4.3 Article

A comparative study on the effect of packaging material and storage environment on shelf life of fresh bell-pepper

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11694-014-9177-4

Keywords

Bell pepper; Storage; Modified atmospheric packaging; Physiological loss in weight

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of packaging materials [low density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP)] and storage environment [modified atmospheric packaging (MAP)] on shelf life enhancement of bell pepper in terms of quality attributes such as physiological weight loss, ascorbic acid, texture, surface colour and subjective quality analysis have been studied at ambient and refrigerated condition. Different packaging techniques used for the experiment were MAP with LDPE, MAP with PP, MAP in perforated LDPE films, MAP in perforated PP films, shrink packaging with bi-axially oriented PP (BOPP) film and vacuum packaging with PP film. The in-pack bell pepper created a suitable headspace environment with low O-2 and high CO2 concentrations, which resulted in a better retention of freshness of the vegetables and its marketability. Shrink packaging with BOPP film could not yield better result under ambient storage because of high water vapor transmission rate of the film and consequently loss of turgidity of the vegetables. Among different packaging techniques and storage conditions, MAP with PP film in refrigerated condition was found to be the best followed by vacuum pack with PP film in refrigerated condition and could be used to store for 20 days for bell pepper with maintenance of texture, colour, ascorbic acid and marketability. It is also inferred that under ambient conditions, bell pepper could be stored for 4 days using ventilated LDPE and PP as MAP storage. Further studies are needed to evaluate the sensory aspects, as well as to microbiological evaluation to characterize the fresh bell pepper during storage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available