ArticlePolymers2020
Traditional Sensory Evaluation and Bionic Electronic Nose as Innovative Tools for the Packaging Performance Evaluation of Chitosan Film.
Article in Polymers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of the composition, characteristics, and antifungal properties of cutin in goji berry fruits at different developmental stages.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Development of a Chitosan-Based Film from Shellfish Waste for the Preservation of Various Cheese Types during Storage.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inspired by the natural epidermis of animals and plants with antioxidant and antibacterial properties, the aim of this research was to characterize and analyze the effects of the chitosan concentrations on properties of glycerol plasticized chitosan (GPC) film and to investigate the suitability of sensory evaluation and bionic electronic nose (b-electronic nose) detection to assess the freshness of ground beef packaged in the GPC film. The increase in chitosan concentration resulted in an increase in solubility value, total color differences and color intensity of chitosan films. The water vapor permeability (WVP) of the GPC films decreased with the increasing of the chitosan concentration and then increased at higher chitosan concentrations. Longer storage time led to poorer freshness of the ground beef and the GPC film could keep beef samples fresher and delay the deterioration of the beef. Both the traditional sensory evaluation and b-electronic nose technology were fit for evaluating the quality and shelf-life of ground beef, which could advantageously be applied in the future for analyzing other bionic food packaging materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.