Abstract
The aim of this study was to measure the gas permeability of edible films using a homemade experimental apparatus and to determine the respiration rate of tomatoes (L. esculentun var. Cerasiforme) without (NC) and with (CC) edible coating at different temperatures. Permeability was determined using an experimental device according to the ASTM D1434 method and the apparatus was validated using permeability data from a synthetic film obtained using an Oxtran equipment. The coating applied to the tomatoes was based on hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC). Permeability values found to oxygen (O2) for polyethylene/ low-density polyethylene, polyamide/ polyethylene, and polyamide/ ethylene vinyl alcohol-based synthetic film were 2.02x10 -12 , 2.09x10 -12 , and 4.81x10 -11 mol µm m - ² s -1 Pa -1 , respectively. These results were compared with permeability data obtained by the Oxtran equipment and no significant difference (p<0.05) was found. The permeability values of the coating used were 2.11x10 -10 and 2.19x10 -9 mol µm m - ² s -1 Pa -1 for O2 and carbon dioxide (CO2), respectively. Regarding the respiration rate, the edible coating showed a significant difference (p<0.05) in O2 consumption at temperatures of 10 °C, 15 °C and 20 °C. However, the difference was not significant (p<0.05) for the production of CO2 at all temperatures studied. The results showed that the homemade experimental unit was efficient to measure the permeability of edible films and the coating used decreased the respiration rate of cherry tomatoes as compared to the control.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Oxygen permeability of the polyethylene/ low-density polyethylene synthetic film measured with the homemade apparatus was 2.02x10 -12 mol um m-2 s-1 Pa-1.
Verbatim
e0“Permeability values found to oxygen (O2) for polyethylene/ low-density polyethylene, polyamide/ polyethylene, and polyamide/ ethylene vinyl alcohol-based synthetic film were 2.02x10 -12 , 2.09x10 -12 , and 4.81x10 -11”
Claim · model-written summary
Oxygen permeability of the polyamide/ polyethylene synthetic film measured with the homemade apparatus was 2.09x10 -12 mol um m-2 s-1 Pa-1.
Verbatim
e0“Permeability values found to oxygen (O2) for polyethylene/ low-density polyethylene, polyamide/ polyethylene, and polyamide/ ethylene vinyl alcohol-based synthetic film were 2.02x10 -12 , 2.09x10 -12 , and 4.81x10 -11”
Claim · model-written summary
Oxygen permeability of the polyamide/ ethylene vinyl alcohol-based synthetic film synthetic film measured with the homemade apparatus was 4.81x10 -11 mol um m-2 s-1 Pa-1.
Verbatim
e0“Permeability values found to oxygen (O2) for polyethylene/ low-density polyethylene, polyamide/ polyethylene, and polyamide/ ethylene vinyl alcohol-based synthetic film were 2.02x10 -12 , 2.09x10 -12 , and 4.81x10 -11”
Claim · model-written summary
The HPMC-based coating had an oxygen permeability of 2.11x10 -10 mol um m-2 s-1 Pa-1.
Verbatim
e0“The permeability values of the coating used were 2.11x10 -10 and 2.19x10 -9”
Claim · model-written summary
The HPMC-based coating had a carbon dioxide permeability of 2.19x10 -9 mol um m-2 s-1 Pa-1.
Verbatim
e0“The permeability values of the coating used were 2.11x10 -10 and 2.19x10 -9”
Claim · model-written summary
Permeability values measured with the homemade apparatus did not differ significantly from those obtained with the Oxtran equipment, and the apparatus was efficient for measuring edible film permeability.
Verbatim
e0“no significant difference (p<0.05) was found”
e1“obtained by the Oxtran equipment”
e2“the homemade experimental unit was efficient to measure the permeability of edible films”
Claim · model-written summary
The edible coating significantly changed oxygen consumption of cherry tomatoes at 10, 15 and 20 C.
- Taxon
- Cherry Tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformet0 - Treatment
- edible coatinge0
- Outcome
- O2 consumptione0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the edible coating showed a significant difference (p<0.05) in O2 consumption”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
The difference in CO2 production of cherry tomatoes with and without edible coating was not significant at any temperature studied.
- Taxon
- Cherry TomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformet0
- Treatment
- edible coatinge1
- Outcome
- production of CO2e0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
- Qualifier
- at all temperatures studiede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the difference was not significant (p<0.05) for the production of CO2 at all temperatures studied”
e1“with (CC) edible coating”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating decreased the respiration rate of cherry tomatoes compared with the control.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- the coating usede0
- Outcome
- respiration ratee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coating used decreased the respiration rate of cherry tomatoes as compared to the control”
The same questions in other papers
storage · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →storage · physiology: respiration · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.