Document Type
Article
Rights
Available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 4.0 International Licence
Disciplines
Microbiology
Abstract
The effects of three whey permeates were investigated as potential natural washing treatment for fresh-cut tomato and compared with chlorine (120 ppm). Whey permeate treated samples resulted in equivalent or better than chlorine for all these attributes. Whey permeates were equally effective as chlorine to control the micro-organisms of fresh-cut tomato during storage. The microbial counts at day 10 were significantly reduced (~1.0 log CFU/g) in all the treated samples compared to the control (water treated) samples. Moreover whey permeate treated fresh-cut tomatoes showed lower water activity (2 %) and POD activities (21%) than chlorinated samples after 10 days of storage. Whey permeate also inhibited the loss of firmness of treated tomato slices. Sensory scores for aroma were significantly higher in whey permeate treated samples than chlorine treated samples. Among the three types of whey permeate, delactosed permeate (DP) showed the best results in maintaining the quality of fresh-cut tomato.
Practical ApplicationS
The market sales of ready-to-eat fresh vegetables have grown rapidly in recent decades as a result of changes in consumer attitudes. The marketing of fresh-cut vegetables is limited by their short shelf-life due to the quick decline in post-processing quality. Many attempts have been made to increase the shelf life of fresh-cut fruit and vegetables and many attempts have been made to increase the use of whey permeate, a valuable by-product of cheese processing industry. This paper takes an interesting approach by attempting to use whey permeate as a preserving agent of fresh-cut tomato quality during storage.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.2011.00562.x
Recommended Citation
Ahmed, L., Martin-Diana, A.B., Rico, D., and Barry-Ryan, C., 2012. Extending the shelf –life of tomato using by-product from cheese industry. The Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 36, 141–151. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4549.2011.00562.x
Publication Details
The Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 2012, 36, 141–151.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4549.2011.00562.x