International Journal of Agricultural

Science and Research (IJASR)

ISSN(P): 2250-0057; ISSN(E): 2321-0087
Vol. 6, Issue 4, Aug 2016, 251-256
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd

PRESERVATION OF TENDER COCONUT WATER

USING PULSED ELECTRIC FIELD
S. SARANYA1 & G. SUJATHA2
1

Department of Food Technology, College of Food and Dairy Technology, Koduvalli, Chennai, Tamil Nadu., India
2

Assistant Professor, Department of Food Engineering, College of Food and Dairy Technology,
Koduvalli, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. India

ABSTRACT
This paper investigates preservation of tender coconut water (TCW) using non thermal processing techniques.
Thermal processing is one of the methods to increase shelf life by inactivating the spoilage microorganisms. As sensory
properties are degraded by heat, an alternative preservation technique is required. Pulsed Electric Field technology (PEF)
is one of the emerging technologies for the replacement of traditional thermal pasteurization. Hence TCW was processed
using PEF technology. Tender coconut water was filled in PEF processing chamber which was embedded with two
parallel plate electrodes. Square pulses of 35KV magnitude and pulse width 2.5sec were applied to the TCW through
under sterile conditions. The collected samples were stored at 5oC and shelf life studies were conducted. Physico chemical
parameters viz., pH, Acidity and TSS, microbiological parameters viz., standard plate count and e.coli and sensory
attributes viz., taste, colour and overall acceptability were measured in regular intervals. It was found that pH, acidity and
TSS did not have any significant difference in samples before and after processing. It was found that SPC count was less
than 5000 cfu/mL and E.coli was found to be absent. It was also observed that sensory attributes did not change after
PEF processing. The shelf life of the processed tender coconut water extended to 18 to 25 days at 5oC.

Original Article

electrodes. The pulses were applied for 2 min, 4 min and 6 min. the processed sample were collected in sterile containers

KEYWORDS: Tender Coconut Water, Pulsed Electric Field Treatment, Shelf Life and Sensory Properties

Received: Jul 10, 2016; Accepted: Aug 06, 2016; Published: Aug 11, 2016; Paper Id.: IJASRAUG201633

INTRODUCTION
Tender Coconut water (Cococus nucifera L.) is the liquid endosperm obtained from a young coconut
which is pure, nutritious and wholesome natural beverage. The sterile water, which is approximately 200 750 ml,
is enclosed with a hard shell and a well-lined layer (8 10 mm) of coconut meat. Coconut water is not a common
fruit juice and thus not easy to stabilize. And also availability of tender coconut is more in coastal area rather than
non coastal area. Tender coconut water is a refreshing drink with electrolytes (ionic mineral) similar to human
plasma (Jayasundera and Dharmasena, 2014). This refreshing drink is filled with many healthy natural nutrients
which can enhance the body's metabolism and immunity and is used more as a health supplement. The important
significant and useful components in coconut water are cytokinins. The potential anti-cancer properties of specific
cytokinins could bring encouraging and novel perspectives in finding cures for the different types of cancers.
The recent discovery of other medicinal values of coconut water signifies a good potential in improving human
health. Fresh food contains all the nutrients needed for good health, but because it may not always be possible to
obtain fresh food, preservation becomes necessary (Raju and Zahida, 2007). Thermal processing had been the most

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

252

S. Saranya & G. Sujatha

commonly used in the food industry to increase shelf life and maintain food safety by inactivating spoilage and pathogenic
microorganisms (Sujatha et al., 2016). But studies have shown that colour, flavour and nutrients are degraded by heat and
also there is large amount of energy consumed in thermal processing (Reddy and Penchalaraju.M, 2012). In PEF
technology, electrical energy is applied in the form of short pulses, which destroys the bacterial cell membrane with no
significant heating of food (Canovas, 1999 and Iqbal Singh, 2012). Hence the present study was envisaged to process TCW
with PEF technology and carry out sensory analysis and shelf life studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PEF processing was conducted in a lab model PEF equipment available at College of Food and Dairy
Technology, TANUVAS, Koduvalli, Chennai. The system is incorporated with a HVDC supply, which produces 35KV
high voltage pulses, a pulse forming network (PFN) containing 10 L C (Inductor - Capacitor) stages which produces 2.5
microsecond square pulses. PEF chamber incorporated two parallel plate adjustable electrodes which enabled to apply
different voltage gradients to the tender coconut water for different treatments
Pre Processing
Good quality green tender coconuts were procured from the local market and surface was cleaned with sterile
water. The nut was cut open with the sterile knife and water collected through sterile muslin cloth prior to processing
(Kathiravan et al., 2014). The PEF processing chamber was washed and rinsed in distilled water and kept in autoclave for 1
hour. The TCW was PEF processed in laminar air flow chamber in sterile condition. Before processing the laminar air flow
chamber was wiped with 99% ethanol and exposed to UV radiation for sterilization. The packing materials
(glass bottles and poly ethylene sachets) were also sterilized before packaging.
PEF Treatment
120 milli liter of tender coconut water was suspended between two parallel plate electrodes in the PEF chamber.
The treatment region of the PEF chamber can be varied by adjusting the distance between electrodes. The applied high
voltage pulses resulted in production of electric field across the TCW between the electrodes that caused microbial
inactivation (Ho and Mittal, 2000). The electric field was applied in the form of square pulses with different treatment
gaps. The PEF system had a timer and number of pulses to be applied for PEF treatment was set before HVDC supply is
turned on. The voltage was increased to 0-35KV gradually. The experiment was carried out for different time intervals
with different voltage gradients. The PEF treatment for TCW was carried out for 2 minutes, 4 minutes and 6 minutes time
duration with two voltage gradients viz., 17 KV/cm and 35 KV/cm.
Collection of Processed Tender Coconut Water
The PEF treated TCW samples were immediately collected in sterile bottles and polythene pouches. The bottles
were corked and PE sachets were sealed immediately in sterile condition and stored at 5oC (Maciel et al., 1992).

METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Chemical Analysis
pH Value
The pH was determined with a Digital pH meter at 23oC. The pH meter was standardized using pH buffer of 4.0,
7.0 and 9.2 (Nadanasabapathy and Kumar, 1999; Manjunatha and Raju, 2014).
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Preservation of Tender Coconut Water using Pulsed Electric Field

253

Acidity: (% of malic acid)

The titratable acidity (TA) was determined by titrating 1 mL of each sample (diluted to 20 mL final volume with
deionized water) using 0.1N NaOH. Results were expressed as percentage of malic acid 100 m/L samples
Total Soluble Solids (TSS):
The total soluble solids (oBrix) were measured using a hand refractometer. The refractometer prism was cleaned
with distilled water after each analysis.
Sensory Analysis
Sensory quality was carried out using 9 point Hedonic scale rating. For sensory, colour, taste and overall
acceptability, 10 untrained panelists were selected. 100 ml samples were presented to the panelists. The panelists rated the
preferred samples in comparison with control (untreated). The score produced by various panelists were analyzed
thereafter.
Microbial Analysis
For the microbial counts, samples were serially diluted, plated in plate count agar for total plate counts and
MacConkey broth for E.coli. Plates were incubated at 37oC for 48hrs for Total Plate Counts and 25oC for 24 hrs for E.coli.

RESULTS
Sensory Analysis
Table 1 shows the values in meanSE for colour, taste and OAA between the processed and control samples. It
was found that there was no significant difference in all the sensory attributes before and after treatment. It was also found
that there was no significant difference in the sensory attributes even during the third week of storage.
Table 1
Storage
Period

Parameter
Colour

1st
week

2nd
week

Taste
Overall
acceptability
F value

Control
8.23
0.07
8.23
0.09
8.04
0.09

2 Minutes
35 KV
17 KV

4 Minutes
35 KV
17 KV

8.21 0.16

8.31 0.11

8.19 0.07

8.23 0.07

8.21 0.10

8.23 0.09

8.16 0.07

8.23 0.07

8.09 0.09

8.28 0.09

8.04 0.09

8.23 0.09

NS

0.77

NS

0.89

NS

0.86

6 Minutes
35 KV
17 KV
8.66
8.45 0.07
0.07
8.57
8.40 0.08
0.05
8.50
8.45 0.05
0.07

NS

0.99

NS

0.77

Colour

8.11 0.17

8.51 0.11

8.22 0.11

8.13 0.12

8.44 0.23

Taste

8.01 0.14

8.23 0.34

8.26 0.23

8.20 0.13

8.44 0.10

8.29 0.12

8.22 0.11

8.44 0.01

8.21 0.27

8.55 0.21

Overall
acceptability
F value

NS

0.79

NS

0.56

NS

0.81

NS

0.92

NS

0.89
8.62
0.21
8.19
0.04
8.52
0.22

NS

0.86

NS

0.87

Physico Chemical Analysis

Table 2 shows mean values of pH for control and PEF processed samples. It was found that there was no
significant difference (p>0.05) found between control and PEF processed sample during the first week of storage. But a

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

254

S. Saranya & G. Sujatha

significant difference in pH was observed during the 2nd week of storage between control and PEF processed sample.
Further during the 3rd week of storage, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) in pH was observed between the
processed samples. Table 3 shows mean values of pH for control and PEF processed samples. It was found that there was
no significant difference (p>0.05) found between control and PEF processed sample during the first week of storage. But a
significant difference in acidity was observed during the 2nd week of storage between control and PEF processed sample.
Further during the 3rd week of storage, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) in acidity was observed between the
processed samples. Table 4 shows mean values of total soluble solids for control and PEF processed samples. It was found
that there was no significant difference (p>0.05) found between control and PEF processed sample during the first week of
storage. But a significant difference in total soluble solids was observed during the 2nd week of storage between control and
PEF processed sample. Further during the 3rd week of storage, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) in total soluble
solids was observed between the processed samples.
Table 2: pH Value during the Storage Period
Days
1st
week
2nd
week
3rd
week

Parameter
Control
Processed
F value
Control
Processed
F value
Control
Processed (2nd week)
Processed (3nd week)
F value

2 Min
35 KV
17 KV
4.96 0.02 4.92 0.01
4.96 0.02 4.92 0.01
NS

4 Min
35 KV
17 KV
4.94 0.01 4.93 0.01
4.93 0.01 4.94 0.01

NS

0.00
4.33 0.03
4.96 0.02
4.88**
4.96 0.02
4.80 0.01

0.00
4.40 0.05
4.92 0.01
4.27**
4.92 0.01
4.50 0.03

NS

NS

0.01
4.42 0.06
4.93 0.01
2.86**
4.93 0.01
4.85 0.03

NS

0.01

0.10

6 Min
35 KV
17 KV
4.98 0.01 4.97 0.01
4.98 0.01 4.97 0.01

NS

0.01
4.41 0.04
4.94 0.01
4.22**
4.94 0.01
4.80 0.02

NS

0.03

NS

NS

0.02

NS

0.00
4.34 0.05
4.98 0.01
4.88**
4.98 0.01
4.96 0.02

0.00
4.33 0.04
4.97 0.01
4.27**
4.97 0.01
4.92 0.01

NS

NS

0.01

0.02

Table 3: Acidity Values during the Storage Period

Days

Parameter
control

1st
week

processed
F value
control

2nd
week

processed
F value
control

3rd
week

Processed(2nd week)
Processed(3rd week)
F value

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

2 Min
35 KV
0.053
0.00
0.053
0.00

4 Min
17 KV

0.054 0.00
0.054 0.00

NS

0.00
0.078
0.00
0.054
0.00
4.88**
0.054
0.00
0.055
0.00

NS

0.00
0.077 0.00
0.055 0.00
4.27**
0.055 0.00
0.058 0.00

NS

0.01

35 KV
0.053
0.00
0.053
0.00

35 KV
0.053
0.00
0.053
0.00

NS

NS

NS

0.01
0.079
0.00
0.055
0.00
2.86**
0.055
0.00
0.055
0.00

0.01
0.078
0.00
0.056
0.00
4.22**
0.056
0.00
0.056
0.00

0.00
0.078
0.00
0.054
0.00
4.88**
0.054
0.00
0.054
0.00

NS

0.01

6 Min
17 KV
0.055
0.00
0.055
0.00

NS

0.00

NS

0.00

17 KV
0.054
0.00
0.054
0.00
NS

0.00
0.079
0.00
0.054
0.00
4.27**
0.054
0.00
0.055
0.00

NS

0.00

NS

0.00

NAAS Rating: 3.53

Preservation of Tender Coconut Water using Pulsed Electric Field

255

Table 4: Total Soluble Solids during the Storage Period

Days
1st
week
2nd
week
3rd
week

Parameter
control
processed
F value
control
processed
F value
control
Processed (2nd week)
Processed (3rd week)
F value

2 Min
35 KV
17 KV
4.58 0.04
4.66 0.03
4.58 0.04 4.66 0.03
NS

0.00
5.78 0.04
4.68 0.03
4.88**
4.68 0.03
4.89 0.03

NS

0.00
5.81 0.02
4.69 0.04
4.27**
4.69 0.04
4.91 0.01

NS

0.02

4 Min
35 KV
17 KV
4.61 0.02 4.68 0.02
4.61 0.02 4.68 0.02
NS

NS

0.00
5.83 0.01
4.62 0.03
2.86**
4.62 0.03
4.87 0.02

NS

0.05

0.00
5.86 0.02
4.69 0.01
4.22**
4.69 0.01
4.90 0.04

NS

0.04

6 Min
35 KV
17 KV
4.63 0.01 4.65 0.03
4.63 0.01 4.65 0.03
NS

0.00
5.85 0.02
4.65 0.02
4.88**
4.65 0.02
4.85 0.03

NS

0.05

NS

0.00
5.86 0.02
4.66 0.02
4.27**
4.66 0.02
4.88 0.06

NS

0.02

NS

0.03

Microbial Analysis
Shelf life of the processed tender coconut water was also determined by microbial analysis. The control sample
and the processed sample were tested periodically. The results are expressed in MeanSE. The control sample spoiled in
6th day but the processed TCW samples extended their shelf life with various treatment periods (2, 4 and 6 minutes).
Table 5 shows the percentage reduction in total microbial load for control and PEF processed samples during the storage
period.
Table 5
Type
CONTROL (A)
2 MIN (B)
4 MIN (B)
6 MIN (B)

17 KV
35 KV
17 KV
35 KV
17 KV
35 KV

Log 10 cfu/ml
35 0.32
25.5 0.28
22 0.24
13.7 0.13
8 0.11
3.2 0.07
-

Percent Reduction (%)

27.14 %
37.14 %
60.85 %
77.14 %
90.85 %
100 %

DISCUSSIONS
The sensory attributes (Colour, Taste and Overall acceptability) of the PEF treated samples revealed that there
was no significant difference with that of control samples. The microbial analysis, revealed that the standard plate count
was not more than 5000 cfu/ml and E.coli was absent in PEF processed samples. The chemical analysis
(pH, Acidity and TSS) showed that the shelf life of the PEF processed tender coconut water extended from 18 to 25 days
under 5oC. It was also found that on comparing to the PEF treatment times (2, 4, 6 minutes) and different voltage gradients
(17KV/cm and 35KV/cm), square pulses of 35 KV/cm magnitude and processing time for 6 minutes had an extended shelf
life than the other combination of treatment times and voltage gradients.

CONCLUSIONS
6 trials were conducted on tender coconut water with different combinations of voltage gradients and treatment
time. Sensory, chemical and microbial analysis was conducted. It was found that there was no significant difference in the
sensory attributes before and after PEF processing. It was also observed that there was no difference in pH, acidity and
TSS during the storage period for PEF processed samples. The shelf life of the PEF processed tender coconut water
extended to 18 - 25 days when square pulses of 35 KV/cm magnitude with a pulse width of 2.5 sec for a treatment time of
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

256

S. Saranya & G. Sujatha

6 minutes.
REFERENCES
1.

Canovas. B. G. V., Gongora N, Pothakamury, U. R., and Swanson. B. G. (1999). Preservation of foods with pulsed electric
fields. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

2.

Ho, S. Y and Mittal G. S. (2000). High voltage pulsed electrical field for liquid food pasteurization. Food Review
International, 16, 395434

3.

Iqbal singh (2012). Pulsed Electric Field Processing of Foods. International Journal of Farm Sciences 2(1):1-16

4.

Jayasundera, M and A. Dharmasena. (2014). Preservation of tender coconut water of Sri Lankan tall coconut variety. Annals.
Food Science and Technology, vol- 15.

5.

Kathiravan.T, R. Kumar, J. H. Lakshmana, M. R. Kumaraswamy and S. Nadanasabapathi. (2014). Pulsed electric field
processing of functional drink based on tender coconut water (Cocos nucifera L.) - nannari (Hemidesmus indicus) blended
beverage. Croat. J. Food Sci. Technol. 6 (2) 84-96.

6.

Maciel M.I., Oliveira S.L., Da Silva I.P., (1992). Effects of different storage conditions on preservation of coconut (Cocos
nucifera) water, J. Food Process. Preservation. 16:1322.

7.

Manjunatha, S.S. and Raju, P.S. (2013). Modelling the Rheological behaviour of tender coconut (Cocos nucifera L) water and
its concentrates. International Food Research Journal 20(2): 731-743.

8.

Nadanasabapathy, S. and Kumar, R. (1999). Physico-chemical constituents of tender coconut (Cocos nucifera) water. Indian
J. Agr. Sci. 69, 7

9.

Raju V.K and Zahida P.M. (2007) Minimal processing of tender coconut, Indian Coconut J. 37: 2223.

10. Reddy. K. M and Penchalaraju.M. (2012). Pulsed Electric Field Technology in Food Processing Industry-A Review.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR).
11. Sujatha G, Sivakumar T and Vadivoo VS. (2016). Milk preservation using pulsed electric field an alternate to pasteurization.
Indian Journal of Science, 23(77), 34-41

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.8136

NAAS Rating: 3.53