Research Article

Received: 29 October 2009 Revised: 24 December 2009 Accepted: 23 January 2010 Published online in Wiley Interscience: 29 March 2010

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.3922

Consumer acceptance of fresh blueberries

in bio-based packages
Eva Almenar,a∗ Hayati Samsudin,a Rafael Aurasa and Janice Harteb

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instrumental analyses have shown that non-vented bio-based containers made from poly(lactic acid) (PLA)
have the capability to enhance blueberry shelf life as compared with commercial vented petroleum-based clamshell containers.
However, consumer preference has not been explored so far. In this study, two sensory evaluations, triangle and paired
preference tests, were performed after storing fruit in both containers at 3 and 10 ◦ C for 7 and 14 days. In addition,
physicochemical analyses were performed after each tasting in order to correlate instrumental findings with consumer
preference.

RESULTS: The results of the triangle test showed the capability of the consumer to differentiate (P ≤ 0.001) between blueberries
from different packages at both storage temperatures. A consumer preference for flavour, texture, external appearance and
overall quality (P ≤ 0.001) of blueberries packaged in PLA containers was observed in the paired comparison test. The
instrumental analyses showed that blueberries in the PLA packages exhibited a weight loss below the limit for marketable life,
a stable soluble solid content and titratable acidity and no fungal growth during storage.

CONCLUSION: Consumers distinguished between blueberries from different packages and preferred those packaged in the
PLA containers. The instrumental analyses showed that the usable life of the berries was extended in the PLA containers. A
correlation between consumer preference and instrumental evaluations was found.

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L. cv. Elliott); packaging; poly(lactic acid) (PLA); sensory evaluation; instrumental
evaluation

INTRODUCTION provide an assessment of consumer acceptability.7 Correlations

Many new types of packaging are being released and promoted
to attract consumer attention and therefore their business.
However, this is not the case for fresh fruits and vegetables
where the selling point is the quality/freshness of the product
rather than the package. Studies have demonstrated that, to some
consumers, quality is even more important than price.1,2 Quality
is defined as characteristics of a food that lead a consumer to
be satisfied with the product.3 Quality encompasses sensory
properties (appearance, texture, taste and aroma), nutritional
values, chemical constituents, mechanical properties, functional
properties and defects.4 Therefore the postharvest life concept for
fruits and vegetables, which has been traditionally defined in terms
of visual appearance (freshness, colour and absence of decay and
physiological disorders) and texture, should also include flavour
and nutritional quality.5
Various parameters can be used to determine the quality of fresh
commodities. Visual appearance (colour, gloss, shape, size and
absence of defects), firmness, soluble solid content and titratable
acidity are some of those parameters.6 Other authors have also
included aroma, chlorophyll fluorescence, water distribution, etc.4
Aspects of quality can be evaluated by sensory and instrumental
methods. Instruments yield quantitative measurements of quality-
related attributes, which are vital for research and inspection,
but only people can judge quality.4 Therefore sensory and
between instrumental and sensory attributes have been studied
for some quality parameters and some fruits.8 – 10
Containers used for packing fresh products are supposed
to (1) contain and keep together the product, (2) protect the
product from damage and contamination and (3) identify the
product. The choice of container can also be influenced by the
desire to slow product senescence during commercialisation,
which deteriorates fruit quality during storage. In this case, both
packaging materials and design need to be taken into account.
Several packaging technologies such as modified atmosphere
packaging (MAP), equilibrium modified atmosphere packaging
(EMAP) and active packaging (AP) in combination with an
adequate temperature are capable of extending fresh produce
shelf life. These help to maintain the nutritional and sensory
quality along with the microbiological safety of the product during
storage and distribution.11 Packaging technology must balance
this food protection/conservation with other issues such as energy,
material and transportation costs, end-of-life scenarios, disposal
∗ Correspondence to: Eva Almenar, School of Packaging, MSU, East Lansing, MI
48824-1223, USA. E-mail: ealmenar@msu.edu
a School of Packaging, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824-1223, USA
1121

instrumental studies need to be combined and correlated to b Food Science and Human Nutrition, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824-1223, USA

J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128 www.soci.org

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry
 www.soci.org E Almenar et al.

of municipal solid waste and environmental consciousness.12 Physicochemical analyses

In 2006, 28.1% of all municipal solid waste (MSW) was from Weight loss
packaging and container materials, a number that has mostly The weight of each package of blueberries was measured on day
remained constant since 1990 (27.8%).13 Therefore any assessment 0 and on the sampling days using a precision balance. Values are
of food packaging’s impact must consider a positive benefit to the reported as % weight loss with respect to the initial fruit weight.
environment.
Blueberries are currently packaged in vented containers. This
Soluble solid content (SSC)
open packaging system allows rapid cooling of the packaged fruit
Approximately 50 g of blueberries were blended for 30 s. Soluble
and protects the berries from mechanical damage. Bio-based non-
solids in the filtered juice were determined using an RHB-32ATC
vented containers made from poly(lactic acid) (PLA) have been
refractometer (Cole-Parmer Instrument Company, Vernon Hills, IL,
reported as viable packages for use in the commercial postharvest
USA). The mixture was kept at approximately 0 ◦ C to avoid enzyme
packaging of blueberries owing to their capability to enhance berry
degradation of the sample. Three measurements were taken on
shelf life when compared with commercial vented petroleum-
each sample. Results were expressed as % total soluble solids (TSS).
based clamshell containers made of poly(ethylene terephthalate)
(PET).14 So far, the viability of the bio-based packages for use
in the commercial postharvest packaging of blueberries has Titratable acidity (TA)
only been tested by instrumental analyses. Sensory evaluations Four or five berries (approximately 5 g) plus 50 mL of distilled
in combination with the results obtained from instrumental water were blended using a commercial blender (Hamilton
evaluation are needed in order to secure acceptance of the Bench/prodtor silex, Inc. Washington, NC). The acidity, expressed
new package in the market. Since the consumption of fresh as % TA, was measured by titration with 0.0025 mol/L NaOH
blueberries is increasing annually15 and large amounts of fruit are to an end point of pH 8.2 using a PHB-212 pH meter (Omega
shipped, mainly from the USA to distant markets, the switch from Engineering Inc., Stamford, CT, USA) with a glass electrode.16
petroleum-based clamshell containers to a bio-based non-vented Three measurements were performed on each sample.
container could reduce the environmental impact as well as fruit
deterioration and economic losses.
Off-flavours and aroma
The goals of this study were to determine (a) if there is a
The main volatile compounds related to blueberry aroma plus
quality difference between blueberries packed in PLA non-vented
ethanol, a fermentative metabolite, were monitored using a pro-
containers and commercial PET vented clamshells containers,
cedure optimised during a previous study.17 Levels of ethanol,
(b) if consumers have a preference for blueberries depending on
hexanal, linalool, 2E-hexenal and nonanal were recorded for
the type of package and storage temperature and (c) if there is a
blueberries packed in vented PET clamshells and in non-vented
correlation between instrumental evaluation results and consumer
PLA containers stored for 7 and 14 days at 3 and 10 ◦ C. The
preference.
compounds were identified by gas chromatography/mass spec-
trometry (GC/MS) and quantified by gas chromatography/flame
ionisation detection (GC/FID) using the procedure described be-
MATERIALS AND METHODS
low.
Materials and fruit packaging
Amounts of 5 g of blueberry blend were placed in 20 mL vials,
Highbush blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L. cv. Elliott)
crimp-sealed and frozen at −20 ◦ C. For analysis, samples were
provided by MBG (Michigan Blueberry Growers) Marketing (Grand
thawed at ambient temperature for 20 min and then heated
Junction, MI, USA) were transported to the School of Packaging,
at 75 ◦ C for 20 min. Volatile compounds were extracted by
MSU, East Lansing, MI, USA in insulated ice coolers (0–5 ◦ C) by
solid phase microextraction (SPME) using a 65 µm divinylben-
car. Ice packs were placed in the bottom of the coolers and on
zene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane SPME fibre (Supelco, Belle-
top of the stacks of vented PET clamshell containers containing
fonte, PA, USA). The fibre was exposed to the vial headspace for
blueberries. Upon arrival, fruits of uniform size and colour were
20 min and the trapped volatiles were desorbed for 5 min at the
selected. Rotten and damaged fruits were eliminated.
splitless injection port of an HP 6890 Series gas chromatograph
Approximately 100 g of blueberries were weighed on an
(Agilent Technology, Palo Alto, CA, USA) equipped with a flame
Adventurer precision balance (Ohaus, Pine Brook, NJ, USA)
ionisation detector and an HP-5 column (30 m × 0.32 mm, 0.25 µm;
and placed in non-vented PLA containers (VersaPack , Wilkinson
Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA). The oven temperature was
Industries Inc., Fort Calhoun, NE, USA) as described in a previous
initially kept at 40 ◦ C for 5 min, then increased at a rate of 5 ◦ C min−1
study.14 The same amount of fruit was placed in commercial
to 230 ◦ C and maintained for 10 min. The injector and detector
vented PET clamshells containers (Pactiv Corporation, Lake Forest,
temperatures were 220 and 230 ◦ C respectively. Compound iden-
IL, USA) for use as controls. After filling, the containers were divided
tification was achieved using a DSQ II gas chromatograph/mass
into two groups. Half of the non-vented PLA and vented PET
spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Rockford, IL, USA) with the
containers were stored at 10 ◦ C and 66% relative humidity (RH) in a
same column and chromatographic conditions as in GC/FID. Three
conventional refrigerator (Roper, Whirlpool, Mississauga, Ontario,
vials were analysed for each package. Calibration curves of the dif-
USA). The remaining containers were refrigerated at 3 ◦ C, again
ferent volatile compounds were not plotted, since this study was
using a conventional refrigerator (45% RH). The storage conditions
carried out to compare volatile levels between packages. Results
were chosen to simulate commercial transportation and display.
were expressed as chromatographic area (c.a.).
Physicochemical and sensory analyses of the blueberries were
carried out on days 0, 7 and 14. At each sampling period, following
the sensory evaluation, four packages (repetitions) from each Microbiological studies
group (according to container design and storage temperature) Fungal development was visually estimated on each indi-
1122

were analysed. vidual fruit immediately after opening the packages. Any

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128
Consumer acceptance of fresh blueberries in bio-based packages www.soci.org

blueberry with visible mould growth was considered de-

Table 1. Number of panellists (out of a total of 33 panellists) able
cayed. Results were expressed as % of fruit infected by to distinguish between blueberries packaged in non-vented PLA
fungus. containers and those packaged in vented PET containers after 7 and
14 days of storage at 3 and 10 ◦ C
Sensory evaluations Temperature (◦ C)
Sensory evaluations of blueberries, each consisting of a triangle
test and a paired preference test, were performed after the fruits Days of storage 3 10
were packaged in vented and non-vented containers and stored
7 18 20
for 7 and 14 days at 3 and 10 ◦ C. The same packaging, storage and
14 26 27
evaluations were replicated again approximately 1 month later.
All sensory analyses were performed by panels of 33 consumers α risk below 0.1% (P ≤ 0.001).
of blueberries recruited at Michigan State University (students,
faculty and staff). Panellists participating in the triangular test
received instructions regarding the evaluation procedure and
explanations about differences in flavour, appearance, overall Table 2. Comments from panellists, written down during execution
quality and texture between fresh and old blueberries. Panellists of triangle tests
were divided into groups of four to perform the test. All analyses After 7 days of storage After 14 days of storage
were carried out in the sensory evaluation laboratory under
controlled light and temperature. Each panellist was served with Odd sample Odd sample Odd sample Odd sample
three coded clear 50 mL cups containing several blueberries from non-vented from vented from non-vented from vented
PLA package PET package PLA package PET package
(∼8 g). Samples were equilibrated to ambient temperature in
order to avoid any possible effect of the fruit temperature during More fresh Wrinkles Better appereance Old
evaluation. Sample presentation was randomised according to Really good Softer Really good Soft
Cochran and Cox.18 Water was provided for rinsing between Fresh Mushy Good texture Not fresh
samples. Triangle discrimination tests were conducted in order to texture
determine if a perceived difference existed between blueberries Better texture Shrivelled Visibly better Shrinkage
packed in vented petroleum-based containers and in non-vented up
biodegradable containers after 7 and 14 days of storage. Panellists Better More fresh Softer
appearance
were asked to identify the odd sample. Paired preference tests
Nice Too soft
were conducted for flavour, texture, external appearance and
Firm Wrinkly
overall quality between blueberries packed in PLA packages
Good colour Less fragrance
and in commercial vented PET clamshell containers. Each
Good texture Very poor taste
participant was asked to select the preferred sample for each
Better Shrivelled
of the aforementioned attributes. Both sensory evaluations, i.e.
Firmer Too soft
triangle test and paired preference test, were performed on the
Poor texture
same day.
Worse
No good
Statistical analyses Sweeter
One-way analysis of variance was conducted to compare av-
erage values of the physicochemical and microbiological re-
sults using the Tukey test (P ≤ 0.05) (MINITAB Statistical
Software, Release 14 for Windows, Minitab Inc., State Col- blueberries, these values are mainly related to shrivelling and the
lege, PA, USA). Differences between packaging types and stor- presence of fungi, as explained below.
age temperatures and the correlation between them were
determined. Visual – sensory evaluation
Results of the triangle test showed that panellists discriminate
differences (P ≤ 0.001) between blueberries from non-vented
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION bio-based containers and those from vented PET containers after
In the following subsections the sensory changes in appearance, 7 and 14 days at 3 and 10 ◦ C (Table 1). Comments from panellists
texture, taste and aroma of blueberries packed in different confirm that shrinkage was a key parameter for identification
packages and stored at different temperatures are described (Table 2). Words such as ‘wrinkles’, ‘shrivelled up’, ‘shrinkage’ and
and correlated with changes in the physicochemical quality of the ‘wrinkly’ were used to describe blueberries from the vented PET
packaged blueberries. clamshell containers. Differences in shrinkage were a consequence
of different transpiration rates caused by different RH levels. Vents
Appearance did not allow the establishment of a high RH inside the vented PET
Visual appearance and price are the most critical factors in the initial containers. However, a high RH was achieved in the non-vented
purchase of the fresh product. Because of that, visual appearance PLA containers because of the relatively hydrophobic nature of
needs to be maintained in order to attract consumer preference this polymer19 and the absence of vents. The steady state RH in
and choice. Changes in appearance quality during the postharvest a package depends on the transpiration rate of the product and
period can be quickly identified by both sensory evaluations the water vapour transmission rate (WVTR) through the polymeric
1123

(visual/eyes) and instrumental analyses (weight loss/scale). For material. In addition, equilibrium humidity was dependent on

J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org E Almenar et al.

18
Table 3. Number of panellists (out of a total of 33 panellists) who
Vented PET 10 °C
preferred blueberries packaged in non-vented PLA containers over 16
those packaged in vented PET containers after 14 days of storage at 3 Non-vented PLA 10 °C
and 10 ◦ C. Data for several quality parameters are listed individually 14 Vented PET 3 °C
Non-vented PLA 3 °C

Weight Loss (%)

Temperature (◦ C)
Quality parameter 3 10
Flavour 24
Texture 30
Appearance 30
Overall quality 28
α risk below 0.1% (P ≤ 0.001).
temperature, since temperature affects both transpiration and
transmission rates. Results of the paired preference test (Table 3)
revealed that panellists preferred the appearance (P ≤ 0.001) of
blueberries from non-vented PLA containers. This preference was
observed for both temperatures and storage periods. Comments
similar to those quoted above were made by panellists during
the test (Table 4). For both tests the numbers of comments from
panellists were more numerous after 14 days of storage, which
may indicate an increasing difference between samples from the
two types of container during storage.
Weight loss – instrumental evaluation
To quantify the shrinkage observed by panellists, the weight of
all packages during storage at 3 and 10 ◦ C was measured using
a precision balance (Fig. 1). Weight loss of berries packaged in
vented PET clamshell containers amounted to 14–16%, while
less than 2% weight loss was observed for berries in non-vented
PLA containers at the end of storage. These combined results
show the effectiveness of the packaging design and WVTR of
the PLA containers in reducing berry weight loss. The effect of
temperature was less important than that of packaging. However,
there was also an increase in vapour pressure deficit at the warmer
temperature. Smaller differences in weight loss, 12.7 vs 14.2%,
than those caused by packaging were observed when vented
and non-vented containers were compared at 3 and 10 ◦ C. The
slight increase was due to the increase in both WVTR and berry
12
10
8
24
6
29
30 4
30 2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Days of Storage
Figure 1. Weight loss of blueberries stored in different packaging
systems (non-vented container or vented clamshell container) at different
temperatures (3 or 10 ◦ C) for 7 and 14 days. Error bars indicate standard
deviation of mean.
respiration as a result of the higher temperature. These small
differences in weight loss caused by temperature may explain
why the number of panellists who preferred the appearance of
blueberries from the PLA container was identical at both storage
temperatures (Table 3). However, other authors have reported
differences between blueberries stored at different temperatures
being more pronounced than those between fruits from different
packages.20 This discrepancy may be explained by the fact that
those authors studied different packaging materials while we
studied different packaging designs (vented vs non-vented).
Weight losses of more than 5–10% have been associated with
a significant reduction in the firmness of fresh products.21 In
agreement with that, panellists found blueberries from vented PET
clamshell containers, which had experienced a weight loss of more
than 5% (Fig. 1), softer than those from non-vented PLA containers
(Tables 2 and 4). Panellists preferred the greater firmness of
the blueberries packed in the non-vented PLA containers, as
shown in Tables 1–4. Similarly, other authors reported a panellist
preference for blueberries with higher firmness.22 It could also be
argued that non-vented PLA containers maintain the freshness
of the fruit, since some studies have associated more mature

Table 4. Comments from panellists, written down during execution of paired tests

Temperature (◦ C)

Type of container Attribute 3 10

Non-vented PLA Sight Looked pretty/Superior/No Better/Fresh/Best overall/Better quality

wrinkles/Better/Fresh/Looked better/Better
appearance
Taste/smell Less sweet/Superior/Sour/Better/Little flavour Less sweet/Acid/Sour/Better/Less flavour/Stronger
flavour
Touch Superior/Tougher/Better Better
Vented PET Sight Wrinkles/Older/Dry appearance/Doesn’t look Worst/Older/Whitish appearance/Doesn’t look
good/Wrinkled good
Taste/smell Sweet/Slightly sweeter/Non-edible/Sweet to the Sweet/More flavourful/Better flavour/Slightly
point of no flavour/Slightly sweeter/Sweeter/Non-edible/Lost
sour/Sweeter/Stronger flavour/Lost flavour flavour/Slightly stronger flavour/Blueberry
flavour
Touch Soft/Too soft Very soft/Soft/Too soft
1124

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128
Consumer acceptance of fresh blueberries in bio-based packages
berries with softer berries.22 A lack of firmness has also been
associated with susceptibility of fresh products to mechanical
damage,11 so berries from the non-vented PLA containers might
better withstand possible produce damage during handling and
transportation.
The absence of decay is considered a part of the visual
appearance. In fact, the storage life of blueberries in the transport
chain is restricted primarily by fungal spoilage.23 Fungi such
as Colletotrichum acutatum, Alternaria alternata and Botrytis
cinerea have been associated with blueberry postharvest shelf
life limitation.24 No fungal growth was observed in any of the
containers during sensory evaluations and microbiological studies.
Since the usable life of produce is extended when the rate
of water loss is reduced, non-vented biodegradable containers
showed their effectiveness in prolonging blueberry shelf life.
In addition, the quite high WVTR of PLA compared with other
packaging materials avoided moisture condensation on the inner
surface of the material, which has been reported as a cause of
deterioration and growth of micro-organisms.25
Taste
Flavour – sensory evaluation
Flavour plays an important role in consumer satisfaction and
influences further consumption of fruits and foods in general.6 For
blueberries, Saftner et al.10 reported that overall eating quality was
most highly correlated with flavour acceptability and blueberry-
like flavour intensity. In agreement, Rosenfeld et al.20 reported
blueberry flavour as an important sensory variable for blueberries
stored at low temperature. This quality parameter was also
important for panellists during judging of packaged blueberries,
since words such as ‘more flavourful’, ‘better flavour’, ‘lost flavour’
and ‘blueberry flavour’ were used to describe blueberry quality
(Table 4). Differences in flavour were observed depending on
packaging but not on temperature, as shown in Table 3. Panellists
preferred the flavour of the blueberries in the non-vented PLA
containers (P ≤ 0.001). However, opposing opinions regarding
blueberry flavour for the same type of container are observed in
Table 4. Since this was not a trained descriptive analysis panel, this
is to be expected.
Soluble solid content, titratable acidity and aroma – instrumental
evaluation
Flavour is composed of sugars, organic acids and aromatic
compounds. Differences in sensory quality have been based on
the level and proportion of these flavour components.6 Levels
and proportions of flavour components in blueberries differed
depending on packaging system and storage temperature, as
reported below.
Soluble solid content. Packaging design (vented or non-vented)
and the WVTR of PLA notably affected the contents of soluble
solids in berries during storage (Fig. 2). Blueberries packed in
vented PET clamshell containers exhibited an increase of about
2% TSS at the end of storage (P ≤ 0.05). SSC increased because of
the reduction in water content of the blueberries during storage
(Fig. 1), as reported in a previous study.14 For non-vented bio-based
containers, no significant differences in the SSC of blueberries were
observed from day 0 to day 14 at either temperature. A different
behaviour of the SSC of blueberries has been reported for the same
kind of fruit packaged in the same type of containers but stored
at higher temperatures.14 The slight decline in SSC observed for
J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
17
Bio-based non-vented container 10 °C
16 Petroleum-based vented clamshell container 10 °C
Bio-based non-vented container 3 °C
Petroleum-based vented clamshell container 3 °C
15
SSC (%TSS)
14
13
12
11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Days of Storage
Figure 2. Evolution of SSC of blueberries stored in different packaging
systems (non-vented container or vented clamshell container) at different
temperatures (3 or 10 ◦ C) for 7 and 14 days. Error bars indicate standard
deviation of mean.
blueberries in non-vented bio-based containers stored at 23 ◦ C
was due to the increase in respiration rate of the fruit leading to an
enhanced consumption of soluble solids as respiration substrate.14
It is well known that the respiration rates of berries are directly
related to storage temperature: 3, 9 and 34 mL CO2 kg−1 h−1 at 3,
10 and 20 ◦ C respectively.26
The results obtained from the instrumental analyses matched
with the results of the sensory evaluations (Tables 1–4). Tables 2
and 4 summarise the comments written down by panellists while
completing the triangle test (Table 1) and the paired preference
test (Table 3). They include descriptions such as ‘sweet’, ‘sweeter’
and ‘slightly sweeter’ for blueberries from the vented PET clamshell
containers, independent of temperature. This perceived higher
sweetness may be related to the higher SSC, as revealed by the
instrumental tests (Fig. 2), which may result from the reduction in
water content in the blueberries. Rosenfeld et al.20 correlated SSC
with sweet taste for blueberries when they were exposed to low
temperature.20 However, Saftner et al.10 reported that SSC may
not be a good indicator of sugar concentration in fruit extracts
of blueberries because of the high pigment content of the fruit.
Blueberries have one of the highest anthocyanin contents of any
fruit, and it has been reported that anthocyanins strongly refract
light and, as a result, contribute to the SSC in samples containing
these pigments.27 In agreement, Saftner et al.10 reported that
cultivars of blueberries with high and low SSC did not match
cultivars with high and low sensory scores. According to those
authors, the differences in SSC among cultivars may not be large
enough to have any significant impact on the perception of fruit
sweetness.
As observed in Table 3, panellists preferred blueberries with
lower values of sweetness, since blueberries packed in the non-
vented PLA containers had fewer comments related to sweetness
and the lowest SSC. This lower sweetness could also be related
to a less mature state, since it has been reported that low
textural quality combined with high sweetness and low tartness is
characteristic of more mature blueberries.28
Titratable acidity. TA is an important quality parameter for
blueberries and should range between 0.3 and 1.3%.29 The data in
1125
Table 5 show that blueberries packed in both types of package and
www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org E Almenar et al.

Table 5. Effect of container (non-vented bio-based or vented petroleum-based) on evolution of TA (%) of blueberries during 14 days of storage at 3
and 10 ◦ C

Non-vented PLA Vented PET

Days of storage 3 ◦C 10 ◦ C 3 ◦C 10 ◦ C

0 0.84 ± 0.06aA 0.84 ± 0.06aA 0.84 ± 0.06aA 0.84 ± 0.06aA

7 0.94 ± 0.01aA 0.97 ± 0.17aA 0.90 ± 0.18aA 0.93 ± 0.16aA
14 0.72 ± 0.15aA 1.04 ± 0.06aA 1.01 ± 0.21aA 1.00 ± 0.00aA

The letter ‘A’ indicates no difference in TA after different storage periods at a given temperature, while the letter ‘a’ indicates no difference between
different packages stored at the same temperature, both according to the Tukey test at P ≤ 0.05.

9.E+05 Vented PET 10 °C 8.E+06

Non-vented PLA 10 °C
8.E+05 7.E+06
Vented PET 3 °C
7.E+05 Non-vented PLA 3 °C 6.E+06
6.E+05

Hexanal c.a.
Ethanol c.a.

5.E+06
5.E+05
4.E+06
4.E+05
3.E+06
3.E+05
2.E+05 2.E+06

1.E+05 1.E+06
0.E+00 0.E+00
7 14 7 14
Storage (Days) Storage (Days)

2.E+07 8.E+05
2.E+07 7.E+05
2.E+07
6.E+05
1.E+07
2-Hexenal c.a.

Linalool c.a.

1.E+07 5.E+05
1.E+07 4.E+05
8.E+06 3.E+05
6.E+06
2.E+05
4.E+06
2.E+06 1.E+05
0.E+00 0.E+00
7 14 7 14
Storage (Days) Storage (Days)

3.E+05

2.E+05
Nonanal c.a.

2.E+05

1.E+05

5.E+04

0.E+00
7 14
Storage (Days)

Figure 3. Evolution of aroma profile of blueberries stored in different packaging systems (non-vented container or vented clamshell container) at different
temperatures (3 or 10 ◦ C) for 7 and 14 days. Data on some main volatile compounds of the aroma profile of blueberries are presented. Error bars indicate
standard deviation of mean.

stored at both temperatures exhibited acceptable TA throughout
storage. As observed, the acidity of the fresh blueberries stayed
at about the same level during 14 days of storage at 3 and 10 ◦ C
for both containers, so neither type of packaging nor temperature
affected the TA of the blueberries. In contrast, Rosenfeld et al.20
1126
blueberries stored in otherwise identical packages. This difference
might be due to the different fruit variety evaluated (‘Bluecrop’
versus ‘Elliott’). Since Saftner et al.10 reported that differences in TA
among blueberry cultivars affected sensory perception and since
no changes in TA were observed in this study, no effect of TA on

reported a temperature dependence of the TA of ‘Bluecrop’ flavour modification was taken into consideration. Other berries

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128
Consumer acceptance of fresh blueberries in bio-based packages
such as red raspberries and strawberries have shown a decrease
in TA and a simultaneous increase in SSC during storage at low
temperature.30,31
Aroma. Blueberry aroma is composed of over 50 different
compounds. Among them, ethanol (representing off-flavours),
2E-hexenal, hexanal, linalool and nonanal have been identified.14
Fig. 3 compares the evolution of these compounds from blue-
berries packed in non-vented PLA containers against those from
blueberries packed in vented PET clamshell containers for 14 days
at 3 and 10 ◦ C. As can be seen, the aroma profile was slightly
affected during storage. Ethanol level increased slightly during
storage for all packages, but no effect of packaging design on this
off-flavour compound was found. Only insignificant differences
were observed for other volatile compounds during storage. In
contrast, an increase in both linalool and nonanal has been re-
ported for blueberries packed in vented PET clamshell containers
and stored at 10 ◦ C.14 These differences may be attributed to
different degrees of ripeness of the fruit at the onset of the study.
Different fruit aroma profiles have been observed depending on
fruit ripeness.32
According to Saftner et al.,10 for blueberries, total aromatic
volatile concentration was not correlated with sensory scores for
flavour, overall eating quality or any other sensory characteristic.
Thus volatile concentration, at least when analysed using an
SPME technique, was not a good indicator of blueberry taste and
overall eating quality. In this study, panellists preferred the flavour
of blueberries from the non-vented PLA containers, as shown
in Table 3, and, according to the results mentioned above, the
only difference in terms of quality parameters related to flavour
occurred for SSC.
CONCLUSIONS
Consumers distinguished between blueberries from different
packages and preferred those packaged in the PLA containers.
The correlation found between consumer and instrumental
evaluations shows that bio-based packages made from PLA are
viable for use in the commercial postharvest packaging of fresh
blueberries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was partially funded by Project GREEEN, proposal
GR06-090, Michigan State University (East Lansing, MI, USA). The
authors thank Dave Trinka from MGB Marketing (Grand Junction,
MI, USA) for providing the blueberries, and all panellists (MSU,
MI, USA) for participating in the sensory evaluations and thereby
making this study possible. Eva Almenar thanks the Foundation
Alfonso Martin Escudero (Madrid, Spain) for financial support;
Hayati Samsudin thanks the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
(Putrajaya, Malaysia) also for financial support.
REFERENCES
1 Market Review: UK Fruit and Vegetables Market Review, 1995–1996.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Bureau, London (1996).
2 Baker GA and Crosbie PJ, Consumer preference for food safety
attributes: a market segment approach. Agribusiness 10:319–324
(1994).
3 Cardello AV, Food quality: relativity, context and consumer
explanations. Food Qual Prefer 6:163–170 (1995).
J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
4 Abbott JA, Quality measurements of fruits and vegetables. Postharv
Biol Technol 15:207–225 (1999).
5 Pelayo C, Ebeler SE and Kader AA, Postharvest life and flavor quality of
three strawberries cultivars kept at 5 ◦ C in air or air + 20 kPa CO2 .
Postharv Biol Technol 27:171–183 (2003).
6 Mitcham B, Cantwell M and Kader A, Methods for determining quality
of fresh commodities. Perishables Handling Newslett 85:1–5 (1996).
7 Shewfelt RL, What is quality? Postharv Biol Technol 15:197–200 (1999).
8 Harker FR, Maindoland J, Murray SH, Gunson FA and Walter BS,
Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements. 1: Texture
of apple fruit. Postharv Biol Technol 24:225–239 (2000).
9 Harker FR, Maindoland J, Murray SH, Gunson FA and Walter BS,
Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements. 2: Sweet
and acid taste of apple fruit. Postharv Biol Technol 24:241–250
(2000).
10 Saftner R, Polashock J, Ehlenfeldt M and Vinyard B, Instrumental and
sensory quality characteristics of blueberry fruit from twelve
cultivars. Postharv Biol Technol 49:19–26 (2008).
11 Almenar E, Hernández-Muñoz P, Lagarón JM, Catalá R and Gavara R,
Advances in packaging technologies for fresh fruit and vegetables,
in Advances in Postharvest Technologies of Horticultural Crops, ed.
by Noureddine B and Norio S. Research Signpost Publisher, Kerala,
pp. 87–112 (2006).
12 Marsh K and Bugusu B, Food packaging – roles, materials, and
environmental issues. J Food Sci 72:39–55 (2007).
13 US Environmental Protection Agency, 2006 MSW Characterization Data
Tables. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/muncpl/pubs/06data.pdf [7 September 2008].
14 Almenar E, Samsudin H, Auras R, Harte B and Rubino M, Postharvest
shelf life extension of blueberries using a biodegradable package.
Food Chem 100:120–127 (2008).
15 USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, Noncitrus Fruits
and Nuts 2007 Summary. [Online]. Available: http://usda.
mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/NoncFruiNu/NoncFruiNu-07-
08-2008 revision.pdf [6 September 2008].
16 Zheng Y, Wang CY, Wang SY and Zheng W, Effect of high
oxygen atmospheres on blueberry phenolics, anthocyanins, and
antioxidant capacity. J Agric Food Chem 51:7162–7169 (2003).
17 Almenar E, Hernández-Muñoz P, Lagarón JM, Catalá R and Gavara R,
Controlled atmosphere storage of wild strawberries (Fragaria vesca
L). J Agric Food Chem 54:86–91 (2006).
18 Cochran WG and Cox GM, Experimental Design (2nd edn). Wiley, New
York, NY (1957).
19 Matsumura S, Mechanism of biodegradation, in Biodegradable
Polymers for Industrial Applications, ed. by Smith R. CRC Press, New
York, NY, pp. 357–395 (2000).
20 Rosenfeld HJ, Meberg KR, Haffner K and Sundell HA, MAP of highbush
blueberries: sensory quality in relation to storage time, film type
and initial high oxygen atmosphere. Postharv Biol Technol 16:27–36
(1999).
21 Peleg K, Produce Handling, Packaging and Distribution. AVI Publishing,
Westport, CT (1985).
22 Sousa MB, Curado T, Lavadinho C and Moldão-Martins M, A survey of
quality factors in highbush and rabbiteye blueberry cultivars in
Portugal. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. on Vaccinium Culture, pp. 567–572
(2004).
23 Day NB, Skura BJ and Powrie WD, Modified atmosphere packaging of
blueberries: microbiological changes. Can Inst Food Sci Technol J
23:59–65 (1990).
24 Smith BJ, Magee JB and Gupton CL, Susceptibility of rabbiteye
blueberry cultivars to postharvest diseases. Plant Dis 80:215–218
(1996).
25 Watada EA and Qi L, Quality of fresh-cut produce. Postharv Biol Technol
15:201–205 (1999).
26 Mitcham EJ, Crisosto CH and Kader AA, Produce Facts: Bushberry,
Blackberry, Blueberry, Cranberry, and Raspberry. [Online].
Available: http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Produce/Producefacts/
Fruit/berry.shtml [31 August 2008].
27 Kader A, Hess-Pierce B and Almenar E, Relative contribution of fruit
constituents to soluble solids content measured by a refractometer.
HortScience 38:833 (2003).
28 Galletta GJ, Ballinger WE, Monroe RJ and Kushman LJ, Relationships
between fruit acidity and soluble solids levels of highbush blueberry
clones and fruit keeping quality. JAmSocHortSci 96:758–762 (1971).
29 Beaudry R, Blueberry quality characteristics and how they can be
1127
optimized, in Annual Report of the Michigan State Horticultural
www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org E Almenar et al.

Society (122nd edn), ed. by. Michigan State Horticultural Society,
Morrice, MI, pp. 140–145 (1992).
30 Robbins J, Sjulin TM and Patterson M, Postharvest storage char-
acteristics and respiration rates in five cultivars of red raspberries.
HortScience 24:980–982 (1989).
31 Hansawasdi C, Rithudon S and Chaiprasart P, Quality and antioxidant
activity changes during low temperature storage of strawberry
1128
fruits. Proc. Vth Int. Strawberry Symposium ed. by. Waite G. ISHS Acta
Hort 708 301–306 (2006).
32 Kaswija M, Peter M and Leonard F, Sensory attributes, microbiological
quality and aroma profiles of off vine ripened mango (Mangifera
indica L.) fruit. Afr J Biotechnol 5:201–205 (2006).

www.interscience.wiley.com/jsfa

c 2010 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2010; 90: 1121–1128