Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: MIRANDA, M.
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: SUN, X., FERENCE, C., PLOTTO, A., BAI, J., WOOD, D., ASSIS, O. B. G. de, FERREIRA, M. D.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)
Texto Completo: http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1127218
https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS04972-20
Resumo: Coatings are generally applied to fruit as microemulsions, but nanoemulsions are still experimental. ‘Nova’ mandarins (Citrus reticulata) were coated with shellac or carnauba (Copernica cerifera) microemulsions or an experimental carnauba nanoemulsion; these were compared with an uncoated control during storage for 7 days at 20 °C. Coatings were also tested on ‘Unique’ tangors (C. reticulata × C. sinensis) stored for 14 days at 10 °C followed by a simulated marketing period of 7 days at 20 °C. Fruit quality evaluations included weight loss, gloss, soluble solids (SS), titratable acidity (TA), pH, SS/TA ratio, internal CO2, O2, fruit juice ethanol, and other aroma volatile content. Sensory visual shine and tangerine (C. reticulata) flavor rank tests after storage were conducted, followed by an off-flavor rating. The carnauba waxes resulted in less weight loss compared with the uncoated control and shellac coating during both experiments. There were no differences in gloss measurements of ‘Nova’ mandarins; however, shellac-coated fruit ranked highest for shine in a sensory test. For ‘Unique’ tangors, initially, shellac showed the highest gloss (shine) measurement; however, at the end of storage, the nanoemulsion exhibited the highest gloss, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. Similarly, after storage, the nanoemulsion ranked highest for visual shine, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. There were only minor differences in SS, TA, pH, and SS/TA among treatments. The internal CO2 gas concentration and juice ethanol content generally increased and internal O2 decreased during storage. The highest levels of CO2 and ethanol were found for the shellac treatment, as was the lowest O2, indicating anaerobic respiration. There were only minor differences among the other coating treatments; however, they were only sometimes different from those of the control, which generally had the highest O2, lowest CO2, and lowest ethanol. Shellac and the carnauba microemulsion also altered the volatile profile more than the control and the nanoemulsion did, especially for ‘Unique’ tangors. For ‘Unique’ tangors, the control and nanoemulsion ranked highest for tangerine flavor and had the least off-flavor at the end of storage. Among the coatings tested, the carnauba emulsions demonstrated less water loss, imparted more sustainable gloss, and caused less ethanol production than shellac, with the nanoemulsion exhibiting higher gloss measurements, less modifications of the atmosphere and volatile profile, and, consequently, better flavor compared with the microemulsion.
id EMBR_d5b61a45837762973073f3ebcb7631e2
oai_identifier_str oai:www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br:doc/1127218
network_acronym_str EMBR
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)
repository_id_str 2154
spelling Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.Aroma volatilesMandarinTangorCoatings are generally applied to fruit as microemulsions, but nanoemulsions are still experimental. ‘Nova’ mandarins (Citrus reticulata) were coated with shellac or carnauba (Copernica cerifera) microemulsions or an experimental carnauba nanoemulsion; these were compared with an uncoated control during storage for 7 days at 20 °C. Coatings were also tested on ‘Unique’ tangors (C. reticulata × C. sinensis) stored for 14 days at 10 °C followed by a simulated marketing period of 7 days at 20 °C. Fruit quality evaluations included weight loss, gloss, soluble solids (SS), titratable acidity (TA), pH, SS/TA ratio, internal CO2, O2, fruit juice ethanol, and other aroma volatile content. Sensory visual shine and tangerine (C. reticulata) flavor rank tests after storage were conducted, followed by an off-flavor rating. The carnauba waxes resulted in less weight loss compared with the uncoated control and shellac coating during both experiments. There were no differences in gloss measurements of ‘Nova’ mandarins; however, shellac-coated fruit ranked highest for shine in a sensory test. For ‘Unique’ tangors, initially, shellac showed the highest gloss (shine) measurement; however, at the end of storage, the nanoemulsion exhibited the highest gloss, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. Similarly, after storage, the nanoemulsion ranked highest for visual shine, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. There were only minor differences in SS, TA, pH, and SS/TA among treatments. The internal CO2 gas concentration and juice ethanol content generally increased and internal O2 decreased during storage. The highest levels of CO2 and ethanol were found for the shellac treatment, as was the lowest O2, indicating anaerobic respiration. There were only minor differences among the other coating treatments; however, they were only sometimes different from those of the control, which generally had the highest O2, lowest CO2, and lowest ethanol. Shellac and the carnauba microemulsion also altered the volatile profile more than the control and the nanoemulsion did, especially for ‘Unique’ tangors. For ‘Unique’ tangors, the control and nanoemulsion ranked highest for tangerine flavor and had the least off-flavor at the end of storage. Among the coatings tested, the carnauba emulsions demonstrated less water loss, imparted more sustainable gloss, and caused less ethanol production than shellac, with the nanoemulsion exhibiting higher gloss measurements, less modifications of the atmosphere and volatile profile, and, consequently, better flavor compared with the microemulsion.ODILIO BENEDITO GARRIDO DE ASSIS, CNPDIA; MARCOS DAVID FERREIRA, CNPDIA.MIRANDA, M.SUN, X.FERENCE, C.PLOTTO, A.BAI, J.WOOD, D.ASSIS, O. B. G. deFERREIRA, M. D.2021-07-05T13:01:01Z2021-07-05T13:01:01Z2020-11-302021info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article40-49Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,v. 146, n. 1, 2021.0003-1062http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1127218https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS04972-20enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)instacron:EMBRAPA2021-07-05T13:01:11Zoai:www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br:doc/1127218Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/oai/requestopendoar:21542021-07-05T13:01:11falseRepositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/oai/requestcg-riaa@embrapa.bropendoar:21542021-07-05T13:01:11Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
title Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
spellingShingle Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
MIRANDA, M.
Aroma volatiles
Mandarin
Tangor
title_short Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
title_full Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
title_fullStr Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
title_full_unstemmed Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
title_sort Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
author MIRANDA, M.
author_facet MIRANDA, M.
SUN, X.
FERENCE, C.
PLOTTO, A.
BAI, J.
WOOD, D.
ASSIS, O. B. G. de
FERREIRA, M. D.
author_role author
author2 SUN, X.
FERENCE, C.
PLOTTO, A.
BAI, J.
WOOD, D.
ASSIS, O. B. G. de
FERREIRA, M. D.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv ODILIO BENEDITO GARRIDO DE ASSIS, CNPDIA; MARCOS DAVID FERREIRA, CNPDIA.
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv MIRANDA, M.
SUN, X.
FERENCE, C.
PLOTTO, A.
BAI, J.
WOOD, D.
ASSIS, O. B. G. de
FERREIRA, M. D.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Aroma volatiles
Mandarin
Tangor
topic Aroma volatiles
Mandarin
Tangor
description Coatings are generally applied to fruit as microemulsions, but nanoemulsions are still experimental. ‘Nova’ mandarins (Citrus reticulata) were coated with shellac or carnauba (Copernica cerifera) microemulsions or an experimental carnauba nanoemulsion; these were compared with an uncoated control during storage for 7 days at 20 °C. Coatings were also tested on ‘Unique’ tangors (C. reticulata × C. sinensis) stored for 14 days at 10 °C followed by a simulated marketing period of 7 days at 20 °C. Fruit quality evaluations included weight loss, gloss, soluble solids (SS), titratable acidity (TA), pH, SS/TA ratio, internal CO2, O2, fruit juice ethanol, and other aroma volatile content. Sensory visual shine and tangerine (C. reticulata) flavor rank tests after storage were conducted, followed by an off-flavor rating. The carnauba waxes resulted in less weight loss compared with the uncoated control and shellac coating during both experiments. There were no differences in gloss measurements of ‘Nova’ mandarins; however, shellac-coated fruit ranked highest for shine in a sensory test. For ‘Unique’ tangors, initially, shellac showed the highest gloss (shine) measurement; however, at the end of storage, the nanoemulsion exhibited the highest gloss, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. Similarly, after storage, the nanoemulsion ranked highest for visual shine, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. There were only minor differences in SS, TA, pH, and SS/TA among treatments. The internal CO2 gas concentration and juice ethanol content generally increased and internal O2 decreased during storage. The highest levels of CO2 and ethanol were found for the shellac treatment, as was the lowest O2, indicating anaerobic respiration. There were only minor differences among the other coating treatments; however, they were only sometimes different from those of the control, which generally had the highest O2, lowest CO2, and lowest ethanol. Shellac and the carnauba microemulsion also altered the volatile profile more than the control and the nanoemulsion did, especially for ‘Unique’ tangors. For ‘Unique’ tangors, the control and nanoemulsion ranked highest for tangerine flavor and had the least off-flavor at the end of storage. Among the coatings tested, the carnauba emulsions demonstrated less water loss, imparted more sustainable gloss, and caused less ethanol production than shellac, with the nanoemulsion exhibiting higher gloss measurements, less modifications of the atmosphere and volatile profile, and, consequently, better flavor compared with the microemulsion.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-11-30
2021-07-05T13:01:01Z
2021-07-05T13:01:01Z
2021
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,v. 146, n. 1, 2021.
0003-1062
http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1127218
https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS04972-20
identifier_str_mv Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,v. 146, n. 1, 2021.
0003-1062
url http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1127218
https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS04972-20
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 40-49
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)
instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)
instacron:EMBRAPA
instname_str Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)
instacron_str EMBRAPA
institution EMBRAPA
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)
collection Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv cg-riaa@embrapa.br
_version_ 1794503506638405632