4.5 Article

Comparative study on shelf life of orange juice processed by high intensity pulsed electric fields or heat treatment

Journal

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 222, Issue 3-4, Pages 321-329

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-005-0073-3

Keywords

high intensity pulsed electric fields; orange juice; shelf life; microbiological stability; quality parameters

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of high intensity pulsed electric fields (HIPEF) processing (35 kV/cm for 1,000 mu s; bipolar 4-mu s pulses at 200 Hz) on the microbial shelf life and quality-related parameters of orange juice were investigated during storage at 4 and 22 degrees C and compared to traditional heat pasteurization (90 degrees C for 1 min) and an unprocessed juice. HIPEF treatment ensured the microbiological stability of orange juice stored for 56 days under refrigeration but spoilage by naturally occurring microorganisms was detected within 30 days of storage at 22 degrees C. Pectin methyl esterase (PME) of HIPEF-treated orange juice was inactivated by 81.6% whereas heat pasteurization achieved a 100% inactivation. Peroxidase (POD) was destroyed more efficiently with HIPEF processing (100%) than with the thermal treatment (96%). HIPEF-treated orange juice retained better color than heat-pasteurized juice throughout storage but no differences (p < 0.05) were found between treatments in pH, acidity and degrees Brix. Vitamin C retention was outstandingly higher in orange juice processed by HIPEF fitting recommended daily intake standards throughout 56 days storage at 4 degrees C, whereas heat-processed juice exhibited a poor vitamin C retention beyond 14 days storage (25.2-42.8%). The antioxidant capacity of both treated and untreated orange juice decreased slightly during storage. Heat treatments resulted in lower free-radical scavenging values but no differences (p < 0.05) were found between HIPEF-processed and unprocessed orange juice.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available