| Literature DB >> 33889770 |
Diana De Santis1, Stefania Garzoli2, Anna Maria Vettraino1.
Abstract
It is known that garlic bulbs preserved with traditional methods undergo considerable losses, ranging from 25 to 40%. A frequent cause of these losses is associated with the development of pathogenic fungi, such as those of the genus Fusarium. The effect of ozone on post-harvest garlic bulbs was evaluated. Garlic cloves inoculated with Fusarium proliferatum F21 and F22 strains, were exposed to a continuous gaseous ozone flow (2.14 μg m-3), during 4 days, 20 h a day. After ozone-treatment, the garlic samples were moved at 22 °C to mimic retail conditions (shelf life). The changes in several quality parameters such as fungal decay and aroma were evaluated on garlic samples, as whole bulbs, cloves with and without tunic, through a sensorial descriptive test, SPME analysis in GC/MS and microbiological approaches. The data collected showed that ozone treatment did not affect the aromatic profile of garlic. A significant detrimental effect of ozone treatment on garlic decay was observed. Our results encourage the use of gaseous ozone treatment for containing garlic fungal decay during its storage.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium proliferatum; Garlic; Ozone; SPME; Sensory analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 33889770 PMCID: PMC8047484 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Experimental scheme ozone and air treatments.
| 4 °C | 20 °C | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Garlic samples | Ozone | Air | Air |
| Bulbs | WOC | WAC | WAR |
| Cloves | BOC | BAC | BAR |
| Cloves without tunics | NOC | NAC | NAR |
Lexicon for odor description of garlic samples studied in this research.
| Attributes | Definition | |
|---|---|---|
| Aspect cloves | Colour | Intensity of coloring |
| (1–5) | ||
| Odour | Intensity | Intensity of flavour |
| (1–9) | ||
| Pungency | The sensation of irritation of the epithelium inside the nasal cavities | |
| (1–9) | ||
| Persistence | Recovery time of the neutral smell condition | |
| (1–9) | ||
| Herbaceous | Aromatics associated with uncooked vegetables | |
| (1–9) | ||
| Balsamic | Odor reminiscent of conifer leaves | |
| (1–9) | ||
| Sulphurous | An aroma reminiscent of sulfur | |
| (1–9) | ||
| Hearty | An aroma that has a damp and earthy character similar to fresh mushrooms | |
| (1–9) | ||
| Vinegarish | A sour-smelling liquid containing acetic acid | |
| (1–9) | ||
| Cooked onion (1–9) | Smell associated with cooked but not burnt onion |
Figure 1Neighbour-Joining (NJ) tree based on a concatenated alignment of ITS (A) and EF-1 α (B) genes of F. proliferatum F21 and F22 from garlic cloves and other Fusarium reference strains from NCBI database. The distances were determined by Kimura's two-parameter method. The numbers beside branches represent bootstrap values from 1000 replicates. Scale bar indicates 0.02 substitutions per site.
Chemical composition (%) of GARLIC (bulbs).
| No. | COMPONENT | LRI | LRIlit | NAC | NOC | NAR | BAC | BOC | BAR | WAC | WOC | WAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | thiirane, methyl | 870 | 875 | 0.96 | 0.57 | 1.71 | 0.79 | 0.68 | 1.09 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 0.9 |
| 2 | allyl mercaptan | 889 | 891 | - | 0.12 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 3 | 2-butenal, (E)- | 1030 | 1034 | - | - | - | - | 0.16 | - | - | - | - |
| 4 | diallyl sulfide | 1145 | 1143 | 0.98 | 1 | 0.92 | 1.06 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 1.04 | 1.07 | 1.06 |
| 5 | thiophene, 3,4-dimethyl- | 1250 | 1253 | 1.43 | 0.84 | 1.57 | 0.91 | 0.66 | 1.78 | 1.13 | 0.71 | 0.7 |
| 6 | disulfide, methyl 2-propenyl | 1277 | 1281 | 2.04 | 3.03 | 2.45 | 2.06 | 2.09 | 2.61 | 1.71 | 1.43 | 1.43 |
| 7 | disulfide, methyl 1-propenyl | 1288 | 1292 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.48 | 0.2 | 0.14 | 0.11 |
| 8 | 1,2-dithiolane | 1350 | 0.2 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.37 | - | 0.29 | - | - | 0.57 | |
| 9 | diallyl disulfide | 1470 | 1475 | 88.95 | 90.52 | 84.54 | 92 | 89.52 | 86.94 | 92.74 | 88.27 | 90.73 |
| 10 | dimethyl 2-hydroxy-3-methoxysuccinate | 1500 | 1.11 | - | 1.71 | 0.89 | 1.02 | 1.28 | 0.81 | 1.2 | 1.06 | |
| 11 | methoxymethyl isothiacyanate | 1528 | 1533 | - | 0.79 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 12 | dimethyl sulfoxide | 1558 | 1560 | - | - | - | - | 0.41 | - | - | - | - |
| 13 | acetic acid (2-propenylthio)- | 1620 | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.23 | - | 0.14 | 0.22 | - | 0.18 | - | |
| 14 | acetic acid, hydroxy-, ethyl ester | 1650 | - | - | - | - | 0.68 | - | - | 0.26 | - | |
| 15 | thiourea, trimethyl- | 1669 | 0.14 | 0.1 | 0.17 | - | - | 0.23 | - | 0.08 | - | |
| 16 | 3-vinyl-1,2-dithiacyclohex-4-ene | 1751 | 1750 | 3.71 | 2.11 | 6.01 | 1.71 | - | 4.12 | 1.42 | 1.7 | 3.32 |
| 17 | benzo[h]cinnoline | 1775 | - | - | - | - | 1.47 | - | - | 4.24 | - | |
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Indicates the compound identification number.
The components are reported according their eluition order on polar column.
Linear Retention indices measured on polar column.
Linear Retention indices from literature.
Not available.
Sensory evaluation of garlic samples (means and standard deviations).
| Samples | Intensity | Pungency | Persistence | Sulphurous | Vinegarish | Cooked onion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WOC | 5.67b | 4.83a | 4.67b | 3.67b | 4.67a | 3.67b | ||||||
| WAC | 6.67a | 5.05a | 5.17a | 5.00a | 2.67b | 5.67a | ||||||
| WAR | 6.50a | 4.90a | 5.50a | 5.33a | 3.00b | 5.83a | ||||||
| BOC | 4.17b | 2.50a | 4.50a | 4.20a | 3.80a | 2.45b | ||||||
| BAC | 5.17a | 2.83a | 4.33a | 4.90a | 2.50b | 3.33a | ||||||
| BAR | 5.33a | 3.20a | 3.67b | 4.50a | 2.50b | 3.67a | ||||||
| NOC | 4.37a | 3.00a | 3.50a | 5.00a | 2.05a | 3.50a | ||||||
| NAC | 4.38a | 2.90a | 3.83a | 4.67b | 1.83a | 4.00a | ||||||
| NAR | 4.35a | 2.83a | 3.00a | 4.50b | 1.67a | 4.83a |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant difference among treatments (P < 0.05).
Figure 2Sensory profile of garlic samples. Whole bulbs (WOC. WAC, WAR), intact garlic cloves (BOC, BAC, BAR), and cloves of garlic without coats (NOC, NAC, NAR), labeled according to Table 1.
Contribution of the variables (%) to PCA.
| PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intensity | 2.416 | 15.078 | 4.780 |
| Pungency | 2.132 | 15.886 | 14.134 |
| Persistence | 4.212 | 2.563 | 5.548 |
| Sulphurous | 0.270 | 2.023 | 6.075 |
| Vinegarish | 1.471 | 1.747 | 35.153 |
| Cooked onion | 0.027 | 35.647 | 0.026 |
| thiirane, methyl | 0.689 | 0.638 | 0.022 |
| diallyl sulfide | 0.019 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| thiophene, 3,4-dimethyl- | 0.889 | 0.280 | 0.804 |
| disulfide, methyl 2-propenyl | 0.559 | 1.448 | 5.352 |
| diallyl disulfide | 63.280 | 1.197 | 18.574 |
| dimethyl 2-hydroxy-3-methoxysuccinate | 0.858 | 0.353 | 1.938 |
| 3-vinyl-1,2-dithiacyclohex-4-ene | 23.180 | 23.139 | 7.579 |
| Eigenvalue | 8.538 | 2.969 | 1.824 |
| Variability (%) | 61.604 | 21.420 | 13.159 |
| Cumulative % | 61.604 | 83.024 | 96.184 |
Factor scores of garlic samples.
| PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| WOC | 0.215 | -0.423 | 3.028 |
| WAC | 4.012 | 2.117 | -0.11 |
| WAR | 1.623 | 2.865 | 0.47 |
| BOC | 1.298 | -3.276 | 0.914 |
| BAC | 2.493 | -0.871 | -1.313 |
| BAR | -2.951 | 0.007 | 0.158 |
| NOC | 0.84 | -1.235 | -1.726 |
| NAC | -1.276 | -0.092 | -1.177 |
| NAR | -6.255 | 0.909 | -0.245 |
Figure 3Score loading bi-plot (PC1/PC2) for garlic samples.
Figure 4Score loading bi-plot (PC1/PC3) for garlic samples.