Abstract
Abstract In present study, the effects of orange peel essential oil and ultrasonic treatment on properties of corn starch based edible coating and films including their effects on the shelf life of citrus (Kinnow) fruits are investigated. The ultrasonic approach and essential oil significantly improves the quality characteristics of edible coating formulations, stability, and rheological behaviour of coating materials by reducing the particle size, including antimicrobial activity. The particle size of the coating materials reduces from 2495 nm (control) to 298.8 nm by ultrasonication treatment with improved stability (−39.251 mV) as well as antimicrobial activity. The tensile strength (720 N) and solubility (32.40%) of the CSEOU edible film are also improved as compared to CSEO and CS edible films. The coating formulation enriched with essential oil and ultrasonic treatment (CSEOU) improves the shelf‐life of Kinnow by retarding weight loss (PLW) and microbial load, as well as maintaining higher acidity (TA), total soluble solids (TSS), and higher antioxidant activity. CSEOU treated samples indicate lowest weight loss (24.57%), pH (3.89) with higher TA (3.999%), firmness (494.229 N), phenolic (26.17 mg 100 g −1 ), flavonoid (34.11 mg 100 g −1 ), antioxidant (49.04%), and antimicrobial activity against A. niger , E. coli and S. aureus as compared to other samples.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU coating retarded Kinnow weight loss and microbial load.
Verbatim
e0“The coating formulation enriched with essential oil and ultrasonic treatment (CSEOU) improves the shelf‐life of Kinnow by retarding weight loss (PLW) and microbial load”
e1“as compared to other samples”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU maintained higher acidity, soluble solids, and antioxidant activity in Kinnow.
Verbatim
e0“CSEOU) improves the shelf‐life of Kinnow by retarding weight loss (PLW) and microbial load, as well as maintaining higher acidity (TA), total soluble solids (TSS), and higher antioxidant activity.”
e1“as compared to other samples”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow had the lowest weight loss, 24.57%.
Verbatim
e0“CSEOU treated samples indicate lowest weight loss (24.57%)”
e1“as compared to other samples”
e2“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow had the lowest pH, 3.89.
Verbatim
e0“pH (3.89) with higher TA”
e1“CSEOU treated samples indicate lowest weight loss (24.57%), pH (3.89)”
e2“as compared to other samples”
e3“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow had higher titratable acidity of 3.999%.
Verbatim
e0“higher TA (3.999%)”
e1“CSEOU treated samples”
e2“as compared to other samples”
e3“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow had higher firmness of 494.229 N.
Verbatim
e0“higher TA (3.999%), firmness (494.229 N)”
e1“CSEOU treated samples”
e2“as compared to other samples”
e3“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow had higher phenolic content of 26.17 mg 100 g −1.
Verbatim
e0“higher TA (3.999%), firmness (494.229 N), phenolic (26.17 mg 100 g −1 )”
e1“CSEOU treated samples”
e2“as compared to other samples”
e3“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow had higher flavonoid content of 34.11 mg 100 g −1.
Verbatim
e0“flavonoid (34.11 mg 100 g −1 )”
e1“with higher TA (3.999%), firmness (494.229 N), phenolic (26.17 mg 100 g −1 ), flavonoid (34.11 mg 100 g −1 )”
e2“CSEOU treated samples”
e3“as compared to other samples”
e4“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow had higher antioxidant activity of 49.04%.
Verbatim
e0“antioxidant (49.04%)”
e1“with higher TA (3.999%), firmness (494.229 N), phenolic (26.17 mg 100 g −1 ), flavonoid (34.11 mg 100 g −1 ), antioxidant (49.04%)”
e2“CSEOU treated samples”
e3“as compared to other samples”
e4“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
CSEOU Kinnow samples had antimicrobial activity against three named microbes.
Verbatim
e0“antimicrobial activity against A. niger , E. coli and S. aureus”
e1“CSEOU treated samples”
e2“Kinnow by retarding weight loss”
The same questions in other papers
storage · molecular: metabolites · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →storage · quality: phytochemicals · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →storage · quality: sugar starch · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →storage · quality: postharvest · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →botanical · molecular: metabolites · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
physical treatment · soil: biology · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
physical treatment · quality: sugar starch · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
physical treatment · molecular: metabolites · Citrus reticulata (tangerine)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.