Abstract
McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples were coated with several concentrations of Prolong, a sucrose-fatty acid ester, or Nutri-Save, a polysaccharide, and stored in air at 0 °C for 120–50 d or in air at 20 °C for 14 d. Retention of flesh firmness and acidity were generally better in coated fruit than in control fruit during the 3-yr study. Non-coated fruit stored under CA for the same periods were superior in overall quality than coated fruit stored in air. Core flush and scald were lower in coated McIntosh fruit but core flush and breakdown were slightly higher in coated Delicious apples. The higher concentrations of coating materials caused significant skin discoloration (purplish hue) in McIntosh and Spartan. Discoloration was less severe in Delicious apples. Ripening of the fruit under low and high humidity at 20 °C did not affect quality parameters. Sensory quality was not affected by the coating materials. Key words:Malus domestica, firmness, titratable acidity, skin discoloration, disorders, sensory attributes
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
Coatings generally improved flesh firmness retention and acidity.
- Taxon
- apples
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- coated fruite0
- Outcome
- Retention of flesh firmness and aciditye0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- control fruite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Retention of flesh firmness and acidity were generally better in coated fruit than in control fruit”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled atmosphere noncoated apples had better overall quality than coated apples stored in air.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- Non-coated fruit stored under CAe0
- Outcome
- overall qualitye0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- coated fruit stored in aire0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Non-coated fruit stored under CA for the same periods were superior in overall quality than coated fruit stored in air.”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Coatings lowered core flush and scald in McIntosh.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Material
- McIntoshe0
- Treatment
- coatede0
- Outcome
- Core flush and scalde0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Core flush and scald were lower in coated McIntosh fruit”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Coatings slightly increased core flush and breakdown in Delicious.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Deliciouse0
- Treatment
- coatede0
- Outcome
- core flush and breakdowne0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“core flush and breakdown were slightly higher in coated Delicious apples”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher coating concentrations significantly discolored McIntosh and Spartan skin.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Material
- McIntosh and Spartane0
- Treatment
- higher concentrations of coating materialse0
- Outcome
- skin discoloration (purplish hue)e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher concentrations of coating materials caused significant skin discoloration (purplish hue) in McIntosh and Spartan.”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Discoloration was less severe in Delicious apples.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Material
- Deliciouse0
- Outcome
- Discoloratione0
- Direction
- less severee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Discoloration was less severe in Delicious apples.”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Low versus high humidity ripening did not change quality parameters.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- low and high humidity at 20 °Ce0
- Outcome
- quality parameterse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ripening of the fruit under low and high humidity at 20 °C did not affect quality parameters.”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Coatings did not affect sensory quality.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- coating materialse0
- Outcome
- Sensory qualitye0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sensory quality was not affected by the coating materials.”
e1“McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
t0“The effect of edible coatings on storage quality of McIntosh, Delicious and Spartan apples”
The same questions in other papers
storage · quality: general · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →storage · quality: postharvest · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 93 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
114 papers more in this group
See all 118 papers →humidity · quality: general · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
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.