4.4 Article

Use of Combinations of Commercially Relevant O2 and CO2 Partial Pressures to Evaluate the Sensitivity of Nine Highbush Blueberry Fruit Cultivars to Controlled Atmospheres

期刊

HORTSCIENCE
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 74-79

出版社

AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.46.1.74

关键词

Vaccinium colymbosum; quality; decay; firmness; controlled atmosphere; discoloration

资金

  1. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
  2. University of Jordan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We tested the impact of storage atmospheres in which the CO2 and O-2 percentages sum to 21% on highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) fruit condition and quality. The CO2 and O-2 combinations, in percent composition, were 19%/2%, 18%/3%, 16.5%14.5%, 15%/6%, 13.5%/7.5%, 12%19%, 6%/15%, and 0%121% for CO2/O-2, respectively. Nine blueberry cultivars were evaluated (Duke, Toro, Brigitta, Ozarkblue, Nelson, Liberty, Elliott, Legacy, and Jersey) after 8 weeks of controlled atmosphere (CA) storage at 0 degrees C. Surface mold, berry decay, skin reddening (associated with fruit pulp browning), fruit firmness, pulp discoloration, and the content of ethanol and acetaldehyde were assessed. Fruit firmness, skin reddening, and decay declined and the proportion of fruit with severe internal discoloration tended to increase as CO2 concentrations increased. Ethanol and acetaldehyde accumulation was minimal, indicating fermentation was not induced by the atmospheric conditions applied. Cultivar effects were far more pronounced than atmosphere effects. Some cultivars such as Duke, Toro, Brigitta, Liberty, and Legacy appear to be well suited to extended CA storage, whereas other cultivars such as Elliott stored moderately well, and Ozarkblue, Nelson, and Jersey stored poorly. The data indicate that responses to high levels of CO2, while O-2 is maintained at its maximum level practicable, can, in a cultivar-dependent manner, include significant negative effects on quality while achieving the desired suppression of decay.

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

4.4
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