Next Article in Journal
QTL Analysis of the Content of Some Bioactive Compounds in Brassica rapa L. Grown under Light Culture Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Improving Quality of Fruit
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of the Anthers from the Cytoplasmic Male-Sterile Pepper Line HZ1A and Its Maintainer Line HZ1B
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transcriptomic Analysis of Hardened ‘Suli’ Pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd) for Identification of Key Genes for Lignin Biosynthesis and Accumulation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 7
Issue 12
10.3390/horticulturae7120581
horticulturae-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Aloe-Based Edible Coating to Maintain Quality of Fresh-Cut Italian Pears (Pyrus communis L.) during Cold Storage

by
Roberta Passafiume
1,
Giovanni Gugliuzza
2,
Raimondo Gaglio
1,
Gabriele Busetta
1,
Ilenia Tinebra
1,
Giuseppe Sortino
1,* and
Vittorio Farina
1
1
Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences (SAAF), Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
2
CREA Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification, 90128 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2021, 7(12), 581; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7120581
Submission received: 29 October 2021 / Revised: 13 December 2021 / Accepted: 14 December 2021 / Published: 16 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Quality of Fruit)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pear fruits are known for their antioxidant and nutritional characteristics. However, they are very susceptible to rapid decay. Edible coating (EC) represents a good strategy to maintain postharvest quality. The effects of two EC in slowing down the senescence processes in fresh-cut ‘Coscia’ pears were investigated: EC1 (A. vera gel, hydroxypropyl-methylcellulose and pomegranate seeds oil (PSO), EC2 (A. vera gel and hydroxypropyl-methylcellulose). Weight loss, firmness and colour decrease more slowly in both EC-treated than in untreated (CTR) slices; soluble solid content increases faster in CTR, indicating a faster ripening process. The specific investigation of undesired microorganisms did not generate any colony in all analysed samples. Sensory analysis confirmed that the tasters preferred the EC2-treated samples, as they were the only ones that did not show undesirable flavours until the last day of storage.

1. Introduction

European pear fruit (Pyrus communis L.) belongs to the Rosaceae family and is known worldwide for its flavour and crispness but is very susceptible to spoilage. In particular, the respiration rate and ethylene production trend are typical of climacteric fruits [1,2].
In general, pear fruit are an excellent source of antioxidant properties, which are important for the human diet [3]. In fact, ascorbate is regenerated by dehydroascorbate reductase (DHAR) using reduced glutathione [4]. Pear fruit is consumed as a fresh product or in the form of juice, marmalade or as dehydrated fruit [5]. Recently, fresh-cut pear has become an important food category which grows quickly due to its freshness, nutrition and convenience. These products have the attributes of convenience and fresh-like quality.
Therefore, loss of quality characteristics can be avoided or prevented by various methods, such as reducing the pH on the surface of fruit to avoid the development of microbial spoilage; reducing the CO2 partial pressure or addition of certain inhibiting agents [6].
Concerning CO2 partial pressure, it has been observed [7,8] that high CO2 concentrations lead to disorders such as core browning. Furthermore, Peppelenbos and Oosterhaven [9] suggested that internal browning is probably due to the reduction of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels below the minimum values required for cell membrane maintenance activities, as shown by Rawyler et al. [10] in potato cell cultures.
On the other hand, addition of natural anti-browning compounds, such as antioxidants, chelating agents and acidifiers, is the most commonly used method to delay the senescence processes [11]. Various compounds, such as citric acid (CA) and ascorbic acid (AA), calcium chloride, sodium carbonate, ethanol and cysteine, cinnamic acid, P-coumaric acid and ferulic acid, alginate, pectin, xanthan gum or gellan gum, have been used as functional edible coating ingredients in many fruit [12,13,14,15,16]. However, with regard to pear fruits, few edible coatings have been applied. In particular, zein and oleic acid [17], vegetable oil [18], shellac, SemperfreshTM and carboxymethyl-cellulose [19], were tested in minimally processed pears, while Nandane et al. [20] tested an edible coating based on hydroxypropyl-methilcellulose (HPMC), potassium sorbate and olive oil on whole pear fruit stored at room temperature, but always with the difficulty of reducing browning.
A widely used component of edible coatings has been Aloe vera gel, which has shown a positive effect in fresh-cut fruits in order to reduce respiration rates, ethylene production, weight, firmness, color loss and microbial load, due to its antibacterial and antifungal activity and did not affect natural taste of fruit [21,22,23,24,25].
However, as has been reported by some authors, high concentrations of Aloe vera gel can alter the taste of processed fruit, limiting its purchase and consumption. This could lead to negative effects, such as the production of waste on the market [26,27,28]. The essential characteristics of an edible coating are that it is transparent and must be free of odour and taste, oil-resistant and water-soluble. Most importantly, it must also be safe in food (FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants—JECFA) and chemically stable [29,30]. Concerning the application of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) in edible coating, this seems to delay loss of flesh color, weight and firmness in fresh-cut fruit [31].
The important additives of edible coatings are the fungicide and antioxidant agents. For this purpose, essential oils have been extensively tested [32,33,34] in several fruit, but there are no studies concerning the application of pomegranate seeds oil (PSO) on fresh-cut ‘Coscia’ pear. Extracted oils, instead, are natural substances derived from fruit and vegetables. They are designated as Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) by the United State Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In the United States, according to 21CFR182.20 and 21CFR582.20, essential oils, oleoresins (without solvents) and natural extracts (including distillates) of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) are considered GRAS for their use in food for human consumption, pharmaceuticals and related products. Indeed, due to its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, extracts from various parts of Punica granatum have been studied [35,36] for use as alternative or therapeutic treatments (such as herbal medicines or dietary supplements) for burns, oral hygiene, neurodegenerative conditions, seizures, diabetes, acute pancreatitis, lung injury, myocardial infarction and various cancers [37,38]. The juice and extracts have also been studied for use as antifungal and antibacterial treatments [39], in particular against Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli and against different plant pathogens [40,41].
The PSO has also been used to improve the properties of biopolymer films used in food packaging [42] and could be a natural additive to reduce quality loss during storage while maintaining high nutritional parameters [43]. To date, there are no studies concerning the effects of PSO addition in edible coating on fruit quality attributes and storage conditions.
The aim of this work was to determine the effects of two edible coating treatments, in slowing down all the senescence processes in fresh-cut ‘Coscia’ pears cold-stored for seven days: (1) Aloe vera gel, hydroxypropyl-methylcellulose and pomegranate oil; (2) Aloe vera gel and hydroxypropyl-methylcellulose.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Vegetal Material

Twenty kg of ‘Coscia’ pears (Pyrus communis L.), selected for uniformity of size and absence of defects, were harvested at the commercial maturity (firmness 4–4.5 Kg/cm2) in Torrenova (ME) 38°05′18.56″N 14°40′18.08″E.

2.2. Extraction of Aloe Vera Gel and Edible Coating Formulation

One kg of mature Aloe vera leaves were collected in the experimental field of the University of Palermo and washed under tap water. The gelatinous parenchyma was separated from the leaves with a stainless-steel knife, removing the outer epidermis. It was crushed with an ultra-Turrax T25 (Janke and Kunkle, IKa Labortechnik, Breisgau, Germany) for 5 min at 24.500 rpm to form a homogeneous substance and was filtered through a press filter containing five micron filter papers in order to remove the fibrous part. A total of 500 mL of extract was obtained. Based on previous research [17,44], 120 mL of Aloe vera gel was diluted in 300 mL of water for sensory acceptability, due to a bitter taste that occurred at higher concentrations.
A commercial pomegranate seed oil (PSO) (www.lerboristeria.com© Cagliari—Italy accessed date 9 September 2020) obtained by cold mechanical pressing without the use of solvents and without refining was used. The degree of purity allows it to be certified for both cosmetic and food use.
Two edible coating (EC) were tested:
-
EC1: 120 mL Aloe vera gel + 6 g HPMC + 3 g PSO were dissolved in 300 mL of water;
-
EC2: 120 mL Aloe vera gel + 3 g HPMC were dissolved in 300 mL of water.
Antioxidant agents (citric acid and ascorbic acid) were added to all solutions at a rate of 3 g each. The solutions were kept at 40 °C for 90 min and then homogenized at 3.000 rpm for 20 min with ultra-Turrax.
The samples treated with the edible coating were compared with an uncoated sample (as control—CTR) to highlight the main differences.

2.3. Experimental Design

In the work area, all utensils and surfaces were previously washed and sterilised. The temperature inside the room was set at 4 °C to avoid bacterial proliferation and the fruit were first washed under tap water and then immersed in chlorinated water (100 µL-L−1) for 5 min, according to methodology reported by Arias E. et al. [19]. The whole fruit were then air-dried for 20 min. The pears were then peeled and cut into 4 slices with a sterilised stainless-steel knife and the core was removed by means of a pear corer tool.
First of all, untreated slices (CTR) were retained. After that, the two edible coatings was applied to the remaining pear slices by spraying, using an airbrush (0.8 mm nozzle) supplied with N2, for 2 min per lot. Each slice was covered with about 0.3 mm of coating, based on the time of spraying and the fruit weight. All coated slices were then allowed to dry for 5 min and, in general, four slices (approx. 100 g) were stored in PET (polyethylene terephthalate) trays.
Thirty-six trays per sample (CTR, EC1 and EC2) were stored at 4 ± 1 °C and 90 ± 5% relative humidity (RH).
Physico-chemical, microbiological and sensory analyses were carried out on day 0 (d0—as fresh product), day 2 (d2), day 4 (d4) and day 7 (d7) in three replicates per treatment.

2.4. Physico-Chemical Analysis

The difference in weight of each tray was measured throughout the storage period using a digital scale of decimal precision (Gibertini, Novate Milanese, Italy) and the values were expressed as a percentage of weight loss:
Weight loss (%) = [(Wi − Wd)/Wi] × 100
where Wi is the initial weight and Wd is the weight measured during cold storage.
Flesh firmness was determined using a TR5325 digital penetrometer (Turoni, Forlì, Italy) with an 8 mm diameter tip and expressed as (kg m−2).
A Minolta colorimeter (Chroma Meter CR-400, Konica Minolta Sensing Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was used to determine lightness (L*), red tendency (a*) and yellowness (b*). Prior to the analysis of the samples, the instrument was calibrated using a standard white plate. Browning index (BI) was determined, following the formula of Ruangchakpet A. and Sajjaanantakul T. [45]:
(BI) = [100 (x − 0.31)]/0.17]
where x = (a* + 1.75 L*)/(5.645 L* + a* − 0.3012 b*).
Total colour difference (ΔE) was determined using the formula:
ΔE* = [(L2* − L1*)2 + (a2* − a1*)2 + (b2* − b1*)2]1/2
From the juice extracted from the pear slices, the soluble solid content (SSC) was determined using an ATAGO digital refractometer (Atago Co, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) at 20 °C and expressed as °Brix.

2.5. Microbiological Analysis

Twenty-five grams of coated and untreated slice pear samples were first homogenized in 225 mL Ringer’s solution (Sigma-Aldrich, Milan, Italy) by a stomacher (BagMixer® 400, Interscience, Saint Nom, France) for 3 min at the highest speed (blending power 4) and then serially diluted (1:10) into 10 mL-volume test tubes homogenized by vortex. Cell suspensions were analysed for the following undesired (spoilage and pathogenic) microbial groups: total mesophilic aerobic microorganisms (TMM) on (PCA) and total psychrotrophic microorganisms (TPM) on Plate Count Agar (PCA), incubated at 30 °C for 72 h and at 7 °C for 7 d, respectively; Pseudomonas spp. on Pseudomonas Agar Base (PAB) added with Fucidin Cephaloridine supplement (CFC), incubated at 25 °C for 48 h; members of the Enterobacteriaceae family on Violet Red Bile Glucose Agar (VRBGA), incubated at 37 °C for 24 h; yeasts and moulds on Yeast extract Peptone Dextrose (YPD) agar supplemented with chloramphenicol (0.1 g/L) to prevent bacterial growth, incubated at 25 °C for 48 h and 7 d, respectively. In addition, all samples were also analyzed for the presence of the main pathogenic microorganisms: coagulase-positive staphylococci (CPS) on Baird Parker (BP) supplemented with rabbit plasma fibrinogen (RPF); Listeria spp. and Listeria monocytogenes on Listeria selective agar base with SR0140E supplement; Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli on Hektoen Enteric Agar (HEA). All pathogens were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. All media and supplements were purchased from Oxoid Microbiology Products (Thermo-Scientific, Milan, Italy), except HEA provided by Microbiol Diagnostici (Uta, Italy). All plate counts were carried out in duplicate.

2.6. Sensory Analysis

The sensory analysis was performed by a panel of 10 tasters. All tasters were trained and had extensive experience in food sensory evaluation [46]. First of all the tasters were submitted to a study of the visual aspect of the fruits. After that, they were trained using different pear samples to recognise aroma, flavour and texture attributes during the training session, using product and ingredient references. All the samples were subjected to a panel consisting of 24 descriptors as follows: visual appearance (VA), flesh colour (FC), flesh lightness (FB), browning (B), pear odour (PO), herbaceous odour (HO), off-odour (OO), roughness (R), compactness (CP), dryness (D), aroma intensity (AI), crunchiness (CR), firmness (FR), stickiness (S), rubber (RU), juiciness (J), astringency (AS), sweetness (SW), bitterness (BT), acidity (AC), pear flavour (PF), herb flavour (HF), off-flavour (OF), overall assessment (OA). All samples were scored from 1 (no descriptor intensity) to 9 (highest descriptor intensity) and descriptors were evaluated from day 0 (as fresh) to day 7 (d7).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analysis was performed using the XlStat® software version 9.0 (Addinsoft, Paris, France). Data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s multiple range test with p < 0.05 considered significant.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physico-Chemical Analysis

3.1.1. Weight Loss

The untreated sample (CTR) suffered a more rapid weight loss already from the second day of storage (d2), compared to the samples treated with edible coatings (Table 1). In fact, the lowest weight loss values were observed in EC2 during all the storage period. Therefore, the edible coatings (EC1 and EC2 treatments) seem to reduce juice leakage, in agreement with Seyed et al. [47], who maintained the mango cell structure longer. This positive effect in terms of weight loss reduction may be due to the hygroscopic properties of the Aloe vera gel, which is mainly composed of polysaccharides. It produces a water barrier between the fruit and the external environment [48].

3.1.2. Firmness

A progressive loss of firmness of the pear slices was observed in all the treatments during storage (Figure 1). However, in CTR samples a significantly reduction (p < 0.05) was registered starting from the second day (d2), in EC1 from the fourth day (d4) and in EC2 from the seventh day (d7) of storage, with final value of 2.71, 3.24 and 3.43 Kg-cm−2 respectively. Due to the edible coating, it seems that the pear slices kept the cell wall pectin, slowing down the cell degradation processes. During cold-storage, this behaviour could be associated with water loss and degradation of pectic substances in the pear fruit, according to Nath et al. [49] In a study conducted on Bartlett/William pear fruit, edible coatings based on polysaccharides and lipids were observed to reduce the softening of the cell structure, delaying the ripening processes due to normal enzymatic activities [50]. In fact, HPMC associated with lipid components seems to have a greater capacity to modify the internal atmosphere of the fruit and to maintain high firmness values. Moreover, aloe treatment significantly reduced the firmness losses of table grapes and papaya. This may be due to the effect of Aloe veragel on the reduction enzyme hydrolases of â-galactosidase, polygalacturonase, and pectinmethyl-esterase activities [48,51] responsible for the changes in the cell wall.

3.1.3. Flesh Colour

A progressive lightness reduction was registered in CTR samples with significative L* value reduction among all the storage days (Figure 2). A reduction in lightness values indicates a loss of gloss of the pear slices during the storage period. Indeed, the slices of the CTR sample looked dehydrated compared to the slices treated with the edible coatings.
Aloe vera gel imparted an attractive natural-looking sheen to table grapes, papaya, which was correlated to lower changes in both skin color and dehydration [52,53].
However, a slight but not significative (p < 0.05) lightness reduction was observed in EC1- and EC2-treated samples during storage, with no significant differences between the two coating treatments. Olivas et al. [54] also reported a positive effect of combining ascorbic acid, calcium chloride and sorbic acid with both methylcellulose and methylcellulose-stearic acid coatings to reduces the browning of ready-to-eat ‘Anjou’ pears.
During the storage period, the browning index (BI) increased in CTR samples with significant differences between d2, d4 and d7 (Figure 3). Furthermore, significative but slight BI increases were registered in coated (EC1 and EC2) samples during storage while no statistical differences were observed between EC1 and EC2 at the different storage days. From the results obtained, it appears that coating treatments strongly reduced browning index values with significant differences during storage with respect to the CTR sample.
In fact, thanks to the lightness (L*) and browning index (BI), the obtained data made it possible to hypothesize an effective slowing down of the action of the polyphenol oxidase enzyme, due to the presence of the costituents of edible coating, in agreement with Sapers and Miller [55], Dong et al. [56] and Gorny et al. [57].
In fact, antioxidant constituents of the fruit, such as phenolic compounds and ascorbic acid, are linked to enzymatic browning. Phenolic compounds are oxidised to highly unstable quinones, which are then polymerised to brown, red and black pigments [58,59]. Furthermore, a decrease in ascorbic acid content below a threshold level has been correlated with the browning of the middle part of pears [60].
A similar trend was registered in terms of colour variation ΔE (Figure 4). Moreover, for this parameter, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between CTR and treated samples at the different storage days, while no statistical differences were found between EC1 and EC2 treatments.

3.1.4. Soluble Solid Content

A progressive increase in soluble solids content during storage was observed in all the treatments, with significantly higher values between d2 and d4 (Figure 5). It can be seen from that up to the second day of storage CTR and EC2 had the same values, unlike EC1 that showed SSC had significantly higher values. After that day, EC2 always remained below the CTR and EC1 values with significative lower values of SSC at d4 and d7. No statistical differences were observed between CTR and EC1 at d4 and d7.
This outcome could be associated with the presence of antioxidant and anti-browning agents which, together with the Aloe vera gel, that reduced the increase in SSC due to the normal fruit ripening processes [61,62,63,64] could be associated with the presence of antioxidant and anti-browning agents which, together with the Aloe vera gel, reduced the increase in SSC due to the normal fruit ripening processes [61,62,63,64]. In addition, the increase in SSC during storage could be associated with the transformation of pectic substances, hydrolysis of starch and dehydration of fruits [65,66], leading to an increase in their concentration.

3.1.5. Microbiological Analyses

The microbiological investigation carried out by plate count throughout fresh-cut pear productions involved spoilage and pathogenic microbial groups commonly associated with fruit and vegetable items [67,68,69]. None of the CTR, EC1 or EC2 samples revealed the presence of detectable levels of all microbial groups that were the subject of investigation at any sampling time. The absence of microorganisms in all samples analysed is mainly due to the high contents in organic acids and the low temperatures applied during refrigerated storage [70]. Furthermore, the absence of microorganisms undoubtedly indicated the respect of the microbiological criteria for foodstuffs during the production of ready-to-eat pear fruit with and without coating.

3.1.6. Sensory Analysis

Regarding the results obtained from the panel test, including the study of visual aspects (Figure 6), the fresh fruit (d0) showed acceptable values from a commercial and consumption point of view. In particular, concerning the results obtained from the panel test, comparing the starting value (Figure 7a), it is possible to highlight the first differences between treated and untreated fruit, to d2 (Figure 7b): in particular, EC2 shows higher values in terms of firmness (FR), flavour (PF), juiciness (J) and sweetness (SW), while CTR shows a high value of browning (B) and roughness (R). At d4 (Figure 7c), all the descriptors have decreased: CTR continues to undergo browning processes and shows roughness (R) and off-odour (OO) formations, while the treatments allowed us to maintain values more similar to those of the starting fruit (d0), especially in terms of firmness (FR), juiciness (J), sweetness (SW) and pear flavour (PF). On the last day of storage (d7—Figure 7d), EC2 still shows higher values than the other treatments, although with small differences, while CTR is completely degraded, which is especially evident from the colour descriptors (FC, FB and B).

4. Conclusions

Both two edible coating maintained the physical and chemical characteristics of the fruit for 7 days and did not alter their taste. In particular, weight loss, firmness and colour indexes decrease more slowly in treated slices than in untreated while soluble solids content increase faster in untreated fruit indicating a faster ripening process. The sensory analysis showed that the tasters preferred the EC2-treated samples because of the unaltered flavours until the last day of storage. However, the presence of PSO in the EC1 did not show significant differences in terms of firmness and weight loss, compared to the EC2 treatment, but it might be useful to study its effects during a longer storage period and in different concentration to highlight their positive effect. In fact, in consideration of its properties of functional food, future studies of nutraceutical traits of fresh cut pear treated with PSO-based coating will be conducted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.P., G.S. and V.F.; methodology, R.P., G.S. and V.F.; software, R.P. and V.F.; validation, R.P., G.S. and V.F.; formal analysis, R.P., R.G., G.B., G.S. and V.F.; investigation, R.P., R.G., G.B., I.T., G.S. and V.F.; resources, R.P., G.S., R.G. and V.F.; data curation, R.P., R.G., G.G., I.T. and V.F.; writing—original draft preparation, R.P., R.G., G.S. and V.F.; writing—review and editing, R.P., G.S., G.G. and V.F.; visualization, R.P., G.S., G.G. and V.F.; supervision, G.S. and V.F.; project administration, V.F.; funding acquisition, G.S. and V.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy policy of the Authors’ Institution.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Gianguzzi farm (Torrenova, Messina, Italy) for the supply of plant materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nashima, K.; Shimizu, T.; Nishitani, C.; Yamamoto, T.; Takahashi, H.; Nakazono, M.; Shiratake, K. Microarray analysis of gene expression patterns during fruit development in European pear (Pyrus communis). Sci. Hortic. 2013, 164, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cherian, S.; Figueroa, C.R.; Nair, H. ‘Movers and shakers’ in the regulation of fruit ripening: A cross-dissection of climacteric versus non-climacteric fruit. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 4705–4722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Chen, J.; Wang, Z.; Wu, J.; Wang, Q.; Hu, X. Chemical compositional characterization of eight pear cultivars grown in China. Food Chem. 2007, 104, 268–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Matamoros, M.A.; Loscos, J.; Dietz, K.J.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.M.; Becana, M. Function of antioxidant enzymes and metabolites during maturation of pea fruits. J. Exp. Bot. 2010, 61, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kolniak-Ostek, J. Chemical composition and antioxidant capacity of different anatomical parts of pear (Pyrus communis L.). Food Chem. 2016, 203, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anese, M.; Manzano, M.; Nicoli, M.C. Quality of minimally processed apple slices using different modified atmosphere conditions. J. Food Qual. 1997, 20, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Williams, M.W.; Patterson, M.E. Storage effects on fruits, nonvolatile organic acids and core breakdown of Bartlett pears. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1964, 12, 80–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hulme, A.C. Carbon dioxide injury and the presence of succinic acid in apples. Nature 1956, 178, 218–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Peppelenbos, H.W.; Oosterhaven, J. A theoretical approach on the role of fermentation in harvested plant products. In Proceedings of the ISHS Acta Horticulturae 464: International Postharvest Science Conference Postharvest 96, Taupo, New Zealand, 4–9 August 1996; pp. 381–386. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rawyler, A.; Pavelic, D.; Gianinazzi, C.; Oberson, J.; Braendle, R. Membrane lipid integrity relies on a threshold of ATP production rate in potato cell cultures submitted to anoxia. Plant. Physiol. 1999, 120, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Biegańska-Marecik, R.; Czapski, J. The effect of selected compounds as inhibitors of enzymatic browning and softening of minimally processed apples. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2007, 6, 37–49. [Google Scholar]
  12. El-Shimi, N.M. Control of enzymatic browning in apple slices by using ascorbic acid under different conditions. Plant. Foods Hum. Nutr. 1993, 43, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Arias, E.; López-Buesa, P.; Oria, R. Extension of fresh-cut “Blanquilla” pear (Pyrus communis L.) shelf-life by 1-MCP treatment after harvest. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 54, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Anese, M.; Nicoli, M.C.; Cacace, D.; Palmieri, L.; Carpi, G. Effetti di trattamenti in soluzioni zuccherine su cubetti di melone freschi destinati alla IV gamma. Industria Conserve 1993, 68, 425–430. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jiang, P.; Bertone, J.F.; Hwang, K.S.; Colvin, V.L. Single-crystal colloidal multilayers of controlled thickness. Chem. Mater. 1999, 11, 2132–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Moreira, M.R.; Cassani, L.; Martín-Belloso, O.; Soliva-Fortuny, R. Effects of polysaccharide-based edible coatings enriched with dietary fiber on quality attributes of fresh-cut apples. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 7795–7805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Scramin, J.A.; de Britto, D.; Forato, L.A.; Bernardes-Filho, R.; Colnago, L.A.; Assis, O.B. Characterisation of zein–oleic acid films and applications in fruit coating. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 2145–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ju, Z.; Duan, Y.; Ju, Z. Plant oil emulsion modifies internal atmosphere, delays fruit ripening, and inhibits internal browning in Chinese pears. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2000, 20, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hussain, P.R.; Meena, R.S.; Dar, M.A.; Wani, A.M. Carboxymethyl cellulose coating and low-dose gamma irradiation improves storage quality and shelf life of pear (Pyrus communis L., Cv. Bartlett/William). J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, M586–M596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Nandane, A.S.; Dave, R.K.; Rao, T.V.R. Optimization of edible coating formulations for improving postharvest quality and shelf life of pear fruit using response surface methodology. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Nicolau-Lapeña, I.; Aguiló-Aguayo, I.; Kramer, B.; Abadias, M.; Viñas, I.; Muranyi, P. Combination of ferulic acid with Aloe vera gel or alginate coatings for shelf-life prolongation of fresh-cut apples. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2021, 27, 100620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Allegra, A.; Farina, V.; Inglese, P.; Gallotta, A.; Sortino, G. Qualitative Traits and Shelf Life of Fig Fruit (‘Melanzana’) Treated with Aloe Vera Gel Coating. Acta Hortic. 2021, 1310, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Farina, V.; Passafiume, R.; Tinebra, I.; Scuderi, D.; Saletta, F.; Gugliuzza, G.; Gallotta, A.; Sortino, G. Postharvest application of aloe vera gel-based edible coating to improve the quality and storage stability of fresh-cut papaya. J. Food Qual. 2020, 2020, 8303140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Passafiume, R.; Gaglio, R.; Sortino, G.; Farina, V. Effect of Three Different Aloe vera Gel-Based Edible coatings on the Quality of Fresh-Cut “Hayward” Kiwifruits. Foods 2020, 9, 939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mohammed, R.A.; Yousef, A.; Ali, A. Application of Biodegradable Aloe vera gel and Linseed mucilage for extending the shelf life of Plums. Res. J. Pharm. Technol. 2021, 14, 1579–1585. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ahmed, M.J.; Singh, Z.; Khan, A.S. Postharvest Aloe vera gel-coating modulates fruit ripening and quality of ‘Arctic Snow’ nectarine kept in ambient and cold storage. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 1024–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dang, K.T.H.; Singh, Z.; Swinny, E.E. Edible coatings influence fruit ripening, quality, and aroma biosynthesis in mango fruit. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 1361–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ergun, M.; Satici, F. Use of Aloe vera gel as biopreservative for ‘Granny Smith’ and ‘Red Chief’ apples. J. Anim. Plant. Sci. 2012, 22, 363–368. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, S.; Lu, A.; Zhang, L. Recent advances in regenerated cellulose materials. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2016, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Burdock, G.A. Safety assessment of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as a food ingredient. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2007, 45, 2341–2351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Farina, V.; Passafiume, R.; Tinebra, I.; Palazzolo, E.; Sortino, G. Use of Aloe vera Gel-Based Edible Coating with Natural Anti-Browning and Anti-Oxidant Additives to Improve Post-Harvest Quality of Fresh-Cut ‘Fuji’ Apple. Agronomy 2020, 10, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Benavides, S.; Villalobos-Carvajal, R.; Reyes, J.E. Physical, mechanical and antibacterial properties of alginate film: Effect of the cross-linking degree and oregano essential oil concentration. J. Food Eng. 2012, 110, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hosseini, S.F.; Rezaei, M.; Zandi, M.; Farahmandghavi, F. Bio-based composite edible films containing Origanum vulgare L. essential oil. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 67, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Perone, N.; Torrieri, E.; Cavella, S.; Masi, P. Effect of rosemary oil on functional properties of HPMC films at different concentration. Food Bioprocess. Technol. 2014, 7, 605–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lucci, P.; Pacetti, D.; Loizzo, M.R.; Frega, N.G. Punica granatum cv. Dente di Cacallo seed ethanolic extract: Antioxidant and antiproliferative activities. Food Chem. 2015, 167, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Singh, R.P.; Chidambara Murthy, K.N.; Jayaprakasha, G.K. Studies on the antioxidant acitivity of pomegranate (Punica granatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitro models. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Katz, S.R.; Newman, R.A.; Lansky, E.P. Punica granatum: Heuristic treatment for diabetes mellitus. J. Med. Food 2007, 10, 213–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rouhi, S.Z.T.; Sarker, M.M.R.; Rahmat, A.; Alkahtani, S.A.; Othman, F. The effect of pomegranate fresh juice versus pomegranate seed powder on metabolic indices, lipid profile, inflammatory biomarkers, and the histopathology of pancreatic islets of Langerhans in streptozotocin-nicotinamide induced type 2 diabetic Sprague-Dawley rats. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 156. [Google Scholar]
  39. Foss, S.R.; Nakamura, C.V.; Ueda-Nakamura, T.; Cortez, D.A.; Endo, E.H.; Dias Filho, B.P. Antifungal activity of pomegranate peel extract and isolated compound punicalagin against dermatophytes. Ann. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. 2014, 13, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Okan, O.T.; Kilic, A.; Onaran, A.; Öz, M.; Deniz, I. Determination of chemical composition, antioxidant and antifungal properties of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) and Parsley (Petroselinum crispum) seed oil produced in industrial scale. Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 2020, 21, 143–153. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nuamsetti, T.; Dechayuenyong, P.; Tantipaibulvut, S. Antibacterial activity of pomegranate fruit peels and arils. Sci. Asia 2012, 38, 319–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Onias, E.A.; Araújo, R.H.C.R.; de Queiroga, T.B.; Teodosio, A.E.M.d.M.; Onias, E.A.; Ferreira, A.P.N. Coating guava postharvest with the use of starch of tamarind seed and pomegranate seed oil. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 11, 313. [Google Scholar]
  43. Siraj, N.; Shabbir, M.A.; Khan, M.R.; Rehman, K.U. Preventing oxidation of canola and sunflower oils by addition of pomegranate seed oil. Acta Aliment. 2019, 48, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Benítez, S.; Achaerandio, I.; Pujolà, M.; Sepulcre, F. Aloe vera as an alternative to traditional edible coatings used in fresh-cut fruits: A case of study with kiwifruit slices. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 61, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ruangchakpet, A.; Sajjaanantakul, T. Effect of browning on total phenolic, flavonoid content and antioxidant activity in Indian gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica Linn.). Agric. Nat. Resour. 2007, 41, 331–337. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sortino, G.; Saletta, F.; Puccio, S.; Scuderi, D.; Allegra, A.; Inglese, P.; Farina, V. Extending the shelf life of white peach fruit with 1-methylcyclopropene and aloe arborescens edible coating. Agriculture 2020, 10, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Seyed, R.H.; Rastegar, S.; Faramarzi, S. Impact of edible coating derived from a combination of Aloe vera gel, chitosan and calcium chloride on maintain the quality of mango fruit at ambient temperature. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2021, 15, 2932–2942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Misir, J.; Brishti, F.H.; Hoque, M.M. Aloe vera gel as a novel edible coating for fresh fruits: A review. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 2, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Nath, A.; Deka, B.C.; Singh, A.; Patel, R.K.; Paul, D.; Misra, L.K.; Ojha, H. Extension of shelf life of pear fruits using different packaging materials. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Navarro-Tarazaga, M.L.; Massa, A.; Perez-Gago, M.B. Effect of beeswax content on hydroxypropyl methylcellulose-based edible film properties and postharvest quality of coated plums (Cv. Angeleno). LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 44, 2328–2334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Nunan, K.J.; Sims, I.M.; Bacic, A.; Robinson, S.P.; Fincher, G.B. Changes in cell wall composition during ripening of grape berries. Plant. Physiol. 1998, 118, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Tripathi, P.; Dubey, N. Exploitation of natural products as an alternative strategy to control postharvest fungal rotting of fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 32, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brishti, F.H.; Misir, J.; Sarker, A. Effect of Biopreservatives on storage life of Papaya fruit (Carica Papaya, L.). Int. J. Food Stud. 2013, 2, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Olivas, G.I.; Rodriguez, J.J.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V. Edible coatings composed of methylcellulose, stearic acid, and additives to preserve quality of pear wedges. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2003, 27, 299–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sapers, G.M.; Miller, R.L. Browning inhibition in fresh-cut pears. J. Food Sci. 1998, 63, 342–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dong, Y.; Liu, L.; Zhao, Z.; Zhi, H.; Guan, J. Effects of 1-MCP on reactive oxygen species, polyphenol oxidase activity, and cellular ultra-structure of core tissue in ‘Yali’pear (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd.) during storage. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2015, 56, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gorny, J.R.; Hess-Pierce, B.; Cifuentes, R.A.; Kader, A.A. Quality changes in fresh-cut pear slices as affected by controlled atmospheres and chemical preservatives. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 24, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Nicolas, J.J.; Richard-Forget, F.C.; Goupy, P.M.; Amiot, M.J.; Aubert, S.Y. Enzymatic browning reactions in apple and apple products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1994, 34, 109–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Martinez, M.V.; Whitaker, J.R. The biochemistry and control of enzymatic browning. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 6, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Eccher Zerbini, P.; Rizzolo, A.; Brambilla, A.; Cambiaghi, P.; Grassi, M. Loss of ascorbic acid during storage of Conference pears in relation to the appearance of brown heart. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2002, 82, 1007–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tapia, M.S.; Rojas-Graü, M.A.; Rodríguez, F.J.; Ramírez, J.; Carmona, A.; Martin-Belloso, O. Alginate-and gellan-based edible films for probiotic coatings on fresh-cut fruits. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, E190–E196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Rojas-Graü, M.A.; Raybaudi-Massilia, R.M.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.C.; Avena-Bustillos, R.J.; McHugh, T.H.; Martín-Belloso, O. Apple puree-alginate edible coating as carrier of antimicrobial agents to prolong shelf-life of fresh-cut apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2007, 45, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rojas-Graü, M.A.; Tapia, M.S.; Martín-Belloso, O. Using polysaccharide-based edible coatings to maintain quality of fresh-cut Fuji apples. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, J.L.; Yan, S.; Feng, Z.; Xiao, L.; Hu, X.S. Changes in the volatile compounds and chemical and physical properties of Yali pear (Pyrus bertschneideri Reld) during storage. Food Chem. 2006, 97, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Goncalves, E.D.; Antunes, P.L.; Brackmann, A. Controlled atmosphere storage of Asian pears cv. Nijisseiki. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2000, 22, 226–231. [Google Scholar]
  66. Park, Y.M. Relationship between instrumental and sensory analysis of quality factors in apple and pear fruits. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2002, 20, 394–398. [Google Scholar]
  67. Alfonzo, A.; Gaglio, R.; Miceli, A.; Francesca, N.; Di Gerlando, R.; Moschetti, G.; Settanni, L. Shelf-life evaluation of fresh-cut red chicory subjected to different minimal processes. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Leff, J.W.; Fierer, N. Bacterial communities associated with the surfaces of fresh fruits and vegetables. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Miceli, A.; Settanni, L. Influence of agronomic practices and pre-harvest conditions on the attachment and development of Listeria monocytogenes in vegetables. Ann. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. 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]
Horticulturae 07 00581 g001 550
Figure 1. Development of firmness (Kg cm−2) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Figure 1. Development of firmness (Kg cm−2) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Horticulturae 07 00581 g001
Horticulturae 07 00581 g002 550
Figure 2. Development of lightness (L*) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Figure 2. Development of lightness (L*) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Horticulturae 07 00581 g002
Horticulturae 07 00581 g003 550
Figure 3. Development of browning index (BI) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Figure 3. Development of browning index (BI) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Horticulturae 07 00581 g003
Horticulturae 07 00581 g004 550
Figure 4. Development of colour variation (ΔE) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) among different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Figure 4. Development of colour variation (ΔE) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) among different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Horticulturae 07 00581 g004
Horticulturae 07 00581 g005 550
Figure 5. The changes of the soluble solids content (SSC) in °Brix, of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Figure 5. The changes of the soluble solids content (SSC) in °Brix, of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different lowercase letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different sampling times for the same treatment. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatments for the same sampling time.
Horticulturae 07 00581 g005
Horticulturae 07 00581 g006 550
Figure 6. Visual aspect of untreated (CTR) and treated (EC1 and EC2) pear slices.
Figure 6. Visual aspect of untreated (CTR) and treated (EC1 and EC2) pear slices.
Horticulturae 07 00581 g006
Horticulturae 07 00581 g007 550
Figure 7. (a–d): Sensory analysis of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Data with * are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Legend: visual appearance (VA), flesh colour (FC), flesh lightness (FB), browning (B), pear odour (PO), herbaceous odour (HO), off-odour (OO), roughness (R), compactness (CP), dryness (D), aroma intensity (AI), crunchiness (CR), firmness (FR), stickiness (S), rubber (RU), juiciness (J), astringency (AS), sweetness (SW), bitterness (BT), acidity (AC), pear flavour (PF), herb flavour (HF), off-flavour (OF), overall assessment (OA).
Figure 7. (a–d): Sensory analysis of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices. Data correspond to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Data with * are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Legend: visual appearance (VA), flesh colour (FC), flesh lightness (FB), browning (B), pear odour (PO), herbaceous odour (HO), off-odour (OO), roughness (R), compactness (CP), dryness (D), aroma intensity (AI), crunchiness (CR), firmness (FR), stickiness (S), rubber (RU), juiciness (J), astringency (AS), sweetness (SW), bitterness (BT), acidity (AC), pear flavour (PF), herb flavour (HF), off-flavour (OF), overall assessment (OA).
Horticulturae 07 00581 g007
Table
Table 1. Weight loss (%) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices.
Table 1. Weight loss (%) of treated (EC1 and EC2) and untreated (CTR) pear slices.
Treatmentsd2d4d7
CTR1.14 ± 0.03 A1.7 ± 0.06 A2.1 ± 0.12 A
EC10.8 ± 0.03 B1.3 ± 0.05 AB1.6 ± 0.1 AB
EC20.7 ± 0.03 B1.0 ± 0.05 B1.2 ± 0.1 B
Data corresponds to the means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Means with different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 using Tukey’s-HSD test. Different capital letters denote significant differences (p < 0.05) among different treatments for the same sampling time.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Passafiume, R.; Gugliuzza, G.; Gaglio, R.; Busetta, G.; Tinebra, I.; Sortino, G.; Farina, V. Aloe-Based Edible Coating to Maintain Quality of Fresh-Cut Italian Pears (Pyrus communis L.) during Cold Storage. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7120581

AMA Style

Passafiume R, Gugliuzza G, Gaglio R, Busetta G, Tinebra I, Sortino G, Farina V. Aloe-Based Edible Coating to Maintain Quality of Fresh-Cut Italian Pears (Pyrus communis L.) during Cold Storage. Horticulturae. 2021; 7(12):581. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7120581

Chicago/Turabian Style

Passafiume, Roberta, Giovanni Gugliuzza, Raimondo Gaglio, Gabriele Busetta, Ilenia Tinebra, Giuseppe Sortino, and Vittorio Farina. 2021. "Aloe-Based Edible Coating to Maintain Quality of Fresh-Cut Italian Pears (Pyrus communis L.) during Cold Storage" Horticulturae 7, no. 12: 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7120581

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