4.7 Article

Changes in Quality Attributes During Storage of High-Pressure and Thermally Processed Pineapple Puree

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 768-791

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11947-015-1663-0

关键词

Bioactive compounds; Color change; Degradation kinetics; Enzyme activity; Microbial population; Sensory evaluation

资金

  1. Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary issue of the pineapple puree processing industry is its limited stability. The study compares the quality changes in high-pressure and thermally processed pineapple puree at different storage conditions and estimates the shelf-life. The untreated (S1) and treated samples (S2, S3, and S4 treated at 600 MPa/50 A degrees C/13 min, 600 MPa/70 A degrees C/20 min, and 0.1 MPa/95 A degrees C/12 min, respectively) packed in ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) and multi-layered (ML) polyethylene terephthalate (PET) pouches were stored up to 125 days at 5, 15, and 25 A degrees C. The total color change (a dagger E*) and browning index during storage increased according to zero-order kinetic model, whereas ascorbic acid (AA), total phenolics, and total antioxidant capacity followed the first-order decay. The overall sensory acceptability (OA) of S2 was higher than both S3 and S4 at 5 A degrees C, and it dropped rapidly at 15 and 25 A degrees C. The activity of polyphenol oxidase and pectin methylesterase in S3 and S4 was less than 10 % up to 120 days at 5 A degrees C. The consistency (kappa) and residual enzyme activity in S2 decreased with storage duration and temperatures. For estimating the shelf-life, the change in OA was crucial for S2 and S3, whereas retention of AA served as the critical parameter for S4. The sample S2 packed in ML pouch was found to be the best sample having the shelf-life (microbial count < 6-Log cfu g(-1), a dagger E* < 12, OA > 5, and AA > 200 mg kg(-1)) of 120, 50, and 25 days at 5, 15, and 25 A degrees C, respectively.

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