Abstract
Blueberries have many health benefits such as high content of anthocyanins, phenols and other antioxidants, which could prevent cancer and cardiovascular diseases. However, the texture of blueberries can easily deteriorate during handling, processing and distribution, which leads to food loss. This is a particular problem when blueberries are irradiated as a treatment for food safety purposes. This research evaluated the effects of vacuum impregnation on the texture and quality of irradiated blueberries. Moisture content, texture, color, total soluble solids, pH, total titratable acidity, and total phenol amount were evaluated on Day 0 (the day of the treatment), Day 7, and Day 14 of storage at 4.5-5ºC, 50-55%RH. A consumer test was also conducted. Fresh blueberries were vacuum impregnated with calcium lactate solution at 4%, 5%, and 6% concentration (w/w). Results showed that under 160 mm Hg bar pressure and 8% solid-liquid ratio (blueberries-impregnation solution), the 4% calcium lactate solution with two-step vacuum impregnation process yielded blueberries with firmer (P<0.05) texture. Blueberries were initially exposed to vacuum for 5 mins followed by 5 mins at atmospheric conditions. A second step consisted of 10 mins vacuum followed by 10 mins at atmospheric conditions. Overall, vacuum impregnation treatment did not affect (P>0.05) moisture content, pH or other quality attributes and consumers equally liked vacuum impregnated blueberries and the fresh samples. On a second study, blueberries impregnated with 4% calcium lactate solution were irradiated using a 1.35 MeV electron beam irradiator. The irradiation doses tested ranged from 0.0 kGy (control) to 2.0 kGy. Irradiation did not (P>0.05) affect the pH or total phenolic amount of blueberries. Although vacuum impregnated blueberries were firmer (P<0.05) than non-VI treated blueberries under the same irradiation dosage, fruit firmness was affected (P<0.05) by exposure to the electron beams. This negative effect was more significant at higher dose levels. On the other hand, when exposed to the maximum allowed dose for fresh produce (1.0 kGy), vacuum impregnation helped maintain the texture of the blueberries (P>0.05) throughout the refrigerated storage while the controls showed considerable softness.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Two-step vacuum impregnation with 4% calcium lactate yielded firmer blueberries.
- Taxon
- blueberriese0
- Treatment
- 4% calcium lactate solution with two-step vacuum impregnation processe0
- Outcome
- texturee0
- Direction
- firmere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the 4% calcium lactate solution with two-step vacuum impregnation process yielded blueberries with firmer (P<0.05) texture”
Claim · model-written summary
Vacuum impregnation did not significantly affect blueberry moisture content, pH, or other quality attributes.
- Taxon
- blueberriest0
- Treatment
- vacuum impregnation treatmente0
- Outcome
- moisture content, pH or other quality attributese0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“vacuum impregnation treatment did not affect (P>0.05) moisture content, pH or other quality attributes”
t0“Effect of Vacuum Impregnation Process on Irradiated Blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Consumers liked vacuum impregnated blueberries and fresh samples equally.
Verbatim
e0“consumers equally liked vacuum impregnated blueberries and the fresh samples”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation did not significantly affect blueberry pH or total phenolic amount.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Irradiation did not (P>0.05) affect the pH or total phenolic amount of blueberries”
Claim · model-written summary
Vacuum impregnated blueberries were firmer than non-VI blueberries at the same irradiation dose.
Verbatim
e0“vacuum impregnated blueberries were firmer (P<0.05) than non-VI treated blueberries under the same irradiation dosage”
Claim · model-written summary
Electron beam exposure significantly affected fruit firmness, with a more marked negative effect at higher doses.
- Taxon
- Blueberriest0
- Treatment
- exposure to the electron beamse0
- Outcome
- fruit firmnesse0
- Qualifier
- higher dose levelse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“fruit firmness was affected (P<0.05) by exposure to the electron beams. This negative effect was more significant at higher dose levels”
t0“Effect of Vacuum Impregnation Process on Irradiated Blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1.0 kGy, vacuum impregnation maintained blueberry texture during refrigerated storage.
- Taxon
- blueberriese0
- Treatment
- vacuum impregnatione0
- Outcome
- texturee0
- Direction
- maintaine0
- Value
- 1.0 kGye0
- Qualifier
- throughout the refrigerated storagee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“when exposed to the maximum allowed dose for fresh produce (1.0 kGy), vacuum impregnation helped maintain the texture of the blueberries (P>0.05) throughout the refrigerated storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Controls showed considerable softness during refrigerated storage at 1.0 kGy.
Verbatim
e0“while the controls showed considerable softness”
t0“Effect of Vacuum Impregnation Process on Irradiated Blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
calcium atom · quality: postharvest · VacciniumPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →electron · quality: postharvest · VacciniumResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
radiation · quality: phytochemicals · VacciniumPositive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.