Loading

Annals of Food Processing and Preservation

Production and Shelf-Life Extension of Grape Juice Sweetened with Honey and Preserved with Ginger

Research Article | Open Access | Volume 6 | Issue 1

  • 1. Department of Food Science and Technology Abia State University, Uturu, Abia State
  • 2. Department Of Biological Science Spiritan University Nneochi, Abia State
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Okoronkwo CU, Department of Food Science and Technology Abia State University, Uturu, Abia State, Tel: 08036260891; E-mail: OKORONKWOCHRISTOPHER95@YAHOO.COM
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.

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
  1. Sujit KS, Klin DF, Eliza DE, Ratna P. Grapefruit juice: Nutritional values and drug interactions. I J Integra Med Sci. 2015; 2: 186-89.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Dessie AT. Chemical composition and uses of honey. A review. J Food Sci Nutri Research. 2021; 4: 194-201.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Grzanna R, Lindmark L, Frondoza CG. Ginger-An herbal Medical Product with Broad Anti- Inflammatory. Action J Med Food. 2005; 8: 125-132.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Bates RP, Morris JR, Grandall PG (2001) Principles and practices of small and medium scale fruit juice processing, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 146.
  14. FAO. Fruit and vegetable year dietary essentials. The international year of fruits and vegetables, 2021. 2020: 82.
  15. AGICO (2018). Hot and popular fruit and vegetable juice drink. 2017. Anyang General International Co. Ltd.
  16. James SC. Experimental Methods in Analytical Chemistry of Food, Chapman and Hall, New York.1995; 28.
  17.  A.O.A.C. Association of Analytical Chemists, Official Methods of Analysis 15th edition, Norgmia. 1990.
  18. Neubert AM, Fred V, St John JL. Determination of crude fibre. Ind Eng Chem Anal Ed. 1940.
  19. Pearson DA. Chemical Analysis of Foods (7th edition), Churchill Livingstone, Edinburg. 1976.
  20.  A.O.A.C. Official Methods for Analysis: 17th Edn . Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Washington DC,USA, 2010.
  21. Khairia MA (2014) A simple Spectrophotometric Method for determination of thiamine (vitamine B1) in pharmaceuticals. Europ J Chem. 2014; 5: 81-84.
  22. 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.
  23. 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,
  24. 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.
  25. Ihekoronye A.I., & Ngoddy P.O. (1985) Integrated Food Science and Technology for the Tropics. Macmillan Publishers, London. 1978; 113-132.
  26. ICMSF. International Commission on Microbiological Standard for Foods. Microorganisms in food sampling for microbiological analysis. Principles and specific application, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
  27. Cheeshrough M. District Laboratory Practice in Tropical countries. 2006; 80-82.
  28. Okaka JC. Handling, storage and processing of plant-foods. Ocjanco Academic Publishers, Enugu, Nigeria. 2005; 250-270.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. Catherine L. Better juice uses microorganisms to reduce sugar in OJ and Beyond, future of drink, reported by the SPOON. 2018; 16-22.
  34. 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.
  35. Emily C. Why is vitamin B complex important and where do I get it. Nutrition, healthy eating and meal preparation. 2019.
  36. Zalman KM. The benefits of vitamin C, nourish by web MD, Diet and weight management. 2020.
  37. Ahammed S, Tahukar MM, Karual MS. Processing and preservation of ginger juice. J Envir Sci Resear. 2014; 7: 117-120.
  38. 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.
  39. Ernst E, Pittler MH. Randomized controlled trial of ginger to treat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103: 639- 645.
  40. 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.
  41. 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.

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.

Received : 01 Mar 2022
Accepted : 21 Mar 2022
Published : 28 Mar 2022
Journals
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X