Journal of Food Engineering 2 I( 1994) 395-409

Measurement Errors in Water Vapor Permeability of

Highly Permeable, Hydrophilic Edible Films
Aristippos

Germadios,

Curtis L. Weller* & Charles

H. Gooding b

Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Clemson University, 235

McAdams Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-0357, USA, hDepartment of Chemical
Engineering, Clemson University, 211 Earle Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-0909, USA
(Received 28 May 1992; revised version received 2 October 1992;
accepted 8 December 1992)

ABSTRACT
Water vapor transmission WVT of films is commonly measured using
modifications of the ASTM E 96 Standard Method (cup method). A
stagnant air layer exists between the underside of the filmmounted on the
cup and the sueace of the desiccant, saturated salt solution or distilled
water contained in the cup. The method considers the air gap resistance to
be negligible to water vapor transport. When high water vapor-transmitting hydrophilic edible films are measured with the cup method, the
resistance of the stagnant air layer can be significant and, if neglected, can
lead to underestimation of water vapor transmission rates. Equations
were presented in this study to correct WVTdata for the air gap resistance.
For both a methylcellulose and a corn zein film, water vapor permeabilities measured with air gaps of 1.0 and I.5 cm were statistically significantly
(a = O-05) different. Values corrected to account for air gap resistance were
not statistically significantly (a = 005) different. Literature data on water
vapor permeability of other hydrophilic edible films were corrected to
account for the air layer resistance. Underestimation of actual values
ranged between 5 and 46X.

NOTATION
A

Open mouth area of cup (m)

Total molar concentration of air and water vapor (g mole/cm3)
Diffusivity of water vapor in air (cm*/s)

*To whom correspondence

should be addressed at: University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
L.W. Chase Hall, East Campus, Lincoln, NE 68583-0726.
395
Journal of Food Engineering 0260-8774/94/$07.00
- 0 1994 Elsevier Science
Limited, England. Printed in Great Britain

396
4,
hi

L
NJ
P
Pr
Pwo
PWI
Pw2
PW3

w,
T
WVTR,
WVTR,
APa
AP,

Aristippos Gennadios, Curtis L. Weller, Charles H. Gooding

Air gap between film and desiccant suspended over film (cm)
Air gap between film and surface of distilled water, saturated
salt solution or desiccant in the cup (cm)
Fihn thickness (m)
Measured value of water vapor transmission (WVT ) rate (g
mol/cm2 s)
Vapor pressure of water at the temperature of the test (Pa)
Total atmospheric pressure (Pa)
Partial pressure of water vapor in air at the surface of distilled
water, saturated salt solution or desiccant in the cup (Pa)
Partial pressure of water vapor at underside of fihn (Pa)
Partial pressure of water vapor at the fihn surface outside the
cup (Pa)
Partial pressure of water vapor at the underside of desiccant
suspended over film and cup (Pa)
Corrected water vapor permeability (g/m s Pa)
Measured water vapor permeability (g/m s Pa)
Universal gas constant (8 306 600 Pa cm3/g mole K)
Relative humidity over distilled water, saturated salt solution
or desiccant inside the cup (Oh)
Relative humidity outside the cup (Oh)
Absolute temperature during testing (K)
Corrected value of WVT rate (g/m2 day)
Measured value of WVT rate (g/m2 day)
Apparent water vapor partial pressure difference across the
film (Pa)
Real water vapor partial pressure difference across the film
(Pa)

INTRODUCTION
Edible films and coatings from proteins, polysaccharides and lipids have
received increased interest in recent years as potential food protective
materials. Research findings on production, properties and potential
applications of edible films have been recently reviewed (Guilbert, 1986,
1988; Kester & Fermema, 1986; Krochta, 1992). Protein-based films
from wheat, corn and soy proteins have been discussed by Gennadios
and Weller (1990, 1991). WVT of these films is an important property,
indicating their ability to control water vapor transport between a food
system and its surroundings.

Water vapor permeability of edible films

397

Most of the data on WVT of edible films available in the literature

have been obtained by using the ASTM Standard Test Method E 96430
(ASTM, 19891, kn own as the cup method, or variations of it. According
to this method, a cup with an open mouth of known area is filled with
distilled water or desiccant. In a modification of the method, saturated
salt solutions are also used. A film specimen is sealed orrthe open mouth
of the cup, the assembly is weighed, and placed under controlled relative humidity and temperature conditions. Partial water vapor pressure
difference pwo - pw2 provides the driving force for water vapor flux
through the film. The weight change of the cup is monitored by periodical weighings. Weight gain or loss is plotted over time and when steady
state is reached the plot is a straight line. The slope of this line divided by
exposed film area (cup open mouth area) yields the (WVTR), of a tested
film. According to this standard method, cups should be filled with water
to a level of 2 + O-5 cm from the film specimen. When the cups are filled
with desiccant an air space of O-6 cm between the under side of the film
and the desiccant surface is recommended. This air gap is considered
necessary to avoid film contact with the water or desiccant while handling the cup.
The air gap (hi) between a film and the surface of the liquid or desiccant inside the cup is assumed to offer negligible resistance to water
vapor transport. This method apparently works well for testing films of
low WVTR. These were the films for which the test was developed.
Edible films containing high amounts of lipid materials are indeed good
water vapor barriers and their WVT can be tested with this method with
no problems. The same does not hold true for protein- and polysaccharide-based films which are, in general, moisture sensitive and characterized by high WVT. In this case, resistance provided by the stagnant air
in gap hi is significant. Neglecting the effect of this air resistance can lead
to considerable underestimation
of actual film WVTR. The apparent
driving force for water vapor flux through film is pwO -pw2, whereas the
actual driving force is pw , - pwz .
The effect of stagnant air space inside the cup has been apparently
overlooked by researchers working with protein and polysaccharide
edible films. WVT rates and permeabilities reported in the literature
have not been corrected to account for the air layer resistance. Only
recently, Krochta ( 1992) addressed this problem and provided an equation to calculate pwl .
Existence of a stagnant air layer above the cup could also result in
significant resistance to water vapor transport. This problem is usually
avoided by blowing air over the cup. For instance, most environmental
chambers used to control relative humidity outside the cup provide

398

Aristippos Gennadios, Curtis L. Weller, Charles H. Goading

adequate air circulation. A variation of this method was reported where

desiccant (RH, = 0%) was suspended with cheese cloth at a distance h,
above the film outside the cup (Hagenmaier & Shaw, 1990). Air gap h,
provides additional resistance to water vapor transport similar to the one
of the gap inside the cup. As a result, apparent water vapor pressure
difference across a film is pwO- pw,, whereas the actual one is pwl - pw2.
Both pwL and pwz must be calculated in this case to correct the measured
rate. Obviously this variation of the method is limited to suspension of
desiccant over the film, since water or saturated salt solutions would drip
on the film.
A point regarding use of the term permeability with edible fihns,
especially hydrophilic ones, should be made. Water vapor permeability
of a film is a constant that should be independent of the driving force for
WVT. In other words, when a fihn is subjected to different water vapor
pressure gradients (at the same temperature) the flux of water vapor
through the film differs, but its calculated permeability should be the
same. This does not happen with hydrophilic edible films where water
molecules interact with polar groups in the film structure causing plasticization or swelling. Water vapor permeability was found to vary with the
applied water pressure gradient for cellulosic films (Karel et al., 1959;
Woodruff et al., 1972) and for amylose films (Rankin et al., 1958). Permeability of edible films based on lipid materials could also appear
dependent on water vapor gradient due to clustering of water molecules
into a nonpolar fihn structure.
Another assumption inherent to the calculation of permeability is its
independence from film thickness. Studies have shown that this assumption also does not hold true for hydrophilic edible films. For pectinate
films (Schultz et al., 1949), for amylose films (Rankin et al., 1958), and
for a number of cellulosic films (Pate1 et al., 1964; Banker et al., 1966;
Hagenmaier & Shaw, 1990) water vapor permeability has been found to
increase with film thickness. A similar behavior has been observed with
soy protein isolate and wheat gluten protein films in our laboratory.
As a result, experimentally
determined water vapor permeability
values of most edible films apply only to the specific water vapor gradients used during testing and for the specific thickness of tested specimens. Because of this, researchers have proposed use of the terms
effective permeability (Biquet & Labuza, 1988) or apparent permeability (Kester & Fennema, 1989~).
The objectives of the present study were (1) to provide the necessary
equations to correct WVT rates of hydrophilic edible films measured
with the cup method; (2) to demonstrate the use of these equations for a
protein-based and a polysaccharide-based
film, and (3) to correct water

399

Water vapor pemzeabiliv of edible films

vapor permeability
literature.

values of hydrophilic

MATERIALS

edible films reported

in the

AND METHODS

Corrective equations for WVT

Air gap resistance to WVT can be accounted for by applying the analysis
of diffusion through a stagnant gas film presented by Bird et al. ( 1960). A
schematic diagram indicating the locations of water vapor pressure
values and air gap heights used in the following analyses is shown in
Fig. 1.
1st Case: RH, > RH,, h, = 0

In this case pwo >P,, >pw2, pwO=pRH,/lOO,

and pw2 =pRH,/lOO. The
value of p can be found from the literature (Felder & Rousseau, 1978).
Apparent and actual water vapor partial pressure differences across a
film are:
AP, = Pwo - Pw2

(1)

AP, = Pwl - Pw2

(2)

The value of pwl can be calculated by

Pwi = PT- (PT- P,o)

cup-

/////////.
/////////.
////f////.

exp(NwhilcD

+ -

water,
saturated salt solution
or desiccant

/////////.
/////////.

Fig. 1.

Schematic diagram of water vapor permeability

measurement

locations of water vapor pressure values and air gap heights.

cup indicating

400

Aristippos Gennadios, Curtis L. Weller, Charles H. Gooding

where
N,=(6.43
Molar concentration

x lo-)WVTR,

(4)

c can be estimated from the ideal gas law:

c= pT/RT

(5)

The diffusion coefficient (II) at 1.013 X lo5 Pa ( 1 atm) can be estimated by the following empirical equation (Bretsznajder, 197 1):
D= (O-26)( T/298)8
The corrected value of water vapor transmission
WVTR, = WVTR,KP,,
2nd Case: RH, < RH,, h, = 0

(6)
rate is given by

P~Z)/(P,, - P~Z11

(7)

1nthiscasep,,<p,,<p,,,p,,=pRH,/100,andp,,=pRH2/100.
APa = Pw2 - Pwo

(8)

AP, = Pw2 - Pwl

(9)

Pwl=P~-(P~-PwO)exP
WV%

~%KP,~

(-NwhilcD)

- ~woY(~w2

(10)

- pwl )I

01)

3rd Case: RE-I, > RH,, ho f 0

1nthiscasep,,>p,,~p,,~p,,,p,,=pRH,/100,andp,,=pRH,/100.
APa = Pwo- Pw3

(12)

AP, = Pwl - Pw2

(13)

Both pw, and pw2 are unknowns. Equation (3) can be used to calculate
pw2 we have

pw , . For

pw3=pT-(pT-~w2)

exp (Kh0lcD)

(14)

Solving eqn ( 14) with respect to pw2:

(15)

Pw2=PT-(PT-Pw3)exp(-N,h0/cD)

The value of WVTR, is given by

WVTR, = ~%,,[(P~o

- pw3

)/(P,, - pw2 )I

(16)

Determination of water vapor permeability

Measured water vapor permeability
P,=(ll57

can be calculated by

x 105)WVTR,L/Ap,

(17)

Water vapor permeability of edible films

Corrected water vapor permeability

the following two equations:

The coefficient
conversions.

401

can be calculated from either of

P, = (1.157 x lO+)WVTR,L/Ap,

(18)

P, = (1.157 x 10-5)WVTR,L/Ap,

(19)

l-157 X 10m5 in the above

equations

satisfies

unit

Preparation of film-forming solutions

Corn zein (CZ) film-forming solutions were prepared by mixing 10 g of
CZ (Freeman Industries, Tuckahoe, NY, USA), 2 g of glycerol (ACS
grade, Baxter Diagnostics, McGaw Park, IL) and 65 ml of 95% ethanol.
Methyl cellulose (MC) film-forming solutions were prepared by mixing
4.5 g of MC (viscosity 25 cP, Aldrich Chemical Co, Milwaukee, WI,
USA), 1.5 g of propylene glycol (USP grade, Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA), 100 ml of 95% ethanol and 50 ml of distilled water.
Both types of mixtures were heated for 10 min while being stirred on a
magnetic stirrer/hot plate. The heating rate was adjusted such that the
temperature of the solutions at the end of the preparation time was 75 to
77C. Upon removal from the hot plate, mixtures were kept at room
conditions for 2 to 3 min until bubbling stopped and subsequently were
cast.
Film casting and drying
Film-forming solutions were cast on flat glass plates with a thin-layer
chromatography
spreader bar (Brinkman, New York, USA) set at 1.5
mm. Casting areas on the plates were framed with thick layers of masking tape to prevent spreading. Plates with cast solutions were placed in
an air-circulating oven (Isotemp@, model 338F, Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) maintained at 35C. After 15 h the plates were
removed from the oven, films were peeled off, and specimens
7 cm x 7 cm in size were cut. Prior to testing for WVT rates, all specimens were conditioned for 48 h in a desiccator over anhydrous calcium
sulfate (Drierite@, indicating, 6 mesh, Baxter Diagnostics, McGraw Park,
IL, USA).
Thickness
The thickness of film specimens, which is necessary for water vapor
permeability calculations, was measured with a hand-held micrometer

402

Aristippos Gennadios, Curtis L. Weller, Charles H. Good&

(B.C. Ames, Waltham, MA, USA) to the nearest 254 pm. Five
measurements were taken on each specimen, one at the center and four
around the perimeter, and their mean was used as the specimen thickness.
Measurement of WVT rate
Cups used to determine WVTR,,, were manufactured at the Department
of Agricultural and Biological Engineering at Clemson University by
modifying an original design provided by Dr J. M. Krochta (Department
of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, CA,
USA). Each consisted of a cylindrical bottom made of poly(methy1
methacrylate) (Piedmont Plastics, Greenville, SC, USA), a lid of the
same material, and a rubber O-ring (Fig. 2). The bottom had a diameter
of 8.7 cm. A well 4.6 cm in diameter and 2.1 cm in depth was milled into
the bottom. An O-ring (internal diameter 5.6 cm) was placed into a
groove milled around the well. Four screws, symmetrically placed
around the cup perimeter, were tightened to hold film specimens
securely between the lid and the bottom part. Good sealing of film specimens between lid and bottom was provided by the O-ring.

Machine Screws

Fig. 2.

Cup assembly used to measure WVT rates of edible films.

Watervaporpenneability of edible films

403

WVTR, of CZ and MC films was determined for two different air

gaps inside the cup. From each type of fihn, eight samples were tested
with hi = 1.0 cm and eight samples with hi = 1.5 cm. Wells in the cups
were filled with distilled water (RH, = 100%). After films were mounted,
the whole assembly was weighed and placed in an environmental
chamber (Model 317332, Hotpack, Philadelphia, PA, USA) set at 25C
and RH, = 50%. Additional weighings with an accuracy of 0.001 g were
taken at c. 30 min intervals. Weight loss was plotted versus time and a
straight line (steady state) was obtained after 2 to 3 h. Linear regression
was used to estimate the slope of this line in g/day. Regression coefficients of determination (R *) greater than 0.97 were calculated for all
samples. WVTR, was calculated by
WVTR,

= Slope/A

(20)

Equations (3) and (7) were used to calculate pwl and WVTR,, respectively. Values of P,,, and P, were also calculated from eqns ( 17) and ( 18),
respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Validation of corrective equations
Mean measured and corrected permeability values of the MC and CZ
films are presented in Table 1. A difference in height of the air gap inside
the cups resulted in different measured permeability values for both
films. The mean P, value was significantly greater (a = O-05) when the
air gap was smaller. Differences between P, values measured with larger
and smaller air gaps were c. 26 and 17% for MC and CZ films, respectively. When permeability values were corrected to account for air resistance, differences due to unequal air gaps was diminished to c. 2 and 4%
for MC and CZ films, respectively. A two-tailed Students t-test of significance showed that corrected values were not statistically different at the
a = O-05 significance level.
As shown in Table 1, neglecting the stagnant air layer resistance
resulted in a large error and a significant underestimation of actual permeability values of hydrophilic MC and CZ films. The higher the WVT
rate through a film the more important is air gap resistance and the larger
the error produced from overlooking this effect. In general, when
corrected transmission rates and permeability values are within 5% of
measured values, air layer resistance can be assumed negligible. Under
the experimental conditions of the present study (T= 25C, RH, = 100%

404

Aristippos Gennadios, Curtis L. Weller, Charles H. Gooding

TABLE 1
Measured Water Vapor Permeability Values of Methyl Cellulose and Corn Zein Edible
Films and Corrected Values to Account for Stagnant Air Layer Resistance~b~c
Airgap
(cm)

P, x IO

P, x 1o0

Errold

(g/m s Pa)

(g/m s Pa)

(%)

1.0
15

26 f 0.3
2.1 f 0.1

1.0
l-5

4.0 + 0.2
3.4 _+0.2

Methyl cellulose
6.2 f 05
6.1 + 0.4
Corn zein
5.1+ 0.3
49k@4

58
66
22
31

Measured and corrected permeability values are the mean of eight samples plus/minus
one standard deviation.
hTesting conditions were 25C and 50% (lOO%-50%) relative humidity gradient across
the films.
cMean thickness of the methyl cellulose and the corn zein films were 23 f. 1 pm and
89 f 10 pm, respectively.
Error was calculated as [(PC- P,,,)/P,]lOO.

and RH, = 50%) corrected values will be within 5% of the measured

values when WVTR, < 130 g/m* day for hi = 1.0 cm and WVTR, < 85
g/m2 day for hi = 1.5 cm.
Correction of Iiterature data
Water vapor permeability
data of several hydrophilic edible films
reported in the literature were corrected using the equations presented
in this study. Reported and corrected values are shown in Table 2. Errors
due to neglecting air gap resistance ranged between 5 and 46%. In the
articles referenced in Table 2, information on air gap depth was available
making correction of these data possible. In several other sources, water
vapor permeability values of hydrophilic edible fihns are given without
specifying an air gap depth. Such cases include films from wheat gluten
(Gontard et al., 1992), hydroxypropyl
cellulose and methylhydroxypropyl cellulose/ethyl cellulose (Banker et aZ., 1966) and cellulose esters
(Pate1 et al., 1964; Munden et al., 1964; Lachman & Drubulis, 1964).
As mentioned earlier, WVT rates of edible films containing high
amounts of lipids are fairly low, unless the films are very thin. As such,
neglecting resistance of the air layer inside the cup is usually justified as
demonstrated by the following. The calculated WVTR, value of a bilayer
film made of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose plasticized with polyethy-

Watervapor permeability of edible films

405

lene glycol and beeswax (Kamper & Fermema, 1984) was within 0.02%
of the reported WVTR, value. For a 14.7 pm thick hydroxypropyl
methycellulose film containing 42% stearic acid (Hagenmaier & Shaw,
1990) the calculated corrected value was within 0.2% of the measured
value.
The effect on WVT of a stagnant air layer in the cup was noticed by
Schultz et al. (1949) in their water vapor transmission rate study of
pectinate films. The transmission rate of a calcium sodium pectinate film
was reduced by 5% when the dead air space was increased by 50%.
From this observation these researchers concluded that the error introduced by the whole dead air space did not exceed 11%. Their conclusion
assumed a linear relationship between air gap depth and error introduced from it, which is erroneous as illustrated by the equations presented here. Some permeability values from Schultz et al. (1949) were
corrected to account for air space, and an error of 30 to 41% was estimated (Table 2).
In a few recently conducted studies, Permatran-W measuring systems
(Macon, Minneapolis, MN) were used to determine water vapor permeability of edible films (Greener & Fennema, 1989a, b; Kester &
Fennema, 1989b; Germadios et al., 1990, 1993). These systems operate
according to the ASTM Standard Method F 1249-89 (ASTM, 1989).
Film specimens are mounted between the upper and lower halves of
temperature-controlled
diffusion cells. A couple of absorbent pads
moistened with distilled water or saturated salt solution to achieve a
desired RH, are placed in the lower half of the cells. Water vapor transmitted through the films is carried to an infrared detector by dry nitrogen
(RH, = 0%) flowing over the upper side of films. As with the cup
method, an air gap of O-2 to 0.3 cm exists between the saturated pads
and the underside of the film. When edible barriers that are high water
vapor transmitters are tested, the effect of this gap could be important.
The underestimation
error would be greater than 5% when WVTR,
values approach or exceed 1000 g/m* day. Gennadios et al. ( 1990,199 1)
used a Permatran-W600
instrument to measure WVT rates of wheat
gluten-based films at 23C and RH, = 11%. Due to the small relative
humidity gradient applied across the films, errors induced by neglecting
air gap resistance were smaller than 2%.
CONCLUSIONS
Water vapor permeability values of highly permeable, hydrophilic edible
films, as determined with the cup method, are underestimated when air
gap resistance in the cup is neglected. Furthermore, since the magnitude

( 1990)
(1990)
(1990)
(1990)

125

140
89
38
28
8
19

Thickness
(pm)

TABLE 2
Edible Films as Reported
Resistance

Wheat gluten/glycerin
Corn zein/glycerin
(Hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose
(Hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose
(Hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose
(Hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose
+ 2% steak acid
(Hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose
+ 42% stearic acid
(Hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose
/Polyethylene glycol
/Hydrogenated cottonseed and
soybean oils

Film

Values of Hydrophilic

Kamper & Fennema ( 1984)

Hagenmaier & Shaw ( 1990)

Aydt eta/. (1991)

Aydt etaf.(1991)
Hagenmaier & Shaw
Hagenmaier & Shaw
Hagenmaier & Shaw
Hagenmaier & Shaw

Reference

Water Vapor Permeability

1.8

O-08

12.5
4.1
1.3
0.7
O-5
0.7

P,, x IO
Mm s Pa)

l-9

O-09

23.1
5.3
1.7
0.9
0.8
@9

11

46
23
24
22
38
22

50/100% RH
50/100% RH
O/85% RH
O/85% RH
O/85% FW
O/85% RH

25C 85/O% RH

27C, O/85% RH

26C,
26c,
27C.
27C,
27C,
27C,

Conditio&

for Stagnant Air Layer

Error L1
(W

and Corrected

P, x 100
(glm s Pa)

in the Literature

ef al. ( 1958)
et al. (1958)
et al. ( 1949)
et al. (1949)
et al. ( 1949)
et al. ( 1949)

Methylcellulose
Wheat gluten/glycerin
Methylcellulose/polyethylene
glycol
(Hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose
/Polyethylene glycol
Amylose
Amylose
Sodium hydrogen pectinate
Calcium sodium pectinate
Calcium sodium pectinate
Calcium sodium
Pectinate/glycerin
3.3
2.2
6-l
6.1
7.7
8.7

1.1

50

29
29
27
35
35
46

0.145
6.2
0.9

5
400
55

3.6
3.8
10.0
8.8
13.1
12.9

1.3

0.152
7.0
1.1

8
42
39
31
41
33

15

5
11
18

25C, 100/l% RH
25C 8 l/29% RH
25C 81/31%RH
25C 81/31%RH
3.5C, 78/40% RH
25C 81/31%RH

21C 85/O% RH

37.8C, 91/O%RH
21C 85/O% RH
21C 85/O% RH

((Error was calculated as [(PC- P,)/ PC]100.

RHs are outside and inside the cup, respectively.
Air gap depth is not directly specified in text. A value of 0.6 cm was used for the calculations as indicated in the ASTM E 96 desiccant
method followed by the researchers.
Air gap depth is not specified in the text. A value of 1.5 cm was used after personal communication with author H. J. Park.

Rankin
Rankin
Schultz
Schultz
Schultz
Schultz

Park & Chinnan ( 1990)

Kanig & Goodman ( 1962)

Park & Chinnan (1990)
Park & Chinnan (1990)

3
B
g
Q
*
&
g

408

Arisiippos Gennadios, Curtis L. Weller, Charles El. Gooding

of the air gap varies between different research studies, accounting for
stagnant air layer resistance is an essential requirement prior to comparing water vapor permeabilities of hydrophilic edible Nms and coatings
developed and tested at different laboratories.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by a South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Enhancement in Packaging Research Competitive Grant.
Technical Contribution No. 3301 of the South Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
REFERENCES
ASTM (1989). Standard test methods for water vapor transmission of materials.
E 96-80. In Annual Book ofASTM Standards, Vol. 1.5. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 745-54.
Aydt, T. P., Weller, C. L. & Testin, R. F. ( 1991). Mechanical and barrier properties of edible corn and wheat protein films. Trans. ASAE, 34,207-l
1.
Banker, G. S., Gore, A. Y. & Swarbrick, J. ( 1966). Water vapor transmission
properties of free polymer films. J. Pharm. Pharmac., l&457-66.
Biquet, B. & Labuza, T. P. (1988). Evaluation of the moisture permeability
characteristics of chocolate films as an edible moisture barrier. J. Food Sci.,
53,989-98.

Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E. & Lightfoot, E. N. (1960). Transport Phenomena.

John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, pp. 522-6.
Bretsznajder, S. ( 197 1). Prediction of Transport and Other Physical Properties of
Fluids. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
Felder, R. M. & Rousseau, R. W. ( 1978). Elementary Principles of Chemical
Processes. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, pp. 538-40.
Gennadios. A. & Weller, C. L. (1990). Edible films and coatings from wheat and
corn proteins. Food Technol., 44 (lo), 63-9.
Gennadios, A. & Weller, C. L. ( 1991). Edible films and coatings from soymilk
and soy protein. Cereal Foods World, 36, 1004-9.
Gennadios, A., Weller, C. L. & Testin, R. F. ( 1990). Modification of properties
of edible wheat gluten films. ASAE Paper No. 90-6504. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St Joseph, MI, USA.
Gennadios, A., Weller, C. L. & Testin, R. E (1993). Modification of physical and
barrier properties of edible wheat gluten-based films. Cereal Chem., 70,
426-9.

Gontard, N., Guilbert, S. & Cuq, J.-L. (1992). Edible wheat gluten films: Influence of the main process variables on film properties using response surface
methodology. J. Food Sci., 57,190-5,
199.
Greener, I. K. & Fermema, 0. (1989~). Barrier properties and surface characteristics of edible, bilayer films. J. Food Sci., 54, 1393-9.

Water vapor permeability of edible films

409

Greener, I. K. & Fennema, 0. (1989b). Evaluation of edible, bilayer films for

use as moisture barriers for foods. 1. Food Sci., 54,1400-6.
Guilbert, S. (1986). Technology and application of edible protective films. In
Food Packaging and Preservation. Theory and Practice, ed. M. Mathlouthi.
Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK, pp. 371-94.
Guilbert, S. (1988). Use of superficial edible layer to protect intermediate
moisture foods: Application to the protection of tropical fruits dehydrated by
osmosis. In Food Preservation by Moisture Control, ed. C. C. Seow. Elsevier
Applied Science, London, UK, pp. 199-2 19.
Hagenmaier, R. D. & Shaw, P. E. ( 1990). Moisture permeability of edible films
made with fatty acid and (hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose.
J. Agric. Food
Chem., 38,1799-803.

Kamper, S. L. & Femtema, 0. (1984). Water vapor permeability of edible bilayer

films. J. FoodSci., 49, 1478-81, 1485.
Kanig, J. L. & Goodman, H. (1962). Evaluative procedures for film-forming
materials used in pharmaceutical applications. J. Pharm. Sci., 5 1,77-83.
Karel, M., Proctor, B. E. & Wiseman, G. (1959). Factors affecting water vapor
transfer through food packaging films. Food Technol., 13 (l), 69-74.
Kester, J. J. & Fennema, 0. R. (1986). Edible films and coatings: A review. Food
Technol., 40 ( 12), 47-59.

Kester, J. J. & Fennema, 0. (1989a). An edible film of lipids and cellulose

ethers: Barrier properties to moisture vapor transmission and structural
evaluation. .I. Food Sci., 54, 1383-9.
Kester, J. J. & Fennema, 0. (1989b). Resistance of lipid films to water vapor
transmission. JAWS, 66, 1139-46.
Krochta, J. M. (1992). Control of mass transfer in foods with edible coatings and
films. In Advances in Food Engineering, eds R. P. Singh & M. A. Wirakartakasumah. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 5 17-38.
La&man, L. & Drubulis, A. (1964). Factors influencing the properties of films
used for tablet coating. I: Effects of plasticizers on the water vapor transmission of cellulose acetate phthalate films. J. Pharm. Sci., 53,639-43.
Munden, B. J., Dekay, G. & Banker, G. S. (1964). Evaluation of polymeric
materials. I: Screening of selected polymers as film coating agents. J. Pharm.
Sci., 53,395-401.

Park, H. J. & Chinnan, M. S. (1990). Properties of edible coatings for fruits and
vegetables. ASAE Paper No. 90-65 10. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Chicago, IL, USA.
Patel, M., Patel, J. M. & Lemberger, A. P. ( 1964). Water vapor permeation of
selected cellulose ester films. J. Pharm. Sci., 53,286-90.
Rankin, J. C., Wolff, I. A., Davis, H. A. & Rist, C. E. (1958). Permeability of
amylose film to moisture vapor, selected organic vapors, and the common
gases. Ind. Erg. Chem., 3, 120-3.
Schultz, T. H., Miers, J. C., Owens, H. S. & Maclay, W. D. ( 1949). Permeability of
pectinate films to water vapor. J. Phys. Colloid Chem., 53, 1320-30.
Woodruff, C. W., Peck, G. E. & Banker, G. S. (1972). Effect of environmental
conditions and polymer ratio on water vapor transmission through free plasticized cellulose films. J. Pharm. Sci., 61, 1956-9.