Abstract
Chitosan is a unique natural alkaline polysaccharide known for its excellent biological compatibility and biodegradability. This study emphasizes the value of post-harvest treatments for strawberries using chitosan as a method of preservation. Chitosan was extracted from fish scales (Labeo rohita) through a chemical process that involved both demineralization and deproteinization, resulting in a 1.5 % solution in its natural state. Various assessments, including physiochemical (weight loss, pH, total soluble solid, acidity, vitamin C, reducing sugar,) microbial (mesophilic bacteria, yeast and mold), sensory, and data analyses, were performed on chitosan-treated apple samples over 25 days, with comparisons made against uncoated apple samples. The total yield of chitosan from fish scale was 13.33 %. The moisture, ash and pH of the extracted chitosan was found to be 2.3 %, 2.0 % and 7.0. The chitosan was then coated to apple samples, and the sample’s physical and chemical composition was retained when compared to the uncoated samples. After the 25th day of storage, the weight loss of the coated and uncoated samples was 7.98 % and 11.86 %, from 0.87 %. Microbial growth was also noticeably lower in the treated apples compared to the control samples. After the 25th day of storage, the mesophilic bacteria in coated and uncoated samples were 3 CFU/g and 149 CFU/g. Similarly, after the 25th day of storage, the yeast and mold in coated and uncoated samples was 3 CFU/g and 170 CFU/g respectively. In terms of sensory attributes, the coated apples did not deliver any distinct flavors or aromas, and they were accepted for storage up to 25 days, while uncoated apples were not accepted before 10 days. Chitosan-coated apples received a strong level of acceptance. Therefore, chitosan extracts can serve as effective natural additives for extending the shelf-life of apples
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Chitosan coating retained the physical and chemical composition of apple samples relative to uncoated samples.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae0 - Treatment
- chitosane0
- Outcome
- physical and chemical compositione0
- Direction
- retainede0
- Comparator
- uncoated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The chitosan was then coated to apple samples, and the sample’s physical and chemical composition was retained when compared to the uncoated samples.”
Claim · model-written summary
After 25 days, coated apple samples lost 7.98% weight versus 11.86% for uncoated samples.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- coatede0
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 7.98 %e0
- Qualifier
- 11.86 %e0
- Comparator
- uncoated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After the 25th day of storage, the weight loss of the coated and uncoated samples was 7.98 % and 11.86 %, from 0.87 %.”
t0“apple samples (Malus Domestica)”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbial growth was lower on chitosan treated apples than on controls.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- treated applese0
- Outcome
- Microbial growthe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- control samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Microbial growth was also noticeably lower in the treated apples compared to the control samples.”
Claim · model-written summary
At 25 days, coated apples had 3 CFU/g mesophilic bacteria versus 149 CFU/g in uncoated apples.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- coatede0
- Outcome
- mesophilic bacteriae0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 3 CFU/ge0
- Qualifier
- 149 CFU/ge0
- Comparator
- uncoated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After the 25th day of storage, the mesophilic bacteria in coated and uncoated samples were 3 CFU/g and 149 CFU/g.”
t0“apple samples (Malus Domestica)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 25 days, coated apples had 3 CFU/g yeast and mold versus 170 CFU/g in uncoated apples.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- coatede0
- Outcome
- yeast and molde0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 3 CFU/ge0
- Qualifier
- 170 CFU/ge0
- Comparator
- uncoated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the 25th day of storage, the yeast and mold in coated and uncoated samples was 3 CFU/g and 170 CFU/g respectively.”
t0“apple samples (Malus Domestica)”
Claim · model-written summary
Coated apples did not develop distinct flavors or aromas.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- coatede0
- Outcome
- did not deliver any distinct flavors or aromase0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coated apples did not deliver any distinct flavors or aromas”
Claim · model-written summary
Coated apples were accepted for storage up to 25 days, whereas uncoated apples were rejected before 10 days.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- coatede0
- Outcome
- accepted for storagee0
- Direction
- up toe0
- Value
- 25 dayse0
- Qualifier
- before 10 dayse0
- Comparator
- uncoated applese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“they were accepted for storage up to 25 days, while uncoated apples were not accepted before 10 days.”
Claim · model-written summary
Chitosan coated apples received strong acceptance.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- Chitosan-coatede0
- Outcome
- strong level of acceptancee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chitosan-coated apples received a strong level of acceptance.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose chitosan extracts as additives to extend apple shelf life.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- chitosan extractse0
- Outcome
- extending the shelf-life of applese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“chitosan extracts can serve as effective natural additives for extending the shelf-life of apples”
The same questions in other papers
chitosan · quality: general · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
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.