4.6 Article

Preserving fresh fruit quality by low-dose electron beam processing for vending distribution channels

期刊

RADIATION PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
卷 168, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.108540

关键词

Electron beam; Vending; Fruits; Bioburden; Consumer

资金

  1. USDA-NIFA Hatch grant [H-8708]
  2. IAEA as part of the IAEA Coordinated Research Project, Use of irradiation for shelf-stable sterile foods for immunocompromised patients and other specific target groups [CRP-D62009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food vending is estimated to be a $20 billion industry in the United States. There is an untapped business opportunity to positively influence nutrition and health by positioning fresh fruits and vegetable items as healthy vending items in vending machines. The hypothesis was that low dose (<= 1 kGy) electron beam (eBeam) processing, alone or, in combination with Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) is effective for developing fresh produce-based vending items. Shelf-life, sensory attributes, and consumer acceptability are key metrics for healthy vending items. The experimental objectives were to evaluate low dose eBeam (<= 1 kGy) processing alone or along with MAP for red grapes, cherry tomatoes, and strawberries for reducing bioburden, while maintaining sensory attributes and consumer acceptability scores. The eBeam treatment at <= 1 kGy alone, or in combination with MAP suppressed bioburden by at least 1 to 2 log units over 21 day refrigerated storage as compared to untreated control samples. eBeam processing did not adversely affect the color or the firmness of the fruits. A consumer taste panel did not find any significant difference (P >= 0.05) in acceptability of eBeam processed fruits (compared to untreated samples) in terms of appearance, odor, color, firmness and flavor. Overall, the results suggest that eBeam at low doses (<= 1 kGy) alone or in combination with MAP can be a unique approach for developing healthy vending items.

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

4.6
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