water loss quality cantwell2013.pptx [read-only]ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/234-2540.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
6/16/2013
1
Water Loss and Postharvest Quality
Marita Cantwell, UC Davis
http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu
Water Loss and Postharvest Quality
Topics to cover
• How does water loss occur
• What are critical levels of water loss
• Where does water loss occur in handling
• How to control water loss
Postharvest Water RelationsWater lossWater gain
6/16/2013
2
Fresh Produce and Water Loss
• Fresh produce contains 65% (garlic) to 95% (lettuce) water; water content for most products is 85‐90%
• Harvested products begin to lose moisture immediately upon cutting from the plant
• Water loss = transpiration
• Water loss = weight loss (except if significant dry matter loss during storage)
• Water loss is water vapor movement from product to the environment
• Water loss is affected mainly by packaging, temperature, relative humidity and airflow
Water loss• Through stem end
• Through epidermis and stomates
• Through peel and lenticels
• Through damaged areas
J.L.J. Bezuidenhout. 2005. Lenticels different plant species, Thesis. Univ. Pretoria., SA. Light microscopy mango lenticels
6/16/2013
3
Critical levels for many products <3% no visual effect, texture3-5% visual quality affected>5% shrivel, lose salability
Impacts on QualityLoss of Salable WeightLoss Fresh Appearance
GlossShrivelPitting, sunken areas
Loss of Texture, TurgidityChanges in Product Physiology
Water loss is Cumulative
These berries wereheld at ambienttemperature and lost more than10% weight and look old and tired
These berrieswere kept coldand lost lessthan 1% weight and look fresh
Ripened at 15C Higher gloss Less weight loss Firmer
TomatoesRipened at 20C
0.4% 5.2% 10.3% 13.9%
Romaine Lettuceis marketable until 5% weight loss
6/16/2013
4
% Weight loss
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% F
irmne
ss lo
ss0
20
40
60
80
y = 5.68x + 9.69R2 = 0.80
% Firmness loss vs % Weight loss
Iceless BroccoliTemperature-yellowingMoisture loss-softening
ICELESS BROCCOLIMinimize delay from harvest to cooling Use plastic liners with holes to reduce water loss Keep it coldAbout 3-4% weight loss = soft head
Texture and Water loss
Water Loss and Fruit RipeningWater loss during initial phase of ripening affects rates of ripeningWater loss is a stress and caused increased synthesis of ethyleneTherefore minimize water loss during initial 72 hours after harvest
Burdon, J. et al. 2005. Mode of action of water loss on fruit quality of ‘Hass’ avocadoes.NZ and Australia Grower’s Conf., 2005
Stage when induce water loss
Total % Water loss
Days to ripen
Pre-climacteric 5.6 14.1
Climacteric 5.3 15.7
Post-climacteric 5.2 17.0Early season fruit; Induced water loss conditions: 20C with 20%RHControl, 20C 95%RH lost only 1.3% weight and required 16.4 days to ripenDecay was less on fruit from treatments with water loss than on control fruit
Water Loss and Fruit Physiology
6/16/2013
5
Cluster Tomato Fruit AbscissionInteraction of Water Loss and Fruit Ripening
No abscission: store for 2 weeks at 20C & 95%RH No Abscission: 10 ppm ethylene 8days at 20C & 95%RH No abscission: store at 20C and 20%RH if fruit full red
before sepal shrivel (cannot detach fruit without damage) Abscission occurred: storing fruit at 20C and 20% or
50%RH and if sepals shrivel before fruit is full red
Weight loss during harvest and initial handling is most critical
JK Brecht and KM Cordasco. 2006. HortScience 41(4) Abstract 979
Fruit100% RH in air spacesAssume 20C 100% RH
Environment
TemperatureRelative Humidity—less than 100%Air velocity
Skin/epidermis
Vapor pressure deficit
Assume 20C with 40%RH
VPD increases exponentially with rising temperature
VPD increases linearly with falling humidity
6/16/2013
6
Water loss and temperatureWt loss (%/day) = product K x VPD
Psychrometric ChartThermodynamic properties of airTemperature and Water Content
VPD increases exponentially with rising temperature
VPD increases linearly with falling humidity
Typical field and storageconditions
BasilHighly susceptible to water lossVery chilling sensitive
Situation:Excellent quality cropHarvesting late in dayHigh temperatures, ~30°CLow RH, ~50%; Little protection from ambientLong delays to packinghouse
What can be done to improve this handling???
Handling at harvest is critical for water loss management
6/16/2013
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 hr32°F, 95% RH
32°F 95% RH, air at 0.5 mph
Load at 32°F,Transport at 40°F
6 hrs 80°F 20% RH
Cooled at40°F, 75% RH
Stored at 32°F, 75% RHair at 2 mph
Load at 40°F,Transport at 40°F
Table GrapesIdeal vs Poor Postharvest Handling
Delay Before Cooling
6 hours Cooling
7 dayStorage
7 dayTransit
% Water Loss From G. Mitchell, UC Davis
Weight loss of Tuscan melons held for different periods at 37°C (99°F) before cooling, storage and shelf-life.
Hours at 37°C (99°F)
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
% w
eig
ht
loss
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
y = 0.1068x -0.049R2=0.99
Tuscan melon weight loss and time at 37°C (99°F) 20%RH
Water loss is Cumulative
Suture browning Tuscan melons
Cooling delay% weight loss before
cool
% weight loss storage
10D 5°C
% weight loss shelf-life
4D 20°C
TotalWeight loss
%
Suture browning
score
0 h delay control 0.00 2.14 0.97 3.08 1.2
4 h delay 0.38 1.95 0.96 3.25 1.3
8 h delay 0.85 1.85 0.78 3.45 1.3
12 h delay 1.19 1.62 0.79 3.56 1.4
16 h delay 1.50 1.32 0.85 3.63 2.8
20 h delay 2.06 1.47 0.68 4.15 4.0
24 h delay 2.80 1.41 0.71 4.85 4.2
LSD.05 0.21 0.42 ns 0.60 0.8
1=none 5=severe
Cantwell, UC Davis
6/16/2013
8
Delays to cool of Tuscan Melons; fruit held at 37°C (99°F)
0 h
16 h 24 h
8 h0.0%
2.8%1.5%
0.8%
Weight loss
Melon visual quality after delays to cool, storage 10d 5°C (41°F) + 4d 20°C (68°F)
0 h 8 h
16 h 24 h
Total Weight loss
3.0% 3.2%
4.0% 4.8%
6/16/2013
9
Stems as freshness indicators• Initially stems contribute 40% to weight loss• As stems dry, less water loss through them
Weight and water content cherries and stems. 21°C, 66%RH, restricted natural convection, 6days
Linke et al. 2010. Green peduncles may indicate postharvest freshness of sweet cherries. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 58: 135-141.
Parameter Fruit with stems
Fruit bodies
Stems
Initial fresh weight, g 11.89 11.76 0.14
Final fresh weight, g 11.02 10.95 0.06
Water loss, % 7.4 6.8 54.4
Initial water content, % 80.98 81.11 69.37
Final water content, % 73.58 74.28 14.72
Predicted postharvest moisture loss from litchi with idealized handling.
StageTemp. (°C)
RH (%)Wind speed (m s−1)
Duration (h)
Predicted moisture loss (%)
Cumulative moisture loss (%)
Harvest 30 65 1.5 3 1.87 1.87
Pre-cooling 5 75 1 5 0.38 2.25
Storage 5 75 0 5 0.06 2.31
Transport 7 66 0 12 0.23 2.54
Wholesale 5 75 0 3 0.04 2.58
Wholesale display
25 22 0 2 0.27 2.85
Transport 7 66 0 2 0.04 2.89
Retail 20 50 0.5 6 0.90 3.79 38h
Litchi Browning: Water loss is a major contributor: 8% water loss for peel browning. Mechanical damage, senescence, improper storage temperature, and postharvest pathogens also contribute.
Bryant, P.H. 2012. A model of postharvest moisture loss under air currents to reduce pericarpbrowning of litchi. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 73: 8-13.
6/16/2013
10
Litchi~8% weight loss = desiccation browning
Harvest Conditions
Temp. (°C)
RH (%)
Wind speed (m s−1)
Duration (h)
Predicted moisture loss (%)
Standard 30 65 1.5 3 1.9
No wind 30 65 0 3 0.3
Delay 30 65 1.5 6 3.6
Extreme 35 50 1.5 6 6.3
Bryant, P.H. 2012. A model of postharvest moisture loss under air currents to reduce pericarpbrowning of litchi. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 73: 8-13.
Wind speed and weight loss
Minimize Weight loss and Firmness Loss in Peppers
Variety% Weight loss
% Firmnessloss
Allegiance 3.9 35.0Baron 6.4 60.2Classic 4.7 56.8Cypress 5.1 53.5Double Up 5.8 52.4Excel 6.3 37.7Karisma 4.0 45.6Patriot 4.4 53.5RPP 22984 6.4 67.3Wizard 4.9 45.8
Average 5.2 50.8LSD.05 0.6 8.2
14D 7.5°C + 3D 20°C
Water loss and Cultivars
6/16/2013
11
Cultivar Shrivel * % weight loss
Ahern 299 3.5 13.2
Amsterdam 3.2 15.2
Harris LI-34 4.6 15.6
Hazera 1319 4.3 18.0
Rotterdam 2.4 11.8
TC 1260 3.6 14.9LSD.05 0.6 1.5
*Shrivel score -1-5 scale, 1=none, 2=slight, 3=moderate, 4=moderately severe, 5=severe
Role of cultivar in postharvest quality loss Example: Grape tomatoes and weight loss
Cantwell, UC Davis 20041 2 3 4 5
12days 20C 50%RH
Simple packaging to reduce water loss.Need to cool product before packaging (room or hydrocool)or used vented packaging and vacuum cool (romaine lettuces)
6/16/2013
12
Wei
ght
loss
, %
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
LSD.05
A. % Weight loss, bags folded over
Days at 10°C (50°F)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Firm
ness
, N fo
rce
to c
omp
ress
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LSD.05
B. Firmness, bags folded over
No Bag, waxed carton
Lettuce bag, folded over
Extend bag, folded over
New Peak Fresh bag, folded over
Smart bag, folded over
Broccoli weight lossand firmness losscan be minimized withplastic liners.
Liners placed in fieldAnd product vacuum cooled
Simple perforated PElettuce or basil linersperform as well as more expensive plastic films.
Cantwell, UC Davis
Condensation—worse than water loss for many products
Dew point
Strawberries do not tolerate free moisture
Salad kale does not tolerate free moisture
6/16/2013
13
“Cold and Dry”
Bacterial growth: temperature and moisture
Vapor pressure deficit, g moisture/kg dry air
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Wei
ght
loss
, %
per
day
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24 Weight loss in relation to VPD in 4 products
Products at 0, 10, 20 and 30C exposed or in vented plastic bags
Strawberry
Broccoli
Romaine
Mushroom y = 1.66x - 1.29; R2 = 0.98
y = 1.15x -0.68; R2 = 0.98
y = 0.70x -0.23; R2 = 0.97
y = 0.583x - 0.25; R2 = 0.95
A small amount of controlled water loss leads to longer postharvest life; Avoid free moisture
Leafy green grower, Singapore. Product harvested in afternoon, cooled overnight in marine container, slightly dehydrated (5-10% weight loss) and then consumer packaged the following day.
“Cold and Dry” Handling
6/16/2013
14
Low =72%RHMedium =85%RHHigh =99%RH
Percent Damaged Leaves
Overall Visual Quality
Medina et al. 2012. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 67: 1-9.
Washed Baby SpinachHumidity controlled Pre-wash and Storage 36h 15°C prewash; 19.7, 11.0 and 0.5% wt. loss12d 7°C storage in MAP (~5%O2+8%CO2)
Leaf damage causes decrease in shelf-lifeand increase microbial load.
Water loss controlLow temperaturePackaging appropriateMinimize time
6/16/2013
15
Display ready reusable packagingWhat are advantages and disadvantages?
Water loss and Retail Handling
Days storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
% w
eig
ht
loss
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
W eight loss rate per day:2.5°C = 0.03%5°C = 0.06%10°C = 0.085%
2.5°C 36°F 5°C 41°F 10°C 50°F
Retail Spinach Bags: W eight Loss
Display ready reusable crates-whatare advantages and disadvantages
For product to tolerate such conditionsat retail, must minimize water loss at earlier steps in handling chain
Additional paper or plastic packagingcan notably reduce water loss
Exposed
Bag withperforations
8 days
0.5°C (33°F) 5°C (41°F) 10°C (50°F)
5.2% 10.3% 13.9% weight loss
0.4% 0.5% 0.7% weight loss
6/16/2013
16
Water Loss and Postharvest Quality• Water loss occurs through natural pores and damaged areas
• Environmental conditions at harvest cause high rates of water loss
• Harvest when cool
• Protect and shade in the field
• Reduce delays from harvest to start cooling
• Cool efficiently, then reduce air flow over product
• Manage Temperature, RH, air flow during storage and transport
• Use protective packaging
• Use protective treatments in some cases (waxes, coatings)
• Weight loss is cumulative, store only as long as necessary
• Controlled weight loss may be beneficial to shelf-life
• Problem conditions are at the beginning and end of the value chain
REFERENCES
Ben-Yehoshua, S. and V. Rodov. 2003.Transpiration and water stress. In: J.A. Bartz and J.K. Brecht. (Eds.). Postharvest Physiology and Pathology of Vegetables. 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY. Pp. 111-159.
Rodov, V., S. Ben-Yehoshua, and N. Aharoni. 2010. Modified Humidity Packaging of Fresh Produce. Horticultural Reviews 37: 281-329.
Thompson, J.T. 2002. Psychrometrics and perishable commodities. Ch13. In A.A. Kader (ed.). Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. Publication 3311, Univ. California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland. pp. 129-134.
Tijskens, L.M.M., S. Jacob, R.E. Schouten, J.P. Fernández-Trujillo, N. Dos-Santos,E. Vangdal, E. Pagán and A. Pérez Pastor. 2010. Water Loss in Horticultural Products -Modelling, Data Analysis and Theoretical Considerations. Acta Horticulturae 858: 465-471.