Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , |
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 |