Paper · 2022 · Osmaniye Korkut Ata Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi

Evaluation of the Effect of Chitosan-Based Edible Film and Coating Material on Dried Mulberry

Eda GÜNEŞ; Haticetül Kübra ERÇETİN

4
claims
5
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The purpose of applying coating methods is to slow down the chemical deterioration that will occur in foods. The effect of the model organism, which is considered as a warehouse pest, on the coated mulberry was determined. At the end of storage, weight, texture and sensory analyzes of the fruit were made. Sensory analyzes were evaluated by 20 semi-trained panelists in terms of color, appearance, hardness, taste, smell, general taste. In terms of weight, it was observed that the weight of 1% chitosan coated mulberries was higher. In terms of texture, although the groups were statistically similar, it was determined that the hardness of the samples in the environment with storage pests decreased somewhat. According to sensory data, it was determined that the panelists had a positive approach towards 0.2% coated mulberry. As a result, the edible coating is considered to be usable on mulberries.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weight of 1% chitosan coated mulberries was higher.

Taxon
mulberriesMoruse0
Treatment
1% chitosan coatede0
Outcome
weighte0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Morus
Morus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Jean-Pol GRANDMONT · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the weight of 1% chitosan coated mulberries was higher.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 479–534 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativenot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hardness decreased somewhat in storage pest environments, although groups were statistically similar.

Taxon
mulberryt0
Treatment
environment with storage pestse0
Interactor
storage pestse0pest
Outcome
hardnesse0
Direction
decreased somewhate0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“although the groups were statistically similar, it was determined that the hardness of the samples in the environment with storage pests decreased somewhat.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 556–712 · show in text ↑
t0

“mulberry”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 85–93 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Panelists responded positively to 0.2% coated mulberry.

Taxon
mulberrye0
Treatment
0.2% coatede0
Outcome
positive approache0

Verbatim

e0

“the panelists had a positive approach towards 0.2% coated mulberry.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 763–830 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors considered edible coating usable on mulberries.

Taxon
mulberriesMoruse0
Outcome
edible coating is considered to be usablee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Morus
Morus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Jean-Pol GRANDMONT · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the edible coating is considered to be usable on mulberries.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–904 · show in text ↑

chitosan · growth · Morus (mulberry trees)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

storage · quality: postharvest · Morus (mulberry trees)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 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.