## 3 Results
### Coating Effect on Strawberry Preservation  
#### 3.5.1 Antioxidant Properties  
Table 5 shows the DPPH and ABTS antioxidant activity (IC\({}_{50}\) values) of lime, fennel, and lavender essential oils. In the same way, the antioxidant activity of films with essential oils incorporation is shown. The lower the IC\({}_{50}\) parameter, the substance or material has the greater antioxidant activity [Guidelines for accurate EC\({}_{50}\)/IC\({}_{50}\) estimation]. Lavender essential oil (EOla) showed higher antioxidant activity compared to the other essential oils. Consequently, the DPPH radical scavenging activity of the FAla film was significantly higher (\(p<0.05\)). The high antioxidant activity of EOla is attributed to their main constituents, such as 1,5-Dimethyl-1-vinyl-4-hexenylbutyrate, 1,3,7-Octatriene, 3,7-dimethyl-, Eucalypt, and Camphor 43. [PERSON] et al., 2010 reported a strong antioxidant activity of EOla against lipid peroxidation in a linoleic acid model system assessed by the \(\beta\)-carotene bleaching test. Lime essential oil (EOli) and derived films showed the lowest antioxidant activity compared to the other essential oils [43]. The bioactive properties of EOli have been attributed to the volatile components, e.g., terpenes, oxygenated compounds, and sesquiterpenes, specifically, the terpene compound limonene [1-methyl-4-(prop-1-en \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Formulations** & **Gloss (85\({}^{\circ}\))** & **Internal Transmittance (650 nm)** \\ \hline F1 & 38.7 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 65.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline F2 li & 35.4 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 61.2 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline F3 fe & 32.1 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 60.1 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline F4 la & 36.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 59.8 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline F5 litela & 35.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 60.3 \(\pm\) 2.5 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different superscript letters within the same column indicate significant differences among formulations (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean and standard deviation of brightness (\({}^{\circ}\)), internal transmittance (nm), of the different films after one week at 53% relative humidity and 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **DPPH IC\({}_{50}\) (mL EO/ mg DPPH)** & **ABTS IC\({}_{50}\) (mL EO/ mg DPPH)** \\ \hline EO\({}_{\text{li}}\) & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline EO\({}_{\text{fe}}\) & 0.042 \(\pm\) 0.003 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.0081 \(\pm\) 0.0003 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline EO\({}_{\text{la}}\) & 0.029 \(\pm\) 0.002 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.0052 \(\pm\) 0.0002 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline  & DPPH IC\({}_{50}\) (mg film/mg DPPH) & ABTS IC\({}_{50}\) (mg film/mg DPPH) \\ \hline F1 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline F2 li & 38 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.06 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline F3 fe & 10.05 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline F4 la & 6.67 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline F5 litela & 14.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.6\(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different superscript letters within the same column indicate significant differences among formulations (\(p<0.05\)). The samples represent: EO\({}_{\text{li}}\) (essential oil of lime), EO\({}_{\text{fe}}\) (essential oil of fennel) and EO\({}_{\text{la}}\) (essential oil of lavender).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Mean values and standard deviation of DPPH IC\({}_{50}\) and ABTS IC\({}_{50}\) of the films and, lime (li), fennel (fe), and lavender (la) essential oils. 2-yl)cyclohex-1-ene) [44; 45]. The antioxidant activity of films containing EOli was also observed in previous studies using 5 to 50 \(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro\mathrm{g}}\)/mL concentrations.