Paper · 2002 · Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering

Shelf life of fresh-cut spinach as affected by chemical treatment and type of packaging film

A.M. Piagentini; D.R. Güemes

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
24
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

Fresh-cut vegetables are an important and rapidly developing class of convenience foods. Their storage life may be greatly reduced due to their high rates of respiration and transpiration and the possibility of enzymatic and microbiological deterioration. Consequently, the objective of this work was to determine the shelf life and the failure attribute that conditioned the shelf life of fresh-cut spinach treated with chemical solutions and packaged in bags with different permeabilities. The shelf life of fresh-cut vegetables was defined as the time of refrigerated storage at which any one of the sensory attributes scored below 7 or when the microbiological counts exceeded 5.10(7) CFU/g. Fresh-cut spinach was treated with citric acid and ascorbic acid solutions and packaged in mono-oriented polypropylene (OPP) bags or low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags. Sensory attributes and total microbial counts were evaluated throughout refrigerated storage. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to study the simultaneous effect of chemical treatment and refrigerated storage time on sensory and microbiological quality of fresh-cut spinach. A quadratic polynomial regression model was assumed for predicting off-odor, general appearance, wilting, browning, color, and mesophilic aerobic population. Type of packaging film only influenced development of off-odor (p£0.001) and had no effect on visual sensory attributes or microbiological counts (p>0.05). Development of off-odor was the attribute that limited shelf life of fresh-cut spinach packaged in OPP bags. On the other hand, shelf life of samples packaged in LDPE bags was dependent on a decrease in general appearance or an increase in microbiological counts, depending on the chemical treatment used.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Packaging film type influenced off odor development.

Treatment
Type of packaging filme0
Outcome
development of off-odore0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Type of packaging film only influenced development of off-odor (p£0.001)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1309–1381 · show in text ↑
t0

“spinach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Packaging film type did not significantly affect visual sensory attributes.

Treatment
Type of packaging filme0
Outcome
visual sensory attributese0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Type of packaging film only influenced development of off-odor (p£0.001) and had no effect on visual sensory attributes or microbiological counts (p>0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1309–1463 · show in text ↑
t0

“spinach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Packaging film type did not significantly affect microbiological counts.

Treatment
Type of packaging filme0
Outcome
microbiological countse0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Type of packaging film only influenced development of off-odor (p£0.001) and had no effect on visual sensory attributes or microbiological counts (p>0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1309–1463 · show in text ↑
t0

“spinach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–31 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Off odor development limited shelf life of spinach in OPP bags.

Treatment
OPP bagse0
Outcome
shelf lifee0
Qualifier
Development of off-odore0

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Development of off-odor was the attribute that limited shelf life of fresh-cut spinach packaged in OPP bags”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1465–1572 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

For LDPE bags, shelf life depended on reduced general appearance or increased microbiological counts according to chemical treatment.

Treatment
LDPE bagse0
Outcome
shelf lifee0
Qualifier
depending on the chemical treatment usede0

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

Spinacia oleracea
Spinacia oleracea · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“shelf life of samples packaged in LDPE bags was dependent on a decrease in general appearance or an increase in microbiological counts, depending on the chemical treatment used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1593–1769 · show in text ↑
t0

“spinach”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–31 · show in text ↑

storage · quality: general · Spinacia oleracea (spinach)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.