Paper · 2020 · Journal of Food Safety

Effectiveness of edible coatings to inhibit browning and inactivate foodborne pathogens on fresh‐cut apples

Tony Z. Jin; Wenxuan Chen; Joshua B. Gurtler; et al.

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
27
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Multiple formulations of edible coating solutions were developed and evaluated for their ability to maintain the quality and minimize populations of foodborne bacteria on fresh‐cut apples. Fresh‐cut apples were artificially inoculated with Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes , and dip‐treated with coating solutions. Changes in populations of pathogens and molds and yeasts (M&Y) were evaluated after solution treatments and during storage at 4°C for 35 days. Changes in color, texture firmness, and weight loss during storage were also determined. Among the formulations, the solution containing 1% of three organic acids (acetic, lactic, and levulinic acids), 2% N‐acetyl‐l‐cysteine or L‐cysteine with 0.5% chitosan demonstrated the best effectiveness for the simultaneous reduction of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms, control of browning, and maintenance of the quality of fresh‐cut apples. The treated apple slices had nondetectable pathogens and M&Y (<1 log CFU) and the least quality changes for 35‐day storage. The developed solutions can be used at processing plants, retail stores, or homes to protect fresh‐cut apples or other fresh‐cut fruits and vegetables from microbiological and quality deterioration.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The organic-acid, cysteine, and chitosan formulation best reduced pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms.

Taxon
fresh‐cut applest0
Treatment
the solution containing 1% of three organic acids (acetic, lactic, and levulinic acids), 2% N‐acetyl‐l‐cysteine or L‐cysteine with 0.5% chitosane0
Outcome
pathogenic and spoilage microorganismse0
Direction
reductione0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the solution containing 1% of three organic acids (acetic, lactic, and levulinic acids), 2% N‐acetyl‐l‐cysteine or L‐cysteine with 0.5% chitosan demonstrated the best effectiveness for the simultaneous reduction of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–870 · show in text ↑
t0

“fresh‐cut apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The formulation best controlled browning and maintained fresh-cut apple quality.

Taxon
fresh‐cut applese0
Treatment
the solution containing 1% of three organic acids (acetic, lactic, and levulinic acids), 2% N‐acetyl‐l‐cysteine or L‐cysteine with 0.5% chitosane0
Outcome
control of browning, and maintenance of the qualitye0
Direction
best effectivenesse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the solution containing 1% of three organic acids (acetic, lactic, and levulinic acids), 2% N‐acetyl‐l‐cysteine or L‐cysteine with 0.5% chitosan demonstrated the best effectiveness for the simultaneous reduction of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms, control of browning, and maintenance of the quality of fresh‐cut apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 617–943 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated apple slices had undetectable pathogens and molds and yeasts for 35 days.

Outcome
nondetectable pathogens and M&Ye0
Value
<1 log CFUe0
Qualifier
35‐day storagee0

Not reportedDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The treated apple slices had nondetectable pathogens and M&Y (<1 log CFU) and the least quality changes for 35‐day storage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1067 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated apple slices had the least quality change during 35-day storage.

Outcome
quality changese0
Direction
leaste0
Qualifier
35‐day storagee0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The treated apple slices had nondetectable pathogens and M&Y (<1 log CFU) and the least quality changes for 35‐day storage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 945–1067 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose using the solutions to protect fresh-cut produce against microbial and quality deterioration.

Taxon
fresh‐cut applese0
Outcome
protect fresh‐cut apples or other fresh‐cut fruits and vegetables from microbiological and quality deterioratione0

Verbatim

e0

“The developed solutions can be used at processing plants, retail stores, or homes to protect fresh‐cut apples or other fresh‐cut fruits and vegetables from microbiological and quality deterioration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1069–1266 · show in text ↑

organic acid · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

chitosan · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.