Extending storage life of mango Mangifera indica L using a new edible wax formulation incorporated with hexanal and cinnamon bark oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two formulations of bees wax-based edible coatings with added anti-ripening and antifungal compounds, C5 (hexanal and cinnamon bark oil) and C6 (cinnamon bark oil only), were developed and tested on mangoes stored at low temperature (13.5 °C ± 2 °C) for quality attributes including internal CO2 accumulation and marketability. The particle size distribution of the waxes and the surface morphology of the coating were also assessed. Our results demonstrate a low rate of disease incidence with higher marketability in wax-treated fruits after two weeks of storage at the low temperature compared to untreated controls (p < .05). Internal CO2 accumulation in the wax-coated mangoes was high compared to un-waxed controls indicating the formation of a semi-permeable coating around the fruit. No significant differences (p < .05) in other quality parameters such as fruit colour, fruit firmness, and pH were observed in wax-treated fruits compared to controls. However, significantly higher (p < .05) fruit acidity with lower total soluble solid content was observed in wax-coated fruits after one week of storage indicating a delay in the ripening process. No off-flavours were reported for the wax-coated fruits by the sensory panellists.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".