Metabolic response to combined mild heat pre-treatments and modified atmosphere packaging on fresh-cut peach

  • Ana Steiner
  • Marta Abreu
  • Lúcia Correia
  • Sara Beirão-da-Costa
  • Eduardo Leitão
  • Maria Luísa Beirão-da-Costa
  • José Empis
  • Margarida Moldão-Martins
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

The combined influence of mild heat pre-treatments (MHPT) and two types of modified atmosphere packaging conditions on metabolic response of fresh-cut peach was monitored during a 8-day long storage under refrigeration (4^C). The quality-affecting parameters were evaluated by physical and chemical methods (solute leakage, weight loss, firmness, colour, pH and soluble solid content) and by the evaluation of physiological aspects (respiration rate, PPO and PME activity) as well as vitamins, organic acids and sugars. Regarding main acid compounds, lower levels of malic acid are evident in heat-treated samples. Succinic and citric acids did not seem to be affected by the treatments. Provitamin A (β-carotene) was not affected by MHPT. The decrease in ascorbic acid content observed along the storage period was similar for both treated and untreated samples. Significant firmness improvements were obvious after MHPT due to the activation of PME (≈25%) and the ensuing production of calcium pectates. Efficiency of the passive modified atmosphere was enough to preserve the quality attributes of fresh-cut peaches subjected to MHPT.

Keywords

Fresh-cut fruit Peach Pre-heat treatment MAP Postharvest physiology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support provided by AGRO 88

References

  1. 1.
    Zagory D (2000) Principles and practice of modified atmosphere packaging of horticultural commodities In: Farber JM, Dodds KL (eds) Principles of modified-atmosphere and sous vide product packaging. Technomic Publishing Co Inc, pp 174–206Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gorny JR, Hess-Pierce B, Kader AA (1999) J Food Sci 64:429–432Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saltveit ME (1998) Fresh-cut product biology In: Fresh-cut products: Maintaining quality and safety. US Davis conference September 12–14, 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Varoquaux P, Wiley RC (1997) Biological and biochemical changes in minimally processed refrigerated fruits and vegetables. In: Wiley RC (ed) Minimally processed refrigerated fruits and vegetables. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 226–268Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soliva-Fortuny RC, Martín-Belloso O (2003) Trends Food Sci Technol 14:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kader AA, Singh RP, Mannapperuma JD (1998) Technologies to extend the refrigerated shelf life of fresh fruits. In: Taub IA, Sing RP (ed) Food storage stability, pp 419–434Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garcia E, Barrett DM (2003) http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/pubs/Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bourne MC (1987) J Food Sci 52:667–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anderson A, Gekas V, Lind I, Oliveira F, Öste R (1994) Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 34:229–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greve LC, Shackel KA, McArdle RN, Gohlke J, Labavitch JM (1994) J Agric Food Chem 42:2896–2899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aguilar CN, Anzaldúa-Morales A, Talamás R, Gastelúm G (1997) J Food Sci 62:568–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abreu M, Beirão-da-Costa S, Gonçalves EM, Beirão-da-Costa ML, Moldão-Martins M (2003). Postharvest Biol Technol 30:153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luna-Guzmán I, Cantwell M, Barret DM (1999) Postharvest Biol Technol 17:201–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coteseng MY, Lee CY (1987) J Food Sci 52:985–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagerman AE, Austin PJ (1986) J Agric Food Chem 34:440–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Medlicott AP, Thompson AK (1985) J Sci Food Agric 36:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Romero-Rodriguez A, Oderiz LV, Hernandez JL, Simal Gandar J (1992) Sci Des Aliments12:593–600Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsieh YC, Karel M (1983) J Chromatogr 259:515–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laurila E, Kervinen R, Ahvenainen R (1998) Postharvest News Inf 9:53–66Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crisosto CH, Kader AA (2000) Peach postharvest quality maintenance guidelines http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/pubs/Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim DM, Smith NL, Lee CY (1993) J Food Sci 58:1111–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watada AE, Qi L (1999) Postharvest Biol Technol 15:201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klein BP (1987) J Food Quality 10:179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCarthy MA, Matthews RH (1994) Nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables subject to minimal processes. In: Wiley RC (ed) Minimally processed refrigerated fruits and vegetables. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 313–326Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wright KP, Kader AA (1997) Postharvest Biol Technol 10:89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee SK, Kader AA (2000) Postharvest Biol Technol 20:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gil MI, Tomás-Barreran FA, Hess-Pierce B, Kader AA (2002) J Agric Food Chem 50:4976–4982CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Steiner
    • 1
  • Marta Abreu
    • 2
  • Lúcia Correia
    • 1
  • Sara Beirão-da-Costa
    • 1
  • Eduardo Leitão
    • 3
  • Maria Luísa Beirão-da-Costa
    • 1
  • José Empis
    • 4
  • Margarida Moldão-Martins
    • 1
  1. 1.Microbiological and Agriculture Industries Center/DAIAT/Instituto Superior de Agronomia, CEAA/ISALisboaPortugal
  2. 2.DTIA/INETI Estrada Paço LumiarLisboaPortugal
  3. 3.LisboaPortugal
  4. 4.LisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations