Next Article in Journal
Numerical and Experimental Investigation on Bonding Behavior of Cold Sprayed Porous WC-17Co Particles onto Different Substrates
Next Article in Special Issue
Silver Nanoparticle-Based Paper Packaging to Combat Black Anther Disease in Orchid Flowers
Previous Article in Journal
Improvement of Corrosion Protection of Coating System via Inhibitor Response Order
Previous Article in Special Issue
Polymeric Antimicrobial Coatings Based on Quaternary Ammonium Compounds

Coatings 2018, 8(10), 366; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings8100366

Review
Edible Films and Coatings for Fresh Fish Packaging: Focus on Quality Changes and Shelf-life Extension
1
Department of Food Science, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Mănăştur St., 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Food Engineering, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, 3-5 Mănăştur St., 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 16 August 2018 / Accepted: 13 October 2018 / Published: 16 October 2018

Abstract

:
Fresh fish is extensively consumed and is one of the most-traded food commodities in the world. Conventional preservation technologies include vacuum and modified atmosphere packaging, but they are costly since requires capital investment. In the last decade, research has been directed towards the development of antimicrobial packaging systems, as an economical alternative to these. This paper outlines antimicrobial films and coatings applied so far on fresh fish, their efficacy against targeted microorganism/group and effects on chemical quality of the product. Findings show that edible films/coatings incorporated with different active agents applied to fresh fish are able to inhibit the microbial growth and decrease the rate of fish nutrients degradation, thus preventing the formation of chemical metabolites; a shelf-life extension of 6 to 13 days was obtained for fish fillets, depending on the species on which the active packaging materials were applied. The manufacturing use of these formulations could lead to a significant reduction in fish waste, consequently, a diminution of economic losses for fish traders and retailers. Therefore, their industrial production and commercialization could be an exploitable sector by the packaging industry.
Keywords:
edible films; edible coatings; antimicrobial agents; fresh fish; spoilage; shelf-life

1. Introduction

Fish is one of the most-traded food commodities worldwide [1]. Capture fisheries and aquaculture provide valuable economic and social benefits to those who work in these industries [2]. However, post-harvest handling, processing, and storage of fish lead to food losses and waste [3]. Post-harvest losses occur at all stages in the fish supply chain from capture to consumer [4]. The losses can be physical, economical, or nutritional and are caused by spoilage or poor processing [5]. Spoilage is the process in which fish deteriorates to the point that becomes unacceptable for human consumption (with altered taste, smell, appearance, or texture) [6]. Globally, fish losses that are caused by spoilage account for around 10% (10 to 12 million tons per year) of the total production from capture fisheries and aquaculture [7].
Fresh fish is a highly perishable product due to its high water activity, nutrient availability, nearly neutral-pH (factors that influence microbial growth) and the presence of autolytic enzymes; hence, it is susceptible to post-harvest losses [8,9]. Under normal refrigerated storage conditions, its shelf-life is limited by the development of enzymatic (caused by endogenous or microbial enzymes) and chemical reactions [10]. The main initial causative factor for fish spoilage is microbial growth and invasion, followed by the autolytic enzymes and then by chemical reactions, such as oxidation or hydrolysis [11,12].
Post-harvest losses of fresh fish due to microbial spoilage are a matter of great importance to the fishing industry [13]. So, specific requirements and preservation techniques are needed to minimize the activity of spoilage bacteria. Fresh fish products are presently stored on ice or under refrigeration during their distribution and marketing. In these conditions, their shelf-life is limited to 5–10 days (depending on species, harvest location, and season) and they can result in enormous economic losses to fish traders and retailers [14,15]. Therefore, the fish-process industry is actively seeking alternative methods of shelf-life preservation and marketability of fresh fish [16].
Packaging plays a critical role in the fish supply chain and is part of the solution to tackle food waste [17,18]. Vacuum packaging (VP) and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) are very commonly used as a supplement to ice or refrigeration to inhibit the normal spoilage flora and extend the shelf-life of fresh fish products [14,19,20]. MAP technology has, however, some disadvantages, such as added costs for packaging equipment, gases, and packaging materials; it also requires special training for food operators [21].
Packaging innovation and new technologies is a necessity for the fishing industry. In recent years, a variety of active packaging systems have been developed to prolong storage life and enhance the safety of fish products. These have a variety of advantages such as biodegradability, edibility, biocompatibility, and aesthetic appearance, respectively, barrier properties against oxygen and physical stress [22]. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of published research about edible films and coatings applied to fresh fish. The antimicrobial films and coatings that are used for fish packaging and their effects on chemical quality of fresh fish are reviewed and discussed (Figure 1).

2. Microbiological Issues

Fresh fish spoils due to the action of a group of microorganisms, the so-called specific spoilage organisms (SSOs). These organisms have the ability to dominate the fish flora and produce metabolites that directly affect the sensory properties of the product resulting in its rejection by consumers [23]. During storage, the microflora changes owing to different capacities of the microorganisms to tolerate the preservation conditions [24]. Under aerobic iced storage, the flora of fish is composed almost exclusively of Pseudomonas spp. and Shewanella putrefaciens (SSOs) regardless of whether it was caught or harvested in temperate or sub-tropical and tropical waters. At ambient temperature (25 °C), microflora is dominated by mesophilic Vibrionaceae, and, particularly if the fish is caught in polluted waters, by mesophilic Enterobacteriaceae [25].
Microbial spoilage is due to the proliferation of microorganisms after the death of fish as a result of the immune system collapsing, followed by the microbial invasion of the fish body through the skin [12]. Fish have a unique osmoregulatory mechanism to avoid dehydration in marine environments and waterlogging of tissue in freshwater; it contains osmoregulatory compounds, like trimethylamine oxide (TMAO) and urea [26]. Microbial enzymes that are present in fish can break down TMAO to trimethylamine (TMA) and urea to ammonia, volatile organic compounds associated with microbial spoilage [12]. Many other volatile compounds can be formed by microbial enzymatic degradation of other substrates, such as hydrogen sulphide (from cysteine), methanethiol and methyl sulphide (from methionine), histamine (from histidine), acetate, carbon dioxide and water (from carbohydrates and lactate), hypoxanthine (from inosine and inosine-5′-monophosphate), esters, ketones, aldehydes (from amino acids, like glycine, serine, and leucine), as well as ammonia (from amino acids and urea) [12,26]. These molecules are responsible for sweet, fruity, ammonia-like, putrid, and sulphuric off-flavours in spoiled fish [27].

3. Antimicrobial Films and Coatings Applied on Fresh Fish

This chapter provides an overview of previous research on the antimicrobial packaging of fresh fish. Table 1 lists active edible films and coatings applied to fresh fish fillets (of rainbow trout, silver carp, grass carp, beluga sturgeon, salmon, pike-perch, Japanese sea bass, red drum, golden pomfret, and hake) to extend its shelf-life. These films and coatings were produced from edible polymers like gelatin, chitosan, chitosan-gelatin, gelatin-alginate, carrageenan, quince seed mucilage, whey protein concentrate, and whey protein isolate incorporated with various active agents (essential oils (EOs) of clove, cinnamon, oregano, thyme, and lemon, glycerol monolaurate, α-tocopherol, lactoperoxidase, citric acid, licorice extract, grape seed extract, and tea polyphenols). Their antimicrobial efficacy was investigated in situ against spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms. Different levels of effectiveness were noticed, depending on the active agent used, its concentration, storage temperature, atmosphere composition (normal or modified), and targeted microorganism/group.

3.1. Efficacy against Tested Microorganism/Group at the End of Monitoring Time

3.1.1. Efficacy against Spoilage Microorganisms

Several authors have investigated the potential of edible films/coatings in extending the shelf-life of fresh fish fillets by retarding the growth of spoilage bacteria. Jouki et al. (2014) [28] have tested the efficacy of films based on 1% quince seed mucilage incorporated with different concentrations of oregano and thyme EOs (1%, 1.5%, and 2%) against Pseudomonas spp., H2S producing bacteria, and lactic acid bacteria in rainbow trout fillets; Kazemi & Rezaei (2015) [29] of films based on 3% gelatin and 1.5% alginate containing 1.5% oregano EO against Pseudomonas spp. and lactic acid bacteria; Volpe et al. (2015) [30] of the coating based on 1% carrageenan incorporated with 1% lemon EO against H2S producing bacteria and lactic acid bacteria; Yıldız & Yangılar (2016) [31] of coatings based on 8% whey protein concentrate/glycerol in ratios of 1:1 and 2:1 against lactic acid bacteria. On grass carp fillets, Yu et al. (2017) [32] have evaluated the efficacy of coatings based on 2% chitosan incorporated with different concentrations of glycerol monolaurate (0.1% and 0.3%) against Pseudomonas spp. and H2S producing bacteria. In a study on pike-perch fillets, Shokri & Ehsani (2017) [33] have tested the efficacy of coatings based on 10% whey protein isolate incorporated with 2.5% lactoperoxidase, 1.5% and 3.0% α-tocopherol, respectively, combinations of lactoperoxidase and α-tocopherol (2.5%/1.5% and 2.5%/3.0%) against Pseudomonas spp. and H2S producing bacteria.
Edible films/coatings incorporated with 2% thyme EO [28], 1.5% oregano EO [29], respectively 1% lemon EO [30] applied on rainbow trout fillets, 0.3% glycerol monolaurate [32] on grass carp fillets, and 2.5% lactoperoxidase [33] on pike-perch fillets have been proven to be the most effective against Pseudomonas spp. The most effective against H2S producing bacteria were edible films/coatings incorporated with 2% thyme EO [28] applied on rainbow trout fillets, 0.3% glycerol monolaurate [32] on grass carp fillets, and 2.5% lactoperoxidase [33] on pike-perch fillets, but against lactic acid bacteria, the ones incorporated with 2% thyme EO [28], 1.5% oregano EO [29], 1% lemon EO [30], and 8% whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 [31] applied on rainbow trout fillets.
In a recent study, Carrión-Granda et al. (2018) [34] have examined the efficacy of coatings based on 10% whey protein isolate incorporated with different concentrations of oregano and thyme EOs (1% and 3%) under air and MAP conditions against Pseudomonas spp., H2S producing bacteria, and lactic acid bacteria in hake fillets. The application of coating with 1% thyme EO under MAP has shown the best results against Pseudomonas spp. but against H2S producing bacteria and lactic acid bacteria, the one with 3% oregano EO under the MAP. Different inhibitory effects displayed by an essential oil against various bacteria are most probably due to its chemical composition [35]. The antimicrobial mechanism of action of plant EOs is related to the hydrophobicity of their components [36], which enables them to migrate in the lipids of the bacterial cell membrane and mitochondria, disturbing their structures and rendering them more permeable [37]; leakage of ions and intracellular constituents can thus occur [38].

3.1.2. Efficacy against Pathogenic Microorganisms

According to current literature, few studies on the efficacy of active packaging materials against pathogenic microorganisms in fresh fish have been published. Findings of such in situ investigations are presented in Table 1. Gómez-Estaca et al. (2009) [39] have tested the efficacy of edible films based on 8% gelatin and 8% gelatin/chitosan, both incorporated with 7.5% clove EO on salmon fillets, in vitro against Listeria innocua and Escherichia coli, then in situ against total viable organisms. The film based on gelatin was more effective against both bacteria than the one based on gelatin/chitosan; the ionic and hydrogen bonds that were formed between gelatin and chitosan diminished the solubility of the resulting film, thus reducing the amount of clove EO released. However, in the in situ experiment, they used the film based on gelatin/chitosan for storage trials. Their previous studies revealed that the low water solubility of the gelatin/chitosan matrix gives the film stability under fish contact conditions during chilled storage.
There are also some studies on fish fillets challenged with pathogenic bacteria. Han et al. (2013) [40] have investigated the efficacy of films based on 6.75% (w/w) gelatin, with and without nisin-incorporated, against Listeria monocytogenes in rainbow trout fillets that were challenged with 2 log CFU/g inoculum before and after coating. The edible film incorporated with 18 μg/cm2 nisin, applied before inoculation, showed the highest inhibitory effect on Listeria monocytogenes.
The efficacy of gelatin coatings containing different concentrations of oregano EO (0.5%, 1.0%, and 2.0% v/v) was also investigated by Min and Oh (2009) [41], in catfish fillets that were inoculated with Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli O157:H7. The coating based on 3% (w/v) gelatin containing 2% oregano EO exhibited the best inhibitory effect on both bacteria.

3.1.3. Efficacy against Spoilage and/or Pathogenic Microorganisms

The following groups of microorganisms we have included into this category: total viable organisms, total mesophilic bacteria, total psychrotrophic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae (including coliform bacteria), respectively total yeasts and moulds. Against total viable organisms, the most effective edible films/coatings were those that were incorporated with 2% thyme EO [28], 1.5% oregano EO [29], 1% lemon EO [30], and 1.5% cinnamon EO [42] applied on rainbow trout fillets, 0.3% glycerol monolaurate [32] on grass carp fillets, 2.5% lactoperoxidase [33] on pike-perch fillets, 0.2% tea polyphenols [43] on red drum fillets, 0.5% citric acid on Japanese sea bass fillets [44] and beluga sturgeon fillets [45], and 3% oregano EO under MAP conditions [34] on hake fillets. Edible coatings based on chitosan [46] applied to salmon fillets, respectively chitosan-gelatin [47] to golden pomfret fillets exhibited an antimicrobial effect compared to uncoated controls.
Regarding total psychrotrophic bacteria, the most effective were edible films/coatings incorporated with 2% thyme EO [28], 1.5% oregano EO [29], and 1.5% cinnamon EO [42] applied on rainbow trout fillets, 0.3% glycerol monolaurate [32] on grass carp fillets, 1.5% cinnamon EO on beluga sturgeon fillets [45], and 2.5% lactoperoxidase [33] on pike-perch fillets.
Edible coatings with 8% whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 applied on rainbow trout fillets [31], 1% chitosan [48] on salmon fillets, and 2% nanochitosan on silver carp fillets [49] have shown to be effective against both total psychrotrophic bacteria and total mesophilic bacteria.
The most effective edible films/coatings against Enterobacteriaceae (including coliform bacteria) were those incorporated with 2% thyme EO [28], 1.5% oregano EO [29], and 1% lemon EO [30] that were applied on rainbow trout fillets. Edible coating with 8% whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 has also shown to be effective against Enterobacteriaceae in rainbow trout fillets as compared with the other formulations tested in the study [31].
When tested against total yeasts and moulds, the edible coating based on 0.4% chitosan and 3.6% gelatin applied to golden pomfret fillets was the most effective among all formulations [47].
In the work of Carrión-Granda et al. (2018) [34], the edible coating incorporated with 3% oregano EO was the most effective against total viable organisms, total psychrotrophic bacteria, as well as Enterobacteriaceae when applied under the MAP conditions.
The results of these investigations are not comparable, since, on the same fish species, were applied edible films/coatings with different polymer matrices, respectively active agents and evaluated in different storage conditions (temperature, atmosphere composition, and storage time). We noticed, however, some tendencies that allow us to affirm that:
  • edible films/coatings with the highest concentration of active agent tested have shown the greatest antimicrobial efficacy;
  • antimicrobial films/coatings were more effective at lower temperatures when tested in different storage temperature conditions; and,
  • under modified atmosphere packaging conditions, antimicrobial films/coatings were more effective than under air conditions.
Other authors have noticed that the effectiveness of antimicrobial packaging material depends also on the initial microbial load [40], chemical composition, and pH of tested food products [37]. Generally, the susceptibility of bacteria to the antimicrobial effect of EOs is increased in products with low-fat content and low pH, respectively.

3.2. Efficacy of Edible Films/Coatings on Enhancing the Shelf-Life of Fresh Fish

The application of above-mentioned edible films and coatings to fish fillets resulted in an extension of their shelf-life as compared to uncoated controls. The film based on 1% quince seed mucilage incorporated with 2% thyme EO prolonged the shelf-life of rainbow trout fillets by 12 days [28] and the one based on 3% gelatin and 1.5% alginate incorporating 1.5% oregano EO by 6 days [29]; the coating based on 2% chitosan incorporated with 1.5% cinnamon EO by 8 days [42], the one based on 1% carrageenan incorporated with 1% lemon EO by 12 days [30], and the one based on 8% whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 by 6 days [31]. In these cases, the shelf-life was stated considering a maximum acceptable level of 7.0 log CFU/g for the total viable count.
Shelf-lives of silver carp and grass carp fillets were extended by 6 and 13 days, respectively, when coatings based on 2% nanochitosan [49] and 2% chitosan incorporated with 0.3% glycerol monolaurate [32] was used.
When applied to salmon fillets, the film based on 8% gelatin/chitosan, 3:1 incorporated with 7.5% clove EO [39] and coatings based on 1%, 1.5%, and 2% chitosan [46] enhanced the shelf-lives by 6 days.
On beluga sturgeon fillets, the coating based on 8% whey protein concentrate incorporated with 1.5% cinnamon EO [45] extended the shelf-life by 12 days.
The study of Shokri & Ehsani (2017) [33] on pike-perch fillets show a shelf-life prolongation by 8 days when a packaging material based on 10% whey protein isolate incorporated with 2.5% lactoperoxidase was used for coating.
Another study, carried out by Qiu et al. (2014) [44], has shown an increased storage stability (from 8 to 12 days) of Japanese sea bass fillets coated with a solution containing 1.5% chitosan and 0.5% citric acid [44].
The coating formulation of Li et al. (2013) [43], also based on 1.5% chitosan but incorporated with 0.2% tea polyphenols, prolonged the microbiological shelf-life of red drum fillets by 8 days.
In a study on hake fillets, Carrión-Granda et al. (2018) [34] reported a shelf-life prolongation by 8 days when a coating based on 10% whey protein isolate incorporated with 3% oregano EO was used under MAP conditions.
Our review also revealed some studies in the existing literature focused on the application of synthetic films to fresh fish fillets. Cardoso et al. (2017) [50] have tested the efficiency of films based on poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) incorporated with different levels of oregano EO (2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, and 10%) in lessening coliform bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, and total psychrotrophic bacteria in fish fillets. The film incorporated with 10% (w/w) oregano EO showed the highest inhibitory effect on all bacteria leading to a shelf-life extension of 6 days for wrapped samples. The shelf-life was established considering a maximum acceptable level of 5.0 log CFU/g for Staphylococcus aureus.
In another study, Rollini et al. (2016) [51] have evaluated the efficacy of film based on polyethylene terephthalate coated with 3% (w/v) lysozyme and lactoferrin water solution, respectively, coextruded multilayer film based on polypropylene incorporated with 4.8% carvacrol against total mesophilic bacteria, total psychrotrophic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae (including coliform bacteria), lactic acid bacteria, Pseudomonas spp., and H2S producing bacteria. The film that was coated with 3% lysozyme-lactoferrin has shown the best antibacterial results on total mesophilic bacteria, total psychrotrophic bacteria, lactic acid bacteria, and H2S producing bacteria, but the one incorporated with 4.8% carvacrol on Enterobacteriaceae (including coliform bacteria) and Pseudomonas spp. All of the samples were stored for up to four days; therefore, no extension of shelf-life was possible to notice for treated samples in such a short period of storage.
At high levels of incorporation with EOs, active films/coatings may impart foreign flavours to the products on which are applied. Of all the studies that are mentioned in Table 1, only two mentioned their effects on the sensory attributes of fresh fish. The study of Jouki et al. (2014) [28] revealed no significant negative effect of films based on 1% quince seed mucilage incorporated with oregano and thyme EOs in concentrations of up to 2% on the organoleptic acceptability of rainbow trout fillets. Similar observations were also reported by Ojagh et al. (2010) [42] when a coating based on 2% chitosan incorporated with 1.5% cinnamon EO treatment was applied.

3.3. Effects of Edible Films/Coatings on the Chemical Quality of Fresh Fish

Table 2 summarizes the effects of the above-mentioned edible films and coatings on the chemical quality of fresh fish. Chemical indicators of lipid oxidation (TBARS—thiobarbituric acid reactive substances), degradation of nitrogen-containing compounds (TVB-N—total volatile basic nitrogen and TMA-N—trimethylamine nitrogen), and adenosine triphosphate breakdown (k-value) were measured during storage of fish fillets.
The thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) assay is commonly used to evaluate malondialdehyde (MDA) content. MDA is one of the most significant products of lipid damage [52]. Several researchers [28,33,42] have proposed maximum permitted levels for TBARS although the threshold criteria have not yet received regulatory approval; values <3 mg MDA/kg for perfect quality material, 3 ≤ MDA/kg < 5 for good quality material, and 5 ≤ MDA/kg < 8 for suitable for human consumption. In the published data reviewed in the current paper, TBARS values ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 mg MDA/kg for rainbow trout fillets, 3.0 to 4.0 mg MDA/kg for silver carp fillets, 0.9 to 1.2 mg MDA/kg for grass carp fillets, 0.06 to 0.12 mg MDA/kg for beluga sturgeon fillets, 1.1 to 1.8 mg MDA/kg for salmon fillets, 1.0 to 2.5 mg MDA/kg for pike-perch fillets, 0.2 to 2.0 mg MDA/kg for Japanese sea bass fillets, and 0.8 to 1.8 mg MDA/kg for red drum fillets; samples meeting the requirements for good quality material, respectively perfect quality material.
Total volatile base nitrogen (TVB-N) is one of the most widely used fish spoilage indicator [53]. It represents the sum of ammonia, methylamine, dimethylamine, trimethylamine, and other basic nitrogenous volatile compounds resulted from fish degradation [54,55]. Commission Regulation (EC) 2074/2005 [56] set limits for TVB-N only for redfish, flatfish, Atlantic salmon, hake, and gadoids; values ≤25 mg N/100 g for Sebastes spp., Helicolenus dactylopterus, and Sebastichthys capensis, ≤30 mg N/100 g for species belonging to the Pleuronectidae family (with the exception of halibut: Hippoglossus spp.), and ≤35 mg N/100 g for Salmo salar, species belonging to the Merlucciidae family, and species belonging to the Gadidae family. Since no limits of acceptability for rainbow trout, grass carp, beluga sturgeon, pike-perch, Japanese sea bass, and red drum have been established by EC Regulation 2074/2005 [56], the values that were reported previously in the literature were taken as threshold limits by Ojagh et al. (2010) [42], Jouki et al. (2014) [28], Kazemi & Rezaei (2015) [29], Volpe et al. (2015) [30], Yıldız & Yangılar (2016) [31], Yu et al. (2017) [32], Bahram et al. (2016) [45], Shokri and Ehsani (2017) [33], Qiu et al. (2014) [44], and Li et al. (2013) [43]; levels of 25–35 mg N/100 g for rainbow trout, ≤15 mg N/100 for grass carp, levels of 35–40 mg N/100 g for beluga sturgeon, ≤35 mg N/100 for pike-perch, levels of 30–35 mg N/100 g for Japanese sea bass, and ≤25 mg N/100 for red drum. TVB-N values reported in the reviewed studies ranged from 10 to 65 mg N/100 g for rainbow trout fillets, 44 to 60 mg N/100 g for silver carp fillets, 15 to 28 mg N/100 g for grass carp fillets, 50 to 70 mg N/100 g for beluga sturgeon fillets, 28 to 33 mg N/100 g for salmon fillets, 35 to 45 mg N/100 g for pike-perch fillets, 30 to 100 mg N/100 g for Japanese sea bass fillets, 34 to 51 mg N/100 g for red drum fillets, and 11 to 94 mg N/100 g for golden pomfret fillets.
Most marine fish contain TMAO [57]. TMAO is also found, with few exceptions, in freshwater fish, but only in small concentrations [58]. Certain bacteria that occur naturally on the skin, in the guts of fish, and in water can break down TMAO to TMA. The amount of trimethylamine nitrogen (TMA-N) produced is a measure of the activity of spoilage bacteria in the flesh and so is an indicator of the degree of spoilage [57]. There are no regulatory limits available for TMA level in fish. The rejection limit proposed by Jouki et al. (2014) [28] was <5 mg N/100 g and by Souza et al. (2010) [46] ≤5 mg N/100 g.
K-value is an important chemical index widely used for fish freshness [59]. During post-mortem storage of fish, autolytic changes take place in the muscle that determines adenosine triphosphate (ATP) degradation with the formation of adenosine-5′-diphosphate (ADP), adenosine-5′-monophosphate (AMP), inosine-5′-monophosphate (IMP), inosine (HxR), and hypoxanthine (Hx). K-value is calculated as the percentage of the sum of HxR and Hx, divided by the sum of ATP, ADP, AMP, IMP, HxR, and Hx [12,59]. Since there are no legally enforceable limits for k-value in fish, Yu et al. (2017) [32] proposed the following freshness criteria: very fresh fish (k-value < 20%), moderately fresh (k-value < 60%), and spoiled (k-value > 60%). K-values reported in the discussed studies ranged from 68.7% to 90.5% for grass carp fillets, 46% to 50% for salmon fillets and 40% to 62.6% for red drum fillets; samples meeting freshness criteria for moderately fresh, respectively spoiled.

4. Conclusions

The active packaging of fish represents an economic alternative to conventional preservation technologies (vacuum and modified atmosphere packaging) due to the limited capital investment as compared to those. Besides being biodegradable, edible films and coatings improve the microbiological stability of fish and reduce waste; moreover, retard lipid oxidation. For the past 10 years, research on the use of antimicrobial packaging materials for fresh fish applications has undergone considerable evolution; nevertheless, as far as we know, there is not yet an edible film or coating commercially available on the market.
Fish represent one of the most-traded segments of the world food sector. Therefore, there is a great demand for the packaging of this good. Industrial production and commercialization of antimicrobial packaging materials for fresh fish could be an exploitable sector by the packaging industry. Suppliers of active packaging materials on the European market need to make sure that their products comply with the requirements of Regulations (EC) 1935/2004 [60] and (EC) 450/2009 [61] regarding active and intelligent materials that are intended to come into contact with food, respectively, Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 [62] that lays down specifications for food additives. Additional studies are however needed to further validate these findings, especially on the stability of antimicrobial films/coatings during shipment, storage, and handling.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A.S. and D.C.V.; Formal Analysis, M.-I.S.; Funding Acquisition, D.C.V.; Methodology, C.A.S. and D.C.V.; Supervision, C.A.S. and D.C.V.; Writing–Original Draft, M.-I.S.; Writing–Review & Editing, C.A.S. and D.C.V.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CCDI-UEFISCDI, project number 27/2018 CO FUND–MANUNET III-NON-ACT-2, within PNCDI III.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the administrative and financial support received from the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  2. Watterson, A.; Little, D.; Young, J.A.; Boyd, K.; Azim, E.; Murray, F. Towards integration of environmental and health impact assessments for wild capture fishing and farmed fish with particular reference to public health and occupational health dimensions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2008, 5, 258–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Extent, Causes and Prevention; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  4. Akande, G.; Diei-Ouadi, Y. Post-Harvest Losses in Small-Scale Fisheries: Case Studies in Five Sub-Saharan African Countries; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 550; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; pp. XI–XIII. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hall, G.M. Fish Processing: Sustainability and New Opportunities; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 51–76. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blackburn, C.D.W. Managing microbial food spoilage: an overview. In Food Spoilage Microorganisms, 1st ed.; Blackburn, C.D.W., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 147–170. [Google Scholar]
  7. Reducing Post-Harvest Losses. Available online: http://www.oceansatlas.org/subtopic/en/c/1337/ (accessed on 2 August 2018).
  8. Makawa, Z.; Kapute, F.; Valeta, J. Effect of delayed processing on nutrient composition, pH and organoleptic quality of pond raised tilapia (Oreochromis shiranus) stored at ambient temperature. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2014, 14, 8872–8884. [Google Scholar]
  9. Tesfay, S.; Teferi, M. Assessment of fish post-harvest losses in Tekeze dam and Lake Hashenge fishery associations: northern Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Calligaris, S.; Manzocco, L. Critical indicators in shelf life assessment. In Shelf Life Assessment of Food; Nicoli, M.C., Ed.; CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 61–74. [Google Scholar]
  11. Morrison, C.R. Fish and shellfish. In Frozen Food Technology; Mallet, C.P., Ed.; Blackie Academic & Professional: Glasgow, UK, 1993; pp. 196–236. [Google Scholar]
  12. Huss, H.H. Quality and Quality Changes in Fresh Fish; FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 348; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1995; pp. 35–67. [Google Scholar]
  13. Diei-Ouadi, Y.; Mgawe, Y.I. Post-Harvest Fish Loss Assessment in Small-Scale Fisheries: A Guide for the Extension Officer; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 559; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  14. Reddy, N.R.; Villanueva, M.; Kautter, D.A. Shelf life of modified-atmosphere-packaged fresh tilapia fillets stored under refrigeration and temperature-abuse conditions. J. Food Prot. 1995, 58, 908–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Getu, A.; Misganaw, K.; Bazezew, M. Post-harvesting and major related problems of fish production. Fish. Aquac. J. 2015, 6, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ashie, I.N.A.; Smith, J.P.; Simpson, B.K. Spoilage and shelf-life extension of fresh fish and shellfish. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1996, 36, 87–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Vodnar, D.C.; Pop, O.L.; Dulf, F.V.; Socaciu, C. Antimicrobial efficiency of edible films in food industry. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobo. Cluj-Napoca 2015, 43, 302–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yildirim, S.; Röcker, B.; Pettersen, M.K.; Nilsen-Nygaard, J.; Ayhan, Z.; Rutkaite, R.; Radusin, T.; Suminska, P.; Marcos, B.; Coma, V. Active packaging applications for food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 165–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Velu, S.; Abu Bakar, F.; Mahyudin, N.A.; Saari, N.; Zaman, M.Z. Effect of modified atmosphere packaging on microbial flora changes in fishery products. Int. Food Res. J. 2013, 20, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cyprian, O.; Lauzon, H.L.; Jóhannsson, R.; Sveinsdóttir, K.; Arason, S.; Martinsdóttir, E. Shelf life of air and modified atmosphere-packaged fresh tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored under chilled and superchilled conditions. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 1, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Grujić, S.; Grujić, R.; Kovačić, K. Effects of modified atmosphere packaging on quality and safety of fresh meat. Quality of Life (Banja Luka) 2010, 2–4, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rennie, T.J.; Sunjka, P.S. Modified atmosphere for storage, transportation, and packaging. In Novel Postharvest Treatments of Fresh Produce; Pareek, S., Ed.; CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 433–480. [Google Scholar]
  23. Boziaris, I.S.; Parlapani, F.F. Specific spoilage organisms (SSOs) in fish. In The Microbiological Quality of Food, 1st ed.; Bevilacqua, A., Corbo, M.R., Sinigaglia, M., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Ltd.: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 61–98. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gram, L.; Dalgaard, P. Fish spoilage bacteria – problems and solutions. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2002, 13, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gram, L.; Huss, H.H. Microbiological spoilage of fish and fish products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1996, 33, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fraser, O.P.; Sumar, S. Compositional changes and spoilage in fish (part II)—Microbiological induced deterioration. Nutr. Food Sci. 1998, 98, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kuuliala, L.; Abatih, E.; Ioannidis, A.-G.; Vanderroost, M.; De Meulenaer, B.; Ragaert, P.; Devlieghere, F. Multivariate statistical analysis for the identification of potential seafood spoilage indicators. Food Control 2018, 84, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jouki, M.; Yazdi, F.T.; Mortazavi, S.A.; Koocheki, A.; Khazaei, N. Effect of quince seed mucilage edible films incorporated with oregano or thyme essential oil on shelf-life extension of refrigerated rainbow trout fillets. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 174, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kazemi, S.M.; Rezaei, M. Antimicrobial effectiveness of gelatin-alginate film containing oregano essential oil for fish preservation. J. Food Saf. 2015, 35, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Volpe, M.G.; Siano, F.; Paolucci, M.; Sacco, A.; Sorrentino, A.; Malinconico, M.; Varricchio, E. Active edible coating effectiveness in shelf-life enhancement of trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) fillets. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 60, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yıldız, P.O.; Yangılar, F. Effects of different whey protein concentrate coating on selected properties of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) during cold storage (4 °C). Int. J. Food Prop. 2016, 19, 2007–2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yu, D.; Jiang, Q.; Xu, Y.; Xia, W. The shelf life extension of refrigerated grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus) fillets by chitosan coating combined with glycerol monolaurate. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 101, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Shokri, S.; Ehsani, A. Efficacy of whey protein coating incorporated with lactoperoxidase and α-tocopherol in shelf life extension of Pike-Perch fillets during refrigeration. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 85, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Carrión-Granda, X.; Fernández-Pan, I.; Rovira, J.; Maté, J.I. Effect of antimicrobial edible coatings and modified atmosphere packaging on the microbiological quality of cold stored hake (Merluccius merluccius) fillets. J. Food Qual. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Semeniuc, C.A.; Socaciu, M.I.; Socaci, S.A.; Mureşan, V.; Fogarasi, M.; Rotar, A.M. Chemometric comparison and classification of some essential oils extracted from plants belonging to Apiaceae and Lamiaceae families based on their chemical composition and biological activities. Molecules 2018, 23, 2261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chouhan, S.; Sharma, K.; Guleria, S. Antimicrobial activity of some essential oils-present status and future perspectives. Medicines (Basel) 2017, 8, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Burt, S. Essential oils: Their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods – a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kuorwel, K.K.; Cran, M.J.; Sonneveld, K.; Miltz, J.; Bigger, S.W. Essential oils and their principal constituents as antimicrobial agents for synthetic packaging films. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, R164–R177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  39. Gómez-Estaca, J.; López de Lacey, A.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; López-Caballero, M.E.; Monter, P. Antimicrobial activity of composite edible films based on fish gelatin and chitosan incorporated with clove essential oil. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2009, 18, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Han, Y.T.; Tammineni, N.; Ünlü, G.; Rasco, B.; Nindo, C. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) using trout skin gelatin edible films containing nisin. J. Food Chem. Nutr. 2013, 1, 6–15. [Google Scholar]
  41. Min, B.J.; Oh, J.H. Antimicrobial activity of catfish gelatin coating containing origanum (Thymus capitatus) oil against gram-negative pathogenic bacteria. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, M143–M148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ojagh, S.M.; Rezaei, M.; Rzavi, S.H.; Hosseini, S.M.H. Effect of chitosan coatings enriched with cinnamon oil on the quality of refrigerated rainbow trout. Food Chem. 2010, 1, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, T.; Li, J.; Hu, W.; Li, X. Quality enhancement in refrigerated red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) fillets using chitosan coatings containing natural preservatives. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 821–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Qiu, X.; Chen, S.; Liu, G.; Yang, Q. Quality enhancement in the Japanese sea bass (Lateolabrax japonicas) fillets stored at 4 °C by chitosan coating incorporated with citric acid or licorice extract. Food Chem. 2014, 162, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bahram, S.; Rezaie, M.; Soltani, M.; Kamali, A.; Abdollahi, M.; Ahmadabad, M.K.; Nemati, M. Effect of whey protein concentrate coating cinamon oil on quality and shelf life of refrigerated Beluga Sturegeon (Huso huso). J. Food Qual. 2016, 39, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Souza, B.W.S.; Cerqueira, M.A.; Ruiz, H.A.; Martins, J.T.; Casariego, A.; Teixeira, J.A.; Vicente, A.A. Effect of chitosan-based coatings on the shelf life of salmon (Salmo salar). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 11456–11462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  47. Feng, X.; Bansal, N.; Yang, H. Fish gelatin combined with chitosan coating inhibits myofibril degradation of golden pomfret (Trachinotus blochii) fillet during cold storage. Food Chem. 2016, 200, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Vásconez, M.B.; Flores, S.K.; Campos, C.A.; Alvarado, J.; Gerschenson, L.N. Antimicrobial activity and physical properties of chitosan–tapioca starch based edible films and coatings. Food Res. Int. 2009, 42, 762–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ramezani, A.; Zarei, M.; Raminnejad, N. Comparing the effectiveness of chitosan and nanochitosan coatings on the quality of refrigerated silver carp fillets. Food Control 2015, 51, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cardoso, L.G.; Santos, J.C.P.; Camilloto, G.P.; Miranda, A.L.; Druzian, J.I.; Guimarães, A.G. Development of active films poly (butylene adipate co-terephthalate)—PBAT incorporated with oregano essential oil and application in fish fillet preservation. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2017, 108, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rollini, M.; Nielsen, T.; Musatti, A.; Limbo, S.; Piergiovanni, L.; Munoz, P.H.; Gavara, R. Antimicrobial performance of two different packaging materials on the microbiological quality of fresh salmon. Coatings 2016, 6, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Semeniuc, C.A.; Mandrioli, M.; Rodriguez-Estrada, M.T.; Muste, S.; Lercker, G. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances in flavoured phytosterol-enriched drinking yogurts during storage: formation and matrix interferences. Eur. Food Res. Tech. 2016, 242, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Castro, P.; Millán, R.; Penedo, J.C.; Sanjuán, E.; Santana, A.; Caballero, M.J. Effect of storage conditions on total volatile base nitrogen determinations in fish muscle extracts. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2012, 21, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sikorski, Z.E.; Kołakowska, A.; Pan, B.S. The nutritive composition of the major groups of marine food organisms. In Seafood: Resources, Nutritional Composition, and Preservation; Sikorski, Z.E., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1990; pp. 55–76. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Herrero, A.M.; Jiménez-Colmenero, F. Determination of volatile nitrogenous compounds: ammonia, total volatile basic nitrogen, and trimethylamine. In Flow Injection Analysis of Food Additives; Ruiz-Capillas, C., Nollet, L.M.L., Eds.; CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 659–674. [Google Scholar]
  56. European Union. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No. 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No. 853/2004 and (EC) No. 854/2004. Off. J. Eur. Union 2005, 48, 27–59. [Google Scholar]
  57. Non-Sensory Assessment of Fish Quality; Torry Advisory Note No. 92; Torry Research Station, MAFF: Aberdeen, UK, 1989; pp. 1–6.
  58. Bystedt, J.; Swenne, L.; Aas, H.W. Determination of trimethylamine oxide in fish muscle. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1959, 10, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cheng, J.H.; Sun, D.W.; Pu, H.; Zhu, Z. Development of hyperspectral imaging coupled with chemometric analysis to monitor K value for evaluation of chemical spoilage in fish fillets. Food Chem. 2015, 185, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2004, 47, 4–17. [Google Scholar]
  61. European Union. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 450/2009 of 29 May 2009 on active and intelligent materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 52, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  62. European Union. Regulation (EC) No. 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, 51, 16–33. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Antimicrobial films and coatings used to extend the shelf-life of fresh fish fillets.
Figure 1. Antimicrobial films and coatings used to extend the shelf-life of fresh fish fillets.
Coatings 08 00366 g001
Table 1. Antimicrobial films and coatings used for packaging fish.
Table 1. Antimicrobial films and coatings used for packaging fish.
Tested Fish ProductAntimicrobial Packaging MaterialsStorage ConditionsTargeted Microorganism/GroupType of MicroorganismLevel of Effectiveness against Targeted Microorganisms/Group at the End of Monitoring TimeMAL for Targeted Microorganism/GroupShelf-life of Fish ProductRef.
Film/CoatingActive Agent/ConcentrationUncoatedTreated
Rainbow trout filletsCoating based on 2% (w/v) chitosan, acetic acid, and glycerolCinnamon EO/1.5% (v/v)4 °C/16 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 8 daysControl-up to 16 days[42]
1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO-up to 16 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section TVC7.0 log CFU/g for TPCSee section TVCSee section TVC
Film based on 1% (w/w) quince seed mucilage, glycerol, and Tween 80Oregano EO/1%, 1.5%, and 2% (v/v)
Thyme EO/1%, 1.5%, and 2% (v/v)
4 °C/18 daysPseudomonas spp.Spoilage2% (v/v) thyme EO > 2% (v/v) oregano EO > 1.5 (v/v) thyme EO > 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO > 1% (v/v) thyme EO > 1% (v/v) oregano EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for Pseuomonas spp.See section TVCSee section TVC[28]
H2S producing bacteriaSpoilage2% (v/v) thyme EO > 2% (v/v) oregano EO > 1.5 (v/v) thyme EO > 1% (v/v) thyme EO > 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO > 1% (v/v) oregano EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for H2S producing bacteriaSee section TVCSee section TVC
Lactic acid bacteriaSpoilage2% (v/v) thyme EO > 1.5% (v/v) thyme EO > 1% (v/v) thyme EO > 2% (v/v) oregano EO > 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO > 1% (v/v) oregano EO > control6.0 log CFU/g for LABSee section TVCSee section TVC
Total viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage2% (v/v) thyme EO > 1.5 (v/v) thyme EO > 2% (v/v) oregano EO > 1% (v/v) thyme EO > 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO > 1% (v/v) oregano EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 6 daysControl-up to 9 days
1% (v/v) Oregano EO-up to 9 days
1.5% (v/v) Oregano EO-up to 12 days
2% (v/v) Oregano EO-up to 15 days
1% (v/v) Thyme EO-up to 12 days
1.5% (v/v) Thyme EO-up to 15 days
2% (v/v) Thyme EO-up to 18 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilage2% (v/v) thyme EO > 1.5% (v/v) thyme EO > 2% (v/v) oregano EO > 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO > 1% (v/v) thyme EO > 1% (v/v) oregano EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for TPCSee section TVCSee section TVC
EnterobacteriaceaePathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.5.0 log CFU/g for EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
Film based on 3% (w/v) gelatin and 1.5% (w/v) alginate, glycerol, and Tween 80Oregano EO/1.5% (w/v)4 °C/15 daysPseudomonas spp.Spoilage1.5% (w/v) oregano EO > controlSee section TVCSee section TVC[29]
Lactic acid bacteriaSpoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.See section TVCSee section TVC
Total viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 3 daysControl-up to 3 days
1.5% (w/v) oregano EO-up to 9 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.See section TVCSee section TVC
EnterobacteriaceaePathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.See section TVCSee section TVC
Coating based on 1% (w/w) carrageenanLemon EO/1% (w/w)4 °C/15 daysH2S producing bacteriaSpoilage1% (w/w) lemon EO > controlSee section TVCSee section TVC[30]
Lactic acid bacteriaSpoilageIdem section H2S producing bacteriaSee section TVCSee section TVC
Total viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section H2S producing bacteria7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 3 daysControl-up to 12 days
1% (w/w) lemon EO-up to 15 days
EnterobacteriaceaePathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section H2S producing bacteriaSee section TVCSee section TVC
Coating based on 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate4 °C/15 daysLactic acid bacteriaSpoilage8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 > 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 1:1 > 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrateSee section TMCSee section TMC[31]
Total mesophilic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section LABUncoated control-up to 9 days8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate-up to 12 days
8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 1:1-up to 15 days
Coating based on 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 1:1 and 2:18% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1-up to 15 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section LABSee section TMCSee section TMC
EnterobacteriaceaePathogenic and/or spoilage8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 > 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate > 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 1:1See section TMCSee section TMC
Silver carp filletsCoating based on 2% (w/v) chitosan and glycerol-4 °C/12 daysTotal mesophilic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilage2% (w/v) nanochitosan > 2% (w/v) chitosan7.0 log CFU/g for TMCSee section TPCSee section TPC[49]
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section TMC7.0 log CFU/g for TPCUncoated control-up to 6 days1% glacial acetic acid-up to 6 days2% (w/v) chitosan-up to 9 days
Coating based on 2% (w/v) nanochitosan and glycerol2% (w/v) nanochitosan-up to 12 days
Grass carp filletsCoating based on 2% (w/v) chitosan, acetic acid, and glycerolGlycerol monolaurate/0.1% and 0.3%4 °C/20 daysPseudomonas spp.Spoilage0.3% glycerol monolaurate > 0.1% glycerol monolaurate > controlSee section TVCSee section TVC[32]
H2S producing bacteriaSpoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.See section TVCSee section TVC
Total viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 7 daysControl-up to 15 days
0.1% glycerol monolaurate-up to 15 days
0.3% glycerol monolaurate-up to 20 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section Pseudomonas spp.See section TVCSee section TVC
Beluga sturgeon filletsCoating based on 8% (w/v) whey protein concentrate, glycerol, and Tween 80Cinnamon EO/1.5% (v/v)4 °C/20 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 4 daysControl-up to 4 days[45]
1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO-up to 16 days
See section TVC
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section TVCSee section TVCSee section TVC
Salmon filletsCoating based on 1% (w/w) chitosan, acetic acid, and glycerol2 °C/6 daysTotal mesophilic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilage1% (w/w) chitosan > 1% (w/w) chitosan and 2% (w/w) tapioca starchNot specifiedAll treated samples-up to 6 days[48]
Coating based on 1% (w/w) chitosan, acetic acid, glycerol, and 2% (w/w) tapioca starchTotal psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section TMCSee section TMCSee section TMC
Film based on 8% (w/v) gelatin/chitosan, 3:1, sorbitol and glycerolClove EO/7.5% (v/w)2 °C/11 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage7.5% (v/w) clove EOUncoated control-up to 9 days7.5% (v/w) clove EO-up to 11 days[39]
Coating based on 1.0, 1.5, and 2% (w/v) chitosan, lactic acid solution, and Tween 800 °C/18 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage1%, 1.5%, and 2% (w/v) chitosan7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 9 daysAll treated samples-up to 15 days[46]
Pike-perch filletsCoating based on 10% (w/v) whey protein isolate, glycerol, and Tween 80Lactoperoxidase/2.5% (v/v)4 °C/16 daysPseudomonas fluorescensSpoilage2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase > 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol > 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol > 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol > 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol > 10% (w/v) whey protein isolate > 10% (w/v) whey protein isolate and 3% (v/v) ethanolSee section TVCSee section TVC[33]
H2S producing bacteriaSpoilageIdem section Pseudomonas fluorescensSee section TVCSee section TVC
Coating based on 10% (w/v) whey protein isolate, glycerol, ethanol, and Tween 80α-Tocopherol/1.5% (v/v)
α-Tocopherol/3% (v/v)
Lactoperoxidase and α-tocopherol/2.5% (v/v) and 1.5% (v/v)
Lactoperoxidase and α-tocopherol/2.5% (v/v) and 3% (v/v)
Total viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase > 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol > 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol > 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol > 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol > control for coating with lactoperoxidase >control for other coatings7.0 log CFU/g for TVC-Control-up to 4 days
2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase-up to 12 days
-Control-up to 4 days
1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol-up to 4 days
3% (v/v) α-tocopherol-up to 4 days
2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol-up to 12 days
2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol-up to 8 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section TVC7.0 log CFU/g for TPCSee section TVCSee section TVC
Japanese sea bass filletsCoating based on 1.5% (w/v) chitosan and acetic acidCitric acid/0.5% (w/v)
Licorice extract/1% (w/v)
4 °C/12 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage0.5% (w/v) citric acid > 1% (w/v) licorice extract > control6.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 8 daysControl-up to 8 days[44]
0.5% (w/v) citric acid-up to 12 days
1% licorice extract-up to 12 days
Red drum filletsCoating based on 1.5% chitosan, acetic acid, and glycerolGrape seed extract/0.2% (w/v)
Tea polyphenols/0.2% (w/v)
4 °C/20 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage0.2% (w/v) tea polyphenols > 0.2% (w/v) grape seed extract7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 8 days0.2% (w/v) grape seed extract-up to 16 days[43]
0.2% (w/v) tea polyphenols-up to 16 days
Golden pomfret filletsCoating based on 0.4% (w/w) chitosan
Coating based on 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and gelatin
4 °C/17 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage0.4% (w/w) chitosan = 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 3.6% (w/w) gelatin = 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 5.4% (w/w) gelatin = 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 7.2% (w/w) gelatin6.0 log CFU/g for TVCDeionized water-up to 17 daysAll treated samples-up to 17 days[47]
Total yeasts and mouldsPathogenic and/or spoilage0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 3.6% (w/w) gelatin > 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 5.4% (w/w) gelatin > 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 7.2% (w/w) gelatin > 0.4% (w/w) chitosanSee section TVCSee section TVC
Hake filletsCoating based on 10% (w/w) whey protein isolate and glycerolOregano EO/1% and 3% (w/w)
Thyme EO/1% and 3% (w/w)
4 °C/8 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage3% (w/w) thyme EO > 1% (w/w) thyme EO > 3% (w/w) oregano EO > 1% (w/w) oregano EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 4 daysAll treated samples-up to 4 days[34]
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section TVC7.0 log CFU/g for TPCSee section TVCSee section TVC
EnterobacteriaceaePathogenic and/or spoilage3% (w/w) oregano EO > 3% (w/w) thyme EO >1% (w/w) thyme EO > 1% (w/w) oregano EO > control4.0 log CFU/g for EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
Lactic acid bacteriaSpoilageIdem section EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
H2S producing bacteriaSpoilageIdem section TVCSee section TVCSee section TVC
Pseudomonas spp.SpoilageIdem section TVCSee section TVCSee section TVC
4 °C under MAP conditions/16 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage3% (w/w) thyme EO > 3% (w/w) oregano EO > 1% (w/w) thyme EO > 1% (w/w) oregano EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control-up to 8 dayControl-up to 8 days
3% (w/w) oregano EO-up to 16 days
1% (w/w) oregano EO-up to 8 days
3% (w/w) thyme EO-up to 16 days
1% (w/w) thyme EO-up to 16 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilage3% (w/w) oregano EO > 1% (w/w) thyme EO > 3% (w/w) thyme EO > 1% (w/w) oregano EO > control7.0 log CFU/g for TPCSee section TVCSee section TVC
EnterobacteriaceaePathogenic and/or spoilage3% (w/w) oregano EO > 3% (w/w) thyme EO > 1% (w/w) thyme EO > 1% (w/w) oregano EO > control4.0 log CFU/g for EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
Lactic acid bacteriaSpoilage3% (w/w) oregano EO >3% (w/w) thyme EO > 1% (w/w) oregano EO >1% (w/w) thyme EO > controlSee section TVCSee section TVC
H2S producing bacteriaSpoilageIdem section LABSee section TVCSee section TVC
Pseudomonas spp.Spoilage1% (w/w) thyme EO > 3% (w/w) oregano EO > 1% (w/w) oregano EO > 3% (w/w) thyme EO > controlSee section TVCSee section TVC
Oregano EO/1% and 3% (w/w)4 °C under air and MAP conditions/12 daysTotal viable organismsPathogenic and/or spoilage3% (w/w) oregano EO (MAP) > 3% (w/w) oregano EO (air)7.0 log CFU/g for TVCUncoated control (air)-up to 4 daysUncoated (MAP)-up to 4 days3% (w/w) oregano EO (MAP)-up to 12 days
3% (w/w) oregano EO (air)-up to 4 days
Total psychrotrophic bacteriaPathogenic and/or spoilageIdem section TVC7.0 log CFU/g for TVCSee section TVCSee section TVC
EnterobacteriaceaePathogenic and/or spoilage3% (w/w) oregano EO (MAP) > 3% (w/w) oregano EO (air)4.0 log CFU/g for EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
Lactic acid bacteriaSpoilageIdem section EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
H2S producing bacteriaSpoilageIdem section EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
Pseudomonas spp.SpoilageIdem section EnterobacteriaceaeSee section TVCSee section TVC
EO, essential oil; CFU, colony-forming units; TVC, total viable count; TMC, total mesophilic bacteria; TPC, total psychrotrophic bacteria; LAB, Lactic Acid Bacteria; MAL, maximum acceptable level.
Table 2. Effects of antimicrobial packaging on chemical quality of fresh fish.
Table 2. Effects of antimicrobial packaging on chemical quality of fresh fish.
Tested Fish ProductAntimicrobial Packaging MaterialsStorage ConditionsML Obtained for TBARS during StorageTLV for TBAML Obtained for TVB-N during StorageTLV for TVB-NML Obtained for TMA-N during StorageTLV for TMA-NML Obtained for K-Value during StorageTL for K-ValueRef.
Film/CoatingActive Agent/Concentration
Rainbow trout filletsCoating based on 2% (w/v) chitosan, acetic acid, and glycerolCinnamon EO/1.5% (v/v)4 °C/16 days1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO (~0.2 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (below 0.25 mg MDA/kg) < control (below 0.25 mg MDA/kg)5 mg MDA/kg-good quality; 8 mg MDA/kg-suitable for human consumption1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO (~10 mg N/100 g) < control (~20 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (~40 mg N/100 g)25 mg N/100 g[42]
Film based on 1% (w/w) quince seed mucilage, glycerol, and Tween 80Oregano EO/1%, 1.5%, and 2% (v/v)
Thyme EO/1%, 1.5%, and 2% (v/v))
4 °C/18 days2% (v/v) oregano EO (~0.4 mg MDA/kg) < 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO (~0.4 mg MDA/kg) < % (v/v) thyme EO (below 0.5 mg MDA/kg) < 1% (v/v) oregano EO (below 0.5 mg MDA/kg) < 1.5 (v/v) thyme EO (below 0.6 mg MDA/kg) < 1% (v/v) thyme EO (below 0.6 mg MDA/kg) < control (~0.8 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (~0.9 mg MDA/kg)below 5 mg MDA/kg2% (v/v) thyme EO (below 20 mg N/100 g) < 1.5 (v/v) thyme EO (below 25 mg N/100 g) < 2% (v/v) oregano EO (below 25 mg N/100 g) < 1% (v/v) thyme EO (below 30 mg N/100 g) < 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO (below 30 mg N/100 g) < 1% (v/v) oregano EO (below 35 mg N/100 g) < control (below 35 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (below 45 mg N/100 g)25 mg N/100 g2% (v/v) thyme EO (~5 mg N/100 g) < 1.5% (v/v) thyme EO (~6 mg N/100 g) < 2% (v/v) oregano EO (~6 mg N/100 g) < 1% (v/v) thyme EO (below 8 mg N/100 g) < 1.5% (v/v) oregano EO (below 8 mg N/100 g) < 1% (v/v) oregano EO (~8 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (~12 mg N/100 g) < control (~12 mg N/100 g)below 5 mg N/100 g[28]
Film based on 3% (w/v) gelatin and 1.5% (w/v) alginate, glycerol, and Tween 80Oregano EO/1.5% (w/v)4 °C/15 days1.5% (w/v) oregano EO (~60 mg N/100 g) < control (~65 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (~65 mg N/100 g)35 mg N/100 g[29]
Coating based on 1% (w/w) carrageenanLemon EO/1% (w/w)4 °C/15 days1% (w/w) lemon EO (20 mg N/100 g) < control (below 35 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (40 mg N/100 g)25 mg N/100 g[30]
Coating based on 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate
Coating based on 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 1:1 and 2:1
4 °C/15 days8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 (0.4 mg MDA/kg) < 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 1:1 (0.5 mg MDA/kg) < 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate (0.6 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (0.7 mg MDA/kg)8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 2:1 (21.1 mg N/100 g) < 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate/glycerol, 1:1 (24.6 mg N/100 g) < 8% (w/w) whey protein concentrate (27.4 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (32.5 mg N/100 g)25 mg N/100 g[31]
Silver carp filletsCoating based on 2% (w/v) chitosan and glycerolCoating based on 2% (w/v) nanochitosan and glycerol4 °C/12 days2% (w/v) chitosan (below 3 mg MDA/kg) < 2% (w/v) nanochitosan (below 3 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (below 4 mg MDA/kg) < 1% glacial acetic acid (~4 mg MDA/kg)2% (w/v) nanochitosan (44.4 mg N/100 g) < 2% (w/v) chitosan (30.8 mg N/100 g) < 1% glacial acetic acid (below 60 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (~60 mg N/100 g)[49]
Grass carp filletsCoating based on 2% (w/v) chitosan, acetic acid, and glycerolGlycerol monolaurate/0.1% and 0.3%4 °C/20 days0.3% glycerol monolaurate (~0.9 mg MDA/kg) < 0.1% glycerol monolaurate (~0.9 mg MDA/kg) < ontrol (~0.9 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (below 1.2 mg MDA/kg)0.3% glycerol monolaurate (15 mg N/100 g) < 0.1% glycerol monolaurate (below 20 mg N/100 g) < control (~22.5 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (~27.5 mg N/100 g)15 mg N/100 g0.3% glycerol monolaurate (~69%) < 0.1% glycerol monolaurate (77.7%) < control (78.2%) < uncoated control (90.5%)<20%-vf; <60%-mf; >60%-rp[32]
Beluga sturgeon filletsCoating based on 8% (w/v) whey protein concentrate, glycerol, and Tween 80Cinnamon EO/1.5% (v/v)4%°C/20 days1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO (below 0.06 mg MDA/kg) < control (below 0.1 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (below 0.12 mg MDA/kg)1.5% (v/v) cinnamon EO (~50 mg N/100 g) < control (below 70 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (~70 mg N/100 g)35–40 mg N/100 g[45]
Salmon filletsCoating based on 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2% (w/v) chitosan, lactic acid solution, and Tween 80-0 °C/18 daysAll treated samples (1.1 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (1.8 mg MDA/kg)1 mg MDA/kgAll treated samples (28 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (33 mg N/100 g)30 mg TVB-N/100 gAll treated samples (5 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (6 mg N/100 g)5 mg N/100 gAll treated samples (46%) < uncoated control (50%)40%[46]
Pike-perch filletsCoating based on 10% (w/v) whey protein isolate, glycerol, and Tween 80Lactoperoxidase/2.5% (v/v)4 °C/16 days3% (v/v) α-tocopherol (below 1 mg MDA/kg) < 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol (below 1 mg MDA/kg) < 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol (~1 mg MDA/kg) < 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol (~1 mg MDA/kg) < control for other coatings (below 2.5 mg MDA/kg) < control for coating with lactoperoxidase (below 2.5 mg MDA/kg) < 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase (~2.5 mg MDA/kg)below 3 mg MDA/kg-perfect quality material; below 5 mg MDA/kg-good quality material2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase (below 35 mg N/100 g) < 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol (below 40 mg N/100 g) < control for coating with lactoperoxidase (~40 mg N/100 g) < control for other coatingl (~40 mg N/100 g) < 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol (below 45 mg N/100 g) < 1.5% (v/v) α-tocopherol (below 45 mg N/100 g) < 2.5% (v/v) lactoperoxidase and 3% (v/v) α-tocopherol (below 45 mg N/100 g)35 mg N/100 g[33]
Coating based on 10% (w/v) whey protein isolate, glycerol, ethanol, and Tween 80α-Tocopherol/1.5% (v/v)
α-Tocopherol/3% (v/v)
Lactoperoxidase and α-tocopherol/2.5% (v/v) and 1.5% (v/v)
Lactoperoxidase and α-tocopherol/2.5% (v/v) and 3% (v/v)
Japanese sea bass filletsCoating based on 1.5% (w/v) chitosan and acetic acidCitric acid/0.5% (w/v)
Licorice extract/1% (w/v)
4 °C/12 days0.5% (w/v) citric acid (~0.2 mg MDA/kg) < % (w/v) licorice extract (~0.2 mg MDA/kg) < control (below 1.5 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (below 2.0 mg MDA/kg)0.5% (w/v) citric acid (29.7 mg N/100 g) < 1% (w/v) licorice extract (48.0 mg N/100 g) < control (60.5 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (100.2 mg N/100 g)30–35 mg N/100 g[44]
Red drum filletsCoating based on 1.5% chitosan, acetic acid, and glycerolGrape seed extract/0.2% (w/v)
Tea polyphenols/0.2% (w/v)
4 °C/20 days0.2% (w/v) tea polyphenols (~0.8 mg MDA/kg) < 0.2% (w/v) grape seed extract (~1.0 mg MDA/kg) < uncoated control (~1.8 mg MDA/kg)0.2% (w/v) tea polyphenols (33.69 mg N/100 g) < 0.2% (w/v) grape seed extract (38.17 mg N/100 g) < uncoated control (51.25 mg N/100 g)25 mg N/100 g0.2% (w/v) tea polyphenols (~40%) < 0.2% (w/v) grape seed extract (~45%) < uncoated control (62.57%)60%[43]
Golden pomfret filletsCoating based on 0.4% (w/w) chitosan4 °C/17 days0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 7.2% (w/w) gelatin (10.51 mg N/100 g) < 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 5.4% (w/w) gelatin (12.31 mg N/100 g) < 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and 3.6% (w/w) gelatin (13.48 mg N/100 g) < deionized water (93.52 mg N/100 g)[47]
Coating based on 0.4% (w/w) chitosan and gelatin
TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; TLV, threshold limit value; ML, maximum levels; TVB-N, total volatile basic nitrogen; TMA-N, trimethylamine nitrogen; MDA, malondialdehyde; vf, very fresh; mf, moderately fresh; rp, rejection point.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Back to TopTop