. Drying time may continue if the prick
test shows uneven drying.
Descriptive Statistics
Description analysis was made through SPSS
software. The composite edible variable and
application methods explore how easy it was to
apply ECF. In contrast, the product quality variable
based on laboratory analysis results included post-
harvest product age, Escherichia coli, water activity,
and total plate count.
Sorting indicators on each variable using the
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) test with
SPSS software. The function of PCA in this study
is to reduce several variables into new variables or
dimensions, which result from indicator extraction
[28–30].
Variable Effect Test
The effect of variables was tested using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Square
(PLS) approach with Smart PLS software version 6.0.
The validity test used a cross-loading value > 0.7
[31]W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach
to structural equation modeling. Modern methods
for business research, 295(2 and a Square Root of
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value > 0.50 [32].
Reliability test was done with Cronbach’s Alpha value
> 0.6, Composite Reliability > 0.7 [33]. Structural
model testing accommodates all construct variables
formulated in hypothesis testing. All standard
parameters refer to Hair et al. [33].
RESULT
Descriptive Statistics
The following are the results of descriptive analysis
of several polysaccharide, protein, lipid, spray,
dipping, and product quality variables. This analysis
includes indicators of each variable.
5Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
Table 1. Analysis of the description of the independent variable and the mediating variable:
Descriptive Statistics
Size Scale
1. Very difficult to apply 2. Difficult to apply 3, Neutral 4. Easy to apply 5. Very easy to apply
Polysaccharide N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Starch (P1) 95 3.00 5.00 3.8500 .10942 .48936
Cellulose (P2) 95 2.00 4.00 3.7000 .12773 .57124
Carrageenan (P3) 95 2.00 4.00 3.4500 .15347 .68633
Pectin (P4) 95 2.00 4.00 3.5500 .13524 .60481
Protein
Soy Protein (Pr.1) 95 2.00 3.00 2.6000 .11239 .50262
Egg White (Pr.2) 95 2.00 3.00 2.8000 .09177 .41039
Casein (Pr.3) 95 2.00 3.00 2.8500 .08192 .36635
Gluten (Pr.4) 95 3.00 4.00 3.7000 .10513 .47016
Whey Protein (Pr.5) 95 2.00 4.00 3.5500 .13524 .60481
Lipid
Bee Wax ( L1) 95 3.00 4.00 3.5500 .11413 .88704
Rice Bran Wax (L2) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6000 .11239 .47016
Parafin (L3) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6500 .10942 .47016
Spray
Air assisted airless atomization (MA3) 95 3.00 4.00 3.5500 .11413 .51042
Pressure atomization (MA4) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6000 .11239 .50262
Air spray atomization (MA5) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6500 .10942 .48936
Air spray-Air assisted airless (MA6) 95 3.00 4.00 3.5500 .11413 .51042
Dipping
Duration (20-30) sec. (MA7) 95 3.00 5.00 3.9500 .13524 .60481
Duration (30-60) sec. (MA8) 95 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .12301 .55012
Table 1: Application process of a method (spray and dipping) using ECF raw materials (polysaccharide, protein, and lipid). The data explored the ease of application of
ECF. Based on the average, the order of variables that have the greatest value was dipping, polysaccharide, spray, lipid, and protein. The indicators for each variable
are as follows: Dipping (MA7); polysaccharide (P1); spray (MA5); lipids (L3), and proteins (Pr.4). The indicators above are still being screened again through PCA and
SEM PLS analysis.
Table 2. Analysis of the description of the dependent variable
Descriptive Statistics
Size Scale
Damage Duration (day) : 1 ( 5-10) 2. ( 10-14) 3. ( 14-18) 4. (18-22) 5. ( 22-24)
Escherichia coli (MPN/ml) : 1. (80-100) 2. (60 - 80) 3. (40-60) 4. (20-40) 5. (10 – 20)
Total Plate Count (105 CFU/ml) : 1. ( 80-100) 2. (60-80) 3. (40-60) 4. ( 20-40) 5. ( 0-20)
Aw : 1. (0.95-0.1) 2. (0.90-0.95) 3. ( 0.85-0.90) 4.(0.80-0.85) 5. (0.7-0.8)
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Damage Duration (PQ1) 95 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .09934 .48936
Escherichia coli (PQ2) 95 3.00 4.00 3.8000 .09177 .57124
Total Plate Count (PQ3) 95 2.00 4.00 3.6000 .15218 .68633
Water Activity (PQ4) 95 2.00 4.00 3.5000 .17014 .60481
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
Table 1. Analysis of the description of the independent variable and the mediating variable:
Descriptive Statistics
Size Scale
1. Very difficult to apply 2. Difficult to apply 3, Neutral 4. Easy to apply 5. Very easy to apply
Polysaccharide N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Starch (P1) 95 3.00 5.00 3.8500 .10942 .48936
Cellulose (P2) 95 2.00 4.00 3.7000 .12773 .57124
Carrageenan (P3) 95 2.00 4.00 3.4500 .15347 .68633
Pectin (P4) 95 2.00 4.00 3.5500 .13524 .60481
Protein
Soy Protein (Pr.1) 95 2.00 3.00 2.6000 .11239 .50262
Egg White (Pr.2) 95 2.00 3.00 2.8000 .09177 .41039
Casein (Pr.3) 95 2.00 3.00 2.8500 .08192 .36635
Gluten (Pr.4) 95 3.00 4.00 3.7000 .10513 .47016
Whey Protein (Pr.5) 95 2.00 4.00 3.5500 .13524 .60481
Lipid
Bee Wax ( L1) 95 3.00 4.00 3.5500 .11413 .88704
Rice Bran Wax (L2) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6000 .11239 .47016
Parafin (L3) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6500 .10942 .47016
Spray
Air assisted airless atomization (MA3) 95 3.00 4.00 3.5500 .11413 .51042
Pressure atomization (MA4) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6000 .11239 .50262
Air spray atomization (MA5) 95 3.00 4.00 3.6500 .10942 .48936
Air spray-Air assisted airless (MA6) 95 3.00 4.00 3.5500 .11413 .51042
Dipping
Duration (20-30) sec. (MA7) 95 3.00 5.00 3.9500 .13524 .60481
Duration (30-60) sec. (MA8) 95 3.00 5.00 3.7500 .12301 .55012
Table 1: Application process of a method (spray and dipping) using ECF raw materials (polysaccharide, protein, and lipid). The data explored the ease of application of
ECF. Based on the average, the order of variables that have the greatest value was dipping, polysaccharide, spray, lipid, and protein. The indicators for each variable
are as follows: Dipping (MA7); polysaccharide (P1); spray (MA5); lipids (L3), and proteins (Pr.4). The indicators above are still being screened again through PCA and
SEM PLS analysis.
Table 2. Analysis of the description of the dependent variable
Descriptive Statistics
Size Scale
Damage Duration (day) : 1 ( 5-10) 2. ( 10-14) 3. ( 14-18) 4. (18-22) 5. ( 22-24)
Escherichia coli (MPN/ml) : 1. (80-100) 2. (60 - 80) 3. (40-60) 4. (20-40) 5. (10 – 20)
Total Plate Count (105 CFU/ml) : 1. ( 80-100) 2. (60-80) 3. (40-60) 4. ( 20-40) 5. ( 0-20)
Aw : 1. (0.95-0.1) 2. (0.90-0.95) 3. ( 0.85-0.90) 4.(0.80-0.85) 5. (0.7-0.8)
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic
Damage Duration (PQ1) 95 3.00 4.00 3.7500 .09934 .48936
Escherichia coli (PQ2) 95 3.00 4.00 3.8000 .09177 .57124
Total Plate Count (PQ3) 95 2.00 4.00 3.6000 .15218 .68633
Water Activity (PQ4) 95 2.00 4.00 3.5000 .17014 .60481
6Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111Budianto, Anik Suparmi, Muh Jaenal Arifin, Ratna Haryani
1 2
3 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 -> Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Damage Duration
5. - 10
10.- 15
15. - 20
20.- 25
Day
0
20
40
60
80
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 ->
Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Escherichia coli
10-20,
20-30
30-40
50-60
60-70
80-90
90-100
MPN/ml
0
20
40
60
80
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 -> Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Total Plate Count (MPN/ ml)
(1-2)
(2-3)
(3-4)
(4-5)
(5-6)
(6-7)
(7-8)
(8-9)
(9-10) 0
20
40
60
80
100
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 ->
Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Water Activity (Aw )
0.7-0.8
0.80 - 0.85
0.85- 0.90
0.90 - 0.95
0.95 - 1.0
Figure 2. Result of indicator analysis of product quality variable.
Polysaccharide coating material: starch (P1), cellulose (P2), carrageenan (P3), and Pectin (P4). Protein coating material: soy protein (Pr.1), egg white (Pr.2), casein
(Pr.3), gluten (Pr.4), and whey protein (Pr.5). Lipid coating material: bee wax ( L1), rice bran wax (L2), and parafin (L3). The coating process used the spray method: air
assisted airless atomization (MA3), pressure atomization (MA4), air spray atomization (MA5), and air spray-air assisted airless (MA6). Dipping method: duration (20-30)
sec. (MA7) and duration (30-60) sec. (MA8).
Damage duration (1): tomatoes were damaged between 5-10 days (non-coating); the dipping method avoided the damage between 20-25 days (starch (P1), cellulose
(P2)), while the polysaccharide applied by spraying can avoid the damage up to 15-20 days. The dipping and spray methods extended the life span to 15-20 days for
protein and lipid materials. Escherichia coli (2): Noncoating has a contaminant range of 80-100 MPN/ml. The dipping method for polysaccharides has a contaminant
range of 10-30 MPN/ml, the spray method (10-40 MPN/ml). Protein and lipid materials by spray and dipping methods ranged from 60-80 MPN/ml. Total Plate Count
(3): non coating (8-10 x 105 CFU/ml), polysaccharide dipping and spray method (1-3 x 105 CFU/ml), protein (5-7 x 105 CFU/ml), and lipid (3-5 x 105 CFU/ml). Water
activity (4): non-coating (0.95-1.0). Dipping and spray methods for polysaccharides (0.80-0.85), proteins, and lipids had the same Aw (0.85-0.90).
Table 3. Determination of variable indicators with Principal Component Analysis
Indicator Code
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
VARIABLE (* significant p=0.05)
Polysaccharide Protein Lipid Spray Dipping Product
Quality
Starch (P1) P1 .658* .432 .346 .497 .276 .345
Cellulose (P2) P2 .745* .375 .368 .248 .366 .335
Carrageenan (P3) P3 .749* .398 .475 .399 .375 .445
Pectin (P4) P4 .763* .365 .472 .332 .487 .467
Soy Protein (Pr.1) Pr.1 .347 .793* .389 .337 .309 .375
Egg White (Pr.2) Pr.2 .452 .668* .396 .371 .364 .385
Casein (Pr.3) Pr.3 .257 .676* .385 .351 .354 .374
Gluten (Pr.4) Pr.4 .367 .756 .298 .383 .378 .348
Whey Protein (Pr.5) Pr.5 .392 .665* .389 .374 .441 .347
1 2
3 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 -> Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Damage Duration
5. - 10
10.- 15
15. - 20
20.- 25
Day
0
20
40
60
80
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 ->
Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Escherichia coli
10-20,
20-30
30-40
50-60
60-70
80-90
90-100
MPN/ml
0
20
40
60
80
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 -> Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Total Plate Count (MPN/ ml)
(1-2)
(2-3)
(3-4)
(4-5)
(5-6)
(6-7)
(7-8)
(8-9)
(9-10) 0
20
40
60
80
100
non coating
P1->spray
P1->dipping
P2- > spray
P2 - > Dipping
Pr.4 ->spray
Pr.4 ->dippingPr.5 -> spray
Pr.5 ->
Dipping
L1->spray
L1 -> dipping
L2 -> spray
L2 - > Dipping
Water Activity (Aw )
0.7-0.8
0.80 - 0.85
0.85- 0.90
0.90 - 0.95
0.95 - 1.0
Figure 2. Result of indicator analysis of product quality variable.
Polysaccharide coating material: starch (P1), cellulose (P2), carrageenan (P3), and Pectin (P4). Protein coating material: soy protein (Pr.1), egg white (Pr.2), casein
(Pr.3), gluten (Pr.4), and whey protein (Pr.5). Lipid coating material: bee wax ( L1), rice bran wax (L2), and parafin (L3). The coating process used the spray method: air
assisted airless atomization (MA3), pressure atomization (MA4), air spray atomization (MA5), and air spray-air assisted airless (MA6). Dipping method: duration (20-30)
sec. (MA7) and duration (30-60) sec. (MA8).
Damage duration (1): tomatoes were damaged between 5-10 days (non-coating); the dipping method avoided the damage between 20-25 days (starch (P1), cellulose
(P2)), while the polysaccharide applied by spraying can avoid the damage up to 15-20 days. The dipping and spray methods extended the life span to 15-20 days for
protein and lipid materials. Escherichia coli (2): Noncoating has a contaminant range of 80-100 MPN/ml. The dipping method for polysaccharides has a contaminant
range of 10-30 MPN/ml, the spray method (10-40 MPN/ml). Protein and lipid materials by spray and dipping methods ranged from 60-80 MPN/ml. Total Plate Count
(3): non coating (8-10 x 105 CFU/ml), polysaccharide dipping and spray method (1-3 x 105 CFU/ml), protein (5-7 x 105 CFU/ml), and lipid (3-5 x 105 CFU/ml). Water
activity (4): non-coating (0.95-1.0). Dipping and spray methods for polysaccharides (0.80-0.85), proteins, and lipids had the same Aw (0.85-0.90).
Table 3. Determination of variable indicators with Principal Component Analysis
Indicator Code
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
VARIABLE (* significant p=0.05)
Polysaccharide Protein Lipid Spray Dipping Product
Quality
Starch (P1) P1 .658* .432 .346 .497 .276 .345
Cellulose (P2) P2 .745* .375 .368 .248 .366 .335
Carrageenan (P3) P3 .749* .398 .475 .399 .375 .445
Pectin (P4) P4 .763* .365 .472 .332 .487 .467
Soy Protein (Pr.1) Pr.1 .347 .793* .389 .337 .309 .375
Egg White (Pr.2) Pr.2 .452 .668* .396 .371 .364 .385
Casein (Pr.3) Pr.3 .257 .676* .385 .351 .354 .374
Gluten (Pr.4) Pr.4 .367 .756 .298 .383 .378 .348
Whey Protein (Pr.5) Pr.5 .392 .665* .389 .374 .441 .347
7Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
Indicator Code
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
VARIABLE (* significant p=0.05)
Polysaccharide Protein Lipid Spray Dipping Product
Quality
Bee Wax ( L1) L1 .298 .349 .749* .382 .342 .345
Rice Brand Wax (L2) L2 .438 .483 .783* .364 .341 .355
Paraffin (L3) L3 .472 .342 .658* .298 .362 .385
Air assisted airless atomization (MA3) MA3 .435 .352 .367 .745* .324 .395
Pressure atomization (MA4) MA4 .389 .267 .476 .749* .268 .375
Air spray atomization (MA5) MA5 .482 .367 .487 .763* .337 .345
Air spray-Air assisted airless (MA6) MA6 .473 .392 .387 .684* .452 .358
Duration (20-30) sec. (MA7) MA7 .378 .372 .443 .365 .783* .348
Duration ( 30-60) sec. (MA8) MA8 .238 .435 .344 .428 .682* .345
Damage Duration (PQ1) PQ1 .349 .389 .364 .378 .391 .794*
Escherichia coli (PQ2) PQ2 .487 .482 .361 .456 .386 .765*
Total Plate Count (PQ3) PQ3 .298 .473 .358 .386 ,364 .773*
Water Activity (PQ4) PQ4 .389 .481 .374 .354 .347 .765*
Determination of variable indicators using loading > 0.6 and p = 0.05. The blue color shows the indicator of the variable. Polysaccharides (P1,P2,P3,P4); Proteins
(Pr1,Pr2,Pr3,Pr4,Pr5); Lipids (L1,L2,L3); Spray (MA3,MA4,MA5,MA6); Dipping (MA7,MA8); Product quality (PQ1,PQ2,PQ3,PQ4). Determination of variable indicators
using the PCA method is used to test the effect of the relationship between variables.
Variable Effect Analysis
The effect of variables was tested using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Square
(PLS) approach with Smart PLS software. The variable indicators in table 3 will be re-evaluated based on
the loading factor > 0.7 so that some indicators were omitted because the value is < 0.7.
Figure 3. Analyzes of the relationship between variables using the SEM PLS method to test the model’s validity and reliability before
testing between variables. If the validity and reliability tests have not been met, then the variable influence test cannot be carried
out in this analysis.
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
Indicator Code
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
VARIABLE (* significant p=0.05)
Polysaccharide Protein Lipid Spray Dipping Product
Quality
Bee Wax ( L1) L1 .298 .349 .749* .382 .342 .345
Rice Brand Wax (L2) L2 .438 .483 .783* .364 .341 .355
Paraffin (L3) L3 .472 .342 .658* .298 .362 .385
Air assisted airless atomization (MA3) MA3 .435 .352 .367 .745* .324 .395
Pressure atomization (MA4) MA4 .389 .267 .476 .749* .268 .375
Air spray atomization (MA5) MA5 .482 .367 .487 .763* .337 .345
Air spray-Air assisted airless (MA6) MA6 .473 .392 .387 .684* .452 .358
Duration (20-30) sec. (MA7) MA7 .378 .372 .443 .365 .783* .348
Duration ( 30-60) sec. (MA8) MA8 .238 .435 .344 .428 .682* .345
Damage Duration (PQ1) PQ1 .349 .389 .364 .378 .391 .794*
Escherichia coli (PQ2) PQ2 .487 .482 .361 .456 .386 .765*
Total Plate Count (PQ3) PQ3 .298 .473 .358 .386 ,364 .773*
Water Activity (PQ4) PQ4 .389 .481 .374 .354 .347 .765*
Determination of variable indicators using loading > 0.6 and p = 0.05. The blue color shows the indicator of the variable. Polysaccharides (P1,P2,P3,P4); Proteins
(Pr1,Pr2,Pr3,Pr4,Pr5); Lipids (L1,L2,L3); Spray (MA3,MA4,MA5,MA6); Dipping (MA7,MA8); Product quality (PQ1,PQ2,PQ3,PQ4). Determination of variable indicators
using the PCA method is used to test the effect of the relationship between variables.
Variable Effect Analysis
The effect of variables was tested using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Square
(PLS) approach with Smart PLS software. The variable indicators in table 3 will be re-evaluated based on
the loading factor > 0.7 so that some indicators were omitted because the value is < 0.7.
Figure 3. Analyzes of the relationship between variables using the SEM PLS method to test the model’s validity and reliability before
testing between variables. If the validity and reliability tests have not been met, then the variable influence test cannot be carried
out in this analysis.
8Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111Budianto, Anik Suparmi, Muh Jaenal Arifin, Ratna Haryani
Table 4. Test the Validity and Reliability of the Model
Test Parameter Standard Results
Convergent Validity
Factor loading (outer loading) >0.6 0.726-0.938
AVE (Average Variance Extracted) >0.5 0.581– 0.684
Communality >0.5 0.581 – 0.684
Discriminant Validity
Root Square AVE and Corelation
variabel latent
Root Square AVE >
Discriminant validity
Root Square AVE>
Discriminant Validity
Cross Loading >0.6 0.726 – 0.906
Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha >0.6 0.614 – 0.827
Composite Reliability >0.7 0.807 – 0.878
Referring to table 4, all parameters are included in the standard validity and reliability test of the instrument
so that it can be used for analysis of variable relationships in a model.
Table 5. Test the effect between variables
hypothesis Paths Coeficient
(β)
T statistics
>1.65
p Value
< 0.05 f 2 Remark
1 Polysaccharide => Spray 0.584 2.727 0.007 0.141 (+) significant
2 Polysaccharide => Dipping 0.460 2.290 0.022 0.097 (+) significant
3 Protein => Spray -0.114 0.411 0.681 0.004 (-) not significant
4 Protein =>Dipping 0.006 0.405 0.686 0.005 (+) not significant
5 Lipid => Spray 0.032 0.078 0.937 0.000 (+) not significant
6 Lipid =>Dipping 0.144 0.862 0.389 0.017 (+) not significant
7 Spray => Product Quality 0.352 3.267 0.001 0.253 (+) significant
8 Dipping => Product Quality 0.534 5.489 0.000 0.489 (+) significant
9 Polysaccharide => Spray => Product Quality 0.135 2.189 0.029 (+) significant
10 Protein => Spray => Product Quality 0.025 0.385 0.701 (+) not significant
11 Lipid => Spray => Product Quality -0.007 0.077 0.938 (-) not significant
12 Polysaccharide => Dipping => Product Quality 0.155 2.143 0.033 (+) significant
13 Protein => Dipping => Product Quality 0.038 0.403 0.687 (+) not significant
14 Lipid => Dipping => Product Quality 0.071 0.858 0.391 (+) not significant
f 2 : 0.02- 0.15 Weak Effect; f 2 : 0.15-0.35 Sufficient Effect ; f2 : ≥ 0.35 Strong Effect
R2: Spray 0.319; Dipping 0.267; Product quality 0.613
The effect of the (+) significant variable indicates
that the ECF raw material is easy to apply with the
dipping and spray methods to maintain the quality
of the tomatoes. Polysaccharides can prove this
condition as raw material for ECF. The significant (-)
effect describes the less than optimal application
so that it has not given maximum results to the
quality of tomatoes. This is indicated by the fact
that obstacles in applying for proteins, and lipids are
still found. The dipping method gave the greatest
protective effect on tomatoes (48.9%) compared to
the spray method (25.3%) using polysaccharides.
DISCUSSION
This study aims to compare the effect of composite
edible on product quality with the mediation of
application methods. Referring to the composite
edible, the raw material with the biggest effect
is polysaccharide, and the weakest effect is
protein. The effect test is seen from the direct
effect (composite edible on application methods)
and indirect effect (composite edible on product
quality with the mediation of application methods).
Based on the relationship between variables, the
Table 4. Test the Validity and Reliability of the Model
Test Parameter Standard Results
Convergent Validity
Factor loading (outer loading) >0.6 0.726-0.938
AVE (Average Variance Extracted) >0.5 0.581– 0.684
Communality >0.5 0.581 – 0.684
Discriminant Validity
Root Square AVE and Corelation
variabel latent
Root Square AVE >
Discriminant validity
Root Square AVE>
Discriminant Validity
Cross Loading >0.6 0.726 – 0.906
Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha >0.6 0.614 – 0.827
Composite Reliability >0.7 0.807 – 0.878
Referring to table 4, all parameters are included in the standard validity and reliability test of the instrument
so that it can be used for analysis of variable relationships in a model.
Table 5. Test the effect between variables
hypothesis Paths Coeficient
(β)
T statistics
>1.65
p Value
< 0.05 f 2 Remark
1 Polysaccharide => Spray 0.584 2.727 0.007 0.141 (+) significant
2 Polysaccharide => Dipping 0.460 2.290 0.022 0.097 (+) significant
3 Protein => Spray -0.114 0.411 0.681 0.004 (-) not significant
4 Protein =>Dipping 0.006 0.405 0.686 0.005 (+) not significant
5 Lipid => Spray 0.032 0.078 0.937 0.000 (+) not significant
6 Lipid =>Dipping 0.144 0.862 0.389 0.017 (+) not significant
7 Spray => Product Quality 0.352 3.267 0.001 0.253 (+) significant
8 Dipping => Product Quality 0.534 5.489 0.000 0.489 (+) significant
9 Polysaccharide => Spray => Product Quality 0.135 2.189 0.029 (+) significant
10 Protein => Spray => Product Quality 0.025 0.385 0.701 (+) not significant
11 Lipid => Spray => Product Quality -0.007 0.077 0.938 (-) not significant
12 Polysaccharide => Dipping => Product Quality 0.155 2.143 0.033 (+) significant
13 Protein => Dipping => Product Quality 0.038 0.403 0.687 (+) not significant
14 Lipid => Dipping => Product Quality 0.071 0.858 0.391 (+) not significant
f 2 : 0.02- 0.15 Weak Effect; f 2 : 0.15-0.35 Sufficient Effect ; f2 : ≥ 0.35 Strong Effect
R2: Spray 0.319; Dipping 0.267; Product quality 0.613
The effect of the (+) significant variable indicates
that the ECF raw material is easy to apply with the
dipping and spray methods to maintain the quality
of the tomatoes. Polysaccharides can prove this
condition as raw material for ECF. The significant (-)
effect describes the less than optimal application
so that it has not given maximum results to the
quality of tomatoes. This is indicated by the fact
that obstacles in applying for proteins, and lipids are
still found. The dipping method gave the greatest
protective effect on tomatoes (48.9%) compared to
the spray method (25.3%) using polysaccharides.
DISCUSSION
This study aims to compare the effect of composite
edible on product quality with the mediation of
application methods. Referring to the composite
edible, the raw material with the biggest effect
is polysaccharide, and the weakest effect is
protein. The effect test is seen from the direct
effect (composite edible on application methods)
and indirect effect (composite edible on product
quality with the mediation of application methods).
Based on the relationship between variables, the
9Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
most significant effect is shown by the relationship
between the dipping variable on product quality,
and the lowest effect is lipid on spray.
Polysaccharide has the greatest influence on both
direct relationship (Polysaccharide Spray) and
indirect relationship/mediation (Polysaccharide
Dipping Product Quality). Polysaccharides are
easily soluble in water, so farmers in Indonesia
widely use them. Polysaccharides are abundant
and relatively inexpensive raw materials. This raw
material tends to be stable in the spray and dipping
method. However, in the spray method, there are
cases of nozzle blockage. This condition is not as
severe as proteins and lipids materials. Those tend to
be hygroscopic, favoring the growth of contaminant
microorganisms; besides, the selection of raw
materials must pay attention to tensile strength (not
easily broken on pull) and puncture strength. Types
of starch and cellulose were included in the selection
of raw materials. No cracks occurred in layers with
a thickness of 30μm (dipping = 20-30 seconds)
and 40μm (dipping = 30-40 seconds). This finding
strengthens the results of previous studies [6,34].
Figure 4. Composite Edible Relationship Model on Product Quality with the Mediation of Application Methods. The spray variable
reflected 31.9% of the polysaccharide, protein, and lipid variables. The Dipping variable reflected 26.7% of the polysaccharide,
protein, and lipid variables. Product quality was reflected by the variable spray and dipping of 61.3%.
Protein has the slightest effect on direct (Protein
spray) and indirect (Protein Spray Product
quality) relationships. Protein did not affect the spray
method. The field observations showed frequent
blockages in the spray nozzles for several types of
protein, although the viscosity was the same as that
of polysaccharides and lipids. The findings of this
constraint support the research conducted by [35].
Physical properties, including tensile and puncture
strength, were shallow compared to polysaccharide
and lipid materials. This has been experienced by
[36], causing less than maximum protection against
water vapor. Gluten contains gliadins and glutenins.
Gliadin is soluble in 70% ethanol, but glutenin is
insoluble. This condition is supported by the findings
of Dhaka & Upadhyay [37]. Although gluten has
good solubility in low and high pH, it is not soluble
in water.
Lipids had no significant positive effect on the spray
and dipping methods. The observations in the field
showed that the gloss of tomato coated with lipids
spoiled the appearance. This finding was supported
by previous researchers [36, 37]. Rotten due to the
oxidation process is an obstacle for lipid-based
raw materials, so the thickness of the layer needs
to be increased (>30 μm). Additionally, increased
ECF thickness will affect the sensory properties of
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
most significant effect is shown by the relationship
between the dipping variable on product quality,
and the lowest effect is lipid on spray.
Polysaccharide has the greatest influence on both
direct relationship (Polysaccharide Spray) and
indirect relationship/mediation (Polysaccharide
Dipping Product Quality). Polysaccharides are
easily soluble in water, so farmers in Indonesia
widely use them. Polysaccharides are abundant
and relatively inexpensive raw materials. This raw
material tends to be stable in the spray and dipping
method. However, in the spray method, there are
cases of nozzle blockage. This condition is not as
severe as proteins and lipids materials. Those tend to
be hygroscopic, favoring the growth of contaminant
microorganisms; besides, the selection of raw
materials must pay attention to tensile strength (not
easily broken on pull) and puncture strength. Types
of starch and cellulose were included in the selection
of raw materials. No cracks occurred in layers with
a thickness of 30μm (dipping = 20-30 seconds)
and 40μm (dipping = 30-40 seconds). This finding
strengthens the results of previous studies [6,34].
Figure 4. Composite Edible Relationship Model on Product Quality with the Mediation of Application Methods. The spray variable
reflected 31.9% of the polysaccharide, protein, and lipid variables. The Dipping variable reflected 26.7% of the polysaccharide,
protein, and lipid variables. Product quality was reflected by the variable spray and dipping of 61.3%.
Protein has the slightest effect on direct (Protein
spray) and indirect (Protein Spray Product
quality) relationships. Protein did not affect the spray
method. The field observations showed frequent
blockages in the spray nozzles for several types of
protein, although the viscosity was the same as that
of polysaccharides and lipids. The findings of this
constraint support the research conducted by [35].
Physical properties, including tensile and puncture
strength, were shallow compared to polysaccharide
and lipid materials. This has been experienced by
[36], causing less than maximum protection against
water vapor. Gluten contains gliadins and glutenins.
Gliadin is soluble in 70% ethanol, but glutenin is
insoluble. This condition is supported by the findings
of Dhaka & Upadhyay [37]. Although gluten has
good solubility in low and high pH, it is not soluble
in water.
Lipids had no significant positive effect on the spray
and dipping methods. The observations in the field
showed that the gloss of tomato coated with lipids
spoiled the appearance. This finding was supported
by previous researchers [36, 37]. Rotten due to the
oxidation process is an obstacle for lipid-based
raw materials, so the thickness of the layer needs
to be increased (>30 μm). Additionally, increased
ECF thickness will affect the sensory properties of
10Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111Budianto, Anik Suparmi, Muh Jaenal Arifin, Ratna Haryani
tomatoes. The lipid layer is very effective in keeping
the tomato fruit moist because of its low polarity.
The rice bran wax coating layer was cracked by
dipping and spraying methods. A multi-layer layer
will give an uneven surface to tomatoes.
The spray method has a 25.3% effect on product
quality. Only polysaccharides had a significant
positive effect (58.3%; p<0.05) on the spray method.
Therefore, there are no obstacles to applying
polysaccharides in the spray method. Proteins and
lipids did not affect the spray application. The
obstacles found in the field were: a) there was a
blockage in the nozzle (material from lipids and
proteins) so it had to be diluted to a viscosity of
0.35-0.60 x10 -3 Pa.s. This finding supports the results
of Berkland et al. [38]. b) The use of high pressure
ranges from 10-50 kPa, while the polysaccharide
only ranges from 1-2 kPa. c) A special nozzle is
required for these materials, and post-use care is
required. d) Spraying efficiency includes pressure,
viscosity, surface temperature and tension of the
coating solution, along with the shape and design
of the spray nozzle.
The dipping method has a 48.9% effect on product
quality. Polysaccharides can significantly affect
dipping applications. There were no cracks in the
coating layer on immersion for 20-30 seconds
(30μm) and 30-60 seconds (40μm). The opposite
condition occurred in protein and lipid materials.
Prolonged immersion will provide a thick layer that
interferes with the respiration process of tomatoes,
this finding strengthens the research of Khare et al.
[39], and Menezes & Athmaselvi [6]. Disadvantages
of the dipping method are the accumulation of dirt
and the development of microbes in the container.
The ineffectiveness of proteins and lipids is due to
many obstacles in the spray process; the farmers
are not familiar with spray and prefer the dipping
method because it is more practical and easier
to apply. Only 23% of the 95 respondents used
the spray method. This study illustrates that many
investigations related to ECF with the spray method
have not been able to be applied optimally.
Referring to the discussion above, an effective,
efficient and inexpensive raw material for ECF is
a polysaccharide that has strong characteristics
on tensile and puncture tests. The method that
can be used is the dipping method which always
pays attention to: 1) the contamination factor
of microorganisms and sanitation due to the
accumulation of solvents. 2) pay attention to the
immersion time on the thickness of the ECF layer.
The thickness of the ECF will interfere with the
respiration process of tomatoes. The spray method
can be used by always paying attention to: 1) uniform
spray thickness on each side of the surface; 2) nozzle
clogging is anticipated by adjusting the viscosity of
the ECF 5% solution (0.35–0.60 x10-3 Pa.s) and At
low pressure (>10kPa), the protein concentration was
more effective at 3% (w/v) while the lipid was 3-4%
(w/v); 3) Multi-layer applications pay more attention
to the first layer to avoid cracks. This will affect the
cracks in the next layer.
The limitation of this study relates to farmer
respondents who are not familiar with the technology
(spray method) so that the method is not optimal
in its application. The raw materials used are
polysaccharides, which have abundant resources, so
that the use of protein and lipid-based raw materials
has received less attention.
CONCLUSION
The three edible coating film materials can improve
the quality of tomatoes and extend the shelf life
of tomatoes. Polysaccharides have the greatest
effectiveness compared to proteins and lipids
with the dipping and spray application methods.
This cannot be separated from the habit of using
polysaccharides as raw material for edible coating
films due to their abundant availability.
The dipping method is better than the spray method
based on the effect test (f2), coefficient (β) with p
value <0.05 even though the dipping variable can
only be understood/understood by polysaccharides,
proteins, and lipids by 26.7% (R2) while the spray
is 31.9%. The biggest obstacles in the application
that are often found with the spray method are
in the form of a spray flow that is not smooth
(clogged nozzle), viscosity, pressure, cracks after
the drying process. The use of the spray method
is more complicated than the dipping method, so
technical matters must be considered to obtain
optimal results.
The ineffectiveness of proteins and lipids in the
spray method with a concentration of 5% (w/v) can
be anticipated with a dilution of 0.35–0.60 (10-3
Pa.s), a spray pressure of 10-50 kPa, and a special
anti-clogging nozzle. At low pressure (>10kPa), the
protein concentration was more effective at 3%
(w/v) while the lipid was 3-4% (w/v). In the dipping
method, cracking can be anticipated with a shorter
immersion time (maximum 20 seconds) compared
to immersion in polysaccharides (20-40 second).
tomatoes. The lipid layer is very effective in keeping
the tomato fruit moist because of its low polarity.
The rice bran wax coating layer was cracked by
dipping and spraying methods. A multi-layer layer
will give an uneven surface to tomatoes.
The spray method has a 25.3% effect on product
quality. Only polysaccharides had a significant
positive effect (58.3%; p<0.05) on the spray method.
Therefore, there are no obstacles to applying
polysaccharides in the spray method. Proteins and
lipids did not affect the spray application. The
obstacles found in the field were: a) there was a
blockage in the nozzle (material from lipids and
proteins) so it had to be diluted to a viscosity of
0.35-0.60 x10 -3 Pa.s. This finding supports the results
of Berkland et al. [38]. b) The use of high pressure
ranges from 10-50 kPa, while the polysaccharide
only ranges from 1-2 kPa. c) A special nozzle is
required for these materials, and post-use care is
required. d) Spraying efficiency includes pressure,
viscosity, surface temperature and tension of the
coating solution, along with the shape and design
of the spray nozzle.
The dipping method has a 48.9% effect on product
quality. Polysaccharides can significantly affect
dipping applications. There were no cracks in the
coating layer on immersion for 20-30 seconds
(30μm) and 30-60 seconds (40μm). The opposite
condition occurred in protein and lipid materials.
Prolonged immersion will provide a thick layer that
interferes with the respiration process of tomatoes,
this finding strengthens the research of Khare et al.
[39], and Menezes & Athmaselvi [6]. Disadvantages
of the dipping method are the accumulation of dirt
and the development of microbes in the container.
The ineffectiveness of proteins and lipids is due to
many obstacles in the spray process; the farmers
are not familiar with spray and prefer the dipping
method because it is more practical and easier
to apply. Only 23% of the 95 respondents used
the spray method. This study illustrates that many
investigations related to ECF with the spray method
have not been able to be applied optimally.
Referring to the discussion above, an effective,
efficient and inexpensive raw material for ECF is
a polysaccharide that has strong characteristics
on tensile and puncture tests. The method that
can be used is the dipping method which always
pays attention to: 1) the contamination factor
of microorganisms and sanitation due to the
accumulation of solvents. 2) pay attention to the
immersion time on the thickness of the ECF layer.
The thickness of the ECF will interfere with the
respiration process of tomatoes. The spray method
can be used by always paying attention to: 1) uniform
spray thickness on each side of the surface; 2) nozzle
clogging is anticipated by adjusting the viscosity of
the ECF 5% solution (0.35–0.60 x10-3 Pa.s) and At
low pressure (>10kPa), the protein concentration was
more effective at 3% (w/v) while the lipid was 3-4%
(w/v); 3) Multi-layer applications pay more attention
to the first layer to avoid cracks. This will affect the
cracks in the next layer.
The limitation of this study relates to farmer
respondents who are not familiar with the technology
(spray method) so that the method is not optimal
in its application. The raw materials used are
polysaccharides, which have abundant resources, so
that the use of protein and lipid-based raw materials
has received less attention.
CONCLUSION
The three edible coating film materials can improve
the quality of tomatoes and extend the shelf life
of tomatoes. Polysaccharides have the greatest
effectiveness compared to proteins and lipids
with the dipping and spray application methods.
This cannot be separated from the habit of using
polysaccharides as raw material for edible coating
films due to their abundant availability.
The dipping method is better than the spray method
based on the effect test (f2), coefficient (β) with p
value <0.05 even though the dipping variable can
only be understood/understood by polysaccharides,
proteins, and lipids by 26.7% (R2) while the spray
is 31.9%. The biggest obstacles in the application
that are often found with the spray method are
in the form of a spray flow that is not smooth
(clogged nozzle), viscosity, pressure, cracks after
the drying process. The use of the spray method
is more complicated than the dipping method, so
technical matters must be considered to obtain
optimal results.
The ineffectiveness of proteins and lipids in the
spray method with a concentration of 5% (w/v) can
be anticipated with a dilution of 0.35–0.60 (10-3
Pa.s), a spray pressure of 10-50 kPa, and a special
anti-clogging nozzle. At low pressure (>10kPa), the
protein concentration was more effective at 3%
(w/v) while the lipid was 3-4% (w/v). In the dipping
method, cracking can be anticipated with a shorter
immersion time (maximum 20 seconds) compared
to immersion in polysaccharides (20-40 second).
11Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitaeVolume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
REFERENCE
[1] DADZIE, Rosemond G., et al. Physicochemical properties of
eggplant (Solanum aethiopicum L.) fruits as affected by cassava
starch coating during low temperature storage: optimisation
of coating conditions. International Journal of Postharvest
Technology and Innovation. 2019; 6 (4): 276-300. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJPTI.2019.106461.
[2] Ojeda, G. A., Arias Gorman, A. M., Sgroppo, S. C., & Zaritzky,
N. E. Application of composite cassava starch/chitosan edible
coating to extend the shelf life of black mulberries. Journal of
Food Processing and Preservation. 2021; 45 (1): e15073. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.15073
[3] Suhag, R., Kumar, N., Petkoska, A. T., & Upadhyay, A. Film
formation and deposition methods of edible coating on food
products: A review. Food Research International. 2020; 136:
109582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109582.
[4] Patrícia S. Tanada-Palmu, Carlos R.F. Grosso. Effect of edible
wheat gluten-based films and coatings on refrigerated
strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) quality. Postharvest Biology and
Technology. 2005; 36 (2): 199-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
postharvbio.2004.12.003.
[5] SILVA, Danielle Fabíola Pereira da, et al. Influence of the use
of acids and films in post-harvest lychee conservation. Revista
Ceres. 2012; 59: 745-750. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-
737X2012000600002
[6] MENEZES, Joslin; ATHMASELVI, K. A. Polysaccharide based
edible coating on sapota fruit. International agrophysics. 2016;
30 (4): 531-557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/intag-2016-0019.
[7] ISNAINI, R.; NURMINAH, M.; LUBIS, Z. The effect of edible
coating application based on cassava starch and calcium chloride
concentration on the quality of orange sweet potatoes french
fries. Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing. 2020; 454
(1): 012110. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1755-1315/454/1/012110
[8] MISIR, Jawadul, BRISHTI, Fatema H. HOQUE, M. M. Aloe vera
gel as a novel edible coating for fresh fruits: A review. American
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2014; 2 (3): 93-97. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajfst-2-3-3.
[9] LACROIX, Monique, VU, Khanh Dang. Edible coating and film
materials: proteins. In: Innovations in food packaging. Academic
Press. 2014; 277-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
394601-0.00011-4.
[10] SOA ZO, Marina, et al. Prefreezing application of whey
protein‐based edible coating to maintain quality attributes of
strawberries. International Journal of Food Science & Technology.
2015; 50 (3): 605-611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12667.
[11] Z. Feng, G. Wu, C. Liu, D. Li, B. Jiang, and X. Zhang. Edible
coating based on whey protein isolate nanofibrils for antioxidation
and inhibition of product browning. Food Hydrocoll. 2018; 79:
179–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODHYD.2017.12.028
[12] A. A. Motalebi, A. Hasanzati Rostami, A. A. Khanipour, and M.
Soltani. Impacts of whey protein edible coating on chemical and
microbial factors of gutted kilka during frozen storage. Iranian
Journal of Fisheries Science. 2010; 9 (2): 255–264. Available at:
URI http://hdl.handle.net/1834/11275
[13] GHIDELLI, Christian, et al. Extending the shelf life of fresh-cut
eggplant with a soy protein–cysteine based edible coating
and modified atmosphere packaging. Postharvest biology and
technology, 2014; 95: 81-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
postharvbio.2014.04.007.
[14] MIRANDA-LINARES, V., et al. Solid lipid nanoparticles based
edible coating for saladet te tomato preser vation. Ac ta
horticulturae, 2018; 1194: 305-312. DOI: https://doi.org/:10.17660/
actahortic.2018.1194.44
[15] JOUNG, Ki Youeng, et al. Effects of gum on quality characteristics
of gluten-free noodles prepared with Eragrostis tef flour. The
Korean Journal of Food And Nutrition. 2017; 30 (5): 1025-1034.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.9799/ksfan.2017.30.5.1025
[16] RHIM, Jong Whan; SHELLHAMMER, Thomas H. Lipid-based edible
films and coatings. Innovations in food packaging. Academic Press,
2005; 362-383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012311632-
1/50053-X
[17] B. Salinas-Roca, R. Soliva-Fortuny, J. Welti-Chanes, and O.
Martín-Belloso. Combined effect of pulsed light, edible coating
and malic acid dipping to improve fresh-cut mango safety and
quality. Food Control, 2016; 66: 190–197. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.02.005.
[18] Kowalczewski P, Różańska M, Makowska A, Jeżowski P, Kubiak
P. Production of wheat bread with spray-dried potato juice:
Influence on dough and bread characteristics. Food Science and
Technology International. 2019; 25 (3):223-232. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/2F1082013218814605
[19] A. Valdés, N. Burgos, A. Jiménez, and M. C. Garrigós, Natural
pectin polysaccharides as edible coatings. Coatings, 2015; 5 (4):
865–886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings5040865.
[20] ANDRADE, Ricardo D.; SKURTYS, Olivier; OSORIO, Fernando
A. Atomizing spray systems for application of edible coatings.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety.
2012; 11 (3): 323-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-
4337.2012.00186.x.
[21] SALEHI, Fakhreddin. Edible coating of fruits and vegetables using
natural gums: A review. International Journal of Fruit Science.
2020; 20 (sup2): S570-S589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15538
362.2020.1746730
[22] ROJAS-GRAÜ, María Alejandra; SOLIVA-FORTUNY, Robert;
MARTÍN-BELLOSO, Olga. Edible coatings to incorporate active
ingredients to fresh-cut fruits: a review. Trends in food science &
technology. 2009; 20 (10): 438-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tifs.2009.05.002.
[23] G. Peretto, W.-X. Du, R. J. Avena-Bustillos, J. De J. Berrios,
P. Sambo, and T. H. McHugh.Electrostatic and Conventional
Spraying of Alginate-Based Edible Coating with Natural
Antimicrobials for Preserving Fresh Strawberry Quality. Food
Bioprocess Technology. 2017; 10 (1): 165–174. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11947-016-1808-9.
[24] EMBUSCADO, Milda E., HUBER, Kerry C. Edible films and coatings
for food applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2009. 367p
[25] C. N. Cut ter, “Oppor tunities for bio -based packaging
technologies to improve the quality and safety of fresh and further
processed muscle foods,” Meat Science. 2006; 74 (1):131–142.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.023
[26] MARTHA, L. Ascencio; RICARDO, D. Andrade; JAIRO, G. Salcedo.
Effect of Edible Coatings Based on Oxidized Cassava Starch
on Color and Textural Properties of Minimally Processed Yam.
Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2018; 15 (S):
42-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19026/ajfst.15.5871
[27] OJEDA, Gonzalo A.; SGROPPO, Sonia C.; ZARITZKY, Noemí E.
Application of edible coatings in minimally processed sweet
potatoes (I pomoea batatas L.) to prevent enzymatic browning.
International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2014; 49 (3):
876-883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12381
[28] H. Abdi and L. J. Williams. Principal component analysis. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 2010; 2 (4):
433-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101.
[29] BHATTI, M. Ishaq, et al. Employees’ perspective of organizational
service quality orientation: Evidence from Islamic banking
industry. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern
Effectiveness Comparison of Polysaccharides, Proteins, and Lipids as Composite Edible Coatings on the Quality of Food Products
REFERENCE
[1] DADZIE, Rosemond G., et al. Physicochemical properties of
eggplant (Solanum aethiopicum L.) fruits as affected by cassava
starch coating during low temperature storage: optimisation
of coating conditions. International Journal of Postharvest
Technology and Innovation. 2019; 6 (4): 276-300. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJPTI.2019.106461.
[2] Ojeda, G. A., Arias Gorman, A. M., Sgroppo, S. C., & Zaritzky,
N. E. Application of composite cassava starch/chitosan edible
coating to extend the shelf life of black mulberries. Journal of
Food Processing and Preservation. 2021; 45 (1): e15073. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.15073
[3] Suhag, R., Kumar, N., Petkoska, A. T., & Upadhyay, A. Film
formation and deposition methods of edible coating on food
products: A review. Food Research International. 2020; 136:
109582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109582.
[4] Patrícia S. Tanada-Palmu, Carlos R.F. Grosso. Effect of edible
wheat gluten-based films and coatings on refrigerated
strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) quality. Postharvest Biology and
Technology. 2005; 36 (2): 199-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
postharvbio.2004.12.003.
[5] SILVA, Danielle Fabíola Pereira da, et al. Influence of the use
of acids and films in post-harvest lychee conservation. Revista
Ceres. 2012; 59: 745-750. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-
737X2012000600002
[6] MENEZES, Joslin; ATHMASELVI, K. A. Polysaccharide based
edible coating on sapota fruit. International agrophysics. 2016;
30 (4): 531-557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/intag-2016-0019.
[7] ISNAINI, R.; NURMINAH, M.; LUBIS, Z. The effect of edible
coating application based on cassava starch and calcium chloride
concentration on the quality of orange sweet potatoes french
fries. Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing. 2020; 454
(1): 012110. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1755-1315/454/1/012110
[8] MISIR, Jawadul, BRISHTI, Fatema H. HOQUE, M. M. Aloe vera
gel as a novel edible coating for fresh fruits: A review. American
Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2014; 2 (3): 93-97. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12691/ajfst-2-3-3.
[9] LACROIX, Monique, VU, Khanh Dang. Edible coating and film
materials: proteins. In: Innovations in food packaging. Academic
Press. 2014; 277-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
394601-0.00011-4.
[10] SOA ZO, Marina, et al. Prefreezing application of whey
protein‐based edible coating to maintain quality attributes of
strawberries. International Journal of Food Science & Technology.
2015; 50 (3): 605-611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12667.
[11] Z. Feng, G. Wu, C. Liu, D. Li, B. Jiang, and X. Zhang. Edible
coating based on whey protein isolate nanofibrils for antioxidation
and inhibition of product browning. Food Hydrocoll. 2018; 79:
179–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODHYD.2017.12.028
[12] A. A. Motalebi, A. Hasanzati Rostami, A. A. Khanipour, and M.
Soltani. Impacts of whey protein edible coating on chemical and
microbial factors of gutted kilka during frozen storage. Iranian
Journal of Fisheries Science. 2010; 9 (2): 255–264. Available at:
URI http://hdl.handle.net/1834/11275
[13] GHIDELLI, Christian, et al. Extending the shelf life of fresh-cut
eggplant with a soy protein–cysteine based edible coating
and modified atmosphere packaging. Postharvest biology and
technology, 2014; 95: 81-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
postharvbio.2014.04.007.
[14] MIRANDA-LINARES, V., et al. Solid lipid nanoparticles based
edible coating for saladet te tomato preser vation. Ac ta
horticulturae, 2018; 1194: 305-312. DOI: https://doi.org/:10.17660/
actahortic.2018.1194.44
[15] JOUNG, Ki Youeng, et al. Effects of gum on quality characteristics
of gluten-free noodles prepared with Eragrostis tef flour. The
Korean Journal of Food And Nutrition. 2017; 30 (5): 1025-1034.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.9799/ksfan.2017.30.5.1025
[16] RHIM, Jong Whan; SHELLHAMMER, Thomas H. Lipid-based edible
films and coatings. Innovations in food packaging. Academic Press,
2005; 362-383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012311632-
1/50053-X
[17] B. Salinas-Roca, R. Soliva-Fortuny, J. Welti-Chanes, and O.
Martín-Belloso. Combined effect of pulsed light, edible coating
and malic acid dipping to improve fresh-cut mango safety and
quality. Food Control, 2016; 66: 190–197. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.02.005.
[18] Kowalczewski P, Różańska M, Makowska A, Jeżowski P, Kubiak
P. Production of wheat bread with spray-dried potato juice:
Influence on dough and bread characteristics. Food Science and
Technology International. 2019; 25 (3):223-232. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/2F1082013218814605
[19] A. Valdés, N. Burgos, A. Jiménez, and M. C. Garrigós, Natural
pectin polysaccharides as edible coatings. Coatings, 2015; 5 (4):
865–886. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings5040865.
[20] ANDRADE, Ricardo D.; SKURTYS, Olivier; OSORIO, Fernando
A. Atomizing spray systems for application of edible coatings.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety.
2012; 11 (3): 323-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-
4337.2012.00186.x.
[21] SALEHI, Fakhreddin. Edible coating of fruits and vegetables using
natural gums: A review. International Journal of Fruit Science.
2020; 20 (sup2): S570-S589. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15538
362.2020.1746730
[22] ROJAS-GRAÜ, María Alejandra; SOLIVA-FORTUNY, Robert;
MARTÍN-BELLOSO, Olga. Edible coatings to incorporate active
ingredients to fresh-cut fruits: a review. Trends in food science &
technology. 2009; 20 (10): 438-447. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tifs.2009.05.002.
[23] G. Peretto, W.-X. Du, R. J. Avena-Bustillos, J. De J. Berrios,
P. Sambo, and T. H. McHugh.Electrostatic and Conventional
Spraying of Alginate-Based Edible Coating with Natural
Antimicrobials for Preserving Fresh Strawberry Quality. Food
Bioprocess Technology. 2017; 10 (1): 165–174. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11947-016-1808-9.
[24] EMBUSCADO, Milda E., HUBER, Kerry C. Edible films and coatings
for food applications. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2009. 367p
[25] C. N. Cut ter, “Oppor tunities for bio -based packaging
technologies to improve the quality and safety of fresh and further
processed muscle foods,” Meat Science. 2006; 74 (1):131–142.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.023
[26] MARTHA, L. Ascencio; RICARDO, D. Andrade; JAIRO, G. Salcedo.
Effect of Edible Coatings Based on Oxidized Cassava Starch
on Color and Textural Properties of Minimally Processed Yam.
Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2018; 15 (S):
42-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19026/ajfst.15.5871
[27] OJEDA, Gonzalo A.; SGROPPO, Sonia C.; ZARITZKY, Noemí E.
Application of edible coatings in minimally processed sweet
potatoes (I pomoea batatas L.) to prevent enzymatic browning.
International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2014; 49 (3):
876-883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12381
[28] H. Abdi and L. J. Williams. Principal component analysis. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 2010; 2 (4):
433-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.101.
[29] BHATTI, M. Ishaq, et al. Employees’ perspective of organizational
service quality orientation: Evidence from Islamic banking
industry. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern
12Journal Vitae | https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/vitae Volume 29 | Number 03 | Article 348111Budianto, Anik Suparmi, Muh Jaenal Arifin, Ratna Haryani
Finance and Management, 2011; 4 (4): 280-294. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538391111186537.
[30] JOLIFFE, Ian T.; MORGAN, B. J. T. Principal component
analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Statistical methods
in medical research, 1992; 1 (1): 69-95. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/096228029200100105.
[31] CHIN, Wynne W., et al. The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business
research, Pscychology Press, london; 1998. 295-336p.
[32] FORNELL, Claes; LARCKER, David F. Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of marketing research, 1981; 18 (1): 39-50. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
[33] M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, D. Smith, R. Reams, and J. F. Hair,
“Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal
Family Business Strategy. 2014; 5 (1): 105-115. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002.
[34] KUMAR, Nishant, et al. Polysaccharide-based component and
their relevance in edible film/coating: A review. Nutrition & Food
Science. 2019; 49 (5): 793–823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/
NFS-10-2018-0294.
[35] HASSAN, Bilal, et al. Recent advances on polysaccharides,
lipids and protein based edible films and coatings: A review.
International journal of biological macromolecules. 2018; 109:
1095-1107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.097.
[36] BOURTOOM, T. Edible protein films: properties enhancement.
International Food Research Journal. 2009; 16 (1): 1-9.
[37] R. K. Dhaka and A. Upadhyay. Edible films and coatings : a brief
overview. Pharma Innovation Jounal. 2018; 7 (7):331–333.
[38] C. Berkland, D. W. Pack, and K. Kim. Controlling surface
nano-structure using flow-limited field-injection electrostatic
spraying (FFESS) of poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide). Biomaterials.
20 0 4; 25: 56 49 – 5658. D OI: ht t ps: //d oi.org /10.1016/ j.
biomaterials.2004.01.018.
[39] KHARE, Anshul Kumar, et al. Effect of Chitosan and Cinnamon oil
edible coating on shelf life of chicken fillets under refrigeration
conditions. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2017; 51 (3)
603–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.7834.
[40] D. F. Rosida, N. Hapsari, and R. Dewati, Edible Coating dan Film
dari Biopolimer Bahan Alami Terbarukan. UPN Jatim, Surabaya;
2018. 10-82 p.
Finance and Management, 2011; 4 (4): 280-294. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1108/17538391111186537.
[30] JOLIFFE, Ian T.; MORGAN, B. J. T. Principal component
analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Statistical methods
in medical research, 1992; 1 (1): 69-95. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/096228029200100105.
[31] CHIN, Wynne W., et al. The partial least squares approach to
structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business
research, Pscychology Press, london; 1998. 295-336p.
[32] FORNELL, Claes; LARCKER, David F. Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of marketing research, 1981; 18 (1): 39-50. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
[33] M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, D. Smith, R. Reams, and J. F. Hair,
“Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal
Family Business Strategy. 2014; 5 (1): 105-115. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002.
[34] KUMAR, Nishant, et al. Polysaccharide-based component and
their relevance in edible film/coating: A review. Nutrition & Food
Science. 2019; 49 (5): 793–823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/
NFS-10-2018-0294.
[35] HASSAN, Bilal, et al. Recent advances on polysaccharides,
lipids and protein based edible films and coatings: A review.
International journal of biological macromolecules. 2018; 109:
1095-1107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.097.
[36] BOURTOOM, T. Edible protein films: properties enhancement.
International Food Research Journal. 2009; 16 (1): 1-9.
[37] R. K. Dhaka and A. Upadhyay. Edible films and coatings : a brief
overview. Pharma Innovation Jounal. 2018; 7 (7):331–333.
[38] C. Berkland, D. W. Pack, and K. Kim. Controlling surface
nano-structure using flow-limited field-injection electrostatic
spraying (FFESS) of poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide). Biomaterials.
20 0 4; 25: 56 49 – 5658. D OI: ht t ps: //d oi.org /10.1016/ j.
biomaterials.2004.01.018.
[39] KHARE, Anshul Kumar, et al. Effect of Chitosan and Cinnamon oil
edible coating on shelf life of chicken fillets under refrigeration
conditions. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 2017; 51 (3)
603–610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.v0iOF.7834.
[40] D. F. Rosida, N. Hapsari, and R. Dewati, Edible Coating dan Film
dari Biopolimer Bahan Alami Terbarukan. UPN Jatim, Surabaya;
2018. 10-82 p.