This article was downloaded by: [Pennsylvania State University]On: 11 August 2014, At: 12:51Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Food PropertiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ljfp20

Microbial, Physical, Chemical andSensory Qualities of Minimally Processedand Modified Atmosphere Packaged“Ready To Eat” Orange SegmentsEmel Karacay a & Zehra Ayhan aa Department of Food Engineering , Mustafa Kemal University ,Hatay, TurkeyPublished online: 19 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Emel Karacay & Zehra Ayhan (2010) Microbial, Physical, Chemical and SensoryQualities of Minimally Processed and Modified Atmosphere Packaged “Ready To Eat” Orange Segments,International Journal of Food Properties, 13:5, 960-971, DOI: 10.1080/10942910902927110

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942910902927110

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Food Properties, 13:960–971, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1094-2912 print / 1532-2386 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10942910902927110

MICROBIAL, PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL AND SENSORYQUALITIES OF MINIMALLY PROCESSED AND MODIFIEDATMOSPHERE PACKAGED “READY TO EAT” ORANGESEGMENTS

Emel Karacay and Zehra AyhanDepartment of Food Engineering, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey

Oranges were sanitized, dried, peeled and segmented. Undamaged segments were packedunder passive and active MAP with low and high oxygen in PP trays sealed with CPP/OPPfilm. Overall quality of the segments were monitored for 25 days at 4◦C. The results showedthat orange segments could be stored under passive and active MAP without significantmicrobial growth. There were slight changes in acidity and Brix (p ≤ 0.05) with no sig-nificant changes in pH and sugar. The hardness increased and color (L, a, b) decreasedduring storage. Orange segments remained in a commercially viable condition for 10 daysunder MAP.

Keywords: Modified atmosphere packaging, Minimal processing, Orange segments,Quality.

INTRODUCTION

Minimal processing has been defined as the handling preparation, packaging anddistribution of agricultural commodities in a fresh like state, and may include pro-cesses such as dicing, peeling, trimming, slicing and curing.[1] However, the quality ofminimally processed fruits rapidly changes during storage because of biological pro-cesses such as respiration, ripening and senescence.[2,3] The continuous respiration andmetabolism of minimally processed fruits can cause significant changes in the textural,color and flavor qualities.[3,4] Minimal processing may also increase microbial spoilageof fruit through transfer of skin microflora to fruit flesh where microorganisms can growrapidly.[5]

Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) is suggested to extend the storage lifeof fruits and vegetables by controlling respiration rate, senescence and ripening[6,7] byproviding low oxygen and high carbon dioxide levels in food packaging. In modifiedatmosphere (MA) applications, the O2 and CO2 concentrations are modified initially andchanges dynamically depending on the respiration rate of commodities and the permeabil-ity of the film surrounding the produce.[8,9] MAP can also decrease the rate of browningreactions due to reduced O2 level and elevated CO2 level in the surrounding atmosphere.[7]

Received 2 July 2008; accepted 27 March 2009.Address correspondence to Zehra Ayhan, Mustafa Kemal University, Tayfur Sokmen Campus, Faculty of

Agriculture Department of Food Engineering 31034 Hatay, Turkey. E-mail: zehra.ayhan@gmail.com

960

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF ORANGE SEGMENTS 961

Packaging under appropriate atmosphere conditions reduced respiration and decreasedethylene production, inhibited or delayed enzymatic reactions, alleviated physiologicaldisorders and preserved the product from quality losses.[8,10–12]

The application of MAP limited the microbial growth and enhanced the quality ofstrawberries,[13] fresh cut mangoes and pineapples.[14] Soliva-Fortuny and Martin-Bellasoreported that reduced levels of O2 combined with appropriate permeability of plasticpackage extended the microbiological shelf life of fresh cut pears for almost 3 weeksunder refrigerated storage.[10] Soliva-Fortuny, Elez-Martinez and Martin-Bellaso (2004)also indicated similar results for apples.[15] However, packages with low permeability incombination with low O2 atmospheres can stimulate the growth of anaerobic spoilage orpathogenic microorganisms.[12]

Some researchers suggested the use of super atmospheric O2 concentrations rang-ing from 30 to 100 kPa. Kader and Ben-Yehoshua claimed that elevated O2 atmospheresto control microbiological growth, inhibit enzymatic discoloration and undesirable mois-ture and odor losses.[16] However, concentrations above 80 kPa may cause pyhtotoxicity.Some authors reported that super atmospheric concentrations are more effective againstmicroorganisms when used with high CO2 levels of 15–20 kPa. High CO2 atmospheresalso inhibited most aerobic microorganisms especially gram-negative bacteria and moulds.However, the use of high CO2 concentrations was reported to induce tissue breakdown andformation of large amounts of exudates for fresh-cut apples.[17] High carbon dioxide mayalso cause undesirable off flavor formation.

Citrus fruits are important because of their nutritional and antioxidant properties.[18]

For this reason, citrus fruits are of interest as “ready to eat” products due to convenienceand health benefits. There are only few studies found in the literature on the preservationof orange segments. The changes of flavonoids, vitamin C, and antioxidant capacity inminimally processed citrus segments were reported.[18] Another study was on the effect ofmodified atmosphere packaging on microbial, physicochemical and sensory parameters of“ready to eat” oranges.[19] However, they only applied passive atmosphere in this study.There is negligible study found in the literature about the effect of low and high oxygenapplications on the overall quality attributes of orange segments.

The objective of this study was to investigate sensorial, microbiological, physical andchemical quality parameters of minimally processed “ready to eat” orange segments thatpackaged under three different modified atmospheres: air as passive; low oxygen (20%)and high oxygen (80%) as active MAP treatments using two different PP trays (mono andmultilayer PP) at 4◦C for 25 days.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

The Valencia variety oranges (Citrus sinensis) grown in Dortyol, Hatay, the Southernpart of Turkey, were provided the day before the processing, and stored at 4◦C overnight.Chemicals were supplied by MerckTM (Darmstadt, Germany). PP (Polypropylene) trays(mono and multilayer PP with the dimensions of 144 × 190 × 50 mm) were providedby Huhtamaki Company (Istanbul, Turkey). The lidding material (CPP/OPP with theoxygen and carbon dioxide permeability of 1296 cm3 m−2 day−1 and 3877 cm3 m2 day−1,respectively at 24◦C) was provided by A-Pack Company (Istanbul, Turkey).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

962 KARACAY AND AYHAN

Experimental Design

Fruits were selected for uniformity based, washed carefully and disinfected with 200ppm chlorine (NaOCl) for 3 min, dried and peeled manually. Peeled fruits were segmentedcarefully, and only undamaged segments were weighed as 350 g per PP tray, which wassealed with CPP/OPP film under three different gas compositions. Air composition, lowoxygen (20% O2, 10% CO2, 70% N2) and high oxygen (80% O2, 10% CO2, 10% N2)concentrations were used. Modified atmosphere packaging machine (MECA, 501, France)equipped with triple gas mixture (KM60-3, Witt, Germany) was used. The packaged prod-ucts were stored at 4◦C for 25 days. Physical, chemical, microbial and sensory analyseswere performed during 0, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 days during storage. Analysis wasperformed in duplicate packages at each sampling time.

Analysis

Determination of the Headspace Atmosphere The concentrations of oxy-gen and carbon dioxide inside the packages were measured using a gas analyzer (PBIDansensor, Ringsted, Denmark). Gas analysis was performed by inserting the needleattached to the gas analyzer through an adhesive seal fixed on the lidding material. Themeasurements were taken at two different sides of each package and the average of 4measurements was calculated. The results were represented as O2 and CO2%.

Microbial Analysis Microbiological growth was determined by total plate counton plate count agar (PCA, Merck), total psychotropic bacteria on plate count agar (PCA,Merck) and by yeast and mould counts on potato dextrose agar (PDA, Merck) acidifiedwith tartaric acid. Two packages were opened under hygienic conditions, and 10 g sam-ple was placed into a sterile stomacher bag with 90 ml of peptone water. Samples werehomogenized for 3 min and serial dilutions were made in peptone water. Appropriate dilu-tions were plated onto duplicate plates of PCA and PDA medium. Plates were incubated at37◦C for 2 days for total mesophilic aerobic bacteria, 7◦C for 10 days for total psychotropicbacteria and at 22◦C for 5 days for yeasts and moulds. The results were presented as logCFU/g.

Sensory Analysis Orange segments packaged with different atmospheres wereevaluated for visual appearance, aroma, texture, acidity, sweetness, and product accept-ability using a five-point scale during 15 days of storage. The sensory attributes weredefined based on the important characteristics of orange.[18] Only active MAP sampleswere evaluated. The score 3 was considered the limit of acceptance. The tasting panelwas assessed defined attributes and the scale during the trial period. The testing wasdone in a clean, quiet, air-conditioned and odor free room where each panelist used sep-arate tables during judgments. Specific attributes and acceptability were evaluated by thesix trained panelists on the basis of acceptability, using a scale ranging from 1 to 5 asfollows[18]:

Visual appearance: 5: excellent/fresh; 4: good; 3: acceptable; 2: poor; 1: very poorAroma: 5: very good/natural; 4: good; 3: acceptable; 2: light strange aroma; 1: strong

strange aromaTexture: 5: excellent firmness/juiciness; 4: firm/juicy; 3: acceptable; 2: hard/dry; 1: very

hard/dryAcidity: 5: very good; 4: good; 3: acceptable; 2: acidic; 1: very acidic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF ORANGE SEGMENTS 963

Sweetness: 5: very sweet; 4: sweet; 3: acceptable sweetness; 2: poor in sweetness; 1: notsweet

Product acceptability: 5: excellent; 4: good; 3: acceptable; 2: bad; 1: very bad

The samples were coded with a random 3 digit number and served to selectedpanelists using completely randomized design.

Physicochemical parameters

Color: The color measurements were performed with a chromameter (CR 400, Minolta,Osaka, Japan). The colorimeter was calibrated to a standard white tile. The L, a, b wererecorded in the middle of the one side of each segment. Twenty segments (10 from eachpackage) were measured for each treatment on each sampling day.

Instrumental Texture: The firmness was measured with a texture analyzer (TA-XT Plus,Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, England) using HDP/BS blade set. A speed of 12 mm/sand penetration distance of 35 mm was used to cut the segments at the center, and thehardness was expressed as maximum cutting force (N). The segments similar in thick-ness were selected for texture measurement. The data are presented as means of 20independent measurements.

Acidity: Sample (∼50 g) was blended for 2 min and filtered by using cheesecloth. Thejuice of the sample was used for chemical analysis.[21] Titratable acidity was determinedby potentiometric titration with 0.1 N NaOH up to pH 8.1 using 10 mL of maceratediluted with 50 mL of water. Results were expressed as citric acid %.

Soluble solids: Soluble solids were measured by hand refractometer (Model N-50E;Atago, Tokyo, Japan) and expressed as ◦Brix at 20◦C.

pH: pH was determined by immersing pH electrode directly to orange juice by using pHmeter (Model pH-315i; WTW, Weilheim, Germany).

Sugar content: The juice of the sample was centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min, andthe supernatant was filtered by using 0.45 µm pore size filter to determine sugar con-tent (fructose, glucose, sucrose, total sugar) of grapefruit segments by using HPLC(Shimadzu, Japan) equipped with refractive index detector (Model RID-10A, Shimadzu,Japan).[20]

Statistical Analysis

All data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a Duncan multiplecomparison test to determine significant differences between treatments using MSTATstatistical package. Significance of differences was represented at 5%.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Gas Composition in the Packages

Headspace atmosphere composition in PP trays is shown in Figs. 1a and b. Carbondioxide contents of mono and multilayer packages at all treatments (air, low O2, and highO2) increased with the increase in storage time. However, the oxygen contents dramaticallydecreased for all treatments with increased storage. Oxygen levels in mono and multilayerPP packages reached to 0% for air and low oxygen; however, it was 39.23% in multilayer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

964 KARACAY AND AYHAN

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

(a)

0Storage time (day)

Oxy

gen

conc

entr

atio

n (%

)HB-Air

HB-Low oxygen

HB-High oxygen

LB-Air

LB-Low oxygen

LB-High oxygen

5 10 15 20 25

(b)

0

10

20

30

40

5060

70

80

90

100

Storage time (day)

Car

bon

diox

ide

conc

enta

rtio

n (%

)

HB-Air

HB-Low oxygen

HB-High oxygen

LB-Air

LB-Low oxygen

LB-High oxygen

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 1 (a) Headspace oxygen concentration (%) in the packages during the 25 days of storage; and(b) headspace carbon dioxide concentration (%) in the packages during the 25 days of storage.

and 47.53% monolayer PP at high oxygen treatment on the storage day of 10. The oxy-gen and carbon dioxide reached equilibrium on the fifteenth day of storage at only highoxygen application. At the end of the storage, the O2 contents of multilayer and mono-layer PP were 21.95% and 18.63%, respectively, at high oxygen atmosphere application.These changes in the atmosphere were related to the continuous respiration of minimallyprocessed oranges. It was reported that separation of segments affected the respiratorymetabolism and the atmosphere inside package (rich CO2 poor O2) than whole oranges.[19]

Permeability of films to respiration gases was also the main factor, which determined pack-age atmosphere. Our study showed that there was no significant difference between monoand multilayer PP packages in terms of atmosphere indicating the permeability occurredthrough the sealing lid rather than the PP tray walls. Furthermore, the atmospheres of bothPP packages underwent anaerobic condition at low oxygen and air treatments after 10 days.This might be dangerous for fruit marketability because anaerobic respiration stimulatesthe growth of anaerobic spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms.[13,22] Thus, it is veryimportant to consider the atmosphere in the packages in terms of the quality of orangesegments as stated by the study.[19] At this point, low oxygen and air applications shouldbe limited to 10 days considering the atmosphere.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF ORANGE SEGMENTS 965

Microbial Quality of Orange Segments

There was no growth of mesophilic aerobic bacteria, psychotropic bacteria and yeastsand molds observed at all treatments including both types of packages. Yeasts and moldsare the natural microflora of fruits because yeasts and molds can grow at lower pH com-paring to bacteria. However, effective washing and sanitation practices of the fruit couldretard the spoilage especially by yeasts. Sanitation with 200-ppm chlorine before peeling,low pH (3.5) of the product, and modified atmosphere combined with low storage temper-ature provided good microbial quality. High carbon dioxide was indicated to be effectivein inhibiting aerobic microorganisms and yeasts.[11] It was reported that there was slightor no microbial growth during 11 days storage of minimally processed orange segmentsunder passive modification.[19] It was also stated that low number of colonies observed atTorocco orange slices packaged with 3 different films.[23]

Sensory Quality of Orange Segments

Sensory attributes and product acceptance of orange segments were determined forlow and high O2 treatments at both packages during 15 days of storage as presented inTable 1. In terms of visual appearance, all treatments except high O2 (in multilayer PP)

Table 1 Sensory quality of orange segments stored at 4◦C.

Sensory scores ( n = 6 )c

Attribute Packagea Treatmentb Day 0 Day 5 Day 10 Day 15

Visual Multi PP Low oxygen 4, 3a 4, 5a 4, 3a 3, 3abcd

Appearence High oxygen 4, 3a 4, 2ab 4, 0abc 2,8cd

Mono PP Low oxygen 4, 3a 3, 7abcd 4, 0abc 3, 5abcd

High oxygen 4, 3a 3, 3abcd 3, 3abcd 3, 0bcd

Aroma Multi PP Low oxygen 4, 8a 3, 8abc 4, 5ab 2,5d

High oxygen 4, 8a 4, 2abc 4, 2abc 2,3d

Mono PP Low oxygen 4, 8a 4, 2abc 3, 8abc 2,8cd

High oxygen 4, 8a 3, 8abc 4, 0abc 2,2d

Texture Multi PP Low oxygen 4, 3a 3, 7abc 4, 0abc 2,8c

High oxygen 4, 3a 3, 8abc 3, 7abc 3, 2abc

Mono PP Low oxygen 4, 3a 4, 2ab 3, 7abc 2,8c

High oxygen 4, 3a 4, 0abc 3, 8abc 3, 2abc

Acidity Multi PP Low oxygen 4, 2ab 4, 0abc 3, 7abcde 2,0f

High oxygen 4, 2ab 3, 7abcde 3, 3abcdef 2,3ef

Mono PP Low oxygen 4, 2ab 4, 5a 3, 8abcd 2,8bcdef

High oxygen 4, 2ab 3, 7abcde 3, 5abcde 2,5def

Sweetness Multi PP Low oxygen 4, 2a 4, 0ab 3, 8abc 2,5cde

High oxygen 4, 2a 3, 8abc 3, 7abcd 2,0e

Mono PP Low oxygen 4, 2a 4, 2a 3, 7abcd 2,5cde

High oxygen 4, 2a 2, 8abcde 3, 3abcde 2,7bcde

Product Multi PP Low oxygen 4, 5a 4, 0ab 4, 0ab 2,5cd

acceptance High oxygen 4, 5a 3, 3abcd 3, 7abc 2,2d

Mono PP Low oxygen 4, 5a 4, 5a 3, 5abc 2,7cd

High oxygen 4, 5a 3, 0bcd 3, 7abc 2,7cd

aMulti PP: Multilayer PP, Mono PP: Monolayer PP; bLow oxygen: (20% O2, 10% CO2, 70% N2); highoxygen: (80% O2, 10% CO2, 10% N2); and cMean values followed by the same letter for a given attribute arenot significantly different (p > 0.05).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

966 KARACAY AND AYHAN

were acceptable (>3) for 15 days storage. Aroma, acidity, sweetness, and product accept-ability scores decreased by increased storage and the attributes were in acceptability limit(3.0) at all treatments including both packages till 10 days of storage. Although orangesegments under high oxygen was acceptable in terms of texture on the day 15, overallthere was no difference was observed between low and high oxygen applications in termsof product acceptance. The product acceptability was limited to 10 days at all applica-tions, which was considered “commercially viable.” Orange segments under low oxygenatmosphere were limited to 10 days due to both oxygen concentration and sensory qual-ity, however, the segments under high oxygen were limited to 10 days due to only sensoryquality. This is probably the negative effect of high carbon dioxide on the sensory attributesand the product acceptance.

Physical and Chemical Qualities of Orange Segments

Fruit color is an important attribute in purchase decisions especially if the product ispackaged and cannot be touched or smelled. The L value of orange segments is presentedin Table 2 (Data not shown for a and b values). There were no significant effects of MAPtreatment and packaging material on the L, a and b values (p > 0.05). However, the effectof storage time on the L and a values was found significant (p ≤ 0.05). L value tended tobe constant for the first 10 days of storage; however, started to decrease especially after the15 days of storage at all treatments. The a value started to decrease after the 2nd day ofstorage at all MAP treatments applied. Value b, indication of yellowness, did not changemuch till the storage day of 20. However, it was significantly dropped after the storage dayof 20 probably due to the prolonged storage.

As well as color properties, the textural properties were important for fresh-cut fruits.Hardness (max cutting force, N) of the orange segments is presented in Table 3. The deteri-oration of the textural properties often results in soft or hard texture and thus, decreases inconsumer acceptance. During the increased storage, the cutting force (N) also increased atall treatments as a result of drying surfaces of the segments related to water loss. This mightbe related to decrease in L value. There were no significant effects of packaging materialand MAP treatment on the hardness (p > 0.05). It was stated that water loss of minimallyprocessed fruits was one of the important problem and this might be overcome using pack-aging materials with low water vapor transmission rate and low storage temperature.[12]

Table 2 Physical parameter (Color, L∗ value) of orange segments stored at 4◦C.

Storage time (days) ( n = 20)b

Treatmenta Day 0 Day 2 Day 5 Day 10 Day 15 Day 20 Day 25

HB-Air 52, 61c 51, 67cde 51, 43cde 52, 34cde 54, 71b 52, 70c 47, 19gh

HB-Low O2 52, 61c 50, 31ef 51, 11cde 51, 42cde 52, 81c 52, 16cde 48, 33gh

HB-High O2 52, 61c 52, 26cde 51, 18cde 52, 25cde 56, 50a 52, 91c 51, 28cde

LB-Air 52, 61c 50, 86cde 51, 04cde 50, 41def 52, 52cd 51, 77cde 46, 49h

LB-Low O2 52, 61c 51, 33cde 50, 77cdef 51, 93cde 52, 65c 52, 62c 48, 91fg

LB-High O2 52, 61c 51, 66cde 50, 21ef 51, 51cde 52, 65c 52, 01cde 47, 55gh

aLow oxygen: (20% O2, 10% CO2, 70% N2); high oxygen: (80% O2, 10% CO2, 10% N2); LB-MonolayerPP; HB-Multilayer PP; and bmean values followed by the same letter for a given attribute are not significantlydifferent (p > 0.05).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

Tabl

e3

Phys

ical

para

met

er(H

ardn

ess,

max

cutti

ngfo

rce,

N)

ofor

ange

segm

ents

stor

edat

4◦C

.

Stor

age

time

(day

s)(n

=20

)b

Tre

atm

enta

Day

0D

ay2

Day

5D

ay10

Day

15D

ay20

Day

25

HB

-Air

20,3

2l

24,1

5hı

jkl

25,5

4de

fghı

jkl

26,9

9bc

defg

hıjk

30,3

5ab

cd29

,72

abcd

efg

31,4

1ab

c

HB

-Low

O2

20,3

2l

25,4

9de

fghı

jk26

,74

bcde

fghı

jk25

,69

defg

hıjk

27,9

9ab

cdef

ghıjk

31,6

5ab

26,7

6bc

defg

hıjk

HB

-Hig

hO

220

,32

l23

,15

kl25

,31de

fghı

jkl

28,2

1ab

cdef

ghıjk

26,9

4bc

defg

hıjk

28,9

2ab

cdef

ghıjk

27,7

6bc

defg

hıjk

LB

-Air

20,3

2l

23,0

4kl

23,8

9ıjk

l24

,64

ghıjk

l26

,42

cdef

ghıjk

24,8

2fg

hıjk

l32

,82

a

LB

-Low

O2

20,3

2l

24,8

8ef

ghıjk

l25

,45

defg

hıjk

29,1

9ab

cdef

gh28

,98

abcd

efgh

ı28

,92

abcd

efgh

ıj29

,93

abcd

ef

LB

-Hig

hO

220

,32

l23

,74

kl23

,81

ıjkl

23,9

3ıjk

l30

,03

abcd

e29

,84

abcd

ef28

,65

abcd

efgh

ıj

a Low

oxyg

en:

(20%

O2,1

0%C

O2,7

0%N

2);

high

oxyg

en:

(80%

O2,1

0%C

O2,1

0%N

2);

LB

-Mon

olay

erPP

;H

B-M

ultil

ayer

PP;

and

bm

ean

valu

esfo

llow

edby

the

sam

ele

tter

for

agi

ven

attr

ibut

ear

eno

tsig

nific

antly

diff

eren

t(p

>0.

05).

967

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

968 KARACAY AND AYHAN

Chemical attributes (titratable acidity, pH, soluble solid and sugar content) of orangesegments packaged under modified atmosphere in two PP trays is shown in Table 4.There was no significant difference between two PP packages including active and passiveMAP treatments (p > 0.05) in terms of titratable acidity (TA). However, TA signifi-cantly decreased especially on storage day 2 and remained unchanged for the rest of the

Table 4 Chemical parameters (titratable acidity, pH, soluble solids, sugars) of orange segments stored at 4◦C.

Storage time (days) (n = 4)b

Treatmenta Day 0 Day 2 Day 5 Day 10 Day 15 Day 20 Day 25

Titratable acidity (% citric acid)HB-Air 1,46a 1,06fghi 1,28abcdfg 1,12defghi 1,20bcdefgh 1,22bcdefgh 1,17bcdefghi

HB-Low O2 1,46a 1,17bcdefghi 1,17bcdefghi 1,12defghi 1,13defghi 1,14cdefghi 1,02hi

HB-High O2 1,46a 1,13defghi 1,10defghi 1,16bcdefghi 1,29abcde 1,05ghi 1,02hi

LB-Air 1,46a 1,28abcdef 1,31abcd 1,14defghi 1,06fghi 1,09defghi 1,25abcdefg

LB-Low O2 1,46a 1,18bcdefghi 1,36abc 1,15bcdefghi 1,08efghi 1,11defghi 0,96i

LB-High O2 1,46a 1,37ab 1,22bcdefghi 1,21bcdefghi 1,07efghi 1,13defghi 1,11defghi

pHHB-Air 3,55jkl 3,61defgh 3,16defgh 3,60defgh 3,56ijkl 3,59fghijk 3,55jkl

HB-Low O2 3,55jkl 3,65bcde 3,59fghijk 3,64cdef 3,61defghi 3,58ghijk 3,63cdefgh

HB-High O2 3,55jkl 3,61defghi 3,65abcde 3,59fghijk 3,52i 3,65abcd 3,62cdefgh

LB-Air 3,55jkl 3,69ab 3,54kl 3,61defgh 3,63cdefg 3,62cdefgh 3,57hijkl

LB-Low O2 3,55jkl 3,70a 3,58ghijk 3,60defghi 3,65abcd 3,62cdefgh 3,67abc

LB-High O2 3,55jkl 3,67abc 3,60efghij 3,58ghijk 3,59fghijk 3,59fghijk 3,58ghijk

Soluble solidsHB-Air 11,00ab 11,25a 10,75abcd 10,25cdef 10,25cdef 10,25cdef 9,75fg

HB-Low O2 11,00ab 11,25a 10,25cdef 10,50bcde 10,00efg 9,63fg 10,00efg

HB-High O2 11,00ab 10,75abcd 10,00efg 10,25cdef 10,50bcde 9,88efg 10,25cdef

LB-Air 11,00ab 11,00ab 10,75abcd 10,13defg 9,50g 10,25cdef 10,50bcde

LB-Low O2 11,00ab 11,25a 11,25a 10,88abc 9,75fg 9,75fg 9,75fg

LB-High O2 11,00ab 11,00ab 10,50bcde 10,75abcd 9,63fg 10,00efg 10,00efg

Total sugar (%)HB-Air 10,64bcdef 11,61ab 10,09def 10,73bcdef 10,96bcde 10,33bcdef 10,09ef

HB-Low O2 10,64bcdef 11,56ab 10,17def 11,01abcde 10,74bcdef 9,59f 10,41bcdef

HB-High O2 10,64bcdef 11,39abcd 10,22def 10,56bcdef 10,63bcdef 10,23cdef 10,42bcdef

LB-Air 10,64bcdef 11,28abcde 10,73bcdef 10,90bcde 10,22def 10,55bcdef 10,02ef

LB-Low O2 10,64bcdef 12,22a 11,52abc 10,84bcdef 10,45bcdef 10,15def 10,22def

LB-High O2 10,64bcdef 11,61ab 10,64bcdef 10,71bcdef 10,14def 10,11def 10,40bcdef

Fructose (%)HB-Air 2,49cdefg 2,77abcd 2,34g 2,56bcdefg 2,63abcdefg 2,43defg 2,51cdefg

HB-Low O2 2,49cdefg 2,80abc 2,36fg 2,58bcdef 2,51cdefg 2,37efg 2,51cdefg

HB-High O2 2,49cdefg 2,70abcdef 2,31g 2,41dfg 2,58bcdfg 2,51cdefg 2,58abcdefg

LB-Air 2,49cdefg 2,72abcde 2,57bcdefg 2,55bcdefg 2,38efg 2,47cdefg 2,44cdefg

LB-Low O2 2,49cdefg 2,93a 2,87ab 2,53bcdefg 2,44cdefg 2,32g 2,46cdefg

LB-High O2 2,49cdefg 2,75abcd 2,46cdefg 2,50cdefg 2,38efg 2,41defg 2,55bcdefg

Glucose (%)HB-Air 2,51bcdef 2,78abc 2,39ef 2,61abcdef 2,70abcde 2,53bcdef 2,60abcdef

HB-Low O2 2,51bcdef 2,84abc 2,39ef 2,62abcdef 2,59bcdef 2,43def 2,59bcdef

HB-High O2 2,51bcdef 2,72abcde 2,33f 2,47cdef 2,68abcde 2,59bcdef 2,61abcdef

LB-Air 2,51bcdef 2,76abcd 2,61abcdef 2,60abcdef 2,43def 2,54def 2,52bcdef

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF ORANGE SEGMENTS 969

Table 4 (Continued)

Storage time (days) (n = 4)b

Treatmenta Day 0 Day 2 Day 5 Day 10 Day 15 Day 20 Day 25

LB-Low O2 2,51bcdef 2,94a 2,82ab 2,58bcdef 2,51bcdef 2,42abcdef 2,52bcdef

LB-High O2 2,51bcdef 2,79abc 2,51bcdef 2,55bcdef 2,46cdef 2,52bcdef 2,61abcdef

Sucrose (%)HB-Air 5,65bcdefg 6,07ab 5,37cdefgh 5,56bcdefg 5,63bcdefg 5,37cdefg 4,98gh

HB-Low O2 5,65bcdefg 5,93abc 5,42bcdefgh 5,81abcde 5,64bcdefg 4,80h 5,32cdefgh

HB-High O2 5,65bcdefg 5,97abc 5,59bcdefg 5,69bcdef 5,37cdefg 5,14efgh 5,23defgh

LB-Air 5,65bcdefg 5,81abcd 5,56bcdefg 5,76abcde 5,41bcdefgh 5,55bcdefg 5,06fgh

LB-Low O2 5,65bcdefg 6,36a 5,84abcd 5,73abcdef 5,50bcdefg 5,42bcdefgh 5,24defgh

LB-High O2 5,65bcdefg 6,08ab 5,67bcdef 5,66bcdef 5,31cdefg 5,18defgh 5,25defgh

aLow oxygen: (20% O2 + 10% CO2 + 70% N2); high oxygen: (80% O2 + 10% CO2 + 10% N2);LB-Monolayer PP; HB-Multilayer PP; and bMean values followed by the same letter for a given attribute arenot significantly different (p > 0.05).

storage time at all treatments including both PP packages. This decrease might be due toincreased respiration following the minimal processing as indicated by Kim, Smith, andLee.[24] Acids are used quickly during respiration compared the other compounds. Forcitrus fruits (grapefruit, orange, mandarin), citric acid is a major organic acid followedby malic acid and quinic acid.[25] It was stated that organic acids content might decreasedue to fruit maturation.[26] In addition, it was mentioned that loss in total acid content offruits during storage could be minimized by using low oxygen and high carbon dioxideatmosphere applications.[6,27] A study reported that there was no significant change intotal acidity of orange segments packaged under passive MAP with two films in differentpermeabilities during 11 days of storage.[19]

A slight increase in pH value was observed on the day 2 of storage and remainedalmost the same for the rest of the storage. This change was parallel with the acidity. It wasalso reported that there was no significant change in pH of orange segments during 11 daysof storage.[19]

Initial sugar content of orange segments was 2.49% for fructose, 2.51% for glucose,and 5.65% for sucrose. The sugar content (fructose, glucose, sucrose and total sugar) oforange segments did not change significantly during the storage (p > 0.05). There wereno significant effects of packaging material and MAP application on the fructose, glucose,sucrose and total sugar content of orange segments (p > 0.05). Studies in fresh cut pears[28]

and kiwifruit[29] reported that the sugar content did not significantly change under refriger-ated storage. It was also indicated that MAP does not result in significant change in sugarcontent of minimally processed fruits.[11]

The effect of storage time was found significant on the soluble solids (p ≤ 0.05).Although the decrease was found statistically significant, soluble solids tended to showslight decrease during storage at all applications. Since the sugar content remainedunchanged during storage, the decrease in soluble solids might be due to the use of organicacids.

CONCLUSION

Orange segments modified atmosphere packaged and stored at low temperature werein commercially viable condition for 10 days. Although the orange segments were stable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

970 KARACAY AND AYHAN

in terms of chemical and microbiological qualities for 25 days of storage, the sensorypanel did not find the product acceptable after 10 days. There was no significant differ-ence observed between mono and multilayer PP with the same lid. This indicated that thepermeability occurred through the lid instead of PP tray walls as expected. There wouldhave been differences for products stored longer. The atmosphere also changed from aer-obic to anaerobic after 10 days, which could stimulate growth of anaerobic spoilage andpathogenic microorganisms. Although the package atmosphere was aerobic during 25 daysat high oxygen applications, the segments were also not acceptable by the sensory panelafter 10 days possibly due to negative effects of high amount of carbon dioxide on flavor.Overall, the shelf life of orange segments was suggested as 10 days under low and highoxygen modified atmosphere packaging using PP based packaging material.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is produced from the part of master thesis of the first author completed at Mustafa KemalUniversity. The authors acknowledge project funding provided by Commission of Scientific ResearchProjects of Mustafa Kemal University (Project No. 06 M 1501) and Prime Ministry State PlanningOrganization in Turkey (Project No. 03 K 120860). We are grateful to Nafiz Celiktas for statisticalanalysis and Elif Erturk for her help in sugar analysis. We also thank A-Pack (Istanbul, Turkey)for providing packaging film, Huhtamaki (Istanbul, Turkey) for providing PP trays, and Citexco(Hatay, Turkey) for providing oranges. The authors are thankful to Gulbahar Yetis, Huseyin Senyurt,Suleyman Uzan, and Hamit Artar for their help in the process and laboratory analysis.

REFERENCES

1. Shewfelt, R.L. Quality of minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Journal of Food Quality1987, 10, 143–156.

2. Labuza, T.P.; Brenee, W.M. Applications of ‘active packaging’ for improvement of shelf lifeand nutritional quality of fresh and extended shelf-life foods. Journal of Food Processing andPreservation 1989, 13, 1–69.

3. Liu, C-L.; Hsu, C-K.; Hsu, M-M. Improving the quality of fresh-cut pineapples with ascor-bic acid/sucrose pretreatment and modified atmosphere packaging. Packaging Technology andScience 2007, 20 (5), 337–343.

4. O’Connor-Show, R.E.; Roberts, R.; Ford, A.L.; Nottingham, S.M. Shelf life of minimally pro-cessed honeydew, kiwifruit, papaya, pineapple and cantaloupe. Journal of Food Science 1994,59 (6), 1202–1206, 1215.

5. Bracket, R.E. Shelf stability and safety of fresh produce as influenced by sanitation anddisinfection. Journal of Food Protection 1992, 55, 808–814.

6. Zagory, D.; Kader, A.A. Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh produce. Food Technology1998, 42 (9), 70–77.

7. Gunes, G.; Lee, C.Y. Color of minimally processed potatoes as affected by modified Atmospherepackaging and antibrowning agents. Journal of Food Science 1997, 62 (3), 572–582.

8. Erkan, M.; Wang, C.Y. Modified and controlled storage of subtropical crops. PostharvestBiology and Technology 2006, 5 (4), 1–8.

9. Chauhan, O.P.; Raju, P.S.; Dasgupta, D.K.; Bawa, A.S. Instrumental textural changes in banana(var. Pachbale) during ripening under active and passive modified atmosphere. InternationalJournal of Food Properties 2006, 9 (2), 237–253.

10. Soliva-Fortuny, R.C.; Martin-Bellaso, O. Microbiological and biochemical changes in mini-mally processed fresh cut Conference pears. European Food Research and Technology 2003,217, 4–9.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4

QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF ORANGE SEGMENTS 971

11. Soliva-Fortuny, R.C.; Martin-Bellaso, O. New advances in extending the shelf life of fresh-cutfruits: A Review. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2003, 14, 341–353.

12. Martin-Bellaso, O.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.J. Effect of modified atmosphere packaging on the qualityof fresh cut fruits. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2006, 1 (3), 1–8.

13. Garcia, J.M.; Media, R.J.; Olias, J.M. Ouality of strawberries automatically packed in differentplastic films. Journal of Food Science 1998, 63 (6), 1037–1041.

14. Martinez-Ferrer, M.; Harper, C.; Perez-Munaz, F.; Chaparro, M. Modified atmosphere packag-ing of minimally processed mango and pineapple fruits. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67 (9),3365–3371.

15. Soliva-Fortuny, R..C.; Elez-Martinez, P.; Martin-Bellaso, O. Microbiological and biochemicalstability of fresh-cut apples preserved by modified atmosphere packaging. Innovative FoodScience Emerging Technologies 2004, 5, 215–224.

16. Kader, A.A.; Ben-Yehoshua, S. Effects of super atmospheric oxygen levels on postharvest phys-iology and quality of fresh fruits and vegetables. Postharvest Biology Technology 2000, 20,1–13.

17. Soliva-Fortuny, R.C.; Oms-Oliu, G.; Martin-Bellaso, O. Effects of ripeness stages on the storageatmosphere, color and textural properties of minimally processed apple slices. Journal of FoodScience 2002, 67, 1958–1963.

18. Del Caro, A.; Piga, A.; Vacca, A.; Agabbio, M. Changes of flavonoids, vitamin C and antioxidantcapacity in minimally processed citrus segments and juices during storage. Food Chemistry2004, 84, 99–105.

19. Pretel, M.T.; Fernandez, P.S.; Romajoro, F.; Martinez, A. The effect of modified atmospherepackaging on “Ready to Eat” oranges. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft and Technologie 1998, 31,322–328.

20. Escolana, V.H.; Aguayo, E.; Artes, F. Overall quality throughout shelf life of minimallyprocessed fennel. Journal of Food Science 2005, 70 (1), S13–S17.

21. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. In: Horwitz, W., (Ed.). AOAC International. Washington,DC, 1990.

22. Kader, A.A.; Zagory, D.; Kerbel, E.L. Modified atmosphere packaging of fruits and vegetables.Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 1989, 28 (1), 1–30.

23. Rapisarda, P.; Caggia, C.; Lanza, C.M; Bellamo, S.E.; Pannuzzo, P.; Restuccia, C.Physiochemical, microbiological and sensory evaluation of minimally processed Tarocco cloneoranges packaged with 3 different permeability films. Journal of Food Science 2006, 71 (3),S299–S306.

24. Kim, D.M.; Smith, N.L.; Lee, C.Y. Quality of minimally processed apple slices from selectedcultivars. Journal of Food Science 1993, 58, 1115–1117.

25. Cemeroglu, B.; Yemenicioglu, A.; Ozkan, M. Meyve ve sebzelerin bilesimi ve soguktadepolanmalari. Gida Teknolojisi Dergisi Yayinlari, Ankara, 2001.

26. Weichmann, J. The Effect of Controlled Atmosphere Packaging on the Sensory and NutritionalQuality of Fruits and Vegetables, Horticultural Reviews 1986, 8, 101–127.

27. Damarlı, E. Yerli kiraz ve kayısının modifiye atmosferde paketlenmesi. Ph.D. Thesis. IstanbulTechnical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2005.

28. Senesi, E.; Galvis, A.; Fumagalli, G. Quality indexes and internal atmosphere packaged fresh-cutpears (Abete fetel and Kaisert varieties). Italian Journal of Food Science 1999, 2, 111–120.

29. Agar, I.T.; Massantini, R.; Hess-Pierce, B.; Kader, A.A. Postharvest CO2 and ethylene produc-tion and quality maintenance of fresh-cut kiwifruit slices. Journal of Food Science 1999, 64,433–440.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Penn

sylv

ania

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

51 1

1 A

ugus

t 201

4