Search Results

You are looking at 31 - 40 of 52 items for :

  • "fruit weight loss" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Full access

William Pelletier, Jeffrey K. Brecht, Maria Cecilia do Nascimento Nunes, and Jean-Pierre Émond

have contributed to the low fruit weight loss observed ( Table 4 ). In fact, weight loss of strawberry upon arrival at the DC in Florida (0.5% to 4.4%) was below the maximum 6% weight loss suggested by Robinson et al. (1975) as the limit before

Free access

Todd C. Einhorn, Yan Wang, and Janet Turner

rate, surface pitting (both induced and baseline levels), fruit weight loss (WL), SB, and titratable acidity (TA). All evaluations were made after 2 and 4 weeks of postharvest storage at 0 °C in commercial zip-lock polyethylene bags (≈1 kg of fruit

Full access

Andrew J. Macnish, Malkeet S. Padda, Francine Pupin, Pavlos I. Tsouvaltzis, Angelos I. Deltsidis, Charles A. Sims, Jeffrey K. Brecht, and Elizabeth J. Mitcham

fruit at the beginning and end of six separate refrigerated truck shipments from Watsonville, CA to Jacksonville, FL (shipments 1, 2, 3, 5) or Atlanta, GA (shipments 4, 6). Noncovered pallets acted as the control. Fruit weight loss. Fruit in the

Free access

Bruno Casamali, Jeffrey G. Williamson, Alisson P. Kovaleski, Steven A. Sargent, and Rebecca L. Darnell

storage, berries from mechanical harvested had greater percentage of soft fruit than hand-harvested berries for both cultivars ( Table 5 ). No decay was observed (data not shown). Fruit weight loss was greater at 14 d of storage (ranging from 2.2% to 2

Free access

Xiuxiu Sun, Elizabeth Baldwin, Mark Ritenour, Robert Hagenmaier, and Jinhe Bai

circular 19-mm-diameter aperture was attached to the reflectometer and GU was measured at 60° ( Bai et al., 2003b ). Ten measurements were made per test sheet/fruit. Weight loss. The waxed fruit was weighed at the beginning and during storage at different

Free access

Marisa M. Wall and Shakil A. Khan

. Overall fruit weight loss was low (0.8% to 1.5%), but dragon fruit treated with 600 or 800 Gy radiation lost slightly more weight than control fruit after 12 d storage at 10 °C ( Fig. 1B ). In comparison, Nerd et al. (1999) reported water loss of 4

Open access

Elena E. Lon Kan, Steven A. Sargent, Daniel J. Cantliffe, Adrian D. Berry, and Nicole L. Shaw

less susceptible to developing CI symptoms during storage than immature fruit; ripe fruit are more resistant to moisture loss due to a well-developed cuticle. Fruit weight loss during storage was unaffected by harvest maturity or storage temperature

Free access

Clara Pelayo-Zaldívar, Jameleddine Ben Abda, Susan E. Ebeler, and Adel A. Kader

%, and the fruit weight loss was less than 1% in every jar. Three 20-berry samples at harvest and 20 fruits from each jar after 3 and 6 d of storage at 5 °C were randomly selected and analyzed for color and firmness. Same fruits were then cut in small

Full access

Jorge A. Osuna-Garcia, Jeffrey K. Brecht, Donald J. Huber, and Yolanda Nolasco-Gonzalez

simulation, 21 DR + 7 Amb = 21 d refrigeration + 7 d market simulation. Gaseous 1-MCP may reduce or have no effect on fruit weight loss according to the species. In mango, previous research has shown that gaseous 1-MCP did not affect weight loss in ‘Kent

Free access

Winston Elibox, Charles P. Meynard, and Pathmanathan Umaharan

were already not marketable (mean of 12 DAH) or processable (mean of 13 DAH). Fruit fresh weight showed a significant negative correlation with fruit weight loss slope in this study, suggesting that fruits that are heavier at harvest have lower water