Alginate is a naturally occurring polysaccharide used in the bio industry. It is mainly derived from brown algae species. Alginate-based edible coatings and films attract interest for improving/maintaining quality and extending the shelf-life of fruit, vegetable, meat, poultry, seafood, and cheese by reducing dehydration (as sacrificial moisture agent), controlling respiration, enhancing product appearance, improving mechanical properties, etc. This paper reviews the most recent essential information about alginate-based edible coatings. The categorization of alginate-based coatings/film in food packaging concept is formed gradually with the explanation of the most important titles. Emphasis will be placed on active ingredients incorporated into alginate-based formulations, edible coating/film application methods, research and development studies of coated food products and mass transfer and barrier characteristics of the alginate-based coatings/films. Future trends are also reviewed to identify research gaps and recommend new research areas. The summarized information presented in this article will enable researchers to thoroughly understand the fundamentals of the coating process and to develop alginate-based edible films and coatings more readily.

Achieving high quality of a coated food product is mostly dependent on the characteristics of the food material to be coated, the properties of the components in the coating solution, and the obtained coating material. In the present study, usability and effectiveness of various components as well as their concentrations were assessed to produce an effective coating material. For this purpose, different concentrations of gelling agent (sodium alginate 0–3.5%, w/w), plasticizers (glycerol and sorbitol (0–20%, w/w), surfactants (tween 40, tween 80, span 60, span 80, lecithin (0–5%, w/w), and vegetable oils (sunflower oil, olive oil, rapeseed oil (0–5%, w/w) were used to prepare edible coating solutions. Formulations were built gradually, and characteristics of coatings were evaluated by analyzing surface tension values and its polar and dispersive components, emulsion droplet size, and optical appearance in microscopic scale. The results obtained showed that 1.25% sodium alginate, 2% glycerol, 0.2% sunflower oil, 1% span 80, and 0.2% tween 40 or tween 80 can be used in formulation to obtain an effective coating for hydrophobic food surfaces. Three formulations were designed, and their stability (emulsion droplet size, optical characteristics, and creaming index) and wettability tests on strawberry showed that they could be successfully used in coating applications.

Water loss, gain or transfer results in a decline in the overall quality of food. The aim of this study was to form a uniform layer of sodium alginate-based edible coating (1.25% sodium alginate, 2% glycerol, 0.2% sunflower oil, 1% span 80, 0.2% tween 80, (w/w)) and investigate the effects on the water barrier characteristics of fresh-cut cantaloupe and strawberries. To this end, a uniform and continuous edible film formation was achieved (0.187 ± 0.076 mm and 0.235 ± 0.077 mm for cantaloupe and strawberries, respectively) with an additional immersion step into a calcium solution at the very beginning of the coating process. The coating application was effective in significantly reducing the water loss (%) of the cantaloupe pieces. However, no significant effect was observed in water vapor resistance results and weight change measurements in a climate chamber (80%→60% relative humidity (RH) at 10 °C). External packaging conditions (i.e., closed, perforated, and open) were not significantly effective on water activity (a_w) values of cantaloupe, but were effective for strawberry values. In general, the coating application promoted the water loss of strawberry samples. Additionally, the water vapor transmission rate of stand-alone films was determined (2131 g·100 µm/(m²·d·bar) under constant environmental conditions (23 °C, 100%→50% RH) due to the ability to also evaluate the efficacy in ideal conditions.

The influence of the bottle material (glass, PET), the reusability (reusable and disposable bottles), and the carbonization (still, medium, classic mineral water) on the filling ratio, packaging material use efficiency, cost, and shelf life were evaluated. Two hundred different bottles were purchased and characterized regarding their filling volume, the weight of the bottle, the weight of the closure, the weight of the label, and the maximum full-rim volume of the bottle. The packaging material use efficiency was calculated. The shelf life was evaluated by calculating the water vapor and carbon dioxide transmission rates. The ratio of filling volume to the packaging weight of disposable PET bottles was, on average, two times higher compared to returnable PET bottles and 20 times higher compared to glass bottles. Shelf life was, on average, higher than factor two for glass bottles compared to PET bottles. On average, but not in all cases, mineral water packaged in disposable PET bottles was cheaper compared to reusable PET and glass bottles. This paper provides a benchmark for the packaging community, especially when data for life cycle assessment are required, and the different advantages and disadvantages of different bottle materials for mineral water are shown.

Fill product residues in packagings are equivalent to product losses. They are washed out after sorting and before commencing recycling processes. Not much data have been published about how much fill product is still present in packagings dedicated for recycling. Results are often from laboratory trials. Therefore, several hundred packagings from a sorting plant of a dual system in Germany were analysed to determine the amount of fill product residues. Approximately 10 wt. % of highly viscous fill products in tubes were lost as residue. In the case of packagings that were easy to empty, such as cups, and in the case of low-viscosity fill products, such as water, less than 1 wt. % of the fill products remained in the packagings. The mean amount of residue in relation to clean packaging was 0.9 g residue in 1 g of packaging material (without residue) in tubes and 0.07 g in PET bottles. These values were significantly lower for low-viscosity fill products compared to high-viscosity fill products, as expected.