Shelf life and biochemical changes of ready-to-eat arils among nineteen Iranian pomegranate cultivars (Punica granatum L.) during storage
The objective of this study was to investigate the shelf life of arils and the changes in their biochemical compounds in nineteen Iranian pomegranate cultivars during storage. Fruits were harvested when commercially mature and the arils were removed, packaged and stored at 5 ± 1 °C, at 85–90% relative humidity in a cold room. Samples of the stored arils were examined for biochemical features in temporal checkpoints throughout a storage period that lasted for 35 days. By using the onset of decay as an index, the shelf life of arils varied among cultivars, ranging from 7 days to approximately 21 days. Considering the quality attributes of ready-to-eat arils at the beginning of the experiment, substantial variations were observed among the cultivars with regard to their titratable acidity (0.50–8.47%), total soluble solids (13–18.66 °Brix), DPPH radical scavenging activity (63–87.44%), Gallic-acid-equivalent (2.64–6.95 mg/ml) and ascorbic acid (12.21–75.09 mg/l). In general, the decay of arils gradually increased during storage, but several cultivars—which exhibited a very slow process of decay—contained the highest content of titratable acidity, Gallic-acid-equivalent and total soluble solids (since the signs of decay appeared on around the twenty-first day of storage). In addition, titratable acidity increased slightly by the end of storage, whereas the ascorbic acid content, total soluble solids and Gallic-acid-equivalent were cultivar-dependent and did not show consistent patterns of change during storage.
KeywordsStorage Aril Shelf life Minimal processing
This research is funded by Shiraz University (the affiliated institute of the authors) and there is no external funding for this research.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bhatia K, Asrey R, Jha S, Singh S, Kannaujia PK (2013) Influence of packaging material on quality characteristics of minimally processed Mridula pomegranate (Punica granatum) arils during cold storage. Indian J Agric Sci 83:872–876Google Scholar
- Bhatia K, Asrey R, Varghese E (2015) Correct packaging retained phytochemical, antioxidant properties and increases shelf life of minimally processed pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) arils Cv. Mridula. J Sci Ind Res 74(3):141–144Google Scholar
- Caleb OJ, Opara UL, Mahajan PV, Manley M, Mokwena L, Tredoux AG (2013) Effect of modified atmosphere packaging and storage temperature on volatile composition and postharvest life of minimally-processed pomegranate arils (cvs. ‘Acco’and ‘Herskawitz’). Postharvest Biol Technol 79:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Florkowski WJ, Prussia SE, Shewfelt RL, Brueckner B (2009) Postharvest handling: a systems approach, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Gil M, Artes F, Tomas-Barberan F (1996) Minimal processing and modified atmosphere packaging effects on pigmentation of pomegranate seeds. J Agric Food Chem 61:161–164Google Scholar
- Holland D, Bar-Ya’akov I (2008) The pomegranate: new interest in an ancient fruit. Chron Horticult 48:12–15Google Scholar
- Institute S (2003) SAS version 9.1. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
- Kamel HM, Zeinab AZ, Eman AAA (2015) The effect of propolis and sodium metabisulfite as postharvest treatments on pomegranate arils storage. Am-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 15:1962–1973Google Scholar
- Kannan S, Susheela TA (2002) Effect of osmotic dehydration of guava. South Indian Hort 50:195–199Google Scholar
- Karav S, Arikal AO, Eksi A (2015) Effect of cold storage of various pomegranate cultivars fruit juices on health promoting compounds and their activities. J Food Nutr Res 3:593–598Google Scholar
- Leistner L, Gould GW (2012) Hurdle technologies: combination treatments for food stability, safety and quality. Springer, New YourkGoogle Scholar
- Levin GM (1994) Pomegranate (Punica granatum) plant genetic resources in Turkmenistan. Plant Genet Resour Newsl (IPGRI/FAO)Google Scholar
- Mazza G, Miniati E (1993) Anthocyanins in fruits, vegetables, and grains. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Roy S, Waskar D (1997) Pomegranate in postharvest physiology and storage of tropical and subtropical fruits. Cab International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
- Silva IMBR, Rocha RHC, de Souza Silva H, dos Santos Moreira I, de Sousa FDA, de Paiva EP (2015) Qualidade e vida útil pós-colheita de romã ‘Molar’orgânica produzida no semi-árido paraibano. Semina: Ciências Agrárias 36:2555–2564Google Scholar
- Singleton V, Rossi JA (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Viticult 16:144–158Google Scholar
- Yassin N, Tayel EA (2009) Thermal post harvest treatments for improving pomegranate fruit quality and shelf life. Alexandria Sci Exch J 30(4):461–470Google Scholar
- Zahran AA, Hassanein RA, AbdelWahab AT (2015) Effect of chitosan on biochemical composition and antioxidant activity of minimally processed ‘Wonderful’ pomegranate arils during cold storage. J Appl Bot Food Qual 88:241–248Google Scholar