Cited by 102Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementMeat and Animal Product QualityListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety

Effect of ozone and calcium lactate treatments on browning and texture properties of fresh‐cut lettuce

Open access
Rico, Daniel, Martín‐Diana, Ana Belen, Frías, Jesus M, Henehan, Gary TM, Barry‐Ryan, Catherine·2006·Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

Abstract

The effects of three treatments, 1 mg L−1 ozone at 18–20 °C, 15 g L−1 calcium lactate (CLac) at 50 °C and a combination thereof, were compared on fresh‐cut lettuce over 10 days of refrigerated storage. Respiration rate, browning and texture were examined as main quality indicators. The use of ozone produced a significantly (P < 0.05) higher oxygen decline than the use of CLac (from day 3 to day 10). At the end of storage, CLac (alone or combined with ozone) samples had higher oxygen content (∼9%) than ozone samples (∼6%). Enzymatic activity decreased significantly (P < 0.05) in ozone samples. Polyphenol oxidase activity in fresh‐cut lettuce treated with ozone (alone or combined with CLac) showed lower values on day 1 (<2500 units g−1) and at the end of storage (<3000 units g−1) than CLac samples (4000–4800 units g−1). Ozone also reduced peroxidase activity to ∼300 units g−1 after treatment. Finally, pectin methylesterase activity was also reduced with ozone, showing a negative effect on textural properties. Data suggested that CLac maintained quality markers better than treatments with ozone and ozone/CLac combination over 10 days of storage. Copyright © 2006 Society of Chemical Industry

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jsfa.2594

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Alzamora SM, Lopez-Malo A and Tapia MS, Overview, in Minimally Processed Fruits and Vegetables: Fundamental Aspects and Applications, ed. by Alzadora SM, Tapia MS and Lopez- Malo A. Aspen, Gaithersburg, MD, pp. 1-9 (2000).
  2. Kader AA, Postharvest biology and technology: an overview, in Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, ed. by Kader AA. University of California Press, Oakland, CA, pp. 39-47 (2002).
  3. Wiley RC, Minimally Processed Refrigerated Fruits and Vegetables. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY (1994).
  4. Mart´n-Diana AB, Rico D, Mulcahy J, Fr´as J, Henehan GTMıı and Barry-Ryan C, Whey permeate as bio-preservative for shelf-life maintenance of fresh-cut vegetables. Innov Food Sci Technol 7:112-123 (2006). DOI: 10.1016/jifset.2005.08.002. · DOI
  5. Martin-Diana AB, Rico D, Frias J, Henehan GTM, Barat JM, Mulcahy J, et al, Effect of calcium lactate and heat-shock on texture in fresh-cut lettuce during storage. J Food Eng 77:1069-1077 (2006.). DOI: 10.1016/jfe.2005.08.037. · DOI
  6. Kim JG, Yousef AE and Chism GW, Applications of ozone for enhancing the microbiological safety and quality of foods: a review. J Food Protect 62:1071-1087 (1999).
  7. Seymour IJ, Review of current industry practice on fruit and vegetable decontamination. Campden & Chorleywood Food Res Assoc Rev 14:1-38 (1999).
  8. Belitz HD and Grosh W, Food Chemistry (2nd edn). Springer, New York, NY (1986).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rico, D., Martín‐Diana, A. B., Frías, J. M., Henehan, G. T., & Barry‐Ryan, C.
Affiliations
Dublin Institute of Technology (IE)
Corresponding author
  • Rico, Daniel
  • Barry‐Ryan, Catherine
Venue
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08-03
Volume
86
Issue
13
Pages
2179-2188
ISSN
  • 0022-5142 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0010
OpenAlex
W2102318933
Cited by
102
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (publishedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) (submittedVersion)
  • Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Listeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Keywords
fresh-cut lettuce, ozone treatment, calcium lactate, browning, texture, cold storage, polyphenol oxidase, peroxidase, pectin methylesterase, respiration rate, enzymatic browning, shelf life

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review