Postharvest Quality of Coated Cherries cv.

‘Burlat’ as Affected
by Coating Composition and Solids Content

C. Rojas-Argudo*, M.B. Pérez-Gago and M.A. del Río

Departamento de Postcosecha Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain

The aim of this work was to study the effect of edible composite coating with different
hydrophobic/hydrophilic ratio and solids content (SC) to improve storability of fresh cherries. Cherries
cv. Burlat were coated with four edible composite coatings based on locust bean gum (LBG), shellac and
beeswax. Three coatings differed on the hydrophobic/hydrophilic ratio (75/25, 50/50 and 25/75) and were
applied at constant SC (1.75%). Whereas, one coating was applied at 3.50% SC, maintaining the
hydrophobic/hydrophilic ratio at 75/25. Quality was assessed during storage at 1 °C up to 11 days fol-
lowed by 1 day at 20 °C. Increasing coating hydrophobicity decreased weight and firmness loss of cher-
ries during storage. Increasing SC did not improve weight and firmness loss, but it increased
deterioration index. In general, no benefits were achieved in colour and titratable acidity retention as a
result of coating application. Major benefits by coating application were found in weight, firmness and
deterioration index. The application of the most hydrophobic solution at 1.75% of SC prolonged the
storability of the cherries.

Key Words: cherries, edible composite coatings, shellac, beeswax, locust bean gum

INTRODUCTION storage life of cherries, along with other quality para-

There is an increasing consumer interest regarding
more wholesome food and more natural products. This
has orientated coatings research towards the develop-
ment of new waxes, specifically ‘edible coatings’ to
improve food appearance and safety. Nowadays it is
possible to apply the technology of coatings to fruits
that are consumed with skin and that are easily spoiled,
for example, cherries.
Edible coatings can incorporate proteins, polysac-
charides and lipids (Baldwin, 1994, 1999). Polysaccha-
rides have been used as film forming agents and
because of their selective permeabilities to O2 and CO2
(Nisperos-Carriedo, 1994). Polysaccharides commonly
used in edible coatings include cellulose derivatives,
starches and chitosan (Nisperos-Carriedo, 1994) and a
few recent studies deal with the use of LBG in edible
coatings (Chen and Nussinovitch, 2000, 2001; Albert
and Mittel, 2002).
Weight loss is a major factor in determining the
*To whom correspondence should be sent
(e-mail: crojas@ivia.es).
Received 8 September 2004; revised 7 February 2005.
Food Sci Tech Int 2005; 11(6):417–424
© 2005 SAGE Publications
ISSN: 1082-0132
DOI: 10.1177/1082013205060180
meters such as loss of brightness, firmness and appear-
ance (Drake, 1991). Sweet cherries offer good
tolerance to high levels of CO2 (Beaudry, 1999), thus
modified-atmosphere packaging (MAP) has been used
to preserve their postharvest quality (André et al.,
1982; Remón et al., 2000). Despite MAP effectiveness,
its use is associated with problems, such as water con-
densation caused by temperature fluctuations during
storage and/or transportation, and waste generation
through the use of plastic materials. Edible coatings
provide a semi-permeable barrier to gases and water
vapour, which creates a modified atmosphere in the
fruit and delays dehydration. In addition, from an
environmental perspective, the replacement of plastic
materials by edible or biodegradable films is also envi-
ronmentally desirable.
Even though there is little literature about edible
coatings on cherries, good results have been reported:
reducing weight loss and surface pitting (Lidster, 1981;
Drake et al., 1988; Rojas and del Río, 2001; Rojas et
al., 2003), maintaining texture (Duarte et al., 1999) and
improving postharvest quality in general (Yaman and
Bayindirli, 2002). On the other hand, a slight increase
in fungal spoilage of edible coated cherries, compared
to uncoated ones, was detected by Yaman and
Bayindirli (2001).
Burlat is an early cherry cultivar extensively grown in
Spain, with a very short postharvest life which has been
reported to be less than 1 week under conventional
418
storage conditions (André et al., 1982). Postharvest
technologies commonly applied to cherries, such as pre-
cooling, did not provide good results when applied to cv.
Burlat due to its high perishability (Martínez-Jávega et
al., 1992; Alique and Zamorano, 2000).
The objective of this work was to study the effect of
LBG–lipid composite coatings applied to ‘Burlat’ cher-
ries using different hydrophobic/hydrophilic ratios and
solids content and to evaluate their performance on
maintaining postharvest quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
LBG (Ceamgum CV50) was supplied by Ceamsa
(Porriño, Spain). Beeswax (grade 1) and shellac were
purchased from Brillocera, S.A. (Valencia, Spain).
Polysorbate 80 (polyoxyethylene sorbitan
monooleate), glycerol and ammonium hydroxide at
30% were from Panreac Química, S.A. (Barcelona,
Spain).
Coating Formulation
Three experimental coatings were formulated con-
sisting of LBG, beeswax, shellac, polysorbate 80, glyc-
erol, NH3 and water. Glycerol and polysorbate 80 were
used as plasticiser and emulsifier, respectively. The
experimental coatings differed in the ratios of
hydrophobic/hydrophilic components and were identi-
fied as HL1, HL2 and HL3. HL1 being the most
hydrophobic coating and HL3 the least. Hydrophobic
C. ROJAS-ARGUDO ET AL.
materials included beeswax, shellac and polysorbate
80; hydrophilic materials included LBG and glycerol.
Each of the emulsion coatings, HL1, HL2 and HL3,
was prepared from mixtures of two formulations: one a
beeswax-based emulsion and the other a shellac-based
solution. LBG dispersed in ethanol (4 mL ethanol/g
LBG) was added to hot water at 60 °C. Shellac or
beeswax were added to obtain the beeswax emulsion or
the shellac solution, respectively. Next, polysorbate 80
and glycerol were added to the beeswax-based emulsion
and glycerol was added to the shellac-based solution. To
help in the melting of the wax and resin, solutions were
heated to a temperature of 10 °C to 20 °C above the
melting point of the lipids. The pH was increased by
adding NH3 to disperse the shellac and beeswax. Once
the lipids were melted, samples were homogenised with
a high-shear probe mixer (PolyTron, Model, IKA) for
2 min at 30,000 rpm. Further cooling was achieved by
placing the emulsions in an ice bath to lower the temper-
ature to less than 30 °C. Appropriate quantities of the
two formulations were used to get the coating composi-
tions shown in Table 1. A more detailed procedure can
be found in Rojas-Argudo (2002). Coatings were
applied at 1.75% SC, additionally, the coating HL1 was
applied at a higher SC (3.50%), which corresponds to
treatment 2-HL1. Treatments and characteristics of the
coatings are summarised in Table 2.
Methods
Sample Preparation and Coating Application
Burlat cherries were harvested by hand in May and
transported from Alpatró (Alicante) to the research

Table 1. Coatings composition.

Coating* (% dry basis)

Component HL1 HL2 HL3

LBG 13.0 26.0 39.0

Glycerol 12.0 24.0 36.0
Shellac 37.5 25.0 12.5
Beeswax 30.0 20.0 10.0
Polysorbate 80 7.5 5.0 2.5

*All coating formulations were prepared by adding 0.5 g NH3 (30%) per 1 g of shellac and per 1 g of beeswax.

Table 2. Treatments applied to Burlat cherries.

Treatment Hydrophobic/Hydrophilic Ratio* SC (%)

HL1 75/25 1.75

HL2 50/50 1.75
HL3 25/75 1.75
2-HL1 75/25 3.5
Uncoated – –

*Hydrophobic materials included beeswax, shellac and polysorbate 80. Hydrophilic materials included LBG and glycerol.
 Postharvest Quality of Coated Cherries cv. ‘Burlat’
laboratory the same day. They were stored overnight
at 5 °C. The next day, after fruit conditioning at 20 °C,
cherries were selected for size, colour and absence of
physical damage, and coatings were applied. Cherries
were dip-coated by immersion in the coating solutions
for 20 s, drained of excess coating, and air-dried at
room temperature with a fan having an air flow of
7,500 m3/h.
After coating, cherries were stored at 1 °C and
90–95% RH. Fruit analysis was carried out after 6 and
11 days of storage at 1 °C, followed by 1 day of storage
at 20 °C to simulate retail storage.
Weight Loss
Individual weight loss in 30 fruits were registered
and expressed as the percentage loss of initial weight.
Postharvest Quality
Quality Parameters
Fruit firmness was determined on 20 fruits per treat-
ment with a Universal Testing Machine (Model 4301;
Instron Corp., Canton, Mass., USA) as the force (kg)
required to deform 3 mm using a 35-mm-diameter
plunger at a speed of 5 mm/min.
Peel colour was measured with a Minolta Chro-
mameter CR-300 (Minolta Co. Ltd, Osaka, Japan) with
an 8-mm-diameter measuring area, using illuminant C
and 2° observer. Two measurements in the equatorial
area of the fruit were taken, using 50 fruits per treat-
ment. The Hunter L a,b colour system was used and
lightness (L), chroma (C  (a2  b2)1/2) and hue angle
(h  tan1b/a) were calculated to study colour evolu-
tion.
Hunter colour difference (E) was calculated from
the equation E  (L2  a2  b2)1/2 using as refer-
ence cherry initial colour values measured before
storage.
Three replicates per treatment consisting of juice
from 50 pitted cherries each were used to determine
soluble solids content (SSC) and titratable acidity
(TA). Measurements were made with two repeated
observations per replicate. SSC was measured with a
digital refractometer (model PR1, Atago, Tokyo,
Japan) and expressed as °Brix. TA was measured by
titration with NaOH up to pH 8.1 (phenolphthalein
turning point) and expressed as g of malic acid/100 mL
of juice. Maturity index (MI) was calculated as the
°Brix/TA ratio.
Flavour Evaluation
The effect of the coatings on the sensory quality of
the samples, initially and after each storage period, was
assessed by 8 to 10 judges, each with several years of
419
experience tasting fruits. Panellists rated flavour on a
9-point scale: 1  very poor, 5  fair and 9  optimum.
Samples were presented to panellists in trays labelled
with 3-digit random codes and served at room temper-
ature (22  1 °C). Spring water was provided for oral
rinsing between samples.
Ethanol and Acetaldehyde Content
Samples prepared as described above were used to
determine ethanol content (EC) and acetaldehyde
content (AC). The method to measure EC and AC in
the juice was slightly modified from that of Davis and
Chace (1969). Five mL of juice was each transferred to a
10-mL vial with crimp-top cap and TFE/silicon septum
seal and frozen (20°C) until analysed. For the analysis,
samples were put in a water bath at 20°C for 1h and then
heated at 60°C for 10min in a water bath to reach equi-
librium in the headspace. A 1-mL sample of the head-
space was withdrawn from a vial and injected into a gas
chromatograph (model 1020; Perkin Elmer Corp.,
Norwalk, Conn., USA) fitted with a Porapack QS 80/100
(1.2m0.32cm i.d.) column and a flame ionisation
detector. Helium was the carrier gas, set at 12.3psi. Injec-
tor, oven and detector temperatures were 175°C, 150°C
and 200°C, respectively. Ethanol and acetaldehyde were
identified by comparison of retention times with stand-
ards. Results were expressed as mg/100mL juice.
Deterioration Index
Physiological disorders and rotted cherries were
evaluated in 100 fruits per treatment. The different
degrees of physiological disorders, which included
bruising injury and surface pitting, were rated as
0  none, 1  light, 2  moderate and 3  severe. Light
was considered when disorder affected less than 25%
of fruit surface and severe when more than 50% of
fruit surface was affected or fruit was rotted. Results
were converted to an average index (0–3).
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using STAT-
GRAPHICS Plus 2.1 (Manugistics, Inc., Rockville,
Md., USA). Significant differences between means
were determined by least significant difference (LSD)
at 5% level of significance (p  0.05).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weight Loss
Water loss due to transpiration is the cause of
almost all postharvest weight loss of cherries during
storage (Drake, 1991). Lipids and resins are added to
420
coating formulations to impart hydrophobicity, thus to
reduce water loss. Lipids include natural waxes such as
carnauba wax, candelilla wax and beeswax. Resins, such
as shellac, wood rosin and coumarone indene are also
used to impart gloss (Baldwin, 1994). In our work,
weight loss of coated cherries decreased as the
hydrophobic content of the coatings increased (Table 3).
Not all the coating treatments were effective at reducing
weight loss compared to the control. Weight loss of
cherries coated with the most hydrophilic coating (HL3)
was higher than weight loss of uncoated cherries, prob-
ably due to a partial removal of the natural wax layer of
the cuticle when dipping the cherries in the coating solu-
tion together with an increase in handling during the
coating application. Therefore, these results indicate the
need to control the hydrophobic : hydrophilic ratio of the
coatings applied to cherries.
Weight loss of cherries did not decrease as SC
increased from treatment HL1 to 2-HL1 (Table 3).
Amarante et al. (2001) found in Comice pears coated
with dilutions of a commercial carnauba-based coating
that a little coating deposit was able to coat cuticle
imperfections and that a further deposit of coating
exerted little effect on reducing water vapour perme-
ability and, consequently, weight loss. Pérez-Gago et
al. (2003) did not observe SC influence on weight loss
of mandarin oranges coated with hydroxypropyl
methylcelullose-beeswax edible composite coatings
having 4% and 8% SC. Amarante and Banks (2001)
discussed the potential of minimising coating deposit,
since small beneficial effects are expected as the
Table 3. Effect of LBG-based coatings on weight loss of Burlat cherries.
Treatment*
HL1
HL2
HL3
2-HL1
Uncoated
*Hydrophobicity of the coatings decreased from HL1 to HL3. Solids content of 2-HL1 coating doubled those of HL1 coating. Means within each storage time with
different letter are significantly different at p  0.05.
Table 4. Effect of LBG-based coatings on firmness of Burlat cherries.
Treatment
HL1
HL2
HL3
2-HL1
Uncoated
*Firmness at harvest: 0.320 kg. Firmness measured as force to deform 3 mm. Hydrophobicity of the coatings decreased from HL1 to HL3. Solids content of 2-HL1
coating was double that of HL1 coating. Means within each storage time with different letter are significantly different at p  0.05.
C. ROJAS-ARGUDO ET AL.
amount of coating is increased, but it can cause an
excessive modification of the internal atmosphere com-
position that might induce anaerobiosis.
Postharvest Quality
Quality Parameters
Firmness was measured as the resistance force
required to deform the cherries 3 mm. After 6 days of
storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at 20 °C, firmness increased in
all treatments compared to firmness at harvest (Table
4). Other authors have also described an initial
increase in firmness after cold storage of cherries
(Chen et al., 1981; Meheriuk et al., 1997; Remón et al.,
2000). After this cold storage, uncoated cherries and
cherries coated with the most hydrophilic coating
(HL3) were the least firm. An increase in SC from
1.75% (HL1) to 3.5% (2-HL1) did not affect firmness.
Some authors have correlated firmness and weight
loss in cherries (Patten and Patterson, 1985). In our
work, after 11 days of storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at
20 °C, cherries coated with the most hydrophilic
coating (HL3) showed the lowest firmness, which cor-
relates with the higher weight loss of these cherries.
Cherry darkening during storage provoked a loss of
lightness. Hue angle is an indicator of cherry ripeness
(Yaman and Bayindirli, 2002) and lower chroma values
indicate less vivid colours. Rojas-Argudo (2002) did
not observe a decrease in hue angle of Burlat cherries
stored 2 weeks at 1 °C plus 1 day at 20 °C but detected
Weight Loss at Storage (%)
6 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C 11 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C
9.0 a 16.8 a
10.6 b 21.8 b
13.8 c 25.1 c
9.8 a 16.4 a
11.4 b 21.2 b
Firmness at Storage* (kg)
6 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C 11 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C
0.416 b 0.300 bc
0.436 b 0.354 c
0.347 a 0.170 a
0.437 b 0.295 bc
0.393 ab 0.256 b
 Postharvest Quality of Coated Cherries cv. ‘Burlat’ 421

Table 5. Effect of LBG-based coatings on Hunter colour indexes (L, c and h) and colour differences (E) during
storage of Burlat cherries.
Colour parameters at storage*

6 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C 11 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C

Treatment** L c h E L c h E

HL1 25.2 c 16.0 b 14.6 b 6.75 a 22.6 a 12.5 b 12.6 ab 9.22 a

HL2 24.2 b 15.4 b 13.9 b 7.02 ab 22.2 a 13.3 b 12.7 ab 9.14 a
HL3 22.8 a 11.1 a 12.4 a 9.42 c 22.2 a 10.0 a 11.8 a 10.91 b
2-HL1 25.1 c 11.9 a 13.8 ab 8.40 bc 23.8 b 13.0 b 13.9 c 8.49 a
Uncoated 24.8 bc 10.2 a 16.5 c 9.23 c 23.5 b 10.3 a 12.9 bc 9.61 ab

*At harvest: L  28.5, c  18, hue  15.9°. Means within each storage time with different letter are significantly different at p  0.05.
**Hydrophobicity of the coatings decreased from HL1 to HL3. SC of 2-HL1 coating was double that of HL1 coating.

Table 6. Effect of LBG-based coatings on quality of Burlat cherry juice stored 6 days at 1 °C followed by 1 day at
20 °C.
TA SS MI Ethanol Acetaldehyde
Treatment* (g malic/100 mL) °Brix (SS/TA) (mg/100 mL) (mg/100 mL)

HL1 0.58 a 18.3 a 31.7 b 3.0 a 1.18 a

HL2 0.57 a 18.9 s 32.9 b 5.5 ab 1.41 a
HL3 0.63 ab 19.9 ns 31.8 b 8.0 b 1.48 a
2-HL1 0.73 c 18.8 ns 25.7 a 6.5 b 1.28 a
Uncoated 0.68 bc 20.2 ns 29.6 ab 6.3 b 1.81 a

*Hydrophobicity of the coatings decreased from HL1 to HL3. Solids content of 2-HL1 coating was double that of HL1 coating. At harvest: 0.660 g malic
acid/100 mL; 16.6 °Brix; MI  25.2; EC  0.5 mg/100 mL; AC  1.15 mg/100 mL. Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at
p  0.05.

lightness and chroma loss. Remón (2001) reported a
decrease in lightness during storage of Burlat cherries,
but chroma and hue angle showed oscillation without
exhibiting a clear trend. In other red fruit, such as
‘Selva’ strawberries, decreases in the three chromatic
indexes (luminosity, hue angle and chroma) were
detected during storage (Holcroft and Kader, 1999).
In our work, coatings did not slow down the light-
ness loss during storage (Table 5). Coated cherries with
the most hydrophilic coating (HL3) showed the lowest
L value after 6 days of storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at
20 °C, whereas the most hydrophobic coatings (HL1
and 2-HL1) reached the highest lightness value. After
11 days of storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at 20 °C, all the
coated cherries had lower lightness than the control,
except for cherries coated with 2-HL1 which showed L
similar to the control.
After the first storage time, HL1 and HL2-coated
cherries maintained higher chroma values than the
other treatments. Whereas, HL3, 2-HL1 and uncoated
cherries had a dramatic decrease in chroma values
compared to values registered at harvest. However,
hue angle of control samples did not change from that
at harvest, but decreased for coated samples. Yaman
and Bayindirli (2002) reported that the Semperfresh
coating was effective, maintaining skin colour of cher-
ries during cold storage, increasing lightness and hue
angle values, however there was no difference but at
ambient temperature no differences were detected in
hue angle between coated and uncoated samples.
Given that changes in all three parameters were
detected, without exhibiting a similar trend in each
treatment and showing fluctuations during storage, we
decided to study the Hunter total colour difference
(E) compared to the initial colour before storage
(Table 5). E increased during storage (p  0.05).
HL3-coated cherries showed the highest E values
after the two storage periods, which indicated that this
coating was not effective in maintaining the colour of
the cherries. On the other hand, the lower E values
measured in HL1 and HL2 treatments after the first
storage period indicated a delay in ripening. After 11
days of storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at 20 °C, none of the
coatings were able to decrease colour difference. The
most hydrophilic coating induced the highest colour
difference. From these results, the E might be a
useful parameter in order to study postharvest colour
evolution of cherries; but further studies are needed.
Table 6 shows SSC, TA and MI of coated and
uncoated samples after 6 days of storage at 1 °C plus 1
day at 20 °C. Juice quality was not determined after 11
days of storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at 20 °C due to the
high deterioration index (DI) observed in the fruit.
Organic acids are substrates for the enzymatic
422
Table 7. Effect of LBG-based coatings on DI of Burlat cherries.
Treatment* 6 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C
HL1
HL2
HL3
2-HL1
Uncoated
*Hydrophobicity of the coatings decreased from HL1 to HL3. SC of 2-HL1 coating doubled those of HL1 coating. DI range: 0–3. DI includes pathological and
physiological disorders. Means within each storage time with different letters are significantly different at p  0.05.
reactions of respiration which cause acidity loss during
postharvest storage of fruits. However, after 6 days of
storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at 20 °C, the acidity of
uncoated samples did not decrease compared to the
acidity at harvest. Only samples coated with HL1 and
HL2 coatings had lower TA than the control. Probably,
the higher weight loss detected in uncoated cherries
(Table 3) might have masked the acidity loss in this
treatment. SSC increased in all samples compared to
SSC at harvest; however, no differences were found
between treatments. Among coated treatments, 2-HL1
coating (the highest SC) maintained the higher acidity
and, therefore, had the lower MI, which indicated that
SC affected acidity levels of the samples. The high
acidity level of 2-HL1 treatment contrasted with the fact
that this treatment had lower weight loss (Table 3) and
then the organic acids were less concentrated. Yaman
and Bayindirli (2002) found that Semperfresh coating
was effective in maintaining titratable acidity and skin
colour of cherries during storage; however, SSC and
sugar content were not affected by coating applications.
Flavour
Flavour was not affected by coating application
after 1 week of storage and off-flavours were not
detected (results not shown). After 1 week of storage,
scores in all treatments ranged from 5.5 to 6.5 and
were, therefore, inside the acceptability ranking. Rojas
and del Río (2001) detected a decrease in flavour of
shellac based-coated cherries after 1 week of storage.
Ethanol and Acetaldehyde Contents
Off-flavours can develop in fruit exposed to O2
and/or CO2 as a result of anaerobic respiration and for-
mation of ethanol and acetaldehyde (Kader, 1986). In
our work, edible coatings did not increase ethanol and
acetaldehyde contents, despite the presence of an arti-
ficial barrier to gas diffusion around the fruit which
may result in reduced O2 and increased CO2 concentra-
tion (Table 6).
Fermentative metabolism in cherries exposed to
high CO2 concentrations may occur due to inhibition of
C. ROJAS-ARGUDO ET AL.
DI at storage
11 days at 1 °C  1 day at 20 °C
1.36 a 1.58 a
2.04 b 1.80 a,b
2.18 b 1.98 b,c
1.91 b 1.60 a
1.96 b 2.23 c
tricarboxylic acid cycle enzymes, succinate dehydro-
genase activity (Mattheis et al., 1997). These authors
detected increases in ethanol accumulation of ‘Bing’
cherries when CO2 exposure increased, but this accu-
mulation began after prolonged storage. Rojas and del
Río (2001) detected slight increases in ethanol content
(EC) of coated ‘Burlat’ cherries using LBG–shellac
edible coatings and a coating containing glycerol esters
and dextrin derivatives, but did not detect an increase
in EC using other LBG–composite film coatings. The
EC obtained was not sufficient to induce off-flavours in
cherries coated with glycerol esters and dextrin deriva-
tives, but cherries coated with LBG–shellac coating
were given the lowest scores by the sensory panel.
Deterioration Index (DI)
Cold storage, between 0 and 1 °C, is necessary for
highly perishable fruits, such as cherries, to decrease
weight loss. However, low temperatures during storage
can induce cherry surface pitting (Facteau and Rowe,
1979). Some studies have shown that coating applica-
tion can alleviate chilling injury in chill-sensitive fruits,
such as mandarins (Martínez-Jávega et al., 1989; Pérez-
Gago et al., 2002) and that effect could be attributed to
a reduction in moisture loss and a modification of the
internal atmosphere (Wang, 2000). Cherry surface
pitting has also been attributed to mechanical injury
during fruit handling (Porrit et al., 1971).
Mould growth (rated as 3) and physiological disor-
ders, such as surface pitting and bruising (rated from 1
to 3 according to size of the affected area) were con-
sidered in the deterioration index (DI, Table 7). After
6 days of storage at 1 °C plus 1 day at 20 °C, DI was
high and ranged between 1 and 2. Uncoated samples
were evaluated as 2, which can be considered unac-
ceptable from a commercial point of view. Among the
coatings, only the HL1 coating was able to reduce the
DI of coated cherries. This treatment corresponded to
the coating with higher hydrophobic content and
applied at low SC. After 11 days of storage at 1 °C plus
1 day at 20 °C, the DI of uncoated samples significantly
increased. However, the DI of some coated samples
were either maintained, such as samples coated with
 Postharvest Quality of Coated Cherries cv. ‘Burlat’
HL2 and HL3 coatings, or reduced, such as samples
coated with 2-HL1. These results could be attributed to
biological variability. Nevertheless, values of DI close
to or above 2 should be considered unacceptable from
the commercial point of view, which makes the HL1
coating the most appropriate treatment from the ones
tested to reduce physiological disorders.
CONCLUSION
Coating composition affects cherry postharvest
quality. Hydrophobic coatings improved cherry
quality. Major benefits by coating application were
found in weight, firmness and DI. Colour was not
enhanced by coating application. As the hydrophilic
character of the coating increased, weight and firmness
loss was increased. Increasing SC did not improve
cherry quality in general. Colour, acidity and MI were
retained slightly with the higher SC coating, but the
high DI of this coating advises against its future appli-
cation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was funded by the INIA project No.
SC98–056. The authors also thank Ceamsa for supply-
ing free samples of LBG.
REFERENCES
Albert S. and Mittel G.S. (2002). Comparative evaluation
of edible coatings to reduce fat uptake in a deep-fried
cereal product. Food Research International 35:
445–448.
Alique R. and Zamorano J.P. (2000). Physiological char-
acterization of sweet cherry cv. ‘Burlat’ and ‘California’
after harvest. In: Artés, F., Gil M.I. and Conesa M.A.
(eds), Improving Postharvest Technologies of Fruits,
Vegetables and Ornamentals. Murcia, Spain: Inter-
national Institute of Refrigeration, pp. 297–303.
Amarante C. and Banks N.H. (2001). Postharvest physiol-
ogy and quality of coated fruits and vegetables. Horti-
cultural Reviews 26: 161–238.
Amarante C., Banks N.H. and Ganesh S. (2001). Rela-
tionship between character of skin cover of coated
pears and permeance to water vapour and gases.
Postharvest Biology and Technology 21: 291–301.
André P., Blanc R., Buret M., Chambroy Y., Flanzy C.,
Pellisé C. and Dauplé P. (1982). Essais de conservation
de la cerise rouge pour la consommation en frais. PHM
Revue Horticole 226: 35–43.
Baldwin E.A. (1994). Edible coatings for fresh fruits and
vegetables: past, present, and future. In: Krochta J.M.,
Baldwin E.A. and Nisperos-Carriedo M.O. (eds),
423
Edible Coatings and Films to Improve Food Quality.
Lancaster, Penn.: Technomic Publishing Co., pp. 25–64.
Baldwin E.A. (1999). Surface treatments and edible coat-
ings in food preservation. In: Shafiur Rahman M. (ed.).
Handbook of Food Preservation. New York: Marcel
Dekker Inc., pp. 577–609.
Beaudry R.M. (1999). Effect of O2 and CO2 partial pres-
sure on selected phenomena affecting fruit and veg-
etable quality. Postharvest Biology and Technology 15:
293–303.
Chen P.M., Mellenthin W.M., Kelly S.B. and Facteau T.J.
(1981). Effects of low oxygen and temperature on
quality retention of ‘Bing’ cherries during prolonged
storage. Journal of the American Society for Horticul-
tural Science 106: 533–535.
Chen S. and Nussinovitch A. (2000). Galactomannans in
disturbances of structured wax-hydrocolloid-based
coatings of citrus fruit (easy-peelers). Food Hydrocol-
loids 14: 561–568.
Chen S. and Nussinovitch A. (2001). Permeability and
roughness determination of wax-hydrocolloid coatings,
and their limitations in determining citrus fruit overall
quality. Food Hydrocolloids 15: 127–137.
Davis P.L. and Chace W.C. (1969). Determination of
alcohol in citrus juice by gas chromatographic analysis
of head space. HortScience 4: 117–119.
Drake S.R. (1991). Cherries: Preservation and quality
standards. In: Eskin N.A. (ed.), Quality and Preserva-
tion of Fruits. Boca Raton, Fl.: CRC Inc., pp. 169–180.
Drake S.R., Kupferman E.M. and Fellman J.K. (1988).
‘Bing’ sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) quality as influ-
enced by wax coatings and storage temperature.
Journal of Food Science 53: 124–126, 156.
Duarte C., Moure J., Jaren C. and Honórico S. (1999). Eval-
uación del efecto de diferentes cubiertas comestibles
sobre la maduración de cerezas y parámetros de impacto.
In: Proceedings of VIII Congreso Nacional de Ciencias
Hortícolas. Murcia, Spain, pp. 319–325.
Facteau T.J. and Rowe K.E. (1979). Factors associated
with surface pitting on cherry fruit. Journal of the
American Society for Horticultural Science 104:
706–710.
Holcroft D.M. and Kader A.A. (1999). Controlled atmo-
sphere-induced changes in pH and organic acid metab-
olism may affect color of stored strawberry fruit.
Postharvest Biology and Technology 17: 19–32.
Kader A.A. (1986). Biochemical and physiological basis
for effects of controlled and modified atmospheres on
fruits and vegetables. Food Technology 40: 99–104.
Lidster P.D. (1981). Some effects of emulsifiable coatings
on weight loss, stem discoloration and surface damage
disorders in ‘Van’ sweet cherries. Journal of the Ameri-
can Society for Horticultural Science 106: 478–480.
Martínez-Jávega J.M., Cuquerella J., del Río M.A. and
Navarro P. (1989). Coating treatments in post-harvest
behavior of oranges. In: Technical Innovations of
Freezing and Refrigeration of Fruit and Vegetables.
Davis, Calif.: International Institute of Refrigeration,
pp. 51–55.
424 C. ROJAS-ARGUDO ET AL.
Martínez-Jávega J.M., Eslava E. and Navarro P. (1992).
Influencia de la pre-refrigeración y embalaje en el
almacenamiento frigorífico de cerezas cv. ‘Burlat’. In:
Proceedings of International Congress on Food Techno-
logy and Development, Murcia, Spain, pp. 40–44.
Mattheis J.P., Buchanan D.A. and Fellman J.K. (1997).
Volatile constituents of ‘Bing’ sweet cherry fruit
following controlled atmosphere storage. Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry 45: 212–216.
Meheriuk M., McKenzie B., Girard B., Molys A.L., Wein-
traub S., Hocking R. and Kopp T. (1997). Storage of
‘Sweetheart’ cherries in sealed plastic film. Journal of
Food Quality 20: 189–198.
Nisperos-Carriedo M.O. (1994). Edible coatings and films
based on polysaccharides. In: Krochta J.M., Baldwin
E.A. and Nisperos-Carriedo M.O. (eds), Edible Coat-
ings and Films to Improve Food Quality. Lancaster,
Penn.: Technomic Publishing Co., pp. 305–335.
Patten K.D. and Patterson M.E. (1985). Fruit moisture
status effects on the texture and mechanical properties
of sweet cherries. Journal of the American Society for
Horticulture Science 110: 537.
Pérez-Gago M.B., Rojas C. and del Río M.A. (2002).
Effect of lipid type and amount of edible hydrox-
ypropyl methylcellulose-lipid composite coatings used
to protect postharvest quality of mandarins cv.
Fortune. Journal of Food Science 67: 2903–2910.
Pérez-Gago M.B., Rojas C. and del Río M.A. (2003).
Effect of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose beeswax
edible composite coatings on postharvest quality. Acta
Horticulturae 599: 59–63.
Porrit S.W., Lopatecki L.E. and Meheriuk M. (1971).
Surface pitting – a storage disorder of sweet cherries.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science 51: 409–414.
Remón S. (2001). Comportamiento postcosecha de la
cereza en atmósferas protectoras. DPhil. dissertation.
Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza.
Remón S., Ferrer A., Marquina P., Burgos J. and Oria R.
(2000). Use of modified atmospheres to prolong the
postharvest life of ‘Burlat’ cherries at two different
degrees of ripeness. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture 80: 1545–1552.
Rojas C. and del Río M.A. (2001). Effects of edible coat-
ings and storage on quality of cherries cv. 'Burlat'. In:
Artés F., Gil M.I. and Conesa M.A. (eds), Improving
Postharvest Technologies of Fruits, Vegetables and
Ornamentals. Vol. II, Murcia, Spain: International
Institute of Refrigeration, pp. 630–636.
Rojas C., Pérez-Gago M.B. and del Río M.A. (2003).
Effect of lipid and plasticizer type on performance of
locust bean gum edible coatings applied to cherries cv.
Ambrunes. Acta Horticulturae 600: 103–107.
Rojas-Argudo C. (2002). Desarrollo de nuevos recubrim-
ientos comestibles y aplicación en cerezas, albaricoques
y mandarinas. DPhil dissertation. Valencia: Universi-
dad Politécnica Valencia. 196pp. Available from UMI,
Ann Arbor, Mich., No. 30718877.
Wang C.Y. (2000). Postharvest techniques for reducing
low-temperature injury in chilling-sensitive commodi-
ties. In: Artés F., Gil M.I. and Conesa M.A. (eds),
Improving Postharvest Technologies of Fruits, Vegeta-
bles and Ornamental. Vol. II. Murcia, Spain, Inter-
national Institute of Refrigeration, pp. 467–472.
Yaman O. and Bayindirli L. (2001). Effects of an edible
coating, fungicide and cold storage on microbial
spoilage of cherries. European Food Research Techno-
logy 213: 53–55.
Yaman O. and Bayindirli L. (2002). Effects of an edible
coating and cold storage on shelf-life and quality of
cherries. Lebbensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie
35: 146–150.