Production and Shelf-Life Extension of Grape Juice Sweetened with Honey and Preserved with Ginger
- 1. Department of Food Science and Technology Abia State University, Uturu, Abia State
- 2. Department Of Biological Science Spiritan University Nneochi, Abia State
Abstract
Grape fruit juice was processed with different concentrations of honey and ginger and physicochemical, nutritional and microbial quality of the juice was investigated. Samples (T2 , T3 , T4 , T5 and T6 ) were processed with some levels of honey and ginger whereas T1 and T7 served as control. The results of the analysis showed that there was a significant difference (P<0.05) in the protein content. The percentage moisture content (91.47- 94.76%), carbohydrate (3.06 -6.71%), Crude fibre (0.18 -0.78%), fat (0.13 -0.29%) and ash content (0.45 -0.84%) recorded some level of difference on the juice samples (P<0.05). The physicochemical results showed that there was no significant different in the pH, specific gravity, titratable acidity on the sixth day whereas significant difference was observed on the sugar content. There was no significant difference on vitamins B1 , B2 and B3 on each day of analysis but differences exist between 1st, 3rd and 6th day respectively. Vit C showed a level of difference significantly (P<0.05). Sensory scores show that samples 513, 417 and 283 were more preferred than other samples. Results of microbial analysis showed that microbial growth at the 1st day (1.8 x 104 -3.8x 104 ) cfu/ml increased slightly during the 3rd day of juice storage (2.7 x 104 – 5.8 x 104 ) cfu/ml. The load of microorganisms increased during the sixth day (6.3 x 104 -10.2 x 104 cfu/ml). Samples without ginger (T1 and T7 ) recorded the highest microbial growth and juice deterioration. All samples with different concentrations of ginger and honey recorded lesser level of deterioration. Samples with highest concentration of ginger (2%) and honey (2%) preserved more than others. This study show that ginger has antioxidative and anti-microbial properties capable of prolonging the shelf life of processed grape fruit juice.
Keywords
• Grape; Fruits; Juice; Honey; Ginger; Shelf Life, Extension
Citation
Okoronkwo CU, Oganezi NC, Unegbu VN (2022) Production and Shelf-Life Extension of Grape Juice Sweetened with Honey and Preserved with Ginger. Ann Food Process Preserv 6(1): 1032.
INTRODUCTION
The grape fruit is a subtropical citrus tree known for possessing sour fruits, they are given the name grapefruit due to the way they grew in clusters similar to grapes [1]. Grape belongs to the Rutaceae family with binomial name Citrus paradis [2]. The trees of grape usually grow to a height ranging from 5-15 meters (16-49ft). The fruit is yellow-orange skinned and largely ablate spheroid, the diameter ranges from 10-15cm. The fruit is also known to posses a bitter taste as a result of a flavonone present in it known as Naringin [3]. Honey is a natural substance produced from honeybees (Apis mellifera) from the nectar of flowers which are very sweet, flavourful and viscous [4]. Honey is a sweet, viscous food substance made by honeybees and other bees [5]. It has been used as a food and also in medicine. Honey is a complex mixtures and possess great variations in composition and characteristics due to its geographical and botanical origin, their real features depends on the floral origin or the nectar foraged by the bees [6]. Honey is crucial food that gives energy, ingredients in many food manufacturing industries mainly in cereal and cereal products. They can be used as sweetners, color enhancers, flavor, caramelization, pumpability and viscosity [5]. Honey can be used in the area of food, medicine, pharmaceutical, traditional healing, religious and margical area [4]. Ginger (Zingiber officinale), a member of the Zingiberaceae family, is a popular spice used globally especially in most of the Asian countries [7]. Chemical analysis of ginger shows that it contains over 400 different compounds and the major constituents in ginger rhizomes are carbohydrates (50-70%), lipids (3-8%), terpenes, and phenolic compounds [8]. Terpene components of ginger include zingiberene, β-bisabolene, α-farnesene, β-sesquiphellandrene, and α-curcumene, while phenolic compounds include gingerol, paradols, and shogaol [9]. These gingerols (23-25%) and shogaol (18-25%) are found in higher quantity in Zingibber officinale than others. Besides these, amino acids, raw fiber, ash, protein, phytosterols, vitamins (e.g., nicotinic acid and vitamin A), and minerals are also present in ginger [10]. Ginger is one of the most widely used species of Rhizome which is widely found in several foods and beverages. It is a widely used herbs in traditional Chinese, Europe and America [11].
Fruit juice is unfermented but fermentable juice intended for direct consumption obtained by mechanical process from mesocarp of sound ripe fruit [12]. It can be referred as the liquid expressed by pressure or other mechanical means from the edible portion of a fruit which can be single strength or concentrated drinks [13]. Fruit juices are good sources of vitamins and minerals. Most tropical fruits are seasonal and when they are in season, they are found in abundance. Many people consume the juice when they are in the season and a lot of postharvest losses make them unavailable during the off-season.
Therefore, in a way to make these fruit juices available all year round, the postharvest losses can be reduced or eradicated by processing and preservation [14]. Many chemicals are used today as a preservative for fruits and juices but their effectiveness for these tropical fruits are not readily available even though they are being used. Therefore, there is the need to consider our natural plant preservatives such as ginger to preserve grapefruit juice and honey to improve its sour test (sweetner). Hence, the objective of this study
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Good quality ripe grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) were obtained from Nkwo Achara market, Uturu, Isuikwuato Local Government Area, Abia State, Nigeria and transported to the Food Science and Technology Laboratory of Abia State University, Uturu for preparation and analysis.
Sample Preparation
The method of grape fruit extraction described by [15], was used in the preparation of grape fruit juice. Fully matured (ripe) grapefruit were cleaned and washed with tap water. It was weighed, peeled and extracted with a table juice extractor (chopper and mixer/Y48/stainless steel). The juice was filtered through Reusable filtration cloth and different concentrations of ginger and honey were added before deaeration, pasteurization, filling of cans and cooling. The processed grape juice sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger were stored at room temperature and analyzed on the 1st, 3rd and 6th days respectively.
Figure 1 Flow chart for grape fruit juice extraction.
Concentrations of Ginger/ Honey Used
T1 = No ginger and honey, T2 = 0.5% ginger without honey, T3 = 0.5% ginger + 0.5% honey, T4 = 1.5% ginger + 1.5% honey, T5 = 1.5% ginger + 2.0% honey, T6 = 2% ginger + 2.0% honey, T7 = No ginger + 1.5% honey.
Proximate Composition
The moisture content of each sample was determined by the gravimetric method according to [16]. Ash content was determined by the [17], Crude fibre was determined by the method described by [18], Fat content was determined by the continuous solvent extraction (soxhlet reflux) apparatus described by [19], crude protein was determined by the Kjeldahl method of [20] and carbohydrate content was determined by difference.
Determination of Vitamins
Determination of vitamin B1 was done according to the spectrophotometric method adopted by [21], vitamin B2 content of the samples was determined by the method adopted by [22]. Vitamin B3 content was determined by the high performance liquid chromatography [23] and vitamin C content of the fruit sample was determined by oxidative reduction reaction adopted by [24].
Determination of Physical Properties of the Samples
Determination of Total Titratable Acidity (TTA): Total Titratable Acidity (TTA) and sugar content was determined according to the method described by [17]. pH was measured directly using a pH meter (Jenway model SM 60ml Surgifield England). Specific gravity was determined by the pyconometer gravimetric method described by [19].
Sensory Evaluation
Sensory evaluation was carried out using nine (9) point hedonic scale described by [25], where 15 untrained panelists were used taste and score the coded samples.
Microbial Analysis
The method of International Commission for Microbiological Specifications for Foods [26] was adopted. 1ml of the sample was diluted with 9ml of sterile distilled water and mixed very well. 1ml of the resultant mixture was aseptically transferred to 9ml of sterile distilled water in a test tube. It was repeated till the sixth dilution was attained. 0.1ml of the 4th and 6th dilution was inoculated onto a sterile Potato Destrose Agar (PDA) and Nutrient Agar (NA) plates respectively. A flamed glass hockey stick shaped rod was used to spread the inoculums evenly over the surface of the agar in the plate. This was done in triplicate for each of the samples. The plates were incubated at room temperature (28- 32?) for 2-5 days and at 37? for 24-48hrs respectively. All the plates were observed daily and the number of colonies formed in each culture plates were counted using Gallenkamp electronic colony counter. A mean of the count from the triplicate were obtained and multiplied with the dilution factors to obtain the microbial load as the viable microbial colonies per unit weight of the sample expressed as the colony forming unit (Cfu)/g.
Enumeration of Total Bacterial Count
Inoculum from the 3rd dilutions was pour plated onto nutrient agar and incubated at 37? for 24hrs. A representation of typical colonies from well isolated colonies showing 30-300 colonies were picked at random, subcultured on selective growth media for purification, stored in slops at refrigeration temperature and were used for morphological, gram test and biochemical test [27].
Statistical Analysis
Results obtained from this work were subjected to a two way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Values are means of triplicate determination + standard deviation and level of confidence/ significance were taken at (P<0.05) degree of freedom.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The values of moisture content of grape fruit juice sweetened with honey were high on the 1st (91.47-93.50%), 3rd day (92.63- 94.66%) and 6th day (92.61-94.76%) respectively. This results represents the high perishable nature of these fruits and their short shelf-life under normal condition. This is in agreement with the characteristics of most tropical fruits as reported by [28]. Protein (0.80-0.36%), fat (0.24-0.13%) decreased alongside with ash (0.84-0.45%) content which ranged from day one to the sixth day of the examination. Crude fibre and carbohydrate content increased and decreased interchangeably which may be attributed to different concentrations of ginger and honey added to the samples.
This study showed that protein content was low and decreased in order of 1st day, 3rd day and 6th days respectively. The low percentage of protein observed in all the samples is in line with a low protein content of orange juice (0.74%) as reported by [29].
Table 1,2 recorded the physico-chemical analysis of grape fruit juice sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger.
Table 1: Proximate composition of grape fruit juice sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger (%). |
||||||
SAMPLES |
MOISTURE |
PROTEIN |
FAT |
CRUDE FIBRE |
ASH |
CARBOHYDRATE |
DAY 1 |
||||||
T1 |
92. 79b ± 0.16 |
0.60a ± 0.00 |
0.18a+0.00 |
0.19a+0.00 |
0.69a+0.00 |
5..51d+0.02 |
T2 |
92.76b+0.03 |
0.68a+0.00 |
0.23a+0.28 |
0.16b +0.01 |
0.72b+0.00 |
5..54d+0.02 |
T3 |
91.47c+0.03 |
0.69a+0.00 |
0.24a+0.00 |
0.15b+0.28 |
0.75b+0.00 |
6.71a+0.09 |
T4 |
92.19d+0.01 |
0.71a+0.00 |
0.24c+0.02 |
0.18b+0.02 |
0.78a+0.00 |
5.90b+0.04 |
T5 |
92.77b+0.05 |
0.73b+0.00 |
0.21a+0.02 |
0.17b+0.02 |
0.81a+0.00 |
5.30a+0.075 |
T6 |
92.39b+0.12 |
0.80b+0.00 |
0.19b+0.00 |
0.21a+0.02 |
0.84+0.00 |
5.63b+0.05 |
T7 |
93.50b+0.04 |
0.59b+0.02 |
0.23b+0.02 |
0.18b+0.00 |
0.66c+0.04 |
4.83b+0.02 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
0.155 |
0.35 |
0.03 |
0.031 |
0.0131 |
0.096 |
DAY 3 |
||||||
T1 |
93. 78b ± 0.03 |
0.52d ± 0.00 |
0.17b+0.03 |
0.61d+0.02 |
0.65d+0.00 |
4.27d+0.07 |
T2 |
92.63b+0.04 |
0.55c+ 0.02 |
0.19b+0.00 |
0.59b +0.00 |
0.71a+0.02 |
5.34a+0.08 |
T3 |
93.46d+0.02 |
0.57a+ 0.00 |
0.24a+0.02 |
0.60b+0.01 |
0.71a+0.00 |
4.42a+0.05 |
T4 |
93.04b+0.06 |
0.60a+ 0.00 |
0.22a+0.03 |
0.62d+0.00 |
0.75a+0.00 |
4.77b+0.05 |
T5 |
93.47d+0.02 |
0.67b+ 0.03 |
0.23a+0.01 |
0.65c+0.00 |
0.74a+0.00 |
4.24a+0.06 |
T6 |
93.62b+0.14 |
0.68b+ 0.00 |
0.19b+0.00 |
0.78a+0.02 |
0.45+0.04 |
4.05b+0.06 |
T7 |
94.66b+0.09 |
0.50d+ 0.02 |
0.29b+0.02 |
0.71a+0.00 |
0.62c+0.04 |
3.06b+0.27 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
0.12 |
0.026 |
0.029 |
0.017 |
0.38 |
2.41 |
DAY 6 |
||||||
T1 |
92. 76a ± 0.06 |
0.37d ± 0.00 |
0.14b+0.03 |
0.39d+0.02 |
0.46d+0.00 |
5.88d+0.07 |
T2 |
92.68b+0.04 |
0.38a+0.00 |
0.13b+0.00 |
0.43b +0.00 |
0.48a+0.02 |
5.88a+0.04 |
T3 |
93.57a+0.04 |
0.45a+0.022 |
0.18b+0.01 |
0.47b+0.02 |
0.53b+0.00 |
4.81a+0.04 |
T4 |
93.17a+0.04 |
0.49a+0.00 |
0.21a+0.01 |
0.49b+0.00 |
0.53a+0.00 |
5.11b+0.05 |
T5 |
92.61a+0.24 |
0.52b+0.00 |
0.19a+0.00 |
0.48b+0.01 |
0.58a+0.00 |
5.62a+0.21 |
T6 |
93.69a+0.02 |
0.56b+0.00 |
0.21b+0.00 |
0.52a+0.01 |
0.61a+0.00 |
4.41b+0.01 |
T7 |
94.76a+0.05 |
0.36b+0.02 |
0.17b+0.02 |
0.49b+0.00 |
0.45c+0.00 |
3.77b+0.09 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
Nil |
0.02 |
0.025 |
0.018 |
0.016 |
2.16 |
Values are means of Triplicate determination ± standard deviation Means in columns with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05)., T1 = No ginger and honey, T2 = 0.5% ginger without honey, T3 = 0.5% ginger + 0.5% honey, T4 = 1.5% ginger + 1.5% honey, T5 = 1.5% ginger + 2.0% honey, T6 = 2% ginger + 2.0% honey, T7 = No ginger + 1.5% honey |
Table 2: Physico-chemical analysis of grape juice sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger. |
||||
|
S.G |
PH |
TTA(%) |
SUGAR(%) |
Day 1 |
||||
T1 |
1.016a ± 0.000 |
3.71a ± 0.014 |
0.75a+0.017 |
11.8a+0.043 |
T2 |
1.005b+0.001 |
3.85a+0.000 |
0.69a+0.017 |
12.31c +0.014 |
T3 |
1.073a+0.001 |
3.91a+0.014 |
0.65a+0.010 |
12.36c+0.000 |
T4 |
1.008a+0.001 |
3.95a+0.000 |
0.61a+0.024 |
13.52a+0.000 |
T5 |
1.005b+0.001 |
4.10b+0.022 |
0.57a+0.024 |
13.33a+0.108 |
T6 |
1.012a+0.000 |
4.12a+0.000 |
0.49a+0.024 |
13.46a+0.022 |
T7 |
1.007b+0.002 |
3.67c+0.028 |
0.71a+0.014 |
11.76d+0.056 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
0.009 |
0.034 |
Nil |
0.127 |
Day 3 |
||||
T1 |
1.011a ± 0.014 |
3.45a ± 0.000 |
0.75a+0.000 |
9.61a+0.014 |
T2 |
1.013a+0.002 |
3.61a+0.014 |
0.70b+0.000 |
9.79c +0.014 |
T3 |
1.016a+0.001 |
3.65d+0.000 |
0.68b+0.014 |
9.83d+0.036 |
T4 |
1.018a+0.001 |
3.80a+0.000 |
0.64a+0.022 |
9.94c+0.000 |
T5 |
1.017b+0.001 |
3.85b+0.000 |
0.60d+0.000 |
10.17b+0.014 |
T6 |
1.019a+0.000 |
4.06a+0.000 |
0.54a+0.014 |
10.45a+0.000 |
T7 |
1.009a+0.001 |
3.48c+0.014 |
0.77a+0.024 |
9.50a+0.022 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
Nil |
0.164 |
0.029 |
0.045 |
Day 6 |
||||
T1 |
1.018a ± 0.001 |
3.35a ± 0.014 |
0.83a+0.022 |
6.94a+0.000 |
T2 |
1.018b+0.001 |
3.42a+0.000 |
0.74b+0.022 |
7.52a +0.108 |
T3 |
1.025a+0.006 |
3.42a+0.022 |
0.67c+0.028 |
7.64a+0.014 |
T4 |
1.016a+0.000 |
3.61a+0.014 |
0.64c+0.014 |
8.16a+0.014 |
T5 |
1.017a+0.002 |
3.65a+0.000 |
0.60d+0.000 |
8.19a+0.000 |
T6 |
1.015a+0.001 |
3.81a+0.014 |
0.57d+0.000 |
9.20a+0.000 |
T7 |
1.015a+0.000 |
3.41a+0.014 |
0.81a+0.014 |
7.18a+0.022 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
Nil |
Nil |
0.038 |
3.040 |
Values are means of triplicate determination + standard deviation Means in columns with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) |
The pH reduced (3.67-3.35) from the first day, 3rd and sixth day. Total titratable acidity increased (0.49-0.83%) from the first day to the sixth day. There was no significant difference (P<0.05) on the pH of the juice samples at the sixth day of the study. The decrease in the pH accounted for its acidic medium and this can help to enhance the keeping quality of the product. [30], reported a reduction of growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli treated with ascorbic acid, lactic acid, potassium sorbate extracts which are all content of citrus fruit.
The specific gravity was in appreciable level (1.005-1.025%) and also in agreement with specific gravity of fruit juices reported by [31]. Beverages with good specific gravity would be smooth in the mouth during drinking. Specific gravity measurement is used in characterizing juices, beverages and other products as it is linked to the concentration of soluble solid present in the material [32].
The sugar content of the juice was high at the first day and reduced progressively till the sixth day (13.52-6.94%). This could be attributed to the activities of microbial enzymes responsible for breakdown of sugar like invertase and amylases [33].
There was a decline in the vitamin contents of the samples from 1st day to the sixth day B1 (0.26-0.03mg), B2 (0.22-0.02mg) and B3 (0.51-0.23mg) and difference exist from each day to the other for some Vitamins whereas there was no difference in some others at (P?0.05). The difference may be as a result of storage, chemical reaction on the juice and concentrations of ginger and or honey added to the samples. [34]., reported some vitamins content of grape fruit juice (Vit.C (54.31-1.20%, Vit.A (21.03- 21.08%,Vit.B1 (0.21-0.25%) and Vit.B2 (0.04-0.06%) which were closely related to our findings. Vitamins B play a vital role in maintaining good health and well -being, they also help to prevent infections [35]. Vitamin C help to protect against immune system deficiencies, cardiovascular diseases, prenatal health problems, eye disease and even skin wrinkling [36]. Vitamin A helps form and maintain healthy teeth, skeletal and soft tissue, mucus membranes, and skin. It is also known as retinol because it produces the pigments in the retina of the eye. Vitamin A promotes good eyesight, especially in low light. It also has a role in healthy pregnancy and breastfeeding [37]. Significant difference do not exist (P<0.05) on the vitamins C during the 3rd day and sixth day of the study at (P ?0.05).
The sensory evaluation scores of grape fruit juice sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger is presented in table 3,4 above.
Table 3: Vitamin content of grape fruit juice sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger (mg). |
||||
Samples |
B1 |
B2 |
B3 |
VIT C |
Day 1 |
||||
T1 |
1.12a ± 0.000 |
0.09c ± 0.000 |
0.36b+0.000 |
44.29f+ 0.040 |
T2 |
1.15a+ 0.000 |
0.12d+0.000 |
0.41cd+0.014 |
43.31d + 0.014 |
T3 |
1.12a+ 0.000 |
0.15c+0.000 |
0.43c+0.000 |
45.88c+ 0.036 |
T4 |
1.18a+ 0.000 |
0.16c+0.000 |
0.48b+0.014 |
46.77b+ 0.028 |
T5 |
1.21a+ 0.014 |
0.18b+0.000 |
0.49a+0.000 |
46.82a+ 0.028 |
T6 |
0.26a+ 0.014 |
0.22a+0.024 |
0.51a+0.010 |
46.88a+ 0.036 |
T7 |
0.14a+ 0.000 |
0.10c+0.000 |
0.40d+0.014 |
44.51c+ 0.014 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
0.00368 |
0.0165 |
0.02 |
0.0628 |
Day 3 |
||||
T1 |
1.010a ± 0.000 |
0.07a ± 0.000 |
0.30f+0.000 |
39.41a+0.014 |
T2 |
1.14a+0.014 |
0.09a+0.000 |
0.38d+0.000 |
41.76a +0.057 |
T3 |
0.15a+0.000 |
0.12a+0.000 |
0.40c/+0.000 |
42.85a+0.000 |
T4 |
0.16a+0.000 |
0.14a+0.000 |
0.45b+0.000 |
42.94a+0.014 |
T5 |
0.19b+0.000 |
0.16b+0.000 |
0.48a+0.014 |
43.83a+0.022 |
T6 |
0.23a+0.014 |
0.18a+0.000 |
0.48a+0.000 |
43.61a+0.014 |
T7 |
0.13a+0.014 |
0.09a+0.000 |
0.34a+0.014 |
38.78a+0.028 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
0.00862 |
Nil |
0.016 |
19.3 |
Day 6 |
||||
T1 |
0.03e ± 0.000 |
0.02e ± 0.000 |
0.23d+0.000 |
22.73a+0.036 |
T2 |
0.09c+0.000 |
0.07d+0.000 |
0.31c+0.000 |
29.78a +0.028 |
T3 |
0.13b+0.014 |
0.10c+0.000 |
0.34b+0.000 |
31.52a+0.108 |
T4 |
0.14b+0.000 |
0.11c+0.000 |
0.36b+0.000 |
35.66a+0.050 |
T5 |
0.16a+0.000 |
0.13b+0.014 |
0.41a+0.014 |
39.46a+0.057 |
T6 |
0.17a+0.000 |
0.15a+0.000 |
0.43a+0.022 |
42.81a+0.014 |
T7 |
0.05d+0.000. |
0.06d+0.000. |
0.25d+0.000 |
25.76a+0.050 |
LSD (P<0.05) |
0.0116 |
0.0116 |
0.00527 |
20.17 |
Key : Values are means of triplicate determination +standard deviation . Means in columns with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05) |
Table 4: Sensory evaluation of grape fruit juice samples sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger. |
||||
Simple codes |
Taste |
Flavor |
Color |
General acceptability |
582 |
7.6a |
7.1a |
7.4b |
7.3a |
417 |
7.9a |
7.3a |
7.4b |
7.1a |
283 |
7.8a |
7.7a |
8.0a |
7.7a |
316 |
6.5b |
7.0a |
7.8a |
7.4a |
371 |
7.9a |
7.0a |
7.4b |
7.6a |
513 |
7.9a |
7.2a |
8.2a |
7.7a |
312 |
5.7b |
6.3a |
7.8a |
5.5b |
LSD (P<0.05) |
1.052 |
Nil |
0.629 |
1.397 |
Values are means of triplicate determination + standard deviation Means in columns with different superscript are significantly different |
There was no significant difference (P<0.05) on the flavor of the juice samples. A slight difference (P<0.05) was recorded on the taste, colour and general acceptability. Samples 582, 417, 283, 371,513 did not show any differences significantly (P<0.05) on taste of the juice.
Samples 513, 417 and 283 were preferred by the panelists in terms of its colour, flavor, taste and general acceptability. This might be as a result of the level of ginger used as a preservative and the honey used as a sweetener.
The results in table 5 above show a low microbial growth at the 1st day
Table 5: Microbial load of grapefruit sweetened with honey and preserved with ginger (Cfu/ml). |
|||
Samples |
Day 1 |
Day 3 |
Day 6 |
T1 |
3.8 x 104 |
5.8 x 104 |
10.2 x 104 |
T2 |
2. 7 x 104 |
4.5 x 104 |
8.1 x 104 |
T3 |
2.5 x 104 |
3.9 x 104 |
7.8 x 104 |
T4 |
2.2 x 104 |
3.5 x 104 |
7.2 x 104 |
T5 |
2.1 x 104 |
2.9 x 104 |
6.3 x 104 |
T6 |
1.8 x 104 |
2.7 x 104 |
4.1 x 104 |
T7 |
3.2 x 104 |
5.2 x 104 |
9.2 x 104 |
Key: Cfu/ml = coliform forming units per T1 = No ginger and honey, T2 = 0.5% ginger without honey, T3 = 0.5% ginger + 0.5% honey, T4 = 1.5% ginger + 1.5% honey, T5 = 1.5% ginger + 2.0% honey, T6 = 2% ginger + 2.0% honey, T7 = No ginger + 1.5% honey. |
(1.8 x 104 -3.8 x 104 cfu/ml) which increased slightly during the third day of juice storage (2.7 x 104 -5.8 x 104 cfu/ml). The load of microorganisms increased during the sixth day (6.3 x 104 -10.2x104 ) respectively. Samples without ginger (T1 and T7 ) recorded the highest microbial growth and juice deterioration. All samples with different concentrations of ginger and honey (T2 , T3 , T4 , T5 ,T6 ) recorded lesser level of deterioration and they varied significantly (P<0.05).The lowest values recorded in sample T6 could be implicated to the highest percentage of ginger (2%) and honey(2%) added to the juice which is in line with the findings of [37] who discovered that ginger can preserve foods up to 4 months at room temperature (250C). [38], also discovered that aqueous extract of ginger caused an increase in the protein and mineral content thereby reducing the microbial growth on juice samples.
CONCLUSION
This study has shown that ginger (Zingiba officinale) has some anti-oxidative and anti-microbial effects which can extend the shelf-life of grape fruit juice samples. Samples treated with higher concentrations of ginger inhibited the growth of bacteria and also increased the shelf-life of the grapefruit juice. Ginger has shown excellent antibacterial properties and effective in controlling virus, bacterial and fungal diseases. In many countries, gingers have been used to preserve foods [39-41]. In addition, 2% ginger and honey was most effective in the preservation of grape juice and taste enhancement.
Therefore, ginger should be incorporated in most fruit juice processing and honey should be used as a sweetener hence that both of them are natural ingredients that has no much side effect to human health.
REFERENCES
- Sujit KS, Klin DF, Eliza DE, Ratna P. Grapefruit juice: Nutritional values and drug interactions. I J Integra Med Sci. 2015; 2: 186-89.
- Mertens-Talcott SU, Zadezeraky I, Decastro WV, Derendort H, Butterweek V. Grapefruit drug interaction: can interactions with drugs be avoided? Clin Pharmacol. 2006; 46: 1390-1416.
- Goldwasser J, Cohen PY, Yang E, Balaguer P, Yarmush ML, Nahmias Y. Transcriptional Regulation of Human and Rat Hepatic Lipid Metabolism by the Grapefruit Flavonoid Naringenin: Role of PPARa, PPARc and LXRa. Plos One.2010; 5: e12399.
- Dessie AT. Chemical composition and uses of honey. A review. J Food Sci Nutri Research. 2021; 4: 194-201.
- Ajibola A, Chamunorwa JP, Erlwanger KH. Nutraceutical values of natural honey and its contribution to human health and wealth. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2012; 9: 1-12.
- Machado De-Melo AA, Almeida-Muradian LBD, Sancho MT. Composition and properties of Apis mellifera honey: A review. Journal of Apicultural Research. 2018; 57: 5-37.
- Grzanna R, Lindmark L, Frondoza CG. Ginger-An herbal Medical Product with Broad Anti- Inflammatory. Action J Med Food. 2005; 8: 125-132.
- Barnes KK, Kolpin DW, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Furlong ET, Zaugg SD et al. Water-quality data for pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02- 94.
- Afzal M, Al-hadidi D, Menon M, Pesek J, Dhami MS. Ginger: An Ethnomedical, Chemical and Pharmacological Review. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 2001; 18: 159-190.
- Ajith TA, Aswathy MS, Hema, U. Protective effect of Zingiber officinale roscoe against anticancer drug doxorubicin-induced acute nephrotoxicity. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008; 46: 3178-3181.
- Avato P, Tursil E, Vitali C, Miccolis V, Cadido V. Allyl Sulphide Constituents of Garlic Volatile Oil as Antimicrobial Agents. Phytomedicine. 2000; 7: 239-243.
- Kaya Z, Unluturk S. Processing of clear and turbid grape juice by a continuous flow UV system. Innov Food Sci Emerg T. 2015; 30: 282- 288.
- Bates RP, Morris JR, Grandall PG (2001) Principles and practices of small and medium scale fruit juice processing, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 146.
- FAO. Fruit and vegetable year dietary essentials. The international year of fruits and vegetables, 2021. 2020: 82.
- AGICO (2018). Hot and popular fruit and vegetable juice drink. 2017. Anyang General International Co. Ltd.
- James SC. Experimental Methods in Analytical Chemistry of Food, Chapman and Hall, New York.1995; 28.
- A.O.A.C. Association of Analytical Chemists, Official Methods of Analysis 15th edition, Norgmia. 1990.
- Neubert AM, Fred V, St John JL. Determination of crude fibre. Ind Eng Chem Anal Ed. 1940.
- Pearson DA. Chemical Analysis of Foods (7th edition), Churchill Livingstone, Edinburg. 1976.
- A.O.A.C. Official Methods for Analysis: 17th Edn . Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washington DC,USA, 2010.
- Khairia MA (2014) A simple Spectrophotometric Method for determination of thiamine (vitamine B1) in pharmaceuticals. Europ J Chem. 2014; 5: 81-84.
- Wagha G, Zubair A, Kiran Q, Shaheen P, Igbal A. Methods of Analysis of Riboflavin vit (B2). A Review. J. Pharm & Pharmaceu Sci. 2014; 2: 10-21.
- Fan B, You J, Puo J, Qian, C. A novel and sensitive method for determining vitamin B3 and B1 by pre-column derivation and high- performance liquid chromatography method with fluorescence detection. PLoS One.2018; 13: e0198102,
- Krishnasarma P. Process for preparation of vitamin C and method for determination of vitamin C in tablets. Sci Fed J Chem Research. 2018; 2:1.
- Ihekoronye A.I., & Ngoddy P.O. (1985) Integrated Food Science and Technology for the Tropics. Macmillan Publishers, London. 1978; 113-132.
- ICMSF. International Commission on Microbiological Standard for Foods. Microorganisms in food sampling for microbiological analysis. Principles and specific application, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
- Cheeshrough M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical countries. 2006; 80-82.
- Okaka JC. Handling, storage and processing of plant-foods. Ocjanco Academic Publishers, Enugu, Nigeria. 2005; 250-270.
- Ogbonna AC, Abuajah CI, Ekpe EG. A comparative study in the nutritive factors and sensory acceptance of juices from selected Nigerian fruits. Croatian J Fed Technol Biotechnol Nutri. 2013; 8: 47-51.
- Abu-Ghazaleh B. Effects of ascorbic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, Nacl, potassium sorbate and thymus vulgaris extracts on Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Afri J Microbiol Res. 2013; 7: 7-12.
- Okoye COB, Ibeto CN. Analysis of different brands of fruit juice with emphasis on their sugar and trace metal content. Bio Research J. 2009; 7: 493-495.
- Morris JR, Grandell PG, Bates RP. Principles and practices of small and medium scale fruit juice processing. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 2001; 3-20.
- Catherine L. Better juice uses microorganisms to reduce sugar in OJ and Beyond, future of drink, reported by the SPOON. 2018; 16-22.
- Kolawole SE, Henrietta OO, Emokpae BA. Nutritional and antinutritional evaluation of grape fruit (Citrus paradisi) juice using different extraction methods. J of Adv Sci Tech. 2017; 4: 84-90.
- Emily C. Why is vitamin B complex important and where do I get it. Nutrition, healthy eating and meal preparation. 2019.
- Zalman KM. The benefits of vitamin C, nourish by web MD, Diet and weight management. 2020.
- Ahammed S, Tahukar MM, Karual MS. Processing and preservation of ginger juice. J Envir Sci Resear. 2014; 7: 117-120.
- Quattara GS, Soro D, Yeo MA, Koffi EK. Preservative effects of different treatments and their flavor acceptability in cashew, apple and pineapple blend juice. Inter J Envir Agric Resear. 2017; 3: 1-6.
- Ernst E, Pittler MH. Randomized controlled trial of ginger to treat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 639- 645.
- Liao YR, Leu YL, Chan YY, Kuo PC, Wu TS. Anti-platelet aggregation and vasorelaxing effects of the constituents of the rhizomes of Zingiber officinale. Molecules. 2012; 17: 8928-8937.
- Chen BH, Wu PY, Chen KM, Fu TF, Wang HM, Chen CY . Antiallergic potential on RBL-2H3 cells of some phenolic constituents of Zingiber officinale (Ginger). J Nat Prod. 2009; 72: 950-953.