FST5404

LABORATORY FOR FOOD TECHNOLOGY

EXPERIMENT 2: EFFECT OF PACKAGING MATERIALS ON THE QUALITY OF

GREEN VEGETABLES

Prepared by :

NADIA BINTI YUSOF GS51263

FAHMI ILMAN FAHRUDIN GS51931

NURUL ZAHIDAH BINTI KAMARUDIN GS52174

MUHAMMAD HAZIQ HUSSIN GS52187

NURUL NAQIBAH PAMBI GS52212

CHOY HEW WENG GS52277

LECTURER: DR NUR HANANI ZAINAL ABIDIN

DATE : 19 JANUARY 2019
 Effect of Packaging Materials on the Quality of Green Vegetables

Y. Nadia, F. Fahmi, K. Zahidah, H. Haziq, P. Naqibah, W. Choy Hew

Faculty Food Science and Technology, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor

ABSTRACT

In this study, the quality of green vegetables with different types of packaging materials
(polyethylene, polypropylene and nylon) under two different conditions were observed on the
Day 0 and Day 3. Analysis of moisture content, weight loss, brix, colour and pH of the
vegetables were analysed. The effects of different packaging materials on the quality of green
vegetables were statistically tested by using analysis of variance. The study showed that the
moisture content in all vacuum packed packaging material is higher than non-vacuum packed
packaging and PE vacuum packaging has the highest moisture content compared to all other
packaging materials. In weight loss analysis, it showed that the lower weight loss is PE
packaging while pH value showed not much different between Day 0 to Day 3 except for the
increasing in pH value for control vegetable leave and vacuum PP packaging. Moreover, for
the colour analysis, non-vacuum packed vegetable in all type of packaging materials showed
the highest lightness and yellowness value in Day 3 compared with Day 0. In addition, brix
analysis showed PE packaging has the highest increment of Brix° value compared to the
other type of packaging materials. All the analysis are proposed and discussed in detail.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample Preparation

Leafy vegetables were first cleaned and cut. Moisture content, weight, total soluble
solids, colour and pH of the vegetables were determined and evaluated. Then, the vegetables
were packed individually in three different packaging materials: polyethylene (PE),
polypropylene (PP) and nylon. Half of the packed vegetables were subjected to normal
sealing procedure and the other half were vacuum-packed. Unpacked vegetables were
prepared as control. Every sample was duplicated. The samples were then kept at room
temperature for 3 days. The moisture content, weight, total soluble solids, colour and pH of
the stored samples were again determined and evaluated after 3 days.

1
Moisture Content Determination

Total 18 g of the mustard leaf is chopped finely and 3 g of it were put into PP, PE and
Nylon plastics each. Half of each plastic were sealed, while the rest were vacuumed and
sealed. The moisture content of 3 g fresh mustard leaf was analyzed using A&D moisture
analyzer (Model MX-50, A&D Company, Limited, Illinois, USA) at 105oC. The sample was
heated until the moisture content was constant, and the final moisture was recorded. The
experiment was repeated using both vacuumed and non-vacuumed samples after 3 days and
the MC of dried samples were recorded.

Weight Loss Determination

Weight of leafy vegetables was weighted using A&D EK-610i weighing balance.
Weight loss was calculated from the prepared sample before and after for 3 days of storage.
Each leaves were stored at room temperature inside vacuum and non-vacuum PE, PP, and
nylon packaging. The weight loss of control sample without packaging also measured. The
weight loss was expressed as a percentage of final weight minus with initial weight.

Weight loss (g) = final weight (day 3) – initial weight (day 0)

Total Soluble Solids Determination (using Brix)

Brix measurement is the determination of pure sucrose content in water (1-degree

Brix = 1g of sucrose in 100g of solution). In this experiment, brix of the green leaves extract
was measured using a handheld analog refractometer, Atago 2354 MASTER-50H with range
of brix scale from 0.0 to 53.0%. The brix of green leaves was measured at 0 days (before
storage) and 3 days (after storage) for vacuumed and non-vacuumed samples, using liquid
extracted from the homogenized leaves.

Colour Evaluation

Colour values of the vegetables were determined using a Minolta chromameter

(Model CR-410, Konika Minolta, Osaka, Japan). Lightness (L*), redness (a*) and yellowness
(b*) values were recorded respectively.

2
pH Determination

Sample of mustard green leaves were extracted and determined the pH using pH
meter (Professional Benchtop BP3001, Trans Instruments). The experiment was repeated
using both vacuumed and non-vacuumed samples after 3 days. There are two results for pH
determination, initial pH before storage and after 3 days of storage. Calibration in this device
should be performed as frequently as possible to ensure accurate measurement using standard
buffer (pH 7.00) before analyse the sample.

Statistical-Analysis

Data were statistically analyzed using MiniTab Version 17. Two-way ANOVA was
used. Three factors are used in this analyse which are the packaging material, condition and
the days. The interaction between these factors are also been analyzed. The means were
marked as significant if the P value was less than 0.05.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Moisture Content

Table1: Moisture content of packaged Vegetables (Sawi) in different packaging material and days

Sample Day 0 Day 3

Control 10.29±0.00a 7.39±0.00a

PE (V) 10.29±0.00a 18.24±0.00a

PP (V) 10.29±0.00a 12.06±0.00a

Nylon (V) 10.29±0.00a 11.62±0.00a

PE (NV) 10.29±0.00a 6.72±0.00a

PP (NV) 10.29±0.00a 9.67±0.00a

3
 Nylon (NV) 10.29±0.00a 9.82±0.00a

*PE – Polyethylene
*PP – Polypropylene
*V – Vacuum treatment
*NV – Non-vacuum treatment
Values with different superscript on the same row are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)

Based on Table 1, the moisture content in all vacuum-packed packaging material is

higher than non-vacuum packed packaging. The water content remain in the vacuum
packaging is due there is no osmosis or gasses diffusion in the form of water vapour
occurring and this proof that vacuum packed have high moisture barrier. The reduction was
less for those packed in vacuum package as compared non-vacuum package. This might be
attributed to the reduction of water binding sites due to chemical and structural changes in
cells of the vegetable samples (Chetti et.al, 2012). Most water vapour that evaporates from
the fresh produce does not escape through the packaging material and stay within the
package, in these circumstances, minor temperature fluctuations may result in condensation
in the package (Linke and Geyer 2013).
Nylon vacuum packaging has the lowest moisture content compared to the other
vacuum packaging material. As the properties of nylon packaging material that act as a good
gases barrier but have high permeability toward moisture vapor so moisture vapor are free to
penetrate in and out of the packaging making it has the lowest moisture content (Marsh &
Bugusu, 2007).

Whereas for PE vacuum packaging, it has the highest moisture content compared to
all other packaging materials due to it is can prevent water permeability and resistance to
moisture so it can retain the moisture inside the packaging. According to Solomon, (2018),
the lower water vapour transmission rate of polyethylene sheet may also contribute for the
development of relatively higher humidity inside the package. The Condensation of water
vapour possibly would occur in the polyethylene bag as results of lower permeability of the
film to water vapour.

4
Weight Loss

Table2: Weight loss of packaged Vegetables (Sawi) in different packaging material and day

Sample Day 0 Day 3

Control 8.57±0.00ab 1.00±0.00b

PE (V) 11.58±1.03a 11.05±1.03a

PP (V) 11.89±1.14a 11.47±1.17a

Nylon (V) 5.23±0.99a 4.61±1.27ab

PE (NV) 10.42±3.40a 9.65±3.33a

PP (NV) 12.91±0.45a 12.50±0.48a

Nylon (NV) 12.21±0.96a 11.76±1.04ab

*PE – Polyethylene
*PP – Polypropylene
*V – Vacuum treatment
*NV – Non-vacuum treatment
Values with different superscript on the same row are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)

Based on Table 2, there is only slightly reduction in weight loss in all form of
packaging material except the control sample which the one without packaging. The control
sample experience extreme weight lost, and this is due to the sample is being directly exposed
to environment without any protection barrier. The highest weight loss observed in the
control sample may be due to the higher respiration rate (Solomon, 2018). The transpiration
rate will also increase and cause more water lost and this will directly affect the weight
(Solomon, 2018). Solomon (2018) stated that water loss can be reduced effectively by
placing additional physical barriers between the product and the surrounding air.

The lower weight loss of PE packaging could be due to slow rate of transpiration and
prevention of excessive moisture loss and this may contribute for the development of
relatively higher humidity inside the package (Solomon, 2018). According to Ben-Yehushua

5
(1985), the main function of packaging is to reduce respiration rate and water loss by
transpiration, which could affect the metabolism of the vegetable leaves sample.

pH Value

Table 3: pH value of packaged Vegetables (Sawi) in different packaging material and days

Sample Day 0 Day 3

Control 5.88±0.01a 6.16±0.02a

PE (V) 5.88±0.01a 5.62±0.01a

PP (V) 5.88±0.01a 6.10±0.00a

Nylon (V) 5.88±0.01a 5.11±0.00a

PE (NV) 5.88±0.01a 5.87±0.01a

PP (NV) 5.88±0.01a 5.76±0.02a

Nylon (NV) 5.88±0.01a 5.97±0.00a

*PE – Polyethylene
*PP – Polypropylene
*V – Vacuum treatment
*NV – Non-vacuum treatment
Values with different superscript on the same row are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)

According to Table 3, the pH value shows not much different between day zero to day
3 except for the control vegetable leave and vacuum PP packaging vegetable leaves. The pH
value is increasing in this both type of packaging which are the vegetables leaves without
packaging and vegetables leaves with vacuum PP packaging. The tendency of increasing pH
value and reduced acidity is observed with longer storage time since the vegetable with
proceeding of the ripening process is going to diminish its predominant acid (Medlicoot et
al., 1986).The slight increasing in pH in the vegetable leaves without packaging are may due
to the vegetable leaves are being exposed directly to the environment without any barrier so it
will increase the ripening process which will decrease the acid content in the vegetable
leaves.

6
 The lower pH values of PE and Nylon packaging on day 3 could be explained by the
relatively reduced respiration rate in the package. Reduced O2 and increased CO2 which
could be created as a result of respiration could delay the rate of respiration in the package
hence it may inhibit loss of organic acids (Mathooko, 2003).

Colour

Table 4: Colour of packaged Vegetables (Sawi) in different packaging material and days

Sample Day 0 Day 3

L* a* b* L* a* b*

ConControl 38.93±0.01d -10.00±0.01a 12.72±0.00c 57.83±0.06a -6.86±0.02a 16.72±0.08bc

PE (PE (V) 41.47±0.04d -12.49±0.01a 16.42±0.04bc 46.61±0.28b -20.86±0.07a 22.51±0.30a

PP (PP (V) 41.62±0.00d -11.66±0.01a 15.60±0.03c 44.66±0.04bc -12.09±0.04a 16.60±0.15ab

Ny Nylon (V) 41.45±0.51d -12.51±0.03a 18.18±0.04bc 42.28±0.11cd -6.01±0.05a 16.04±0.02bc

PE (PE (NV) 41.33±0.02d -11.23±0.02a 14.80±0.03bc 57.27±0.94b -14.97±0.23a 26.05±0.76a

PP (PP (NV) 43.23±0.01d -10.61±0.01a 13.80±0.01c 49.00±0.35bc -14.28±0.20a 25.00±0.59ab

Nyl Nylon 42.38±0.04d -10.68±0.02a 14.38±0.01bc 44.52±0.03cd -8.91±0.00a 16.43±0.04bc

(NN(NV)

*PE – Polyethylene
*PP – Polypropylene
*V – Vacuum treatment
*NV – Non-vacuum treatment
Values with different superscript on the same row are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)

Based on Table 4, it shows that there is an obvious color change between the
unpacked vegetable leave with the packed vegetable leaves with different packaging material.
After 3 days, the lightness of unpacked vegetable leaves is the highest compared to the rest of
the leaves. The degradation was much faster in unpacked sample stored at room temperature,
since there was a free exchange of O2 and moisture content between the atmosphere and the

7
sample as it do not possess barrier properties unlike other sample with polyfilms used (Chetti
et.al, 2012).
Next comparison with the conditions of packaging, the non-vacuum packed vegetable
in all type of packaging material show the highest lightness and yellowness value in day 3
compared with day zero. The non-vacuum packed vegetable may content gases such as
oxygen after sealing. This oxygen may be used by the bacteria to growth and causing the
vegetable leaves to wilt faster and oxygen may also be the carrier of bacteria on the vegetable
leaves. The PE packaging material show the highest value of lightness and yellowness
compared to the other packaging material. This may due to the PE have the thinnest
membrane layer compared to the other packaging material. Gases such as oxygen are freely
to penetrate the membrane and cause oxidation to occur and cause the vegetable leave to
become paler and yellowish compared to the other.

Table 5: Green Vegetables picture in Day 0 and Day 3

Day Zero Day 3

PE (Vacuum) PE (Vacuum)

PE (Non-Vacuum) PE (Non-Vacuum)

8
 PP (Vacuum) PP (Vacuum)

PP (Non-Vacuum) PP (Non-Vacuum)

Nylon (Vacuum) Nylon (Vacuum)

Nylon (Non-Vacuum) Nylon (Non-Vacuum)

9
 Control Control

Brix°

Table 5: Brix° of packaged Vegetables (Sawi) in different packaging material and days

Sample Day 0 Day 3

Control 6.50±0.00c 8.25±0.35bc

PE (V) 6.50±0.00c 10.25±0.35a

PP (V) 6.50±0.00c 10.75±0.35ab

Nylon (V) 6.50±0.00c 7.25±0.35ab

PE (NV) 6.50±0.00c 11.25±0.35a

PP (NV) 6.50±0.00c 10.25±0.35ab

Nylon (NV) 6.50±0.00c 10.50±0.00ab

*PE – Polyethylene
*PP – Polypropylene
*V – Vacuum treatment
*NV – Non-vacuum treatment
Values with different superscript on the same row are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)

According to Table 5, TSS content is represent by the Brix° value. All the Brix° value
increases from day zero to day 3 for all type of packaging materials. PE packaging show the
highest increment of Brix° value compared to the other type of packaging materials. When
the. ripening occurs, the Brix° value will increase. In order to ripe, oxygen is needed. PE is
the thinnest among others and has higher gas permeability thus oxygen is easily penetrated

10
through PE packaging into the vegetable and causing ripening to occur more thus the Brix°
value is slightly higher in PE packaging. Oxygen is needed to make ethylene in the ripening
process (Grierson, 2013).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, three different packaging materials (polyethylene, polypropylene and

nylon) was used on green vegetables to study the quality of the vegetables under different
condition (vacuum and non-vacuum) on Day 0 and Day 3. The green vegetables were tested
under various condition to study about the effect of different packaging on the green
vegetables’ quality. In moisture content testing, the moisture content of vegetables in vacuum
packaging is higher than non-vacuum packaging. Polyethylene packaging with low water-
vapor permeability has highest moisture content. Meanwhile, nylon with high water-vapor
permeability recorded the lowest moisture content.

Weigh reduction of green vegetables for all packaging material is minimum in value.
But the control vegetables experienced excessive weight reduction. Other than that, pH value
recorded shows no differences either from Day 0 samples nor Day 3 samples except for
controlled samples and polypropylene packaging sample. Control and polypropylene
vegetable samples experienced increase in pH while Polyethylene and nylon vegetable
samples experienced pH drop.

Vegetables color became lighter in Day 3 compared to Day 0 for all samples.
Vegetables in vacuum packaging have more darker color compared to non-vacuum
packaging which resulting in lighter vegetables color. Polyethylene packaging contributes to
highest lightness and yellowness color compared to other packaging. Brix value increasing
from Day 0 to Day 3. But the Polyethylene with high gas permeability and thinnest packaging
shows highest brix increment compared to other packaging

11
 REFERENCES

1. Ben-Yehoshua, S., Burg,S.P., & Young,R. (1985). Resistance of Citrus Fruit to Mass
Transport of Water Vapor and Other Gases.
Plant Physiol, 79, 1048-1053.

2. Chetti, M.B. (2012). Influence of vacuum packaging and long-term storage on quality
of whole chilli (Capsicum annuum L.).
Journal Food Science Technology, 3(10), 1-6.

3. Grierson, D. (2013). “Ethylene and the control of fruit ripening,” in The Molecular
Biology and Biochemistry of Fruit Ripening, eds Grahman, S., Mervin, P., James, G.,
and Gregory, T.
(Boston: Blackwell Publishing Ltd), 43–73.

4. Linke M, Geyer M (2013) Condensation dynamics in plastic film packaging of fruit

and vegetables. J Food Eng, 1(16), 144–154

5. Medlicott ,A.P., Reynolds, S.B., & Bhogal, M. (1986). Changes in peel pigmentation
during ripening of mango fruit (Mangifera indica var. Tommy Atkins). Annals of
Applied Biology, 109(3), 651-656.

6. Marsh, K., & Bugusu, B. (2007). Food Packaging—Roles, Materials, and

Environmental Issues.
Journal of Food Science, 72(3), 39-55.

7. Mathooko, F.M. (2003). A Comparison of Modified Atmosphere Packaging under

Ambient
Conditions and Low Temperature Storage on Quality of Tomato Fruit. African
Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 3(2), 10-19.

8. Solomon, A.G. (2018). The Effects Packaging Materials on Post Harvest Quality of
Tomato
(Solanum Lycopersium). Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 8(11), 97-103. -103.

12