4.7 Article

Effect of perforation-mediated modified atmosphere packaging and storage duration on physicochemical properties and microbial quality of fresh minimally processed 'Acco' pomegranate arils

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 911-918

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.06.040

关键词

Titratable acidity; Total soluble solids; Gas composition; Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)

资金

  1. South African Research Chairs Initiative of Department of Science and Technology
  2. National Research Foundation
  3. NRF Free-Standing Postdoctoral Fellowship [85243]
  4. Innovative Agricultural Research Initiative (iAGRI)
  5. Regional Universities Forum for capacity building in Agriculture (RUFORUM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effects of number of perforations (P-0, -3, -6 and -9 per 160.1 cm(2)) and storage duration on the physicochemical quality attributes and microbiological quality of fresh minimally processed pomegranate (Punica granatum L., cv. Acco) arils stored at 5 degrees C for 15 days. Arils were analysed for physicochemical quality attributes on day 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15. Microbial analyses for aerobic mesophilic bacteria, yeast and moulds were made on 0, 6,10 and 14 day, and the presence of Escherichia coli was tested before and at the end of storage. Headspace gas composition was significantly influenced by number of perforation. Highest CO2 accumulation was observed in non-perforated MAP, while 02 concentration increased with increase in number of perforations in PM-MAP. Highest decrease in total soluble solids (TSS) from 15.4 to 13.1 degrees Brix was observed in P-9 PM-MAP arils. Highest counts of aerobic mesophilic bacteria (5.5 log CFU g(-1)) and yeast and moulds (5.3 log CFU g(-1)) were observed in P-0 and P-9 PM-MAP. No E. coli were detected before and at the end of storage. Overall, P-3 and P-6 PM-MAPs better maintained quality attributes of pomegranate arils than P-0 and P-9. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据