| |
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Pecuária Sul. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cppsul.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Pecuária Sul. |
|
Data corrente: |
05/06/2013 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
06/06/2013 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Anais de Congresso |
|
Autoria: |
YOKOO, M. J. I.; CARDOSO, F. F. |
|
Afiliação: |
MARCOS JUN ITI YOKOO, CPPSUL; FERNANDO FLORES CARDOSO, CPPSUL. |
|
Título: |
Imputação na seleção genômica. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2013 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE ZOOTECNIA, 23., 2013, Foz do Iguaçu. Zootecnia do futuro: produção animal sustentável. Foz do Iguaçu: ABZ: Unioeste: UTFPR, 2013. |
|
Páginas: |
p. 5003-5010. |
|
Idioma: |
Português |
|
Notas: |
ZOOTEC 2013. |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Seleção genômica. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 00533nam a2200145 a 4500
001 1959444
005 2013-06-06
008 2013 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aYOKOO, M. J. I.
245 $aImputação na seleção genômica.$h[electronic resource]
260 $aIn: CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE ZOOTECNIA, 23., 2013, Foz do Iguaçu. Zootecnia do futuro: produção animal sustentável. Foz do Iguaçu: ABZ: Unioeste: UTFPR$c2013
300 $ap. 5003-5010.
500 $aZOOTEC 2013.
653 $aSeleção genômica
700 1 $aCARDOSO, F. F.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Pecuária Sul (CPPSUL) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Instrumentação. |
|
Data corrente: |
30/11/2020 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
16/08/2022 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 2 |
|
Autoria: |
MIRANDA, M.; SUN, X.; FERENCE, C.; PLOTTO, A.; BAI, J.; WOOD, D.; ASSIS, O. B. G. de; FERREIRA, M. D. |
|
Afiliação: |
ODILIO BENEDITO GARRIDO DE ASSIS, CNPDIA; MARCOS DAVID FERREIRA, CNPDIA. |
|
Título: |
Nano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2021 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,v. 146, n. 1, 2021. |
|
Páginas: |
40-49 |
|
ISSN: |
0003-1062 |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS04972-20 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Coatings are generally applied to fruit as microemulsions, but nanoemulsions are still experimental. ‘Nova’ mandarins (Citrus reticulata) were coated with shellac or carnauba (Copernica cerifera) microemulsions or an experimental carnauba nanoemulsion; these were compared with an uncoated control during storage for 7 days at 20 °C. Coatings were also tested on ‘Unique’ tangors (C. reticulata × C. sinensis) stored for 14 days at 10 °C followed by a simulated marketing period of 7 days at 20 °C. Fruit quality evaluations included weight loss, gloss, soluble solids (SS), titratable acidity (TA), pH, SS/TA ratio, internal CO2, O2, fruit juice ethanol, and other aroma volatile content. Sensory visual shine and tangerine (C. reticulata) flavor rank tests after storage were conducted, followed by an off-flavor rating. The carnauba waxes resulted in less weight loss compared with the uncoated control and shellac coating during both experiments. There were no differences in gloss measurements of ‘Nova’ mandarins; however, shellac-coated fruit ranked highest for shine in a sensory test. For ‘Unique’ tangors, initially, shellac showed the highest gloss (shine) measurement; however, at the end of storage, the nanoemulsion exhibited the highest gloss, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. Similarly, after storage, the nanoemulsion ranked highest for visual shine, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. There were only minor differences in SS, TA, pH, and SS/TA among treatments. The internal CO2 gas concentration and juice ethanol content generally increased and internal O2 decreased during storage. The highest levels of CO2 and ethanol were found for the shellac treatment, as was the lowest O2, indicating anaerobic respiration. There were only minor differences among the other coating treatments; however, they were only sometimes different from those of the control, which generally had the highest O2, lowest CO2, and lowest ethanol. Shellac and the carnauba microemulsion also altered the volatile profile more than the control and the nanoemulsion did, especially for ‘Unique’ tangors. For ‘Unique’ tangors, the control and nanoemulsion ranked highest for tangerine flavor and had the least off-flavor at the end of storage. Among the coatings tested, the carnauba emulsions demonstrated less water loss, imparted more sustainable gloss, and caused less ethanol production than shellac, with the nanoemulsion exhibiting higher gloss measurements, less modifications of the atmosphere and volatile profile, and, consequently, better flavor compared with the microemulsion. MenosCoatings are generally applied to fruit as microemulsions, but nanoemulsions are still experimental. ‘Nova’ mandarins (Citrus reticulata) were coated with shellac or carnauba (Copernica cerifera) microemulsions or an experimental carnauba nanoemulsion; these were compared with an uncoated control during storage for 7 days at 20 °C. Coatings were also tested on ‘Unique’ tangors (C. reticulata × C. sinensis) stored for 14 days at 10 °C followed by a simulated marketing period of 7 days at 20 °C. Fruit quality evaluations included weight loss, gloss, soluble solids (SS), titratable acidity (TA), pH, SS/TA ratio, internal CO2, O2, fruit juice ethanol, and other aroma volatile content. Sensory visual shine and tangerine (C. reticulata) flavor rank tests after storage were conducted, followed by an off-flavor rating. The carnauba waxes resulted in less weight loss compared with the uncoated control and shellac coating during both experiments. There were no differences in gloss measurements of ‘Nova’ mandarins; however, shellac-coated fruit ranked highest for shine in a sensory test. For ‘Unique’ tangors, initially, shellac showed the highest gloss (shine) measurement; however, at the end of storage, the nanoemulsion exhibited the highest gloss, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. Similarly, after storage, the nanoemulsion ranked highest for visual shine, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. There were only minor differences in SS,... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Aroma volatiles; Mandarin; Tangor. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/218376/1/P-Nano-and-Micro-Carnauba-Wax-Emulsions.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 03477naa a2200277 a 4500
001 2127218
005 2022-08-16
008 2021 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a0003-1062
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS04972-20$2DOI
100 1 $aMIRANDA, M.
245 $aNano- and Micro- Carnauba Wax Emulsions versus Shellac Protective Coatings on Postharvest Citrus Quality.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2021
300 $a40-49
520 $aCoatings are generally applied to fruit as microemulsions, but nanoemulsions are still experimental. ‘Nova’ mandarins (Citrus reticulata) were coated with shellac or carnauba (Copernica cerifera) microemulsions or an experimental carnauba nanoemulsion; these were compared with an uncoated control during storage for 7 days at 20 °C. Coatings were also tested on ‘Unique’ tangors (C. reticulata × C. sinensis) stored for 14 days at 10 °C followed by a simulated marketing period of 7 days at 20 °C. Fruit quality evaluations included weight loss, gloss, soluble solids (SS), titratable acidity (TA), pH, SS/TA ratio, internal CO2, O2, fruit juice ethanol, and other aroma volatile content. Sensory visual shine and tangerine (C. reticulata) flavor rank tests after storage were conducted, followed by an off-flavor rating. The carnauba waxes resulted in less weight loss compared with the uncoated control and shellac coating during both experiments. There were no differences in gloss measurements of ‘Nova’ mandarins; however, shellac-coated fruit ranked highest for shine in a sensory test. For ‘Unique’ tangors, initially, shellac showed the highest gloss (shine) measurement; however, at the end of storage, the nanoemulsion exhibited the highest gloss, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. Similarly, after storage, the nanoemulsion ranked highest for visual shine, although it was not different from that of the microemulsion. There were only minor differences in SS, TA, pH, and SS/TA among treatments. The internal CO2 gas concentration and juice ethanol content generally increased and internal O2 decreased during storage. The highest levels of CO2 and ethanol were found for the shellac treatment, as was the lowest O2, indicating anaerobic respiration. There were only minor differences among the other coating treatments; however, they were only sometimes different from those of the control, which generally had the highest O2, lowest CO2, and lowest ethanol. Shellac and the carnauba microemulsion also altered the volatile profile more than the control and the nanoemulsion did, especially for ‘Unique’ tangors. For ‘Unique’ tangors, the control and nanoemulsion ranked highest for tangerine flavor and had the least off-flavor at the end of storage. Among the coatings tested, the carnauba emulsions demonstrated less water loss, imparted more sustainable gloss, and caused less ethanol production than shellac, with the nanoemulsion exhibiting higher gloss measurements, less modifications of the atmosphere and volatile profile, and, consequently, better flavor compared with the microemulsion.
653 $aAroma volatiles
653 $aMandarin
653 $aTangor
700 1 $aSUN, X.
700 1 $aFERENCE, C.
700 1 $aPLOTTO, A.
700 1 $aBAI, J.
700 1 $aWOOD, D.
700 1 $aASSIS, O. B. G. de
700 1 $aFERREIRA, M. D.
773 $tJournal of the American Society for Horticultural Science,v. 146$gn. 1, 2021.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Instrumentação (CNPDIA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
