FINAL REPORT. postharvest quality of bellpeppers. CRAVO. May … · 2015. 6. 22. · 0.05 0.1 0.15...

23
To: Cravo Equipment Ltd 30 White Swan Road, POSTHARVEST FRUIT QUALITY OF POSTHARVEST FRUIT QUALITY OF YELLOW SWEET YELLOW SWEET PEPPER PEPPER GROWN UNDER RETRACTABLE ROOF GROWN UNDER RETRACTABLE ROOF GREENHOUSE WITH GREENHOUSE WITH AND AND WITHOUT WITHOUT ANTI ANTI-INSECT INSECT NET AND SHADEHOUSE CONDITIONS NET AND SHADEHOUSE CONDITIONS AT CULIACAN, MEXICO AT CULIACAN, MEXICO 30 White Swan Road, Brantford Ontario, Canada N3T 5L4 [email protected] [email protected] From: Manuel A. Báez Sañudo, Rosalba Contreras & Yoshio Félix [email protected] Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C. (CIAD) Unidad Culiacán Laboratorio de Calidad Poscosecha Carretera a Eldorado Km. 5.5, Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. 80110 May 2015 May 2015

Transcript of FINAL REPORT. postharvest quality of bellpeppers. CRAVO. May … · 2015. 6. 22. · 0.05 0.1 0.15...

  • To: Cravo Equipment Ltd30 White Swan Road,

    POSTHARVEST FRUIT QUALITY OF POSTHARVEST FRUIT QUALITY OF YELLOW SWEET YELLOW SWEET PEPPER PEPPER GROWN UNDER RETRACTABLE ROOF GROWN UNDER RETRACTABLE ROOF GREENHOUSE WITH GREENHOUSE WITH AND AND WITHOUT WITHOUT ANTIANTI--INSECT INSECT NET AND SHADEHOUSE CONDITIONS NET AND SHADEHOUSE CONDITIONS

    AT CULIACAN, MEXICOAT CULIACAN, MEXICO

    30 White Swan Road,Brantford Ontario, Canada N3T 5L4

    [email protected]@cravo.com

    From:Manuel A. Báez Sañudo, Rosalba Contreras & Yoshio Félix

    [email protected] de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C. (CIAD) Unidad Culiacán

    Laboratorio de Calidad PoscosechaCarretera a Eldorado Km. 5.5, Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. 80110

    May 2015

    May 2015

  • Fruits Fruits of of yellow color yellow color sweet pepper sweet pepper (cultivar (cultivar Estefania Estefania –– Syngenta) Syngenta) were harvested from three were harvested from three growing system under protected environment :growing system under protected environment :

    11. Retractable roof greenhouse (CRAVO . Retractable roof greenhouse (CRAVO unprotected) WITHOUT antiunprotected) WITHOUT anti--insect netinsect net

    22. Retractable roof greenhouse (CRAVO . Retractable roof greenhouse (CRAVO protectedprotected) ) WITH antiWITH anti--insect insect netnet

    33. Shade house. Shade house

    11

    33. Shade house. Shade house

    All protected growing systems are located in All protected growing systems are located in agricultural valley of Culiacan Sinaloa, México.agricultural valley of Culiacan Sinaloa, México.

    Fruits were harvested by CIAD staff on May 05Fruits were harvested by CIAD staff on May 05thth

    2015 and then transported to postharvest Lab after 2015 and then transported to postharvest Lab after 22--3 hours on plastic containers protected inside 3 hours on plastic containers protected inside with plastic foam to avoid fruit damage.with plastic foam to avoid fruit damage.

    SAMPLIN

    G O

    F FRUIT

    SSAMPLIN

    G O

    F FRUIT

    S

    22

    33

  • Once in postharvest Lab., all fruits were:Once in postharvest Lab., all fruits were:

    �� Washed and disinfected with chlorine water at 300 ppmWashed and disinfected with chlorine water at 300 ppm�� Dried at room temperatureDried at room temperature�� Homogenized by size, ripeness, absence of defects (injured, deformed, Homogenized by size, ripeness, absence of defects (injured, deformed,

    damaged, etc.)damaged, etc.)�� Sorted by size uniformity .Sorted by size uniformity .�� Identified each to following up change of color during Identified each to following up change of color during postharvest storagepostharvest storage

    POSTHARVEST Q

    UALIT

    Y LAB.

    POSTHARVEST Q

    UALIT

    Y LAB.

    POSTHARVEST Q

    UALIT

    Y LAB.

    POSTHARVEST Q

    UALIT

    Y LAB.

  • Subsequently, Subsequently, fruits fruits of all treatments were stored for 14 days at 20 of all treatments were stored for 14 days at 20 °°C C and 70and 70--90% 90% RH RH to simulate marketing conditions and to simulate marketing conditions and evaluating fruit evaluating fruit

    quality quality and and color changes color changes regularlyregularly

    POSTHARVEST STORAGE

    POSTHARVEST STORAGE

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    35

    40

    45

    50

    Re

    lati

    ve

    Hu

    mid

    ity

    (%

    )

    Tem

    pe

    ratu

    re (

    °C)

    POSTHARVEST STORAGE

    Simulating marketing conditions

    Temperature Relative Humidity

    POSTHARVEST STORAGE

    POSTHARVEST STORAGE

    0

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    05

    /05

    /20

    15

    05

    /06

    /20

    15

    05

    /07

    /20

    15

    05

    /08

    /20

    15

    05

    /09

    /20

    15

    05

    /10

    /20

    15

    05

    /11

    /20

    15

    05

    /12

    /20

    15

    05

    -13

    -20

    15

    05

    -14

    -20

    15

    Re

    lati

    ve

    Hu

    mid

    ity

    (%

    )

    Tem

    pe

    ratu

    re (

    DATE (M/D/Y)

    Temperature Relative Humidity

  • During During postharvest room storagepostharvest room storage, , following following fruit quality analysis were conduced:fruit quality analysis were conduced:

    �� Physical analysisPhysical analysis: : wall thickness (mm), wall thickness (mm), weight loss (%), firmness weight loss (%), firmness (millimeters deformed (millimeters deformed by applying a constant force), peel color by applying a constant force), peel color (brightness, (brightness, chrome chrome and and Hue Hue angle)angle)

    FRUIT

    QUALIT

    Y A

    NALYSIS

    FRUIT

    QUALIT

    Y A

    NALYSIS

    (brightness, (brightness, chrome chrome and and Hue Hue angle)angle)

    �� Chemical analysisChemical analysis: : titratabletitratable acidity (% acidity (% of of citric citric acid), total soluble solids (acid), total soluble solids (°°Brix) and pHBrix) and pH

    FRUIT

    QUALIT

    Y A

    NALYSIS

    FRUIT

    QUALIT

    Y A

    NALYSIS

  • RESULTS. Sweet pepperRESULTS. Sweet pepper

  • . W

    all thickness

    . W

    all thickness

    Digital caliper AutoTec150 mm (d=0.01 mm)

    General Linear Model:

    Wall thickness versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and

    95.0% Confidence

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    Fru

    it w

    all

    th

    ick

    ne

    ss (

    mm

    )

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade houseRESULTS

    RESULTS. W

    all thickness

    . W

    all thickness

    Fruits of greater wall thickness are associated with firmer fruit s and longer postharvest life

    Average of 32 fruits

    Fruit variability within each treatment is given by length of standard deviation bar

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Cravo WITHOUT net 32 8.932 A

    Cravo WITH net 32 8.387 B

    Shade house 32 7.397 C

    Means that do not share a letter are

    significantly different.

    0

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade house

    Treatments

  • . . W

    eight

    Weightloss

    loss

    (%)

    (%)

    General Linear Model:

    Cumulative weight loss versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0%

    Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Shade house 24 4.53209 A

    Cravo WITHOUT net 25 3.41995 B

    Cravo WITH net 25 3.30269 B

    Means that do not share a letter are significantly

    different.

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    We

    igh

    t lo

    ss (

    %)

    Cravo WITH net

    Cravo WITHOUT net

    Shade house

    RESULTS

    RESULTS. .

    DIGITAL SCALESartorius mod. BP4100 d=0.01 g

    Individual weight of 5 fruit per treatment. Same fruits were weighted at

    each evaluation date

    Average of 5 fruits (Repeated measurement in same fruits at each evaluation time)

    In sweet peppers, cumulative weight loss between 6 and 8% causes fruit wilting and shriveling.

    Fruits grown on shade house conditions lost more weight than those produced at retractable roof greenhouse (CRAVO) with and without anti-insect net

    These results may be due to differences in fruit cuticle composition during growth as a result of environmental conditions, crop management and nutrition, among other factors.

    0

    0 3 6 9 12 15

    Days at 20°C

  • . Fru

    it firm

    ness (m

    m deform

    ed)

    . Fru

    it firm

    ness (m

    m deform

    ed)

    General Linear Model:

    Fruit firmness(mm) versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0%

    Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Shade house 20 7.092 A

    Cravo WITHOUT net 20 5.204 B

    Cravo WITH net 20 5.113 B

    Means that do not share a letter are significantly

    different.

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14

    Fru

    it f

    irm

    ne

    ss (

    mm

    de

    form

    ed

    by

    ap

    ply

    ing

    2 k

    g)

    Cravo WITH net

    Cravo WITHOUT net

    Shade house

    Greater deformation means more flabby fruit

    Deformations above 10 mm are considered unsuitable for marketing since fruits are too flabby.

    In sweet peppers, fruit firmness values are directly related to water loss

    RESULTS

    RESULTS. Fru

    it firm

    ness (m

    m deform

    ed)

    . Fru

    it firm

    ness (m

    m deform

    ed)

    DIGITAL CHATILLON PENETOMETER modelo CS225 Series

    Firmness (millimeters deformed by applying 2 kg force with a 5 cm diameter

    flat plate in equatorial fruit side).

    Average of 4fruits (Destructive measurement. 5 different fruits at each evaluation time)

    Fruit variability within each treatment is given by length of standard deviation bar

    0

    0 3 7 10 15

    Fru

    it f

    irm

    ne

    ss (

    mm

    de

    form

    ed

    by

    ap

    ply

    ing

    2 k

    g)

    Days at 20°C

  • . Peel color (

    . Peel color ( °°Hue)

    Hue)

    General Linear Model:

    Hue angle (°HUE) versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0%

    Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Cravo WITH net 50 80.31 A

    Cravo WITHOUT net 50 79.67 A

    Shade house 48 74.98 B

    Means that do not share a letter are

    SPECTROPHOTOMETER Konica Minolta CM-700d

    Two lectures per fruit in equatorial opposite sides.

    N=10 fruits/treatment

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    90

    100

    Hu

    e a

    ng

    le (

    °HU

    E)

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade house

    The color perception is composed of three variables: Hue angle (°Hue), Chromaticity and Lightness.

    The HUE ANGLE (°Hue) in the color circle represents values from 0 to 360°. Counter clock wise (0°=red; 90°=yellow; 180°=green; 270°=blue and 360°=violet-purple) (SEE FIGURE)

    In yellow sweet peppers, HUE angle decreases slightly during postharvest life to orange colors as a result of senescence. Lower values of °Hue means more orange fruit.

    RESULTS

    RESULTS. Peel color (

    . Peel color (

    Means that do not share a letter are

    significantly different.

    0

    10

    0 3 7 10 15

    Days at 20°C

  • General Linear Model:

    Chromaticity versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0%

    Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Cravo WITH net 50 54.36 A

    Cravo WITHOUT net 50 50.15 B

    Shade house 48 45.20 C

    Means that do not share a letter are

    significantly different.

    SPECTROPHOTOMETER Konica Minolta CM-700d

    Two lectures per fruit in equatorial opposite sides.

    N=10 fruits/treatment

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    Ch

    rom

    ati

    city

    (C

    hro

    me

    va

    lue

    )

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade house. Peel color (C

    hro

    maticity)

    . Peel color (C

    hro

    maticity)

    The color perception is composed of three variables: Hue angle (°Hue), Chromaticity and Lightness.

    CHROMATICITY mean color intensity . Higher values indicate fruit with more intense or pure coloration (less gray) (SEE FIGURE)

    In sweet peppers, there are no significant changes in fruit color chrome during postharvest room storage period. Higher values mean more intensity or saturated color fruit (SEE FIGURE).

    Thera was differences among treatments.

    significantly different.

    0

    0 3 7 10 15

    Days at 20°C

    RESULTS

    RESULTS. Peel color (C

    hro

    maticity)

    . Peel color (C

    hro

    maticity)

  • General Linear Model:

    Lightness versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and

    95.0% Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Cravo WITH net 50 57.61 A

    Cravo WITHOUT net 50 55.32 B

    Shade house 48 51.71 C

    Means that do not share a letter are

    significantly different.

    SPECTROPHOTOMETER Konica Minolta CM-700d

    Two lectures per fruit in equatorial opposite sides.

    N=10 fruits/treatment

    . Peel color (L

    ightn

    ess)

    . Peel color (L

    ightn

    ess)

    10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    Lig

    htn

    ess

    (L

    va

    lue

    )

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade house

    The color perception is composed of three variables: Hue angle (°Hue), Chroma and Lightness.

    LIGHTNESS shows values from 0 to 100 in a vertical scale, where higher values indicate brighter or lighter fruit color and low values near 0 are related with dark colors (SEE FIGURE).

    In yellow sweet peppers, the brightness values did not show significant changes during postharvest. Lower values mean less bright or less clear color fruit (see figure)

    Thera was differences among treatments.

    RESULTS

    RESULTS. Peel color (L

    ightn

    ess)

    . Peel color (L

    ightn

    ess)

    0

    10

    0 3 7 10 15

    Days at 20°C

  • 10 g of fresh fruit taken from same fruit utilized 10 g of fresh fruit taken from same fruit utilized for measuring for measuring

    . Chem

    ical analysis

    . Chem

    ical analysis

    10 g of fresh fruit taken from same fruit utilized 10 g of fresh fruit taken from same fruit utilized for measuring for measuring firmness, firmness, were homogenized with 50 ml of distilled water in a were homogenized with 50 ml of distilled water in a

    commercial blender and then filtered to obtain an extract. commercial blender and then filtered to obtain an extract. With the extract, pH, TA and With the extract, pH, TA and °°Brix were Brix were measured.measured.

    pH & titratable acidity (TA). An aliquot of 50 ml of the extract was placed in an automatic titrator Mettler Toledo mod. T50 equipped with a glass electrode DGi 111-SC.

    Total Soluble Solids (TSS or °Brix). One drop of the extract was placed in a refractometer Mettler Toledo mod. RM40 with temperature compensation.

    RESULTS

    RESULTS. Chem

    ical analysis

    . Chem

    ical analysis

  • General Linear Model:

    pH versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and

    95.0% Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Cravo WITHOUT net 20 5.191 A

    Cravo WITH net 20 5.185 A

    Shade house 20 5.085 B

    Means that do not share a letter are

    significantly different.

    pH unit

    pH unit

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    pH

    un

    its

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade house

    In sweet peppers, there are no significant changes in pH values during postharvest room storage period.

    pH values were remained between 5.08 and 5.19 for all treatments during evaluation period, although significant differences were showed among treatments.

    pH unit

    pH unit

    0

    1

    0 3 7 10 15

    Days at 20°C

  • TIT

    RATABLE A

    CID

    ITY (% of citric acid)

    TIT

    RATABLE A

    CID

    ITY (% of citric acid)

    General Linear Model:

    Titratable acidity versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and

    95.0% Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Shade house 20 0.2170 A

    Cravo WITH net 20 0.1847 B

    Cravo WITHOUT net 20 0.1761 B

    Means that do not share a letter are

    significantly different.

    0.05

    0.1

    0.15

    0.2

    0.25

    0.3

    Cit

    ric

    aci

    d (

    pe

    rce

    nta

    ge

    )

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade houseTIT

    RATABLE A

    CID

    ITY (% of citric acid)

    TIT

    RATABLE A

    CID

    ITY (% of citric acid)

    Acidity content in yellow sweet peppers showed no significant changes during postharvest storage, although there were differences among treatments. Fruits grown in shade house conditions showed higher values in citric acid content, being statistically different although it had been only 0.04% .

    Values were remained between 0.17 and 0.21% among treatments.

    0

    0.05

    0 3 7 10 15

    Days at 20°C

  • TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLID

    S (

    TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLID

    S (°°Brix)

    Brix)

    General Linear Model:

    °Brix versus Treatments

    Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and

    95.0% Confidence

    Treatment N Mean Grouping

    Shade house 20 8.121 A

    Cravo WITH net 20 7.203 B

    Cravo WITHOUT net 20 7.170 B

    Means that do not share a letter are

    significantly different.

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    Tota

    l so

    lub

    le s

    oli

    ds

    (°B

    rix

    )

    Cravo WITH net Cravo WITHOUT net Shade house

    TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLID

    S (

    TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLID

    S (

    Soluble solids content (°Brix), showed differences among treatments. Highest values were for fruit grown in shade house, being generally 13% sweeter than fruit grown in Cravo WITHOUT anti-insect net, perhaps by an accumulation of sugar due to increased dehydration of fruits in postharvest storage.

    0

    2

    0 3 7 10 15

    Days at 20°C

  • � Sweet peppers grown in Cravo greenhouses with and without anti-insect net, had statistically greater fruit thickness wall (13%-21%) than those grown in shade

    house conditions.

    � After 15 days of postharvest storage, cumulative weight loss associated with fruit dehydration was 30-35% higher in sweet peppers grown in shade house versus

    Cravo greenhouse without and with anti-insect net respectively.

    � Sweet pepper fruits grown in Cravo greenhouses with and without anti-insect net were significantly 40% firmer than those fruits grown in shade house.

    CONCLUTIO

    NS. S

    weet peppers

    CONCLUTIO

    NS. S

    weet peppers

    � The characteristic yellow color of the fruit became more orange during postharvest (lower values of ° Hue) in sweet peppers grown in shade house

    conditions being different to the fruits cultivated in Cravo greenhouse with or without anti-insect net.

    � Greater color intensity (chrome) and brightness was obtained in fruits grown in Cravo greenhouses with anti-insect net protection.

    � Titratable acidity content was increased and consequently lower pH value was observed in fruits grown in shade house conditions as highest ° Brix content.

    CONCLUTIO

    NS. S

    weet peppers

    CONCLUTIO

    NS. S

    weet peppers

  • PHOTOGRAPHS OF FRUIT COLOR

    CHANGE DURING POSTARVEST ROOM

    STORAGESTORAGE

    (same fruits)

  • INIT

    IAL / H

    ARVEST D

    AY (DAY 0 AT 20

    INIT

    IAL / H

    ARVEST D

    AY (DAY 0 AT 20 °°C)

    C)

    CRAVO with net0 DAYS AT 20°C

    CRAVO without net0 DAYS AT 20°C

    INIT

    IAL / H

    ARVEST D

    AY (DAY 0 AT 20

    INIT

    IAL / H

    ARVEST D

    AY (DAY 0 AT 20

    Shade house0 DAYS AT 20°C

  • 3 D

    AYS AT 20

    3 D

    AYS AT 20 °°CC

    CRAVO with net3 DAYS AT 20°C

    CRAVO without net3 DAYS AT 20°C

    3 D

    AYS AT 20

    3 D

    AYS AT 20

    Shade house3 DAYS AT 20°C

  • 7 D

    AYS AT 20

    7 D

    AYS AT 20 °°CC

    CRAVO with net7 DAYS AT 20°C

    CRAVO without net7 DAYS AT 20°C

    7 D

    AYS AT 20

    7 D

    AYS AT 20

    Shade house7 DAYS AT 20°C

  • 10 D

    AYS AT 20

    10 D

    AYS AT 20 °°CC

    CRAVO with net10 DAYS AT 20°C

    CRAVO without net10 DAYS AT 20°C

    10 D

    AYS AT 20

    10 D

    AYS AT 20

    Shade house10 DAYS AT 20°C

  • 15 D

    AYS AT 20

    15 D

    AYS AT 20 °°CC

    CRAVO without net

    Shade house

    15 D

    AYS AT 20

    15 D

    AYS AT 20

    CRAVO with net

    15 DAYS AT 20°C