Different Treatments for Sugarcane Juice Preservation
- PMID: 36673403
- PMCID: PMC9857402
- DOI: 10.3390/foods12020311
Different Treatments for Sugarcane Juice Preservation
Abstract
This investigation aimed to optimize the time, pH, pressure, and temperature of sugarcane juice pasteurization and to develop a "ready to serve" bottled sugarcane juice with a high preservation efficiency. Fresh sugarcane juice was extracted from sugarcane genotype Co 89003, and beverage samples were collected using three different treatments: sulphitation of juice with the addition of potassium metabisulphite (KMS-25, 50, 100, and 150 ppm), acidification of juice (addition of citric acid, to reduce the pH of the juice to 4.8, 4.5, and 4.25), and steam treatment of the canes (5 min, 10, and 15 min at 7 psi). In all treatments, the juice was pasteurized in glass bottles @ 65 °C for 25 min and stored at low temperature (5 °C) in pre-sterilized glass bottles. Juice properties such as the ˚Brix, total sugar, pH, and total phenolic content decreased with storage, whereas the microbial count, titrable acidity, and reducing sugar content significantly increased during storage. The addition of KMS, citric acid, and the steam treatment reduced the browning of juice and maintained the color of juice during storage, by inhibiting the polyphenol oxidase enzyme activity, from 0.571 unit/mL to 0.1 unit/mL. Among the selected treatments, sugarcane juice with KMS (100 and 150 ppm) and steam treatment of the canes for 5 and 10 min at 7 psi showed the minimum changes in physico-chemical properties, sensory qualities, and restricted microbial growth. Thesulphitation treatment with pasteurization proved best for increasing the shelf life of sugarcane juice upto 90 days with refrigeration. Similarly, the steam-subjected cane juice (10 and 15 min at 7 psi) could be effectively preserved for upto 30 days with refrigeration, without any preservative.
Keywords: acidification; bottled juice; preservation; sensory; steam; sugarcane; sulphitation.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Figures





References
-
- Nandwal A.S., Chand M., Singh K., Mishra A.K., Kumar A., Kumari A., Rani B. Varietal variation in physiological and biochemical attributes of sugarcane varieties under different soil moisture regimes. Ind. J. Exp. Biol. 2019;57:721–732.
-
- Dhansu P., Kulshreshtha N., Kumar R., Raja A.K., Pandey S.K., Goel V., Ram B. Identification of drought-tolerant co-canes based on physiological traits, yield attributes and drought tolerance indices. Sugar Technol. 2021;23:741–767. doi: 10.1007/s12355-021-00967-7. - DOI
-
- Kaavya R., Pandiselvam R., Kothakota A., Priya E.B., Prasath V.A. Sugarcane juice preservation: A critical review of the state of the art and way forward. Sugar Technol. 2019;21:9–19. doi: 10.1007/s12355-018-0622-2. - DOI
-
- Sankhla S., Chaturvedi A., Aparna K., Dhanlakshmi K., Mulinti S. Preservation of sugarcane juice using hurdle technology. Sugar Technol. 2012;14:26–39. doi: 10.1007/s12355-011-0127-8. - DOI
-
- Hudson E.A., Dinh P.A., Kokubun T., Simmonds M.S.J., Gescher A. Characterization of potentially chemo-preventive phenols in extract of brown rice that inhibit the growth of human breast and colon cancer cells. Cancer Epid. Biomark. Prev. 2000;9:1163–1170. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources