Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/184215 |
Resumo: | Effects of plasticizer types and whey protein concentrate (WPC) as coatings were evaluated on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days. Eggs were coated with WPC at 8 % solution combined with the plasticizers glycerol (GLY), sorbitol (SOR), and propylene glycol (PRO). The eggs were stored at 20 °C. Weight loss, Haugh Unit (HU), albumen and yolk pH, and yolk index (YI) were evaluated weekly from day 0 to 42 days. After, electron microscopy of the eggshell structure was performed. The data was submitted to the analysis of variance and the effects of treatment, storage time, and the interaction between these factors were evaluated. There was significant interaction between factors (treatment and periods) for weight loss (p < 0.0001), HU (p < 0.0001), albumen (p < 0.0001), and yolk pH (p < 0.0001), and YI (p < 0.0001). After 42 days, uncoated eggs showed greater weight loss (5.4 %), compared to WPC+GLY, (3.8 %), WPC+SOR (3.3 %) and WPC+PRO (3.9 %). Similar results were verified for HU at 42 days of storage. Uncoated eggs showed HU of 58.46 (B), while coated eggs showed higher values: WPC+GLY – 66.58 (A), WPC+SOR – 68.79 (A), and WPC + PRO – 71.53 (A). The plasticizers GLY, SOR and PRO, associated with WPC, demonstrated effectiveness in maintaining the quality of eggs throughout the 42 days of storage. However, WPC+SOR showed superiority in preserving quality integrity of eggs. This result can be related to the chemical structure of SOR, making the combination more efficient for storage. |
id |
USP-18_263078196dbd448844966070b32ded30 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.usp.br:article/184215 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-18 |
network_name_str |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 daysegg qualityglycerolpropylene glycolsorbitolEffects of plasticizer types and whey protein concentrate (WPC) as coatings were evaluated on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days. Eggs were coated with WPC at 8 % solution combined with the plasticizers glycerol (GLY), sorbitol (SOR), and propylene glycol (PRO). The eggs were stored at 20 °C. Weight loss, Haugh Unit (HU), albumen and yolk pH, and yolk index (YI) were evaluated weekly from day 0 to 42 days. After, electron microscopy of the eggshell structure was performed. The data was submitted to the analysis of variance and the effects of treatment, storage time, and the interaction between these factors were evaluated. There was significant interaction between factors (treatment and periods) for weight loss (p < 0.0001), HU (p < 0.0001), albumen (p < 0.0001), and yolk pH (p < 0.0001), and YI (p < 0.0001). After 42 days, uncoated eggs showed greater weight loss (5.4 %), compared to WPC+GLY, (3.8 %), WPC+SOR (3.3 %) and WPC+PRO (3.9 %). Similar results were verified for HU at 42 days of storage. Uncoated eggs showed HU of 58.46 (B), while coated eggs showed higher values: WPC+GLY – 66.58 (A), WPC+SOR – 68.79 (A), and WPC + PRO – 71.53 (A). The plasticizers GLY, SOR and PRO, associated with WPC, demonstrated effectiveness in maintaining the quality of eggs throughout the 42 days of storage. However, WPC+SOR showed superiority in preserving quality integrity of eggs. This result can be related to the chemical structure of SOR, making the combination more efficient for storage.Universidade de São Paulo. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz2021-03-23info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/18421510.1590/1678-992X-2020-0271Scientia Agricola; v. 78 n. Supl. 1 (2021); e20200271Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 Núm. Supl. 1 (2021); e20200271Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 No. Supl. 1 (2021); e202002711678-992X0103-9016reponame:Scientia Agrícola (Online)instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/184215/170580Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Agricolahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPires, Paula Gabriela da Silva Franceschi, Carolina Haubert Bavaresco, Caroline Leuven, Aline Fernanda Rodrigues Andretta, Ines 2021-04-22T15:04:09Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/184215Revistahttp://revistas.usp.br/sa/indexPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpscientia@usp.br||alleoni@usp.br1678-992X0103-9016opendoar:2021-04-22T15:04:09Scientia Agrícola (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days |
title |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days |
spellingShingle |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days Pires, Paula Gabriela da Silva egg quality glycerol propylene glycol sorbitol |
title_short |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days |
title_full |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days |
title_fullStr |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days |
title_full_unstemmed |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days |
title_sort |
Plasticizer types and whey protein coatings on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days |
author |
Pires, Paula Gabriela da Silva |
author_facet |
Pires, Paula Gabriela da Silva Franceschi, Carolina Haubert Bavaresco, Caroline Leuven, Aline Fernanda Rodrigues Andretta, Ines |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Franceschi, Carolina Haubert Bavaresco, Caroline Leuven, Aline Fernanda Rodrigues Andretta, Ines |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pires, Paula Gabriela da Silva Franceschi, Carolina Haubert Bavaresco, Caroline Leuven, Aline Fernanda Rodrigues Andretta, Ines |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
egg quality glycerol propylene glycol sorbitol |
topic |
egg quality glycerol propylene glycol sorbitol |
description |
Effects of plasticizer types and whey protein concentrate (WPC) as coatings were evaluated on internal quality and shelf life of eggs stored for 42 days. Eggs were coated with WPC at 8 % solution combined with the plasticizers glycerol (GLY), sorbitol (SOR), and propylene glycol (PRO). The eggs were stored at 20 °C. Weight loss, Haugh Unit (HU), albumen and yolk pH, and yolk index (YI) were evaluated weekly from day 0 to 42 days. After, electron microscopy of the eggshell structure was performed. The data was submitted to the analysis of variance and the effects of treatment, storage time, and the interaction between these factors were evaluated. There was significant interaction between factors (treatment and periods) for weight loss (p < 0.0001), HU (p < 0.0001), albumen (p < 0.0001), and yolk pH (p < 0.0001), and YI (p < 0.0001). After 42 days, uncoated eggs showed greater weight loss (5.4 %), compared to WPC+GLY, (3.8 %), WPC+SOR (3.3 %) and WPC+PRO (3.9 %). Similar results were verified for HU at 42 days of storage. Uncoated eggs showed HU of 58.46 (B), while coated eggs showed higher values: WPC+GLY – 66.58 (A), WPC+SOR – 68.79 (A), and WPC + PRO – 71.53 (A). The plasticizers GLY, SOR and PRO, associated with WPC, demonstrated effectiveness in maintaining the quality of eggs throughout the 42 days of storage. However, WPC+SOR showed superiority in preserving quality integrity of eggs. This result can be related to the chemical structure of SOR, making the combination more efficient for storage. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-03-23 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/184215 10.1590/1678-992X-2020-0271 |
url |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/184215 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.1590/1678-992X-2020-0271 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.revistas.usp.br/sa/article/view/184215/170580 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Agricola http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Scientia Agricola http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade de São Paulo. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade de São Paulo. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Agricola; v. 78 n. Supl. 1 (2021); e20200271 Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 Núm. Supl. 1 (2021); e20200271 Scientia Agricola; Vol. 78 No. Supl. 1 (2021); e20200271 1678-992X 0103-9016 reponame:Scientia Agrícola (Online) instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
collection |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Agrícola (Online) - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
scientia@usp.br||alleoni@usp.br |
_version_ |
1800222794624008192 |