Abstract
Coatings have been investigated as a means of slowing weight loss and helping to preserve quality in blueberries but reported results have been inconsistent with the inadequate presentation of the impact of coatings on blueberry appearance. In this study, we compare the ability to limit weight loss, along with the effect on appearance, of several previously studied coatings for blueberries and attempt to identify reasons why coatings have not been more successful in limiting weight loss in blueberries. In a two-year study, coatings were applied either as a spray or a dip, depending on the nature of the coating, and included 1% chitosan (CH) with and without either 1% or 2% oleic acid (OA), 1% Semperfresh (SF), 2% sodium caseinate (SC), and carnauba wax (CAR). None of the coatings reduced weight loss in either year of the study and sometimes enhanced it. CH, CH + OA, CAR, and SF greatly altered the appearance of the berries by removing all or a part of the waxy bloom. SC also did this to some degree but was generally better at maintaining the natural appearance. It was found that coating application did not effectively limit weight loss through either the cuticle or stem end of the blueberries. Loss of the bloom on the blueberry surface, confirmed visually and by scanning electron microscopy, occurred during coating application, but was found to not influence coating effectiveness. Using CH + OA as an example, it was found that increasing the amount of handling during the drying process significantly increased subsequent weight loss relative to blueberries with minimal handling. This indicates that careful handling during the coating process is important for coating success.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
No coating reduced blueberry weight loss in either year.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“None of the coatings reduced weight loss in either year of the study and sometimes enhanced it”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
Claim · model-written summary
Some coatings enhanced weight loss.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“None of the coatings reduced weight loss in either year of the study and sometimes enhanced it”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
Claim · model-written summary
Chitosan coating removed all or part of the waxy bloom.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“CH, CH + OA, CAR, and SF greatly altered the appearance of the berries by removing all or a part of the waxy bloom”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
Claim · model-written summary
Chitosan plus oleic acid removed all or part of the waxy bloom.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“CH, CH + OA, CAR, and SF greatly altered the appearance of the berries by removing all or a part of the waxy bloom”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
Claim · model-written summary
Carnauba wax removed all or part of the waxy bloom.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“CH, CH + OA, CAR, and SF greatly altered the appearance of the berries by removing all or a part of the waxy bloom”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
Claim · model-written summary
Semperfresh removed all or part of the waxy bloom.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“CH, CH + OA, CAR, and SF greatly altered the appearance of the berries by removing all or a part of the waxy bloom”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
Claim · model-written summary
Sodium caseinate partly removed bloom but generally maintained natural appearance better.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“SC also did this to some degree but was generally better at maintaining the natural appearance”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
Claim · model-written summary
Coatings did not effectively limit weight loss through the blueberry cuticle.
- Taxon
- blueberriese0
- Treatment
- coating applicatione0
- Outcome
- weight loss through either the cuticlee0
- Direction
- did not effectively limite0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“coating application did not effectively limit weight loss through either the cuticle or stem end of the blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
Coatings did not effectively limit weight loss through the blueberry stem end.
- Taxon
- blueberriese0
- Treatment
- coating applicatione0
- Outcome
- stem end of the blueberriese0
- Direction
- did not effectively limite0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“coating application did not effectively limit weight loss through either the cuticle or stem end of the blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
Bloom loss occurred during coating application.
Verbatim
e0“Loss of the bloom on the blueberry surface, confirmed visually and by scanning electron microscopy, occurred during coating application”
Claim · model-written summary
Bloom loss did not influence coating effectiveness.
Verbatim
e0“Loss of the bloom on the blueberry surface, confirmed visually and by scanning electron microscopy, occurred during coating application, but was found to not influence coating effectiveness”
Claim · model-written summary
More handling during CH + OA drying significantly increased later weight loss relative to minimal handling.
Verbatim
e0“increasing the amount of handling during the drying process significantly increased subsequent weight loss relative to blueberries with minimal handling”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend careful handling during coating.
Verbatim
e0“careful handling during the coating process is important for coating success”
t0“Blueberry Coating”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: postharvest · VacciniumPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →storage · quality: postharvest · VacciniumPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 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.