Indian Journal of Natural Products and Resources
Vol. 3(4), December 2012, pp. 493-500
Suitability of tin cans and glass jars for processing of peach fruits in juice
Manisha Kaushal* and K D Sharma
Department of Food Science and Technology, Dr Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry,
Solan-173 230, Himachal Pradesh, India
Received 29 August 2011; Accepted 16 July 2012
Suitability of processing of lye peeled peach halves of cultivar ‘July Elberta’ in A 2½ size tin cans and 500 g glass jars
in a covering medium of 40oB syrup in different proportions (10-40%) containing either peach pulp or enzymatically
extracted (pectinase @ 0.5%) peach juice fortified with or without ascorbic acid (500 ppm) was evaluated on the basis of
storability, nutritional value and sensory attributes. Cut out analysis of canned peach halves after 3 and 6 months revealed
that both the packages irrespective of the treatments met FPO specifications for vacuum and drained weight. On the basis of
physico-chemical and sensory evaluation it was observed that higher retention of ascorbic acid and carotenoids was
observed in cans as compared to jars. Further, vitamin C fortified treatments had a higher retention of ascorbic acid both
in cans (24.7 mg/100 g) and glass jars (18.54 mg/100 g) than that of unfortified treatment having mean values 10.91 and
9.5 mg/100 g for cans and jars, respectively while, the vitamin C content in control samples (40oB sucrose syrup with 0.3%
citric acid) was recorded as 3.91 mg/100 g after 6 months of storage. Addition of peach pulp in covering medium witnessed
lesser extent of non-enzymatic browning as compared to enzymatically extracted juice when used in a covering medium.
Data pertaining to non-enzymatic browning showed slightly higher values in glass jars (0.092) as compared to the tin cans
(0.085). However, no apparent spoilage was noticed in cans and jars throughout the study period of 6 months. It was
suggested that conventional processing of peach halves in sucrose syrup in tin cans and glass jars can successfully be
replaced with a covering medium containing 30-40% of peach pulp.
Keywords: Jars, Juice, Peach, Processing, Prunus persica, Pulp, Tin cans.
IPC code; Int. cl. (2011.01)  A23B 7/00, B65B 25/04
Introduction
Peach (Prunus persica Batsch) is one of
the important stone fruits grown in temperate
regions of the world. World peach production is
estimated to be 18428913 tonnes where India
contributes 150,000 tonnes1. Fresh fruits are attractive,
delicious and highly nutritious as they contain
substantially good amount of carbohydrates, proteins,
ascorbic acid, potassium and niacin as compared to
majority of other common fruits. Due to perishable
nature of the fruit, non-availability of storage facilities
in the growing area and lack of cold chain for
transportation, the orchard owners get unsatisfactory
returns for their produce. The commercial practice of
canning of peach halves in sugar syrup results in
masking of original fruit flavour and wastage of the
sugar syrup. Many authors have suggested replacing
sugar syrups with corn syrup, apple concentrate,
apples juice and mango pulp for fruit canning2-5.
——————
*Correspondent author:
E-mail: [email protected]
Therefore, to make the fruits available to the
consumers throughout the year and to have better
income to the growers, preservation of fruit halves in
fruit juice could be a good alternative. With the
increase in domestic consumption and thrust towards
export of processed products, packaging is considered
as an important marketing tool. Processing of fruits is
mostly done in tin cans resulting into a high price of
canned products thus making them unaffordable to a
common man. Thus packaging of fruit halves in light
weight glass jars could be best alternative as they will
be available at reasonable cost to the consumers.
Therefore, the study was undertaken to determine the
acceptability of processing of peach halves in
covering media containing peach juice and pulp in tin
cans and glass jars with respect to their quality
and shelf-life.
Materials and Methods
Firm ripe fruits of peach cultivar ‘July Elberta’
obtained from Rajgarh area of Himachal Pradesh were
manually sorted, graded and washed thoroughly. The
494
INDIAN J NAT PROD RESOUR, DECEMBER 2012
fruits were lye peeled (1.0% boiling caustic soda for
50 sec), halved, destoned and processed in a covering
media of 40°B containing 10-40% peach pulp or
enzymatically extracted (pectinase 0.5%) peach juice
fortified with or without ascorbic acid (500 ppm) both
in A 2½ tin cans and glass jars (500 g). The ripe
peach fruit were used for pulp extraction where the
fruits were cooked for 10-15 minutes after adding
10% water followed by passing the whole mass
through the pulper. For juice extraction, pulp was
enzymatically clarified (pectinases @ 0.5% at 40°C
for 4 h), heated to 95°C to inactivate the added
enzyme and then stored in sterilized glass bottles by
pasteurization. The conventionally canned fruit halves
in sugar syrup of 40°B with 0.3% citric acid served as
control. The processing of tin cans and glass jars
was done as per the standard method6 (Plate 1 a,b)
and were stored at ambient temperature (14-30°C)
for 6 months.
The physico-chemical analysis of fresh and
canned peach fruits was carried out according to
the procedure described elsewere7,8. The sensory
evaluation of prepared products was carried out
by a panel of 7 semi-trained judges on a 9 point
Hedonic scale9 for parameters like colour, flavour,
texture, taste and overall acceptability. Triplicate
determination was made for each physico-chemical
attribute by taking 10 fruits for each replication.
Completely Randomized Design (factorial) was used
to analyze the data of quantitative estimation of
various physico-chemical characteristics10.
Results and Discussion
Fresh fruits of ‘July Elberta’ were analyzed for
their physico-chemical characteristics and the data is
summarized in Table 1. The average fruit length and
diameter of fruit was determined as 5.82 and 5.95 cm
with an average weight of 82.60 g and firmness of
5.23 kg/cm2. Chemically, the fruit contained 11.43%
total soluble solids with an acidity of 0.76% as
malic acid. The fruits contained 690 µg/100 g and
16.40 mg/100 g of vitamin A and C, respectively.
Thus it is apparent from the data that the fruits
were suitable for canning which was in conformation
with other authors11-14.
Cut out analysis for physical attributes
The results of cut out analysis of peach halves
canned in A 2½ cans and glass jars stored at ambient
temperature (14-30°C) revealed that the vacuum
decreased during the storage period of 6 months
although well within the FPO specifications (Table 2).
The maximum vacuum in cans was observed in
T14 (40% peach pulp in covering media of 40oB) and
T9 (20% peach juice in covering media of 40oB
containing 500 ppm of ascorbic acid) having a value
Table 1  Physico-chemical characteristics of fresh peach fruits
Plate 1  Peach halves: (a) in tin cans, (b) in glass jars
S. No.
Parameters
Mean+SD*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Length (cm)
Diameter (cm)
Weight (g)
Specific gravity
Firmness (kg/cm2)
Moisture (%)
Total soluble solids (oBrix)
Titratable acidity (% malic acid)
Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g)
5.82+0.021
5.95+0.03
82.60+4.96
1.09+0.02
5.23+0.30
88.1+0.80
11.43+0.17
0.76+0.02
16.40+0.52
690.0+0.12
Total carotenoids (µg/100 g)
* Average of 3 observations (10 fruits per observation)
KAUSHAL & SHARMA: SUITABILITY OF TIN CANS AND GLASS JARS FOR PEACH FRUITS PROCESSING
495
Table 2  Effect of treatment and storage period on the vacuum (kg/cm2) of the processed peaches in tin cans and glass jars
Storage period
3 months
Treatment **
Control (T1)
10% peach pulp (T2)
10% peach juice (T3)
10% peach pulp* (T4)
10% peach juice* (T5)
20% peach pulp (T6)
20% peach juice (T7)
20% peach pulp* (T8)
20% peach juice* (T9)
30% peach pulp (T10)
30% peach juice (T11)
30% peach pulp* (T12)
30% peach juice* (T13)
40% peach pulp (T14)
40% peach juice (T15)
40% peach pulp* (T16)
40% peach juice (T17)
Mean
Mean (P)
6 months
Mean (T)
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
0.60
0.60
0.56
0.55
0.60
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.58
0.56
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.60
0.55
0.58
0.55
0.56
0.60
0.53
0.58
0.56
0.58
0.58
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.60
0.56
0.60
0.57
0.55
0.60
0.58
0.57
0.55
0.58
0.60
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.56
0.58
0.60
0.58
0.60
0.58
0.55
0.50
0.51
0.54
0.50
0.50
0.51
0.53
0.56
0.50
0.53
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.53
0.53
0.55
0.53
0.50
0.51
0.58
0.51
0.56
0.51
0.50
0.53
0.51
0.55
0.50
0.53
0.53
0.56
0.56
0.53
0.50
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.51
0.51
0.53
0.54
0.53
0.52
0.54
0.54
0.56
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.57
0.55
0.56
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.54
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.55
0.56
0.55
0.57
0.58
0.56
0.57
* Treatments with ascorbic acid @ 500 ppm
** Total soluble solids 40oBrix
Effect
CD0.05
Effect
CD0.05
Treatment
NS
Treatment × Package
0.04
Package
NS
Treatment × Storage
0.04
Storage
0.01
Package × Storage
NS
Treatment × Package × Storage
0.06
of 0.56 kg/cm2 which was statistically at par with
other treatments like T17, T13, T12 and T1. In jars,
maximum vacuum of 0.58 was observed in T3 (10%
peach pulp in covering media of 40oB), followed
by 0.56 kg/cm2 in T5, T14 and T15. Data showed
that mean vacuum in cans was 0.56 while in jars
was 0.55 kg/cm2 which was statistically at par with
each other which was in agreement with various
authors15-17. Further, both the packages had a non
significant effect on the drained weight of the
canned peach halves. The mean drained weight in
cans and jars after 6 months of storage was 56.09
and 57.05%, respectively.
Cut out analysis for chemical attributes
Nutritional evaluation of canned peach halves both
in A 2½ tin cans and glass jars showed that the
retention of ascorbic acid was comparatively higher in
cans than the glass jars for the same treatment
throughout the storage period (Table 3). Three months
storage data revealed that mean ascorbic acid in cans
was 12.56 mg/100 g while in jars it was 10.91 mg/
100 g though maximum value of ascorbic acid was
recorded in treatment T17 (20.65 mg/100 g) for both
the packages. Six months analysis of stored peach
halves in both the packages observed mean value of
ascorbic acid as 10.69 in cans as against 9.40 mg/
100 g in glass jars17,18. Statistically significant differences
were observed in ascorbic acid for treatments, storage,
and packages and their interactions. The difference
of packages with reference to ascorbic acid was
found significant as the packaging mean denotes
11.63 mg/100 g value for cans and 10.16 mg/100 g
for jars. The storage mean was also significant with
respect to ascorbic acid as the respective values for
cans and jars were 11.74 and 10.05 mg/100 g.
INDIAN J NAT PROD RESOUR, DECEMBER 2012
496
Table 3  Effect of treatment and storage period on ascorbic acid (mg/100 g) of the processed peaches in tin cans and glass jars
Storage period
Treatment **
Control (T1)
10% peach pulp (T2)
10% peach juice (T3)
10% peach pulp* (T4)
10% peach juice* (T5)
20% peach pulp (T6)
20% peach juice (T7)
20% peach pulp* (T8)
20% peach juice* (T9)
30% peach pulp (T10)
30% peach juice (T11)
30% peach pulp* (T12)
30% peach juice* (T13)
40% peach pulp (T14)
40% peach juice (T15)
40% peach pulp* (T16)
40% peach juice (T17)
Mean
Mean (P)
3 months
6 months
Mean (T)
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
5.03
6.02
6.10
14.20
15.63
6.13
6.50
16.27
18.17
7.32
8.07
18.64
19.30
10.40
10.91
20.17
24.70
12.56
11.63
3.90
5.77
6.07
11.30
12.17
5.92
5.99
15.23
15.75
6.86
7.29
16.26
17.68
9.32
9.50
17.93
18.54
10.91
10.16
4.47
5.90
6.09
12.75
13.90
6.03
6.25
15.75
16.96
7.09
7.68
17.45
18.49
9.86
10.21
19.05
21.62
11.74
4.20
5.03
5.17
11.93
12.34
4.83
5.76
14.48
15.33
6.71
7.47
16.37
17.15
7.61
8.93
16.10
22.48
10.69
3.61
4.17
5.10
9.49
10.67
4.17
4.93
13.18
13.73
6.13
6.83
14.93
15.62
7.17
7.94
15.32
16.87
9.40
3.91
4.60
5.14
10.71
11.51
4.50
5.35
13.83
14.53
6.42
7.15
15.65
16.39
7.39
8.44
15.71
19.67
10.05
* Treatments with ascorbic acid @ 500 ppm
** Total soluble solids 40oBrix
Effect
CD0.05
Treatment
0.33
Effect
Treatment × Package
CD0.05
0.47
Package
0.11
Treatment × Storage
0.47
Storage
0.11
Package × Storage
0.16
Treatment × Package × Storage
0.67
Similar to ascorbic acid, the effect of treatment,
storage and package was found significant on the
carotenoids content of peach halves. Carotenoid
content was higher in cans as compared to glass jars
due to its permeability to light which is the main
causative agent for the destruction of the precursor
of vitamin A19. A minimum carotenoid content
after 3 months of storage was observed as 429.0 and
425.0 µg/100 g in cans and jars, respectively in
treatments T1 (control). Maximum carotenoid was
found in treatment T17 for both cans (458.70 µg/100 g)
and jars (438.10 µg/100 g) after three months of
storage (Table 4). After 6 months of storage similar
trend was observed in retention of carotenoids at
ambient temperature where the minimum value was
found in treatment T1 (control) in cans (428.0 µg/100 g)
and jars (411.90 µg/100 g) and the maximum value
4.19
5.25
5.62
11.73
12.71
5.27
5.80
14.79
15.75
6.76
7.42
16.55
17.44
8.63
9.33
17.38
20.65
was observed in treatment T17 (40% peach juice in
covering media of 40°B) as 445.90 and 418.50 µg/100 g
in cans and jars, respectively. The mean carotenoid
content in cans and jars were observed as 442.14
and 423.69 µg/100 g, respectively. The mean values
of treatment × storage varied from 420.35 (T1) to
432.20 (T17). The highest mean value of the
treatments irrespective of packaging and storage was
440.3 µg/100 g in T17 where treatments T16 and
T15 were statistically at par with T17 with a mean T
value of 439.85 and 439.28 µg/100 g, respectively.
Mitchell et al20 and Kader21 also showed that peaches
loose approximately 42-50% of their total carotenoids
during exhausting process.
Data pertaining to non enzymatic browning (NEB)
in Table 5 showed that irrespective of the treatments,
comparatively more NEB was observed in glass jars
KAUSHAL & SHARMA: SUITABILITY OF TIN CANS AND GLASS JARS FOR PEACH FRUITS PROCESSING
497
Table 4  Effect of treatment and storage period on the carotenoids (µg/100 g) of processed peaches in tin cans and glass jars
Storage period
Treatment **
Control (T1)
10% peach pulp (T2)
10% peach juice (T3)
10% peach pulp* (T4)
10% peach juice* (T5)
20% peach pulp (T6)
20% peach juice (T7)
20% peach pulp* (T8)
20% peach juice* (T9)
30% peach pulp (T10)
30% peach juice (T11)
30% peach pulp* (T12)
30% peach juice* (T13)
40% peach pulp (T14)
40% peach juice (T15)
40% peach pulp* (T16)
40% peach juice (T17)
Mean
Mean (P)
3 months
6 months
Mean (T)
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
429.00
432.70
437.00
438.00
438.70
445.00
446.00
446.00
449.00
451.30
450.30
453.00
453.70
455.70
456.70
457.00
458.70
446.93
442.14
425.80
428.20
428.60
428.70
428.90
429.50
429.60
430.70
431.60
432.20
435.40
436.30
437.70
437.30
438.90
438.10
432.16
423.16
423.69
427.40
430.45
432.80
433.35
433.80
437.25
437.65
437.80
439.85
441.45
441.25
444.20
445.00
446.70
447.00
447.95
448.40
439.55
428.80
430.70
430.90
431.40
431.90
432.10
432.80
433.30
433.50
437.20
440.70
444.50
444.90
445.10
445.40
445.60
445.90
437.34
411.90
412.30
412.60
412.70
413.50
414.00
414.60
414.90
415.20
416.00
416.20
416.80
416.90
417.10
417.70
417.90
418.50
415.22
420.35
421.50
421.75
422.05
422.70
423.05
423.70
424.10
424.35
426.60
428.45
430.65
430.90
431.10
431.55
431.75
432.20
426.28
* Treatments with ascorbic acid @ 500 ppm
** Total soluble solids 40oBrix
Effect
CD0.05
Treatment
1.10
Package
0.38
Effect
Treatment × Package
Treatment × Storage
CD0.05
1.56
1.56
Storage
Package × Storage
0.54
Treatment × Package × Storage
2.21
0.38
as compared to cans. The maximum value of OD440nm
during 3 and 6 months analysis was observed in jars
as 0.110 and 0.185, respectively while in cans the
values recorded were 0.081 and 0.183, respectively
during the same period. A minimum value of NEB
was detected in T16 (40% peach pulp in covering
media of 40°B containing 500 ppm ascorbic acid)
as 0.032 and 0.037 in cans and jars, respectively in
3 months and 0.056 and 0.075 at 6 months storage,
respectively. Overall the mean values of non enzymatic
knowing in both the packages where 0.085 and 0.092
for cans and jars, respectively. Treatment, package,
storage and their interactions had a significant
effect on the NEB. The maximum mean value of
the treatment × storage interaction was 0.0095 for
T1 (Control) with a minimum of 0.035 for T16 (40%
peach pulp in a covering media of 40°B containing
423.88
425.98
427.28
427.70
428.30
430.15
430.68
430.90
432.10
434.03
434.85
437.43
438.00
438.90
439.28
439.85
440.30
500 ppm ascorbic acid). It has been reported that
substrate, enzyme and oxygen are three main factors
responsible for browning of canned products19.
Cut out analysis for sensory scores
The scores for overall acceptability in canned
peaches (Table 6) varied from 4.93 to 7.50 in cans
for treatment T1 and T14, respectively during 3 months
of storage at ambient temperature. In glass jars,
the maximum and a minimum value of 6.14 and
4.21 were also scored by T14 and T1 treatments,
respectively. Throughout the storage, the can packed
halves had comparatively higher score to that of
glass jars though none of the treatments were
rejected by the panelists. Significant decrease in
overall acceptability was observed for all treatments
irrespective of packages during 6 months of storage
INDIAN J NAT PROD RESOUR, DECEMBER 2012
498
Table 5  Effect of treatment and storage period on non-enzymatic browning (OD at 440 nm) of processed peaches
in tin cans and glass jars
Storage period
Treatment **
Control (T1)
10% peach pulp (T2)
10% peach juice (T3)
10% peach pulp* (T4)
10% peach juice* (T5)
20% peach pulp (T6)
20% peach juice (T7)
20% peach pulp* (T8)
20% peach juice* (T9)
30% peach pulp (T10)
30% peach juice (T11)
30% peach pulp* (T12)
30% peach juice* (T13)
40% peach pulp (T14)
40% peach juice (T15)
40% peach pulp* (T16)
40% peach juice (T17)
Mean
Mean (P)
3 months
6 months
Mean (T)
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
0.081
0.072
0.061
0.051
0.055
0.059
0.079
0.041
0.039
0.056
0.071
0.036
0.042
0.061
0.074
0.032
0.046
0.056
0.085
0.110
0.076
0.066
0.054
0.056
0.061
0.081
0.043
0.042
0.059
0.075
0.041
0.047
0.064
0.075
0.037
0.052
0.061
0.092
0.095
0.074
0.064
0.053
0.056
0.060
0.080
0.042
0.041
0.058
0.074
0.039
0.045
0.063
0.075
0.035
0.049
0.059
0.183
0.147
0.171
0.078
0.085
0.128
0.180
0.047
0.064
0.122
0.178
0.064
0.073
0.106
0.161
0.056
0.079
0.113
0.185
0.152
0.181
0.084
0.092
0.136
0.184
0.053
0.064
0.152
0.182
0.067
0.082
0.107
0.171
0.075
0.106
0.122
0.184
0.150
0.176
0.081
0.089
0.132
0.182
0.050
0.064
0.137
0.180
0.066
0.076
0.106
0.166
0.066
0.093
0.118
* Treatments with ascorbic acid @ 500 ppm
** Total soluble solids 40oBrix
Effect
CD0.05
Treatment
0.0020
Package
0.0008
Storage
0.0008
Effect
Treatment × Package
Treatment × Storage
Package × Storage
Treatment × Package × Storage
0.140
0.125
0.107
0.067
0.073
0.096
0.130
0.046
0.053
0.120
0.127
0.052
0.061
0.084
0.091
0.051
0.071
CD0.05
0.0033
0.0033
0.0011
0.0047
Table 6  Effect of treatment and storage period on overall acceptability (sensory characteristic) of processed peaches
in tin cans and glass jars
Storage period
Treatment **
Control (T1)
10% peach pulp (T2)
10% peach juice (T3)
10% peach pulp* (T4)
10% peach juice* (T5)
20% peach pulp (T6)
20% peach juice (T7)
20% peach pulp* (T8)
20% peach juice* (T9)
30% peach pulp (T10)
30% peach juice (T11)
3 months
6 months
Mean (T)
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
4.93
6.43
5.67
6.21
6.36
6.50
6.27
6.43
6.29
6.71
6.64
4.21
5.14
5.00
5.21
5.93
5.00
4.93
5.00
5.71
5.36
4.57
4.57
5.79
5.29
5.71
6.14
5.75
5.61
5.71
6.00
6.04
5.11
3.86
5.64
5.36
6.29
5.79
6.21
6.07
6.07
5.14
6.57
5.36
3.57
4.71
4.14
5.29
5.00
5.43
4.43
4.86
4.86
5.00
4.43
3.71
5.18
4.75
5.79
5.39
5.82
5.25
5.46
5.00
5.79
4.89
4.14
5.49
5.02
5.75
5.79
5.79
5.55
5.58
5.50
5.79
5.00
(Contd.)
KAUSHAL & SHARMA: SUITABILITY OF TIN CANS AND GLASS JARS FOR PEACH FRUITS PROCESSING
499
Table 6  Effect of treatment and storage period on overall acceptability (sensory characteristic) of processed peaches
in tin cans and glass jars (Contd.)
Storage period
3 months
Treatment **
30% peach pulp* (T12)
30% peach juice* (T13)
40% peach pulp (T14)
40% peach juice (T15)
40% peach pulp* (T16)
40% peach juice (T17)
Mean
Mean (P)
6 months
Mean (T)
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
Can (P1)
Jar (P2)
Mean
6.21
6.14
7.50
6.14
5.79
6.36
6.26
5.99
5.03
5.00
6.14
5.71
5.29
5.00
5.24
5.01
5.57
5.57
6.82
5.93
5.54
5.68
5.73
5.21
5.73
6.79
5.57
5.93
6.00
5.72
4.71
4.86
5.71
5.43
4.50
4.21
4.77
4.96
5.14
6.25
5.50
5.21
5.11
5.25
* Treatments with ascorbic acid @ 500 ppm
** Total soluble solids 40oBrix
Effect
CD0.05
Treatment
0.35
Package
0.12
Storage
0.12
Effect
Treatment × Package
Treatment × Storage
Package × Storage
Treatment × Package × Storage
5.27
5.36
6.54
5.72
5.38
5.39
CD0.05
0.49
0.49
NS
NS
at ambient temperature. Maximum score of 6.79
was again obtained by treatment T14 followed by T10,
T4 and T6 having a sensory of 6.57, 6.29 and 6.21,
respectively. Highest and lowest sensory score for
the overall acceptability in jars during 6 months of
storage was also assigned to the treatments T14 and T1
as 5.71 and 3.57, respectively. The scores of rest of
the treatments ranged between 3.57 and 3.71. It has
been earlier reported that addition of acids leads to a
firmer and crispy texture of canned peaches19. Further
it has been reported that the canned peach halves
after 50 days of storage were found to be the best
and the products remained in acceptable range
upto 200 days21,22. The mean treatment × storage
interaction for 6 months storage varied from 3.71 (T1)
to 6.25 (T14). The effect of treatments was
found significant on the sensory scores of overall
acceptability ranging from 4.14 (T1) followed by
5.02 for T3 to 6.54 for T14, respectively. The
interaction of package × storage × and treatment ×
package × storage were non significant. Slight
decrease in score of canned peach halves during
storage was attributed to the non enzymatic browning
occurring in the product23.
juice or pulp in the covering media. Further, the
practice of canning in tin cans could be replaced by
using light weight simple to handle and inexpensive
glass jars without compromising with the quality and
nutrition of processed halves.
Conclusion
The findings summarized that the conventional
practice of canning peach halves in sugar syrup only
can successfully be modified by incorporating peach
8
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
FAO, Production Year Book, Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, 2008, Vol. 62.
Pangborn R M, Leenard S, Luh B S and Simmon S,
Free stone peaches effect of citric acid, sucrose and corn
syrup on consumer acceptability, Food Technol, 1959, 13,
444-447.
Vyas K K and Joshi V K, Canning of fruits in natural fruit
juices: Canning of peaches in apple juice, J Food Sci
Technol, 1982, 19, 39-40.
Sharma K D, Sethi V and Maini S B, Studies on
incorporation of concentrate in covering syrup for processing
of apple rings in flexible pouches, J Food Sci Technol, 1988,
35, 371-374.
Khurdiya D S and Roy S K, Studies on canning of mango
slices in covering syrup containing mango pulp, Indian Food
Packer, 1986, 40, 50-54.
Lal G, Siddappa G S and Tandon G L, Preservation of Fruits
and Vegetables, Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
New Delhi, 1959, p. 483.
Ranganna S, Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control for
Fruit and vegetable Products, 2nd Edn, Tata McGraw Hill
Pub. Co. Ltd. New Delhi. 1986, p. 1110.
AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis, 16th Edn, Association
of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC., 1995.
Amerine M A, Pangborn R M and Roessler E B,
Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food, Academic Press,
New York, 1965.
500
INDIAN J NAT PROD RESOUR, DECEMBER 2012
10 Cochron W G and Cox C M, Experimental Designs, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967.
11 Sandhu S S and Dhillon B S, The relation between growth
pattern and endogenous metabolites in the developing fruit of
early maturity Flordasun peach, J Food Sci Technol, 1981,
18, 135-139.
12 Bisla S S and Chitkara S D, Varietal variations in
growth, yield and quality of fruit in sub-tropical peach
(Prunus persica Batsch.) cultivars, Harayana J Hort Sci,
1980, 9, 1-6.
13 Joshi V K and Bhutani V P, Peach and Nectarine, In:
Handbook of Fruit Science and Technology, Production and
Composition, by D K Salunkhe and S S Kadam (Eds),
Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1995, pp. 243-296.
14 Garg R C, Ram H B, Srivastava R K and Singh S K,
Physico-chemical studies on optimum stage of maturity for
canning of peaches in Uttar Pradesh, Progressive Hortic,
1975, 6, 57-66.
15 Dang R L, Singh R P, Bhatia A K and Verma S K, Studies
on Kashmir apples II- Canning as rings, Indian Food Packer,
1976, 30, 9-14.
16 Sharma K D and Lal B B, Effect of partial osmotic
dehydration prior to canning on drained weight and quality
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
of three varieties of plum, J Food Sci Technol, 1999, 36,
136-138.
Czerkaskyi A, Effect of syrup density on colour, texture and
flavour of canned cling peaches, Food Technol Aust, 1973,
25(5), 246-257.
Sharma T R, Sekhon K S and Saini S P S, Studies on canning
of apricot, J Food Sci Technol, 1992, 29, 22-25.
Hulme A C, The Biochemistry of Fruits and their Products,
Academic Press, London, 1971.
Mitchell J H, Van B L O and Roderick E B, The effects
of canning and freezing on the carotenoids and ascorbic
acid contents of peaches, S C Agric Exp Stat Bull, 1948, 372,
1-11.
Kader A A, Heintz C M and Alexander C, Postharvest
quality of fresh and canned clingstone peaches as influenced
by genotypes and maturity at harvest, J Amer Soc Hort Sci,
1982, 107, 947-951.
Lee K C, Boggess T S and Heaton E K, Relationship of
sensory rating with tannin components of canned peaches, J
Food Sci, 1972, 37, 177-179.
Walker J R L, The control of enzymatic browning in
fruit juices by cinnamic acids, J Food Technol, 1976, 11,
341-345.