4.7 Article

The Effect of Ultraviolet Light on Microbial Inactivation and Quality Attributes of Apple Juice

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 680-686

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11947-010-0365-x

关键词

Ultraviolet; Apple juice; Escherichia coli; Listeria innocua; Sensory evaluation; Non-thermal processing

资金

  1. Non-Commissioned Food Institutional Research Measure
  2. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-thermal technologies such as UV irradiation can offer advantages for minimal processing of transparent beverages. In this study, reconstituted apple juice was exposed to UV light in a continuous laboratory scale system at energy dosages ranging from 2.66 to 53.10 J/cm(2) by changing the exposure time. Treated juices were then evaluated for microbial inactivation and selected physical and chemical attributes. Product quality was further assessed by sensory evaluation using a 30-member consumer panel. Microbiological analysis was performed by inoculating apple juice with Escherichia coli K12 and Listeria innocua and microbial numbers were counted pre- and post-processing. UV energy levels did not affect pH, A degrees Brix, or total phenols content, but decreased non-enzymatic browning (p < 0.01) and antioxidant capacity (p < 0.05) compared to unprocessed juice. A colour-lightening effect was noted with increasing energy dose. All UV treatments applied (2.66 J/cm(2) and above) resulted in a reduction below the detection level (< 1 log cfu/ml) for both E. coli and L. innocua in apple juice. Sensory evaluation showed that samples treated with energy dosages up to 10.62 J/cm(2) were comparable to the control in terms of acceptability, though higher dosages produced adverse effects in terms of flavour and colour. Based on these results, UV treatment with low energy dosages could represent a valid alternative to thermal processing to eliminate pathogenic microorganisms while maintaining quality in reconstituted apple juice.

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