Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 731–739 | Cite as

Contrasting effects of two storage temperatures on the microbial, physicochemical, and sensory properties of two fresh red seaweeds, Palmaria palmata and Gracilaria tikvahiae

  • Dhriti Nayyar
  • Denise I. SkonbergEmail author


The effects of two storage temperatures, 2 and 7 °C, were investigated on the quality changes of fresh red seaweeds, Palmaria palmata and Gracilaria tikvahiae. Microbial, sensory, and physiochemical properties of the seaweeds were evaluated during 2 weeks of refrigerated storage. The results indicated that the causes and rates of quality loss were species specific, with P. palmata deteriorating faster at 7 °C compared to at 2 °C. In contrast, G. tikvahiae quality was better maintained at the higher storage temperature. As cellular damage increased in the seaweeds during storage, increased drip loss and the subsequent deterioration in texture and color contributed to quality loss in both seaweed species. Microbial counts in P. palmata ranged from 3 to 5 log CFU g−1 throughout storage, whereas G. tikvahiae microbial counts reached over 7 log CFU g−1 by the end of storage. Drip loss, sensory evaluation, and instrumental color results proved to be reliable whereas instrumental texture and soluble protein did not yield consistent, valuable data. Growing interest in minimally processed foods provides an opportunity to promote seaweeds as fresh vegetables. The results of this study provide groundwork to monitor seaweed quality during refrigerated storage and to facilitate marketing and distribution of freshly harvested P. palmata and G. tikvahiae.


Rhodophyta Quality loss Storage Palmaria palmata Gracilaria tikvahiae Fresh 



This project was funded by the USDA Value Added Producer Grant program GLS494606226. We are thankful to Maine Fresh Sea Farms (MFSF) for providing funds and fresh seaweeds. This project was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project Number ME0-21410 through the Maine Agricultural & Forest Experiment Station. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Publication Number 3611.

Compliance with ethical standards

Approval for research with human subjects was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to conducting sensory analyses.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abbott IA (1978) The uses of seaweed as food in Hawaii. Econ Bot 32:409–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee A, Chatterjee S, Variyar PS, Sharma A (2016) Shelf life extension of minimally processed ready-to-cook (RTC) cabbage by gamma irradiation. J Food Sci Technol 53:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett DM, Beaulieu JC, Shewfelt R (2010) Color, flavor, texture, and nutritional quality of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: desirable levels, instrumental and sensory measurement, and the effects of processing. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 50:369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell T (2014) In Maine, kelp is on the way from Ocean Approved. Portland Press Herald.; searched on 25 April 2018
  5. Ben-Yehoshua S (1987) Transpiration, water stress, and gas exchange. In: Weichmann J (ed) Postharvest physiology of vegetables. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 113–170Google Scholar
  6. Bever F (2016) Maine seaweed: The next super-food?; searched on 17 March 2017
  7. Bigliardi B, Galati F (2013) Innovation trends in the food industry: the case of functional foods. Trends Food Sci Technol 31:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buren JV (1979) The chemistry of texture in fruits and vegetables. J Texture Stud 10:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clydesdale FM (1993) Color as a factor in food choice. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 33:83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox S, Abu-Ghannam N, Gupta S (2010) An assessment of the antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of six species of edible Irish seaweeds. Int Food Res J 17:205–220Google Scholar
  12. Debevere J (1996) Criteria en praktische methoden voor de bepaling van de houdbaarheidsdatum in de etikettering. Etikettering, houdbaarheid en bewaring (voedingsmiddelen en recht 2). Die Keure, Brugge p 37–64Google Scholar
  13. Gantt E (1990) Pigmentation and photoacclimation. In: Cole KM, Sheath RG (eds) Biology of the red Algae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 203–221Google Scholar
  14. Gast KLB (2001) Storage Conditions Fruits & Vegetables. Postharvest Management of Commercial Horticulture Crops. Bulletin no. 4135. The University of Maine, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez-López VM, Ragaert P, Jeyachchandran V, Debevere J, Devlieghere F (2008) Shelf-life of minimally processed lettuce and cabbage treated with gaseous chlorine dioxide and cysteine. Int J Food Microbiol 121:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta S, Rajauria G, Abu-Ghannam N (2010) Study of the microbial diversity and antimicrobial properties of Irish edible brown seaweeds. Int J Food Sci Technol 45:482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harnedy PA, FitzGerald RJ (2013) Extraction of protein from the macroalga Palmaria palmata. LWT Food Sci Technol 51:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jung YJ, Padmanabahn A, Hong JH, Lim J, Kim KO (2012) Consumer freshness perception of spinach samples exposed to different storage conditions. Postharvest Biol Technol 73:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kader AA (2002) Postharvest biology and technology: an overview. In: Kader AA (ed), Postharvest technology of horticultural crops. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agricultural Resources pp 39–48Google Scholar
  20. LePape MA, Grua-Priol J, Demaimay M (2002) Effect of two storage conditions on the odor of an edible seaweed, Palmaria palmata, and optimization of an extraction procedure preserving its odor characteristics. J Food Sci 67:3135–3139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liot F, Colin A, Mabeau S (1993) Microbiology and storage life of fresh edible seaweeds. J Appl Phycol 5:243–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J Biol Chem 193:265–275PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyons JM, Breidenbach RW (1987) Chilling injury. In: Weichmann J (ed) Postharvest physiology of vegetables. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 305–326Google Scholar
  24. Martens M, Baardseth P (1987) Sensory quality. In: Weichmann J (ed) Postharvest physiology of vegetables. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 413–426Google Scholar
  25. Meilgaard MC, Carr TB, Civelle GV (2006) Sensory evaluation techniques. CRC Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mouritsen OG, Dawczynski C, Duelund L, Jahreis G, Vetter W, Schröder M (2013a) On the human consumption of the red seaweed dulse (Palmaria palmata (L.) Weber & Mohr). J Appl Phycol 25:1777–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mouritsen OG, Johansen M, Mouritsen JD (2013b) Seaweeds: edible, available and sustainable. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Paull RE, Chen NJ (2008) Postharvest handling and storage of the edible red seaweed Gracilaria. Postharvest Biol Technol 48:302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perry Phytoplankton & Optics Lab (2010) Dock sampling.; searched on 10 October 2016
  30. Pols M (2015) With more varieties and growing demand, seaweed is Maine’s crop to watch. Portland Press Herald.; searched on 25 April 2018
  31. Porter KL, Klieber A, Collins G (2003) Chilling injury limits low temperature storage of ‘Yuki’ Chinese cabbage. Postharvest Biol Technol 28:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raso J, Barbosa-Cánovas GV (2003) Nonthermal preservation of foods using combined processing techniques. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 18:373–386Google Scholar
  33. Rico D, Martin-Diana AB, Barat JM, Barry-Ryan C (2007) Extending and measuring the quality of fresh-cut fruit and vegetables: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 18:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rioux LE, Beaulieu L, Turgeon SL (2017) Seaweeds: a traditional ingredients for new gastronomic sensation. Food Hydrocoll 68:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robinson JE, Browne KM, Burton WG (1975) Storage characteristics of some vegetables and soft fruits. Ann Appl Biol 81:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smit AJ (2004) Medicinal and pharmaceutical uses of seaweed natural products: a review. J Appl Phycol 16:245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith DG, Young EG (1953) On the nitrogenous constituents of Fucus vesiculosus. J Biol Chem 205:849–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tarver T (2015) Sea-ing a better way to feed the world. Food Technol 69:22–29Google Scholar
  39. Waldron KW, Smith AC, Parr AJ, Ng A, Parker ML (1997) New approaches to understanding and controlling cell separation in relation to fruit and vegetable texture. Trends Food Sci Technol 8:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Waldron KW, Parker ML, Smith AC (2003) Plant cell walls and food quality. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2:128–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wells ML, Potin P, Craigie JS, Raven JA, Merchant SS, Helliwell KE, Smith AG, Camire ME, Brawley SH (2017) Algae as nutritional and functional food sources: revisiting our understanding. J Appl Phycol 29:949–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White S, Keleshian M (1994) A field guide to economically important seaweeds of northern New England. University of Maine/University of New Hampshire Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program MSG-E-93-16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Food and AgricultureUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations