4.2 Article

Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on overall quality parameters of watermelon juice

期刊

FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 197-207

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1082013212442194

关键词

Watermelon juice; high hydrostatic pressure; enzyme activity; browning; color; cloudiness

资金

  1. Talents Funds of Organization Department, Beijing Committee of CPC [2011D005003000007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High hydrostatic pressure as a kind of non-thermal processing might maintain the quality of thermo-sensitive watermelon juice. So, the effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatment on enzymes and quality of watermelon juice was investigated. After high hydrostatic pressure treatment, the activities of polyphenol oxidase, peroxidase, and pectin methylesterase of juice decreased significantly with the pressure (P < 0.05). Inactivation of polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase could be fitted by two-fraction model and that of pectin methylesterase could be described by first-order reaction model. Titratable acidity, pH, and total soluble solid of juice did not change significantly (P > 0.05). No significant difference was observed in lycopene and total phenolics after high hydrostatic pressure treatment when compared to the control (P > 0.05). Cloudiness and viscosity increased with pressure (P < 0.05) but did not change significantly with treatment time (P > 0.05). a(star)- and b(star)-value both unchanged after high hydrostatic pressure treatment (P > 0.05) while L-star-value increased but the values had no significant difference among treated juices. Browning degree after high hydrostatic pressure treatment decreased with increase in pressure and treatment time (P < 0.05). Through the comparison of total color difference values, high hydrostatic pressure had little effect on color of juice. The results of this study demonstrated the efficacy of high hydrostatic pressure in inactivating enzymes and maintaining the quality of watermelon 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

4.2
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