Abstract
ABSTRACT The effect of three application rates of an edible cellulose‐based coating on sensory, microbiological and chemical quality of mini‐peeled carrots was studied during storage at 2°C. Carrots treated with edible coating had reduced levels of white surface discoloration, and higher sensory scores for orange color intensity, fresh carrot aroma, fresh carrot flavor, and overall acceptability than non‐coated carrots. Edible coating treatment did not affect levels of total aerobic microorganisms, yeast, mold or lactobacilli. Oxygen, carbon dioxide and ethanol levels in packages, and sugar and soluble phenolic content of mini‐peeled carrots were not affected by coating treatment. An edible coating application rate of 0.23–0.49 L/min protected against surface discoloration and retained quality during storage at 2°C.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Coated carrots had less white surface discoloration than non-coated carrots.
- Taxon
- Carrots
Daucus carotae0 - Treatment
- edible coatinge0
- Outcome
- white surface discoloratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- non‐coated carrotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carrots treated with edible coating had reduced levels of white surface discoloration, and higher sensory scores for orange color intensity, fresh carrot aroma, fresh carrot flavor, and overall acceptability than non‐coated carrots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Coated carrots scored higher for orange colour, aroma and flavour than non-coated carrots.
- Taxon
- CarrotsDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- edible coatinge0
- Outcome
- orange color intensity, fresh carrot aroma, fresh carrot flavore0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- non‐coated carrotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carrots treated with edible coating had reduced levels of white surface discoloration, and higher sensory scores for orange color intensity, fresh carrot aroma, fresh carrot flavor, and overall acceptability than non‐coated carrots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Coated carrots scored higher for overall acceptability than non-coated carrots.
- Taxon
- CarrotsDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- edible coatinge0
- Outcome
- overall acceptabilitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- non‐coated carrotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carrots treated with edible coating had reduced levels of white surface discoloration, and higher sensory scores for orange color intensity, fresh carrot aroma, fresh carrot flavor, and overall acceptability than non‐coated carrots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Coating did not affect total aerobic microorganisms, yeast or mold levels.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae1
- Treatment
- Edible coating treatmente0
- Outcome
- levels of total aerobic microorganisms, yeast, molde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Edible coating treatment did not affect levels of total aerobic microorganisms, yeast, mold or lactobacilli.”
e1“quality of mini‐peeled carrots”
Claim · model-written summary
Coating did not affect lactobacilli levels.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae1
- Treatment
- Edible coating treatmente0
- Outcome
- lactobacillie0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Edible coating treatment did not affect levels of total aerobic microorganisms, yeast, mold or lactobacilli.”
e1“quality of mini‐peeled carrots”
Claim · model-written summary
Coating did not affect package oxygen, carbon dioxide or ethanol levels.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- coating treatmente0
- Outcome
- Oxygen, carbon dioxide and ethanol levels in packagese0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oxygen, carbon dioxide and ethanol levels in packages, and sugar and soluble phenolic content of mini‐peeled carrots were not affected by coating treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Coating did not affect sugar or soluble phenolic content of mini-peeled carrots.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae0
- Treatment
- coating treatmente0
- Outcome
- sugar and soluble phenolic contente0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Oxygen, carbon dioxide and ethanol levels in packages, and sugar and soluble phenolic content of mini‐peeled carrots were not affected by coating treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
A 0.23–0.49 L/min coating rate protected carrots from discoloration and retained quality at 2°C.
- Taxon
- carrotsDaucus carotae1
- Treatment
- edible coating application rate of 0.23–0.49 L/mine0
- Outcome
- surface discoloration and retained qualitye0
- Direction
- protectede0
- Setting
- storage at 2°Ce0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An edible coating application rate of 0.23–0.49 L/min protected against surface discoloration and retained quality during storage at 2°C.”
e1“quality of mini‐peeled carrots”
The same questions in other papers
storage · molecular: metabolites · Daucus carota (carrot)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →storage · quality: general · Daucus carota (carrot)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →storage · quality: phytochemicals · Daucus carota (carrot)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.