Next Article in Journal
A Comparison of the Effects of Phycocyanin, γ-Aminobutyric Acid, Glycine Betaine, and Mycorrhizal Biostimulants of Non-Stressed Agrostis stolonifera
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Potassium and KUP/KT/HAK Transporters in Regulating Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) Fruit Development
Previous Article in Journal
Nutritional Composition, Volatile Profiles, and Biological Evaluation of Honeys from Melipona interrupta and Melipona seminigra from Amazonas State, Brazil
Previous Article in Special Issue
Identification and Expression Analysis of Polyphenol Oxidase Gene Family Members in Response to Wound Stress in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/plants14142108
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Whole-Fruit Storage Conditions on the Quality of Minimally Processed Pears

by
Vanessa Cuozzo
,
Eva Torres
,
Yanina Pariani
and
Ana Cecilia Silveira
*
Poscosecha de Frutas y Hortalizas, Dpto. de Producción Vegetal, Facultad de Agronomía, Udelar. Avda. Garzón 780, Montevideo CP 12900, Uruguay
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(14), 2108; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142108
Submission received: 5 June 2025 / Revised: 3 July 2025 / Accepted: 4 July 2025 / Published: 9 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Postharvest Quality and Physiology of Vegetables and Fruits)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The shelf life of minimally processed fresh (MPF) pears is affected by raw material characteristics and production factors. This study evaluated the effect of raw material storage (3 months in regular atmosphere [RA], 3 and 6 months in controlled atmosphere [CA]) on the organoleptic and functional quality of MPF pears packaged in polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) for 0, 10, and 15 days at 0 °C. Wedges from 3-month CA showed the lowest respiratory activity (about 8.31 mg CO2 kg−1 h−1), and those from 6-mounth CA maintained higher firmness after 15 days. Lightness decreased during storage, less so in harvest samples, which also showed less browning. Nevertheless, polyphenol oxidase (PPO) activity increased fivefold after 15 days. Total polyphenol content decreased by about 50% during storage. Wedges in PP packaging exhibited higher total antioxidant capacity (TAC) measured by DPPH than those in LDPE (15.55 and 13.77 mg EAA 100 g−1 FW, respectively). In both, the contents were reduced after 15 days (15–38%). No differences in TAC were observed in the FRAP assay, where values remained unchanged. Significant correlations between PPO activity, TAC, and color variables suggest ongoing oxidative processes. In contrast to the effect of raw material storage, the type of packaging did not significantly affect any of the measured variables.

1. Introduction

Minimally processed fresh (MPF) products have gained popularity due to their convenience and ready-to-eat format. However, the processing steps involved, such as peeling, cutting, washing, and sanitizing, cause mechanical stress and tissue damage, which accelerate respiration, enhance enzymatic activity, and promote oxidative degradation, leading to a significantly shorter shelf life compared to whole produce [1].
Pears (Pyrus communis L.) are widely consumed for their organoleptic and nutritional qualities and are suitable for minimally processing. Nevertheless, in MPF pears, two main challenges limit the preservation of quality, which are flesh softening and enzymatic browning, both of which are closely linked to tissue disruption and oxidative reactions [2]. Flesh softening in MPF products, like in ripening, is promoted by ethylene. This hormone increases considerably in MPF fruit, mainly because it is linked to stress processes. Therefore, the mechanical stress caused by processing itself triggers an increase in its biosynthesis. Ethylene induces the expression of genes encoding hydrolytic enzymes, such as polygalacturonase, pectin methyl esterases, cellulase, and pectinase, which degrade cell walls. Additionally, other processes, such as water loss, may reduce turgor pressure, further affecting firmness [3,4,5]. Enzymatic browning is another major contributor to quality loss in MPF fruit. This phenomenon primarily occurs when the enzymes polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and peroxidase (POD) come into contact with phenolic compounds, catalyzing their oxidation into o-quinones, which subsequently polymerize to form brown pigments known as melanins [6,7,8]. Under normal conditions, enzymes and their substrates are compartmentalized within different cellular structures. For instance, PPO is located in the thylakoids of chloroplasts, whereas phenolic compounds are stored in the vacuoles. However, during minimal processing, this compartmentalization is disrupted, leading to enzymatic browning reactions. A similar situation can occur in whole fruit during advanced ripening or senescence due to the loss of membrane integrity and selective permeability [9]. As a result, enzymatic browning is triggered, which not only affects the visual appearance of the product but also compromises its nutritional and functional quality. This decline is mainly due to the loss of antioxidant phenolic compounds, which are no longer available to neutralize reactive oxygen species (ROS), thus reducing the overall antioxidant capacity of the product [10,11].
Different aspects, including genotype, fruit ripeness, pre- and postharvest treatments, and storage conditions of raw materials, can influence MPF quality [12,13,14]. These factors modulate the physiological status of the fruit—such as antioxidant levels and enzymatic activity—which in turn affect its ability to tolerate wounding stress. Understanding their impact on product quality is crucial for maintaining quality and extending its shelf life, particularly since consumers expect consistent quality throughout the year. Among these factors, one of the most relevant is adjusting the storage conditions of the raw materials, especially since their production is, in most cases, seasonal. Additionally, the storage conditions of the raw materials used in MPF production can significantly impact the organoleptic and functional quality of the final product. Several studies have shown that the storage conditions of whole pear fruit—such as temperature, oxygen (O2) levels, and storage duration—can significantly influence physiological parameters such as respiration rate and ripening behavior, as well as antioxidant properties and overall quality. In this sense, cold storage—particularly under controlled atmosphere (CA) conditions—can effectively delay ripening, reduce respiration rate, and preserve antioxidant compounds, thereby helping to maintain product quality during storage [15,16,17]. However, extended storage may also lead to partial senescence or metabolic downregulation, potentially reducing the fruit’s responsiveness to subsequent processing. Furthermore, MPF products are often stored under modified atmosphere (MA) conditions. MA involves adjusting the gas composition—mainly O2, CO2, and N2—to reduce enzymatic activity and microbial growth [18,19]. Its effectiveness depends on selecting suitable packaging materials with appropriate gas permeability (mainly O2 and water vapor) to maintain internal conditions favorable for preserving product quality. Excess or insufficient gas exchange may accelerate deterioration or fail to adequately control enzymatic browning [15,16].
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the preservation conditions (including storage duration and atmosphere) of the raw material, as well as packaging type and refrigerated storage time, on the physicochemical, enzymatic, functional, and microbiological quality of fresh-cut pears.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Respiration Rate

The respiration of the wedges showed a higher initial value than that measured on day 2, regardless of the origin of the raw material (Figure 1). This behavior has been widely reported in MPF products and is explained by the stress experienced by plant tissues due to the different operations they undergo during processing [20].
The respiration patterns over time in wedges from harvested raw material and those preserved for 3 and 6 months in CA were very similar, showing an increase between days 10 and 15 of refrigerated storage.
The most noticeable differences during storage were observed between days 1 and 5, where pieces from pears stored in regular atmosphere (RA) exhibited a respiratory rate that was 10 to 58% higher than that of pears from the other storage conditions. Until day 7, the respiratory rate of wedges made from 3 months CA pears remained considerably lower than that of the other treatments. However, between days 10 and 15, their behavior was practically indistinguishable from that of 3-month RA pears. The respiratory activity of MPF pears from harvested fruit and from 6-month CA storage was 58 to 75% higher, with no notable differences between them.
The measured respiratory rate was similar to that the reported by other authors. Gorny et al. [21] mentioned that the respiratory rate of MPF William’s pears during the first 3 days of storage at 0 °C ranged between 10.78 and 19.02 mg CO2 kg−1 h−1, which means the values measured in this study are close to the lower limit of that range. Additionally, Mattheis [15] found that pears stored under CA conditions had a significantly lower respiration rate, which is consistent with the results observed in this study.

2.2. Atmosphere Composition

After 15 days of wedge storage, O2 concentrations reached 15.77% and 16.5% in polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) packages, respectively. CO2 levels at the end of the storage period ranged from 6.17% to 8.47% in PP and from 3.9% to 5.6% in LDPE. The recommended storage conditions for MPF pears typically range between 0.5% and 2.5% O2 and 2% to 10% CO2, concentrations known to delay enzymatic browning and microbial growth, thereby preserving product quality [22]. Previous studies have identified atmospheres with high CO2 levels, such as 2% O2 + 10% CO2, as optimal for preserving Conference MPF pears at 4°C for up to 12 days [23]. Similarly, Wang et al. [24] reported that 10% CO2 combined with 11% O2 significantly reduced the respiration rate of MPF pears, attributed to changes in enzyme activity and expression related to energy metabolism. Oguz-Korkut et al. [25] observed a 3- to 4-fold reduction in the respiration rate of Deveci MPF pears stored at 4°C under 4% O2 and 5% CO2 for 8 days.
Therefore, while the CO2 concentrations observed in this study fell within a range suitable for respiration control, the elevated O2 levels highlight a key limitation of the selected packaging materials, ultimately rendering them unsuitable for maintaining optimal storage conditions.

2.3. Flesh Firmness

The storage conditions of the raw material and the duration of MPF storage significantly affected wedge firmness (Figure 2). In contrast, no significant differences were observed between packaging materials. Firmness was best preserved in samples prepared from fruit previously stored under CA conditions, which allowed for retention of this attribute for up to 6 months.
Wedges prepared from raw material stored in CA for 6 months were 15–30% firmer during the first 10 days of MPF storage. After 15 days, the differences became even more pronounced, ranging from 15% to 55%. As demonstrated in pears and other fruits, CA storage is a well-established technology for preserving firmness and overall quality over extended storage periods [21,26]. No substantial differences were observed among the remaining raw material storage treatments during the first 10 days. However, by day 15, wedges prepared from freshly harvested raw material showed a marked reduction in firmness, followed by those made from raw material stored in RA for 3 months. This finding is consistent with previous studies indicating that RA storage typically results in more rapid softening compared to CA storage [26,27].
Over time, firmness was generally maintained across treatments during the 15-day MPF storage period, except for wedges derived from freshly harvested raw material. This observation supports findings from recent studies showing that raw material storage conditions play a key role in the texture retention of minimally processed fruits [28].

2.4. Color

The lightness (L*) of pear wedges varied between treatments at each analysis time, as shown in Table 1. Up to 10 days of storage at 5 °C, the higher L* value corresponded to wedges from freshly harvested fruit and from fruit stored in CA for 3 and 6 months. However, after 15 days, wedges from freshly harvested fruit showed the lowest L*. This trend was consistent across both packaging materials. Only wedges from freshly harvested fruit exhibited significant changes in L* over time, with a marked decrease after 15 days. In the other treatments, storage time had no relevant effect on the L* parameter. These findings are in line with those of Akbari et al. [29], who reported similar behavior in fresh-cut pear cv. Shahmive.
At the beginning of storage, the hue or color tone (h*ab) values of wedges processed immediately after harvest ranged from 90 to 94, indicating a greenish-yellow hue typical of less ripe fruit. In contrast, wedges made from fruit previously stored in CA conditions showed a more yellow coloration. During storage, h*ab values in wedges from freshly harvested fruit remained stable, while those from the other treatments progressively decreased, shifting toward more orange (80–84) and reddish tones (below 75). The emergence of orange and reddish hues after 5 days is associated with enzymatic browning processes.
Overall, significantly higher chroma or saturation (C*) values were observed in wedges made from raw material stored in CA conditions compared to those processed immediately after harvested or preserved in RA. This difference was particularly pronounced in wedges stored for 3 months in CA conditions. In contrast, the samples processed at harvest exhibited the lowest values across all evaluated moment, indicating lower color intensity from the outset. The reduced saturation seen in the harvest samples may be attributed to their greater susceptibility to oxidative and degradative processes, which negatively affect color. Additionally, packaging in PP was found to preserve color better than packaging in LDPE (Figure 3). Similarly, Sathya et al. [30] reported reductions in the L* and h*ab values in pears, both coated and uncoated, during 15 days of storage at 4 °C. According to their findings, color changes from yellow to brown occurred within one day in the control samples and within three days in the coated ones.
Color differences, assessed through ΔE revealed that wedges from freshly harvested fruit underwent minimal color change after 5 days but exhibited highly noticeable differences by day 15 (10.25 and 16.01 for PP and LDPE packaging, respectively). In wedges from fruit stored for 3 months in a regular atmosphere (RA), the ΔE values remained around 3. Wedges from 3 months CA storage showed slightly higher differences (~3.5). The smallest color changes were found in wedges from fruit stored in CA for 6 months, with ΔE values between 1.5 and 2.96—indicating barely perceptible changes to consumers [31].
These results are in line with those of Allegra et al. [32], who reported an increase in BI over time in MPF Coscia and Abate Fetel pears, with the highest values observed after 12 days at 4 °C, especially in control samples. The decrease in L* and the shift toward more orange and reddish hues in the pears have been linked to enzymatic browning processes, which are often associated with PPO activity and the degradation of TP. These factors may contribute to the observed color changes [33,34]. In fact, in the present study, PPO activity sharply increased after 10–15 days of storage, especially in wedges processed from freshly harvested fruit, which also exhibited the most pronounced reduction in the L* and h*ab values. The accumulation of oxidative stress during cold storage, combined with the higher O2 permeability of the packaging materials—particularly LDPE—likely enhanced enzyme activation and pigment oxidation. Moreover, these enzymatic reactions are favored by membrane deterioration, a typical outcome of chilling stress or senescence processes in minimally processed fruit [35]. Interestingly, despite minimal processing causing immediate tissue disruption and contact between PPO and existing phenolic substrates, significant browning was not observed until approximately 12 days of storage. This delayed onset suggests that browning is not solely dependent on PPO activity. According to Cao et al. [36], tissue wounding upregulates phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) at transcriptional and enzymatic levels, enhancing de novo phenolic biosynthesis. This increased phenolic substrate availability over time fuels PPO-mediated oxidation, explaining the progressive browning observed. Therefore, the visual deterioration in our samples may result from the synergistic effect of increased PPO activity, reduced antioxidant defenses, and PAL-induced accumulation of phenolic compounds during storage.

2.5. Polyphenol Oxidase Activity

Given its role in browning, PPO activity was monitored throughout refrigerated storage to better understand the enzymatic response in pear wedges derived from different raw material origins. Enzyme activity measured in wedges stored in PP packaging showed no significant differences between treatments during the first 10 days (Figure 4A). However, by day 15, the highest activity was observed in wedges from freshly harvested fruit (8.36 U g−1), while the lowest values were recorded in those from fruit stored for 3 months under RA and CA conditions (3.24 and 3.73 U g−1, respectively). After 15 days, enzyme activity in wedges processed immediately after harvest was five times higher than at the beginning. Wedges preserved in LDPE exhibited a similar trend, with differences due to raw material origin becoming evident after 15 days (Figure 4B). In this case, wedges made from freshly harvested pears showed the highest PPO activity, followed by those stored for 3 months in CA. Over time, enzyme activity increased in wedges from freshly harvested pears, particularly after 10 days at 5 °C. Although the overall trends were comparable between the packaging materials, PPO activity levels tended to be slightly higher in LDPE than in PP, suggesting a potential influence of packaging permeability on oxidative enzymatic response.
The fruit’s physiological condition at the time of minimal processing influenced its enzymatic response. In freshly harvested fruit, wounding stress likely triggered a strong oxidative response, rapidly inducing PPO activity. In contrast, fruit that underwent extended cold storage—particularly under CA conditions—may have experienced metabolic adaptation or progressed into advanced stages of senescence. These physiological changes are known to reduce the tissue’s ability to activate defense mechanisms in response to stress [9,37]. Aged tissues often exhibit attenuated wound-induced phenylpropanoid biosynthesis and enzyme activity, which is associated with factors such as impaired signal transduction. Additionally, the availability of O2, which varies depending on the packaging material, may also influence PPO activity. Since PPO requires molecular O2 to carry out its catalytic activity, the higher permeability of LDPE could have favored the enzyme’s action compared to PP. Therefore, the observed patterns in PPO activity may result from the combined effect of tissue responsiveness, O2 availability, and the presence of phenolic substrates.
No studies were found that specifically address the effect of raw material storage condition on PPO activity in MPF. However, several works have evaluated the evolution of PPO activity during storage MPF fruit. In most of these studies, PPO activity followed patterns similar to those observed in wedges made from freshly harvested pears. For instance, Akbari et al. [29] reported that PPO activity increased over time in fresh-cut pear cv. Shahmiv. In untreated samples (without antioxidant treatments), PPO activity reached 123.2% of the initial value after 7 days of storage. Similarly, Ali et al. [38] noted that enzymatic browning in fresh-cut apples was consistently accompanied by increased activity of PPO and POD enzymes, which catalyze the conversion of phenolic compounds to quinones. Chen et al. [17], investigating the effect of flavonoids on browning control in fresh-cut Yuluxiang pear, observed that PPO activity increased in both untreated control samples and in those treated with 0.5 mg mL−1 flavonoids during the first four days of storage at 4 °C, before subsequently decreasing.

2.6. Total Polyphenol Contents and Antioxidant Activity

The storage conditions of the raw material influenced the total polyphenol content (TP). In both packaging types, wedges made from freshly harvested fruit initially showed TP values between 15% and 29% lower than those measured in wedges from other treatments (Figure 5A,B). These initial differences suggest that pre-processing storage can significantly affect phenolic compound levels. Generally, TP tends to decrease during storage, although the extent of this reduction varies depending on the specific storage parameters applied; for instance, in a study, pear cv. Patharnakh was stored at 0–1 °C under RA for 70 days, and a linear decrease was observed, with the TP content reduced to approximately half its initial level by the end of the storage period [39]. By contrast, CA storage tends to better preserve TP, mainly due to lower oxidative activity under reduced O2 conditions. CA is widely employed to extend shelf life and mitigate physiological disorders [25,28]. Therefore, it was expected that raw material stored under CA conditions (for 3 and 6 months) would retain higher TP levels—or at least levels comparable to those in pears harvested at maturity or stored for shorter durations under RA. Over time, the TP values declined across all treatments. After 5 days, and contrary to the initial findings, wedges from freshly harvested pears exhibited the highest TP retention, with losses ranging from 4% to 7%. In contrast, reductions in other treatments ranged from 30% to 60%. Between days 10 and 15, the TP content remained relatively stable, with the highest levels observed in wedges prepared from fruit stored for 3 and 6 months under CA. In our study, TPC decreased progressively during storage, reaching approximately 50% reduction after 15 days, regardless of treatment. This trend is consistent with previous reports on MPF products. For instance, Men et al. [40] found an almost 50 percent reduction in fresh-cut pear cv. Dangshansu without antioxidant treatment. Similar decreases were observed in pineapple slices and carambola under refrigerated storage, although the extent of reduction varied with the type of treatment applied [27,41].
No substantial differences were observed between packaging materials, and no significant effect of the selected plastics on polyphenol preservation was detected, likely due to their limited ability to regulate internal gas composition, particularly O2 levels. The observed changes in TP content may be associated with enzymatic browning processes involving PPO activity and color degradation. These potential relationships will be further examined in the correlation analysis section.
Total antioxidant capacity (TAC) measured by DPPH varied depending on the raw material preservation treatment, storage time of the MPF, and packaging material (Figure 6). Wedges stored in PP packaging exhibited higher TAC values than those in LDPE, with averages of 15.55 and 13.77 mg EAA 100 g−1 FW, respectively. At the beginning of storage, wedges made from freshly harvested fruit and packed in PP showed TAC values 23–41% higher than those from other treatments (Figure 6A). These values remained nearly unchanged until day 5, followed by a gradual decline. After 15 days, wedges from fruit stored for 6 months under CA showed a 15% decrease in TAC compared to day 10, and a 38% reduction relative to their initial values. For the remaining treatments, TAC values did not differ significantly between days 10 and 15. In LDPE-packaged wedges, the highest TAC was found in those made from pears stored for 3 months under RA, with values 13–50% higher than the other treatments’ (Figure 6B). A decline in TAC was observed after 5 days of storage, although the levels remained relatively stable up to day 15. Across all evaluation times, wedges from fruit stored for 6 months under CA consistently exhibited TAC values 40.50% lower than those from other treatments.
When TAC was assessed using FRAP, the type of packaging material had no significant influence. Wedges from freshly harvested fruit showed values between 27% and 50% lower than those from other treatments (Figure 7). In most cases, the highest values were observed in wedges prepared from fruit stored for 3 months under RA or CA. Throughout storage, TAC remained relatively stable during the first 5 days in most treatments, followed by a reduction of 15% to 30% by day 10. These values remained largely unchanged through to day 15. By the end of storage, wedges from freshly harvested fruit and those stored for 6 months under CA exhibited TAC levels 35–45% lower than the other treatments, with no significant differences between them.
The observed reduction in TAC during refrigerated storage may be related to oxidative processes triggered by mechanical stress and increased metabolic activity in MPF pears. Processing steps such as peeling and cutting are known to promote ROS production, which, in turn, contributes to the degradation of polyphenols and vitamin C—key contributors to antioxidant capacity [42].
The TAC decline observed in this study aligns with such findings, particularly in samples made from fruit stored under prolonged CA or RA. A similar trend was also reported by Sharma and Rao [43] in MPF Asian pears. In their study, TAC (assessed by DPPH) decreased after 2 days of storage at 4 °C and remained stable thereafter in most treatments. The authors also reported a positive correlation between TAC and polyphenol content, highlighting the interconnected behavior of these antioxidant components.

2.7. Microbiological Growth

The type of packaging used did not significantly influence the growth of any of the microbial groups evaluated. As expected, the microbial levels were affected by the storage time of the MPF product. In the case of Enterobacteriaceae, the counts remained below 1 log CFU g−1 up to day 10. After that, the levels increased to 1.1 log CFU g−1 and reached 1.6 log CFU g−1 by day 15. For mesophilic aerobes, a significant increase was observed at 10 and 15 days of storage, particularly in wedges prepared from freshly harvested fruit and from fruit stored for 6 months under CA (average values of 2.24 and 2.85 log CFU g−1, respectively). Regarding psychotropic microorganisms, the most pronounced growth was recorded at the end of storage, with average counts of 1.78, 3.04, and 5.25 log CFU g−1 in wedges prepared from fruit stored for 3 m under RA, 3 m under CA, and 6 m under CA, respectively. Yeast and mold counts remained below 1 log CFU g−1 throughout the 15-day storage period.
In general, MPF fruits, due to their compositional characteristics—particularly their high organic acid content—do not exhibit elevated microbial growth, as observed in other substrates, such as vegetables. In this regard, Soliva-Fortuny et al. [44] noted that the high organic acid content in fruits contributes to a low pH, which acts as a natural barrier to microbial proliferation. However, this protection is susceptible to biochemical changes that occur during the storage of freshly cut fruit, which could alter the product’s pH. In contrast to our results, Siddiq et al. [45] reported substantially higher microbial levels in MPF D’Anjou pears stored at 4 °C for 21 days, attributing this outcome to the greater effectiveness of MAP conditions in reducing microbial growth. In our study, the limited atmospheric modification achieved with PP and LDPE films likely did not contribute significantly to microbial control. Instead, the low microbial growth observed may be more closely related to the characteristics of the raw material and proper handling, which may have helped maintain microbial stability despite the absence of effective MAP.

2.8. Correlation Analysis of Biochemical, Physical, and Color Parameters

The correlations identified between PPO activity, CAT, and color variables indicate that, as expected, oxidative processes are involved in the color changes observed during the storage of MPF pears (Figure 8).
PPO showed positive correlations with C* (r = 0.4116; p = 0.0003), b* (r = 0.4247; p = 0.0002), and ΔE (r = 0.3092; p = 0.0082), suggesting that its activity is associated with increased color saturation and greater total deviation from the initial color, likely because of enzymatic browning. TAC, meanwhile, exhibited significant correlations with multiple color parameters, although with differing trends depending on the method used. Using the FRAP method, a negative correlation was found with the L* parameter (r = −0.3575; p = 0.002) and hab* (r = −0.4693; p < 0.0001), along with a positive correlation with a* (r = 0.3568; p = 0.0021), indicating that reduced antioxidant capacity is linked to product darkening and a shift toward reddish tones. However, in both cases, lower antioxidant capacity was associated with visible color changes attributed to oxidative processes. DPPH analysis consistently showed negative correlations with L*, C*, a*, and b* (r values between −0.30 and −0.44), and a positive correlation with hab* (r = 0.3520; p = 0.0024). These results suggest that the decline in antioxidant capacity is associated with product darkening and a reddish shift due to enzymatic browning involving phenolic compounds.
In addition, fruit firmness showed a significant positive correlation with L* (r = 0.4715; p < 0.0001), indicating that firmer fruits tended to be lighter in color. This finding suggests that firmness loss, characteristic of softening during storage, is also associated with tissue darkening. In other words, the deterioration process entails structural and compositional degradation, affecting the product’s texture, composition, and visual appearance.
Although Silva and Sulaiman [46] reported that the TP content in pear fruit is relevant to enzymatic browning, no significant correlations were found between TP and any of the variables analyzed in our study. Ercoli et al. [47] reported similar results, with a positive correlation between PPO and ΔE, suggesting that this enzyme is a major contributor to browning in apple pulp. Although this may seem self-evident, PPO is not always associated with browning [48]. For instance, in studies on MPF potatoes, browning was found to be unrelated to PPO activity or phenolic content [49].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Raw Material

The experiment was conducted using William’s pears manually harvested at commercial maturity, according to the producer’s criteria, from a commercial orchard located in the locality of Melilla (34°46′59″ S, 56°20′38″ W), Montevideo Department, Uruguay. Fruits were selected based on uniformity of size and absence of visible defects.
After harvest, the pears were stored under controlled atmosphere (CA; 0–1 °C, 97% RH, 3% CO2 and 3% O2) and regular atmosphere (RA; 0–1 °C, 97% RH) conditions for 0 (harvest), 3, and 6 months.
The day before processing, the fruits were washed with tap water at room temperature, drained for 5 min, and stored at 0 °C and 95% RH.

3.2. Minimally Processed

Fruits showing any defects, such as bruises, wounds, or physiological disorders, were discarded. Processing was performed in a clean, sanitized processing room maintained at 7 °C. The fruits were first peeled using a sharp stainless-steel knife and then cut into eight wedges with a domestic fruit cutter.
Immediately after cutting, the pear wedges were placed in a container with tap water at approximately 4 °C to remove cellular fluids, reduce enzymatic browning, and lower their temperature. The wedges were disinfected with 150 ppm sodium hypochlorite (NaClO, 10% active chlorine; Droguería Paysandú, Montevideo, Uruguay) at 4 °C for 2 min, and then rinsed with tap water.
Next, they were immersed in a 1% ascorbic acid solution (C6H8O6; analytical grade, DIU, Montevideo, Uruguay) for 2 min to further prevent browning. After that, excess surface water was removed using a manual vegetable centrifuge (Ilko, Santiago, Chile).
Packaging was carried out in heat-sealed 15 × 7 cm bags made of polypropylene (PP, ~150–200 cm3·m−2·day−1·atm−1 for O2 and ~400–600 cm3·m−2·day−1·atm−1 for CO2) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE, ~700–900 cm3·m−2·day−1·atm−1 for O2 and ~1300–1600 cm3·m−2·day−1·atm−1 for CO2, according to the supplier’s technical datasheet).
Each experimental unit consisted of one bag containing approximately nine pear wedges (about 135 g in total), representing a homogeneous sample of minimally processed fruit. Minimally processed pears were evaluated at harvest and after 5, 10, and 15 days of storage at 0 °C and 95% RH. Four replicate bags (i.e., four experimental units) were analyzed per treatment and evaluation time.

3.3. Respiration Rate Determination

About 150 g of pear wedges were placed in an 820 mL hermetic glass container for respiration rate determination. The containers were provided with a silicone septum on top to avoid the headspace gas extraction (10 mL) by a plastic syringe after 1.5 h of closure. The samples were then injected into a gas chromatograph (Agilent Technologies, 7890B, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with an injector, oven, and detector at 20, 60, and 200 °C, respectively. Measurements were carried out in 4 repetitions, and the values were expressed as mL CO2. kg−1.h−1.

3.4. Atmosphere Composition

The internal atmosphere composition was determined by a portable gas analyzer (Dansensor, Check Point, Ringsted, Denmark). The samples were extracted through silicone septum placed in each bag prior to determination. The values were expressed as percentages.

3.5. Flesh Firmness Measurement

Flesh firmness was measured using a texture analyzer (TA.XT Plus, Hamilton, MA, USA). Determinations were made on the central part of six pear wedges by repetition using a 3 mm diameter stem that penetrated 5 mm at 10 mm s−1. The values were expressed in N.

3.6. Color Determination

Measurements were carried out in the central part of 6 wedges per repetition and for evaluation. A tri-stimulus colorimeter (Precise Color Reader, TCR 200, Beijing, China) was used. The values were expressed as the CIELab* color system parameters, luminosity (L*), tone (hab*) and saturation (C*).
The total color difference (ΔE) expresses the difference between the initial color of the pulp (time zero) and the color after storage of the pear slices. The total color difference (ΔE) was calculated according to the following formula:
∆E* = [(ΔL*)2 + (Δa*)2 + (Δb*)2]1/2

3.7. Polyphenol Oxidase Activity

Activity determination was carried out according to the methodology proposed by Sanchís et al. [50]. For this purpose, 15 g of pulp was homogenized (Scientz, XHF-D, Ningbo, China) with an extraction solution composed of McIlvaine buffer solution at pH 6.5 containing 1 M sodium chloride and 50 g kg−1 of polyvinylpyrrolidone for 2 min at 150,000 rpm. To obtain the supernatant used in the determination, the mixture was centrifuged at 12,000 rpm and 4 °C for 30 min (Thermo Scientific, Sorvall ST 16R, Dreieich, Germany). For the measurement of enzyme activity, 100 µL of the extract was placed in a quartz cuvette and 3 mL of a 0.05 M solution of 4-methyl-catechol was added and the change in absorbance was recorded (Thermo Genesys 10 S, New Brunswick, NJ, USA) at 420 nm every 5 s for a period of 2 min.

3.8. Total Polyphenols and Total Antioxidant Capacity

Before determination, 3 g of the frozen samples was homogenized (Scientz, XHF-D, Ningbo, China) with 5 mL of methanol 70% v/v. After that, it was kept in the dark for 1 h and then centrifuged (Thermo Scientific ST16R, Germany) at 4 °C, 10 min at 15,000× g. The supernatant was used to determine the total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity.
The total polyphenol content was determined by the methodology proposed by Singleton and Rossi [51] modified by González et al. [52]. The results were expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalent per g sample in fresh weight (GAE g−1 FW). All determinations were performed in triplicate.
Antioxidant activity was determined using two methodologies: the one that used 2,2 diphenyl-1-picryhydrazyl (DPPH) reactive following the method proposed by Brand-Williams et al. [53] and the indirect method of the antioxidant reduction of ferric ion (FRAP) proposed by Benzi and Strain [54]. Both were partially modified and described by González et al. [52]. The antioxidant concentration was expressed as mg of ascorbic acid equivalents per g of sample in fresh weight (mg AAE g−1 FW). All determinations were performed in triplicate.

3.9. Microbiological Growth

For microbiological evaluation, 10 g samples, placed in sterilized bags (Nasco, Whirl-Pak, Pleasant Prairie, WI, USA) with 90 mL of sterilized peptone water (Oxoid Limited, Basingstoke, UK), were manually homogenized. Aliquots of 1 mL for mesophilic, psychrophilic, and Enterobacteriaceae, and of 0.1 mL for molds and yeast were sown in discarded Petri dishes. Mesophiles, psychrophiles, and Enterobacteriaceae were sown by inclusion, while fungi and yeast were on the surface with a Drigalskiy loop. Serial dilutions were performed when necessary.
Mesophilic and psychrophilic were sown in count agar culture medium (Oxoid, Limited, Basingstoke, UK) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h; mesophilic were incubated at 4 °C for 7 days. The enterobacteria were sworn into violet-red bile agar (Oxoid Limited, Basingstoke, UK) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. Fungi and yeast were sown on potato dextrose agar medium (Oxoid Limited, Basingstoke, UK) amended with streptomycin sulfate (0.2 g L−1) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). The plates were incubated for 7 days at 25 °C. The results were expressed as log units of colony-forming units per g of fresh weight (Log CFU g−1 FW).

3.10. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed in Navure software (2.7.3) using R version 3.6.3 [55].
A factorial ANOVA was used to evaluate the effect of three factors: raw material storage conditions (harvest, 3 months in regular atmosphere; 3 and 6 months in controlled atmosphere), storage time of the minimally processed pear (0, 5, 10, and 15 days), and bag type (PP and LDPE), as well as their possible interactions. When significant differences were detected (p < 0.05), Tukey’s multiple comparison test was applied to determine differences between the levels within each factor. The results are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean.
Additionally, Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the relationships among the studied variables. Correlation coefficients (r) and significance levels (p-values) are reported.

4. Conclusions

The preservation conditions of the raw material strongly influenced the quality of fresh-cut pears during refrigerated storage. Storing whole pears under CA conditions for 3 or 6 months prior to processing was effective in preserving color, firmness, and functional quality (polyphenol content) while also reducing enzymatic browning (PPO activity) and respiration rate. Importantly, no significant quality differences were observed between 3 and 6 months of CA storage, suggesting that high-quality raw material can be maintained for up to 6 months. Although differences between packaging materials were not substantial, pears packaged in polypropylene (PP) showed a slight tendency toward better quality retention, possibly due to reduced oxygen permeability. However, further research is needed to confirm this effect or to identify alternative materials with improved performance.
Therefore, storing pears under CA conditions for up to 6 months appears to be a suitable strategy to ensure the quality of fresh-cut products.

Author Contributions

V.C. was responsible for conducting research, data collection, and preliminary analysis. E.T. and Y.P. collaborated in conducting research and collecting data. A.C.S. was responsible for the research execution that includes training and supervising activities, analyzing and interpreting results, and preparing the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica, Udelar (CSIC I+D) ID 390. The article processing charge (APC) was covered using funds from the DT budget allocation of Ana Cecilia Silveira.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are not publicly available but may be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Generative AI tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI) were used to assist with drafting and organizing parts of this manuscript. The authors reviewed and approved all content.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CAControlled Atmosphere
RARegular Atmosphere
MAPModified Atmosphere Packaging
MPFMinimally Processed Fresh
PPOPolyphenol Oxidase
ΔETotal Color Difference
L*Lightness
C*Chroma
hab*Hue Angle
TPTotal Polyphenol
TACTotal Antioxidant Capacity
DPPH2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (Radical Scavenging Assay)
FRAPFerric Reducing Antioxidant Power
GAEGallic Acid Equivalents
AAEAscorbic Acid Equivalents
FWFresh Weight
CFUsColony-Forming Units
PPPolypropylene
LDPELow-Density Polyethylene

References

  1. Silveira, A.C.; Oyarzún, D.; Sepúlveda, A.; Escalona, V. Effect of genotype, raw-material storage time and cut type on native potato suitability for fresh-cut elaboration. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2017, 127, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Taranto, F.; Pasqualone, A.; Mangini, G.; Tripodi, P.; Miazzi, M.M.; Pavan, S.; Montemurro, C. Polyphenol oxidases in crops: Biochemical, physiological and genetic aspects. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bleecker, A.B.; Kende, H. Ethylene: A Gaseous Signal Molecule in Plants. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2000, 16, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Alonso-Salinas, N.; Hueso, M.C.; Escribano, M.I.; Merodio, C.; Sánchez-Ballesta, M.T. Ethylene’s Involvement in the Regulation of Cell Wall Metabolism during Fruit Ripening and Postharvest Storage. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cheng, G.; Duan, X.; Jiang, Y.; Sun, J.; Yang, S.; Yang, B. Modification of hemicellulose polysaccharides during ripening of postharvest banana fruit. Food Chem. 2009, 115, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Moon, K.M.; Kwon, E.-B.; Lee, B.; Kim, C.Y. Recent Trends in Controlling the Enzymatic Browning of Fruit and Vegetable Products. Molecules 2020, 25, 2754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Liang, Y.; Luo, K.; Wang, B.; Huang, B.; Fei, P.; Zhang, G. Inhibition of polyphenol oxidase for preventing browning in edible mushrooms: A review. J. Food Sci. 2024, 89, 6796–6817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Capotorto, I.; Amodio, M.L.; Díaz, M.T.B.; de Chiara, M.L.V.; Colelli, G. Effect of anti-browning solutions on quality of fresh-cut fennel during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 137, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Torres-Contreras, A.M.; Nair, V.; Senés-Guerrero, C.; Pacheco, A.; González-Agüero, M.; Ramos-Parra, P.A.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Jacobo-Velázquez, D.A. Cross-Talk and Physiological Role of Jasmonic Acid, Ethylene, and Reactive Oxygen Species in Wound-Induced Phenolic Biosynthesis in Broccoli. Plants 2023, 12, 1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Toivonen, P.M.A.; Brummell, D.A. Biochemical bases of appearance and texture changes in fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 48, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rodríguez-Arzuaga, M.; Salsi, M.S.; Piagentini, A.M. Storage quality of fresh-cut apples treated with yerba mate (Ilex paraguariensis). J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 186–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Blanckenberg, A.; Muller, M.; Theron, K.I.; Crouch, E.M.; Steyn, W.J. Harvest maturity and ripeness differentially affects consumer preference of ‘Forelle’, ‘Packham’s Triumph’ and ‘Abate Fetel’ pears (Pyrus communis L.). Sci. Hortic. 2016, 207, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Commisso, M.; Bianconi, M.; Poletti, S.; Negri, S.; Munari, F.; Ceoldo, S.; Guzzo, F. Metabolomic profiling and antioxidant activity of fruits representing diverse apple and pear cultivars. Biology 2021, 10, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yin, C.; Tian, L.; Li, J.; Cao, Y.; Dong, X.; Huo, H.; Xu, J.; Liu, C. Evaluation of pear fruit quality in different ripening stages based on internal quality characteristics. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2025, 140, 107282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mattheis, J.P. Controlled atmosphere pO2 alters ripening dynamics of 1-MCP treated ‘d’Anjou’ pear (Pyrus communis L.) fruit. HortScience 2017, 52, 1385–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Łysiak, G.P.; Rutkowski, K.; Walkowiak-Tomczak, D. Effect of storage conditions on storability and antioxidant potential of pears cv. ‘Conference’. Agriculture 2021, 11, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chen, D.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Liu, L.; Zhao, L. Research Progress on Physical Preservation Technology of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Khan, M.R.; Vapenka, L.; Sadiq, M.B.; Torrieri, E.; Rajchl, A. Comparative influence of active PLA and PP films on the quality of minimally processed cherry tomatoes. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2024, 44, 101313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liao, X.; Xing, Y.; Fan, X.; Qiu, Y.; Xu, Q.; Liu, X. Effect of Composite Edible Coatings Combined with Modified Atmosphere Packaging on the Storage Quality and Microbiological Properties of Fresh-Cut Pineapple. Foods 2023, 12, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dellarosa, N.; Tappi, S.; Ragni, L.; Laghi, L.; Rocculi, P.; Dalla Rosa, M. Metabolic Response of Fresh-Cut Apples Induced by Pulsed Electric Fields. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 38, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gorny, J.R.; Cifuentes, R.A.; Hess-Pierce, B.; Kader, A.A. Quality Changes in Fresh-Cut Pear Slices as Affected by Cultivar, Ripeness Stage, Fruit Size, and Storage Regime. J. Food Sci. 2000, 65, 541–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Oms-Oliu, G.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Martín-Belloso, O. Physiological and Microbiological Changes in Fresh-Cut Pears Stored in High Oxygen Active Packages Compared with Low Oxygen Active and Passive Modified Atmosphere Packaging. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 48, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Arias, E.; González, J.; López-Buesa, P.; Oria, R. Optimization of Processing of Fresh-Cut Pear. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008, 88, 1755–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, D.; Ma, Q.; Li, D.; Li, W.; Li, L.; Aalim, H.; Luo, Z. Moderation of Respiratory Cascades and Energy Metabolism of Fresh-Cut Pear Fruit in Response to High CO2 Controlled Atmosphere. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 172, 111379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Oguz-Korkut, G.; Kucukmehmetoglu, S.; Gunes, G. Effects of Modified Atmosphere Packaging on Physicochemical Properties of Fresh-Cut ‘Deveci’ Pears. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Prange, R.K.; Wright, A.H. A Review of Storage Temperature Recommendations for Apples and Pears. Foods 2023, 12, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ayón-Reyna, L.E.; Ayón-Reyna, L.G.; López-López, M.E.; López-Angulo, G.; Pineda-Hidalgo, K.V.; Zazueta-Niebla, J.A.; Vega-García, M.O. Changes in Ascorbic Acid and Total Phenolics Contents Associated with Browning Inhibition of Pineapple Slices. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 39, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Caracciolo, G.; Magri, A.; Petriccione, M.; Maltoni, M.L.; Baruzzi, G. Influence of Cold Storage on Pear Physico-Chemical Traits and Antioxidant Systems in Relation to Superficial Scald Development. Foods 2020, 9, 1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Akbari, E.; Gholami, M.; Ghobadi, C. Shelf-life and quality attributes in fresh-cut pear cv. Shahmive treated with different kinds of antioxidants. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 3998–4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sathya, R.; Rasane, P.; Singh, A.; Singh, J.; Kaur, S.; Nanda, V.; Kaur, J.; Gunjal, M.; Bhadariya, V.; Ercisli, S.; et al. Image Analysis-Based Discoloration Rate Quantification and Kinetic Modeling for Shelf-Life Prediction in Herb-Coated Pear Slices. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. ISO 11664-4:2008; Colorimetry—Part 4: CIE 1976 L*a*b* Colour Space. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/40943.html (accessed on 15 May 2025).
  32. Allegra, A.; Inglese, P.; Guccione, E.; Farina, V.; Sortino, G. Calcium Ascorbate Coating Improves Postharvest Quality and Storability of Fresh-Cut Slices of Coscia and Abate Fétel Pears (Pyrus communis L.). Horticulturae 2022, 8, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Biosca-Biosca, M.; Grigelmo-Miguel, N.; Martín-Belloso, O. Browning, Polyphenol Oxidase Activity and Headspace Gas Composition during Storage of Minimally Processed Pears Using Modified Atmosphere Packaging. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2002, 82, 1490–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, S. Recent Advances of Polyphenol Oxidases in Plants. Molecules 2023, 28, 2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zou, Q.; Xiao, Q.; Li, G.; Wei, X.; Tian, X.; Zhu, L.; Ma, F.; Li, M. Revisiting the Advancements in Plant Polyphenol Oxidases Research. Sci. Hortic. 2025, 341, 113960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cao, Q.-Y.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, C.; Deng, X.; Jiang, Y.-Y.; Wang, B. An opinion on the roles of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase in the browning of fresh-cut fruit and vegetables. Front. Nutr. 2025, 12, 1561620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Saltveit, M.E. Wound Induced Changes in Phenolic Metabolism and Tissue Browning Are Altered by Heat Shock. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2000, 21, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ali, M.; Zhao, X.; Hussain, S.; Li, X.; Li, F.; Zhang, X. Physiological and Transcriptomic Analysis Revealed the Quality Regulatory Mechanism of Pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) in Fresh-Cut Apple. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2024, 217, 113098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kaur, A.; Gill, P.P.S.; Jawandha, S.K.; Singh, M. Pre-storage exogenous application of boric acid extends storability and maintains quality of pear fruits. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Men, C.; Wu, C.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Chen, M.; Liu, C.; Zheng, L. α-Lipoic acid treatment regulates enzymatic browning and nutritional quality of fresh-cut pear fruit by affecting phenolic and carbohydrate metabolism. Food Chem. 2024, 458, 140223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yusof, F.A.M.; Azman, E.M.; Adzahan, N.M.; Yusof, N.L. The Influence of Exogenous Melatonin Treatment on Quality, Nutritional Profile, and Antioxidant System of Fresh-Cut Carambola during Cold Storage. J. Agric. Food Res. 2025, 19, 101704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Larrigaudière, C.; Candan, A.P.; Giné-Bordonaba, J.; Civello, M.; Calvo, G. Unravelling the physiological basis of superficial scald in pears based on cultivar differences. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 213, 340–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sharma, S.; Rao, T.R. Xanthan gum based edible coating enriched with cinnamic acid prevents browning and extends the shelf-life of fresh-cut pears. LWT–Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 62, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Soliva-Fortuny, R.C.; Martín-Belloso, O. Microbiological and biochemical changes in minimally processed fresh-cut Conference pears. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2003, 217, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Siddiq, R.; Auras, R.; Siddiq, M.; Dolan, K.D.; Harte, B. Effect of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) and NatureSeal® treatment on the physico-chemical, microbiological, and sensory quality of fresh-cut d’Anjou pears. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 23, 100454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Silva, F.V.M.; Sulaiman, A. Control of Enzymatic Browning in Strawberry, Apple, and Pear by Physical Food Preservation Methods: Comparing Ultrasound and High-Pressure Inactivation of Polyphenoloxidase. Foods 2022, 11, 1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ercoli, L.; Barizão, É.; Boeing, J.; Kvitschal, M.; Visentainer, J.; Almeida, V. Evaluation of Chemical Characteristics and Correlation Analysis with Pulp Browning of Advanced Selections of Apples Grown in Brazil. Acta Sci. Technol. 2017, 39, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nogales-Delgado, S. Polyphenoloxidase (PPO): Effect, Current Determination and Inhibition Treatments in Fresh-Cut Produce. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cantos, E.; Tudela, J.A.; Gil, M.I.; Espín, J.C. Phenolic Compounds and Related Enzymes Are Not Rate-Limiting in Browning Development of Fresh-Cut Potatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 3015–3023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sanchís, E.; Mateos, M.; Pérez-Gago, M.B. Physicochemical, Sensory, and Nutritional Quality of Fresh-Cut “Rojo Brillante” Persimmon Affected by Maturity Stage and Antibrowning Agents. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2016, 22, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of Total Phenolics with Phosphomolybdic-Phosphotungstic Acid Reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. González, V.; Cuozzo, V.; Torres, E.; Pariani, Y.; Silveira, A.C. Hot Air Treatment and Its Effect on Nectarine Metabolism var. Big Top Stored at Different Temperatures. Agrociencia Urug. 2019, 23, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C.L.W.T. Use of a Free Radical Method to Evaluate Antioxidant Activity. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Benzie, I.F.; Strain, J.J. The Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) as a Measure of “Antioxidant Power”: The FRAP Assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Navure Team. Navure (Version 2.7.3): A Data-Science-Statistic Oriented Application for Making Evidence-Based Decisions. 2023. Available online: http://www.navure.com (accessed on 1 January 2025).
Plants 14 02108 g001
Figure 1. Respiration rate of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere). Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences among raw material origins in each moment, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time in each raw material origin (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Respiration rate of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere). Values are means (n = 4) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences among raw material origins in each moment, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time in each raw material origin (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02108 g001
Plants 14 02108 g002
Figure 2. Flesh firmness of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere). Values are means (n = 18) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Flesh firmness of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere). Values are means (n = 18) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02108 g002
Plants 14 02108 g003
Figure 3. Whole and pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) packaged in polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) after 15 days.
Figure 3. Whole and pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) packaged in polypropylene (PP) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) after 15 days.
Plants 14 02108 g003
Plants 14 02108 g004
Figure 4. Polyphenol oxidase activity of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) and packaging materials ((A): PP; (B): LDPE). Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time within each packaging type (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Polyphenol oxidase activity of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) and packaging materials ((A): PP; (B): LDPE). Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time within each packaging type (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02108 g004
Plants 14 02108 g005
Figure 5. Total polyphenol content of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) and packaging materials ((A): PP; (B): LDPE). Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time within each packaging type (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Total polyphenol content of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) and packaging materials ((A): PP; (B): LDPE). Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time within each packaging type (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02108 g005
Plants 14 02108 g006
Figure 6. Total antioxidant capacity, measured by DPPH method, of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) and packaging materials ((A): PP; (B): LDPE). Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time within each packaging type (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Total antioxidant capacity, measured by DPPH method, of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) and packaging materials ((A): PP; (B): LDPE). Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time within each packaging type (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02108 g006
Plants 14 02108 g007
Figure 7. Total antioxidant capacity, measured by FRAP method, of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 7. Total antioxidant capacity, measured by FRAP method, of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) Values are means (n = 3) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02108 g007
Plants 14 02108 g008
Figure 8. Pearson’s correlation analysis between physicochemical parameters of pear wedges. Significant correlations are indicated by asterisks p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***).
Figure 8. Pearson’s correlation analysis between physicochemical parameters of pear wedges. Significant correlations are indicated by asterisks p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***).
Plants 14 02108 g008
Table 1. Color parameters of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) stored for 15 days in different packaging material (PP: polypropylene, LDPE: low density polyethylene).
Table 1. Color parameters of pear wedges from different raw material origins (RA: regular atmosphere; CA: controlled atmosphere) stored for 15 days in different packaging material (PP: polypropylene, LDPE: low density polyethylene).
PP
L*
Treatment/time0 d5 d10 d15 d
Harvest65.76 ± 0.90 Ab64.98 ± 1.22 Bb70.74 ± 0.66 Aa59.27 ± 1.70 Bc
3 m RA55.07 ± 1.11 Ba57.91 ± 1.00 Ca58.25 ± 1.02 Ca54.70 ± 1.53 Ca
3 m CA68.89 ± 0.71 Aa65.91 ± 0.83 Ba65.19 ± 1.90 Ba66.21 ± 0.91 Aa
6 m CA68.59 ± 0.54 Aa70.62 ± 0.64 Aa70.53 ± 0.64 Aa67.32 ± 0.71 Aa
h*ab
Harvest93.31 ± 0.79 Aa87.78 ± 0.83 Ab90.39 ± 0.99 Aab90.04 ± 0.58 Aab
3 m RA92.45 ± 1.34 Aa82.05 ± 0.86 Bc85.65 ± 1.40 Bb81.52 ± 1.13 Bc
3 m CA87.06 ± 0.69 Ba82.20 ± 0.65 Bb77.79 ± 0.81 Cc82.81 ± 0.94 Bb
6 m CA88.79 ± 1.91 Ba78.11 ± 2.48 Cb84.35 ± 0.78 Bc83.90 ± 0.84 Bc
C*
Harvest6.74 ± 0.18 Bb7.01 ± 0.25 Cb7.55 ± 0.22 Bb14.66 ± 0.31 Aa
3 m RA7.61 ± 0.25 Ba7.82 ± 0.39 BCa9.08 ± 0.26 Ba8.69 ± 0.30 Ca
3 m CA8.47 ± 0.24 ABc10.76 ± 0.57 Ab15.19 ± 1.23 Aa11.18 ± 0.56 Bb
6 m CA9.79 ± 0.24 Aa9.02 ± 0.29 ABa9.14 ± 0.26 Ba10.05 ± 0.31 BCa
LDPE
L*
Harvest63.46 ± 1.33 Ab62.99 ± 1.38 Bb70.08 ± 1.39 Aa48.07 ± 4.07 Cc
3 m RA56.44 ± 0.68 Ba53.58 ± 1.10 Ca52.98 ± 1.07 Ca53.80 ± 1.15 Ba
3 m CA67.24 ± 0.56 Aa63.77 ± 0.71 Ba64.44 ± 0.98 Ba65.00 ± 0.61 Aa
6 m CA66.70 ± 0.91 Aa68.11 ± 0.55 Aa67.69 ± 0.60 ABa68.61 ± 0.74 Aa
h*ab
Harvest94.23 ± 0.97 Aa91.32 ± 0.64 Aa93.12 ± 0.92 Aa91.55 ± 0.69 Aa
3 m RA89.44 ± 0.86 Ba82.11 ± 1.11 Bb80.05 ± 0.98 Bb80.75 ± 1.07 Cb
3 m CA85.60 ± 0.49 Ca80.52 ± 0.60 Bb74.80 ± 0.98 Cc81.21 ± 0.93 BCb
6 m CA89.43 ± 0.79 Ba73.61 ± 0.48 Cd80.41 ± 0.93 Bc84.72 ± 0.90 Bb
C*
Harvest7.04 ± 0.19 Ab6.40 ± 0.18 Cb6.97 ± 0.22 Cb11.47 ± 1.07 ABa
3 m RA8.30 ± 0.27 Aa7.82 ± 0.38 BCa9.05 ± 0.32 Ba9.07 ± 0.33 Ca
3 m CA8.84 ± 0.25 Ac12.07 ± 0.57 Ab20.80 ± 1.79 Aa12.29 ± 0.77 Ab
6 m CA8.89 ± 0.32 Aa9.50 ± 0.22 Ba10.12 ± 0.33 Ba10.38 ± 0.29 BCa
Values are means (n = 18) ± standard error of the mean. Uppercase letters indicate differences between raw material origins, in each storage time, and lowercase letters indicate differences over storage time within each packaging type (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cuozzo, V.; Torres, E.; Pariani, Y.; Silveira, A.C. Impact of Whole-Fruit Storage Conditions on the Quality of Minimally Processed Pears. Plants 2025, 14, 2108. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142108

AMA Style

Cuozzo V, Torres E, Pariani Y, Silveira AC. Impact of Whole-Fruit Storage Conditions on the Quality of Minimally Processed Pears. Plants. 2025; 14(14):2108. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142108

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cuozzo, Vanessa, Eva Torres, Yanina Pariani, and Ana Cecilia Silveira. 2025. "Impact of Whole-Fruit Storage Conditions on the Quality of Minimally Processed Pears" Plants 14, no. 14: 2108. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142108

APA Style

Cuozzo, V., Torres, E., Pariani, Y., & Silveira, A. C. (2025). Impact of Whole-Fruit Storage Conditions on the Quality of Minimally Processed Pears. Plants, 14(14), 2108. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142108

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop