Impact of a Carboxymethyl Cellulose Coating Incorporated with an Ethanolic Propolis Extract on the Quality Criteria of Chicken Breast Meat
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the demand for composite edible coatings has increased significantly as a new trend to confront the serious processing and storage problems that always arise regarding chicken meat. We aim to develop a carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) coating containing various concentrations (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4%) of an ethanolic propolis extract (EPE) to maintain the quality and extend the shelf life of chicken breast meat stored at 2 °C for 16 days. The influence of the CMC and EPE coating on the physicochemical and microbiological quality parameters of chicken breast meat, e.g., pH, color, metmyoglobin (MetMb), lipid oxidation (thiobarbituric acid reactive substance, TBARS), and microbiological and sensory analyses, was studied. Significantly lower weight loss and pH (p ≤ 0.05) were noted in the coated samples compared with the uncoated samples (control) over the storage period. MetMb content was significantly reduced (p ≤ 0.05) in the coated samples compared to the control. Additionally, the addition of EPE to CMC was more effective in inhibiting microbial growth, preventing lipid oxidation, and keeping the overall acceptability of coated chicken breast meat compared to the control. This work presents CMC and EPE as alternative preservatives to produce active packaging coatings.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it