Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Evaluation of base ingredients for edible coating of fresh-cut apples to preserve the quality during cold storage.


ABSTRACT: This study evaluated various ingredients and their combinations to develop an optimal edible coating for improving the quality of perishable fresh-cut apples during cold storage. Among 10 edible coating ingredients tested for color retention at 10 °C, potato starch was the most effective, followed by chitosan and carboxymethyl cellulose, as reflected in the browning index after 7 days: 32.67 ± 0.87 for potato starch, 46.05 ± 2.91 for chitosan, 51.82 ± 4.72 for carboxymethyl cellulose, and 23.70 ± 1.84 for the control, consisting of fresh-cut apples that were not stored. To optimize edible coating, a mixed solution containing 1% ascorbic acid (AA), with or without calcium chloride (CC), and 0.5-2% potato starch was applied for 1 min, and the formulation with 1% potato starch, 1% AA, 1% CC, and 2% glycerol proved most effective, preserving appearance, color, browning index, and firmness at levels comparable to the control over 15 days of storage at 10 °C.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10068-025-02036-1.

SUBMITTER: Jang AR 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC12894580 | biostudies-literature | 2026 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Evaluation of base ingredients for edible coating of fresh-cut apples to preserve the quality during cold storage.

Jang A-Ra AR   Song Hana H   Choo Euijin E   Lee Sun-Young SY  

Food science and biotechnology 20251121 3


This study evaluated various ingredients and their combinations to develop an optimal edible coating for improving the quality of perishable fresh-cut apples during cold storage. Among 10 edible coating ingredients tested for color retention at 10 °C, potato starch was the most effective, followed by chitosan and carboxymethyl cellulose, as reflected in the browning index after 7 days: 32.67 ± 0.87 for potato starch, 46.05 ± 2.91 for chitosan, 51.82 ± 4.72 for carboxymethyl cellulose, and 23.70   ...[more]

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC6943539 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC6098764 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9736120 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC10899680 | biostudies-literature