Abstract
Abstract The use of edible films could be considered as a good alternative for application of antimicrobial and antioxidant agents in the food industry. In this study, the effect of A diantum capillus‐veneris extract, which has been incorporated into fresh‐cut pear starch films, on the microbial growth and antioxidant status of fresh‐cut pears was investigated. The films with various extract concentrations (0.0, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 % v/v) were evaluated regarding their thickness, moisture content, transparency, antibacterial and antioxidant activity. Moisture content and transparency properties of films have been affected significantly ( P < 0.05) by all of the examined concentrations of the extracts; in addition, the extracts increased the antioxidant capacity of films which was prepared from starch. No significant differences ( P < 0.05) were observed for the thickness among the films with different extract concentrations. The films with various extract concentrations showed inhibition zones against E scherichia coli O 157 : H 7, S taphylococcus aureus , P seudomonas aeruginosa and B acillus cereus . Fresh‐cut pears were positively affected by the coating treatment, increasing their antioxidant status and decreasing bacterial and fungal contamination. These results demonstrated that the development of an edible film formulated with A . capillus‐veneris extract can be applicable to preserve fresh‐cut pear quality. Practical Applications The incorporation of natural additives such as herb extract into food matrices can be achieved through the use of edible films. Such films may function as an encapsulation or to deliver additives to food. Thus, they are a good alternative for incorporating protective antimicrobial and antioxidant agents onto the surface of food.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Moisture content and transparency of starch films were significantly affected by all examined concentrations of the extract.
- Taxon
- pear
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=60)
Pyrus communise1 - Treatment
- examined concentrations of the extractse2
- Outcome
- Moisture content and transparency properties of filmse2
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Poirier_Fleurs_et_feuilles.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“fresh‐cut pear starch films”
e2“Moisture content and transparency properties of films have been affected significantly ( P < 0.05) by all of the examined concentrations of the extracts”
Claim · model-written summary
The extracts increased the antioxidant capacity of starch films.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- extractse3
- Outcome
- antioxidant capacity of filmse3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“fresh‐cut pear starch films”
e3“in addition, the extracts increased the antioxidant capacity of films which was prepared from starch”
Claim · model-written summary
Film thickness did not differ significantly among the extract concentrations.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- different extract concentrationse4
- Outcome
- thicknesse4
- Direction
- No significant differencese4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“fresh‐cut pear starch films”
e4“No significant differences ( P < 0.05) were observed for the thickness among the films with different extract concentrations”
Claim · model-written summary
Films with various extract concentrations showed inhibition zones against four bacteria.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communise1
- Treatment
- various extract concentrationse5
- Interactor
- E scherichia coli O 157 : H 7e5other
- Second interactor
- S taphylococcus aureuse5other
- Outcome
- inhibition zonese5
- Qualifier
- P seudomonas aeruginosa and B acillus cereuse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“fresh‐cut pear starch films”
e5“The films with various extract concentrations showed inhibition zones against E scherichia coli O 157 : H 7, S taphylococcus aureus , P seudomonas aeruginosa and B acillus cereus”
Claim · model-written summary
Coating fresh-cut pears increased their antioxidant status.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e6“Fresh‐cut pears were positively affected by the coating treatment, increasing their antioxidant status and decreasing bacterial and fungal contamination.”
Claim · model-written summary
Coating fresh-cut pears decreased bacterial and fungal contamination.
- Taxon
- Fresh‐cut pearse6
- Treatment
- coating treatmente6
- Outcome
- bacterial and fungal contaminatione6
- Direction
- decreasinge6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e6“Fresh‐cut pears were positively affected by the coating treatment, increasing their antioxidant status and decreasing bacterial and fungal contamination.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that an edible film with the extract can be applied to preserve fresh-cut pear quality.
- Taxon
- pearPyrus communise7
- Outcome
- preserve fresh‐cut pear qualitye7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“These results demonstrated that the development of an edible film formulated with A . capillus‐veneris extract can be applicable to preserve fresh‐cut pear quality”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · quality: phytochemicals · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
storage · molecular: metabolites · Pyrus (pears)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.