4.7 Article

Effects of Forced-Air Precooling on Postharvest Physiological and Storage Quality of Winged Beans

期刊

HORTICULTURAE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae9010045

关键词

1; 2 precooling time; respiration rate; decay rate; storage life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, top-suction forced-air precooling (FC) was used to rapidly remove field heat from winged bean pods, and its effects on pod storage quality and shelf life were evaluated. The results showed that FC was significantly faster than room cooling (RC) in terms of precooling time and had a lower weight loss rate. FC also delayed decay and significantly extended the shelf life of winged bean pods compared to RC. In conclusion, FC is an effective method for rapid postharvest field heat removal and maintenance of winged bean storage quality.
Winged beans accumulate abundant field heat following harvest, and their shelf life is shortened if precooling is not performed promptly. In the present study, top-suction forced-air precooling (FC) was employed to rapidly remove field heat from pods, and its effects on winged bean pod storage quality and shelf life were assessed. After postharvest FC to remove field heat from winged bean pods, the mean 1/2 precooling time was 5.8 min and 7/8 precooling time was 14.7 min, which was 9.6 times and 11.7 times faster than room cooling (RC), respectively. Moreover, after FC was applied to remove field heat, the weight loss rate at 7/8 precooling time was 0.92%, significantly lower than that after RC was applied (1.98%). FC could delay decay, and the decay rate was only 18% on day 14 storage, which was lower than 52% of RC. During 12 degrees C and 85% relative humidity (RH) storage, the shelf life of winged bean pods in the FC group was 14.8 days, which was significantly longer than that of the pods in the RC group (10.6 days). In conclusion, FC is an effective precooling method to rapidly remove field heat postharvest and maintain the storage quality of winged beans.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据