Postharvest Quality of Tommy Atkins Mangoes Coated With Cassava Starch and Chitosan-Based Coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate postharvest quality of Tommy Atkins mangoes treated with starch cassava and chitosan based coatings. Mango fruits were collected at physiological maturity. After cleaning, weighing and identification, fruits were submitted to the respective treatments and stored for 35 days in the Laboratório de Tecnologia de Alimentos, with weekly evaluations under refrigeration 13±1 ºC and 90±5% RH. The experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design, in factorial scheme with four treatments: control, cassava starch (CS), chitosan (CH), and cassava starch/chitosan (CS/CH) at a concentration of 2%, and six storage periods (0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 days) with four replications. Fruits were evaluated in: appearance, weight loss, external color: luminosity and ΔE, pulp firmness, titratable acidity, soluble solids content, starch, total soluble sugars, reducing sugars and sucrose. Data were submitted to analysis of variance using SISVAR software and compared by Scott-Knott test at 5% of probability. It was observed a reduction in appearance, pulp firmness, titratable acidity, starch and reducing sugars and increase in weight loss, luminosity, ΔE, soluble solids, total soluble sugars and non-reducing sugars during storage. CS/CH coated fruits reported higher notes of appearance, lower weight loss and maintained color. Quality of physicochemical attributes: soluble solids, starch, total soluble sugars, reducing sugars and non-reducing sugars were strongly retarded.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".