4.7 Article

Microbial shelf stability assessment of osmotically dehydrated smoky apples

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 61-69

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.12.012

关键词

Osmo-convective dehydration; Smoky apples; Liquid smoke; Quality; Microbial growth

资金

  1. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, McIntire Stennis project [0222863, 1007044]
  2. West Virginia University (WVU) Extension Service-Families and Health Programs
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF)'s ADVANCE IT Program [HRD-1007978]
  4. Northeast Center to Advance Food Safety- Special Projects Grant Program
  5. NIFA [0222863, 595643, 812853, 1007044] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The infusion of Refined Liquid Smoke (RLS) during osmotic dehydration in apples slices was performed and its effect on some selected quality attributes (color, texture, and microbial load) of resulting apples was evaluated over a storage period under vacuum and non-vacuum packaging. Prior to hot air drying at 74 degrees C, fresh apple slices were pretreated via osmotic dehydration using either 42% w/w sugar solution or 42% w/w sugar solution with 1% food grade refined liquid smoke (RLS). The quality attributes were measured at room temperature during a storage period of five months. For control, quality attributes of convectively dried apples with no osmotic dehydration pretreatment were used. The result showed that dried apple slices pretreated in pure sugar solution retain the color of fruit better than untreated dried samples, while samples infused with RLS showed a characteristic brown coloration. Additionally, RLS infused dried apples showed better textural properties when compared with the control. In all samples, significant microbial reduction (below 5 log CFU/g) was recorded throughout the storage period. However, RLS infused dried apples showed the highest microbial growth reduction and the control showed the worst microbial growth reduction in a non-vacuum package.

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