EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PACKAGING MATERIALS ON STORAGE QUALITY AND SENSORY EVALUATION OF PIGEON PEA DHAL
235 / 215
Authors
-
Mohammod Jeelani
ICAR-AICRP on Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Post Harvest Technology Centre, Bapatla, 522101, ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh
-
V. VASUDEVA RAO
ICAR-AICRP on Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Post Harvest Technology Centre, Bapatla, 522101, ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh
-
D. SANDEEP RAJA
ICAR-AICRP on Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Post Harvest Technology Centre, Bapatla, 522101, ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh
-
S.V.S. GOPALA SWAMY
ICAR-AICRP on Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Post Harvest Technology Centre, Bapatla, 522101, ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh
-
L.EDUKONDALU
ICAR-AICRP on Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Post Harvest Technology Centre, Bapatla, 522101, ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh
Keywords:
BoPP, Fuzzy logic, HDPE, Pigeon Pea, PETAbstract
Post-harvest losses of pulses primarily result from improper handling and storage conditions. A study was conducted during August 2023 to March 2024 aimed to identify suitable packaging material for storing pigeon pea dhal by evaluating quality attributes and sensory characteristics. Fresh pigeon pea dhal (cv. LRG 52) was stored for 8 months in five different packaging materials: High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Jute bags, Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE), Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene (BoPP) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) containers, under ambient temperature of 21-37°C and relative humidity (RH) of 26-90 %. Quality parameters such as insect infestation, grain damage, weight loss, moisture content, and cooking time were recorded for every two months. The moisture content (%w.b.) of stored pigeon pea in different packaging materials ranged from 9.13-10.86% in Jute bags, 9.13-9.27% in HDPE, 9.13-9.66% in LDPE, 9.13-8.87% in PET and 9.13-8.94% in BoPP. In HDPE, LDPE and Jute bag, the final moisture content was higher than the initial levels indicating net loss in moisture content, while PET and BoPP showed the opposite trend. The protein content decreased in all packaging materials over the storage period. Further, the grain damage of stored pigeon pea in different packaging material ranged from 0.14-0.33% in HDPE, 0.23-1.05 % in LDPE and 0.34-1.15 % in Jute bags. Grain damage by insects was not detected in pigeon pea samples stored in PET and BoPP material throughout the storage period of 240 days. But infestation was observed after 180 days of storage in HDPE and after 60 days in pigeon pea stored in LDPE and jute bags. The cooking time was less than 16 min for all the pigeon pea samples. Sensory analysis was conducted for non-infested samples and the data was evaluated using fuzzy logic. BoPP proved to be superior packaging material for maintaining the sensory quality of pigeon pea dhal, especially up to 60 days of storage. Taste emerged as the most influential factor in consumer preference, highlighting the importance of preserving flavour during storage. BoPP, with its laminated layers and high barrier properties, retained flavour effectively
References
1. Atta, B., Rizwan, M., Sabir, A. M., Gogi, M. D.
2. and Ali, K. 2020. Damage potential of
3. Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)
4. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on wheat
5. grains stored in hermetic and non
6. hermetic storage bags. International
7. Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 40(1),
8. 27–37.
9. Directorate of Economics and statistics,
10. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
11. welfare.2022
12. Harika, P., Swamy, S. V. S. G., Kumar, G. V. S.
13. and Rao, C. V. 2024. Storage quality of
14. dehulled split pulses as influenced by packaging material. Journal of Stored
15. Products Research, 107, 102322.
16. Kumar Vinayak, A., Kumar, V. and
17. Venkatachalam, S. 2022. Moisture
18. Barrier Behavior of Polymer Films On
19. Food Packaging Plastic Materials.
20. International Journal For Technological
21. Research In Engineering,9(5), 2347
22. 4718. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
23. 6348202
24. Nehra, S., Swami, H. and Chhangani, G. 2021.
25. Assessment of various packaging
26. materials for pulse storage against pulse
27. beetle ( Callasobruchus chinensis L .).
28. 10(9), 554–558.
29. Patel, J. V, Antala, D. K. and Dalsaniya, A. N.
30. 2018.Influence of Different Packaging
31. Materials on the Seed Quality
32. Parameters of Chickpea.7(12), 2458
33. 2467.
34. Prajapati, A. R., Panickar, B. K., Chandaragi,
35. M. K., Padhiyar, B. M. and Dave, G. S.
36. 2022. Biochemical basis of resistance in
37. different pulses against pulse beetle
38. (Callosobruchus maculatus Fabricius).
39. Journal of Experimental Zoology India,
40. 26(1), 423–430. https://doi.org/
41. 10.51470/jez.2023.26.1.423
42. Raj, G. B. and Dash, K. K. 2022. Development
43. of Hydrocolloids Incorporated Dragon
44. Fruit Leather by conductive hydro drying:
45. Characterization and Sensory
46. Evaluation. Food Hydrocolloids for
47. Health, 2(March), 100086. https://
48. doi.org/10.1016/j.fhfh.2022.100086
49. Revathi, K., Sreekanth, M., Krishnayya, P. V,
50. and Rao, V. S. 2015. Incidence of pod
51. fly, Melanagromyza obtusa (Malloch) and
52. its influence on weight loss in different
53. pigeonpea genotypes. International
54. Journal of Innovative Science,
55. Engineering & Technology, 2(5), 460
56. 464.
57. Rizvi, N. B., Aleem, S., Khan, M. R., Ashraf, S.,
58. and Busquets, R. 2022. Quantitative
59. Estimation of Protein in Sprouts of Vigna
60. radiate (Mung Beans), Lens culinaris
61. (Lentils), and Cicer arietinum (Chickpea)
62. by Kjeldahl and Lowry Methods.
63. Molecules, 27(3). https://doi.org/
64. 10.3390/molecules27030814
65. Satasiya, R. Me., Antala, D. K., Sojitra, M. A.,
66. Kothiya, A. V. and Chauhan, P. M. 2021.
67. Effect of packaging on storage
68. behaviour of chickpea grain. Journal of
69. Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry,
70. 10(1), 1575–1584.
71. Sethi, S. 2014. Development and quality
72. evaluation of quick cooking dhal-A
73. convenience product.51(March), 595
74. 600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197
75. 011-0534-6
76. Vishwakarma, R. K., Jha, S. N., Dixit, A. K.,
77. Kaur, A., Rai, A. and Ahmed, T.2019.
78. Assessment of harvest and post-harvest
79. losses of major pulses in India.
80. Agricultural Economics Research
81. Review,32(2), 247–258.
82. Yewle, N., Charpe, A. M., Gupta, S., Patil, B.,
83. Tushir, S. and Mann, S. 2020. Impact of
84. hermetic packaging on green gram
85. (Vigna radiata) insect and microbial
86. damage under environmental storage
87. condition. Journal of Entomology and
88. Zoology Studies, 8(5), 1883–1887.
89. ht tps: / /doi .org/10.22271/
90. j.ento.2020.v8.i5z.7766
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author owns the article's copyright until the article is accepted for publication. After acceptance, the author(s) assigns the article's copyright jointly to both the authors and the Publishers of the Journal of Research ANGRAU (ANGRAU) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
