Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Food Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Food Science and Technology
. 2020 Apr 21;57(6):2364–2369. doi: 10.1007/s13197-020-04438-x

Sodium alginate with turmeric coating for ripened cheeses

Paula Martins Olivo 1, Monica Regina Da Silva Scapim 2, Juliana Miazaki 3, Grasiele Scaramal Madrona 2, Luciana Furlaneto Maia 4, Bruna Moura Rodrigues 5, Magali Soares Dos Santos Pozza 1,✉
PMCID: PMC7230096  PMID: 32431362

Abstract

Artisanal cheeses produced with high coliform counts are commonly on the market in several countries. The bioactive edible coating use appears as technological innovation in the dairy derivatives market to improve quality and increasing the products shelf life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of cheeses produced with Lactobacillus helveticus containing high coliform counts and coated with tumeric and sodium alginate. The coatings were evaluated for mechanical properties, water steam permeability and sorption isotherm. The experimental design was completely randomized and the treatments consisted of sodium alginate and turmeric 1% (AGAT) edible cover and the other one without edible cover (SEMC), data were analyzed by the Proc GLM SAS 9.3 program.The coated cheeses had higher microbial growth although the total coliform bacteria were reduced according to the storage time. For instrumental color, there was no significant difference between treatments. Coverage significantly altered hardness, gumminess, chewiness and cohesiveness over time, while elasticity was not affected. The coating presence was not significant for water steam permeability and mechanical properties. The tested solution did not effectively improve microbiological quality, however, coated cheese samples showed increased lactic acid bacteria, water activity and improved cheese texture, making them softer, with less elasticity, cohesion and chewing.

Keywords: Active packaging, Microbiological quality, Physical properties

Introduction

In the food sector there is great interest in the development and characterization of edible coatings, by their potential to include natural/syntetic molecules that provide product improvements, increasing shelf life and their sensory characteristics (Elizondo et al. 2009). Due to the growing demand for sustainability and environmental safety, studies are developed to improve food packaging materials and replace materials that may damage the environment (Majeed et al. 2013).

Sodium alginate has been shown to be promising ecologically correct because of its biodegradability without harming the environment (Tang et al. 2012). Curcumin is a natural colorant found in Curcuma longa L. rhizomes and has important biological activities in food preservation (Cecilio et al. 2000).

For cheese, packaging must provide common product protection against mechanical damage and poor environmental conditions through handling and distribution (Youssef et al. 2015). Many cheeses produced and marketed in Brazil have high coliform counts, above legal limits (Nunes et al., 2013). Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are added to milk also help provide an environment that safeguards the final product (Candioti et al. 2002).

The objective of this study was to evaluate in cheeses matured with high coliform counts and produced with Lactobacillus helveticus (L. helveticus) as a starter the application of cover on its physical-microbiological characteristics for 30 days.

Material and methods

The experiment was carried out at the milk quality laboratory, which belongs to the Mesorregional Center for Milk Excellence and Technology (CMETL-UEM) and at the university's pilot dairy industry, simulating practical cheese production conditions in Brazil.

The milk was collected at the university farm. 25 L pasteurized milk (65 °C/30 min), calcium chloride 40% (50 mL per 100 L milk), L. helveticus LH culture (SACCO®05UC/100 L) and liquid coagulant (HA-LA®-CHR brand, Denmark) were used, being kept to 32 °C/30 min. After cutting, the mass was baked at 45 °C and then formed (JandaPlast, model RH-1000). The treatments were cheese without edible coating (SEMC) and with sodium alginate plus 1% turmeric solution (AGAT) coating. The cheeses were kept under incubation (SP Labor®, SP-500) for 30 days/12 °C and relative humidity of ± 60.5%.

For coating it was used 2% (w/w) sodium alginate and 2% (w/w) calcium chloride (Meneghel et al. 2008). 10 g of turmeric powder solubilized in 100 mL of ethyl alcohol in constant stirring for 24 h without light and then filtered. Were analysed coating thickness (micrometer Mitutoyo®, ten random points of the area of each sample of the coating were evaluated), mechanical properties (Pavlath et al. 1999), water stem permeability (SP) ASTM (1995) and sorption isotherm.

At ripened time (0, 15 and 30 days) water activity (Aqualab® 4TE, Decagon), pH (Tecnal Tec-5), titratable acidity (IAL, 2008), color (Konica Minolta), dry matter, mineral matter (AOAC 1992) were analysed. For microbiological analysis, lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (MRS-Himedia) and coliforms on VRB agar (Himedia) both incubated at 35 °C for 48 h (AOAC 1992).

The instrumental color, through Konica Minolta chromometer (Konica Minolta®, Model CR 400/410, Japan) (CIE 1986). For texture, the Brookfield-TC III Texture Analyzer (Engineering Laboratories, INC., Middleboro, MA, USA) was used.

For microstructure analysis by electron microscopy, the Quanta 250 Scanning Electron Microscope (Fisher Scientific-FEI, Oregon, USA). The samples were previously dried in calcium chloride and then surface and fracture areas were evaluated, where the fracture was obtained by sample cryogenic freezing (liquid N2).

The data were analyzed using Proc GLM SAS 9.3 (2013) testing the treatments, times and the interaction between treatment and time.

Results

The values of rupture stress, elongation, Young's modulus, thickness and water steam permeability (SP) showed no significant differences for the PAG control (without addition of 1% turmeric alcohol solution) and PAGAT treatment (with addition of 1% alcohol solution) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Coating analysis containing turmeric

Parameters PAG PAGAT
Rupture tensile (MPa) 39.66 ± 5.31 42.18 ± 5.97
Elongation (%) 130.29 ± 1.86 126.38 ± 0.28
Young’s modulus (MPa) 15.41 ± 2.03 26.59 ± 3.76
URE gradient (%) 2–53 2–53
SP (× 10–15) (g/m Pa s) 1.19 ± 1.17 0.38 ± 0.118
Thickness (× 10–3) (m) 0.044 ± 0.03 0.022 ± 0.007
 m0 0.0952 0.02334
 C 0.1352 15.7908
 k 0.8636 0.9129
 R2 0.99 0.99
Open in a new tab

PAG sodium alginate, PAGAT sodium alginate and turmeric 1%; the means followed by the same letters in the line did not differ significantly by Tukey tests (5%), URE relative humidity gradient, SP water steam permeability, Mo monolayer water content, C Guggenheim constant, K measurement of multi-layer water sorption heat

The adsorption isotherms values of sodium alginate (PAG) and sodium alginate and turmeric 1% (PAGAT) were considered good because they had relative average deviations below 5% and therefore, the model tested was perfectly adapted to experimental data, GAB model. The adsorption isotherm for evaluated coating was sigmoidal with a slight increase in moisture content due to the water activity increase (Table 1).

In the evaluated cheeses, the dry matter (DM) content increased in function of storage days with consequent decrease of moisture values (p < 0.0001). The water activity (Aw), total coliforms (TC) and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) values were significant for treatments. For ripened times, values were significant for DM, humidity, pH, Aw and coliforms (Table 2).

Table 2.

Physico and microbiology composition of cheeses

Parameters Treatments Time p value
SEMC AGAT 0 15 30 SEM Treat Time Treat × time
DM 65.835 ± 12.40 64.916 ± 13.07 50.904 ± 4.18 66.231 ± 2.40 80.938 ± 2.03 0.41914 0.342 < .0001 0.865
Moisture 34.164 ± 12.40 35.083 ± 13.07 49.095 ± 4.18 33.768 ± 2.40 19.061 ± 2.03 0.48721 0.342 < .0001 0.865
pH 6.277 ± 0.352 6.331 ± 0.274 6.591 ± 0.319 6.089 ± 0.157 6.224 ± 0.190 0.03270 0.477 < .0001 0.617
Aw 0.908 ± 0.05b 0.936 ± 0.04a 0.983 ± 0.009 0.908 ± 0.013 0.872 ± 0.042 0.00028 0.0001 < .0001 0.057
Coliforms (Log 10) 6.538 ± 0.638b 7.042 ± 0.506a 7.233 ± 0.220 6.913 ± 0.638 6.170 ± 0.377 0.09676 < .0001 < .0001 0.006
Lab (Log 10) 6.170 ± 0.891b 6.585 ± 0.735a 6.405 ± 1.086 6.584 ± 0.670 6.114 ± 0.655 0.21168 0.046 0.158 < .0001
Open in a new tab

SEMC uncoated, AGAT coated with sodium alginate + turmeric 1%, DM dry matter, Aw water activity, TREATMENTS significance level for treatment, TIME significance level for time, Regression Equations DM: 50.904 + 1.04 × R2: 0.9452; MOISTURE = 49.095–1.04 × R2: 0.9452; pH = 6.591–0.0543 × R2: 0.2488; Aw = 0.9832–0.00629 × R2: 0.7334

For lactic acid bacterial counts, significant differences were observed for treatment (p = 0.0469) and for the interaction between treatment × time (p < 0.0001) remaining constant and viable throughout the storage time. In total coliform counts, there were significant differences for treatments (p < 0.0001) and ripened times (p < 0.0001), with reduction in counts during the ripened time (Table 2).

For color, there was no difference between treatments for parameters L*, a* and b*, only in relation to storage times. For the treatment × time interaction, the parameter a* color was significant (p = 0.0014) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Color parameters and instrumental texture observed for cheeses with and without cover application

Parameters Treatments Time p value
SEMC AGAT 0 15 30 SEM Treat Time Treat × time
Color L* 78.465 ± 10.41 77.588 ± 10.97 86.512 ± 3.259 82.358 ± 2.809 64.385 ± 6.739 0.55042 0.274 < .0001 0.645
Color a* 0.714 ± 1.22 0.982 ± 0.839 1.633 ± 0.243 1.014 ± 0.645 − 0.174 ± 1.126 0.26343 0.204 < .0001 0.001
Color b* 15.452 ± 3.450 16.297 ± 2.918 13.356 ± 2.039 15.958 ± 2.019 18.442 ± 3.224 0.46072 0.191 < .0001 0.217
HARD 9049.09 ± 7142.9a 5047.91 ± 3660.0b 2243.12 ± 767.9 8026.87 ± 4718.1 11,136.42 ± 6835.0 710.559 0.015 0.001 0.163
COE 0.890 ± 0.129 0.893 ± 0.110 0.957 ± 0.087 0.915 ± 0.070 0.791 ± 0.131 0.0209 0.829 0.023 0.894
ELAS 6.622 ± 9.490 4.209 ± 0.287 8.137 ± 10.88 4.161 ± 0.265 3.567 ± 1.226 0.63842 0.451 0.341 0.376
GUM 8376.181±5710.8a 4755.916 ± 4106.7 b 2168.375 ± 1289.3 8251.375 ± 5231.9 9407.285 ± 4996.9 633.148 0.015 0.001 0.080
CHEW 375.581a ± 217.0 193.883b ± 158.0 145.350 ± 148.0 336.312 ± 216.9 372.100 ± 192.6 30.737 0.012 0.024 0.329
Open in a new tab

SEMC uncoated, AGAT coated with sodium alginate + turmeric 1%, TREATMENTS significance level for treatment, TIME significance level for time, Regression equations for color L* = 86.512 + 0.188 × − 0.031 x2R2: 0.8301; a* = 1.633–0.024 × R2: 0.4771; b* = 13.356 + 0.176 × R2: 0.4372. HARD hardness, COE cohesiveness, ELAS elasticity, GUM gumminess, CHEW chewiness, Regression equations for texture: HARD = 2243.12 + 474.72 x; COE = 0.957–0.00013x − 0.000180 x2; ELAS = 8.137–0.377x; GUM = 2168 + 569.76x; CHEW = 145.35 + 17.9

The hardness, gumminess and chewiness parameters values were significant for treatment, for storage time, the hardness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chew ability were significant (Table 3).

Discussion

The observed values for rupture tensile strength (MPa) for PAG treatment and PAGT treatment when compared with values reported in the literature for edible coating of crosslinked alginate by immersion in aqueous CaCl2 solution were smaller. For this system, the authors determined tensile strength values in the range of 68–80 MPa, when the salt concentration in the solution ranged from 1 to 3 g/100 mL, in the present study it was used 2 g/100 mL (Rhim 2004).

This difference obtained can be explained by the high viscosity found for tested solution, presenting higher cohesiveness to the coating, as a function of sodium alginate being d-manururonic acid, and l-guluronic acid, which has substantial hydrophilic groups. With added water, water molecules immersed in crystalline sodium alginate networks were then distributed between two hydrophilic layers and formed three-dimensional networks (Davidovich-Pinhas and Bianco-Peled 2010).

Higher tensile stresses and elongation rates result in Young's higher modulus coatings. The edible coating containing turmeric alcohol solution presented higher value for Young's modulus the higher leading material hardness.

Water steam permeability (SP) is an important component to evaluate when choosing products for edible coatings development, as it corresponds to the water steam transport vapor from the atmosphere to the product or mixture and from food to the atmosphere. This effect is responsible for ensuring quality and shelf life (Youssef et al. 2019).

The ethanol turmeric solution presence may have influenced the polymer segmental mobility, reducing water steam permeability. Water steam transfer occurs through the coating hydrophilic portion, SP decreases with increasing hydrophobic compound fraction; thus, SP depends on the hydrophilic–hydrophobic ratio of edible coating constituents (Mei et al. 2013).

The water adsorption isotherms were adjusted using the GAB model, in the GAB equation there are three theoretical parameters based on physical phenomena occurring during water steam adsorption and is considered as the most suitable model to describe the experimental data in 0.10–0.90 considered the interval of greatest interest in food (Aguirre-Loredo et al. 2018). In the GAB model, the moisture content in the monolayer (mo) is the water amount that is strongly adsorbed at specific sites in the material and can be used to measure the active sites availability for water adsorption. R2 values were higher than 0.99 indicating adequate adjustment of experimental data.

Regarding the isothermal curve data, for tested solution, exponential growth was observed in the region corresponding to Aw < 0.2, where the water adsorption in the monolayer (mo) is described. For treatment with sodium alginate different behavior was observed, since the increase occurred from the area above the value previously mentioned.

The adsorption isotherm for the edible chitosan coating showed a slight increase in moisture content at Aw ≤ 0.6, and subsequently increased which is similar to the present study and this behavior is related to edible coatings with hydrophilic characteristics (Aguirre-Loredo et al. 2018).

The difference between treatments for coating thickness can be explained by the occurrence of concurrent reactions, where alginate dissolution in solution and non-solubilization in edible coatings, formed crosslinking between Ca2+ and carboxyl groups on the coating surface. This occurred when edible coatings were immersed in CaCl2 solutions, because when Ca2+ concentration is low, alginate dissolution would be dominant to reduce coating thickness (Pavlath et al. 1999).

The edible coating thickness values can also influence the permeability, mechanical properties and transparency of coatings. Control of the coating thickness is difficult, especially when the production process occurs through the fusion type (Sobral 2000).

According to Chambi and Grosso (2006), the edible coatings mechanical properties are largely associated with the distribution and density of intermolecular and intramolecular interactions, which depend from the polymer chains arrangement and orientation.

In semi-hard cheeses, an important factor affecting stability is water activity (Aw), which is mainly dependent on moisture and salt content. During cheese ripening, Aw decreases until the surface is in equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere, thus influencing the cheese chemical and microbiological reactions (Saurel et al. 2004).

Water activity decreased during storage time and dry matter values increased. Cheese releases CO2 and simultaneously consumes O2, requiring gas exchange control to maintain quality and increase shelf life (Cerqueira et al. 2010), this fact may be influenced by the coating permeability produced with alginate, thus reducing changes with the environment.

According to Rolim (2008), the interaction of alcohol or turmeric components with cheese proteins makes them more hydrated, making it difficult to remove water, a fact that can be confirmed by the results obtained from water activity in both treatments.

The pH values were significant for time similar to Lucera et al. (2014) in which different edible coatings were tested to maintain the Mozzarella quality (pH 6.50–6.30).

Although the cheeses were produced with pasteurized milk, they showed high counts of coliforms, a condition consistent with many cheeses found on the market, and the effectiveness of tumeric and L. helveticus as anti-microbial was evaluated.

According to Mushtaq et al. (2018) who developed zein coatings with different concentrations of pomegranate extract (0, 25, 50 and 75 mg/mL coating) in developing edible packaging for Himalayan cheese, showing beneficial evolution of microflora (LAB).

The activity of some compounds is related to the presence of secondary metabolites, these active compounds may act by breaking microbial membranes; in turmeric, phenolic compounds are present in the extract and oil (Aly and Gumgumjee, 2011). Tumeric methanolic extract “in vitro” showed action on several bacteria, among them Escherichia coli. However, the values obtained in the present study showed a not so effective action of turmeric solution.

In the color parameters, opacity means lower transparency, being important to control the light incidence in cheese. The values observed in sodium alginate and turmeric edible coatings, the cheeses became darker, the parameter b* showed no significant difference with turmeric use, although the opposite was expected by the curcuminoids presence in the turmeric alcoholic solution.

For texture parameters, it was observed that the coated cheese hydration may have contributed to greater softness compared to uncoated cheese. Zhong et al. (2014) studying edible coatings for Mozzarella cheese also found that coatings generally slow down the cheese hardening process and produce softer textured cheeses.

Chewiness is the energy required to chew a solid food to the point of being swallowed, and gumminess is defined as the energy required to disintegrate a semi-solid food to the point of being swallowed. Coated cheeses presented lower chew ability and consequently lower hardness.

According to Jiménez et al. (2010), solvent evaporation causes changes in component concentrations and viscosity of the emulsion's liquid phase, leading to lipid aggregation, affecting the internal structure and surface of the edible coating and, consequently the barrier, mechanical and optical properties, turning the coating microstructure analysis interesting. By microstructure it was observed dense and regular surface, without cracks and pores, and contributed to the satisfactory properties of this barrier. In the cross section the structure is dense and cohesive.

Conclusion

Cheeses containing edible cover showed an increase in bacteria count and water activity, being softer. The use of 1% turmeric alcoholic solution as antimicrobial agent was not effective to reduce coliforms in cheeses with high contamination.

Acknowledgements

This study was financed by Capes and INCT National Institute of Science and Technology for the Milk Production Chain (UEL).

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Aguirre-Loredo RY, Velazquez G, Gutierrez MC, Castro-Rosas J, Rangel-Vargas E, Gómez-Aldapa CA. Effect of airflow presence during the manufacturing of biodegradable coatings from polymers with different structural conformation. Food Packag Shelf Life. 2018;17:162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2018.06.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aly MM, Gumgumjee NM. Antimicrobial efficacy of Rheum palmatum, Curcuma longa and Alpiniaofficinarum extracts against some pathogenic microorganisms. Afr J Biotechnol. 2011;10(56):12058–12063. doi: 10.5897/AJB11.1431. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. AOAC . AOAC official methods of analysis, vol 1. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists; 1992. pp. 136–138. [Google Scholar]
  4. ASTM-American Society for Testing and Materials . Standard test methods for water vapor transmission of material—E-96-95. Philadelphia: ASTM; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  5. Candioti MC, Hynes E, Quiberoni A, Palma SB, Sabbag N, Zalazar CA. Reggianito Argentino cheese: influence of Lactobacillus helveticus strains isolated from natural whey cultures on cheese making and ripening processes. Int Dairy J. 2002;12(2002):923–931. doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(02)00115-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cecilio Filho AB, Souza RJD, Braz LT, Tavares M. Cúrcuma: planta medicinal, condimentar e de outros usos potenciais. Ciência Rural. 2000;30:171–177. doi: 10.1590/S0103-84782000000100028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cerqueira MA, Sousa-Gallagher MJ, Macedo I, Rodriguez-Aguilera R, Souza BW, Teixeira JA, Vicente AA. Use of galactomannan edible coating application and storage temperature for prolonging shelf-life of “Regional” cheese. J Food Eng. 2010;97(1):87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.09.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chambi H, Grosso C. Edible coatings produced with gelatin and casein cross-linked with transglutaminase. Food Res Int. 2006;39(4):458–466. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2005.09.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. CIE-Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage . Colorimetry. 2. Vienna: CIE Publication; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  10. Davidovich-Pinhas M, Bianco-Peled H. A quantitative analysis of alginate swelling. Carbohydr Polym. 2010;79(4):1020–1027. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.10.036. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Elizondo NJ, Sobral PJ, Menegalli FC. Development of coating based on blends of Amaranthus cruentus flour and poly (vinyl alcohol) Carbohydr Polym. 2009;75(4):592–598. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2008.08.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. IAL-Instituto Adolfo Lutz . Métodos físico-químicos para análise de alimentos. 1. São Paulo: Instituto Adolfo Lutz; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jiménez A, Fabra MJ, Talens P, Chiralt A. Effect of lipid self-association on the microstructure and physical properties of hydroxypropyl-methylcellulose edible coatings containing fatty acids. Carbohydr Polym. 2010;82(3):585–593. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.05.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lucera A, Mastromatteo M, Conte A, Zambrini AV, Faccia MDEL, Del Nobile MA. Effect of active coating on microbiological and sensory properties of fresh mozzarella cheese. Food Packag Shelf Life. 2014;1(1):25–29. doi: 10.1016/j.fpsl.2013.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Majeed K, Jawaid M, Hassan A, Bakar AA, Khalil HA, Salema AA, Inuwa I. Potential materials for food packaging from nanoclay/natural fibres filled hybrid composites. Mater Des. 2013;46:391–410. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.10.044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mei J, Yuan Y, Wu Y, Li Y. Characterization of edible starch–chitosan film and its application in the storage of Mongolian cheese. Int J Biol Macromol. 2013;57:17–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Meneghel RFA, Benassi MT, Yamashita F. Revestimento comestível de alginato de sódio para frutos de amora-preta (Rubus ulmifolius) Ciências Agrárias. 2008;29(3):609–618. doi: 10.5433/1679-0359.2008v29n3p609. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mushtaq M, Gani A, Gani A, Punoo HA, Masoodi FA. Use of pomegranate peel extract incorporated zein film with improved properties for prolonged shelf life of fresh Himalayan cheese (Kalari/kradi) Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2018;48:25–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2018.04.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nunes MM, Mota ALAA, Caldas ED. Investigation of food and water microbiological conditions and foodborne disease outbreaks in the Federal District, Brazil. Food Control. 2013;34:235–240. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcontrol.2013.04.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Pavlath AE, Voisin A, Robertson GH. Pectin-based biodegradable water insoluble films. Macromol Symp. 1999;140(1):107–113. doi: 10.1002/masy.19991400112. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Rhim JW. Physical and mechanical properties of water resistant sodium alginate films. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2004;37(3):323–330. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2003.09.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rolim MT. Avaliação da eficácia do açafrão (Curcuma longa L.) no controle de Staphylococcus aureus em queijo prato. Rev Patol Trop. 2008;33(3):333–334. doi: 10.5216/rpt.v33i3.3464. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. SAS, Institute (2013) Statistical Analysis System: user guide [CD-ROM]. Version 9.3. SAS Insitute Inc., Cary
  24. Saurel R, Pajonk A, Andrieu J. Modelling of French Emmental cheese water activity during salting and ripening periods. J Food Eng. 2004;63(2):163–170. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(03)00295-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sobral PDA. Influência da espessura de biofilmes feitos a base de proteínas miofibrilares sobre suas propriedades funcionais. Pesq Agropec Bras. 2000;35(6):1251–1259. doi: 10.1590/S0100-204X2000000600022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Tang XZ, Kumar P, Alavi S, Sandeep KP. Recent advances in biopolymers and biopolymer-based nanocomposites for food packaging materials. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52(5):426–442. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2010.500508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Youssef AM, El-Sayed SM, Salama HH, El-Sayed HS, Dufresne A. Evaluation of bionanocomposites as packaging material on properties of soft white cheese during storage period. Carbohydr Polym. 2015;132:274–285. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.06.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Youssef AM, Assem FM, Abdel-Aziz ME, Elaaser M, Ibrahim OA, Mahmoud M, El-Salam MHA. Development of bionanocomposite materials and its use in coating of Ras cheese. Food Chem. 2019;270:467–475. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.07.114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhong Y, Cavender G, Zhao Y. Investigation of different coating application methods on the performance of edible coatings on Mozzarella cheese. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2014;56(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2013.11.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Food Science and Technology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES