Abstract
BACKGROUND
Replacing conventional plastics with biodegradable solutions that control moisture loss in fresh‐cut produce is a strategic need. This study developed hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) and chitosan (CS) films plasticised with glycerol (Gly) and evaluated their use as sealing lids for fresh‐cut mango.
RESULTS
The selected monolayer formulation showed high optical clarity with limited transmittance at 560 nm, reduced water solubility and water‐vapour permeability suited to moisture management. Attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared analysis indicated HPMC–CS compatibility and scanning electron microscopy imaging showed a continuous surface. Applied at 9 °C for nine days, the HPMC/CS+Gly film reduced weight loss by about fivefold relative to unpackaged fruit and approached the performance of commercial poly(vinyl chloride) in limiting dehydration, while maintaining fruit colour (Lab*) and firmness during storage. Package headspace measurements were consistent with a performance profile focused on moisture control.
CONCLUSION
The HPMC/CS+Gly film is a promising biodegradable option for mitigating dehydration and preserving quality in fresh‐cut mango, and it provides a robust platform for future optimisation of gas‐barrier properties and, where appropriate, incorporation of active functionalities. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Keywords: biodegradable packaging, climacteric fruit, food preservation, minimally processed, polysaccharide‐based films
INTRODUCTION
As consumer demand for convenient, safe and high‐quality foods continues to rise, food packaging has become a strategic component in modern food systems, contributing to containment, protection, communication and product integrity. 1 Beyond these essential functions, packaging plays a pivotal role in maintaining the microbiological and physicochemical quality of foods, directly influencing shelf life and minimising postharvest losses. 1 , 2 These aspects are particularly critical for fresh‐cut fruits and vegetables, which have gained increasing popularity due to their practicality and nutritional value. 3 , 4
Nevertheless, maintaining the quality of fresh‐cut products remains a complex challenge due to their high metabolic activity, structural fragility and susceptibility to microbial spoilage. 4 , 5 These characteristics accelerate moisture loss, oxidative browning and microbial growth, ultimately leading to a shortened shelf life and increased risk of consumer rejection. Even under refrigeration and combined with physical or chemical preservation techniques, the retention of key attributes such as firmness, colour, juiciness and flavour is often compromised. 3 , 6 , 7 , 8
Among preservation strategies, approaches that modulate the package atmosphere have been widely investigated to slow respiration and metabolic processes and, in some cases, to delay tissue senescence and preserve quality. 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 Such approaches have shown success across a range of fresh‐cut produce, 17 , 18 , 19 while polymeric films remain central because they govern gas permeability, moisture transfer and light exposure, and provide mechanical protection. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 At the same time, environmental concerns regarding conventional synthetic plastics have spurred efforts to develop biodegradable alternatives from renewable sources. 22 , 23 In this context, biobased polymers have emerged as sustainable options that can offer suitable barrier properties and reduce the environmental footprint of packaging materials. 20 , 24 , 25 , 26
Among these alternatives, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) and chitosan (CS) stand out due to their excellent film‐forming capabilities, biodegradability and safety for food applications. 27 , 28 HPMC films exhibit high transparency, flexibility, low oxygen permeability and resistance to fats, 29 although their hydrophilic nature and relatively high production costs may limit effectiveness in high‐moisture systems. 30 , 31 CS, the second most abundant natural polysaccharide after cellulose and derived from chitin, 32 , 33 may display inherent antimicrobial activity associated with its cationic nature and also shows good biocompatibility and gas‐barrier potential, 34 , 35 though its low mechanical strength can restrict standalone application. 36 Blending HPMC and CS has therefore proven effective, enabling composite films with enhanced mechanical strength, cohesive structure and improved functional performance. 34 Incorporating glycerol (Gly) as a plasticiser reduces intermolecular forces, increasing flexibility, preventing shrinkage and facilitating handling and storage. 37 , 39
Given the high perishability and economic relevance of mango in tropical supply chains, improving moisture management for fresh‐cut mango is particularly pertinent. Therefore, the study reported here aimed to develop and characterise a biodegradable HPMC–CS film plasticised with Gly and to evaluate its performance in limiting moisture loss and preserving product quality (weight loss, colour and firmness) in fresh‐cut mango under refrigerated storage, using commercial poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) film and an unpackaged control as benchmarks.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
Commercial CS (from shrimp shells, minimum deacetylation degree 75%, Sigma‐Aldrich®), HPMC (viscosity 40–60 cP in 2% aqueous solution at 20 °C, Sigma‐Aldrich®), Gly (purity > 99.5%, Sigma‐Aldrich®) and glacial acetic acid (analytical grade) were used in this study.
Preparation of film‐forming solutions and monolayer films
HPMC and CS solutions were prepared separately. HPMC was dispersed in distilled water and stirred using a magnetic stirrer in a water bath at 75 °C for 1 h. After complete dissolution, the solution was cooled to room temperature (25 °C) and manually stirred for 20 min, followed by magnetic stirring for an additional 30 min to ensure homogeneity and transparency. CS was dissolved in 1.0% (v/v) acetic acid and stirred at 50 °C for 1 h. The resulting solution was vacuum‐filtered to remove insoluble residues.
Equal volumes of the HPMC and CS solutions were combined and magnetically stirred at room temperature for 10 min. The concentrations presented in Table 1 refer to the individual polymer solutions prior to mixing; therefore, the 1:1 blending step resulted in final concentrations equal to half of the initial values, which was intentionally accounted for in the formulation design. Gly was then added at the concentrations established by the factorial experimental design (Table 1), and the mixture was stirred for an additional 20 min.
Table 1.
Coded and actual values of the independent variables in the 23 factorial design for HPMC–CS–Gly film formulations
| Standard run a | Coded/[HPMC] (%) | Coded/[CS] (%) | Coded/[Gly] (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 (1.00) | −1 (0.50) | −1 (0.50) |
| 2 | 1 (3.00) | −1 (0.50) | −1 (0.50) |
| 3 | −1 (1.00) | 1 (1.00) | −1 (0.50) |
| 4 | 1 (3.00) | 1 (1.00) | −1 (0.50) |
| 5 | −1 (1.00) | −1 (0.50) | 1 (2.00) |
| 6 | 1 (3.00) | −1 (0.50) | 1 (2.00) |
| 7 | −1 (1.00) | 1 (1.00) | 1 (2.00) |
| 8 | 1 (3.00) | 1 (1.00) | 1 (2.00) |
| 9 (C) | 0 (2.00) | 0 (0.75) | 0 (1.00) |
| 10 (C) | 0 (2.00) | 0 (0.75) | 0 (1.00) |
| 11 (C) | 0 (2.00) | 0 (0.75) | 0 (1.00) |
| 12 (C) | 0 (2.00) | 0 (0.75) | 0 (1.00) |
(C) indicates central‐point replicates.
For film casting, 25 mL of the film‐forming solution was dispensed into silicone moulds (surface area: 7.5 cm2) using a glass pipette. The moulds were maintained at 25 °C for 6 h to allow trapped air bubbles to dissipate and then transferred to a forced‐air oven at 40 °C for 24 h. The dried films were carefully detached from the moulds and conditioned in a desiccator (50% relative humidity, 25 °C) until characterisation. The HPMC, CS and Gly concentrations were chosen based on the most frequent recommendations observed in the literature. 5 , 7 , 10 , 19 , 24
Factorial experimental design
A factorial design is widely used for efficient optimisation of film formulations because it reduces the number of experiments required and enables systematic exploration of component–response relationships. 40 Accordingly, a 23 factorial experimental design with four centre‐point replicates was employed to evaluate the effects of three independent variables, HPMC concentration (X₁), CS concentration (X₂) and Gly concentration (X₃), on two response variables: tensile strength and elongation at break. Each factor was tested at three coded levels: low (−1), centre (0) and high (+1), as detailed in Table 1. The design allowed assessment of both main effects and interaction effects among the variables. A total of 12 experimental runs were conducted in randomised order to minimise systematic error, and all formulations were prepared and tested under identical environmental conditions to ensure comparability.
Statistical analysis
Data were analysed by analysis of variance (ANOVA; Statistica 8.0; StatSoft, 2008), with α = 0.05. When applicable, means were compared using Tukey's test (5%). In the 23 factorial design, main and interaction effects were estimated and ranked to build Pareto charts and guide formulation selection.
Mechanical tests of films
Stress (σ), strain (ε) and Young's modulus (E) were determined by tensile testing. Film thickness was measured using a digital micrometer (accuracy 0.001 mm), with three measurements taken at different points and the average value used in calculations.
Rectangular specimens (9 × 30 mm2) were tested at 25 °C using a universal testing machine (EMIC DL‐1000) according to ASTM D882‐02. The crosshead speed was set to 10 mm min−1, with a gauge length of 15 mm, and a load cell capacity of 0.5 kN.
Three specimens per formulation were tested, and average values were reported. Formulations exhibiting superior mechanical performance were selected for subsequent characterisation.
Subjective analysis of films
Subjective analysis was performed through visual and tactile inspection, evaluating gloss, flexibility, tackiness, transparency and surface texture. Each attribute was scored on a four‐point scale, where 1 corresponded to the most favourable condition (e.g. very bright, very malleable) and 4 to the least favourable condition (e.g. not bright, not malleable). The criteria for each score are presented in Table 2. Three evaluators conducted the assessments independently, and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus after analysis by a fourth evaluator.
Table 2.
Scoring system used in subjective analysis of monolayer polymeric blend films
| Scale | Brightness | Malleability | Tackiness | Transparency | Smoothness/texture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Very bright | Very malleable | Very tacky | Very transparent | Smooth/velvety |
| 2 | Bright | Malleable | Tacky | Transparent | Smooth/soft |
| 3 | Slightly bright | Slightly malleable | Slightly tacky | Slightly transparent | Smooth/plasticised |
| 4 | Not bright | Not malleable | Not tacky | Not transparent | Rough |
Transparency test
A film specimen was cut to match the dimensions of a quartz cuvette and subdivided into strips (30 × 10 mm2). Each strip was fixed to the exterior of a pre‐cleaned, dried cuvette using transparent adhesive tape, ensuring full contact and no air bubbles. Optical measurements were taken at 560 nm using a UV–visible spectrophotometer (Even, model IL‐592).
For each formulation, three independent strips were measured (n = 3). A cuvette without any film was used as the control (blank). Transmittance at 560 nm was recorded and the mean value was reported for each sample. The adhesive tape used to secure the film strip was positioned outside the optical path, ensuring that it did not influence the transmittance measurements.
Colorimetry
Colour was measured with a portable colourimeter (CR‐400, Konica Minolta, Japan). Four distinct positions along the length of each film specimen were assessed to capture spatial variation. Results are reported in the CIE Lab* colour space, where L* denotes lightness (0 = black, 100 = white), a* ranges from green (−) to red (+) and b* from blue (−) to yellow (+).
Water solubility and absorption
Square film specimens (2 cm × 2 cm; area = 4 cm2) were prepared. Each specimen was pre‐dried in a forced‐air oven at 105 °C (±1 °C) for 1 h and cooled to room temperature in a desiccator before weighing on an analytical balance (W i; g). Specimens were placed in pre‐tared Petri dishes, covered with 60 mL of distilled water, and agitated on an orbital shaker (60 rpm) for 24 h. After immersion, specimens were removed, gently blotted on absorbent paper for 10 s without rubbing and weighed immediately (W u; g). They were then dried again in an oven at 105 °C to constant mass and re‐weighed (W f; g). Three independent specimens were tested per formulation (n = 3).
Water solubility was calculated as:
| (1) |
where WS is the percentage of material dissolved in water, W i is the initial dry weight and W f is the final dry weight after immersion and re‐drying.
Water absorption (uptake) was calculated as:
| (2) |
where WA is the percentage of water absorbed at the end of immersion, W u is the wet weight after blotting and W f is as defined above.
Water vapour permeability (WVP)
WVP was determined according to ASTM E96/E96M (water method, wet‐cup). 41 Circular film discs (25 mm in diameter) hermetically sealed the mouths of 50 mL polypropylene tubes (Falcon) containing 30 mL of distilled water; internal relative humidity (RH1) was 1.0. The exposed area A was the internal mouth area, measured with callipers. Assemblies were placed in a sealed desiccator at 25 ± 1 °C; external relative humidity was monitored with a digital hygrometer and maintained at 50 ± 2% (RH2 = 0.5). Each cup was weighed at t = 0 and t = 168 h, the mass change being ΔW = m 168 − m 0 (g). During the WVP analysis, all environmental conditions were maintained constant and mass loss was periodically monitored to verify and confirm linear WVP. The 168 h period was chosen to ensure that film WVP had no changes over long periods of time. Film thickness E (mm) was measured at multiple positions and averaged. The saturation vapour pressure of water at 25 °C was taken as S = 3.17 kPa, and the time interval as T = 168 h. Results are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for n = 3 cups per formulation.
| (3) |
ATR‐FTIR spectroscopy
Attenuated total reflection Fourier transform infrared (ATR‐FTIR) spectra were collected with an IRTracer‐100 (Shimadzu) to examine functional groups at the film surface. Forty‐five scans were recorded over 600–4000 cm−1 at 8 cm−1 resolution using a small solid sample.
Surface morphology
Surface morphology was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM; TM1000, Hitachi) operated at 15 kV. Films were cut into small pieces and mounted on pre‐cleaned circular metal stubs; each side was examined on separate mounts. A thin gold layer was deposited under vacuum (Q150R ES, Quorum), and the gold‐coated samples were subsequently imaged.
Evaluation of film antimicrobial activity
Film discs (10 mm in diameter) were die‐cut from the films with a sterile punch and placed at the centre of Mueller–Hinton agar plates previously inoculated to obtain a uniform bacterial lawn of each test strain (Gram‐positive: Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212; Gram‐negative: Escherichia coli ATCC 10799, Klebsiella pneumoniae clinical isolate 153HU). Plates were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The growth‐inhibition zone diameter (mm) was measured including the 10 mm film disc. Positive controls (1% chlorhexidine solution and Cinnamomum cassia essential oil) were run in parallel (n = 3).
The selection of bacterial strains was intended to provide an initial and broad indication of the potential antimicrobial behaviour of the developed film. Standard Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative reference strains commonly used in studies on biobased antimicrobial films and active packaging were employed because they allow reproducible and comparative screening across materials with different compositions.
Packaging setup and storage conditions for fresh‐cut mango
‘Tommy Atkins’ mangoes were harvested at physiological maturity from a commercial orchard in the São Francisco Valley (Juazeiro, Bahia, Brazil). This cultivar was selected because it is the most produced and exported in the region. 42 After harvest, fruit were sanitised with 0.5 mL L−1 of a 10% available chlorine solution, then peeled, cut into cubes of approximately 2 cm edge length, gently mixed to ensure uniformity and washed again with 0.5 mL L−1 of a 10% available chlorine solution. Processed mangoes were surface‐dried at 25 °C.
Three packaging conditions were tested: (i) cubes placed in 100 mL food‐grade plastic cups without a sealing film (control); (ii) cubes in 100 mL plastic cups sealed with the test film (HPMC/CS+Gly; thickness of 62 ± 8 μm); and (iii) cubes in 100 mL plastic cups sealed with a commercial PVC film (thickness of 16 ± 2 μm). The experiment followed a completely randomised design with three packages (cups) per treatment, each package containing two fresh‐cut cubes. Samples were stored at 9 °C and evaluated at 0, 3, 6 and 9 days for headspace O₂, CO₂ and ethylene, as well as weight loss, colour, firmness, soluble solids and titratable acidity.
Headspace gases were measured directly in the package with a portable gas analyser (F‐960, Felix Instruments, USA). Empty cups and sealing films were individually pre‐weighed to determine tare mass. At each time point the gross mass of the closed package was recorded and the fruit mass was obtained by subtracting the corresponding tare; hence, weight loss was calculated on fruit mass only:
| (4) |
where m 0 is the tare‐corrected fruit mass at day 0 and m t the tare‐corrected fruit mass at time t.
Pulp colour was measured with a portable colourimeter (CR‐400, Konica Minolta, USA) in the CIE L*a*b* colour space (CIE, 1976). Firmness was determined with a fruit hardness tester (PTR‐300 penetrometer, Instrutherm, Brazil) fitted with a 6 mm probe; values represent the force (N) required to penetrate the pulp to a 10 mm depth. Soluble solids were determined with a digital refractometer (PAL BX|ACID F5, Atago, Brazil) using 1 mL of strained juice and expressed as percentage (°Brix). Titratable acidity was measured with the same instrument using 1 mL of juice diluted 1:50 with distilled water; results were expressed as percentage. Data were analysed using ANOVA, and means were compared by Tukey's test (5%) where appropriate.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Mechanical properties of HPMC/CS+Gly monolayer films
To evaluate how polymer and plasticiser levels affect mechanical behaviour, films were tested for tensile strength (TS) and elongation at break (EAB), and the formulation was selected by balancing stiffness (high TS) and extensibility (high EAB) (Table 3). A factorial analysis with a significance criterion of P < 0.05 was used to rank effects and to generate Pareto charts (Fig. 1).
Table 3.
Tensile strength and elongation at break for 12 film formulations combining HPMC, CS and Gly
| Film formulation (%HPMC/%CS/%Gly) | Tensile strength (MPa) | Elongation at break (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1.00/0.50/0.50 | 8.51 ± 0.19 | 72.37 ± 4.57 |
| 3.00/0.50/0.50 | 19.88 ± 0.45 | 91.27 ± 0.85 |
| 1.00/1.00/0.50 | 10.07 ± 0.90 | 81.20 ± 0.28 |
| 3.00/1.00/0.50 | 17.20 ± 0.82 | 74.07 ± 2.80 |
| 1.00/0.50/2.00 | 1.87 ± 0.10 | 34.17 ± 5.80 |
| 3.00/0.50/2.00 | 7.21 ± 0.85 | 104.78 ± 2.79 |
| 1.00/1.00/2.00 | 2.24 ± 0.42 | 59.17 ± 2.30 |
| 3.00/1.00/2.00 | 9.70 ± 0.44 | 118.47 ± 8.31 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 16.31 ± 0.82 | 105.29 ± 0.96 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 10.93 ± 0.01 | 106.00 ± 3.96 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 16.17 ± 2.89 | 111.47 ± 11.90 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 14.49 ± 0.48 | 110.33 ± 4.16 |
Figure 1.

Pareto chart of TS (a) and EAB (b) of film formulations in response to different concentrations of HPMC, CS and Gly.
Across formulations, higher HPMC was associated with higher TS: the 3.00% HPMC films reached 19.88 ± 0.45 and 17.20 ± 0.82 MPa (samples 2 and 4), whereas lower‐HPMC counterparts showed lower TS (Table 3). Increasing Gly generally reduced TS and, in several cases, increased EAB; for example, 3.00/0.50/2.00 yielded 7.21 ± 0.85 MPa and 104.78 ± 2.79%, while 3.00/1.00/2.00 showed 9.70 ± 0.44 MPa and 118.47 ± 8.31%. These trends are consistent with reports that Gly, as a plasticiser, lowers intermolecular resistance in polysaccharide films and thereby reduces TS. 43 , 45
The centre‐point replicates (2.00/0.75/1.00) supported the overall pattern, with TS ranging from 10.93 to 16.31 MPa and EAB from 105% to 111%, indicating high extensibility around the design centre (Table 3).
Effect ranking from the factorial design is summarised in the Pareto charts. For TS, Gly and HPMC displayed the largest standardised effects, where Gly was negative and HPMC positive (Fig. 1(a)). For EAB, HPMC and CS contributed positively, particularly at higher levels (Fig. 1(b)).
A complementary subjective assessment (brightness, malleability, tackiness, transparency and surface texture) was used to aid screening; attributes were scored from 1 (high intensity/present) to 4 (low intensity/not present) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Film brightness, malleability, tackiness, transparency and smoothness in response to different concentrations of HPMC, CS and Gly a
| Sample (%HPMC/%CS/%Gly) | Brightness | Malleability | Tackiness | Transparency | Smoothness/texture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.00/0.50/0.50 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 3.00/0.50/0.50 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 1.00/1.00/0.50 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 3.00/1.00/0.50 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 1.00/0.50/2.00 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 3.00/0.50/2.00 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 1.00/1.00/2.00 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 3.00/1.00/2.00 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 2.00/0.75/1.00 (centre point) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Each attribute was evaluated on a scale from 1 (high intensity/present) to 4 (low intensity/not present).
From this assessment, brightness varied between ‘very bright’ (score 1) and ‘bright’ (score 2) and was linked to HPMC level: 1% HPMC films were ‘very bright’, whereas 2–3% HPMC films were ‘bright’ (Table 4). Malleability scores increased from 1 to 2 to 3 as HPMC increased (that is, malleability decreased with higher HPMC). Tackiness rose with Gly and fell with more HPMC; notably, only samples 2 and 4 (both 3% HPMC, 0.5% Gly) were scored non‐tacky (4). Transparency scores were uniform (3) across formulations, and surface smoothness/texture was typically 2 to 3 (Table 4). These attributes matter for consumer acceptance and for optical systems in intelligent packaging. 46 , 50
Considering the mechanical outcomes together with the subjective evaluation, sample 2 (3% HPMC, 0.5% CS, 0.5% Gly) was selected for subsequent characterisation because it combined high TS with high EAB and exhibited favourable handling (non‐tacky, smooth surface).
Physical and chemical characterisation of selected film
Film transparency and colour
The selected film, composed of HPMC at 3%, CS at 0.5% and Gly at 0.5% (hereafter HPMC/CS+Gly), appeared visually transparent with a faint yellow hue. In the CIE L*a*b* colour space, lightness was L* = 28.39 ± 0.25, indicating low lightness under the measurement conditions; the chromatic coordinates showed a slight shift towards green (a* = −0.24 ± 0.01) and towards yellow (b* = 0.55 ± 0.03).
Literature on chitosan‐based films reports an intrinsically yellow control (b* ≈ 10.35) and additive‐driven increases in b* and ΔE with reductions in L*. 35 In CS/HPMC blend films containing sage leaf extract or nettle leaf extract, L* remains high overall but decreases with extract addition, while a* becomes more negative, b* increases and ΔE rises. 51 Absolute L*a*b* values are method dependent owing to illuminant, observer, geometry, backing and thickness.
UV radiation promotes free‐radical formation and can degrade food constituents, affecting antioxidants, proteins, nutritional value, flavour and appearance. 52 The film transmittance at 560 nm was 30.6 ± 1.04%, which indicates limited visible‐light transmission. While higher transparency may benefit consumer perception, reduced light transmission can help mitigate photo‐oxidative deterioration, as reported by Wu et al. and Wang et al. 53 , 54 Therefore, protecting packaged foods from UV exposure is important, and controlling visible‐light passage can be advantageous in practical applications, including active and intelligent packaging. 55 , 56
Water absorption and solubility of HPMC/CS+Gly film
Water absorption and water solubility are relevant attributes for films intended for fresh‐cut fruit applications, which typically require storage at high relative humidity to avoid dehydration. 5 The HPMC/CS+Gly film showed water solubility of 38.74 ± 11.29% and water absorption of 420.83 ± 4.04% under the test conditions described in the section on Water solubility and absorption. These values reflect the hydrophilic character of the polysaccharide matrix.
Consistent with the literature, Liang et al. reported that films made exclusively from HPMC or CS tend to exhibit higher water solubility, whereas combining HPMC with CS markedly reduces solubility. 57 This reduction has been attributed to increased intermolecular hydrogen bonding between amino groups in CS and hydroxyl groups in HPMC, which promotes a denser network that is less prone to dissolution. 58 , 59 In addition, compositional modifications with selected components, such as essential oils, have been reported to further decrease water solubility when the aim is to impart active and/or intelligent functionality to the material. 60
Film WVP
Under wet‐cup conditions (25 °C; ΔRH = 0.5), approximately 4% of the initial 30 g of water per cup (≈1.2 g) permeated through the film over 7 days (0–168 h). Water barrier properties are crucial, especially in food packaging, to prevent excessive moisture loss from foods to the atmosphere. 61 WVP has been widely studied due to its importance, and lower permeability values are generally recommended for high‐water‐content foods. 62 , 65
According to our results, the HPMC/CS+Gly film showed a WVP of 1.045 ± 0.064 g mm kPa−1 h−1 m−2 (n = 3). This magnitude is consistent with the known hydrophilicity of polysaccharide films: the polymer matrix contains abundant hydroxyl and amino groups that interact with water molecules, facilitating vapour transport through the film structure. 66
However, films combining HPMC and CS with 7.5% sage leaf extract or 7.5% nettle have reported to have lower WVP values (0.266 and 0.408 g mm kPa−1 h−1 m−2, respectively). 34 Although formulations and testing conditions may differ across studies, these results indicate that incorporating selected natural compounds can reduce WVP and may enhance performance for fresh‐cut fruit packaging.
ATR‐FTIR spectroscopy
ATR‐FTIR spectra were collected as described in the section on ATR‐FTIR spectroscopy to characterise functional groups in the films (Fig. 2). Three specimens were analysed: the selected HPMC/CS+Gly film (3% HPMC, 0.5% CS, 0.5% Gly) and two reference films prepared for band assignment: HPMC+Gly (1.75% HPMC, 0.5% Gly) and CS+Gly (1.75% CS, 0.5% Gly).
Figure 2.

ATR‐FTIR spectra of films based on (a) CS with Gly (CS), (b) HPMC/CS with Gly (HPMC/CS) and (c) HPMC with Gly (HPMC).
For the CS film (Fig. 2(a)), distinct bands at 1636 and 1551 cm−1 are assigned to amide I (ν(C=O)) and amide II (δ(N—H) + ν(C—N)), respectively. The band at 1381 cm−1 can be attributed to ν(C—O) of primary alcohols (—CH₂OH) and to symmetric bending of residual CH₃ groups. Features between 1153 and 899 cm−1 are consistent with saccharide structures and β‐glycosidic linkages of CS. 34 , 67 , 68
For the HPMC film (Fig. 2(c)), a strong band at 1045 cm−1 corresponds to ν(C—O—C) of the pyranose ring. 34 , 69 The signal near 945 cm−1 is associated with ether‐related vibrations and appears as a weak feature overlapping the 1045 cm−1 band. A broad band at ca 3395 cm−1 arises from ν(OH) of hydrogen‐bonded chains. 27 , 34 Bands in the 3000–2800 cm−1 region are attributed to ν(CH₃)/ν(CH₂)/ν(CH). The band at 1647 cm−1 is commonly associated with bound water, 34 , 70 and that at 1454 cm−1 with δ(CH₃), close to δ(CH₂).
The HPMC/CS blend spectrum (Fig. 2(b)) differs from those of the individual films by slight band shifts and intensity changes. Relative to CS, amide I shifts from 1636 to 1639 cm−1 and amide II from 1551 to 1555 cm−1; the broad ν(OH)/ν(NH)/ν(NH₂) envelope also changes. Relative to HPMC, the strong carbohydrate band appears at ca 1042–1045 cm−1. These shifts and broadenings indicate altered hydrogen‐bonding environments consistent with intermolecular interactions between CS and HPMC, supporting miscibility/compatibility in the blend. 34 , 57
Surface morphology
The surface morphology of the selected HPMC/CS+Gly monolayer film was examined using SEM (Fig. 3). SEM micrographs are commonly used to assess blend compatibility and possible phase separation in polymeric films, since interfacial discontinuities and microdomains may appear as surface irregularities that can influence mechanical behaviour. 71
Figure 3.

Surface SEM images of HPMC/CS+Gly film. Images were taken at ×100 (a) and ×1000 (b).
At ×100 (Fig. 3(a)), the surface appears continuous, with fine, irregular relief distributed across the field. At ×1000 (Fig. 3(b)), a more pronounced roughness is evident, with fragmented, flake‐like features and local micro‐irregularities; distinct second‐phase domains are not apparent at these magnifications. Similar surface features have been reported for CS/HPMC systems. 72 , 73 In contrast, films composed solely of CS or solely of HPMC are generally described as smoother and more homogeneous under comparable imaging conditions. 63 , 71
Assessment of antimicrobial activity through film contact
Antimicrobial activity was evaluated by the disc diffusion method (Evaluation of film antimicrobial activity section) using Escherichia coli (ATCC 10799), Klebsiella pneumoniae (clinical isolate 153HU), Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 29213) and Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212). Positive controls were 1% chlorhexidine and Cinnamomum cassia essential oil. 74 , 75 , 76 Inhibition was assessed from the diameter of the growth‐inhibition zone (mm), measured including the 10 mm film disc. By our a priori criterion, haloes of <15 mm were classified as non‐inhibitory (Table 5). These strains were chosen to provide an initial indication of broad‐spectrum antimicrobial behaviour, and to allow comparative assessment using reference organisms widely employed in studies of biobased antimicrobial films. Although these organisms do not represent the full spoilage microbiota of mango, they enable a consistent laboratory screening of the film.
Table 5.
Antibacterial activity of HPMC/CS+Gly film determined according to the disc diffusion method
| Sample | Diameter of growth inhibition halo (mm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Escherichia coli | Klebsiella pneumoniae | Staphylococcus aureus | Enterococcus faecalis | |
| HPMC/CS+Gly | — | 11 a | — | — |
| Cinnamomum cassia | 20 | 33 | 26 | 30 |
| Chlorhexidine (1%) | 20 | 25 | 21 | 21 |
Halos with a diameter < 15 mm should not be considered as indicating inhibitory activity.
The diameter of the growth‐inhibition halo was measured in addition to the 10 mm diameter of the HPMC/CS+Gly film disc. Cinnamomum cassia essential oil and chlorhexidine were used as positive controls against E. coli, K. pneumoniae, S. aureus and E. faecalis.
The HPMC/CS+Gly film (3% HPMC, 0.5% CS, 0.5% Gly) did not inhibit E. coli, S. aureus or E. faecalis, and produced an 11 mm clearing against K. pneumoniae, which is below the 15 mm cut‐off and therefore non‐inhibitory. In contrast, the positive controls yielded clear haloes: C. cassia essential oil of 20–33 mm depending on the strain, and 1% chlorhexidine of 20–25 mm (Table 5).
These findings align with reports that HPMC lacks intrinsic antibacterial activity, 73 , 77 while CS can be antimicrobial in a manner dependent on degree of deacetylation, molecular weight and environmental conditions such as pH, ionic strength and reactive solutes. 66 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 Under the present composition (0.5% CS) and test conditions, measurable inhibition was not observed. To enhance antibacterial performance in HPMC/CS films, incorporation of established active agents such as essential oils may be considered, either alone or in combination with metal oxide nanoparticles; such strategies have been reported to strengthen antimicrobial effects in polysaccharide‐based films. 83 , 84 Targeted studies will be required to optimise composition and to elucidate mechanisms when CS is combined with HPMC and Gly in food‐packaging films. 83 , 84
Moisture‐management performance in fresh‐cut mango
Fresh‐cut mango cubes were stored at 9 °C for 9 days under three conditions: the HPMC/CS+Gly test film (3% HPMC, 0.5% CS, 0.5% Gly), a commercial PVC film or no film (control). Weight loss increased over time in all treatments, but packaging markedly changed the magnitude of loss (Table 6; Fig. 4). At day 3 the values were 8.34% for no film, 2.07% for the test film and 0.72% for PVC. On day 6 they were 13.84%, 4.01% and 0.96%, respectively. On day 9 they were 24.81%, 4.96% and 1.20%, respectively. Thus, the HPMC/CS+Gly film reduced dehydration by approximately fivefold relative to the unpackaged control, while PVC gave the lowest losses throughout. This pattern is consistent with the typically higher WVP of polysaccharide films compared with PVC. 85 Limiting water loss is technologically relevant because mass losses of 5–10% commonly render produce unmarketable and accelerate quality deterioration, including browning, textural softening and flavour loss. 86 , 88
Table 6.
Physicochemical quality of fresh‐cut mango during 9 days of storage at 9 °C
| Condition | Weight loss (%) | L | a | b | Firmness (N) | Soluble solids (%) | Acidity (%) | O2 (%) | CO2 (%) | Ethylene (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| At 0 day | ||||||||||
| Initial untreated | 0.00 | 78.55 | −5.29 | 69.62 | 21.55 | 11.33 | 0.49 | 21.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 |
| After 3 days | ||||||||||
| No film | 8.34 a | 75.32 a | −2.88 a | 71.70 a | 20.40 a | 13.00 a | 0.52 ab | 21.00 a | 0.03 b | 0.00 a |
| Test film | 2.07 b | 73.19 a | −1.10 a | 75.24 a | 18.78 a | 14.20 a | 0.56 a | 20.96 a | 0.23 b | 6.16 a |
| Commercial film | 0.72 c | 77.35 a | −3.71 a | 69.78 a | 14.77 a | 13.10 a | 0.49 b | 14.66 b | 3.20 a | 31.95 a |
| CV (%) | 6.40 | 3.55 | 52.68 | 2.88 | 24.75 | 4.38 | 4.31 | 9.68 | 32.00 | 154.95 |
| After 6 days | ||||||||||
| No film | 13.84 a | 77.26 a | −3.72 a | 64.07 a | 20.21 a | 13.70 a | 0.50 a | 21.00 a | 0.03 b | 0.00 b |
| Test film | 4.01 b | 76.43 a | −3.26 a | 64.09 a | 20.14 a | 13.34 a | 0.49 a | 20.43 a | 0.36 b | 1.20 ab |
| Commercial film | 0.96 c | 77.34 a | −3.39 a | 67.03 a | 15.18 a | 12.44 a | 0.43 a | 12.70 a | 1.97 a | 2.26 a |
| CV (%) | 8.87 | 5.57 | 44.22 | 11.75 | 58.55 | 7.40 | 21.53 | 21.15 | 71.36 | 50.29 |
| After 9 days | ||||||||||
| No film | 24.81 a | 69.39 a | −0.79 a | 65.28 a | 15.26 a | 15.96 a | 0.54 a | 21.00 a | 0.03 a | 0.00 c |
| Test film | 4.96 b | 78.13 a | −2.49 a | 58.51 a | 19.95 a | 13.84 b | 0.52 a | 19.60 a | 0.74 a | 2.50 b |
| Commercial film | 1.20 b | 73.33 a | −0.81 a | 59.51 a | 20.17 a | 12.43 b | 0.42 a | 17.30 a | 1.64 a | 3.56 a |
| CV (%) | 14.67 | 7.16 | 161.45 | 9.69 | 55.98 | 4.32 | 11.74 | 15.89 | 118.65 | 20.65 |
Means followed by the same superscript letter on each day of storage are statistically equal according to Tukey's test (5%).
Fresh‐cut samples were stored in 100 mL food‐grade plastic cups without a sealing film (control), sealed with HPMC/CS+Gly (test film) or sealed with commercial PVC film.
Figure 4.

Weight loss of fresh‐cut mango during 9 days of storage at 9 °C. Fresh‐cut samples were stored in 100 mL food‐grade plastic cups without a sealing film (control), sealed with HPMC/CS+Gly (test film) or sealed with commercial PVC film. Values are means ± SD (n = 3 packages per treatment).
Packaging did not affect colour (L*, a*, b*) or firmness within each storage day, as indicated by the same superscript letters for treatments in Table 6 (ANOVA and Tukey, 5%). These attributes are recognised indicators of freshness and strongly influence consumer acceptance in fruit products. 89 , 90 For soluble solids, no differences were detected up to day 6. At day 9, values were higher without film (15.96%) than with the test (13.84%) or PVC (12.43%) films (P < 0.05). This pattern is consistent with concentration effects from the greater water loss in the unpackaged fruit. In mango, the rise in soluble solids reflects starch hydrolysis to sugars during ripening. 91 Titratable acidity showed a transient difference at day 3 with that for PVC slightly lower than that for the test film, with no consistent treatment effect thereafter (Table 6).
Headspace measurements indicate limited atmosphere modification, particularly for the HPMC/CS+Gly film. O₂ remained close to ambient, approximately 21%, and CO₂ was at or below 0.74% by day 9. The PVC film transiently lowered O₂ to 14.66% at day 3 and increased CO₂ to 3.20% at day 3, trending back towards ambient by day 9. Ethylene accumulated in sealed packages and was numerically higher under PVC than under the test film at day 9 (3.56 versus 2.50 ppm), while the open control remained at 0 ppm (Table 6). The small changes in O₂ and CO₂, particularly for the HPMC/CS+Gly film, explain the lack of ripening delay, with colour and firmness unchanged, and are consistent with reports that films with low resistance to O₂ and CO₂ diffusion have limited impact on respiration and ripening. 92 , 95 Low levels of O₂ and high levels of CO₂ in the storage atmosphere are known to inhibit fruit respiration and ethylene synthesis, which results in slow ripening changes during storage and shelf life. 19 , 96 , 97 These results suggest that the performance of the HPMC/CS+Gly film in maintaining fruit quality traits, such as colour and firmness, could be enhanced by increasing its resistance to O₂ and CO₂ diffusion, as well as by reducing its resistance to ethylene or enabling ethylene absorption within the package headspace, 19 , 24 which will be the focus of future studies.
Overall, the HPMC/CS+Gly film provided effective water‐barrier performance relative to no film, although it was inferior to PVC, and it exerted minimal gas‐barrier effects. For applications that aim to curb dehydration and, where relevant, to modulate the internal atmosphere to slow ripening, future work should tailor the film composition to increase resistance to O₂ and CO₂ diffusion, thereby achieving a headspace with lower O₂ and higher CO₂ that more effectively suppresses respiration. 92 , 95
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates the feasibility of a biodegradable HPMC/CS film plasticised with Gly for fresh‐cut mango. The selected monolayer formulation showed polymer–polymer compatibility by ATR‐FTIR, high optical clarity, reduced water solubility and WVP suited to moisture control. Used as a sealing lid at 9 °C for 9 days, it reduced weight loss by about fivefold compared with unpackaged fruit and maintained fruit colour and firmness during storage, while approaching the dehydration‐limiting performance of commercial PVC. Overall, the HPMC/CS+Gly film is a credible moisture‐management solution for fresh‐cut mango and a solid platform for future optimisation aimed at strengthening gas‐barrier properties and, where appropriate, adding active functionality. Future studies should aim to enhance the resistance of HPMC/CS+Gly films to O₂ and CO₂ diffusion, while reducing the resistance to ethylene or enabling ethylene absorption within the package headspace. These improvements are expected to increase the film's effectiveness in delaying tissue ripening and quality deterioration, thereby reducing postharvest losses and extending the time available for storage, transport, marketing and consumption. Although regulatory compliance for food contact and migration was not assessed, the polymers used (HPMC and CS) are widely recognised as safe for food applications, and migration testing may be considered in future work.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors assert the absence of known conflicting financial interests or personal relationships that might have been perceived to impact the work presented in this paper.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
AGP: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, validation, writing – original draft. GVLJ: data curation, investigation. ACS: data curation, investigation. FSF: data curation, investigation. PVMR: data curation, investigation. MPC: formal analysis, software, writing – original draft. STF: data curation, formal analysis, investigation, validation, writing – original draft. DFMN: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, writing – original draft, writing – review & editing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES (Higher Level Personal Development Coordination, in loose translation) for the support with the Portal de Periódicos. The Article Processing Charge for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior ‐ Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614).
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1. Schaefer D and Cheung WM, Smart packaging: opportunities and challenges. Proc CIRP 72:1022–1027 (2018). 10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.240. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ganeson K, Mouriya GK, Bhubalan K et al., Smart packaging − a pragmatic solution to approach sustainable food waste management. Food Packag Shelf Life 36:101044 (2023). 10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Gomes BAF, Alexandre ACS, de Andrade GAV et al., Recent advances in processing and preservation of minimally processed fruits and vegetables: a review – part 2: physical methods and global market outlook. Food Chem Adv 2:100304 (2023). 10.1016/j.focha.2023.100304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bansal V, Siddiqui MW and Rahman MS, Minimally processed foods: overview. Pp 1–15 (2015).
- 5. Yousuf B, Qadri OS and Srivastava AK, Recent developments in shelf‐life extension of fresh‐cut fruits and vegetables by application of different edible coatings: a review. LWT 89:198–209 (2018). 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.10.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Ali A, Yeoh WK, Forney C and Siddiqui MW, Advances in postharvest technologies to extend the storage life of minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 58:2632–2649 (2018). 10.1080/10408398.2017.1339180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. De Corato U, Improving the shelf‐life and quality of fresh and minimally‐processed fruits and vegetables for a modern food industry: a comprehensive critical review from the traditional technologies into the most promising advancements. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60:940–975 (2020). 10.1080/10408398.2018.1553025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Priyanka S, Namasivayam SKR, Bharani RSA and John A, Biocompatible green technology principles for the fabrication of food packaging material with noteworthy mechanical and antimicrobial properties: a sustainable developmental goal towards the effective, safe food preservation strategy. Chemosphere 336:139240 (2023). 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Farber JN, Harris LJ, Parish ME et al., Microbiological safety of controlled and modified atmosphere packaging of fresh and fresh‐cut produce. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2:142–160 (2003). 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00032.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Alfei S, Marengo B and Zuccari G, Nanotechnology application in food packaging: a plethora of opportunities versus pending risks assessment and public concerns. Food Res Int 137:109664 (2020). 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Day BPF, Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh fruit and vegetables – an overview. Acta Hortic 553:585–590 (2001). 10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.553.138. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Dong T, Song S, Liang M et al., Gas permeability and permselectivity of poly(L‐lactic acid)/SiO x film and its application in equilibrium‐modified atmosphere packaging for chilled meat. J Food Sci 82:97–107 (2017). 10.1111/1750-3841.13560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Fadda A, Palma A, Azara E and D'Aquino S, Effect of modified atmosphere packaging on overall appearance and nutraceutical quality of pot marigold held at 5 °C. Food Res Int 134:109248 (2020). 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Ghaani M, Cozzolino CA, Castelli G and Farris S, An overview of the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends Food Sci Technol 51:1–11 (2016). 10.1016/j.tifs.2016.02.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Qu P, Zhang M, Fan K and Guo Z, Microporous modified atmosphere packaging to extend shelf life of fresh foods: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 62:51–65 (2022). 10.1080/10408398.2020.1811635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Singh M, Kumar A and Kaur P, Respiratory dynamics of fresh baby corn (Zea mays L.) under modified atmospheres based on enzyme kinetics. J Food Sci Technol 51:1911–1919 (2014). 10.1007/s13197-012-0735-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Liguori G, Sortino G, Gullo G and Inglese P, Effects of modified atmosphere packaging and chitosan treatment on quality and sensorial parameters of minimally processed cv. ‘Italia’ table grapes. Agronomy 11:328 (2021). 10.3390/agronomy11020328. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Oliveira M, Abadias M, Usall J et al., Application of modified atmosphere packaging as a safety approach to fresh‐cut fruits and vegetables – a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 46:13–26 (2015). 10.1016/j.tifs.2015.07.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Vilvert JC, de Freitas ST, Ferreira MAR et al., Chitosan and graphene oxide‐based biodegradable bags: an eco‐friendly and effective packaging alternative to maintain postharvest quality of ‘palmer’ mango. LWT 154:112741 (2022). 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112741. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Hassan B, Chatha SAS, Hussain AI et al., Recent advances on polysaccharides, lipids and protein based edible films and coatings: a review. Int J Biol Macromol 109:1095–1107 (2018). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Son J, Hyun J, Lee J et al., Combined application of antibrowning, heat treatment and modified‐atmosphere packaging to extend the shelf life of fresh‐cut lotus root. J Food Sci 80:C1178–C1187 (2015). 10.1111/1750-3841.12894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Hosseini SF and Gómez‐Guillén MC, A state‐of‐the‐art review on the elaboration of fish gelatin as bioactive packaging: special emphasis on nanotechnology‐based approaches. Trends Food Sci Technol 79:125–135 (2018). 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.07.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Mihalca V, Kerezsi AD, Weber A et al., Protein‐based films and coatings for food industry applications. Polymers (Basel) 13:769 (2021). 10.3390/polym13050769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Parente AG, de Oliveira HP, Cabrera MP and de Morais Neri DF, Bio‐based polymer films with potential for packaging applications: a systematic review of the main types tested on food. Polym Bull 80:4689–4717 (2023). 10.1007/s00289-022-04332-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Azarakhsh N, Osman A, Ghazali HM et al., Lemongrass essential oil incorporated into alginate‐based edible coating for shelf‐life extension and quality retention of fresh‐cut pineapple. Postharvest Biol Technol 88:1–7 (2014). 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.09.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Tabassum N and Khan MA, Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh‐cut papaya using alginate based edible coating: quality evaluation and shelf life study. Sci Hortic 259:108853 (2020). 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108853. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Nascimento da Silva M, de Matos FJ, Feldhaus HK et al., Physical and morphological properties of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose films with curcumin polymorphs. Food Hydrocolloids 97:105217 (2019). 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105217. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Wang L, Dong Y, Men H et al., Preparation and characterization of active films based on chitosan incorporated tea polyphenols. Food Hydrocolloids 32:35–41 (2013). 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.11.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Sánchez‐González L, Vargas M, González‐Martínez C et al., Characterization of edible films based on hydroxypropylmethylcellulose and tea tree essential oil. Food Hydrocolloids 23:2102–2109 (2009). 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2009.05.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Lee JY, Garcia CV, Shin GH and Kim JT, Antibacterial and antioxidant properties of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose‐based active composite films incorporating oregano essential oil nanoemulsions. LWT 106:164–171 (2019). 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.02.061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Rotta J, Minatti E and Barreto PLM, Determination of structural and mechanical properties, diffractometry, and thermal analysis of chitosan and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) films plasticized with sorbitol. Ciênc Tecnol Aliment 31:450–455 (2011). 10.1590/S0101-20612011000200026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 32. El Knidri H, Belaabed R, Addaou A et al., Extraction, chemical modification and characterization of chitin and chitosan. Int J Biol Macromol 120:1181–1189 (2018). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.08.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Muxika A, Etxabide A, Uranga J et al., Chitosan as a bioactive polymer: processing, properties and applications. Int J Biol Macromol 105:1358–1368 (2017). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.07.087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Bigi F, Haghighi H, Siesler HW et al., Characterization of chitosan‐hydroxypropyl methylcellulose blend films enriched with nettle or sage leaf extract for active food packaging applications. Food Hydrocolloids 120:106979 (2021). 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106979. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Machado BR, Facchi SP, de Oliveira AC et al., Bactericidal pectin/chitosan/glycerol films for food pack coatings: a critical viewpoint. Int J Mol Sci 21:8663 (2020). 10.3390/ijms21228663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Aranaz I, Alcántara AR, Civera MC, Arias C, Elorza B, Heras Caballero A et al., Chitosan: an overview of its properties and applications. Polymers 13:3256 (2021). 10.3390/polym13193256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Gao C, Pollet E and Avérous L, Properties of glycerol‐plasticized alginate films obtained by thermo‐mechanical mixing. Food Hydrocolloids 63:414–420 (2017). 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.09.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Ghadermazi R, Hamdipour S, Sadeghi K et al., Effect of various additives on the properties of the films and coatings derived from hydroxypropyl methylcellulose – a review. Food Sci Nutr 7:3363–3377 (2019). 10.1002/fsn3.1206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Priyadarshi R, Sauraj KB and Negi YS, Chitosan film incorporated with citric acid and glycerol as an active packaging material for extension of green chilli shelf life. Carbohydr Polym 195:329–338 (2018). 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.04.089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Farghaly DA, Afifi SA, Aboelwafa AA and Mohamed MI, Oral dissolving film of rivastigmine: optimization using factorial design. J Pharm Innov 18:1892–1907 (2023). 10.1007/s12247-023-09743-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 41. ASTM , E96/E95M (1995) Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials.
- 42. Parente AG, da Soares WS, de Oliveira HP et al., Polymers and mango (Mangifera indica L.): a systematic literature review on potential value and application. J Food Meas Charact 18:168–183 (2024). 10.1007/s11694-023-02128-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Alves‐Silva GF, Romani VP and Martins VG, Jatobá (Hymenaea stigonocarpa) pulp films: properties, antioxidant potential and biodegradability. Food Packag Shelf Life 34:100923 (2022). 10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.100923. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Beigomi M, Mohsenzadeh M and Salari A, Characterization of a novel biodegradable edible film obtained from Dracocephalum moldavica seed mucilage. Int J Biol Macromol 108:874–883 (2018). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.10.184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Jouki M, Khazaei N, Ghasemlou M and HadiNezhad M, Effect of glycerol concentration on edible film production from cress seed carbohydrate gum. Carbohydr Polym 96:39–46 (2013). 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.03.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Eldesouky A, Pulido AF and Mesias FJ, The role of packaging and presentation format in consumers' preferences for food: an application of projective techniques. J Sens Stud 30:360–369 (2015). 10.1111/joss.12162. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Nguyen H‐L, Tran TH, Hao LT et al., Biorenewable, transparent, and oxygen/moisture barrier nanocellulose/nanochitin‐based coating on polypropylene for food packaging applications. Carbohydr Polym 271:118421 (2021). 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Castillo LA, Farenzena S, Pintos E et al., Active films based on thermoplastic corn starch and chitosan oligomer for food packaging applications. Food Packag Shelf Life 14:128–136 (2017). 10.1016/j.fpsl.2017.10.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Hadi A, Nawab A, Alam F and Zehra K, Sustainable food packaging films based on alginate and aloe vera. Polym Eng Sci 62:2111–2118 (2022). 10.1002/pen.25992. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Peng M, Liang F, Yu L and Huang H, Smooth or rough? The impact of food packaging design on product healthiness perception. Food Qual Prefer 111:104970 (2023). 10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104970. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Peng Y, Wang Q, Shi J et al., Optimization and release evaluation for tea polyphenols and chitosan composite films with regulation of glycerol and tween. Food Sci Technol 40:162–170 (2020). 10.1590/fst.34718. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Koutchma T, Advances in ultraviolet light technology for non‐thermal processing of liquid foods. Food Bioprocess Technol 2:138–155 (2009). 10.1007/s11947-008-0178-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Wu Y, Ying Y, Liu Y et al., Preparation of chitosan/polyvinyl alcohol films and their inhibition of biofilm formation against Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. Int J Biol Macromol 118:2131–2137 (2018). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.07.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Wang Y, Zhang J, Li W et al., Antibacterial poly(butylene succinate‐co‐terephthalate)/titanium dioxide/copper oxide nanocomposites films for food packaging applications. Food Packag Shelf Life 34:101004 (2022). 10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.101004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Shlush E and Davidovich‐Pinhas M, Bioplastics for food packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 125:66–80 (2022). 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.04.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Versino F, Ortega F, Monroy Y et al., Sustainable and bio‐based food packaging: a review on past and current design innovations. Foods 12:1057 (2023). 10.3390/foods12051057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Liang W, Zhao Y, Xiao D et al., A biodegradable water‐triggered chitosan/hydroxypropyl methylcellulose pesticide mulch film for sustained control of phytophthora sojae in soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). J Clean Prod 245:118943 (2020). 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118943. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Abdulhameed AS, Mohammad A‐T and Jawad AH, Application of response surface methodology for enhanced synthesis of chitosan tripolyphosphate/TiO2 nanocomposite and adsorption of reactive orange 16 dye. J Clean Prod 232:43–56 (2019). 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.291. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Wilpiszewska K, Antosik AK and Spychaj T, Novel hydrophilic carboxymethyl starch/montmorillonite nanocomposite films. Carbohydr Polym 128:82–89 (2015). 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.04.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Nisar T, Wang Z‐C, Yang X et al., Characterization of citrus pectin films integrated with clove bud essential oil: physical, thermal, barrier, antioxidant and antibacterial properties. Int J Biol Macromol 106:670–680 (2018). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.08.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Abdul Khalil HPS, Chong EWN, Owolabi FAT et al., Enhancement of basic properties of polysaccharide‐based composites with organic and inorganic fillers: a review. J Appl Polym Sci 136:47251 (2019). 10.1002/app.47251. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Cruces F, García MG and Ochoa NA, Reduction of water vapor permeability in food multilayer biopackaging by epitaxial crystallization of beeswax. Food Bioproc Technol 14:1244–1255 (2021). 10.1007/s11947-021-02628-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Li S, Mu B, Zhang H et al., Incorporation of silver nanoparticles/curcumin/clay minerals into chitosan film for enhancing mechanical properties, antioxidant and antibacterial activity. Int J Biol Macromol 223:779–789 (2022). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.11.046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Long J, Zhang W, Zhao M and Ruan C‐Q, The reduce of water vapor permeability of polysaccharide‐based films in food packaging: a comprehensive review. Carbohydr Polym 321:121267 (2023). 10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.121267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Roy S and Rhim J‐W, Effect of CuS reinforcement on the mechanical, water vapor barrier, UV‐light barrier, and antibacterial properties of alginate‐based composite films. Int J Biol Macromol 164:37–44 (2020). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.07.092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Aider M, Chitosan application for active bio‐based films production and potential in the food industry: review. LWT Food Sci Technol 43:837–842 (2010). 10.1016/j.lwt.2010.01.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Silva‐Weiss A, Bifani V, Ihl M et al., Structural properties of films and rheology of film‐forming solutions based on chitosan and chitosan‐starch blend enriched with murta leaf extract. Food Hydrocoll 31:458–466 (2013). 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.11.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Guo Y, Chen X, Yang F et al., Preparation and characterization of chitosan‐based ternary blend edible films with efficient antimicrobial activities for food packaging applications. J Food Sci 84:1411–1419 (2019). 10.1111/1750-3841.14650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Akhtar MJ, Jacquot M, Jasniewski J et al., Antioxidant capacity and light‐aging study of HPMC films functionalized with natural plant extract. Carbohydr Polym 89:1150–1158 (2012). 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.03.088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Hay WT, Fanta GF, Peterson SC et al., Improved hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) films through incorporation of amylose‐sodium palmitate inclusion complexes. Carbohydr Polym 188:76–84 (2018). 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.01.088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Kumar S, Dongre S, Raghu S et al., Structural and mechanical characteristic study of HPMC polymer composite films. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 1221:012011 (2022). 10.1088/1757-899X/1221/1/012011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Rotta J, Ozório RÁ, Kehrwald AM et al., Parameters of color, transparency, water solubility, wettability and surface free energy of chitosan/hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) films plasticized with sorbitol. Mater Sci Eng C 29:619–623 (2009). 10.1016/j.msec.2008.10.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Shanmuga Priya D, Suriyaprabha R, Yuvakkumar R and Rajendran V, Chitosan‐incorporated different nanocomposite HPMC films for food preservation. J Nanopart Res 16:2248 (2014). 10.1007/s11051-014-2248-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Lucas‐González R, Yilmaz B, Mousavi Khaneghah A et al., Cinnamon: an antimicrobial ingredient for active packaging. Food Packag Shelf Life 35:101026 (2023). 10.1016/j.fpsl.2023.101026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Oliveira RWG, de Oliveira JM, da Paz FB et al., Films composed of white angico gum and chitosan containing chlorhexidine as an antimicrobial agent. Int J Biol Macromol 235:123905 (2023). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.123905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. dos Santos SM, Malpass GRP, Okura MH and Granato AC, Edible active coatings incorporated with Cinnamomum cassia and Myristica fragrans essential oils to improve shelf‐life of minimally processed apples. Ciênc Rural 48:e20180447 (2018). 10.1590/0103-8478cr20180447. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Yao L, Man T, Xiong X et al., HPMC films functionalized by zein/carboxymethyl tamarind gum stabilized Pickering emulsions: influence of carboxymethylation degree. Int J Biol Macromol 238:124053 (2023). 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.124053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Šimůnek J, Brandysová V, Koppová I and Šimůnek J, The antimicrobial action of chitosan, low molar mass chitosan, and chitooligosaccharides on human colonic bacteria. Folia Microbiol (Praha) 57:341–345 (2012). 10.1007/s12223-012-0138-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Dragland IS, Rukke HV, Stenhagen ISR et al., Antibacterial and antibiofilm effect of low viscosity chitosan against Staphylococcus epidermidis . Int J Microbiol 2016:1–7 (2016). 10.1155/2016/9159761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Duan J, Park S‐I, Daeschel MA and Zhao Y, Antimicrobial chitosan‐lysozyme (CL) films and coatings for enhancing microbial safety of mozzarella cheese. J Food Sci 72:M355–M362 (2007). 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00556.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Dutta PK, Tripathi S, Mehrotra GK and Dutta J, Perspectives for chitosan based antimicrobial films in food applications. Food Chem 114:1173–1182 (2009). 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.11.047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Yan D, Li Y, Liu Y et al., Antimicrobial properties of chitosan and chitosan derivatives in the treatment of enteric infections. Molecules 26:7136 (2021). 10.3390/molecules26237136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Jafarzadeh S, Salehabadi A and Jafari SM, Metal nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents in food packaging, in Handbook of Food Nanotechnology. Elsevier, London, pp. 379–414 (2020). [Google Scholar]
- 84. Nikolic MV, Vasiljevic ZZ, Auger S and Vidic J, Metal oxide nanoparticles for safe active and intelligent food packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 116:655–668 (2021). 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.08.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Kaewprachu P, Osako K, Benjakul S and Rawdkuen S, Effect of protein concentrations on the properties of fish myofibrillar protein based film compared with PVC film. J Food Sci Technol 53:2083–2091 (2016). 10.1007/s13197-016-2170-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Lufu R, Ambaw A and Opara UL, Water loss of fresh fruit: influencing pre‐harvest, harvest and postharvest factors. Sci Hortic 272:109519 (2020). 10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109519. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Ben‐Yehoshua S and Rodov V, Transpiration and water stress, in Postharvest Physiology and Pathology of Vegetables, 2nd edn, ed. by Bartz JA and Brecht JK. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 111–159 (2002). [Google Scholar]
- 88. Vigneault C, Thompson J and Wu S, Designing container for handling fresh horticultural produce. Postharvest Technol Hortic Crops 2:25–47 (2009). [Google Scholar]
- 89. Gill PPS, Jawandha SK and Kaur N, Transitions in mesocarp colour of mango fruits kept under variable temperatures. J Food Sci Technol 54:4251–4256 (2017). 10.1007/s13197-017-2894-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Penchaiya P, Uthairatanakij A, Srilaong V et al., Measurement of mango firmness by non‐destructive limited compression technique. Acta Hortic 1088:73–78 (2015). 10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1088.7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Malundo TMM, Shewfelt RL, Ware GO and Baldwin EA, Sugars and acids influence flavor properties of mango (Mangifera indica). J Am Soc Hort Sci 126:115–121 (2001). 10.21273/JASHS.126.1.115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Fai AEC, Alves de Souza MR, de Barros ST et al., Development and evaluation of biodegradable films and coatings obtained from fruit and vegetable residues applied to fresh‐cut carrot (Daucus carota L.). Postharvest Biol Technol 112:194–204 (2016). 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.09.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Ferreira MS, Fai AEC, Andrade CT et al., Edible films and coatings based on biodegradable residues applied to acerolas (Malpighia punicifolia L.). J Sci Food Agric 96:1634–1642 (2016). 10.1002/jsfa.7265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Matheus JRV, de Assis RM, Correia TR et al., Biodegradable and edible film based on persimmon (Diospyros kaki L.) used as a lid for minimally processed vegetables packaging. Food Bioprocess Technol 14:765–779 (2021). 10.1007/s11947-021-02595-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 95. del Robles‐Flores GC, Abud‐Archila M, Ventura‐Canseco LMC et al., Development and evaluation of a film and edible coating obtained from the Cajanus cajan seed applied to fresh strawberry fruit. Food Bioprocess Technol 11:2172–2181 (2018). 10.1007/s11947-018-2175-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Santos LF, Vilvert JC, Souza TA, Alves JS, Ribeiro TS, Neuwald DA et al., Minimum O2 levels during storage to inhibit aerobic respiration and prolong the postharvest life of ‘Tommy Atkins’ mangoes produced in different growing seasons. Sci Hortic 318:112094 (2023). 10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Santos LF, Souza TA, Vilvert JC, Alves JS, Pires BPC, Junior LSF et al., Anaerobic compensation point can effectively extend ‘palmer’ mango shelf‐life in CA storage. Postharvest Biol Technol 231:113951 (2026). 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2025.113951. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
