| Literature DB >> 32024051 |
Chunpeng Wan1, İbrahim Kahramanoğlu2, Jinyin Chen1,3, Zengyu Gan1, Chuying Chen1.
Abstract
The effects of hot air flow (HAF) treatment on the postharvest storage of 'Newhall' navel oranges were investigated in this study. Studies were conducted with two separate sections. First of all, the effects of HAF at 37 °C for 36 h, for 48 h, and for 60 h were tested on fruit decay and weight loss. Thus, the optimal treatment was found as HAF at 37 °C for 48 h based on the fruit decay percentage and weight loss, and further studies were carried out with this treatment. The HAF-treated and control fruits were flowed at 37 °C and 20 °C with relative humidity (RH) of 85-95% for 48 h, respectively. After flowing, fruits of both treatments were individually film-packed, precooled (10-12 °C, 12 h), and stored (6 ± 0.5 °C and 85-90% relative humidity) for 120 days. Regular (0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 days) measurements were carried out for analyzing total soluble solid (TSS) content, titratable acid (TA) content, vitamin C (VC) content, total sugar content, respiration rate, malondialdehyde (MDA) content, and protective enzyme activities. The results indicated that HAF treatment significantly inhibited the MDA content and respiration rate of navel orange fruits after 45 d storage. The superoxide dismutase (SOD) and peroxidase (POD) enzyme activities were enhanced after 60 d storage, while polyphenol oxidase (PPO) enzyme activities were enhanced throughout the storage period. Results suggested that the SOD and POD activities are highly related with respiratory activities and could be enhanced with hot air flow. Meanwhile, HAF treatment maintained high content of TSS, total sugar, TA, and VC.Entities:
Keywords: biochemical changes; enzyme activities; fruit decay; hot air flowing; malondialdehyde (MDA) content
Year: 2020 PMID: 32024051 PMCID: PMC7076504 DOI: 10.3390/plants9020170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Effect of different HAF treatments on decay percentage and weight loss of navel orange fruit stored at 6 °C for 120 days. Values are the mean ± S.E. (n = 3).
Figure 2Effects of HAF treatment on the contents of TSS (A), total sugar (B), TA (C), and VC (D) of navel orange fruits during 120 days of cold storage at 6 °C. Each value was presented as the mean ± standard error (SE) of three replicates. The symbols * and * represent significantly higher and lower values, respectively, for the HAF-treated fruits than for the control fruits. The significant difference was determined according to the independent samples t-test (P < 0.05) on each storage day.
Figure 3Effects of HAF treatment on respiration rate (A) and MDA content (B) of navel orange fruits during 120 days of cold storage at 6 °C. Each value was presented as the mean ± standard error (SE) of three replicates. The symbol * represents significantly lower values for the HAF-treated fruits than for the control fruits. The significant difference was determined according to the independent samples t-test (P < 0.05) on each storage day.
Figure 4Effects of HAF on enzyme activities of SOD (A), POD (B), and PPO (C) of navel orange fruits during 120 days of cold storage at 6 °C. Each value was presented as the mean ± standard error (SE) of three replicates. The symbols * and * represent significantly higher and lower values, respectively, for the HAF-treated fruits than for the control fruits. The significant difference was determined according to the independent samples t-test (P < 0.05) on each storage day.
Pearson correlation among the observed quality parameters of the HAF-treated and control fruits.
| Parameters | TA | VC | TS | RR | MDA | SOD | POD | PPO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.196 | 0.664 | 0.958 ** | −0.949 ** | 0.093 | 0.848 * | 0.734 | 0.774 * |
|
| 0.223 | 0.634 | 0.952 ** | −0.910 ** | −0.215 | 0.939 ** | 0.853 * | 0.115 |
|
| 0.541 | −0.377 | 0.407 | −0.971 ** | −0.343 | −0.721 | −0.724 | |
|
| 0.855 * | 0.003 | 0.089 | −0.996 ** | 0.162 | −0.059 | −0.872 * | |
|
| 0.469 | −0.539 | −0.649 | 0.442 | 0.017 | 0.159 | ||
|
| 0.407 | −0.422 | −0.868 * | 0.635 | 0.433 | −0.583 | ||
|
| −0.928 ** | 0.301 | 0.865 * | 0.860 * | 0.809 * | |||
|
| −0.876 ** | 0.013 | 0.868 * | 0.836 * | 0.292 | |||
|
| −0.267 | −0.870 * | −0.798 * | −0.904 ** | ||||
|
| −0.078 | −0.943 ** | −0.936 ** | −0.401 | ||||
|
| 0.264 | 0.664 | 0.596 | |||||
|
| −0.186 | 0.028 | 0.879 ** | |||||
|
| 0.837 * | 0.763 * | ||||||
|
| 0.957 ** | 0.128 | ||||||
|
| 0.883 ** | |||||||
|
| 0.265 |
* represents significant correlation at the 0.05 level and ** used for the 0.01 level (two-tailed).