4.1 Article

Development and optimization of methylcellulose-based edible coating using response surface methodology for improved quality management of ready-to-eat pomegranate arils

期刊

CYTA-JOURNAL OF FOOD
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 656-665

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19476337.2023.2274942

关键词

Salicylic acid; vegetable oil; emulsifiers; fresh-cut/minimally processed; total phenolic content; response surface methodology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the optimization of methylcellulose edible coating additives, including salicylic acid, canola oil, and tween-80, was conducted using response surface methodology to improve the quality management of pomegranate arils. The results showed that the selected additives and their interactions had significant effects on various quality parameters. The optimized conditions for the additives were determined, and the predicted responses matched well with experimental values, indicating the accuracy and suitability of the model.
In this study, the methylcellulose edible coating additives, namely, salicylic acid (SA) (1-2.5 mM), canola oil (0.05-0.1%) and tween-80 (0.05-0.1%) were optimized using RSM to improve quality management of pomegranate arils. The central composite design was used, and the response variables included mass loss (ML), total soluble solids (TSS), total phenolic content (TPC) and 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH scavenging activity). The results showed that ML was affected by the quadratic terms of canola oil, tween-80 and SA, whereas TSS was affected by the quadratic terms of canola oil and tween-80. The interaction of SA and canola oil showed a significant effect on TSS and TPC, whereas DPPH scavenging activity was affected by linear terms of SA and canola oil. The optimized conditions for the independent variables were 1.55 mM, 0.079% and 0.079% for SA, canola oil and tween-80, respectively. The predicted responses were consistent with experimental values, indicating the model accuracy and suitability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据