4.7 Article

Postharvest quality of peeled prickly pear fruit treated with acetic acid and chitosan

Journal

POSTHARVEST BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 92, Issue -, Pages 139-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2014.01.023

Keywords

Antioxidant activity; Chitosan coating; Phenolic compounds; Prickly pear

Funding

  1. National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) in Mexico

Ask authors/readers for more resources

White (Opuntia albicarpa) and red (Opuntia ficus-indica) prickly pears were peeled and submerged in chitosan solutions containing different concentrations of acetic acid (1.0 or 2.5%) to obtain ready-to-eat prickly pear products. Some physicochemical (pH, total soluble solids, color, weight loss, and firmness), antioxidant (phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity), microbiological (aerobic mesophile bacteria and yeasts plus molds), and sensory (color, firmness, aroma, flavor, and overall acceptance) characteristics were assessed during 16 d of storage at 4 +/- 1 degrees C and 85 +/- 5% of relative humidity. Chitosan coating containing 1.0% of acetic acid delayed weight loss, maintained firmness and color of white prickly pear during the storage time. Most of the sensory values for white prickly pear coated with chitosan containing 1.0 and 2.5% of acetic acid were higher than those obtained for uncoated fruit. Red prickly pear coated with chitosan with 2.5% acetic acid did not maintain its sensory quality throughout 16 d of storage. Chitosan coating with 1 and 2.5% acetic acid did not affect phenolics content and antioxidant activity in white prickly pears; however, an increase of these compounds was observed in red prickly pears. Microbe populations were unchanged in white prickly pears (< 10 CFU g(-1)) and slightly increased in red prickly pears (10-500 CFU g(-1)) coated with chitosan during the entire storage time. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available