View Article |
Storage stability of spray-dried papaya (Carica papaya L.) powder packaged in aluminium laminated polyethylene (ALP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Wong, C.W1, Lim, W.T2.
The physiochemical characteristics and microbiological study of spray-dried papaya powder
kept in aluminium laminated polyethylene (ALP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) at
accelerated storage (38 ± 2°C, 90% relative humidity (RH)) for 7 weeks were evaluated. The
final water activity (Aw) of the spray-dried papaya powder did not exceed 0.6 for both packaging
materials, which showed that the powder was shelf-stable. The overall adsorbed moisture of
spray-dried powder was significantly (p<0.05) different for both packaging materials, whereby
the moisture content of powder packaged in PET was doubled (13.28%) of those packaged in
ALP (6.38%) by the end of 7 weeks storage. A larger increase of hygroscopicity was observed
for powder packaged in PET (37.00%) compared to ALP (32.98%). Powder packaged in ALP
had good solubility (85.19-97.14%) with storage time, while less than 80.00% solubility for
powder kept in PET after 4th week of storage. The flowability of powder was significantly
(p<0.05) decreased for both packaging materials upon storage. The degree of caking for powder
packaged in PET was doubled (86.45%) than of 42.44% (ALP). β-carotene was degraded
from an initial of 1.83 µg/g to 0.95 µg/g and 0.16µg/g for powder stored in ALP and PET,
respectively. Powder packaged in ALP was microbiological safe as it had a log CFU/ml of
2.67. The results indicated that the powder packaged in ALP was with acceptable qualities and
stability. Thus, ALP packaging with storage conditions of 38°C and RH 90% was better suited
for keeping spray-dried papaya powder.
Affiliation:
- UCSI University, Malaysia
- UCSI University, Malaysia
|
|
Indexation |
Indexed by |
MyJurnal (2018) |
H-Index
|
8 |
Immediacy Index
|
0.000 |
Rank |
28/30,Q4(Sciences ) 28/30,Q4(Sciences ) 14/17,Q4(Medical & Health Sciences )
|
Indexed by |
Scopus (SCImago Journal Rankings 2016) |
Impact Factor
|
- |
Rank |
Q3 (Food Science) |
Additional Information |
0.335 (SJR) |
|
|
|