Scholarly article on topic 'Effect of maturity stages and postharvest treatments on physical properties of apple during storage'

Effect of maturity stages and postharvest treatments on physical properties of apple during storage Academic research paper on "Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Keywords
{Apple / Storage / "Physical properties" / Hydrocooling / "CaCl2 "}

Abstract of research paper on Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, author of scientific article — Shaiq Ahmad Ganai, Hafiza Ahsan, Afshan Tak, M.A. Mir, A.H. Rather, et al.

Abstract The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of harvest dates and postharvest treatments on physical properties of apple cv Red delicious during storage. Fruits from three harvest dates (H1, H2 and H3) were subjected to various treatments such as T1 (shade cooling), T2 (Hydrocooling), T3 (Hydrocooling+calcium chloride), T4 (Hydrocooling+wax) and T5 (Hydrocooling+calcium chloride+wax) and were stored under ambient and refrigerated conditions for 100days. Results showed the significant differences in physical properties including fruit length, fruit diameter, length/diameter (L/D) ratio, fruit weight and firmness in various treatments. Maximum fruit length and fruit diameter were observed at harvest date 2nd (H2), whereas, L/D ratio and fruit weight were observed at harvest date 3rd (H3) on the storage at zero day. Among the treatments T5 showed the % maximum fruit length, fruit diameter, L/D ratio and fruit weight. The firmness was decreased in all treatments and harvest dates during storage. The% maximum fruit firmness was exhibited by early harvested fruit (H1) at zero (0) day of storage. However, changes were more pronounced under ambient conditions than cold storage.

Academic research paper on topic "Effect of maturity stages and postharvest treatments on physical properties of apple during storage"

JSSAS 227 16 July 2016

ARTICLE IN PRESS

No. of Pages 7

Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences (2016) xxx, xxx-xxx

King Saud University Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences

www.ksu.edu.sa www.sciencedirect.com

n irljJII pq__lflU n IirjoImW nipp^ll

SAUDI SOCIETY FOB A ULTUItAL SCIENCES

FULL LENGTH ARTICLE

Effect of maturity stages and postharvest treatments on physical properties of apple during storage

Shaiq Ahmad Ganaia, Hafiza Ahsana, Afshan Takb, M.A. Mira, A.H. Rather S.M. Wanic'*

9 a Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, Shalimar, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India

10 b Department of Food Technology, IUST Awantipora, India

11 c Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Kashmir, 190006, India

12 Received 11 March 2016; revised 27 June 2016; accepted 11 July 2016

KEYWORDS

Apple; Storage;

Physical properties;

Hydrocooling;

Abstract The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of harvest dates and postharvest treatments on physical properties of apple cv Red delicious during storage. Fruits from three harvest dates (H1, H2 and H3) were subjected to various treatments such as T1 (shade cooling), T2 (Hydro-cooling), T3 (Hydrocooling + calcium chloride), T4 (Hydrocooling + wax) and T5 (Hydrocooling + calcium chloride + wax) and were stored under ambient and refrigerated conditions for 100 days. Results showed the significant differences in physical properties including fruit length, fruit diameter, length/diameter (L/D) ratio, fruit weight and firmness in various treatments. Maximum fruit length and fruit diameter were observed at harvest date 2nd (H2), whereas, L/D ratio and fruit weight were observed at harvest date 3rd (H3) on the storage at zero day. Among the treatments T5 showed the % maximum fruit length, fruit diameter, L/D ratio and fruit weight. The firmness was decreased in all treatments and harvest dates during storage. The% maximum fruit firmness was exhibited by early harvested fruit (H1) at zero (0) day of storage. However, changes were more pronounced under ambient conditions than cold storage.

© 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction 23

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: wanisajad82@gmail.com (S.M. Wani). Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

The physical characteristics of fruits are important for the 24

design of equipments for harvesting and post-harvesting 25

operations such as transporting, cleaning, sorting, sizing and 26

packaging systems (Tabatabaeefar and Rajabipour, 2005). 27

Among these physical properties, mass, volume and projected 28

area are the most important ones in determining sizing systems 29

(Khodabandehloo, 1999). Therefore, determination and 30

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2016.07.001

1658-077X © 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

JSSAS 227 16 July 2016 ARTICLE IN PRESS No. of Pages 7

2 S.A. Ganai et al.

31 consideration of these criteria result in the decrease of product

32 loss.

33 The harvesting of fruits at appropriate time is an important

34 determinant for shelf life and quality. Fruits harvested at

35 advanced maturity are more prone to mechanical injury, hav-

36 ing short storage life and greater susceptibility to pathogens

37 and physiological disorders (Juan et al., 1999). In addition,

38 careless harvesting characterized by immature and over mature

39 fruit, is another serious cause of postharvest losses (Ingle et al.,

40 2000).

41 Various pre-treatments were given to fruits during

42 postharvest processing to enhance their shelf life. Pre-

43 cooling by removing field heat from freshly harvested fruits

44 reduces microbial activity and respiration rates. Further-

45 more, the respiratory activity and senescence of fruit as well

46 as ethylene production are temperature dependent. Due to

47 the pre-cooling treatments, metabolic activity and conse-

48 quently respiration rate and ethylene production of the

49 fruits are reduced considerably. This also decreases the

50 ripening rate, diminishes water loss and decay, thus helps

51 preserving quality and prolongs shelf-life of the fruit

52 (Ferreira et al., 1994).

53 Calcium is an important component and helps in regulation

54 of metabolism in apple fruit. The adequate concentration of

55 calcium maintains fruit flesh firmness and minimizes the inci-

56 dence of physiological disorders such as water core, bitter pit

and internal breakdown (Bangerth et al., 1972). The increase 57

in calcium generally delays the ripening of the fruit and main- 58

tains their quality during prolonged storage. The application 59

of calcium also reduces the incidence of storage decay 60

(Conway, 1982). Waxing is nowadays the common postharvest 61

treatment used to increase the shelf life of fruits. Coating 62

apples prior to storage seems an excellent fit for ''Red Deli- 63

cious" because it imparts high gloss, hides bruises and forms 64

a modified atmosphere condition that tends to preserve firm- 65

ness and prolongs shelf-life. The inhibition of biochemical pro- 66

cesses, which cause the ageing of apples and shortening of their 67

storage, may be achieved with the help of natural and artifi- 68

cially made chemical substances, which are used for post har- 69

vest treatment for fruits (Alleyne and Hagenmaier, 2000; Bai 70

et al., 2002; Ganai et al., 2015). 71

Apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) is one of the most impor- 72

tant temperate fruit of the world with more than 80% of the 73

world's supply being produced in Europe. In India commercial 74

cultivation of apple is largely confined to the state of Jammu 75

and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand which 76

together accounts for about 2.5% of world production 77

(Ahsan et al., 2008). Keeping in view the significance of this 78

fruit in the economy of the region, the present investigation 79

was aimed to study the effect of harvesting date, pre-cooling 80

and various postharvest treatments on the physical properties 81

of apple during storage. 82

Table 1 Effect of harvest dates, post harvest treatments and storage conditions on fruit length (mm) of apple.

Harvest dates Treatment

Storage

Ambient storage (Days)

Refrigerated storage (Days)

Mean 0

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

72.32 71.82 70.72 67.82 63.82 60.52 67.85

72.32 71.92 70.82 67.92 63.92 60.62 67.92

72.32 72.02 71.02 68.02 64.12 60.82 68.05

72.32 71.92 70.92 67.92 64.02 60.72 67.97

72.32 72.02 71.02 68.12 64.32 60.92 68.12

72.32 71.94 70.90 67.96 64.06 60.72 67.98

72.32 71.92 71.32 70.72 69.82 68.72

72.32 72.02 71.62 70.92 69.92 68.92

72.32 72.22 71.82 71.12 70.12 69.22

72.32 72.12 71.72 71.02 70.02 69.02

72.32 72.32 71.92 71.22 70.32 69.32

72.32 72.12 71.68 71.00 70.04 69.04

74.21 72.81 74.21 72.81

71.51 70.21 67.31 71.51 70.31 67.41

70.51 67.71 63.71 70.13

63.21 69.88 63.41 69.94

73.51 72.71 72.11 71.11

73.51 72.71 72.11 70.31

73.71 72.91 72.31 71.71

73.61 72.81 72.21 71.41

73.71 73.11 72.31 71.91

74.21 73.09 71.63 70.45 67.53 63.51 70.07 74.21 73.61 72.85 72.21 71.29

74.21 72.91 71.71 74.21 72.91 71.61 70.51 67.51 63.51 70.04 74.21 74.01 71.81 70.71 67.71 63.71 70.36

74.21 74.21 74.21 74.21 74.21

70.31 70.31 70.91 70.71 71.21 70.69

74.12 72.72 71.52 69.22 66.62 62.32 69.20

74.12 72.72 71.62 69.42 66.42 62.42 69.45

74.12 72.92 71.72 70.02 66.62 62.62 69.67

74.12 72.82 71.62 69.12 66.52 62.52 69.45

74.12 72.92 71.82 70.12 66.82 62.82 69.77

74.12 72.82 71.66 69.58 66.60 62.54 69.55

Grand mean 73.55 72.62 71.40 69.33 66.06 62.26 69.20 73.55 73.08 72.38 71.70 70.75 69.Í

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.001 Treatment (T) = 0.002 H x T = 0.012 Storage (S) = 0.019 H x S = 0.025 H x S x T = 0.030

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.006 Treatment (T) = 0.001 H x T = 0.021 Storage (S) = 0.023 H x S = 0.024 H x S x T = 0.029

70.80 70.95 71.14 71.04 71.24 71.03

72.19 72.43 72.63 72.49 72.74 72.48

74.12 73.42 72.52 71.72 70.82 69.72 72.00

74.12 73.42 72.52 71.72 70.82 69.82 72.07

74.12 73.62 72.72 72.02 71.02 69.92 72.24

74.12 73.52 72.62 71.92 70.92 69.92 72.17

74.12 73.62 72.72 72.02 71.02 70.12 72.72

74.12 73.52 72.62 71.88 70.92 69.90 72.16

T1 = Shade cooling (Control); T2 ■ + CaCl2 + wax.

Hydro cooling; T3 = Hydro cooling + CaCl2; T4 = Hydro cooling + wax; T5 = Hydro cooling

JSSAS 227 16 July 2016 ARTICLE IN PRESS No. of Pages 7

Effect of maturity stages and postharvest treatments 3

Table 2 Effect of harvest dates, post harvest treatments and storage conditions on fruit diameter (mm) of apple.

Harvest dates Treatment

Storage

Ambient storage (Days)

Refrigerated storage (Days)

Mean 0

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

66.57 65.67 63.57 59.67 56.17 52.17 60.14

66.57 65.67 63.67 59.67 56.27 52.27 60.69

66.57 65.87 63.87 59.87 56.37 52.37 60.82

66.57 65.77 63.77 59.77 56.27 52.27 60.74

66.57 66.07 64.07 59.97 56.70 52.57 60.18

66.57 65.81 63.79 59.79 56.31 52.33 60.77

67.35 67.35 67.35 67.35 67.35 67.35

67.24 67.24 67.24 67.24 67.24 67.24

65.35 65.75 66.35 66.05 66.45 65.97

66.24 66.44 66.54 66.44 66.74 66.48

64.45 64.55 64.75 64.75 64.85 64.67

64.24 64.34 64.44 64.44 64.84 64.42

60.35 60.55 60.65 60.55 60.75 60.57

60.24 60.44 60.64 60.54 60.94 60.52

56.67 56.95 57.15 57.05 57.50 57.05

56.34 56.34 56.54 56.44 56.94 56.48

53.15 53.15 53.35 53.15 53.35

52.24 52.44 52.54 52.44 52.74 52.48

Grand mean 67.05 66.09 64.29 60.29 56.61 52.Î

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.002 Treatment (T) = 0.005 H x T = 0.003 Storage (S) = 0.013 H x S = 0.015 H x S x T = 0.004

61.03 61.38 61.60 61.48 61.13 61.47

61.00 61.21 61.32 61.26 62.07 61.27

66.57 65.77 64.57 63.67 62.77 62.27 64.27 66.57 65.87 64.77 63.77 62.97 62.27 64.37

64.85 64.45

66.57 66.17 64.97 64.22 63.70 62.47 65.15 66.57 65.95 64.83 63.96 63.05 62.35 64.45

66.57 66.07 64.97 64.17 63.47 62.37 66.57 65.87 64.87 63.97 63.07 62.37

67.35 67.35 67.35 67.35 67.35 67.35

67.24 67.24 67.24 67.24 67.24 67.24

66.35 66.55 66.75

66.65 66.85

66.64 66.74 66.64 66.74

65.15 65.25 65.35 65.25 65.55 65.31

65.34 65.54 65.94 65.74 66.14 65.74

64.35 64.55 64.65 64.55 64.85 64.59

64.64 64.94 65.04 65.04 65.24 65.04

63.65 63.75 63.85 63.75 63.95 63.79

63.84 63.94 64.14 63.84 63.34 63.82

63.05 63.15 63.25 63.15 63.35 63.19

62.44 62.64 62.94 62.94 62.94 62.78

64.98 65.10

65.20 65.12 65.32 65.14

65.00 65.16 65.34 65.24 65.70

61.17 67.05 66.41 65.29 64.53 63.55 62.77 64.94

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.002 Treatment (T) = 0.001 H x T = 0.005 Storage (S) = 0.014 H x S = 0.012 H x S x T = 0.006

T1 = Shade cooling (Control); T2 ■ + CaCl2 + wax.

Hydro cooling; T3 = Hydro cooling + CaCl2; T4 = Hydro cooling + wax; T5 = Hydro cooling

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Material

Apple cv. ''Red Delicious" of uniform shape, size and firm texture was procured from local orchard of Pulwama, Kashmir, India. Apple fruits were harvested at three different dates with an interval of seven days designated as H1; H2 and H3 at around 6.00 pm with H2 being the optimum harvest time i.e. 2nd week of October with interval of 7 days between the harvest dates. After harvest, these were manually sorted by discarding deformed, bruised, punctured and stemless fruits. One lot of fruits was separated and kept under shade for 12 h for cooling which served as control T1 (shade-cooling). The remaining fruits were pre-cooled by spraying cold tap water for 10 min with occasional turning which served as T2 (hydrocooling). Next day hydrocooled fruits were divided into two more lots, one lot was sprayed with 3% calcium chloride which served as T3 (hydrocooling + CaCl2). Then these fruits were packed in plastic crates and brought to laboratory. Next day a portion from both hydrocooled fruits (T2) and (hydro-cooled + CaCl2) T3 was waxed by 6% paraffin wax which served as T4 (hydrocooling + 6% paraffin wax) and T5 (hydrocooling + 3% CaCl2 + 6% paraffin wax), and all treated samples were stored under ambient storage at a temperature of 18 ± 2 0C and relative humidity of 75 ± 5% in a

well ventilated room and under refrigerated conditions at a temperature of 2 ± 1 0C and relative humidity of 85 ± 5% for storage. Samples of all treatments were taken out from cold stores after 20 days of storage interval and kept at ambient temperature for 15 min and evaluated for each parameter.

2.2. Fruit length, diameter and length/diameter ratio (L/D ratio)

The length and diameter of ten randomly selected fruits from each treatment in each replication were measured with the help of vernier calliper, averaged and expressed in millimetres (mm). L/D ratio was calculated by dividing the length of fruits with that of diameter.

2.3. Average fruit weight

The representative sample of 30 fruits in replicates was taken and weighed on electronic balance (Metzer Biomedical and Electronics Pvt. Ltd) to calculate average fruit weight in grams.

2.4. Firmness (lb/in.2)

Fruit flesh firmness (lb/in.2) data pertaining to fruit flesh firmness were recorded with the help of penetrometer (Effigi,

JSSAS 227 16 July 2016 ARTICLE IN PRESS No. of Pages 7

4 S.A. Ganai et al.

127 11 mm Prob.) for five fruits per treatment (Pocharski et al.,

128 2000).

129 2.5. Statistical analysis

130 The data were statistically analysed through R-Software using

131 Completely Randomized Design (CRD) in factorial experi-

132 ment (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).

133 3. Results and discussion

134 3.1. Fruit length

135 Significant variation was observed in fruit length at different

136 harvest dates (Table 1). The mid harvested (H2) fruits showed

137 maximum fruit length (74.21 mm), while early harvested (H1)

138 apples showed minimum fruit length (72.32 mm). After the

139 100 days of storage mid harvested apples (H2) proved to be

140 the best to retain maximum fruit length. The possible reason

141 behind the retention might be the less water loss and shrinkage

142 than early and late harvested apples. These results are in accor-

143 dance with Zerbini et al. (1999) and Juan et al. (1999).

144 Among the treatments T5 (Hydrocooling + CaCl2 + wax)

145 remained the best treatment to retain maximum fruit length

146 while T1 (shade cooling) showed the minimum fruit length.

The reason behind might be the effect of CaCl2 and wax coat- 147

ing on the moisture loss and retardation of respiration (Bai 148

et al., 2003). The fruit length was decreased continuously 149

throughout the storage period. These results are in conformity 150

with those reported by Khorshidi et al. (2010). Decrease in 151

fruit length was more pronounced in ambient storage than in 152

refrigerated storage. 153

3.2. Fruit diameter 154

The fruit diameter of apples in various harvest dates and treat- 155

ments is given in Table 2. Among different dates studied, early 156

(H1) and late harvested (H3) fruit, showed minimum fruit 157

diameter of 66.57 and 67.24 mm, respectively while fruits har- 158

vested at mid stage (H2) showed the maximum fruit diameter 159

(67.35 mm). After 100 days of storage mid harvest (H2) fruit 160

recorded the maximum fruit diameter of 53.23 and 63.19 under 161

ambient and cold storage, respectively. The possible reason 162

might be the full cuticle development which prevents the 163

shrinkage while the reason for the minimum fruit diameter in 164

H1 and H3 might be less cuticle development and more respi- 165

ration, respectively. These results are in accordance with 166

Zerbini et al. (1999) and Juan et al. (1999). 167

The treatment T5 (Hydrocooling + CaCl2 + wax) among 168

all the treatments showed the maximum fruit diameter irre- 169

Table 3 Effect of harvest dates, post harvest treatments and storage conditions on L/D ratio of apple.

Harvest dates Treatment

Storage

Ambient storage (Days)

Refrigerated storage (Days)

Mean 0

100 Mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean Grand mean

1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07

1.08 1.08 1.07

1.08 1.08

1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

1.08 1.07

09 09 09 09 09 09

08 08 08 08 08 08

09 09 09 09 09 09 09

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = NS Treatment (T) = NS H x T = NS Storage (S) = NS H x S = NS H x Sx T = NS

1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.09

1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11

1.12 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.11 1.11

1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07

1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.07

1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07

1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = NS Treatment (T) = NS H x T = NS Storage (S) = NS H x S = NS H x Sx T = NS

1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.09

1.08 1.08 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.08

1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.09

T1 = Shade cooling (Control); T2 = + CaCl2 + wax.

Hydro cooling; T3 = Hydro cooling + CaCl2; T4 = Hydro cooling + wax; T5 = Hydro cooling

tp r S

dt t 2. o

/1 1 u

. a 0 v

Table 4 Effect of harvest dates, post harvest treatments and storage conditions on fruit weight (g) ratio of apple.

Harvest dates

Treatment

Storage

Ambient storage (Days)

Refrigerated storage (Days)

0 20 40 60 80 100 Mean 0 20 40 60 80 100 Mean

H1 T1 164.40 163.40 161.40 158.00 152.40 147.40 157.83 164.40 164.10 163.40 163.00 161.40 159.60 162.65

T2 164.40 163.50 161.60 158.10 152.80 147.60 158.00 164.40 164.10 163.50 163.10 161.60 159.70 162.73

T3 164.40 163.60 161.90 158.80 152.70 147.90 158.70 164.40 164.20 163.80 163.40 161.80 159.90 162.92

T4 164.40 163.60 161.80 158.20 152.60 147.80 158.07 164.40 164.20 163.60 163.20 161.70 159.80 162.82

T5 164.40 163.90 161.90 158.30 153.80 147.90 159.00 164.40 164.30 163.80 163.40 161.90 159.90 163.00

Sub mean 164.40 163.60 161.72 158.18 152.66 147.72 158.05 164.40 164.18 163.62 163.22 161.68 159.78 162.81

H2 T1 166.30 165.30 163.40 159.30 154.60 147.80 159.45 166.30 165.90 164.90 164.30 163.00 160.80 164.20

T2 166.30 165.50 163.40 159.50 154.50 149.50 159.78 166.30 166.00 165.00 164.50 163.00 160.90 164.28

T3 166.30 165.70 163.70 159.70 154.80 149.70 159.98 166.30 166.20 165.20 164.60 162.70 161.00 164.20

T4 166.30 165.50 163.50 159.60 154.70 149.60 159.87 166.30 166.10 165.00 164.60 162.30 160.90 164.33

T5 166.30 165.80 163.70 159.70 154.80 149.90 160.03 166.30 166.20 165.20 164.70 162.80 162.00 164.53

Sub mean 166.30 165.56 163.54 159.56 154.68 149.30 159.82 166.30 166.08 165.06 164.54 162.76 161.12 164.31

H3 T1 166.40 165.10 162.50 158.60 153.40 148.60 159.10 166.40 165.50 164.10 163.40 161.50 160.40 163.55

T2 166.40 165.30 162.60 158.60 153.60 148.60 159.18 166.40 165.60 164.10 163.50 161.60 160.60 163.63

T3 166.40 165.30 162.90 158.90 153.90 148.80 159.37 166.40 165.80 164.30 163.60 161.80 160.90 163.80

T4 166.40 165.10 162.80 158.70 153.80 148.70 159.25 166.40 165.60 164.20 163.60 161.60 160.70 163.68

T5 166.40 165.40 162.90 158.90 153.90 148.90 159.40 166.40 165.80 164.40 163.70 161.80 161.10 163.64

Sub mean 166.40 165.24 162.74 158.74 153.72 148.72 159.26 166.40 165.66 164.22 163.56 161.66 160.74 163.71

Grand mean 166.40 165.27 162.83 158.80 153.82 148.78 159.32 166.40 165.71 164.28 163.62 161.71 160.87 163.76

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.123 Treatment (T) = 0.120 H x T = 0.123 Storage (S) = 0.118 H x S = 0.116 H x S x T = 0.113

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.125 Treatment (t) = 0.123 H x T = 0.122 Storage (S) = 0.117 H x S = 0.113 H x S x T = 0.115

T1 = Shade cooling (Control); T2 = Hydro cooling; T3 = Hydro cooling + CaCl2; T4 = Hydro cooling + wax; T5 = Hydro cooling + CaCl2 + wax.

JSSAS 227 16 July 2016 ARTICLE IN PRESS No. of Pages 7

6 S.A. Ganai et al.

Table 5 Effect of harvest dates, post harvest treatments and storage conditions on fruit firmness (lb/in.2) of apple.

Harvest dates Treatment

Storage

Ambient storage (Days)

Refrigerated storage (Days)

Mean 0

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Sub mean

19.70 18.40 16.80 15.40 14.20 12.90 16.23

19.70 18.40 17.00 15.70 14.60 13.30 16.45

19.70 18.70 17.60 16.20 15.00 13.60 16.80

19.70 18.60 17.40 16.00 14.80 13.40 16.65

19.70 18.90 17.70 16.60 15.40 13.70 17.00

19.70 18.60 17.30 15.98 14.80 13.38 16.63

19.70 18.90 18.20 17.30 16.20 15.50 17.63

19.70 18.90 18.30 17.40 16.20 15.50 17.67

19.70 19.10 18.60 17.60 16.40 15.80 17.87

19.70 19.00 18.50 17.40 16.30 15.70 17.77

19.70 19.20 18.70 17.80 16.60 16.00 18.00

19.70 19.02 18.46 17.50 16.34 15.70 17.79

19.40 17.70 16.10 15.10 19.40 17.70 16.20 15.10

13.90 12.90 13.90 12.90

15.85 15.87 16.00 16.25

18.10 17.10 16.00 15.00 14.20 16.63

19.40 17.90 16.70 15.60 14.50 13.40 19.40 17.80 16.40 15.30 14.10 13.00 19.40

19.40 19.40 19.40 19.40

18.60 17.50 16.90 16.30 15.70 17.40

18.70 17.60 17.00 16.30 15.70 17.45

18.90 17.90 17.40 16.50 15.90 17.67

18.80 17.80 17.10 16.40 15.80

19.40 18.90 18.10 17.60 16.80 16.30

19.40 17.84 16.50 15.42 14.28 13.28 16.12 19.40 18.78 17.78 17.20 16.46 15.

18.60 17.30 16.00 14.80 13.50 12.70 15.48

18.60 17.40 16.20 14.90 13.50 12.70 15.55

18.60 17.60 16.50 15.30 13.80 13.00 15.80

18.60 17.40 16.30 15.10 13.60 12.80 15.63

18.60 17.80 16.80 15.70 14.70 13.90 16.25

18.60 17.50 16.36 15.16 13.82 13.02 15.74

17.55 17.85 17.58

18.50 17.00 16.40 15.90 15.40 16.97 18.10 17.30 16.60 16.10 15.50 17.03

18.60 17.90 17.00 16.40 15.80 15.30 18.60 18.60 18.60

18.60 18.60 18.18

18.10 17.10 18.30 17.40

16.50 16.70 17.16 16.52

16.00 15.50 16.97 16.20 15.60 17.13 16.00 15.46

Grand mean 19.23 17.98 16.72 15.52 14.30 13.23 16.16 19.23 18.66 17.80 17.07 16.27 15.

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.315 Treatment (T) = 0.213 H x T = 0.119 Storage (S) = 0.221 H x S = 0.220 H x S x T = 0.215

CD (p 6 0.05) Harvest (H) = 0.319 Treatment (T) = 0.213 H x T = 0.116 Storage (S) = 0.225 H x S = 0.226 H x S x T = 0.219

16.99 17.45

T1 = Shade cooling (Control); T2 = Hydro cooling; T3 = Hydro cooling + CaCl2; T4 = Hydro cooling + wax; T5 = Hydro cooling + CaCl2 + wax.

spective of harvest dates. Protective effect of CaCl2 and wax on moisture loss and shrinkage can be the possible reason. These findings are in agreement with Bai et al. (2003). The results showed that there was continuous decrease in fruit diameter throughout the storage in all treatments and harvest dates. The reason might be moisture loss and shrinkage (Khorshidi et al., 2010). Decrease in fruit diameter was more pronounced in ambient storage than in refrigerated storage.

3.3. L/D ratio

During the study period L/D ratio changed according to the harvest dates and varied significantly at different dates (Table 3). Late harvested (H3) apples recorded the maximum L/D ratio (1.08) while fruits harvested at early maturity (H1) recorded the minimum L/D ratio of 1.06. After 100 days of storage, fruits harvested at late maturity stage (H3) showed the maximum L/D ratio of 1.16 and 1.09 under ambient and cold storage, respectively while fruits harvested at early maturity (H1) showed minimum L/D ratio of 1.13 and 1.09 under ambient and cold storage, respectively. These results resemble the statement of Kvikliene et al. (2008).

The different treatments given to apple fruits during the study showed non-significant effect on L/D ratio. The reason for non-significant effect on L/D ratio most probably is that

we calculate L/D ratio from length and breadth both of which showed similar decreasing trend. The storage period did not show significant effect on L/D ratio. However, ambient storage showed more prominent changes than refrigerated storage.

3.4. Fruit weight

The fruit weight of samples is shown in Table 4. Late harvested apples showed more fruit weight of 166.40 g while early harvested fruits showed less fruit weight (164.40 g) when effect of harvesting dates was studied. After the storage period of 100 days fruit harvested at mid maturity (H2) proved best to retain the more fruit weight. These results resemble the work of Maguire (2000). Among the treatments T5 (Hydrocooling + CaCl2 + wax) proved best to retain more fruit weight whereas T1 (shade cooling) recorded the less fruit weight. The reason behind the retention of more fruit weight by T5 might be the protective effect of calcium chloride and wax coating on moisture loss hence more fruit weight. These results are in agreement with the statement of Bai et al. (2003).

There was continuous decrease in fruit weight during the storage period in all treatments as well as in harvest dates both under ambient as well as cold storage conditions. Cold storage recorded less changes than ambient storage. The reason might be the continuous respiration and water loss. These results are

JSSAS 227 16 July 2016

ARTICLE IN PRESS

No. of Pages 7

Effect of maturity stages and postharvest treatments

based on the statement of Khorshidi et al. (2010). Decrease in fruit weight was more pronounced in ambient storage than in cold storage.

3.5. Fruit firmness

The fruit firmness of apple samples at different harvest dates and treatments is given in Table 5. A mean maximum fruit firmness of 19.70 lb/in.2 was observed in Hi and minimum of 18.60 lb/in.2 in H3 at 0 days of storage. Significant effect of postharvest treatments on fruit firmness was observed. Highest fruit firmness of 17.00, 16.63 and 16.25 lb/in.2 was observed for T5 while Tj recorded the lowest mean fruit firmness of 16.23, 15.85 and 15.48 lb/in.2 in three harvest dates Hi, H2 and H3, respectively. The reason behind the highest fruit firmness in T5 might be due to reduced respiration rate and enzymatic activity due to the application of CaCl2 and Wax (Ganai et al., 2014). There was significant decrease in fruit firmness during storage of 100 days under ambient conditions. Mean value of fruit firmness decreased from 19.23 lb/in.2 at 0 day to 13.23 lb/in.2 after 100 days of storage under ambient storage and 19.23 lb/ in.2 to 15.68 lb/ in.2 under cold storage, respectively.

4. Conclusion

The present study revealed that the influence of harvest dates on ''Red Delicious" apple is significant, and optimum harvest maturity is important to maintain the overall quality and acceptability irrespective of the storage conditions. All treatments showed positive influence on overall quality of ''Red Delicious" apple. However, the treatment T5 (Hydrocooling + 3% CaCl2 + 6% Paraffin Wax) was promising and beneficial followed by treatment T3 (Hydrocooling + 3% CaCl2) to retain the more physical quality attributes under both storage conditions.

5. Uncited references

Magein and Leurguin (2000) and Wani et al. (2009). Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to the division of Post-harvest Technology, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, for providing laboratory facilities.

References

Ahsan, H., Waheed-ur-Rehman Wani, S.M., Dar, B.N., Dalal, M.R., Malik, A.R., 2008. Influence of potassium metabisulphite pre-treatment, osmotic dip and packaging materials on dehydration and chemical properties of apple rings. Appl. Biolog. Res. 10, 3135.

Alleyne, V., Hagenmaier, R.D., 2000. Candelilla-shellac-an alternatie formulation for coating apples (Malus domestica Borkh.). Hortic. Sci. 35, 691-693.

Bai, J., Baldwin, E.A., Hagenmaier, R.D., 2002. Alternatives to shellac coatings provide comparable benefits in terms of gloss, internal gases modification, and quality for "Delicious" apple fruit. Hortic. Sci. 37, 559-563.

Bai, J., Hagenmaier, R.D., Baldwin, E.A., 2003. Coating selection for "Delicious" and other apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 28, 381390.

Bangerth, F., Dilley, D.R., Dewey, D.H., 1972. Effect of postharvest calcium treatments on internal breakdown and respiration of apple fruits. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 97, 679-682.

Conway, W.S., 1982. Effect of postharvest calcium treatment on decay of Delicious apples. Plant Dis. 66, 402-403.

Ferreira, M.D., Brecht, J.K., Sargent, S.A., Aracena, J.J., 1994. Physiological responses of strawberry to film wrapping and precooling methods. Proc. Fl. State Hort. Soc. 107, 265-269.

Ganai, S.A., Ahsan, H., Wani, I.A., Lone, A.A., Mir, S.A., Wani, S. M., 2015. Colour changes during storage of apple cv. Red delicious-influence of harvest dates, precooling, calcium chloride and waxing. Int. Food Res. J. 22 (1), 196-201.

Ganai, S.A., Ahsan, Hafiza, Rather, A.H., Wani, Imtiyaz A., Lone, Abid A., Iqbal, Jeelani, Amin, Qurazah A., Wani, S.M., 2014. Effect of harvest maturity and postharvest treatments on some chemical parameters of apple cv. Red delicious. Int. J. Adv. Res. 2 (8), 25-33.

Gomez, K.A., Gomez, A.A., 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Ingle, M., D'Souza, M.C., Townsend, E.C., 2000. Fruit characteristics of York apples during development and after storage. Hortic. Sci. 35, 95-98.

Juan, J.L., Frances, J., Montesinos, E., Camps, F., Bonany, J., 1999. Effect of harvest date on quality and decay losses after cold storage of "Golden Delicious" apple in Girona, Spain. Acta Hortic. 485, 195-202.

Khodabandehloo, H., 1999. Physical Properties of Iranian Export Apples M.S. Thesis. Tehran University, Karaj, Iran, pp. 1-102.

Khorshidi, J., Mohammad, F.T., Ahmadi, F.M., 2010. Storage temperature effects on the postharvest quality of apple (Malus domestica Borkh. cv. "Red Delicious"). New York Sci. J. 3, 67-70.

Kvikliene, N., Valiuskaite, A., Viskelis, P., 2008. Effect of harvest maturity on quality and storage ability of apple cv. "Ligol". Sodininkyste Ir Darzininkyste 27, 339-346.

Magein, H., Leurguin, D., 2000. Changes in amylase, amylopectin and total starch content in "Jonagold", apple fruit during growth and maturation. Acta Hortic. 517, 487-491.

Maguire, I., 2000. Harvest dates, Cultivar, orchard and the tree effects on water permeance in apples. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Science 125, 100-104.

Pocharski, W.J., Konopacka, D., Zwierz, J., 2000. Comparison of Magnees Taylor pressure test with mechanical non destructive method of apple and pear firmness measurements. Int. Agrophys. 14, 311-331.

Tabatabaeefar, A., Rajabipour, A., 2005. Modeling the mass of apples by geometrical attributes. Sci. Hortic. 105, 373-382.

Wani, S.M., Ahsan, H., Dalal, M.R., Dar, B.N., Malik, A.R., 2009. Chemical characteristics of different formulations of apple sauce under ambient storage. SKUAST J. Res. 11, 106-111.

Zerbini, P.E., Pianezzola, A., Grassi, M., 1999. Poststorage sensory profiles of fruit of apple cultivars harvested at different maturity stages. J. Food Qual. 22, 1-17.