Advertisement

Shelf life and biochemical changes of ready-to-eat arils among nineteen Iranian pomegranate cultivars (Punica granatum L.) during storage

  • Ali Akbar Ghasemi Soloklui
  • Ali GharaghaniEmail author
  • Nnadozie Oraguzie
  • Asghar Ramezanian
Original Article

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the shelf life of arils and the changes in their biochemical compounds in nineteen Iranian pomegranate cultivars during storage. Fruits were harvested when commercially mature and the arils were removed, packaged and stored at 5 ± 1 °C, at 85–90% relative humidity in a cold room. Samples of the stored arils were examined for biochemical features in temporal checkpoints throughout a storage period that lasted for 35 days. By using the onset of decay as an index, the shelf life of arils varied among cultivars, ranging from 7 days to approximately 21 days. Considering the quality attributes of ready-to-eat arils at the beginning of the experiment, substantial variations were observed among the cultivars with regard to their titratable acidity (0.50–8.47%), total soluble solids (13–18.66 °Brix), DPPH radical scavenging activity (63–87.44%), Gallic-acid-equivalent (2.64–6.95 mg/ml) and ascorbic acid (12.21–75.09 mg/l). In general, the decay of arils gradually increased during storage, but several cultivars—which exhibited a very slow process of decay—contained the highest content of titratable acidity, Gallic-acid-equivalent and total soluble solids (since the signs of decay appeared on around the twenty-first day of storage). In addition, titratable acidity increased slightly by the end of storage, whereas the ascorbic acid content, total soluble solids and Gallic-acid-equivalent were cultivar-dependent and did not show consistent patterns of change during storage.

Keywords

Storage Aril Shelf life Minimal processing 

Notes

Funding

This research is funded by Shiraz University (the affiliated institute of the authors) and there is no external funding for this research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ayhan Z, Eştürk O (2009) Overall quality and shelf life of minimally processed and modified atmosphere packaged “ready-to-eat” pomegranate arils. J Food Sci 74:C399–C405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatia K, Asrey R, Jha S, Singh S, Kannaujia PK (2013) Influence of packaging material on quality characteristics of minimally processed Mridula pomegranate (Punica granatum) arils during cold storage. Indian J Agric Sci 83:872–876Google Scholar
  3. Bhatia K, Asrey R, Varghese E (2015) Correct packaging retained phytochemical, antioxidant properties and increases shelf life of minimally processed pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) arils Cv. Mridula. J Sci Ind Res 74(3):141–144Google Scholar
  4. Caleb OJ, Opara UL, Mahajan PV, Manley M, Mokwena L, Tredoux AG (2013) Effect of modified atmosphere packaging and storage temperature on volatile composition and postharvest life of minimally-processed pomegranate arils (cvs. ‘Acco’and ‘Herskawitz’). Postharvest Biol Technol 79:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. D’Aquino S, Palma A, Schirra M, Continella A, Tribulato E, La Malfa S (2010) Influence of film wrapping and fludioxonil application on quality of pomegranate fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol 55:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Defilippi BG, Whitaker BD, Hess-Pierce BM, Kader AA (2006) Development and control of scald on wonderful pomegranates during long-term storage. Postharvest Biol Technol 41:234–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dhinesh K, Ramasamy D (2016) Pomegranate processing and value addition. Rev J Food Process Technol.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7110.1000565 Google Scholar
  8. Ergun M (2012) Pomegranate. In: Siddiq M (ed) Tropical and subtropical fruits: postharvest physiology, processing and packaging. Wiley, New York, pp 529–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Florkowski WJ, Prussia SE, Shewfelt RL, Brueckner B (2009) Postharvest handling: a systems approach, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghasemnezhad M, Zareh S, Shiri MA, Javdani Z (2015) The arils characterization of five different pomegranate (Punica granatum) genotypes stored after minimal processing technology. J Food Sci Technol 52:2023–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gil M, Artes F, Tomas-Barberan F (1996) Minimal processing and modified atmosphere packaging effects on pigmentation of pomegranate seeds. J Agric Food Chem 61:161–164Google Scholar
  12. Haminiuk CW, Maciel GM, Plata-Oviedo MS, Peralta RM (2012) Phenolic compounds in fruits–an overview. Int J Food Sci Tech 47:2023–2044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland D, Bar-Ya’akov I (2008) The pomegranate: new interest in an ancient fruit. Chron Horticult 48:12–15Google Scholar
  14. Holland D, Hatib K, Bar-Ya’akov I (2009) 2 Pomegranate: botany, Horticulture, Breeding. Hortic Rev 35:127–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Institute S (2003) SAS version 9.1. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  16. Jalikop S, Kumar PS (1990) Use of a gene marker to study the mode of pollination in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). J Hortic Sci 65:221–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kamel HM, Zeinab AZ, Eman AAA (2015) The effect of propolis and sodium metabisulfite as postharvest treatments on pomegranate arils storage. Am-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 15:1962–1973Google Scholar
  18. Kannan S, Susheela TA (2002) Effect of osmotic dehydration of guava. South Indian Hort 50:195–199Google Scholar
  19. Karav S, Arikal AO, Eksi A (2015) Effect of cold storage of various pomegranate cultivars fruit juices on health promoting compounds and their activities. J Food Nutr Res 3:593–598Google Scholar
  20. Kazemi M, Aran M, Zamani S (2011) Effect of salicylic acid treatments on quality characteristics of apple fruits during storage. Am J Physiol 6:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leistner L, Gould GW (2012) Hurdle technologies: combination treatments for food stability, safety and quality. Springer, New YourkGoogle Scholar
  22. Levin GM (1994) Pomegranate (Punica granatum) plant genetic resources in Turkmenistan. Plant Genet Resour Newsl (IPGRI/FAO)Google Scholar
  23. Mazza G, Miniati E (1993) Anthocyanins in fruits, vegetables, and grains. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  24. Mirdehghan SH, Rahemi M, Serrano M, Guillén F, Martínez-Romero D, Valero D (2006) Prestorage heat treatment to maintain nutritive and functional properties during postharvest cold storage of pomegranate. J Agric Food Chem 54:8495–8500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moon JH, Terao J (1998) Antioxidant activity of caffeic acid and dihydrocaffeic acid in lard and human low-density lipoprotein. J Agricl Food Chem 46(12):5062–5065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reyes LF, Villarreal JE, Cisneros-Zevallos L (2007) The increase in antioxidant capacity after wounding depends on the type of fruit or vegetable tissue. Food Chem 101:1254–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roy S, Waskar D (1997) Pomegranate in postharvest physiology and storage of tropical and subtropical fruits. Cab International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Sayyari M, Valero D, Babalar M, Kalantari S, Zapata PJ, Ma Serrano (2010) Prestorage oxalic acid treatment maintained visual quality, bioactive compounds, and antioxidant potential of pomegranate after long-term storage at 2 C. J Agric Food Chem 58:6804–6808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shwartz E, Glazer I, Bar-Ya’akov I, Matityahu I, Bar-Ilan I, Holland D, Amir R (2009) Changes in chemical constituents during the maturation and ripening of two commercially important pomegranate accessions. Food Chem 115:965–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silva IMBR, Rocha RHC, de Souza Silva H, dos Santos Moreira I, de Sousa FDA, de Paiva EP (2015) Qualidade e vida útil pós-colheita de romã ‘Molar’orgânica produzida no semi-árido paraibano. Semina: Ciências Agrárias 36:2555–2564Google Scholar
  31. Singh B, Singh JP, Kaur A, Singh N (2018a) Antimicrobial potential of pomegranate peel: a review. Int J Food Sci Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13964 Google Scholar
  32. Singh B, Singh JP, Kaur A, Singh N (2018b) Phenolic compounds as beneficial phytochemicals in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) peel: a review. Food Chem 261:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Singleton V, Rossi JA (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Viticult 16:144–158Google Scholar
  34. Tehranifar A, Zarei M, Nemati Z, Esfandiyari B, Vazifeshenas MR (2010) Investigation of physico-chemical properties and antioxidant activity of twenty Iranian pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cultivars. Sci Hortic 126:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yassin N, Tayel EA (2009) Thermal post harvest treatments for improving pomegranate fruit quality and shelf life. Alexandria Sci Exch J 30(4):461–470Google Scholar
  36. Zahran AA, Hassanein RA, AbdelWahab AT (2015) Effect of chitosan on biochemical composition and antioxidant activity of minimally processed ‘Wonderful’ pomegranate arils during cold storage. J Appl Bot Food Qual 88:241–248Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Akbar Ghasemi Soloklui
    • 1
  • Ali Gharaghani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nnadozie Oraguzie
    • 2
  • Asghar Ramezanian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of AgricultureShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  2. 2.Department of HorticultureWashington State University, Irrigated Agriculture, Research and Extension CenterProsserUSA

Personalised recommendations