Paper · 2025 · Food Packaging and Shelf Life

Combination of electrolyzed water pre-treatment and modified atmosphere and humidity packaging: Impact on physicochemical attributes, bioactive and volatile compounds, and microbial load for fresh-cut apples

Nandi E. Nyamende; Zinash A. Belay; Oluwafemi James Caleb

11
claims
18
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

The visual appeal and quality of fresh-cut produce significantly influence consumer preference. This work examined the combined effects of pre-treatments: acidic electrolyzed water (AEW), alkaline (AIEW), and sodium hypochlorite (SH) with modified atmosphere and humidity packaging (MAHP) on fresh-cut ‘Granny Smith’ apples stored at 2 °C for 12 days. The MAHP material included biodegradable cellulose-based film (NF), a composite biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP) and polyethylene with lid. These packages were fitted with a fixed ratio window: (i) NF-BOPP (66:33 %), and (ii) BOPP-NF (66:33 %) for samples pre-treated with AEW and AIEW, respectively, and for general retail practice SH pre-treated samples were packed in polyethylene tray with lid as control (SH-Closed). Results showed that in-package gas composition was significantly impacted by pre-treatment and package type (p < 0.05). On day 12, fresh-cut apples under SH-Closed had the lowest total soluble solids (TSS, 9.7 ± 0.35 %), highest moisture loss (96.2 ± 0.02 g), and browning index (BI, 45 ± 1.9). AEW and AIEW pre-treatments combined with MAHP significantly slowed down microbial growth in comparison to SH-Closed samples. Highest accumulation of secondary volatile compounds with alcohol functional group were found in SH-Closed samples throughout storage. Overall, samples pre-treated with AEW and packed using BOPP-NF flow wrap, better maintained phenolic content and antioxidant activity, minimized water vapour condensation, and lowered microbial counts. • Electrolyzed water (EW) treatments offered a paradigm shift from sodium hypochlorite. • Modified atmosphere and humidity packaging (MAHP) reduced water vapour condensation. • EW combined with MAHP significantly delayed browning of fresh-cut apples. • EW combined with MAHP maintained phenolic content and antioxidant activity. • Highest accumulation of secondary volatiles was found in control samples.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pretreatment and package type significantly affected in-package gas composition.

Treatment
pre-treatment and package typee0
Outcome
in-package gas compositione0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in-package gas composition was significantly impacted by pre-treatment and package type (p < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–899 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 201–207 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SH-Closed apples had the lowest total soluble solids at day 12, 9.7 ± 0.35%.

Treatment
SH-Closede0
Outcome
total soluble solidse0
Direction
loweste0
Value
9.7 ± 0.35 %e0
Qualifier
On day 12e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“On day 12, fresh-cut apples under SH-Closed had the lowest total soluble solids (TSS, 9.7 ± 0.35 %)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 901–1000 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SH-Closed apples had the highest moisture loss at day 12, 96.2 ± 0.02 g.

Treatment
SH-Closede0
Outcome
moisture losse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
96.2 ± 0.02 ge0
Qualifier
On day 12e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“On day 12, fresh-cut apples under SH-Closed had the lowest total soluble solids (TSS, 9.7 ± 0.35 %), highest moisture loss (96.2 ± 0.02 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 901–1039 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SH-Closed apples had the highest browning index at day 12, 45 ± 1.9.

Treatment
SH-Closede0
Outcome
browning indexe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
45 ± 1.9e0
Qualifier
On day 12e0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“On day 12, fresh-cut apples under SH-Closed had the lowest total soluble solids (TSS, 9.7 ± 0.35 %), highest moisture loss (96.2 ± 0.02 g), and browning index (BI, 45 ± 1.9)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 901–1074 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

AEW pretreatment with MAHP slowed microbial growth relative to SH-Closed.

Treatment
AEWe0
Outcome
microbial growthe0
Direction
slowed downe0
Comparator
SH-Closed samplese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“AEW and AIEW pre-treatments combined with MAHP significantly slowed down microbial growth in comparison to SH-Closed samples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1076–1200 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 201–207 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

AIEW pretreatment with MAHP slowed microbial growth relative to SH-Closed.

Treatment
AIEW pre-treatments combined with MAHPe0
Outcome
microbial growthe0
Direction
slowed downe0
Comparator
SH-Closed samplese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“AEW and AIEW pre-treatments combined with MAHP significantly slowed down microbial growth in comparison to SH-Closed samples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1076–1200 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 201–207 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SH-Closed samples had the highest accumulation of alcohol-group secondary volatile compounds throughout storage.

Treatment
SH-Closede0
Outcome
secondary volatile compounds with alcohol functional groupe0
Direction
Highest accumulatione0
Qualifier
throughout storagee0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Highest accumulation of secondary volatile compounds with alcohol functional group were found in SH-Closed samples throughout storage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1202–1335 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 201–207 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AEW with BOPP-NF flow wrap better maintained phenolic content and antioxidant activity.

Treatment
pre-treated with AEW and packed using BOPP-NF flow wrape0
Outcome
phenolic content and antioxidant activitye0
Direction
better maintainede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“samples pre-treated with AEW and packed using BOPP-NF flow wrap, better maintained phenolic content and antioxidant activity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1346–1470 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 201–207 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AEW with BOPP-NF flow wrap minimized water vapour condensation.

Treatment
pre-treated with AEW and packed using BOPP-NF flow wrape0
Outcome
water vapour condensatione0
Direction
minimizede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“samples pre-treated with AEW and packed using BOPP-NF flow wrap, better maintained phenolic content and antioxidant activity, minimized water vapour condensation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1346–1507 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 201–207 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

AEW with BOPP-NF flow wrap lowered microbial counts.

Treatment
pre-treated with AEW and packed using BOPP-NF flow wrape0
Outcome
microbial countse0
Direction
lowerede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“samples pre-treated with AEW and packed using BOPP-NF flow wrap, better maintained phenolic content and antioxidant activity, minimized water vapour condensation, and lowered microbial counts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1346–1537 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 201–207 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Electrolyzed water with MAHP delayed browning of fresh-cut apples.

Treatment
EW combined with MAHPe0
Outcome
browning of fresh-cut applese0
Direction
delayede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“EW combined with MAHP significantly delayed browning of fresh-cut apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1716–1788 · show in text ↑

humidity · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

humidity · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

storage · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 17 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

storage · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

64 papers: 47 positive, 17 negative or no effect

46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

60 papers more in this group

See all 64 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.