Paper · 2019 · International Journal of Food and Fermentation Technology

Effect of Drying on Physico-chemical Properties of Fig Fruit (Ficus carica L.) Variety Dinkar

Ghan Shyam Abrol

6
claims
13
verbatim quotes
1
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Fig is an underutilized fruit in-spite of having several health benefits. The most simple and practical approach for extending the shelf-life of fig fruit is by drying. For this purpose, the fruits were halved and quarter as per oven and oven dried for 6 hrs @ 60±2°C. The fresh as well as dried fruits were subjected to analysis of various physico-chemical characteristics. The results show that there was a loss of ascorbic acid in dried fruits. It was 5.6 mg/100g in dried fruits whereas in fresh fruits it was 10.52 mg/100g. The dried fruits had a rehydration ratio of 3.13: 1. Antioxidant activity was higher in fresh fruits compared to the dried fruits. Textural property (i.e. hardness) was almost doubled after drying. Sensory analysis showed that dried fruits obtained better scores over fresh fruits for different characteristics. Drying of figs has been found to be a cost effective and an easy method to reduce the bulk and to increase the shelf-life of fruits.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drying reduced fig fruit ascorbic acid from 10.52 to 5.6 mg/100g.

Taxon
Figt0
Material
Dinkart0
Treatment
dried fruitse0
Outcome
ascorbic acide0
Direction
losse0
Value
5.6 mg/100ge0
Qualifier
10.52 mg/100ge0
Comparator
fresh fruitse0

Verbatim

e0

“The results show that there was a loss of ascorbic acid in dried fruits. It was 5.6 mg/100g in dried fruits whereas in fresh fruits it was 10.52 mg/100g.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 375–528 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fig Fruit (Ficus carica L.) Variety Dinkar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–93 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dried fig fruit had a rehydration ratio of 3.13: 1.

Taxon
Figt0
Material
Dinkart0
Outcome
rehydration ratioe0
Value
3.13: 1e0

Verbatim

e0

“The dried fruits had a rehydration ratio of 3.13: 1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 529–581 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fig Fruit (Ficus carica L.) Variety Dinkar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fresh fig fruit had higher antioxidant activity than dried fruit.

Taxon
Figt0
Material
Dinkart0
Treatment
dried fruitse0
Outcome
Antioxidant activitye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
fresh fruitse0

Verbatim

e0

“Antioxidant activity was higher in fresh fruits compared to the dried fruits.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 582–659 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fig Fruit (Ficus carica L.) Variety Dinkar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Drying almost doubled fig fruit hardness.

Taxon
Figt0
Material
Dinkart0
Treatment
dryinge0
Outcome
hardnesse0
Direction
almost doublede0
Comparator
freshe1

Verbatim

e0

“Textural property (i.e. hardness) was almost doubled after drying.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 660–726 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fig Fruit (Ficus carica L.) Variety Dinkar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–93 · show in text ↑
e1

“The fresh as well as dried fruits were subjected to analysis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 269–329 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dried fig fruit received better sensory scores than fresh fruit.

Taxon
Figt0
Material
Dinkart0
Treatment
dried fruitse0
Outcome
scorese0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
fresh fruitse0

Verbatim

e0

“Sensory analysis showed that dried fruits obtained better scores over fresh fruits for different characteristics.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 727–840 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fig Fruit (Ficus carica L.) Variety Dinkar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–93 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors found drying easy and cost effective for reducing fruit bulk and increasing shelf life.

Taxon
Figt0
Material
Dinkart0
Outcome
Drying of figse0
Qualifier
reduce the bulk and to increase the shelf-life of fruitse0

Verbatim

e0

“Drying of figs has been found to be a cost effective and an easy method to reduce the bulk and to increase the shelf-life of fruits.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 841–973 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fig Fruit (Ficus carica L.) Variety Dinkar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–93 · show in text ↑

processing · quality: postharvest · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

processing · quality: phytochemicals · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.