4.7 Article

MA storage of Cavendish bananas using silicone membrane and diffusion channel systems

期刊

POSTHARVEST BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 309-317

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.10.003

关键词

banana; diffusion channel; modified atmosphere; Musa sp; postharvest; silicone membrane

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was conducted to evaluate the potential of the passive silicone membrane and diffusion channel systems to preserve the quality and extend the shelf-life of bananas. Cavendish bananas were stored for 42 days at 15 degrees C under MA conditions using silicone membrane and diffusion channel systems. The respiration rate under MA at 15 degrees C was estimated as 20% or 60% less, or 20% greater than that measured in regular atmosphere at the same temperature. Three different silicone membrane areas (50.29, 98.56 and 158.43 cm(2)) and three different diffusion channel lengths (4, 7 and 10 cm) were tested. Results showed that the estimation of a 60% reduction in respiration rate was most accurate. The smallest area of silicone membrane achieved gas levels of 3.5% CO2/3% O-2 in about 10 days while the shortest diffusion channel achieved 5% CO2/3% O-2, in 12-16 days. Fruit in these atmospheres remained unripe for 42 days, had harvest-fresh appearance, good colour, minimum mould and excellent marketability compared with controls and fruit stored in different gas compositions. In general, the silicone membrane system was found to be superior; it achieved stability more quickly than the diffusion channel system, maintained more stable gas levels throughout storage and had better physiological and sensory ratings. The diffusion channel system had higher CO2 levels that may have resulted in peel discoloration in some chambers and may have affected other quality attributes. The silicone membrane system offers an inexpensive and easy to use alternative to the traditional methods used for MA storage of bananas. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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