Advertisement

Journal of Packaging Technology and Research

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 223–232 | Cite as

Effect of Packaging Material on Colour Kinetics and Biochemical Parameters of Custard Apple Powder During Storage

  • B. C. Khodifad
  • Navneet Kumar
  • H. G. Bhatt
  • D. M. Vyas
Research Article
  • 149 Downloads

Abstract

Custard apple powder (25 g) prepared by foam mat drying for storage under optimised conditions were sealed using a laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bags with and without vacuum packaging and glass bottle. During the storage, the average colour-L* values decreased, whereas colour-a* values, colour-b* values, and total colour difference (ΔE) value increased with storage period. Colour change was more pronounced in packages without vacuum and glass bottle as compared to laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag with vacuum. The average ascorbic acid, total sugar, and overall acceptability were more in case of packaging (laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag) under vacuum condition as compared to glass bottle followed by (laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag) without vacuum condition. The average sensory score, i.e., 7.74 even after 90 days of storage in laminated aluminium foil pouch with vacuum, indicates that the product may be stored for 90 days without appreciable loss of quality. The zero-order model is recommended for the prediction of colour-L*, colour-a* value, moisture content, ascorbic acid, and total sugar of custard apple powder during storage period due to higher R2 and lower χ2 and RMSE values.

Keywords

Custard apple powder Packaging Colour kinetics 

Introduction

Custard apple (Annona Squamosa L.) is a climacteric fruit and has pleasant flavour, sweet taste, and universal acceptance [1]. Custard apple is a hardy crop, which can be grown on marginal lands with minimum inputs [2]. The fruit matures in September–November and weighing 326 g on average, having tender flesh with a sugar content of 18.3%, 400 µg ascorbic acid/g, and a very sweet flavour [3]. Compared with other fruits, custard apple fruit contains significant quantities of vitamin C, thiamine, potassium, magnesium, and dietary fiber. The calorific value is high (300–450 kJ/100 g) and is almost double that of peach, orange, and apple [4]. There is a demand to utilize the nutritional potential of custard apple and to develop various new value-added products, which will also reduce the post-harvest losses of this perishable food [5].

Drying or dehydration is a useful way to increase the shelf life and reduce water activity of perishable food for further use [6]. During drying, the moisture content can be reduced up to a level ranging from 1 to 5%, which avoids microbial spoilage and undesirable enzymatic reactions [7] along with reduction in weight, volume, packaging, storage, and transportation cost [8]. Foam mat drying is a promising development in the field of drying aqueous foods.

Processing and subsequent storage causes variation in food characteristics. The storage behaviour of the product must be studied before commercialisation of the product [9]. The important factors causing quality deterioration in foods during storage include (1) inherent properties of the food which can not be controlled by packaging and (2) properties which are dependent on the environment and are amenable to control by the type of packaging employed [10]. Shelf life is defined as the maximum time for which a food product can be stored under specific environmental conditions without any appreciable deterioration in quality and acceptability. Total plate count of safe dehydrated fruit and vegetable product should remain less than 40,000/g as per the guidelines of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). The storage of foam mat-dried product of custard apple has higher importance for the reduction in post-harvest losses of the fruit. Therefore, the present investigation was carried out to evaluate the effect of different packaging materials and packaging conditions on the shelf life of foam mat-dried custard apple pulp powder by evaluating the colour, moisture, sensory, and quality characteristics.

Materials and Methods

Preparation of Foam from Custard Apple Pulp

Commercially available custard apple fruits were collected from local market of Godhra of Panchmahal District, Gujarat, India. The custard apple pulp was converted into foams having more expansion, high stability, and low density with the use of foaming agents. Egg albumen (EA) was selected as foaming agent and methyl cellulose (MC) was selected as foaming agent cum stabilizer. The optimum conditions for egg albumen, methyl cellulose, and whipping time (min) were found to be 15%, 0.37%, and 17.32 min, respectively, to provide higher foam expansion, lower foam density, and higher foam stability.

Preparation of Custard Apple Powder

As a drying media, generally, hot air is selected for drying of foamed material. A tray dryer (M/s Nova instruments Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, India) was used to dry-foamed custard apple pulp. Dried pulp was scratched with use of fine knife. The collected sample was grinded in food processor (Khera Instruments Pvt. Ltd., India) to get fine powder.

Storage of Custard Apple Powder

The grinded powder sample (25 g) was packed in laminated aluminium foil pouches (LAFP), polyethylene bags (PE), and glass bottle. The LAFP and PE bags (15 × 20 cm) were packed with vacuum and without vacuum. All samples were stored in ambient condition up to 3 months of storage period at Agricultural Process Engineering Laboratory, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Godhra, Gujarat, India.

Evaluation of Responses

The powder samples were analysed for colour, moisture content, quality, and sensory characteristics every 30 days until 3 months. A new pack was opened for analysis each time [9].

Colour

The colour of the powder was assessed using a Hunter/CIE Lab (Portable Lovibond colorimeter, Tintometer India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, India). The CIE Lab colour space is based on the concept that colours can be considered as combinations of red and yellow, red and blue, green and yellow, and green and blue. Colour space in which values L*, a*, and b* are plotted using Cartesian coordinate system [9].

Colour difference is always calculated as colour values of sample minus that of standard specimen. The sample remains lighter in colour in case of positive value of ΔL*, whereas it remains darker in colour in case of negative value. If Δa* is positive, the sample is more red or less green than the standard. If it is negative, it would be greener or less red. Similarly, if Δb* is positive, the sample is more yellow or less blue than the standard. If negative, it would be bluer or less yellow. Colour difference can be computed using the following formulas:
$$\begin{aligned} & \Delta L^{ * } = L_{2}^{ * } - L_{1}^{ * } ,\quad \Delta a^{ * } = a_{2}^{ * } - a_{1}^{ * } ,\quad \Delta b^{ * } = b_{2}^{ * } - b_{1}^{ * } , \\ & \Delta E = \sqrt {(L_{2}^{ * } - L_{1}^{ * } )^{2} + (a_{2}^{ * } - a_{1}^{ * } )^{2} + (b_{2}^{ * } - b_{1}^{ * } )^{2} } , \\ \end{aligned}$$
(1)
where subscript 1 is for standard specimen and 2 is for sample and ΔE is total colour difference.

Total Sugars, Ascorbic Acid, Moisture Content, and Total Plate Count

Total sugars were determined by the method of [11], ascorbic acid was assessed by visual titration method, and moisture content and total plate count were determined as per the method given by Ranganna [10].

Kinetics of Change in Responses During Storage

The loss in food quality during storage can be described with zero- and first-order equations [12]. The experimental data obtained from the storage study were fitted to these equations. The degradation kinetics of ascorbic acid and non-enzymatic browning for both the storage vials was established as per Rai et al. [13]. Changes in colour-L*, a*, and b* and ΔE values, moisture content, total sugar, and ascorbic acid of powder as a result of storage was investigated using the following zero- and first-order kinetics:
$$C = C_{0} \pm k_{0} t,$$
(2)
$$\ln C = \ln C_{0} \pm k_{1} t,$$
(3)
where C is the measured value of response, C0 is the initial value of the corresponding response, t is the storage time, and K0 and K1 are the reaction rate constants for zero and first orders, respectively. The signs (+) and (−) represent increase and decrease in the corresponding quality response of food, respectively [9].

The goodness of fit of the selected mathematical models to the experimental data was evaluated with the correlation coefficient (R2), the reduced Chi square (χ2), and the root mean square error (RMSE). R2 is a measure of the amount of variation around the mean explained by the model. The reduced χ2 is the mean square of the deviations between experimental and predicted values for the models and was used to determine the goodness of fit. The RMSE gives the deviation between the predicted and experimental data and it is required to reach zero value [14]. The model may be used for prediction purpose if R2 values are as high as possible (more than 0.8), and χ2 and RMSE values are as low as possible. The RMSE values should range from 0 to 1 [15, 16].

The reduced χ2 and the root mean square error (RMSE) were calculated using the following expressions:
$$\chi^{2} = \frac{{\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{N} } {({\text{MR}}_{{{\text{Exp}},i}} - {\text{MR}}_{{{\text{Pre}},i}} )^{2} } }{(N - Z)},$$
(4)
$${\text{RMSE}} = \sqrt {\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i = 1}^{N} ({\text{MR}}_{{{\text{Pre}},i}} - {\text{MR}}_{{{\text{Exp}},i}} )^{2} } ,$$
(5)
where MRExp,i is the ith experimental moisture ratio, MRPre,i is the ith predicted moisture ratio, n is the number of observations, and z is the number of constants. In this study, the regression analysis was performed using MS Excel 2013.

Sensory Characteristics

Sensory analysis was conducted for all the samples of powder at 30 day interval of 3 month storage period. A panel of 15 semi-trained panellists was asked to assess the powder and mark them on a hedonic rating test (1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither like nor dislike, and 9 = like extremely) in accordance with their opinion for colour, flavour, taste, odour, and overall acceptability [10]. About 10 g servings of powder were kept in petridish. All tests were performed under uniform lighting conditions, and the subjects were not informed about the background of the study.

Statistical Analysis

The observations were taken for five treatment combinations with three replications. The samples during storage were subjected to analysis of variance technique considering two factors completely randomized design. All the treatments were compared at 5% level of significance using the critical difference. The standard error of mean (S.Em), critical difference (CD), coefficient of variance (CV), and mean values for dependent parameters were tabulated and the level of significance was reported [1].

Results and Discussion

The custard apple powder prepared from foam mat drying was stored and analysed at 30 day interval of storage period. The powder was generally low in moisture and had a hygroscopic nature. The gain in moisture results in a different form of reaction mechanism in the product. This reaction mechanism may cause reduction in overall acceptability. Therefore, the product was analysed for physicochemical and sensory parameters.

Colour

Colour is an important attribute, because it is usually considered the first property that the consumer observes. The colour usually changes with the heat processing; however, the retention of a food’s colour after thermal treatment may be used to predict the quality deterioration of food [17]. It was observed that the powder colour changed to darker red with the increase of storage time. A variation in colour values (L*, a*, and b*) due to a change in non-enzymatic browning (NEB) in stored papaya cereal flakes has also been reported Rai and Chauhan [18]. Several factors such as temperature, moisture, carbonyl compounds, organic acids, water activity, O2, and sugars have been reported to be responsible for causing non-enzymatic browning in stored foods [19].

Colour-L* Value

The L* value for foam mat-dried powder reduced from initial 81.14 to 72.36, 71.18, 71.55, 70.68, and 70.77 for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, PE bags with and without vacuum and glass bottle, respectively (Table 1). It was observed that average L* was more in the case of laminated aluminium foil pouch as compared to PE bags and glass bottle, indicating lighter colour of powder in vacuum-packed laminated aluminium foil pouch. Sagar and Islam [20] also reported similar results for pomegranate powder.
Table 1

Variation of colour during storage period with different packaging materials at ambient condition

Treatments

Storage period, days

L*

a*

b*

ΔE

0

30

60

90

0

30

60

90

0

30

60

90

0

30

60

90

LAFP (vac.)

81.14

79.47

76.26

72.36

0.36

0.37

1.51

2.38

3.74

7.16

18.91

29.84

0

3.81

15.98

27.61

LAFP (without vac.)

81.14

79.18

75.03

71.18

0.36

1.05

1.75

2.62

3.74

7.6

20.76

30.99

0

4.39

18.14

29.10

PE (vac.)

81.14

79.41

75.22

71.55

0.36

0.51

1.7

2.41

3.74

7.17

18.92

29.86

0

3.85

16.35

27.90

PE (without vac.)

81.14

78.65

74.59

70.68

0.36

1.13

1.78

2.77

3.74

7.66

20.09

31.27

0

4.71

17.67

29.55

S.Em. ±

 

0.34

0.41

0.20

 

0.24

0.09

0.13

 

0.61

0.58

0.21

 

0.54

0.49

0.22

C.D. at 5%

 

NS

NS

0.66

 

NS

NS

NS

 

NS

NS

0.67

 

NS

NS

0.71

C.V. %

 

0.75

0.93

0.49

 

54.35

9.13

8.96

 

14.19

5.20

1.17

 

22.14

5.06

1.32

Glass bottle (control)

81.14

78.6

75.14

70.77

0.36

0.64

1.75

2.62

3.74

7.43

19.79

30.85

0

4.49

17.19

29.11

LAFP laminated aluminium foil pouch with vacuum, PE polyethylene, Vac. vacuum

It can be observed from Fig. 1a that the L* values in all the cases decreased with the storage period. The decrease in the L* values shows an increase in darkness, which may be attributed to the gradual increase in non-enzymatic browning during storage. Pua et al. [21] also reported similar outcomes for jackfruit powder during storage for 3 months. It can further be noted that the change in L* value or increase in darkness was more pronounced in package without vacuum and glass bottle as compared to laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag with vacuum package. It can be observed from Table 1 that variation due to packaging was non-significant in colour-L* values up to 60 days followed by significant variation at 90 days (P < 0.05).
Fig. 1

Variation in colour value with respect to storage period

Colour-a* Value

The a* value for foam mat-dried custard apple powder increased from initial 0.36 to 2.38, 2.62, 2.41, 2.77, and 2.62 for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, polyethylene bags with and without vacuum and glass bottle, respectively (Table 1). It was observed that average colour-a* was lower in the case of laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag with vacuum as compared to glass bottle and without vacuum package for powder. Figure 1b shows the increase in a* values for all the cases with the storage period. The increase in a* value shows increase in reddishness. The increase may be because of a gradual increase in non-enzymatic browning during storage. Rai and Chauhan [18] reported a similar increase in enzymatic browning for papaya cereal flakes, which might have lead to the increase in a* value during storage. Increase in a* value for dried banana during storage was also reported by Batista et al. [22] and Roopa et al. [23]. The variation for colour-a* value due to effect of packaging was not significant (P < 0.05).

Colour-b* Value

It can be observed from Table 1 that the b* value for foam mat-dried custard apple powder increased from initial 3.74 to 29.84, 30.99, 29.86, 31.27, and 30.85 for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, PE bags with and without vacuum and glass bottle, respectively. It can be observed from Fig. 1c that the b* values increased with the storage period in all the cases. The changes in b* value were more pronounced in samples without vacuum packaging. It can be observed from Table 1 that variation due to packaging was non-significant variation in b* values up to 60 days and showed significant variation at 90 days (P < 0.05).

Total Colour Difference (ΔE) Value

The ΔE value for foam mat-dried custard apple powder increased from 3.81 to 27.61 and 4.39 to 29.10 for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, 3.85–27.90 and 4.71–29.55 for polyethylene bags with and without vacuum and 4.49–29.11 for glass bottle, respectively (Table 1). It was observed that the average ΔE was less in the case of laminated aluminium foil pouch with vacuum followed by polyethylene bag with vacuum as compared to glass bottle and without vacuum packaging. The increase in ΔE values in all the cases with the storage period was observed (Fig. 1d). A similar pattern for jackfruit powder storage was reported by Pua et al. [21]. Statistical analysis showed variation due to packaging was non-significant variation in ΔE values up to 60 days followed by significant variation at 90 days (P < 0.05).

Moisture Content

It can be observed from Table 2 that the moisture content of the foam mat-dried custard apple powders ranged from 4.80 to 5.64% (db) for all the samples during the storage period. The moisture content ranged from initial 4.80 to 4.90, 5.49, 5.26, 5.64 and 5.37% for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, polyethylene bags with and without vacuum and glass bottle, respectively. It was observed that average moisture content was more in case of without vacuum packaging as compared to vacuum packaging followed by packaging in glass bottle. It is clear from Fig. 2a that the moisture content increased with the increase in storage period. Pua et al. [21] also observed the similar increase in moisture content of packaged jackfruit powder due to migration of water vapour from storage environment into the packaging material. The moisture content increased more in without vacuum bag followed by glass bottle as compared to powder packed in with vacuum bag. It can further be noted from Table 2 that effect of packaging method has significant effect on moisture content of the product during 60 and 90 days of storage period (P < 0.05).
Table 2

Variation of moisture content, ascorbic acid, and total sugar during storage period with different packaging materials at ambient condition

Treatments

Storage period, days

Moisture content, % (db)

Ascorbic acid, mg/100 g

Total sugar, g/100 g

Overall acceptability

0

30

60

90

0

30

60

90

0

30

60

90

0

30

60

90

LAFP (vac.)

4.8

4.83

4.92

4.9

11.36

11.36

11.04

10.44

10.53

10.53

10.26

10.16

8.25

8.13

7.95

7.74

LAFP (without vac.)

4.8

5.05

5.34

5.49

11.36

9.94

9.22

8.72

10.53

9.96

9.7

9.20

8.25

7.33

7.01

6.76

PE (vac.)

4.8

4.98

5.12

5.26

11.36

10.89

10.43

9.86

10.53

10.35

10.11

9.88

8.25

7.74

7.42

7.09

PE (without vac.)

4.8

5.19

5.41

5.64

11.36

9.47

9.20

8.70

10.53

9.88

9.23

8.95

8.25

7.16

6.89

6.60

S.Em. ±

 

0.14

0.07

0.08

 

0.33

0.31

0.29

 

0.08

0.04

0.05

 

0.05

0.04

0.03

C.D. at 5%

 

NS

0.24

0.27

 

1.09

1.00

0.95

 

0.27

0.13

0.17

 

0.15

0.14

0.10

C.V. %

 

4.77

2.46

2.68

 

5.57

5.33

5.33

 

1.41

0.71

0.95

 

1.08

0.99

0.72

Glass bottle (control)

4.8

4.91

5.26

5.37

11.36

10.41

9.81

9.28

10.53

10.17

9.73

9.34

8.25

7.55

7.24

6.91

LAFP laminated aluminium foil pouch with vacuum, PE polyethylene, Vac. vacuum

Fig. 2

Variation in moisture content, ascorbic acid, total sugar, and overall acceptability with respect to storage period

Ascorbic Acid

It can be observed from Table 2 that the ascorbic acid content of foam mat-dried custard apple powder ranged from 11.36 to 8.70 mg/100 g during the storage period. The ascorbic acid content ranged from initial 11.36 to 10.44, 8.70, 9.86, 8.70, and 9.28 mg/100 g for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, polyethylene bags with and without vacuum and glass bottle, respectively. It was observed that average ascorbic acid content was more in case of with vacuum packaging (laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag) as compared to glass bottle followed by without vacuum packaging (laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag). It can be observed from Fig. 2b that the ascorbic acid content decreased with the increase in storage period. The higher ascorbic acid content found in vacuum-sealed packaging material as compared to powder packed in without vacuum. It can further be noted from Table 2 that effect of packaging material during storage period was significant (P < 0.05).

Total Sugar

It can observed from Table 2 that the total sugar content of foam mat-dried custard apple powder ranged from 10.53 to 8.95 g/100 g during the storage period. The total sugar content ranged from initial 10.53 to 10.16, 9.20, 9.88, 8.95, and 9.34 g/100 g for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, polyethylene bags with and without vacuum and glass bottle, respectively. It was observed that average total sugar was more in case of with vacuum packaging (laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag) as compared to glass bottle followed by without vacuum packaging (laminated aluminium foil pouch and polyethylene bag).

It can be observed from Fig. 2c that the total sugar decreased with the increase in storage period. Higher total sugar content was found in vacuum-sealed packaging as compared to powder packed without vacuum. It can further be noted from Table 2 that the effect of packaging material on the total sugar content of the product was significant during the storage period (P < 0.05).

Total Plate Count

It was observed that the total plate count remained 100, 140, 90, 190, and 90 CFU/g for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, polyethylene bags with and without vacuum and glass bottle, respectively, which is less than the limit prescribed by the FSSAI for dehydrated fruits and vegetables products, indicating acceptabilty of the product.

Sensory Characteristics

All sensory parameter viz. colour, flavour, taste, odour, and overall acceptability of the product were evaluated during the storage period. The sensory score of all parameters significantly decreased with increase in storage period. The average sensory score of overall acceptability for laminated aluminium foil pouch with and without vacuum, polyethylene bags with and without vacuum, and glass bottle was reduced from 8.25 to 7.74, 6.76, 7.09, 6.6, and 6.91, respectively, during storage period. It was observed from Fig. 2d, that the average sensory score was more in the case of laminated aluminium foil pouch with vacuum packaging followed by polyethylene bag with vacuum packaging with respect to powder packed in glass bottle and without vacuum packaging.

It can further be noted from Table 2 that the values of storage sensory characteristics of the product changed significantly with respect to packaging material. It is evident that the sensory score reduced slightly with the increase in storage period. This may be due to the basic fact of deterioration of colour, flavour, taste, and odour of the product during storage (Fig. 3). However, the minimum change in sensory characteristics with storage time in laminated aluminium foil pouch, indicating that the products can be stored up to 3 months without appreciable loss of sensory characteristics. Similar finding was also reported by Bharadiya and Memon [24] for freeze-dried custard apple powder stored in vacuum packaging, Sharma et al. [25] for apple powder in laminated pouches, and Roopa et al. [23] for banana chips stored in laminated aluminium foil polyethylene under ambient condition. From the above results, it can be suggested that the food or food products need to pack under vacuum environments to obtain long shelf life. A similar finding for milk based product was also reported by Manoj Kumar et al. [26].
Fig. 3

Variation in colour with respect to storage period

Storage Kinetics

The zero- and first-order kinetic models were fitted to describe the reaction rate as a function of storage time to predict the colour, moisture content, ascorbic acid, and total sugar of custard apple powder during storage. Kinetic modelling is required to derive the basic information for a system to describe the reaction rate as a function of storage time, and hence to predict changes during storage [27]. The use of zero- and second-order equations for changes in colour, moisture content, hardness, non-enzymatic browning, losses in vitamins, proteins, and microbial growth was reported by Kumar et al. [9] and Singh [12]. Manuel and Sereno [28] also recommended the use of zero-order kinetics for the colour formation of onion as a function of time for each level of water activity.

The colour-L*, a*, b*, and ΔE values were used to determine the rate of change in colour. Moisture content, ascorbic acid, and total sugar were also used for kinetics study during storage. Table 3 shows the parameters, coefficient of determination, χ2 value, and root mean square error (RMSE). It can be observed from Table 3 that average R2, χ2, and RMSE values of colour-L* were 0.9805, 0.5344, and 0.5122 for zero order and 0.9913, 78.4587, and 6.2519 for first order, respectively. The value of R2 is lower in zero-order equation in comparison with first-order equation; however, the value of χ2 and RMSE is quite low; therefore, zero-order equation is recommended for the prediction of colour-L* value.
Table 3

Kinetics parameters from zero- and first-order reactions of colour, moisture content, ascorbic acid, and total sugar

S. no.

Response

Treatments

Zero-order

First-order

K0

C0

R²

χ²

RMSE

K1

C1

R²

χ²

RMSE

1

Colour-L*

LAFP (vac.)

− 0.0985

81.7397

0.9716

0.6382

0.5649

− 0.0013

81.8227

0.9667

61.6614

5.5525

2

LAFP (without vac.)

− 0.1135

81.7360

0.9797

0.5995

0.5475

− 0.0015

81.8385

0.9964

81.6805

6.3906

3

PE (vac.)

− 0.1099

81.7727

0.9752

0.6894

0.5871

− 0.0014

81.8689

0.9997

76.6369

6.1902

4

PE (without vac.)

− 0.1181

81.5813

0.9897

0.3263

0.4039

− 0.0016

81.6873

0.9970

88.1742

6.6398

5

Glass bottle

− 0.1153

81.5973

0.9862

0.4186

0.4575

− 0.0015

81.7048

0.9968

84.1402

6.4861

6

Colour-a*

LAFP (vac.)

0.0240

0.0740

0.9009

0.1429

0.2673

0.0236

0.2869

0.8848

0.2189

0.3308

7

LAFP (without vac.)

0.0249

0.3227

0.9965

0.0049

0.0496

0.0215

0.4350

0.7466

0.0337

0.1299

8

PE (vac.)

0.0245

0.1420

0.9321

0.0984

0.2218

0.0231

0.3295

0.8573

0.1330

0.2579

9

PE (without vac.)

0.0262

0.3300

0.9929

0.0111

0.0746

0.0219

0.4444

0.8344

0.0661

0.1817

10

Glass bottle

0.0263

0.1600

0.9563

0.0711

0.1885

0.0232

0.3576

0.9106

0.0994

0.2230

11

Colour-b*

LAFP (vac.)

0.3001

1.4060

0.9569

9.1367

2.1374

0.0240

3.7645

0.9832

383.4298

13.8461

12

LAFP (without vac.)

0.3164

1.5360

0.9623

8.8114

2.0990

0.0245

3.8620

0.9989

434.1204

14.7330

13

PE (vac.)

0.3004

1.4070

0.9570

9.1262

2.1361

0.0240

3.7668

0.9989

384.1331

13.8588

14

PE (without vac.)

0.3167

1.4390

0.9618

8.9545

2.1160

0.0244

3.8553

0.9994

431.5781

14.6898

15

Glass bottle

0.3123

1.3993

0.9595

9.2735

2.1533

0.0244

3.8125

0.9998

418.1929

14.4602

16

Colour-ΔE

LAFP (vac.)

0.2806

0.2108

0.8951

20.7672

3.2224

0.0248

2.9359

0.8961

322.5490

12.6994

17

LAFP (without vac.)

0.2940

0.2154

0.9037

20.7248

3.2191

0.0249

3.0763

0.9970

354.5723

13.3149

18

PE (vac.)

0.2831

0.2534

0.8987

20.3307

3.1883

0.0248

2.9630

0.9976

329.2808

12.8312

19

PE (without vac.)

0.3012

0.3802

0.9152

18.9073

3.0747

0.0250

3.1818

0.9941

375.7037

13.7059

20

Glass bottle

0.2960

0.3344

0.9105

19.3823

3.1131

0.0250

3.1241

0.9996

361.7065

13.4482

21

Moisture content

LAFP (vac.)

0.0012

4.8020

0.8919

0.0004

0.0144

0.0003

4.8021

0.8922

0.0064

0.0568

22

LAFP (without vac.)

0.0070

4.9240

0.8016

0.0270

0.1163

0.0014

4.9212

0.6872

0.2282

0.3378

23

PE (vac.)

0.0088

4.7380

0.9066

0.0178

0.0944

0.0017

4.7488

0.6423

0.3200

0.4000

24

PE (without vac.)

0.0123

4.7600

0.8926

0.0412

0.1435

0.0023

4.7781

0.9820

0.6442

0.5675

25

Glass bottle

0.0088

4.7730

0.8714

0.0255

0.1129

0.0017

4.7773

0.6202

0.3344

0.4089

26

Ascorbic acid

LAFP (vac.)

− 0.0103

11.5120

0.8404

0.0450

0.1501

− 0.0009

11.5205

0.8358

0.6076

0.5512

27

LAFP (without vac.)

− 0.0291

11.1080

0.9450

0.1106

0.2352

− 0.0029

11.1223

0.6682

4.4834

1.4972

28

PE (vac.)

− 0.0165

11.3773

0.9976

0.0014

0.0269

− 0.0016

11.3910

0.9344

1.4511

0.8518

29

PE (without vac.)

− 0.0275

10.9187

0.8378

0.3292

0.4057

− 0.0028

10.9073

0.8278

4.1306

1.4371

30

Glass bottle

− 0.0228

11.2427

0.9805

0.0233

0.1080

− 0.0022

11.2583

0.9243

2.7499

1.1726

31

Total sugar

LAFP (vac.)

− 0.0046

10.5772

0.8859

0.0062

0.0558

− 0.0004

10.5783

0.8866

0.1175

0.2424

32

LAFP (without vac.)

− 0.0141

10.4844

0.9817

0.0084

0.0647

− 0.0014

10.4929

0.7961

1.0400

0.7211

33

PE (vac.)

− 0.0073

10.5465

0.9962

0.0005

0.0151

− 0.0007

10.5493

0.9695

0.2770

0.3722

34

PE (without vac.)

− 0.0180

10.4559

0.9725

0.0205

0.1013

− 0.0019

10.4654

0.9599

1.6820

0.9171

35

Glass bottle

− 0.0134

10.5448

0.9987

0.0005

0.0159

− 0.0013

10.5537

0.9698

0.9317

0.6825

The average R2, χ2, and RMSE values for colour-a* were 0.9557, 0.0657, and 0.1604 for zero order and 0.8467, 0.1102, and 0.2247 for first order, respectively. The value of R2 is lower in zero-order equation in comparison with first-order equation; however, the value of χ2 and RMSE is quite low; therefore, zero-order equation is recommended for the prediction of colour-a* value. The average χ2 and RMSE values for colour-b* and ΔE were higher than the prescribed limit; therefore, zero and first-order model could not be used for prediction of colour-b* and ΔE.

It can be noted from Table 3; in all cases, the average R2 value was higher than 0.8728 for zero order and 0.7648 for first order. The χ2 and RMSE values were lower than 0.1019 and 0.1852 for zero order 0.8097 and 0.5871 for first order, respectively, except ascorbic acid for first-order model. After a close inspection, it can be observed that the zero-order model can be better applied for predicting the change in moisture content, ascorbic acid, and total sugar.

Conclusion

The colour-a*, colour-b*, total colour deference (ΔE), and moisture content increased, whereas colour-L* values and sensory characteristics of the foam mat-dried custard apple powder decreased with the storage time. The powder packed in laminated aluminium foil pouch with vacuum was performed better with the parameters, namely, colour, moisture content, ascorbic acid, total sugar, and sensory evaluation with respect to polyethylene bag (with and without vacuum) and glass bottle during 90 days of storage period. The zero-order models can be applied to colour-L*, colour-a*, moisture content, ascorbic acid, and total sugar. The average sensory score, i.e., 7.74 even after 90 days of storage in laminated aluminium foil pouch with vacuum, indicates that the product may be stored for 90 days without appreciable loss of quality.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Our sincere thanks to Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India for providing necessary requirements for conducting research work.

References

  1. 1.
    Pilania S, Dashora LK, Singh V (2010) Standardization of recipe and juice extraction method for preparation of ready-to-serve beverage from custard apple (Annona squamosa L.). Int J Proc Postharvest Technol 1(2):65–72Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sravanthi T, Waghrey K, Daddam JR (2014) Studies on preservation and processing of custard apple (Annona squamosa L.) pulp. Int J Plant Anim Environ Sci 4(3):676–682Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu S (2000) The performance of African Pride custard apple cultivar. China Fruits 3:29–30Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar S, Kumar N, Seth N, Jethva KR (2015) A study on physical properties and drying characteristics of custard apple. National seminar on emerging trends in food quality and safety at Anand Agricultural University, AnandGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khodifad BC, Kumar N, Vyas DK, Seth N, Prem M (2016) Pre and post-harvest practices, processing and value addition of custard apple. Int J Food Ferment Technol 6(2):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roberts JS, Kidd DR, Zakour OP (2008) Drying kinetics of grape seeds. J Food Eng 89:460–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sangamithra A, Venkatachalam S, Swamy Gabriela S, Kannan K (2015) Foam mat drying of food materials: a review. J Food Process Preserv 39:3165–3174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fumagalli F, Silveira AM (2005) Quality evaluation of microwave-dried Packham’s triumph pear. Dry Technol 23:2215–2226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar N, Sarkar BC, Sharma HK, Jha SK (2012) Colour kinetics and storage characteristics of carrot, pulse and rice by-product based extrudates. Br Food J 114(9):1279–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ranganna S (1995) Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruits and vegetable products. Tata McGraw Hill, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lane JH, Eynon L (1923) Volumetric determination of reducing sugars by means of Fehling’s solution, with methylene blue as internal indicator. J Soc Chem Ind Trans 32–36Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh RP (2000) scientific principles of shelf-life evaluation. In: Man CMD, Jones AA (eds) Shelf life of foods. Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rai P, Rai C, Majumdar G, Dasgupta S, De S (2008) Storage study of ultra filtered mosambi (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) juice. J Food Process Preserv 32:923–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ertekin C, Yaldiz O (2004) Drying of eggplant and selection of a suitable thin layer drying model. J Food Eng 63:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar N, Sarkar BC, Sharma HK (2011) Mathematical modelling of thin layer hot air drying of carrot pomace. J Food Sci Technol 49(1):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meghwal M, Goyal MR (2016) Food engineering: emerging issues, modeling, and applications. Apple Academic Press Inc, Waretown, pp 15–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shin S, Bhowmilk SR (1995) Thermal kinetics of colour changes in pigeon pea puree. J Food Eng 24(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rai S, Chauhan AS (2008) Quality attributes of drum dried papaya cereal flakes developed from ripe papaya (Carica papaya L.). Electron J Environ Agric Food Chem 7(5):2914–2931Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muralikrishna M, Nanjundaswamy AM, Siddappa GS (1969) Guava powder preparation, packaging and storage studies. J Food Sci Technol 6:93–98Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sagar VR, Islam (2006) Preparation and storage studies on pomegranate powder. Indian J Hortic 63(4):386–389Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pua CK, Hamid SAH, Tan CP, Mirhosseini H, Rahman RA, Rusul G (2008) Storage stability of jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) powder packaged in aluminium laminated polyethylene and metallized co-extruded biaxially oriented polypropylene during storage. J Food Eng 89:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Batista Dde VS, Cardoso RL, Godoy RCB, Evangelista-Barreto NS (2014) Stability physical–chemical and microbiological of organic dehydrated banana. Cienc Rural 44(10):1886–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roopa N, Babu DR, Gupta DK (2006) Effect of various packaging materials on the shelf-stability of banana chips. J Food Sci Technol 43(6):615–619Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bharadiya NN, Memon KN (2010) Preparation of custard apple powder. A dissertation report submitted to the Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, CAET, JAU, JunagadhGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sharma KD, Alkesh Kaushal BBL (2003) Quality of apple powder as affected by packaging material during storage. J Sci Ind Res 62(6):609–615Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manoj Kumar CT, Narender Raju P, Singh AK (2017) Effect of packaging materials and storage temperatures on shelf life of micronutrient fortified milk-cereal based complementary food. J Packag Technol Res 1:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van-Bockel MAJS (1996) Statistical aspects of kinetic modelling for food science problem. J Food Sci 61:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Manuel SM, Sereno AM (1999) The kinetics of browning measured during the storage of onion and strawberry. Int J Food Sci Technol 34:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Institute of Packaging 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Processing and Food Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering and TechnologyAnand Agricultural UniversityGodhraIndia
  2. 2.Food Quality Testing Laboratory, College of Food Processing Technology and Bio-EnergyAnand Agricultural UniversityAnandIndia
  3. 3.Department of Processing and Food Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering and TechnologyJunagadh Agricultural UniversityJunagadhIndia

Personalised recommendations