Paper · 2007 · Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Influence of postharvest UV‐C treatment on refrigerated storage of minimally processed broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Italica)

Maria L Lemoine; Pedro M Civello; Gustavo A Martínez; et al.

8
claims
22
verbatim quotes
109
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Abstract Minimally processed broccoli was treated with UV‐C light (8 kJ m −2 ) and subsequently stored for 21 days at 4 °C. The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing and chlorophyll degradation during storage. Treated broccoli florets displayed lower electrolyte leakage and respiratory activity, indicating higher tissue integrity. Treated samples showed higher phenolic and ascorbic acid contents as well as higher antioxidant activity than controls. Treated samples also had a higher content of soluble sugars, but no differences in the content of soluble proteins between control and treated samples were detected. The UV‐C treatment also affected bacterial and mould populations. After 21 days at 4 °C the number of colony‐forming units of both populations was lower in treated than in control broccoli florets. The results suggest that UV‐C treatment reduces tissue damage of minimally processed broccoli during storage at 4 °C, thus maintaining nutritional quality and reducing microbial growth. Copyright © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

UV-C delayed yellowing and chlorophyll degradation during storage.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente0
Outcome
yellowing and chlorophyll degradatione0
Direction
delayede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing and chlorophyll degradation during storage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–203 · show in text ↑
e1

“Minimally processed broccoli was treated with UV‐C light”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–65 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated florets had lower electrolyte leakage and respiratory activity.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente1
Outcome
electrolyte leakage and respiratory activitye0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treated broccoli florets displayed lower electrolyte leakage and respiratory activity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 205–290 · show in text ↑
e1

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–160 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated samples had higher phenolic and ascorbic acid contents.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente2
Outcome
phenolic and ascorbic acid contentse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
controlse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treated samples showed higher phenolic and ascorbic acid contents as well as higher antioxidant activity than controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 328–446 · show in text ↑
e1

“Minimally processed broccoli was treated with UV‐C light”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–65 · show in text ↑
e2

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–160 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated samples had higher antioxidant activity than controls.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente2
Outcome
antioxidant activitye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
controlse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“higher antioxidant activity than controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 405–446 · show in text ↑
e1

“Minimally processed broccoli was treated with UV‐C light”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–65 · show in text ↑
e2

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–160 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Treated samples had higher soluble sugar content.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente2
Outcome
content of soluble sugarse0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Treated samples also had a higher content of soluble sugars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 448–507 · show in text ↑
e1

“Minimally processed broccoli was treated with UV‐C light”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–65 · show in text ↑
e2

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–160 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soluble protein content did not differ between treated and control samples.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente2
Outcome
content of soluble proteinse0
Direction
no differencese0
Comparator
controle0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no differences in the content of soluble proteins between control and treated samples were detected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 513–612 · show in text ↑
e1

“Minimally processed broccoli was treated with UV‐C light”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 9–65 · show in text ↑
e2

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–160 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After 21 days, UV-C treated florets had fewer bacterial colony-forming units than controls.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente2
Outcome
bacteriale1
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
After 21 days at 4 °Ce0
Comparator
control broccoli floretse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“After 21 days at 4 °C the number of colony‐forming units of both populations was lower in treated than in control broccoli florets”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–810 · show in text ↑
e1

“bacterial and mould populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–678 · show in text ↑
e2

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–160 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After 21 days, UV-C treated florets had fewer mould colony-forming units than controls.

Treatment
UV‐C treatmente2
Outcome
mould populationse1
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
After 21 days at 4 °Ce0
Comparator
control broccoli floretse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. italica
Brassica oleracea var. italica · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“After 21 days at 4 °C the number of colony‐forming units of both populations was lower in treated than in control broccoli florets”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–810 · show in text ↑
e1

“bacterial and mould populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–678 · show in text ↑
e2

“The UV‐C treatment delayed yellowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 124–160 · show in text ↑

uv · physiology: oxidative · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

uv · pest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)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 →

uv · physiology: osmolytes · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

uv · physiology: pigments · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results agree

11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

uv · quality: phytochemicals · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Results agree

23 papers: 23 positive, 0 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 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.