Mixing Ratio and Packaging Amount Synergistically Improved Antioxidant Properties of Baby Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) Mixes
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Materials
2.2. Samples Preparation
2.3. Headspace Gas Composition and Microbial Assay
2.4. Chlorophyll, Carotenoids, Fresh Weight Loss (FWL), and Dry Matter (DM) Analysis
2.5. TAC and Phytochemical Compounds Assay
2.5.1. TAC Assay
2.5.2. TPC Assay
2.5.3. Vit.C Assay
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Headspace Gas Composition and Microbial Count
3.2. Chlorophyll Content and Fresh Weight Loss
3.3. TAC and Phytochemical Compounds
3.3.1. TAC
3.3.2. TPC
3.3.3. Vit.C
3.3.4. Carotenoids
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Artés-Hernández, F.; Castillejo, N.; Martínez-Zamora, L. UV and visible spectrum LED lighting as abiotic elicitors of bioactive compounds in sprouts, microgreens, and baby leaves—A comprehensive review including their mode of action. Foods 2022, 11, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, M.A.; Thakur, S. Sprouts, microgreens, and baby leaves cultivation in controlled environment agriculture- a panacea for global food and nutritional security. Food Biosci. 2025, 73, 107579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil, M.I.; Garrido, Y. Leafy vegetables: Baby leaves. In Controlled and Modified Atmospheres for Fresh and Fresh-Cut Produce; Gil, M.I., Beaudry, R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 527–536. [Google Scholar]
- Koukounaras, A.; Bantis, F.; Karatolos, N.; Melissas, C.; Vezyroglou, A. Influence of pre-harvest factors on postharvest quality of fresh-cut and baby leafy vegetables. Agronomy 2020, 10, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicola, S.; Cocetta, G.; Ferrante, A.; Ertani, A. Chapter 7—Fresh-cut produce quality: Implications for postharvest. In Postharvest Handling, Florkowski, W.J., Banks, N.H., Shewfelt, R.L., Prussia, S.E., Eds.; 4th ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 187–250. [Google Scholar]
- Remize, F.; Garcia, C. Fresh-cut vegetables and fruits: Do they really meet sustainability and nutritional benefits? Curr. Food Sci. Technol. Rep. 2024, 2, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goel, R.; Kaur, D.; Kaur, R.; Younis, K.; Qadri, O.S. Shelf-life extension of green leafy vegetables through minimal processing: Special emphasis on the use of novel techniques. J. Agr. Food Res. 2025, 19, 101703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudau, A.R.; Araya, H.T.; Mudau, F.N. The quality of baby spinach as affected by developmental stage as well as postharvest storage conditions. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2019, 69, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhan, L.; Bulgari, R.; Pignata, G.; Casale, M.; Nicola, S. The mixing ratio and filling-amount affect the tissue browning and antioxidant properties of fresh-cut baby leaf lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and rocket (Eruca sativa Mill.) grown in floating growing systems. Foods 2022, 11, 3515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, D.C.; Kochi, L.Y.; Kitamura, R.S.A.; Brito, J.C.M.; Nogueira, K.D.S.; Gomes, M.P. Unveiling the impact of antimicrobial-infused water on hydroponic baby leafy vegetables (lettuce, rocket, and watercress): Physiological effects and food safety. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 112335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habiba, U.; Bajpai, A.; Shafi, Z.; Pandey, V.K.; Singh, R. Advancing sustainability through modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) for fresh food preservation: A critical review. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2025, 112, 102657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghidelli, C.; Pérez-Gago, M.B. Recent advances in modified atmosphere packaging and edible coatings to maintain quality of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 662–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostafidi, M.; Sanjabi, M.R.; Shirkhan, F.; Zahedi, M.T. A review of recent trends in the development of the microbial safety of fruits and vegetables. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 103, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hounsou, M.; Dabadé, D.S.; Götz, B.; Hounhouigan, M.H.; Honfo, F.G.; Albrecht, A.; Dresch, L.C.; Kreyenschmidt, J.; Hounhouigan, D.J. Development and use of food packaging from plant leaves in developing countries. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 17, 315–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinde, S.P.; Hon, G.R.; P, S.; Chaudhari, S.R.; Matche, R.S. Revamping ethylene absorption utilizing brick ash in packaging for prolonging the freshness of banana leaves. ACS Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 4, 2134–2145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, H.; Simko, I. Extending lettuce shelf life through integrated technologies. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2023, 81, 102951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pignata, G.; Ertani, A.; Casale, M.; Piano, S.; Nicola, S. Mixing fresh-cut baby green and red leaf lettuce from soilless cultivation preserves phytochemical content and safety. Agric. Food Sci. 2020, 29, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steensma, P.; Widjaja, F.; Rajaraman, S.; Annala, L.; Klami, A.; Salojärvi, J.; Lehtonen, M.; Mikkonen, K.S.; Kangasjärvi, S. Distinct post-harvest deterioration pathways caused by light vs dark storage of fresh-cut lettuce packed in modified atmosphere. Postharvest Biol. Technol 2025, 229, 113687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nascimento, L.B.D.S.; Gori, A.; Cavigli, L.; Marino, G.; Brunetti, C.; Haworth, M.; Micheletti, F.; Pöhnl, T.; Neugart, S.; Agati, G. UVB treatments of packaged ready-to-eat salads: Induced enhancement of quercetin derivatives in baby-leaf lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and wild rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia L.). Postharvest Biol. Technol 2024, 207, 112606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.J.; Moon, Y.; Tou, J.C.; Mou, B.; Waterland, N.L. Nutritional value, bioactive compounds and health benefits of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). J. Food Compost. Anal. 2016, 49, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- More, A.S.; Ranadheera, C.S.; Fang, Z.; Zhang, P.; Warner, R.; Ajlouni, S. Using biological metabolites as biomarkers to predict safety and quality of whole and minimally processed spinach. Food Chem. 2022, 375, 131870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Ispizua, E.; Calatayud, Á.; Marsal, J.I.; Cannata, C.; Basile, F.; Abdelkhalik, A.; Soler, S.; Valcárcel, J.V.; Martínez-Cuenca, M.-R. The nutritional quality potential of microgreens, baby leaves, and adult lettuce: An underexploited nutraceutical source. Foods 2022, 11, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mir, S.A.; Shah, M.A.; Mir, M.M. Microgreens: Production, shelf life, and bioactive components. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 2730–2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X.; Gil, M.I.; Yang, Q.; Tomás-Barberán, F.A. Bioactive compounds in lettuce: Highlighting the benefits to human health and impacts of preharvest and postharvest practices. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food 2022, 21, 4–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO: 2003; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs: Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Microorganisms: Colony-count Technique at 30 °C. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003.
- ISO: 2008; Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs: Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Yeasts and Moulds. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
- Lichtenthaler, H.; Wellburn, A.R. Determination of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf in different solvents. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 1985, 11, 591–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benzie, I.F.; Strain, J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: The FRAP assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kampfenkel, K.; Vanmontagu, M.; Inzé, D. Extraction and determination of ascorbate and dehydroascorbate from plant tissue. Anal. Biochem. 1995, 225, 165–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiore, L.; Cardarelli, M.; Lliuya, J.C.L.; Bonini, P.; Santelli, P.; Colla, G. Nanobubble- and microbubble aeration affect leaf quality without changing yield of lettuce grown in floating systems. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicola, S.; Pignata, G.; Tibaldi, G. The floating growing system can assure a low microbial contamination of baby leaf vegetables at harvest. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1209, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, M.; Xiao, Z.; Luo, Y. Advances and emerging trends in cultivation substrates for growing sprouts and microgreens toward safe and sustainable agriculture. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 46, 100863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conte, A.; Conversa, G.; Scrocco, C.; Brescia, I.; Laverse, J.; Elia, A.; Del Nobile, M.A. Influence of growing periods on the quality of baby spinach leaves at harvest and during storage as minimally processed produce. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 50, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Jiao, X.; Yang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Ye, X.; Li, J.; Qi, H.; Hu, X. Crosstalk between GABA and ALA to improve antioxidation and cell expansion of tomato seedling under cold stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2020, 180, 104228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulaosmanovic, E.; Lindblom, T.U.T.; Windstam, S.T.; Bengtsson, M.; Rosberg, A.K.; Mogren, L.; Alsanius, B.W. Processing of leafy vegetables matters: Damage and microbial community structure from field to bag. Food Control 2021, 125, 107894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calonico, C.; Delfino, V.; Pesavento, G.; Mundo, M.; Nostro, A.L.A. Microbiological quality of ready-to-eat salads from processing plant to the consumers. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2019, 7, 427–434. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffmann, T.G.; Ronzoni, A.F.; Silva, D.L.D.; Bertoli, S.L.; Souza, C.K.D. Cooling kinetics and mass transfer in postharvest preservation of fresh fruits and vegetables under refrigerated conditions. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 87, 115–120. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, B.; Luo, Y.; Huang, L.; Fonseca, J.M.; Yan, H.; Huang, J. Determining effects of temperature abuse timing on shelf life of RTE baby spinach through microbial growth models and its association with sensory quality. Food Control 2022, 133, 108639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudau, A.R.; Soundy, P.; Araya, H.T.; Mudau, F.N. Influence of modified atmosphere packaging on postharvest quality of baby spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) Leaves. Hortscience 2018, 53, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lourenco, A.B.; Casajús, V.; Ramos, R.; Massolo, F.; Salinas, C.; Civello, P.; Martínez, G. Postharvest shelf life extension of minimally processed kale at ambient and refrigerated storage by use of modified atmosphere. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2024, 30, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcgill, J.N.; Nelson, A.I.; Steinberg, M.P. Effects of Modified Storage Atmospheres on Ascorbic Acid and Other Quality Characteristics of Spinach. J. Food Sci. 2010, 31, 510–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores, M.; Amorós, A.; Escalona, V.H. Changes in agronomic, antioxidant compounds, and morphology parameters of green and red lettuces (Lactuca sativa L.) by successive harvests and UV-B supplementation. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| O2 (%) | CO2 (%) | TB (Log10 cfu g−1 FW) | Y + M (Log10 cfu g−1 FW) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d1 | d9 | d1 | d9 | d9 | d9 | |||||||
| Mixing ratios | ||||||||||||
| 100LB | 16.93 | a | 13.58 | a | 2.77 | b | 5.00 | c | 4.29 | b | 1.00 | b |
| 75LB | 15.05 | b | 9.77 | b | 4.27 | a | 9.08 | b | 5.60 | a | 1.84 | a |
| 50LB | 15.07 | b | 3.15 | c | 4.47 | a | 12.53 | a | 6.11 | a | 2.13 | a |
| Packaging amount | ||||||||||||
| 250F | 15.14 | b | 7.36 | b | 4.34 | a | 10.59 | a | 5.18 | 1.75 | ||
| 125F | 16.22 | a | 10.31 | a | 3.32 | b | 7.16 | b | 5.48 | 1.58 | ||
| Mixing ratios × Packaging amount | ||||||||||||
| 100LB × 250F | 16.33 | 12.27 | 3.30 | 6.00 | 3.97 | 1.25 | ||||||
| 100LB × 125F | 17.53 | 14.90 | 2.23 | 4.00 | 4.62 | 0.74 | ||||||
| 75LB × 250F | 14.33 | 9.00 | 4.87 | 11.07 | 5.58 | 1.83 | ||||||
| 75LB × 125 F | 15.77 | 10.53 | 3.67 | 7.10 | 5.62 | 1.84 | ||||||
| 50LB × 250F | 14.77 | 0.80 | 4.87 | 14.70 | 6.00 | 2.17 | ||||||
| 50LB × 125F | 15.37 | 5.50 | 4.07 | 10.37 | 6.21 | 2.09 | ||||||
| Mean | 15.68 | 8.83 | 3.83 | 8.87 | 5.33 | 1.65 | ||||||
| SE | 0.25 | 1.21 | 0.20 | 0.94 | 0.21 | 0.28 | ||||||
| Significance | ||||||||||||
| Mixing ratios | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ** | ||||||
| Packaging amount | *** | ** | *** | *** | ns | ns | ||||||
| Mixing ratios × Packaging amount | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||||||
| Parameters | Yield (g Fresh Mass/m2) | DM (%) | TAC (µmol Fe2+ g−1 FW) | TPC (mg gallic acid g−1 FW) | Vit.C (mg g−1 FW) | Carotenoids (mg g−1 FW) | Chl a (mg g−1 FW) | Chl b (mg g−1 FW) | TB (Log10 cfu g−1 FW) | Y + M (Log10 cfu g−1 FW) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | |||||||||||
| Lettuce | 1971.89 a | 5.47 b | 7.13 b | 0.41 | 0.31 | 0.09 | 0.19 | 0.10 b | 2.39 b | 0.65 b | |
| Spinach | 1217.18 b | 12.53 a | 12.21 a | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.18 a | 6.01 a | 2.91 a | |
| Mean | 1594.53 | 9.00 | 9.67 | 0.53 | 0.43 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.14 | 4.20 | 1.78 | |
| Significance | *** | ** | *** | ns | ns | ns | ns | * | *** | *** | |
| Treatments | Chl a (mg g−1 FW) | Chl b (mg g−1 FW) | Chl a/b | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d1 | d9 | d1 | d9 | d1 | d9 | |||||||
| Mixing ratios | ||||||||||||
| 100LB | 0.19 | b | 0.13 | c | 0.15 | b | 0.09 | c | 1.27 | 1.44 | ||
| 75LB | 0.29 | a | 0.21 | b | 0.23 | a | 0.16 | b | 1.26 | 1.31 | ||
| 50LB | 0.25 | ab | 0.27 | a | 0.19 | ab | 0.19 | a | 1.32 | 1.42 | ||
| Packaging amount | ||||||||||||
| 250F | 0.26 | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 1.24 | 1.33 | ||||||
| 125F | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 1.35 | 1.40 | ||||||
| Mixing ratios × Packaging amount | ||||||||||||
| 100LB × 250F | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.08 | 1.29 | 1.38 | ||||||
| 100LB × 125F | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.11 | 1.33 | 1.45 | ||||||
| 75LB × 250F | 0.36 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.15 | 1.24 | 1.33 | ||||||
| 75LB × 125F | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 1.35 | 1.28 | ||||||
| 50LB × 250F | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 1.39 | 1.38 | ||||||
| 50LB × 125F | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.17 | 1.30 | 1.47 | ||||||
| Mean | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.15 | 1.26 | 1.40 | ||||||
| SE | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.06 | ||||||
| Significance | ||||||||||||
| Mixing ratio | ** | *** | * | *** | ns | ns | ||||||
| Packaging amount | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ||||||
| Mixing ratios × Packaging amount | * | ** | * | *** | ns | ns | ||||||
| Treatments | TAC (µmol Fe2+ g−1 FW) | TPC (mg gallic acid g−1 FW) | Vit.C (mg g−1 FW) | Carotenoids (mg g−1 FW) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d1 | d9 | d1 | d9 | d1 | d9 | d1 | d9 | |||||||||
| Mixing ratios | ||||||||||||||||
| 100LB | 10.62 | b | 7.51 | c | 0.37 | b | 0.22 | b | 0.62 | ab | 0.56 | b | 0.08 | b | 0.06 | c |
| 75LB | 9.46 | b | 12.97 | b | 0.41 | b | 0.58 | a | 0.40 | b | 0.62 | ab | 0.11 | a | 0.09 | b |
| 50LB | 14.76 | a | 15.27 | a | 0.63 | a | 0.65 | a | 0.81 | a | 0.77 | a | 0.09 | ab | 0.10 | a |
| Packaging amount | ||||||||||||||||
| 250F | 10.77 | 11.42 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.56 | 0.61 | 0.10 | a | 0.08 | b | ||||||
| 125F | 12.46 | 12.41 | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.67 | 0.69 | 0.09 | b | 0.09 | a | ||||||
| Mixing ratios × packaging amount | ||||||||||||||||
| 100LB × 250F | 10.46 | 6.80 | 0.37 | 0.18 | 0.60 | 0.48 | 0.08 | 0.05 | ||||||||
| 100LB × 125F | 10.77 | 8.21 | 0.37 | 0.27 | 0.65 | 0.64 | 0.08 | 0.07 | ||||||||
| 75LB × 250F | 7.13 | 12.25 | 0.30 | 0.57 | 0.25 | 0.58 | 0.12 | 0.08 | ||||||||
| 75LB × 125 F | 11.80 | 13.69 | 0.52 | 0.58 | 0.55 | 0.67 | 0.09 | 0.10 | ||||||||
| 50LB × 250F | 14.71 | 15.22 | 0.68 | 0.69 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 0.10 | 0.11 | ||||||||
| 50LB × 125F | 14.81 | 15.32 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.09 | 0.10 | ||||||||
| Mean | 11.61 | 11.91 | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.61 | 0.65 | 0.09 | 0.08 | ||||||||
| SE | 1.24 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.004 | ||||||||
| Significance | ||||||||||||||||
| Mixing ratio | *** | *** | *** | *** | ** | * | ** | *** | ||||||||
| Packaging amount | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | * | * | ||||||||
| Mixing ratios × Packaging amount | ns | ns | ** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ** | ||||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Zhan, L.; Profico, C.M.; Pignata, G.; Casale, M.; Gao, H.; Devecchi, M.; Nicola, S. Mixing Ratio and Packaging Amount Synergistically Improved Antioxidant Properties of Baby Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) Mixes. Foods 2026, 15, 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15030499
Zhan L, Profico CM, Pignata G, Casale M, Gao H, Devecchi M, Nicola S. Mixing Ratio and Packaging Amount Synergistically Improved Antioxidant Properties of Baby Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) Mixes. Foods. 2026; 15(3):499. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15030499
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhan, Lijuan, Cosimo M. Profico, Giuseppe Pignata, Manuela Casale, Han Gao, Marco Devecchi, and Silvana Nicola. 2026. "Mixing Ratio and Packaging Amount Synergistically Improved Antioxidant Properties of Baby Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) Mixes" Foods 15, no. 3: 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15030499
APA StyleZhan, L., Profico, C. M., Pignata, G., Casale, M., Gao, H., Devecchi, M., & Nicola, S. (2026). Mixing Ratio and Packaging Amount Synergistically Improved Antioxidant Properties of Baby Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) Mixes. Foods, 15(3), 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15030499

