The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of edible coatings to preserve quality of lightly (and slightly) processed products
Abstract
Lightly processed agricultural products present a special problem to the food industry and to scientists involved in postharvest and food technology research. Light or minimal processing includes cutting, slicing, coring, peeling, trimming, or sectioning of agricultural produce. These products have an active metabolism that can result in deteriorative changes, such as increased respiration and ethylene production. If not controlled, these changes can lead to rapid senescence and general deterioration of the product. In addition, the surface water activity of cut fruits and vegetables is generally quite high, inviting microbial attack, which further reduces product stability. Methods for control of these changes are numerous and can include the use of edible coatings. Also mentioned in this review are coating of nut products, and dried, dehydrated, and freeze-dried fruits. Technically, these are not considered to be minimally processed, but many of the problems and benefits of coating these products are similar to coating lightly processed products. Generally, the potential benefits of edible coatings for processed or lightly processed produce is to stabilize the product and thereby extend product shelf life. More specifically, coatings have the potential to reduce moisture loss, restrict oxygen entrance, lower respiration, retard ethylene production, seal in flavor volatiles, and carry additives that retard discoloration and microbial growth.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kendra, D. F., & Hadwiger, L. A. (1984) · Experimental Mycology · doi:10.1016/0147-5975(84)90013-6 · Cited by 411
Effects of chitosan, pectic acid, lysozyme, and chitinase on the growth of several phytopathogens.
HIRANO, S., & NAGAO, N. (1989) · Agricultural and Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1271/bbb1961.53.3065 · Cited by 203
Cited by
New advances in extending the shelf-life of fresh-cut fruits: a review
Soliva-Fortuny, R. C., & Martı́n-Belloso, O. (2003) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/s0924-2244(03)00054-2 · Cited by 537
The microbiological safety of minimally processed vegetables
Francis, G. A., Thomas, C., & O'beirne, D. (1999) · International Journal of Food Science and Technology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2621.1999.00253.x · Cited by 485
HOSSEINI, M. H., RAZAVI, S. H., & MOUSAVI, M. A. (2009) · Journal of Food Processing and Preservation · doi:10.1111/j.1745-4549.2008.00307.x · Cited by 396
Ali, A., & Ahmed, S. (2018) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.8b01052 · Cited by 304
Effects of pre and postharvest chitosan treatments to control storage grey mold of table grapes
Romanazzi, G., Nigro, F., Ippolito, A., DiVenere, D., & Salerno, M. (2002) · Journal of Food Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb08737.x · Cited by 281
Metadata
- Authors
- Baldwin, E. A., Nisperos‐Carriedo, M. O., & Baker, R. A.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 509-524
- ISSN
- 1040-8398 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-7852
- OpenAlex
- W2097734000
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Use of edible coatings to preserve quality of lightly (and slightly) processed products. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10408399509527713
- The paper
- Baldwin, E. A., Nisperos‐Carriedo, M. O., & Baker, R. A. (1995). Use of edible coatings to preserve quality of lightly (and slightly) processed products. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408399509527713
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.