Atomizing Spray Systems for Application of Edible

Coatings
Ricardo D. Andrade, Olivier Skurtys, and Fernando A. Osorio

Abstract: The use of edible coatings on fresh and processed food products as a means of extending shelf life by
preventing or delaying spoilage, providing a partial barrier to moisture, oxygen, and carbon dioxide, improving the
mechanical handling properties, and even as carriers of many functional ingredients, is rapidly growing. Edible coatings
can be applied by different methods such as panning, fluidized bed, dipping, and spraying. This review presents and
discusses some aspects of the application of edible coatings on food products using spraying, which is the most commonly
used technique for applying food coatings and to obtain uniform layers.

Introduction
The quality of food products depends on organoleptic, nutri-
tional, and microbiological properties, all of which are subjected
to dynamic changes during processing, storage, and marketing.
These changes are mainly due to interactions between the food
and its surrounding environment which can lead to deteriora-
tive modifications of food quality, including water and gas losses
(Debeaufort and Voilley 2009).
The possibility of applying an edible protective layer on the
food surface has become popular among available techniques to
preserve food quality and is referred to as edible coating. Although
applications of edible coatings to preserve food quality is not new,
recently considerable interest and advanced research activity has
been witnessed on edible coatings, which have been driven by
an increasing consumer demand for safer, high quality, and mini-
mally processed foods (Gennadios and others 1997; Lin and Zhao
2007). For instance, edible coatings on fruits and vegetables could
provide replacement and/or fortification of natural layers to pre-
vent moisture losses and to control exchange gases involved in
respiration processes such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ethylene
(Pavlath and Orts 2009). Moreover, edible coatings may also im-
prove mechanical handling properties and structural integrity of
food products (Mellenthin and others 1982) and can be used as a
vehicle for incorporating several ingredients.
Food quality parameters such as: water loss, respiration rate, tex-
ture, color, purge, microbial number, pH, total acidity, and soluble
MS 20111485 Submitted 12/12/2011, Accepted 1/25/2012. Author
Ricardo D. Andrade is with Dept. Food Engineering, Univ. de Cordoba, Kra 6
No 76 to 103, Monteria, Colombia and Dept. of Food Science and Technology, Univ.
de Santiago de Chile, Av. Ecuador 3769, Santiago, Chile. Author Olivier Skurtys
is with Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa
Marı́a, Av. Vicunña Mackenna 3939, Santiago, Chile. Author Fernando A. Osorio
is with Department of Food Science and Technology, Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
Av. Ecuador 3769, Santiago, Chile. Direct inquires to author Andrade (E-mail:
ricardo.andrade@usach.cl).
solids content, are measured (from the food product) to determine
the effectiveness and quality of coating during storage (Lu and
others 2010; Vu and others 2011; Xiao and others 2011). Direct
measurements on the coating itself are also very valuable, even if
they may be more difficult to carry out. Indeed, coating function-
alities have been reported on water and gas barriers, uniformity,
morphology, thickness, surface wettability, adherence (compatibil-
ity between coating and food surface), and mechanical and optical
properties (Lin and Zhao 2007; Ribeiro and others 2007; Werner
and others 2007; Wang and others 2009a; Velā squez and others
2011). After its application, the coating remains on the product
during storage and will be disintegrated or dissolved during cook-
ing or the mastication process (Longares and others 2004). For
consumer acceptance, organoleptic qualities of the final product
must be investigated in detail. Exogenous flavor impact by the
coating materials, unattractive surface appearance of coatings and
others factors (color, aroma, taste, and texture) may affect con-
sumer acceptance of the coated products (Lin and Zhao 2007).
Edible coatings can be applied by different methods such as
panning, fluidized bed, dipping, and spraying. All these tech-
niques exhibit several advantages and disadvantages and their per-
formance depends principally on the characteristics of the foods
to be coated and the physical properties of the coating (viscosity,
density, surface tension, and so on). Spray coating is the most com-
monly used technique for applying food coatings (Debeaufort and
Voilley 2009). A spray system increases the surface area of the liquid
through the formation of droplets and distributes them over the
food surface area by means of a set of nozzles. This technique of-
fers as its main advantages uniform coating, thickness control, and
the possibility of multilayer applications, such as using alternating
sodium alginate and calcium chloride solutions (Martı́n-Belloso
and others 2009; Ustunol 2009). Moreover, spraying systems do
not contaminate the coating solution, allow coating solution tem-
perature control, and can facilitate automation of continuous
production.
Spray systems are also very important and widely used in sev-
eral engineering processes and industrial applications. Indeed, in


c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2012.00186.x Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 323
Edible coating application by spraying. . .
agricultural operations they allow application of pesticides for crop
protection. In various food industries they are used in operations
of spray drying, cooling, washing, humidifying, packaging, and
coating. In all these applications, the physical properties of the
used liquids (viscosity, surface tension, density, and so on) can be
different and therefore the fluid behavior (drop generation) can
be specific to each liquid. Thus, it is necessary to design differ-
ent atomizers and more general spraying systems to respond to
specific spray applications (Moita and others 2009; Tratnig and
others 2009). Furthermore, final product quality, operating costs,
and maintenance downtime are also parameters that affect spray
nozzle selection, use, and application. In food industries, an ap-
propriate application of spray technology offers the potential for
significant enhancement of end products.
The main objective of this review is to present and discuss
some aspects of the application of edible coatings on food prod-
ucts using the spray method. First, the potential use of edible
coatings as a way to extend food product shelf life is briefly de-
scribed. Then, different technological processes to apply an edi-
ble coating (fluidized-bed coating, pan-coating, dip-coating, and
spray-coating) are presented and discussed, focusing on the spray-
coating technology to generate an edible coating on a food surface.
Also, the physics of droplets, spray formation, and the numerical
methods for model are precisely dealt with. Important physical
parameters for the control and quality of coatings like wetting and
droplet impact are also included. Components of the spray system
are detailed; nozzles are described and discussed from the point
of view of their ability to generate spray. Finally, perspectives for
spray coating and other possible techniques that could be used for
food coating are discussed.
Edible Coatings: Importance and Applications
Edible coatings are thin layers of edible materials formed directly
onto the surface of the food that can be eaten as part of the whole
product. They have been used for centuries to prevent moisture
migration (for example, coating of oranges and lemons with wax
was practiced in China in the 12th and 13th centuries) or to create
a shiny surface for esthetic purposes (Kester and Fennema 1986;
Guilbert and others 1995; Janjarasskul and Krochta 2010).
Edible coatings are made from biological materials like polysac-
charides (starch, starch derivatives, cellulose, pectin, alginate), pro-
teins (gelatin, casein, wheat gluten, zein, soy protein), and lipids
(beeswax, acetylated monoglycerides, fatty alcohols, fatty acids).
The minor components usually include polyols acting as plasti-
cizers (such as glycerol or polyethylene glycol) or acid/base com-
pounds used to regulate pH, such as acetic or lactic acid (Bravin and
others 2006; Falguera and others 2011). Polysaccharides and pro-
teins are polymers that could form cohesive molecular networks by
strong interactions between molecules (hydrogen bonds, Van der
Waals interactions, crystallization, or primary valence). Molecular
cohesions impart good barrier properties to gases (O2 and CO2 ),
and good mechanical properties (Wu and others 2002; Vargas and
others 2008). However, in the case of polar polymers, that is, high
soluble polymers in water (alginate, lambda-carrageenan, and so
on), the matrix cohesion is low and, therefore, water and gas per-
meabilities are increased. This phenomenon can be explained by
hydrogen bond formation between polymer and water (Kester and
Fennema 1986; McHugh and others 1993; Park and others 1993).
Some commercial edible coatings are available to be applied on
a wide range of foods: Tal Pro-long® , Semprefresh F® , Nu-Coat
Flo C® , BrilloshineC® , Snow-White® , and White-Wash® (Pavlath
and Orts 2009).
324 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 11, 2012
The application of edible coatings has the potential to improve
food quality and to prolong the shelf life of food products since
they can provide selective barriers to oxygen, carbon dioxide, and
flavor compounds. Among other functionalities, edible coatings
can act as carriers of several active ingredients such as natural
or chemical antimicrobial agents, antioxidants, flavors, enzymes,
functional ingredients (probiotics), or nutritional substances (min-
erals and vitamins). Therefore, edible coatings can enhance safety
and nutritional and sensory attributes of foods (Ribeiro and
others 2007; Falguera and others 2011; Avena-Bustillos and
McHugh 2012; Zhao 2012). Edible coatings can used as an addi-
tional method to improve unit operation efficiencies. For example,
in frying pretreatments the application of hydrocolloid coatings
allows to reduce oil content in deep-fat fried products, such as
chicken breasts (Maskat and others 2005; Dragich and Krochta
2009), potato chips (Tavera-Quiroz and others 2011), and wheat
flour dough (Suárez and others 2008). In osmotic dehydration pro-
cesses (for example in papaya, strawberries, apples, among others),
edible coatings can prevent large solute uptake without noticeably
affecting water loss, because the coating serves as an extra barrier
to mass transfer (Khin and others 2005; Matuska and others 2006;
Mitrakas and others 2008; Garcı́a and others 2010).
With the objective to improve the quality (texture, flavor, and
appearance among others), edible coatings have been applied to a
large variety of foodstuffs such as dry bakery products (Bravin and
others 2006), plums (Eum and others 2009), quinces (Yurdugul
2005), apples (Lee and others 2003; Rojas-Graü and others 2008;
Mehyar and others 2011), blueberries (Duan and others 2011),
fresh meat (Antoniewski and others 2007), tilapia fish fillets (Ou
and others 2002), and fish patties (López-Caballero and others
2005).
Nowadays, a new generation of edible coatings is under develop-
ment by using nanotechnology processes, for example, nanocom-
posite edible films to improve mechanical and barrier properties,
and active antimicrobials; nanoencapsulation of active compounds
for helping to control their release under specific conditions; and
nanolaminates to create multilayered systems that could be used to
coat highly hydrophilic food systems (Azeredo and others 2009;
Rojas- Graü and others 2009; Tunç and Duman 2011; Bilbao-
Sainz and others 2011).
Different Technological Processes to Apply an Edible
Coating
In the food industry, typical methods for forming a coating
include panning, fluidized bed, dipping, and spraying. In this sec-
tion each method is presented and analyzed, and advantages and
disadvantages are discussed.
Fluidized-bed processing
Over the past several decades, fluidized-bed coating has been a
focus of research for a variety of key applications in the chemi-
cal, pharmaceutical, and food industries. Originally developed by
the pharmaceutical industry, it is used to apply a very thin film
layer onto dry particles of very low density and/or small size.
Food industries initially rejected this application to specific prob-
lems because of high costs. However, nowadays its application
is extended to a wide variety of food products of high markup,
such as functional ingredients and additives including processing
aids (leavening agents and enzymes), preservatives (acids and salts),
fortifiers (vitamins and minerals), flavors (natural and synthetic),
and spices (Dewettinck and Huyghebaert 1999; Chen and others
2009).

c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Edible coating application by spraying. . .
Figure 1–Diagram of top-spray fluidized bed coating. (a) Nozzle;
(b) Solution coating; (c) Inlet air flux, (d) Fluidized particles; (e) Plenum;
(f) Distributor plate.
Typically, in a fluidized-bed coating process a coating material,
either in the form of a solution or suspension, is sprayed through
a set of nozzles onto the surface of fluidized powders to form
a shell-type structure (Figure 1). Fluidized beds are categorized
by three different configurations: top spray, bottom spray, and
rotating-fluidized bed; but the conventional top-spray method has
a greater possibility of success in the food industry compared to the
other methods (Dewettinck and Huyghebaert 1999). Fluidization
occurs when a flow of fluid upwards through a bed of particles
reaches sufficient velocity to support the particles without car-
rying them away in the fluid stream. The bed of particles then
assumes the characteristics of a boiling liquid, hence the term flu-
idization. The size of particles coated in the fluidized bed is larger
than 100 μm because powders with smaller size either do not
have a stable fluidization state in the conventional fluidized bed or
form excessive agglomerates (Dewettinck and Huyghebaert 1998;
Guignon and others 2002; Chen and others 2009). Fluidized-bed
coating is used in the food industry to produce a large variety of
encapsulated food ingredients and additives, such as puffed wheat,
nuts, and peanuts. In the case of peanuts coated with whey pro-
tein, fluidized-bed coating also presents high-drying efficiency
and allows to use a lower level of surfactant addition in compar-
ison with dipping and panning processes (Lin and Krochta 2006;
Solı́s-Morales and others 2009).
Panning
The panning process itself has been known since the
9th century, coming from Greek–Arabian cultures where it was ap-
plied to the coating of medicines. The 1st processes were nothing
but stirring and movements in normal pots. The panning process
consists of depositing the product to be coated into a large, rotat-
ing bowl, referred to as the “pan” (Figure 2). The coating solution
is then ladled or sprayed into the rotating pan, and the product is
tumbled within the pan to evenly distribute the coating solution
over the surface of the food material. Forced air, either ambient
or at elevated temperature, is applied to dry the coating (Pandey
and others 2006; Dangaran and others 2009). During the pan-

c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Figure 2–Representation of a typical pan coating process. (a) Nozzle;
(b) Spray zone; (c) Exhaust air (Pandey and others 2006; reprinted with
kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media).
ning process heat is produced by friction which must be removed
with cold air. Panning is a method used by the pharmaceutical,
confectionery, and chocolate industries. Extruded products are es-
pecially suitable for panning as they can be produced in a round or
oval form and in different sizes which are relatively easy to coat.
Other products, particularly small items such as nuts and raisins,
are also coated by panning (Lee and others 2002; Geschwindner
and Drouven 2009; Talbot 2009).
Dipping
The dip application method involves submerging the product
into a vat containing the coating solution. This method is advan-
tageous when products require a total coating; it allows obtaining
good uniformity around a complex and rough surface. After dip-
ping the product and draining away the excess coating, it is dried
either at room temperature or with the aid of a dryer. Several
problems may occur using the dipping method, including coat-
ing dilution, build-up of trash or dirt, and microorganism growth
in the dipping tank. Coating applications from this method are
usually thick, which may pose problems with product respiration
and storage characteristics (Grant and Burns 1994; Martı́n-Belloso
and others 2009). Another disadvantage of the dipping method is
that the solution can dilute the outer layer of the food surface
and degrade its functionality. For example, the natural wax layer
of fruits and vegetables could be removed after dipping (Lin and
Zhao 2007).
Spraying
Spray coating is used to apply a more uniform thick or thin layer
of coating over a food surface. Different from other systems, spray
coating can work with large surface areas. Moreover, the bottom-
product surface can also be coated in a separate operation after
application of the initial coating and drying processes on the top
side. Spraying makes it possible to deposit various kinds of aque-
ous solutions or suspensions, such as liquefied lipids or chocolate
(Debeaufort and Voilley 2009). Spray applications are also suit-
able when dual or more successive applications are required, for
example, to make a gel layer with alginate and calcium chloride
solutions (Cutter 2006; Dangaran and others 2009).
Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 325
Edible coating application by spraying. . .

Spray applications have been used in many food processes. A

bovine gelatin was applied successfully to coat beef tenderloins,
pork loins, salmon fillets, and chicken breasts. In all these appli-
cations the shelf life was increased and the color was preserved
(Antoniewski and others 2007). In crackers, the spray-coating ap-
plication with a polysaccharide-lipid-based solution confirmed the
potential of edible packaging to become an integral part of the
food and reduced the hydration kinetics in a high-moisture activ-
ity environment. In the spray technique, the atomization pressure
is a critical parameter. In fact, in the case of the application on
crackers, at the fixed height between the pneumatic nozzle and
product of 40 cm, it is important to maintain the pressure value
below 3.5 bars to avoid the destruction of the film-forming sys- Figure 3–Schematic representation of coating formed by emulsion (a) and
tem. Also, film thickness of 30 μm was the most appropriate bilayer (b).
to ensure low water vapor permeability and desirable mechani-
cal properties, so control of this parameter is crucial (Bravin and
others 2006). It has been reported that the spray-coating pro-
cess can form a thin film on food surfaces and can be reasonably
well controlled (Grant and Burns 1994), despite the fact that the
viscosity of the coating solutions must be carefully adjusted to
suit the application with a specific spraying gum. Edible coat-
ings based on a tapioca starch with green tea extracts have been
shown to reduce the growth of aerobic microorganisms and yeasts
when applied to fruit-based salads, romaine hearts, and pork slices
(Chiu and Lai 2010). Chitosan solution applied as a preharvest
spray or postharvest coating reduced decay in table grapes and
affected the content of total phenolic compounds and the activ- Figure 4–Schematic of atomization process (reprinted with kind
ities of antioxidative enzymes of the product (Meng and others permission from Spraying Systems Co., Wheaton, IL, USA).
2008).

Fundamental Principles of Atomization Spray

Advantage and disadvantages of the spray system against
other processes
Although commercial coating application methods are very di-
verse, their selection depends upon the desired end product, de-
sired thickness of the coating, solution rheology, and the drying
technology in use. Both pan coating and fluidized-bed coating
systems require intense tumbling, while dipping application may
dilute the coating solution and result in significant residual coating
material. Also, appropriate amounts of coating solution cannot be
controlled easily by dipping, and a step to dry off surplus solution
is needed in the dipping procedure, which requires more time
and may hinder its industrial application. Hence, spray coating is
a feasible technique for coating application systems, providing a
uniform distribution of coating solution on the surface of food
and facilitating factory-scale implementation.
For starch-methylcellulose film, spraying at 2 bar gave a sig-
nificantly lower water vapor permeability value than spread-
ing. Besides, tensile strength was significantly higher for sprayed
(3.5 bar) samples than spread samples. However, deposition by
spraying requires droplet–droplet contact and aggregation, which
is a critical step for homogeneous film structure (Bravin and others
2006).
Among the advantages of spray coating, one is to form coatings
combining hydrophobic and hydrophilic substances. Indeed, spray
can generate a coating with 2 solutions, by applying an emulsion
solution directly, formed before atomization (Figure 3a), or by
forming a bilayer after 2 spray pulverizations (Figure 3b). The
application of a bilayer has the disadvantage of requiring 4 steps
(2 spray applications and 2 drying processes) for which the industry
prefers the use of emulsified formulations (Martin-Polo and others
1992; Bosquez-Molina and others 2003).
Processes
Gas-liquid 2-phase flows broadly occur in nature and the en-
vironment, such as the falling of raindrops and various spray pro-
cesses. Droplets can be generated by vapor condensation and de-
position or atomization. However, atomization is the most widely
applied process for droplet generation (Liu 2000; Hede and others
2008). Atomization refers to the disintegration of a bulk liquid
material, via an atomizer, into a collection of drops (a spray) in a
surrounding gas or vacuum with or without a spray chamber.
Drop and spray formation
Roughly, the liquid-spray atomization process can be divided
into 2 parts: 1st is jet-intact length, 2nd the liquid column breakup
after the end of intact length. The process of atomization begins
by forcing a liquid through a nozzle. The potential energy of the
liquid (measured as liquid pressure for hydraulic nozzles or liquid
and air pressure for 2-fluid nozzles) along with nozzle geometry
causes the liquid to emerge as small ligaments (after the end of
intact length). These ligaments then break up further into very
small “entities”, which are usually called drops, droplets, or liquid
particles (Figure 4). Numerous devices to generate spray flows have
been developed and they are generally designated as atomizers, can
be a nozzle that ejects the liquid and atomizing medium (gas or
liquid), a centrifugal device, or an ultrasonic vibrator (Liu 2000;
Schick 2008).
The dominant forces involved in the atomization process are:
a) inertial force attributed to undulations/perturbations, b) aero-
dynamic force attributed to drag/shearing effect, c) viscous forces
attributed to dissipation of kinetic energy, and d) surface-tension
forces which contribute to minimize surface energy. The 1st
2 forces (a and b) are disruptive in nature and the 3rd and 4th

326 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 11, 2012 
c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Edible coating application by spraying. . .

(c and d) are cohesive in nature (Rahman and others 2009). The ρ l , ρ g : liquid and gas densities, respectively
competition between the cohesive and disruptive forces will set μl , μg : dynamic viscosities of liquid and gas, respectively
up on the liquid surface, leading to oscillations and perturbations After applying the Buckingham -theorem, the following re-
in the liquid (Rayleigh–Plateau instability). In spray systems, the lationship is obtained (Eq. 5):
inertial forces are sufficient high to overcome the viscous forces.  
After the surface forces, inertial forces are higher than the vis- D μg ρg
= f Re ,We , , (5)
cous forces to form droplets. Under favorable conditions (such as L μl ρl
low-viscous forces and high surface tension), the oscillations may
be amplified to such an extent that the bulk liquid disintegrates With 4 dimensionless numbers obtained, the 1st represents the
into droplets. This initial breakup process is referred to as primary Reynolds number (Eq. 6), which is the ratio of inertial force to
atomization. A population of larger droplets produced in the pri- viscous force:
mary atomization may be unstable if they exceed a critical droplet ρUL
size and thus may undergo further disruption into smaller droplets. Re = (6)
This process is usually termed secondary atomization. Therefore, μ
the final droplet size distribution produced in an atomization pro- The 2nd dimensionless number represents the Webber number
cess is determined by the liquid properties in both the primary and (Eq. 7), which is the ratio of inertial force to surface tension
secondary disintegration (Liu 2000; Gorokhovski and Herrmann force:
2008).
In certain applications, not only the mean-droplet diameter U2 ρL
We = (7)
should have a suitable value, but also the droplet-size distribu- σ
tion must have a particular form for optimal operation (Babinsky
and Sojka 2002). In edible-coating sprays, efficiency is known to The 3rd and 4th dimensionless numbers are viscosity and den-
depend on the width of the droplet-size distribution and small sity ratios for gas and liquid, respectively. The Reynolds and Weber
droplets are best for achieving a homogeneous coating. numbers can be described for the liquid phase, using liquid proper-
ties and liquid velocity, or for the gas phase, using the gas properties
Physical properties and adimensional numbers and gas velocity.
In general, fluid motion is described by the Navier–Stokes equa- Combining the Reynolds and Weber numbers to eliminate the
tion derived from the basic principles of conservation of mass velocity allows to obtain another important dimensionless group,
(Eq. 1) and momentum (Eq. 2). the Ohnesorge number (Oh), denoting the relative importance of
interfacial viscous stress and surface tension (Eq. 8). Low Ohne-
∂ρ ∂ρu j sorge numbers represent either a low-viscous or a high surface
+ =0 (1)
∂t ∂xj tension fluid.
μ
∂ρu i ∂ρu i u j ∂p ∂τi j Oh = We0.5 Re−1 = (8)
+ =− + + Fcap (2) (ρσ L)0.5
∂t ∂xj ∂ xi ∂xj
Typically values of the Reynolds and Weber numbers are pre-
where ρ is the density, ui is the fluid velocity, t is the time, and xj
sented in Table 1, drop solution coatings based on hydroxypropyl
is the 3 components of space, p is the pressure in the flow, τ ij is
methylcellulose (HPMC) with different surfactants. For the same
the viscous stress tensor, and Fcap is the capillary forces.
velocity (U = 1m/s) and drop diameter (50 μm), Re, We, and Oh
For an assumed Newtonian flow, τ ij is written as follow (Eq. 3):
values changed with the properties of liquid.
    The Reynolds and Ohnesorge numbers can be used to char-
∂u i ∂u j λ 2 ∂u l
τi j = μ + + − δi j (3) acterize mechanisms of jet breakup, which are typically classified
∂xj ∂ xi μ 3 ∂ xl
into 4 primary regimes according to the relative importance of in-
where μ is the coefficient of dynamic viscosity of the fluid, λ is ertial force, surface tension, and viscosity as presented in Figure 5
null only for mono-atomic gases, and δ ij is the Kronecker delta (Lin and Reitz 1998; Liu 2000). These have been named the
defined by Eq. 4. Rayleigh regime (drop diameters are larger than jet diameter), the
⎧ 1st wind-induced regime (drops have diameters of the order of
⎨ 1 if i = j jet diameter), the 2nd wind-induced regime (drop diameters are
j
δi j = δi = δ i j (4) slightly smaller than jet diameter), and the atomization regime
⎩ 0 if i = j (drop diameters are smaller than jet diameter).
Other classifications of the regime breakup have been reported:
In addition to this equation, an equation of state and an equa- breakup regime for shock-wave disturbances, relating We and Oh
tion for the conservation of energy can be added when nec- (Hsiang and Faeth 1995), and break-up regime of spiralling liquid
essary. Moreover, these equations can be adimensionalized after jets (Wong and others 2004).
identification of the physical relevant variables. The atomization
process (for steady nozzle, centrifugal device) characterized by Modelling droplet-size distributions
the average droplet diameter, D, is governed by the following Several methods for modelling droplet size distributions of sprays
parameters: have been presented since 1930s. The older method is an empir-
L: characteristic dimension of the atomizer, for example, ical method based on experimental data in which a curve is used
diameter of nozzle orifice to fit the data collected for a wide range of atomizers and oper-
U: initial relative velocity of injected liquid and ambient gas ating conditions (Babinsky and Sojka 2002). As an alternative to
σ : surface tension this empirical approach, several analytical approaches have been


c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 327
Edible coating application by spraying. . .

Table 1–Physical properties of coating solutions based on HPMC with different surfactants and Re, We, Oh values (U = 1 m.s−1 , D0 = 50 μm).

Liquid Density, kg/m3 Surface tension, mN/m Viscosity, mPa.s Re We Oh

HPMC (1.5%w/v)- Sorbester 20 (3%w/v) 1003.73 24.95 10 50.19 201.15 0.28
HPMC (3%w/v)- Sorbester 80 (3%w/v) 1004.07 35 40 12.55 143.44 0.95
HPMC (4.5%w/v)- Sugin 471/PHK-40 (3%w/v) 1009.13 46.1 150 3.36 109.45 3.11
Water 1000 72.3 1.0 500 69.16 0.017
Density, surface tension, and viscosity (Pastor 2010)

Figure 5–Break-up regimes of a liquid jet in a quiescent gas (a) Rayleigh breakup; (b) First wind-induced regime; (c) Second wind-induced regime;
(d) Atomization regime.

developed: for example, the maximum entropy (ME) and discrete
probability function (DPF) methods.
The ME method views spray formation as a completely non-
deterministic process that can be modeled using the principle of
entropy maximization under several global constraints. The most
likely droplet-size distribution is the one that maximizes the en-
tropy function (Li and others 1991; Babinsky and Sojka 2002;
Yongyingsakthavorn and others 2007). The DPF method divides
the spray-formation process into deterministic and nondeterminis-
tic portions. Given a set of initial conditions (fluid physical proper-
ties and atomizer parameters) and a model of the break-up mech-
anism, it is postulated that the resulting droplet size is uniquely
determined. A droplet size distribution is produced because the
initial conditions fluctuate in a nondeterministic manner due to
a variety of factors. The droplet-size distribution is computed
by coupling a deterministic model that describes the formation
of a single droplet to the DPF method (Liu and others 2006).
Table 2 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of empirical
and analytical methods for modelling droplet size distributions of
sprays.
Modelling and simulation of spray
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) represents a useful tool
to obtain spray-flow characteristics. Indeed, CFD can be effec-
tively utilized to understand flow physics, to interpret available
experimental data, and to guide experimental work, as well as to
execute pre-calculations for altered operating conditions. More-
over, CFD is cheaper than experimental measurements; therefore,
various spray conditions may be obtained by changing liquid prop-
erties (viscosity, density, and surface tension), operating conditions
(air pressure, liquid-flow rate, and so on), and physical condition
(nozzle design and spray angle, among others) can be tested eas-
ily (Norton and Sung 2006; Gorokhovski and Herrmann 2008;
Kuriakose and Anandharamakrishnan 2010; Sirignano 2010). The
flow of the dispersive and continuous phases can be described by
Navier–Stokes transport equations in 2D or 3D. Due to broad
ranges of time and length scales present in atomization process,
approximations in numerical methods (and therefore in the re-
sults) are inevitable in CFD.
There are 2 different ways in which the 2-phase spray flows are
commonly represented in CFD: the Lagrangian model, where the
paths taken by droplets or clusters of droplets are tracked through
the domain and Eulerian model, where the spray is considered as a
continuum across the whole flow domain (Langrish and Fletcher
2001; Jiang and others 2010).
In the Lagrangian model, the liquid is not considered a steady
stream leaving the nozzle, but it is already in the form of droplets
which then split on contact with air. These approaches, in which
the liquid phase is always represented by a set of droplets, are par-
ticularly appropriate to describe the secondary breakup. However,
they are not satisfactory in dense media where their extension
to the case of primary breakup is a problem. Various existing

328 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 11, 2012 
c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Edible coating application by spraying. . .

Table 2–Advantages and disadvantages of empirical and analytical methods for modelling droplet-size distributions.

Method Procedure Advantages Disadvantages

Empirical
Maximum entropy (analytical)
Discrete probability function
(analytical)
A curve is fit to data collected for a
wide range of atomizer nozzles and
operating conditions
First, a set of appropriate physical
constraints is formulated. Then the
distribution that maximizes the
entropy of the system subject to
the constraints is found
A set of initial conditions and a gross
fluid structure break-up model
predicts the production of a unique
drop of some diameter, and a drop
size distribution is produced
because the initial conditions
fluctuate
It can be used to model virtually any
data set
The method is useful for processes
dominated by secondary
atomization where the break-up
physics are highly stochastic in
nature
The method can be adapted to a
variety of atomizer configurations
and operating conditions simply by
selecting an appropriate instability
model for break-up
Difficulty of extrapolating the data to
operating regimes outside the
experimental range
Details of the break-up mechanism
are ignored
The method is limited to primary
atomization and requires a
ligament formation sub-model

Lagrangian models of atomization have been reported. Some are
detailed briefly below:
r Taylor analogy breakup (TAB) model. The TAB model has been
proposed by O’Rourke and Amsden (1987). It treats the oscil-
lation of distorting droplets with a spring-mass system analogy.
The restoring force of the spring is represented by the sur-
face tension, while external force is replaced by aerodynamic
force. The TAB model works better in the particular case of
breakup (called bag breakup) when We was low (usually for
12 < We < 40 to 100); extremely high-Weber-number sprays
result in shattering of droplets, which is not described well by
the spring-mass analogy (Liu and Reitz 1993; Zeoli and Gu
2006; Jiang and others 2010). Although this model focuses
on splitting secondary breakup, it has often been used for the
primary breakup of the jets. An alternative to the TAB model
that is appropriate for high-Weber-number flows is the wave
breakup model.
r Wave model. The ‘‘wave’’ breakup model for atomiza-
tion was developed by Reitz (1987), this model proposed
that the atomization is caused by the unstable growth of
Kelvin–Helmholtz waves at a liquid-gas interface, which oc-
cur when there is a shear motion of 2 fluids flowing alongside
each other. Thus, this model is also called model KH. The
liquid column is discretized numerically by liquid particles,
called “blobs”, of diameter equal to that of the injection
nozzle. In this approach, the breakup and the droplet size
that results are related to the most amplified wave provided
by the linear theory of instabilities. Indeed, the wave length
and growth rate of this instability are used to predict de-
tails of the newly-formed droplets. The wave model is ap-
propriate for high-speed injections (We > 100), where the
Kelvin–Helmholtz instability is believed to dominate droplet
breakup (Zeoli and Gu 2006; Jiang and others 2010).
At high velocity, drops produced by spray can be subdivided
into droplets with a much smaller diameter. Therefore, a vari-
ety of secondary breakup models (after the initial spray produc-
tion) have been proposed in the literature: Reitz–Diwakar model
(Reitz and Diwakar 1986), Kelvin–Helmholtz-Rayleigh–Taylor
(KH-RT) instability model developed by Patterson and Reitz
(1998), and FIPA (Fractionnement Induit Par Acceleration) model
(Habchi and others 1997).
In Eulerian-spray modelling approaches, the governing equa-
tions (1 and 2) have to be simplified and models need to be intro-
duced which account for the effect of physical processes, such as
turbulence. According to the way turbulence is modelled, 2 groups
of field models can be distinguished, namely Reynolds-averaged
Navier–Stokes simulations (RANS) and Large-Eddy simulations
(LES). In the RANS approach, all turbulent fluctuations are re-
moved from the governing equations by ensemble averaging and
the only mean flow field is calculated, whereas the basic idea of
the LSE approach is that the largest turbulent motions are resolved
in time and space (van Maele and Merci 2008). The LES tech-
nique is beginning to emerge as a viable RANS alternative for
industrial flows since unsteady flow dynamics may not be fully
captured (lack of accuracy of the average model). LES may over-
come this problem by using spatial filtering instead of time- or
ensemble-averaging. In LES, an explicit account is taken of flow
structures larger than the filter width, while the influence of un-
resolved scales is modelled using a subgrid-scale model (Jiang and
others 2010; Martinez and others 2010). The most accurate and
straightforward numerical approach to fluid-flow problems in the
continuum limit is to solve the Navier–Stokes equations without
averaging or approximation other than numerical discretizations
whose errors can be estimated and controlled. This approach is the
so-called direct numerical simulation (DNS), which is a simula-
tion in computational fluid dynamics in which the Navier–Stokes
equations are numerically solved without any turbulence model
(Versteeg and Malalasekera 2007). The major disadvantage of DNS
is that it is computationally too expensive, even for solving very
simple flow configurations.
Spray Technology
In Figure 6 a sketch of a basic industrial spray system is shown. It
consists of a set of nozzles used in the formation of the droplets, a
sprayer tank to facilitate liquid pressure, and heating jacket nozzle
for temperature control of the liquid before injection. In the food
industry, it is important to move food products with conveyor belts.
Moreover, a data logger can be used to control physical parameters
such as pressure, temperature (ambient air, liquids), flow rates, and
liquid level for the sprayer tank. The air system participates in both
the production of droplets in the nozzle and the circulation of the
liquid flow.
Spraying nozzles
As seen previously, spraying nozzles play a critical role during
the coating process. They are precision-machined components
designed to yield very specific performance under very specific
conditions. In designing spray systems there are often many op-
tions available to select an adequate nozzle; therefore, the selection
process can become somewhat complicated. If dual or multiple
nozzles are used in a conveyorized application, the overlapping
liquid-distribution pattern of the nozzles needs to be considered


c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 329
Edible coating application by spraying. . .

Figure 6–A sketch of the basic installation for spray coating in food engineering. (a) Air shut-off valve; (b) Air filter; (c) Air regulator and gauge;
(d) Nozzles; (e) Food; (f) Conveyor belt; (g) Liquid regulator and gauge; (h) Liquid strainer; (i) Liquid shut-off valve; (j) Sprayer tank (nozzles and valves;
reprinted with kind permission from Spraying Systems Co., Wheaton, IL, USA).

Table 3–Influence of different parameters on spray characteristics.

Spray Increase in operating Increase in specific Increase in Increase in fluid Increase in surface
characteristics pressure gravity viscosity temperature tension
Pattern quality Improves Negligible Deteriorates Improves Negligible
Droplet size Decreases Negligible Increases Decreases Increases
Spray angle Increases then decreases Negligible Decreases Increases Decreases
Capacity Increases Decreases Full/hollow cone – increases Depends on fluid sprayed and No effect
Flat – decreases nozzle used
Impact Increases Negligible Decreases Increases Negligible
Velocity Increases Decreases Decreases Increases Negligible
Wear Increases Negligible Decreases Depends on fluid sprayed and No effect
nozzle used
Spraying Systems Co. (2000).

because the process may depend strongly on the spray relative to
local volume flux (Lefebvre 1989; Hagers 1997). Relevant charac-
teristics which identify the performance of a nozzle are: liquid flow
delivered as a function of nozzle-feed pressure, opening angle of
the produced spray, nozzle efficiency, defined as the ratio between
the energy of the spray and the energy employed by the nozzle,
flow-distribution evenness over the target, and spray-droplet size
distribution (Lefebvre 1989; PNR 2009). Table 3 shows the in-
fluence of operating pressure, temperature, and properties of the
liquid (specific gravity, viscosity, and surface tension) on the spray
characteristics.
Classification of spray nozzles
Spray nozzles can be classified into several different categories
depending upon their operation method. Hydraulic and pneu-
matic atomizing nozzles are common application choices. More-
over, hydraulic nozzles are usually further classified by pattern type:
hollow cone, full cone, flat spray, and solid stream.
r Hollow cone. A hollow cone spray pattern (Figure 7a) consists
of droplets concentrated onto the outer surface of a conical-
shape volume, with no droplets contained in the inside of
the conical-jet shape; it can be formed by tangential nozzle
(the centrifugal force inside the whirl chamber provides the
energy for liquid breakup) or deflection nozzle (the liquid
jet passes to bounce off a deflecting surface). The so-called
oil burner nozzles forms this pattern, and have been used in
fruit coating-wax, but up to four nozzles must be installed to
ensure complete coverage (Hall 2012).
r Full cone. In a full-cone spray (Figure 7b) droplets are dis-
tributed into a volume which is limited by a cone, with its
origin point at the nozzle orifice. Such a spray pattern is
commonly encountered in a large variety of food processes
(chocolate candies, meat, and so on), since it allows distribut-
ing the liquid flow in an even way onto a surface; it is obtained
by different techniques: turbulence nozzle, deflection nozzle,
and turbulence nozzle-air atomizer.
r Flat spray. In a flat jet spray (Figure 7c) liquid droplets are
sprayed in the shape of a flat-liquid layer, with different thick-
nesses according to the principle used to generate the spray.
The vast majority of flat-spray nozzles employed in the in-
dustry work according to one of the following principles:
line-flat jet, line-straight jet, or spoon-flat jet.
r Solid stream. A solid stream spray pattern (Figure 7d) is a
uniform stream of liquid. By using proper inlet chamber pro-
portions and contours ahead of the orifice and/or by ad-
dition of internal flow-stabilizing vanes, these nozzles pro-
vide prolonged solid-stream integrity and delay breakup and
droplet formation after leaving the nozzle orifice (Hagers
1997; Schick 2008; PNR 2009).
Uniformity and symmetry of the spray pattern produced by at-
omizers are crucial parameters in most practical applications. The
choice of the spray pattern can be carried out after consideration
of the following recommendations: hollow cone nozzles tend to
provide the smallest drop-size distributions obtainable among hy-
draulic spray styles (Schick 2008). If the surface is stationary, the
choice of spray pattern is usually a full cone since this pattern will
cover a larger area than other styles in general. In conveyorized
applications, where either the target or the spray nozzle is moving
relative to the other, any spray pattern may be employed depend-
ing upon other desired characteristics, for example, if higher im-
pact is desired, then a flat-spray pattern would usually provide an
advantage, but if droplet size uniformity at the target is

330 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 11, 2012 
c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Edible coating application by spraying. . .
Figure 7–Diagram of spray patterns with corresponding nozzles. (a) Hollow-cone nozzles; (b) Full-cone nozzles; (c) Flat-spray nozzles; (d) Solid stream
(reprinted with kind permission from PNR UK/Group (a) and Spraying Systems Co., Wheaton, IL USA (b, c, d).
Figure 8–Diagram of two-fluid nozzle designs. (a) Internal mixture
nozzles; (b) External mixture nozzles (reprinted with kind permission from
PNR UK/Group).
needed, then a hollow-cone spray might be selected (Hagers
1997).
Pneumatic atomizers utilize compressed gas which is mixed with
a liquid. These nozzles have been used to coat bakery products
(Bravin and others 2006) and citrus (Hall 2012). Mixing may
be internal or external to the nozzle itself. The 2 methods are
presented below.
r Internal mixture nozzles. In internal mix designs (Figure 8a),
the gas and liquid are introduced into a mixing chamber inside
the nozzle and later discharged through an exit orifice which
is designed to provide a typically flat or round spray pattern
(Hagers 1997; Hede and others 2008).
r External mix nozzles. External mix pneumatic nozzles
(Figure 8b) function by impacting a stream of liquid with
a series of adequately placed air jets that break up the liquid
and form a spray pattern usually conical or flat. External mix
droplet sizes and ranges are typically larger than internal mix
styles, and they are most often used in situations where the
material being sprayed is very thick or would otherwise clog

c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
the inside of an internal mix-type nozzle (Hagers 1997; Hede
and others 2008).
Finally, other important aspects should be considered in the
selection of the type of nozzle:
r Control systems for air-atomizing systems are more complex
than those for hydraulic systems. Operational costs are higher
as well.
r Compressed gas consumes energy at high rates and generally
has high capital costs associated with implementation.
r Maintenance and implementation costs for pneumatic systems
are typically higher than those for hydraulic nozzle systems.
Droplet diameter measurements
Many useful measurement techniques for determining droplet
size have been developed. Each of these methods has its advantages
and limitations, and none of the methods is fully satisfactory. The
measurement techniques for droplet sizing may be grouped conve-
niently into 4 primary categories: mechanical, electrical, optical,
and acoustic methods (Liu 2000). However, to characterize sprays,
optical methods are the most commonly used; they can be divided
into 2 main categories: imaging (like photography, holography,
and others) and nonimaging. Nonimaging method can also be
subdivided into 2 classes, those that measure a large number of
droplets simultaneously (ensemble) and those that count and size
individual droplets one at a time (Choo and Kang 2004; Schick
2008). These different methods are presented below:
r Optical imaging analyzers. These consist of a light source (typ-
ically a strobe light or laser) that is employed to illuminate
the spray. This latter is recorded using a video camera. Then
the image is scanned and the droplets are sized and separated
into different classes. Main sources of error include blurring,
depth of field variations, and improper sample size (Schick
2000).
r Laser diffraction method (LDMs). The principle of a LDM is
that particles of a given size diffract light through a given
angle. The angle of diffraction is inversely proportional to
particle size, and the intensity of the diffracted beam at any
angle is a measure of the number of particles with a specific
cross-sectional area in the optical path. For calculating parti-
cle sizes from light intensity sensed by detectors, 2 diffraction
theories are commonly used: the Fraunhofer diffraction and
Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 331
Edible coating application by spraying. . .

the Mie theory (Kelly and others 2006; Di Stefano and others droplets surface area. It is a means of expressing spray fineness
2010). Both theories assume that the particles have spherical in terms of surface area produced by the spray (Schick 2008).
shape; in other words, the particle dimension is the optical
spherical diameter. Fraunhofer theory is based on the approx-
N 3
imation that the laser beam is parallel and the detector is at a D
D32 =
iN i2 (12)
very large distance compared with the size of the diffracting i Di
particle. The Mie theory is a solution of Maxwell equations
r Volume median diameter (VMD) expressed as D
describing propagation of light electromagnetic wave in space. v0.5 (Eq. 13).
This theory provides a solution for the case of plane wave on The VMD droplet size, when measured in terms of volume,
a homogeneous sphere of any size (Eshel and others 2004). is a value where 50% of the total volume of liquid sprayed is
The Mie theory requires that refractive indexes of suspend- made up of droplets with diameters larger than the median
ing medium and particles must be known. It also requires value and 50% with smaller diameters (Allen 1990; Schick
that the imaginary component of the complex refractive in- 2008). The ratio VMD / SMD is a good indicator of the
dex (relative measurement of the absorbency of the particle dispersion drop size.
with respect to the irradiating light source) be known for the
particle (Di Stefano and others 2010).
N 4
r Phase-Doppler anemometry (PDA). PDA is an interferometric D
DV =
iN i3 (13)
local technique for measuring velocity and size of individual i Di
droplets passing through the measurement volume. Measure-
ment location in the flow field is defined by the probe volume, Important Parameters in the Control of Spray Coatings
an intersection region of pairs of laser beams. The PDA system Knowledge of parameters, which allows controlling the coat-
deduces the 2 measured quantities of particles penetrating the ing process, is important for obtaining high-quality products and
probe volume from the intensity of light scattered by the par- minimizing possible costs. Thickness and microstructure are 2 im-
ticles, which varies with time, and from a phase shift between portant parameters which should be taken into account for quality,
pairs of scattered light signals, respectively. One important re- effectiveness, and functionality of coatings since they directly affect
quirement to spherical liquid droplets when measuring their their physicochemical and barrier properties (Cisneros- Zevallos
size with PDA is that they must exhibit homogeneous optical and Krochta 2003; Lin and Zhao 2007; Vargas and others 2008).
properties (Tratnig and others 2009; Liu and others 2010). The effectiveness of edible films and coatings for the protection
of food depends primarily on controlling the spreading of the
Distribution functions for drop-size distribution coating solution, which affects the thickness of the film. The
The collected and recorded data by the drop-size analyzers are thickness of edible films and coatings is an important parameter
typically in the form of number count per class size. The data since it directly affects the biological properties and the shelf life
are arranged into a mathematical representation referred to as of the coated food. When a drop of a liquid A is placed on a solid
the droplet-size distribution function. The most commonly used B (for example a fruit peel) the liquid can wet it totally or partially.
distribution functions to fit the existing experimental data are The parameter that distinguishes these 2 states is the spreading
the Rosin–Rammler (Eq. 9) and Nukiyama–Tanasawa (Eq. 10) coefficient, which can be calculated by equation 14:
distributions.
 m  SA/B = [Esolid ]dry − [Esolid ]wet = σSV − σSL − σLV
D
f M (D) = 1 − exp (9) = σLV [cos (θ ) − 1] (14)
D̄
where SA/B is spreading coefficient, Esolid is the surface energy of
f N (D) = a D p exp(−b Dq ) (10) the solid (food), θ is the Young contact angle, σSV , σSL , and σLV
are the surface tension values of the solid-vapor, solid-liquid and
where D is the droplet diameter, D̄ represents the distribution liquid-vapor interfaces, respectively.
mean droplet diameter; m is a measure of particle-size distribution If SA/B > 0, the liquid drop spreads completely in order to lower
spread; b, p, and q are adjustable parameters, and a is a normalizing its energy, so that the contact angle θ = 0 (Figure 9a). If S
A/B <
constant. 0, the liquid drop does not spread but forms, at equilibrium, a
However, there are many other modified formulations such as spherical cap resting on the solid with a contact angle θ . For
the upper-limit, log-normal, and chi-squared functions (Semião θ < 90◦ the liquid is said to be “mostly wetting” and for θ ≥
and others 1996; Schick 2008). 90◦ “mostly nonwetting” (Figure 9b). If θ = 180◦ , the liquid is
From the distribution functions, more global parameters such perfectly nonwetting (Figure 9c). Practically, a large contact angle
as average radii can also be defined. Most of the time, an average represents a hydrophobic surface, whereas a small contact angle
as equation (11) is employed. implies a hydrophilic surface. The quantitative definitions for the
Dmax a relative terms “hydrophobic” and “hydrophilic” surfaces has been
a −b Dmin D f N
(D) d D
Da ,b = Dmax (11) done, ◦respectively,◦ for surfaces exhibiting a water contact angle
b (D) d D θ >65 and θ <65 (Vogler 1998; Ghanbarzadeh and others 2007).
Dmin D f N
The pioneering correlation between contact angle and interfa-
Among the most commonly used diameters, the following are cial tension is the Young equation (Eq. 15). It was developed for
found: the case of an ideal solid surface, which is defined as smooth, rigid,
r Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD), also expressed as D (Eq. 12). chemically homogeneous, insoluble, and nonreactive (Karbowiak
32
The SMD is droplet diameter with the same volume-to- and others 2006; Marmur 2006). However, real solid surfaces al-
surface area ratio as the total droplets volume to the total ways deviate from the ideal case and are often heterogeneous,

332 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 11, 2012 
c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Edible coating application by spraying. . .
Figure 9–Liquid drop on a smooth solid substrate. (a) Total wetting, hydrophilic solid (θ = 0); (b) Partial wetting 0 < θ < 180◦ ; (c) No wetting,
hydrophobic solid (θ = 180◦ ).
deformable, and rough.
σ LV cos (θ ) = σ SV − σ SL
It is difficult to estimate SA/B . Indeed, although σ LV can be
measured accurately, there are no direct methods for measuring
σ SV and σ SL .
For low-energy solids, such as crystalline organic materials and
most polymers, σSV can usually be estimated from the contact
angle measurement of various liquid drops (pure liquids) deposited
onto the surface. However, surface free energy determinations of
solids using contact angle measurements, even using pure liquids,
are not always straightforward and various problems have been
reported, such as drop evaporation, porosity of the solid, chemical
interactions between the liquid and the solid, metastable state of
the shape of the examined drop, and more (Erbil 2006; van Oss
2006)
The main methods used for the determination of surface free
energy are: the Zisman model (Fox and Zisman 1950), the Fowkes
approach (Fowkes 1964), the multicomponent or “acid-base” the-
ory (Fowkes 1987; van Oss and others 1988), and the “equation-
of-state” approach (Neumann and others 1974). These meth-
ods have been used in various food products, such as: grapefruit
(Hagenmaier and Baker 1993), apple-fuji (Choi and others 2002),
strawberry (Ribeiro and others 2007), banana (Velásquez and
others 2011), blueberry (Skurtys and others 2011), and quince
(Ramı́rez and others 2012).
Finally, the wetting of a solid by a liquid is determined by
the balance between the adhesion energy (Wa ) of the liquid on
the solid and the cohesive energy (Wc ) of the liquid and can be
calculated by Eq. 16. Adhesive energy causes the liquid to spread
over the solid surface while cohesive energy causes it to shrink.
SA/B = Wa − Wc
Wa and Wc are expressed by Eqs. (17) and (18), respectively.
Wa = σSV + σLV − σSL
Wc = 2σLV
Thus, when the spraying system is employed to coat a food
product, thickness and microstructure of the coating depend on
the spreading coefficient, but also on mean droplet diameter and
droplet impact.
Control of mean droplet diameter
Control of final droplet size depends on many factors such as
spray-nozzle design, air and liquid properties (viscosity, density, and
so on) and relation between Re and Oh. For specific applications,

c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
it is possible to take into account temperature and incoming air
humidity.
(15) r Spray-nozzle design. Generally, full-cone nozzles produce the
largest droplet size, followed by flat-spray and hollow-cone
nozzles. The liquid flow rate and spray angle have a direct
influence on droplet size (Hagers 1997; Schick 2008).
r Air Properties. Of all the factors influencing the mean droplet
size, air velocity is undoubtedly the most important. For low-
viscosity liquids, the Sauter mean diameter (D32 ) is inversely
proportional to the air velocity, which underlines the impor-
tance of arranging for a liquid to be exposed to the highest
possible air velocity. However, in all spray installations, the air
velocity is limited by the available pressure.
r Liquid properties. Viscosity, density, and surface tension are
the most important physical properties to generate controlled
droplets. An increase in viscosity or in surface tension will
typically increase D32 , due to an increase in the amount
of energy required to atomize the liquid. Furthermore, an
increase in liquid viscosity causes a decrease of liquid-flow
rate and, therefore, higher minimum pressure is necessary to
maintain an adequate spray angle. On the other hand, if the
surface tension increases, then a minimum operating pressure
and decreasing spray angle is obtained (Rizkalla and Lefebvre
1975; Schick 2008). When nonNewtonian liquids are used
(such as water-in-oil emulsions, with the aqueous phase be-
tween 10% and 50%), it has been shown that an increase of
the aqueous phase concentration leads to a larger D32 (Sheng
and others 2006). Liquid density also affects droplet diameter
in a complex manner. In some cases the influence on D32 is
fairly small, because an increase in liquid density produces a
more compact spray that is less exposed to high-velocity air
for the atomizing action. However, it can also improve at-
omization by reducing sheet thickness and by increasing the
(16) relative velocity for plain jet nozzles (Rizkalla and Lefebvre
1975).
Control of droplet impact
(17) The fluid dynamic phenomenon which occurs when a single
droplet impinges onto a solid surface depends on many parame-
(18) ters associated with interface and impact conditions (Liu 2000).
A liquid droplet impinging on solid substrates (food) is a com-
plex process that is associated with fluid dynamics, physics, and
interfacial chemistry. Observations and interpretations of contact,
wetting, rebounding, leveling, and especially the dynamic behav-
iors could help in controlling liquid-droplet impingement in a
desired manner (Chan and Venkatraman 2007; Wang and others
2009b). Impingement has been reported to be related to impact
velocity, its direction relative to the surface, droplet size, properties
of the liquid (density, viscosity, viscoelasticity, and some other non-
Newtonian effects), interfacial tension, roughness, and wettability
Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 333
Edible coating application by spraying. . .

of the solid surface (surface-free energy), and air entrapment (Mao tending product shelf life and enhancing quality and microbial
and others 1997; Wang and Chen 2000; Yarin 2006; Andrade and safety of foods, commercial applications on a broad range of edi-
others 2012). ble coatings for foods are still very limited. In the past few years,
research efforts have focused basically on searching for new coat-
Future Trends ing materials, with the latest trends foresee on highly functional
The development of biopolymer films has increased research nanostructured and multilayered composite coatings.
activities on edible packaging, since such films consist of natural To increase the use of edible coatings it is necessary to efficiently
and biodegradable substances which may lead to replacement for enhance their durability; this is achieved with the development of
plastics and can solve the waste disposal problem to a certain ex- coating-application techniques such as spraying. This produces a
tent. Nowadays, biobased nanocomposites are a new alternative uniform coating over a food surface, less cross-contamination, and
to conventional technologies for improving biopolymer barrier is easier to perform in a production environment. In addition, this
and mechanical properties. However, in spite of improvements technique can control thickness, which is an important param-
of physical properties, these improvements are not sufficient for eter that directly affects coating functionality. Proper spraying is
petroleum-based plastics to be replaced. Therefore, more research achieved by controlling droplet diameters and distribution which,
is required, not only in the development of optimum formulations in turn, depend on fluid properties, nozzle design, and certain
for each polymer (combination of ingredients such as biopolymers, operating conditions.
nanoclays, plasticizers, compatibilizers, or coupling agents), but
also in application conditions of the coating solutions. It is worth
pointing out that the large surface area and active surface chem-
istry of some nanoparticles could give rise to unwanted chemical Acknowledgments
reactions, moreover, there is a lack of understanding on how to The authors thank the Bicentenary Grant (PBCT PSD-62),
evaluate the potential hazard of nanoparticles by the oral route and Corfo-Innova (Project 08CT11PUT-20); author R.A. is a recip-
the impact of nanoparticles in waste disposal streams. ient of Grant for PhD Studies (Program for Foreigners, CONI-
Seeking more feasible coating application systems that provide CYT, Chile).
uniform distribution of a coating solution to the surface of foods
is necessary in order to bring coating operations up to industrial
scale. New trends in edible coatings must be focused on highly
functional micro- or nanostructured, multilayered composite coat- References
ings, which will be developed by using techniques that, at present, Allen T. 1990. Particle size measurement. 4th ed. New York: Chapman and
Hall. 806 p.
have hardly ever been applied to food systems like atomic layer
Andrade R, Skurtys O, Osorio F. 2012. Experimental study of drop impacts
deposition (ALD). ALD is a technique that deposits ultra-thin and spreading on epicarps: effect of fluid properties. J Food Eng
films one atomic layer at a time. Reactants are introduced one 109(3):430–7.
by one, with pump/purge cycles in between, resulting in a self- Antoniewski MN, Barringer SA, Knipe CL, Zerby HN. 2007. Effect of a
saturating surface reaction limited to a single layer on the exposed gelatin coating on the shelf life of fresh meat. J Food Sci 72(6):E382–E7.
surface. The result is the deposition of a 100% conformal film, Avena-Bustillos RJ, McHugh TH. 2012. Role of edible film and coating
additives. In: Baldwin EA, Hagenmaier R, Bai J, editors. Edible coatings
with sequential cycles of these reactions enabling precise control and films to improve food quality. Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis
of film thickness; however, these ultrathin films are flexible. ALD Group. p 157–84.
is a surface-controlled layer-by-layer process, which deposits with Azeredo HMC, Mattoso LHC, Wood D, Williams TG, Avena-Bustillos RJ,
low-impurity content. McHugh TH. 2009. Nanocomposite edible films from mango puree
Less futuristic, there are also emerging new spray systems that reinforced with cellulose nanofibers. J Food Sci 74(5):31–5.
can be used on an industrial scale to apply edible coatings: electro- Babinsky EB, Sojka PE. 2002. Modelling drop size distributions. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 28(4):303–29.
sprays and micro-sprays. Indeed, they provide the means to gener- Bilbao-Sainz C, Bras J, Williams T, Sénechal T, Orts W. 2011. HPMC
ate steadier and better-controlled spray flows. The liquid flowing reinforced with different cellulose nanoparticles. Carbohyd Polym
out of a capillary nozzle, which is maintained at high-electric 86(4):1549–57.
potential, is forced by the electric field to be dispersed into fine Bosquez-Molina E, Guerrero-Legarreta I, Vernon-Carter EJ. 2003. Moisture
droplets. Electrospray systems have several advantages over me- barrier properties and morphology of mesquite gum-candelilla wax-based
edible emulsion coatings. Food Res Int 36(9–10):885–93.
chanical atomizers. The size of electrospray droplets can range
Bravin B, Peressini D, Sensidoni A. 2006. Development and application of
from hundreds micrometers down to several tens of nanometers. polysaccharide–lipid edible coating to extend shelf-life of dry bakery
The size distribution of the droplets can be nearly monodisperse. products. J Food Eng 76(3):280–90.
Droplet generation and droplet size can be controlled to some Chan CM, Venkatraman S. 2007. Coating rheology. In: Tracton AA, editor.
extent via liquid-flow rate and voltage at the capillary nozzle. Coatings technology. Fundamentals, testing, and processing techniques.
Nowadays, electrospray is used for micro- and nanothin-film Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis Group. p 2. 1–2.14.
deposition, micro-or nanoparticle production, and micro-or Chen Y, Yang J, Mujumdar A, Dave R. 2009. Fluidized bed film coating of
cohesive Geldart group C powders. Powder Technol 189(3):466–80.
nanocapsule formation. Electrospraying is a single-step, low- Chiu PE, Lai LS. 2010. Antimicrobial activities of tapioca starch/decolorized
energy, and low-cost material processing technology which can hsian-tsao leaf gum coatings containing green tea extracts in fruit-based
deliver products having unique properties (Jaworek 2007; Jaworek salads, romaine hearts and pork slices. Int J Food Microbiol 139(1–2):23–30.
and Sobczyk 2008). These features make this technology very Choi W, Park H, Ahn D, Lee J, Lee C. 2002. Wettability of chitosan coating
promising to be employed for edible coatings of food products. solution on fuji apple skin. J Food Sci 67(7):2668–72.
Choo Y, Kang B. 2004. Extration of sizes and velocities of spray droplets by
optical imaging method. KSME International Journal 18(7):1236–45.
Conclusions Cisnero-Zevallos L, Krochta JM. 2003. Dependence of coating thickness on
Edible coatings can improve food quality and extend food shelf viscosity of coating solution applied to fruits and vegetables by dipping
life. Despite significant benefits from using edible coatings for ex- method. J Food Sci 68(2):503–10.

334 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 11, 2012 
c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Edible coating application by spraying. . .
Cutter CN. 2006. Opportunities for bio-based packaging technologies to
improve the quality and safety of fresh and further processed muscle foods.
Meat Sci 74(1):131–42.
Dangaran K, Tomasula PM, Qi P. 2009. Structure and function of
protein-based edible films and coatings. In: Embuscado ME, Huber KC,
editors. Edible films and coatings for food applications. New York: Springer.
p 25–56.
Debeaufort F, Voilley A. 2009. Lipid-based edible films and coatings. In:
Embuscado ME, Huber KC, editors. Edible films and coatings for food
applications. New York: Springer. p 135–64.
Dewettinck K, Huyghebaert A. 1998. Top-spray fluidized bed coating: effect
of process variables on coating efficiency. Lebensm Wiss Technol
31(6):568–75.
Dewettinck K, Huyghebaert A. 1999. Fluidized bed coating in food
technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 10(4–5):163–8.
Di Stefano C, Ferro V, Mirabile S. 2010. Comparison between grain-size
analyses using laser diffraction and sedimentation methods. Biosystems Eng
106(2):205–15.
Dragich AM, Krochta JM. 2010. Whey protein solution coating for
fat-uptake reduction in deep-fried chicken breast strips. J Food Sci
75(1):S43-S7.
Duan J, Wu R, Strik BC, Zhao Y. 2011. Effect of edible coatings on the
quality of fresh blueberries (Duke and Elliott) under commercial storage
conditions. Postharvest Biol Technol 59(1):71–9.
Erbil HY. 2006. Surface chemistry of solid and liquid interfaces. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 352 p.
Eshel G, Levy GJ, Mingelgrin U, Singer MJ. 2004. Critical evaluation of the
use of laser diffraction for particle-size distribution analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am
J 68(3):736–43.
Eum HL, Hwang DK, Linke M, Lee SK, Zude M. 2009. Influence of edible
coating on quality of plum (Prunus salicina Lindl. cv. ‘Sapphire’). Eur Food
Res Technol 229(3):427–34.
Falguera V, Quintero JP, Jiménez A, Muñoz JA, Ibarz A. 2011. Edible films
and coatings: structures, active functions and trends in their use. Trends
Food Sci Technol 22(6):292–303.
Fowkes FM. 1964. Attractive forces at interfaces. Ind Eng Chem
56(12):40–52.
Fowkes FM. 1987. Role of acid-base interfacial bonding in adhesion. J Adhes
Sci Technol 1(1):7–27.
Fox HW, Zisman WA. 1950. The spreading of liquids on low-energy
surfaces. I. PTFE. J Colloid Interface Sci 5(6):514–31.
Garcı́a M, Dı́az R, Martı́nez Y, Casariego A. 2010. Effects of chitosan
coating on mass transfer during osmotic dehydration of papaya. Food Res
Int 43(6):1656–60.
Gennadios A, Hanna MA, Kurth LB. 1997. Application of edible coatings on
meats, poultry and seafoods: a review. Lebensm Wiss Technol 30(4):337–50.
Geschwindner G, Drouven H. 2009. Manufacturing processes: chocolate
panning and inclusions. In: Talbot G, editor. Science and technology of
enrobed and filled chocolate, confectionery and bakery products.
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited. p 397–413.
Ghanbarzadeh B, Musavi M, Oromiehie AR, Rezayi K, Rad ER, Milani J.
2007. Effect of plasticizing sugars on water vapor permeability, surface
energy and microstructure properties of zein films. LWT Food Sci Technol
40(7):1191–7.
Gorokhovski M, Herrmann M. 2008. Modelling primary atomization. Annu
Rev Fluid Mech 40:343–66.
Grant LA, Burns J. 1994. Application of coatings. In: Krochta JM, Baldwin
EA, Nisperos-Carriedo MO, editors. Edible coatings and films to improve
food quality. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company. p 189–200.
Guignon B, Duquenoy A, Dumoulin ED. 2002. Fluid bed encapsulation of
particles: principles and practice. Drying Technol 20(2):419–47.
Guilbert S, Gontard N, Cuq B. 1995. Technology and applications of edible
protective films. Packag Technol Sci 8(6):339–46.
Habchi C, Verhoeven D, Huynh C, Lambert L, Vanhemelryck JL,
Baritaud T. 1997. Modelling atomization and breakup in high-pressure
diesel sprays. Technical Report SAE 970881.
Hagenmaier RD, Baker RA. 1993. Reduction in gas exchange of citrus fruit
by wax coatings. J Agric Food Chem 41(2):283–7.
Hagers JJ. 1997. Basic technical considerations for application of spray
nozzles to chemical processing. Wheaton, IL, USA: Spraying Systems Co.
p 1–12.

c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 335
Hall DJ. 2012. Edible coatings from lipids, waxes, and resins. In: Baldwin EA,
Hagenmaier R, Bai J, editors. Edible coatings and films to improve food
quality. Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis Group. p 79–102.
Hede PD, Bach P, Jensen AD. 2008. Two-fluid spray atomization and
pneumatic nozzles for fluid bed coating/agglomeration purposes: a review.
Chem Eng Sci 63(14):3821–42.
Hsiang LP, Faeth GM. 1995. Drop deformation and breakup due to shock
wave and steady disturbances. Int J Multiphase Flow 21(4):545–60.
Janjarasskul T, Krochta JM. 2010. Edible packaging materials. Annu Rev
Food Sci Technol 1:415–48.
Jaworek A. 2007. Micro- and nanoparticle production by electrospraying.
Powder Technol 176(1):18–35.
Jaworek A, Sobczyk AT. 2008. Electrospraying route to nanotechnology: an
overview. J Electrostat 66(3–4):197–219.
Jiang X, Siamas GA, Jagus K, Karayiannis TG. 2010. Physical modelling and
advanced simulations of gas-liquid two-phase jet flows in atomization and
sprays. Prog Energy Combust Sci 36(2):131–67.
Karbowiak T, Debeaufort F, Voilley A. 2006. Importance of surface tension
characterization for food, pharmaceutical and packaging products: a review.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 46(5):391–407.
Kelly RN, DiSante KJ, Stranzl E, Kazanjian JA, Bowen P, Matsuyama T,
Gabas N. 2006. Graphical comparison of image analysis and laser diffraction
particle size analysis data obtained from the measurements of nonspherical
particle systems. AAPS PharmSciTech 7(3):E1–E14.
Kester JJ, Fennema OR. 1986. Edible films and coatings: a review. J Food
Technol 40(12):47–59.
Khin MM, Zhou W, Perera CO. 2005. Development in the combined
treatment of coating and osmotic dehydration of food – a review. Int J Food
Eng 1(1):1–19.
Kuriakose R, Anandharamakrishnan C. 2010. Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) applications in spray-drying of food products. Trends Food Sci
Technol 21(8):383–98.
Langrish TAG, Fletcher DF. 2001. Spray-drying of food ingredients and
applications of CFD in spray-drying. Chem Eng Process 40(4):345–54.
Lee SY, Dangaran KL, Krochta JM. 2002. Gloss stability of whey-protein/
plasticizer coating formulations on chocolate surface. J Food Sci
67(3):1121–5.
Lee JY, Park HJ, Lee CY, Choi WY. 2003. Extending shelf-life of minimally
processed apples with edible coatings and antibrowning agents. Lebensm
Wiss Technol 36(3):323–9.
Lefebvre AH. 1989. Atomization and sprays. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation. 421 p.
Li X, Chin LP, Tankin RS. 1991. Comparison between experiments and
predictions based on maximum entropy for sprays from a pressure atomizer.
Combust Flame 86(1–2):73–89.
Lin D, Zhao Y. 2007. Innovations in the development and application of
edible coatings for fresh and minimally processed fruits and vegetables.
Comprehensive Rev Food Sci Food Safety 6(3):60–75.
Lin SP, Reitz RD. 1998. Drop and spray formation from a liquid jet. Annu
Rev Fluid Mech 30:85–105.
Lin SY, Krochta JM. 2006. Fluidized-bed system for whey protein film
coating of peanuts. J Food Process Eng 29(5):532–46.
Liu AB, Reitz RD. 1993. Mechanisms of air-assisted liquid atomization.
Atomization Sprays 3(1):55–75.
Liu H. 2000. Science and engineering of droplets. Fundamentals and
applications. New York: William Andrew Publishing. 539 p.
Liu HF, Gong X, Li WF, Wang FC, Yu ZH. 2006. Prediction of droplet size
distribution in sprays of prefilming air-blast atomizers. Chem Eng Sci
61(6):1741–7.
Liu X, Doub WH, Guo C. 2010. Evaluation of droplet velocity and size
from nasal spray devices using phase Doppler anemometry (PDA). Int J
Pharm 388(1–2):82–7.
Longares A, Monahan FJ, O’Riordan ED, O’Sullivan M. 2004. Physical
properties and sensory evaluation of WPI films of varying thickness.
Lebensm Wiss Technol 37(5):545–50.
López-Caballero ME, Gómez-Guillén MC, Pérez-Mateos M, Montero P.
2005. A chitosan–gelatin blend as a coating for fish patties. Food
Hydrocolloids 19(2):303–11.
Lu F, Ding Y, Ye X, Liu D. 2010. Cinnamon and nisin in alginate-calcium
coating maintain quality of fresh northern snakehead fish fillets. LWT Food
Sci Technol 43(9):1331–5.
Edible coating application by spraying. . .
Mao T, Kuhn DCS, Tran H. 1997. Spread and rebound of liquid droplets
upon impact on flat surfaces, AIChE Journal 43(9):2169–79.
Marmur A. 2006. Soft contact: measurement and interpretation of contact
angles. Soft Matter 2(1):12–7.
Martı́n-Belloso O, Rojas-Graü MA, Soliva-Fortuny R. 2009. Delivery of
flavor and active ingredients using edible films and coatings. In: Embuscado
ME, Huber KC, editors. Edible films and coatings for food applications.
New York: Springer. p 295–314.
Martin-Polo M, Mauguin C, Voilley A. 1992. Hydrophobic films and their
efficiency against moisture transfer. 1. Influence of the film preparation
technique. J Agric Food Chem 40(3):407–12.
Martinez L, Benkenida A, Cuenot B. 2010. A model for the injection
boundary conditions in the context of 3D simulation of Diesel spray:
methodology and validation. Fuel 89(1):219–28.
Maskat M, Yip HH, Mahali HM. 2005. The performance of a methyl
cellulose-treated coating during the frying of a poultry product. Int J Food
Sci Technol 40(8):811–6.
Matuska M, Lenart A, Lazarides HN. 2006. On the use of edible coatings to
monitor osmotic dehydration kinetics for minimal solids uptake. J Food Eng
72(1):85–91.
McHugh TH, Avena-Bustillos R, Krochta JM. 1993. Hydrophilic edible
films: modified procedure for water vapor permeability and explanation of
thickness effects. J Food Sci 58(4):899–903.
Mehyar GF, Al-Qadiri HM, Abu-Blan HA, Swanson BG. 2011. Antifungal
effectiveness of potassium sorbate incorporated in edible coatings against
spoilage molds of apples, cucumbers, and tomatoes during refrigerated
storage. J Food Sci 76(3):M210–M7.
Mellenthin WM, Chen PM, Borgic DM. 1982. In-line application of porous
wax coating materials to reduce friction discoloration of ‘Bartlett’ and
‘d’Anjou’ pears. Hortscience 12:215–7.
Meng X, Li B, Liu J, Tian S. 2008. Physiological responses and quality
attributes of table grape fruit to chitosan preharvest spray and postharvest
coating during storage. Food Chem 106(2):501–8.
Mitrakas GE, Koutsoumanis KP, Lazarides HN. 2008. Impact of edible
coating with or without anti-microbial agent on microbial growth during
osmotic dehydration and refrigerated storage of a model plant material.
Innovative Food Sci Emerg Technol 9(4):550–5.
Moita RD, Matos HA, Fernandes C, Nunes CP, Pinho MJ. 2009. Dynamic
modelling and simulation of a heated brine spray system. Comput Chem
Eng 33(8):1323–35.
Neumann AW, Good RJ, Hope CJ, Sejpal M. 1974. An equation-of-state
approach to determine surface tensions of low-energy solids from contact
angles. J Colloid Interface Sci 49(2):291–304
Norton T, Sun DW. 2006. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) – An
effective and efficient design and analysis tool for the food industry: a
review. Trends Food Sci Technol 17(11):600–20.
O’Rourke PJ, Amsden AA. 1987. The TAB Method for numerical
calculation of spray droplet breakup. Technical Report SAE 872089.
Ou C, Tsay S, Lai C, Weng Y. 2002. Using gelatin-based antimicrobial
edible coating to prolong shelf life of tilapia fillets. J Food Qual 25(3):
213–22.
Pandey P, Turton R, Joshi N, Hammerman E, Ergun J. 2006. Scale-up of a
pan-coating process. AAPS PharmSciTech 7(4):E1–E8.
Park HJ, Weller CL, Vergano PJ, Testin RF. 1993. Permeability and
mechanical properties of cellulose-based edible films. J Food Sci
58(6):1361–4.
Pastor C. 2010. Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-based edible coatings:
characterization and application. [PhD thesis]. Valencia: Universidad
Politécnica de Valencia. 270 p.
Patterson MA, Reitz RD. 1998. Modelling the effects of fuel spray
characteristics on Diesel engine combustion and emission. Technical Report
SAE 980131.
Pavlath AE, Orts W. 2009. Edible films and coatings: why, what, and how?.
In: Embuscado ME, Huber KC, editors. Edible films and coatings for food
applications. New York: Springer. p 1–24.
PNR. 2009. General-purpose spray nozzles, CTG UG20. Technical
publications. PNR UK/Group. p 1–57.
Rahman MA, Heidrick T, Fleck BA. 2009. Correlations between the
two-phase gas/liquid spray atomization and the Stokes/aerodynamic Weber
numbers. J Phys: Conf Ser 147(1):1–15.
Ramı́rez C, Gallegos I, Ihl M, Bifani V. 2012. Study of contact angle,
wettability and water vapor permeability in carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)
336 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 11, 2012
based film with murta leaves (Ugni molinae Turcz) extract. J Food Eng
109(3):424–9.
Reitz RD. 1987. Modelling atomization processes in high-pressure
vaporizing. Sprays Atom Spray Tech 3(4):309–37.
Reitz RD, Diwakar R. 1986. Eect of drop breakup on fuel sprays. Technical
Report SAE 860469.
Ribeiro C, Vicente AA, Teixeira JA, Miranda C. 2007. Optimization of
edible coating composition to retard strawberry fruit senescence. Postharvest
Biol Technol 44(1):63–70.
Rizkalla AA, Lefebvre AH. 1975. The influence of air and liquid properties
on airblast atomization. J Fluids Eng 97(3):316–20.
Rojas-Graü MA, Tapia MS, Martı́n-Belloso O. 2008. Using
polysaccharide-based edible coatings to maintain quality of fresh-cut Fuji
apples. LWT Food Sci Technol 41(1):139–47.
Rojas-Graü MA, Soliva-Fortuny R, Martı́n-Belloso O. 2009. Edible coatings
to incorporate active ingredients to fresh-cut fruits: a review. Trends Food
Sci Technol 20(10):438–47.
Schick RJ. 2000. General guidelines on drop size measurement techniques
and terminology. Wheaton, IL, USA: Spraying Systems Co. p 1–6.
Schick RJ. 2008. Spray technology reference guide: Understanding drop size,
Spray analysis and research services. Wheaton, IL, USA: Spraying Systems
Co. p 1–35.
Semião V, Andrade P, Carvalho MG. 1996. Spray characterization:
numerical prediction of Sauter mean diameter and droplet size distribution.
Fuel 75(15):1707–14.
Sheng H, Wu D, Zhang H, Wei X. 2006. Viscosity, surface tension, and
atomization of water–methanol and diesel emulsions. Atomization Sprays
16(1):1–13.
Sirignano WA. 2010. Fluid dynamics and transport of droplets and sprays.
2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 480 p.
Skurtys O., Velasquez P., Henriquez O., Matiacevich S., Enrione J., Osorio F.
2011. Wetting behavior of chitosan solutions on blueberry epicarp with or
without epicuticular waxes. LWT Food Sci Technol 44(6):1449–57.
Solı́s-Moralesa D, Sáenz-Hernández CM, Ortega-Rivas E. 2009. Attrition
reduction and quality improvement of coated puffed wheat by fluidised bed
technology. J Food Eng 93(2):236–41.
Spraying Systems. 2000. Engineer’s guide to spray technology, Bulletin No.
498, Wheaton, IL, USA: Spraying Systems Co. p 1–15.
Suárez RB, Campañone LA, Garcia MA, Zaritzky NE. 2008. Comparison of
the deep frying process in coated and uncoated dough systems. J Food Eng
84(3):383–93.
Talbot G. 2009. Product design and shelf-life issues: moisture and ethanol
migration. In: Talbot G, editor. Science and technology of enrobed and
filled chocolate, confectionery and bakery products. Cambridge, U.K.:
Woodhead Publishing Limited. p 211–32.
Tavera-Quiroz MJ, Urriza M, Pinotti A, Bertola N. 2011. Plasticized
methylcellulose coating for reducing oil uptake in potato chips. J Sci Food
Agric. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.4704.
Tratnig A, Brenn G, Strixner Y, Fankhauser P, Laubacher N, Stranzinger M.
2009. Characterization of spray formation from emulsions by pressure-swirl
atomizers for spray drying. J Food Eng 95(1):126–34.
Tunç S, Duman O. 2011. Preparation of active antimicrobial methyl
cellulose/carvacrol/montmorillonite nanocomposite films and investigation
of carvacrol release. LWT Food Sci Technol 44(2):465–72.
Ustunol Z. 2009. Edible films and coatings for meat and poultry. In:
Embuscado ME, Huber KC, editors. Edible films and coatings for food
applications. New York: Springer. p 245–68.
van Maele K, Merci B. 2008. Application of RANS and LES field
simulations to predict the critical ventilation velocity in longitudinally
ventilated horizontal tunnels. Fire Saf J 43(8):598–609.
van Oss CJ. 2006. Interfacial forces in aqueous media. 2nd ed. New York:
Taylor-Francis Group LLC. 456 p.
van Oss CJ, Chaudhury MK, Good RJ. 1988. Interfacial Lifshitzvan der
Waals and polar interactions in macroscopic systems. Chem Rev,
88(6):927–41.
Vargas M, Pastor C, Chiralt A, McClements DJ, González-Martı́nez C. 2008.
Recent advances in edible coatings for fresh and minimally processed fruits.
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 48(6):496–511.
Velasquez P, Skurtys O, Enrione J, Osorio F. 2011. Evaluation of surface free
energy of various fruit epicarps using acid–base and Zisman approaches.
Food Biophys 6(3):349–58

c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists®
Edible coating application by spraying. . .
Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W. 2007. An introduction to computational fluid
dynamics. The finite volume method. 2nd ed. London, U.K.: Pearson
Education Limited. 503 p.
Vogler EA. 1998. Structure and reactivity of water at biomaterial surfaces.
Adv Colloid Interface Sci 74(1–3):69–117.
Vu KD, Hollingsworth RG, Leroux E, Salmieri S, Lacroix M. 2011.
Development of edible bioactive coating based on modified chitosan for
increasing the shelf life of strawberries. Food Res Int 44(1):198–203.
Wang AB, Chen CC. 2000. Splashing impact of a single drop onto very thin
liquid films. Phys Fluids 12(9):2155–8.
Wang L, Auty MAE, Rau A, Kerry JF, Kerry JP. 2009a. Effect of pH and
addition of corn oil on the properties of gelatin-based biopolymer films. J
Food Eng 90(1):11–9.
Wang MJ, Lin FH, Ong JY, Lin SY. 2009b. Dynamic behaviors of droplet
impact and spreading water on glass and paraffin. Colloids Surf A
339(1–3):224–31.
Werner SRL, Jones JR, Paterson AHJ, Archer RH, Pearce DL. 2007.
Air-suspension particle coating in the food industry: part I- State of the art.
Powder Technol 171(1):25–33.
Wong DCY, Simmons MJH, Decent SP, Parau EI, King AC. 2004. Breakup
dynamics and drop size distributions created from spiralling liquid jets. Int J
Multiphase Flow 30 (5):499–520.

c 2012 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 11, 2012 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 337
Wu Y, Weller C, Hamouz F, Cuppett SL, Schnepf M. 2002. Development
and applications of multicomponent edible coatings and films: a review. Adv
Food Nutr Res 44:347–94.
Xiao Z, Luo Y, Luo Y, Wang Q. 2011. Combined effects of sodium chlorite
dip treatment and chitosan coatings on the quality of fresh-cut d’Anjou
pears. Postharvest Biol Technol 62(3):319–26.
Yarin AL. 2006. Drop impact dynamics: splashing, spreading, receding,
bouncing . . . . Annu Rev Fluid Mech 38:159–92.
Yongyingsakthavorn P, Vallikul P, Fungtammasan B, Dumouchel C. 2007.
Application of the maximum entropy technique in tomographic
reconstruction from laser diffraction data to determine local spray drop size
distribution. Exp Fluids 42(3):471–81.
Yurdugul S. 2005. Preservation of quinces by the combination of an edible
coating material, Semperfresh, ascorbic acid and cold storage. Eur Food Res
Technol 220(5–6):579–86.
Zeoli N, Gu S. 2006. Numerical modelling of droplet breakup for gas
atomisation. Comput Mater Sci 38(2):282–92.
Zhao Y. 2012. Application of commercial coatings. In:
Baldwin EA, Hagenmaier R, Bai J, editors. Edible coatings and films to
improve food quality. Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor & Francis Group.
p 319–32.