Research Article
Using Response Surface Methodology to Optimize Edible Coating Formulations to Delay Ripening and Preserve Postharvest Quality of Tomatoes
Table 1
Center composite design (CCD) and experimental data obtained for the response variables studied.
| Run | Independent variables | RR (%) | Chl a (μg/g) | Fir (N) | TFC (μg/ml) | TA (%) | CPE (kg/l) | CGA (%) | Time (min) |
| T1 | 0.83 | 5 | 30 | 46.67 | 7.02 | 3.91 | 59.64 | 0.275 | T2 | 0.83 | 15 | 10 | 53.33 | 5.47 | 4.00 | 74.58 | 0.352 | T3 | 0.83 | 15 | 30 | 40.00 | 7.80 | 4.00 | 78.79 | 0.291 | T4 | 0.51 | 5 | 30 | 46.67 | 5.57 | 3.77 | 86.04 | 0.293 | T5 | 0.83 | 5 | 10 | 46.67 | 6.15 | 3.93 | 76.47 | 0.293 | T6 | 0.51 | 5 | 10 | 70.00 | 6.97 | 3.98 | 61.11 | 0.298 | T7 | 0.51 | 15 | 10 | 66.67 | 8.37 | 3.93 | 37.45 | 0.283 | T8C | 0.67 | 10 | 20 | 36.67 | 8.37 | 4.00 | 40.92 | 0.278 | T9 | 0.51 | 15 | 30 | 36.67 | 9.84 | 3.76 | 51.44 | 0.259 | T10C | 0.67 | 10 | 20 | 35.26 | 8.20 | 3.99 | 40.89 | 0.276 | T11C | 0.67 | 10 | 20 | 37.36 | 8.60 | 3.97 | 40.29 | 0.279 | T12C | 0.67 | 10 | 20 | 35.46 | 8.82 | 4.00 | 40.79 | 0.272 | T13 | 0.67 | 0.955 | 20 | 36.67 | 3.65 | 3.86 | 49.54 | 0.299 | T14 | 0.67 | 10 | 1.91 | 63.33 | 6.55 | 4.00 | 64.90 | 0.345 | T15C | 0.67 | 10 | 20 | 36.56 | 8.68 | 4.00 | 40.12 | 0.279 | T16 | 0.381 | 10 | 20 | 50.00 | 11.98 | 3.90 | 57.85 | 0.26 | T17 | 0.67 | 19.05 | 20 | 40.00 | 9.38 | 4.00 | 39.44 | 0.305 | T18C | 0.67 | 10 | 20 | 35.76 | 8.48 | 3.99 | 40.61 | 0.271 | T19 | 0.67 | 10 | 38.09 | 33.33 | 8.30 | 3.75 | 67.06 | 0.300 | T20 | 0.959 | 10 | 20 | 46.67 | 7.63 | 4.00 | 72.69 | 0.292 |
|
|
CPE: concentration of water/ethanol pineapple peel extract, CGA: concentration of gum Arabic, C: center point, RR: ripening rate, Fir: firmness, TFC: total flavonoid content, TA: titratable acidity, Chl a: chlorophyll a.
|