Paper · 2022 · International Journal of Fruit Science

Optimization of Low-cost Drying Technology for Preservation of Peach ( Prunus Persica ) Using RSM

Gurpreet Kaur Dhillon; Amardeep Kour; Navjot Gupta

9
claims
12
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Peach is an important fruit; however, its perishability limits its availability to the consumers. The present study fosters a low-cost preservation method of peach involving osmotic dehydration at 35–45◦C using a sugar solution (50–70◦Brix) for 60–180 minutes. The conditions for osmotic dehydration (OD) of peach slices in terms of maximum water loss (WL), rehydration ratio (RR), minimum solute gain (SG) with optimum hardness, and maximum overall acceptability (OA) were optimized using Box-Behnken Design (BBD) of response surface methodology (RSM). The regression coefficient of the models indicated that the time of immersion was the most significant (p < .001) factor for WL and SG, followed by the temperature. Furthermore, immersion time had a positive effect on hardness, whereas it had a negative effect on the organoleptic properties of osmo-dried peach slices. Sucrose concentration of 63.20◦Brix for 133 minutes at 41◦C was most suitable for osmotic dehydration of peach slices to obtain maximum possible WL, minimum SG, maximum RR, optimum hardness, and maximum overall acceptability. Combined drying (OD+CAD) significantly reduced the drying time and had better retention of sensory attributes. The peach slices subjected to a combination of OD+CAD had good retention (45–50%) of bioactive components even at ambient temperature and had an overall acceptability score of above 6.0 with a 6-months shelf life of the product. The technology was demonstrated among the small-scale processors and entrepreneurs and based on the response received, more than 90% highly rated this technique as efficient, energy-conserving, and easy to adopt.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Immersion time had a positive effect on hardness of osmo-dried peach slices.

Taxon
peach slicese1
Treatment
immersion timee1
Outcome
hardnesse1
Direction
increaseinferrede1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“Furthermore, immersion time had a positive effect on hardness, whereas it had a negative effect on the organoleptic properties of osmo-dried peach slices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 719–872 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Immersion time had a negative effect on the organoleptic properties of osmo-dried peach slices.

Taxon
peach slicese1
Treatment
immersion timee1
Outcome
organoleptic propertiese1
Direction
decreaseinferrede1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“Furthermore, immersion time had a positive effect on hardness, whereas it had a negative effect on the organoleptic properties of osmo-dried peach slices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 719–872 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Time of immersion was the most significant factor for water loss and solute gain of peach slices.

Treatment
time of immersione2
Outcome
WL and SGe2

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“The regression coefficient of the models indicated that the time of immersion was the most significant (p < .001) factor for WL and SG”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 554–688 · show in text ↑
e0

“Peach is an important fruit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Sucrose concentration of 63.20◦Brix for 133 minutes at 41◦C was most suitable for osmotic dehydration of peach slices.

Taxon
peach slicese3
Outcome
most suitable for osmotic dehydratione3
Value
63.20◦Brix for 133 minutes at 41◦Ce3

Verbatim

e3

“Sucrose concentration of 63.20◦Brix for 133 minutes at 41◦C was most suitable for osmotic dehydration of peach slices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 874–991 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined drying (OD+CAD) significantly reduced the drying time of peach slices.

Treatment
Combined drying (OD+CAD)e4
Outcome
drying timee4
Direction
reducede4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“Combined drying (OD+CAD) significantly reduced the drying time and had better retention of sensory attributes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1100–1209 · show in text ↑
e0

“Peach is an important fruit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–27 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined drying (OD+CAD) had better retention of sensory attributes of peach slices.

Treatment
Combined drying (OD+CAD)e4
Outcome
retention of sensory attributese4
Direction
bettere4

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Prunus persica
Prunus persica · TaxonAllagash Brewing · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“Combined drying (OD+CAD) significantly reduced the drying time and had better retention of sensory attributes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1100–1209 · show in text ↑
e0

“Peach is an important fruit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–27 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peach slices treated with OD+CAD retained 45–50% of bioactive components even at ambient temperature.

Taxon
peach slicese5
Treatment
OD+CADe5
Outcome
bioactive componentse5
Value
45–50%e5

Verbatim

e5

“The peach slices subjected to a combination of OD+CAD had good retention (45–50%) of bioactive components even at ambient temperature and had an overall acceptability score of above 6.0 with a 6-months shelf life of the product”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1438 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peach slices treated with OD+CAD had an overall acceptability score above 6.0 with a 6-month shelf life.

Taxon
peach slicese5
Treatment
OD+CADe5
Outcome
overall acceptability scoree5
Value
above 6.0e5
Qualifier
6-months shelf lifee5

Verbatim

e5

“The peach slices subjected to a combination of OD+CAD had good retention (45–50%) of bioactive components even at ambient temperature and had an overall acceptability score of above 6.0 with a 6-months shelf life of the product”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1438 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

More than 90% of small-scale processors rated the technique as efficient.

Outcome
rated this technique as efficiente7
Value
more than 90%e7

Verbatim

e7

“more than 90% highly rated this technique as efficient, energy-conserving, and easy to adopt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1559–1651 · show in text ↑

processing · quality: postharvest · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

processing · quality: general · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

drought · quality: postharvest · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

drought · quality: general · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.