Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit

Emmanuel M. Amwoka; Jane L. Ambuko; Hutchinson M. Jesang’; Willis O. Owino

doi:10.1155/2021/8859144

Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit

Amwoka, Emmanuel M.;Ambuko, Jane L.;Jesang’, Hutchinson M.;Owino, Willis O. 2021-06-08 00:00:00 Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 8859144, 12 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8859144 Research Article Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit 1 1 1 2 Emmanuel M. Amwoka, Jane L. Ambuko , Hutchinson M. Jesang’, and Willis O. Owino Department of Plant Science and Crop Protection, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Kangemi, Nairobi, Kenya Department of Food Science and Technology, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology, P.O. Box 62000–00200, Nairobi, Kenya Correspondence should be addressed to Jane L. Ambuko; ambuko@yahoo.com Received 12 September 2020; Accepted 31 May 2021; Published 8 June 2021 Academic Editor: Jiban Shrestha Copyright © 2021 Emmanuel M. Amwoka et al. 'is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. An on-farm study was conducted among smallholder mango farmers in Embu County of Kenya to demonstrate the eﬀectiveness of simple harvest and postharvest handling practices to attain cold chain and extend mango shelf life. 'e recommended cold chain practices were compared with common farmers' practices. 'Apple', 'Ngowe', 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins' harvested at the mature green stage were used in the study. To demonstrate proper cold chain, fruits were harvested before 8 am, transported in crates lined with dampened newspapers, precooled in an evaporative charcoal cooler, and then transferred to a Coolbot cold room (10± 2 C). To demonstrate common farmers’ practices, fruits were harvested at noon, transported in open crates, and stored at ambient room conditions (25± 7 C, 55± 15%RH). 'e air and fruit pulp temperatures were monitored regularly using HUATO® data loggers. During the storage period, a random sample of 3 fruits (per variety) per treatment was taken after every 3 days to evaluate ripening related changes including physiological weight loss, colour, ﬁrmness, and total soluble solids. Proper ° ° cold chain practices resulted in low fruit pulp temperature (average 11 C) compared to 25 C for fruits handled using common practices by farmers leading to faster ripening as evidenced by lower peel/pulp colour and ﬁrmness, higher physiological weight loss, and higher total soluble solids. For example, ﬂesh ﬁrmness of fruits under poor cold chain practices decreased from initial 36.6 N, 45.9 N, 66.5 N, and 46.8 N to 3.1 N, 2.4 N, 3.2 N, and 3.1 N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, at the end of storage while that of fruits under proper cold chain practices reduced to 2.3 N, 1.5 N, 3.9 N, and 2.9 N, respectively, for the four varieties at the end of storage. Overall, proper cold chain management extended mango shelf life by 18 days. Application of simple harvest and handling practices coupled with simple storage technologies can attain and maintain the cold chain required to preserve quality and extend shelf life. 'is could increase the marketing and storage periods for later selling and processing, respectively, of mango fruits. However, despite the increase in production and mango’s 1. Introduction growing economic importance in recent years, its value has Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is one of the main fruits not been fully exploited due to various factors, including produced in Kenya mainly for the domestic market and to a high postharvest harvest losses along the mango value chain. small extent for export. It is ranked 2nd in both value and It is reported that at least 40–45% of the mango fruits are lost export market after banana and avocado, respectively [1]. due to poor handling of harvest and postharvest handling Mango production has increased over the past years as practices [2]. evidenced by the area under production increasing by Mango is a highly perishable fruit with a short shelf life 1,452 ha from 2016 to 2017, a 3% rise. 'is increase can be after harvest. Ripening and subsequent deterioration of the attributed to increased demand for fresh market, fruit fruit are attributed to various physiological processes, in- processing, and health concerns among the consumers [1]. cluding respiration, softening, and colour changes. 'e rate 2 Advances in Agriculture Harvesting produce during cooler times of the day re- of ripening and deterioration of the fruit due to these physiological processes is aﬀected by environmental factors duces heat load which would otherwise result from high temperatures and exposure to direct sunlight during hotter including temperature and relative humidity [3]. In han- dling perishable commodities such as fruits and vegetables, times of the day [9]. Harvesting early in the morning when maintenance of low but safe temperatures during handling plant cells are turgid minimizes water loss and signiﬁcantly of the produce from harvest to the end-user (cold chain) is enhances shelf life and preserves quality. Studies in French critical for preserving the quality. Cold chain for perishable beans showed that harvesting during hotter hours lost products is the continuous handling of the produce in cool signiﬁcantly higher water during storage [10]. Immediately temperatures during postharvest handling from harvest, after harvest, the use of ﬁeld shades to keep the produce cool collection, transport, storage, processing, and marketing also reduces the amount of heat load in the produce. Field until they reach the ﬁnal consumers [4]. Components of a shades cool produce, thus decreasing metabolic reactions in harvested produce [11]. Harvested produce should be proper cold chain are divided into seven, namely, on-farm cooling, initial cooling, storage, transportation, distribution, transported from the ﬁeld to storage immediately. Delays in the ﬁeld may expose the produce to more heat and hence retail, and consumer, with possible temperature manage- ment. An increase in temperature by 10 C above optimum high heat load in harvested crops, aﬀecting shelf life and quality [10]. For produce destined for cold storage, the increases the deterioration rate in perishable commodities 2- 3-fold. Delays between harvesting and cooling or processing longer the duration to cooling, the longer the time to at- can result in quantitative losses (due to water loss and decay) tainment of set storage temperature. Past studies show that a and qualitative losses (losses in ﬂavor and nutritional delay by one hour between harvest and precooling causes a quality) [5]. Proper cold chain management reduces res- loss of one day in the shelf life [12]. Precooling before cold piration thus lessens perishability, reduces transpiration and storage is necessary to remove ﬁeld heat in harvested pro- hence lessens water loss and shriveling, reduces ethylene duce [4]. Removal of ﬁeld heat by precooling reduces postharvest decay, controls the development of physiological production and increases resistance to ethylene action slowing ripening and natural senescence, decreases the disorders, and decreases metabolic activities such as respi- ration rate and ethylene production, thus delaying ripening, activity of microorganisms, and reduces browning and loss of texture, ﬂavor, and nutrients [4]. Cold chains have been ageing, and senescence [13]. 25–30% postharvest losses are used to maintain postharvest quality of fruits during ship- recorded in unprecooled commercial fruits and vegetables ment, marketing, and storage before consumption. while only 5–10% postharvest losses are recorded for pre- Besides temperature, relative humidity is another en- cooled produce [14]. Precooling coupled with other cool vironmental factor contributing to the deterioration of chain practices and technologies has been used to extend harvested perishable produce such as fruits and vegetables. shelf life and preserve the quality of harvested tomatoes [15]. Physiological water loss that results in shriveling contributes Cold storage in perishable produce can be achieved signiﬁcantly to the production of deterioration and post- through the application of low-cost cold storage technolo- gies. Examples of low-cost technologies that have been used harvest losses in perishable commodities. At harvest, the harvested crop may lose water due to several factors in- successfully to preserve the quality of perishable produce TM include the Coolbot cluding harvest maturity, environmental conditions and cold room, solar-powered coolers, TM harvest techniques, and physical injury [6]. Harvesting fruits and evaporative cooling technologies. 'e Coolbot cold during hot times of the day will result in high heat load in room is a low-cost cold storage alternative to conventional TM harvested produce, leading to high respiration and tran- cold rooms. 'e Coolbot cold room is composed of the spiration and hence increased water loss during prolonged Coolbot , a compatible air conditioner (AC) and an in- TM storage [7]. 'is is due to increased vapour pressure deﬁcit sulated room. 'e Coolbot is an electronic gadget that within the produce tissue that may cause fruit cracking and overrides the thermostat of the AC, thereby enabling it to hence peel permeance allowing increased water loss after cool the room to lower than set temperatures (usually 18 C) TM harvest. Physiological water loss is further aggravated by without ice buildup on the evaporator coils [16]. Coolbot poor postharvest handling practices [6]. Low temperature cold room has been utilized to extend mango’s shelf life [17] and high relative humidity are key in reducing water loss and other produce such as turnips, potatoes, tomatoes, and TM from the fruit to the surroundings, suppress enzymatic and beans. 'e Coolbot cold room’s advantage over con- respiratory activities leading to ripening and senescence, and ventional cold rooms is that it is relatively aﬀordable slow pathological activities creating a safe environment for (compared to the conventional cold room), electricity-eﬃ- fruit preservation. On the contrary, high temperatures and cient, and environmentally friendly [16]. For the oﬀ-grid low relative humidity at harvest time result in water loss smallholder farmers, evaporative cooling provides a feasible causing fruits to shrivel, lowering quality [8]. alternative. Evaporative coolers work on the principle of Most farmers perceive cold chain management as a evaporative cooling whereby when water held in a wetted complex system that requires high-cost infrastructure in- medium (charcoal or sand) evaporates, it draws heat from cluding conventional cold rooms and refrigerated transport. the surroundings, creating a cooling eﬀect [18]. Evaporative However, smallholder farmers can achieve the same beneﬁts coolers are considered feasible and appropriate for small- of the conventional cold chain management practices by holder rural farmers because they can be made from locally applying simple harvest and postharvest handling practices available materials and the costs of running them are low. coupled with low-cost storage technologies. However, the cooling achieved by evaporative coolers is Advances in Agriculture 3 dependent on the surrounding environment, temperature, monitored using HUATO data loggers (Model HE17x, and relative humidity and the cooling attained is often not Huato Electric Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) after every one low enough to slow down some of the deteriorative processes hour. 'e loggers’ data were retrieved at the end of the [19]. Evaporative cooling is eﬀective for precooling and experiment by downloading recorded data using HUATO short-term storage of harvested produce. Diﬀerent evapo- app. rative coolers have been used to extend shelf life and preserve the postharvest quality of horticultural crops such as leafy 2.3.2. Pulp Temperature. 'e pulp temperature of the fruits vegetables [19] and tomato [20]. was recorded at harvest time, upon arrival at the centre, after Application of cold storage technologies can extend the every one hour for precooled fruits till temperatures sta- marketing period of perishable produce such as mango, bilized, and then after every three days in both treatments. thereby avoiding distress sales by smallholder farmers who 'is was done by plunging the temperature probes’ tip into are otherwise vulnerable to middlemen. 'is study’s ob- the 3 sample fruits and measurement on the probe taken. jective was to evaluate the eﬀectiveness of selected cold chain 'e 3 measurements were averaged and presented as the management practices and technologies to achieve eﬀective internal pulp temperature. cooling and extend the shelf life of mango fruit. 2.3.3. Percentage Cumulative Weight Loss. In each treat- 2. Materials and Methods ment, three fruits per variety numbered 1 to 3 were used to 2.1. Study Site. 'e study was conducted in Karurumo area (S measure cumulative weight loss using a digital weighing ° ° scale (Model Libror AEG-220, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, 0 28′11.6184″ E 37 39′47.466″), Runyenjes subcounty, Embu County in Kenya. Embu County is located in a medium Japan). 'e mango fruits’ initial weight at day 0 after harvest was recorded; then the new weight of the same fruit on each potential region, agroecological zone (AEZ) III. It receives a total annual rainfall of averagely 1067.5 mm (received twice in sampling day was noted. Data were collected every 3 days in both treatments. Percentage cumulative weight loss was a year) at an altitude of 700 m–6500 m above sea level, and the ° ° temperatures range from 26 C to 35 C. calculated using (w1 − w2) (1) cumulative weight loss% � × 100. w1 2.2. Experimental Design. Uniform mature green mango fruits of 'Apple', 'Ngowe', 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins' varieties were harvested at two diﬀerent times of the day from 3 se- 2.3.4. Peel and Flesh Colour. Peel and ﬂesh colour were lected farms. To demonstrate proper cold chain practices, all determined by sampling three fruits per treatment and the four mango varieties were harvested in the morning measuring two diﬀerent spots along the equator using a (before 8 am) and transported to the experimental site in Minolta colour meter (Model CR-200, Osaka, Japan), cali- crates lined with dampened newspapers to simulate evapo- brated with a standard white piece of paper. To access the rative cooling during transit. Upon arrival at the aggregation ﬂesh, the three sampled fruits were cut open longitudinally centre, fruits were sorted for uniformity based on size and and measurements were taken at two diﬀerent spots. Data freedom from damage. 'ey were then precooled in an were collected every 3 days in both treatments. Colour co- evaporative charcoal cooler until temperatures stabilized at ∗ ∗ ∗ ° ° ° ° ordinates (L , a , and b ) were obtained and then hue angles 22.2 C, 22.03 C, 22.1 C, and 22.07 C for 'Apple', 'Ngowe', ∗ ∗ (h ) were calculated by converting a and b as shown in 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins' varieties, respectively, and then TM stored in the Coolbot (12± 2) C) in open crates. In the Hue angle(Ho) � arctan􏼠 􏼡, for + a and + b values. second harvest, in order to demonstrate farmers’ practices, fruits of the same varieties were harvested the same day at (2) midday (noon) and transported to the experimental site in open crates. At the centre, the fruits were sorted for uni- formity and stored directly under ambient conditions 2.3.5. Peel and Flesh Firmness. 'ree fruits per treatment (25± 7 C), with relative humidity of 55± 15%. 'e experi- were sampled and peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness were measured at ment was laid down as a completely randomized design two diﬀerent, intact, and peeled mango spots using a pen- (CRD) with a factorial treatment arrangement. Factor 1 was etrometer (Model CR-100D, Sun Scientiﬁc Co., Ltd., Japan) cold chain practices with two levels: cold chain (Treatment 1) ﬁtted with a 5 mm probe. For the ﬂesh ﬁrmness, the probe and no cold chain (Treatment 2). Factor 2 was variety with 4 was allowed to penetrate to a depth of 1.5 mm and the levels: 'Apple', 'Ngowe', 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins'. 'e corresponding force required to penetrate this depth was treatments were replicated three times. determined. Data were collected every 3 days in both treatments. Firmness was expressed as Newton (N). 2.3. Data Collection 2.3.1. Air Temperature and Air Relative Humidity (%). 2.3.6. Total Soluble Solids (TSS). 'ree fruits per treatment 'e air temperature and percentage relative humidity inside were sampled and total soluble solids were determined using TM the Coolbot cold room and ambient room were regularly an Atago hand refractometer (Model 500, Atago, Tokyo, 4 Advances in Agriculture Japan). On each sampling time, 3 ml of the fruit juice was extracted from three diﬀerent fruits by pressing and placed on the hand refractometer to obtain the Brix level. Data were collected every 3 days in both treatments. 'e total soluble solid was then expressed as oBrix. 2.3.7. Overall Shelf Life. 'e mango fruits’ total shelf life was determined by counting the number of days taken to reach the end-stage. End-stage was based on ﬁrmness and visual appearance at which the fruit was saleable. 2.4. Data Analysis. 'e data collected was analyzed using the th GenStat 15 Edition statistical program. Analysis of vari- ance (ANOVA) was used to test for signiﬁcant diﬀerences Time (hours) among treatments for each parameter and means separated Colbot temperature Colbot %RH using Fischer’s protected least signiﬁcant diﬀerence at Ambient temperature Ambient %RH P � 0.05. Figure 1: Diﬀerences in temperature ( C) and relative humidity (%) in the Coolbot cold room and ambient room during the ﬁrst 3. Results ™ 24 hours of storage. 3.1. Changes in Air Temperature and Percentage Relative Humidity in the Coolbot Cold Room and Ambient Room. 14.96%, 13.46%, 17.71%, and 12.96% for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, 'e initial temperature in the Coolbot cold room 16.9 C ™ ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively (Table 2). was preset (10± 2) C, which is the recommended cold storage temperature for mango fruits. 'e preset tempera- ture was attained within an hour and remained stable/ 3.4. Peel and Flesh Colour. 'e peel colour of the fruits constant during the 24-hour observation period. In the gradually changed from green to yellow as the fruits ripened ambient room, the temperatures ﬂuctuated between 24.9 C while the ﬂesh colour gradually changed from whitish- and 32.8 C. 'e percentage relative humidity in the Cool- yellow to full yellow. Hue angles for fruits under farmer bot cold room and ambient room ranged between 80.6%– practices steadily decreased as the fruits ripened faster as 92.6% and 40.4%–71.5%, respectively (Figure 1). compared to fruits under proper cold chain practices. Peel colour of fruits decreased from initial hue angle value of ° ° ° ° 110.33 , 130.72 , 112.28 , and 111.12 for ‘Apple’, ‘Kent’, 3.2. Fruit Pulp Temperature. 'e average internal pulp ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, to ° ° temperatures were 16.4 C and 31.4 C for fruits harvested ° ° ° ° 73.89 , 101.29 , 77.34 , and 85.11 at the end of storage for during the cool morning hours versus hot afternoon, re- fruits under proper cold chain management as compared to spectively. Upon arrival at the centre, pulp temperature of fruits under poor cold chain management that recorded the fruits harvested in the morning averaged 27.5 C while ° ° ° ° 61.85 , 102.37 , 55.8 , and 52.30 , respectively, at the end of that for fruits harvested at midday averaged 33.4 C. After storage (Table 3). precooling, the pulp temperatures stabilized at 22.2 C, Similarly, ﬂesh colour also decreased from initial hue ° ° ° 22.03 C, 22.1 C, and 22.07 C for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ° ° ° ° angle value of 87.19 , 89.41 , 91.22 , and 89.12 for ‘Apple’, ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, after 6 hours. 'ere ‘Kent’, ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, was a signiﬁcant diﬀerence (P> 0.05) in pulp temperature ° ° ° ° to 66.87 , 62.19 , 73.58 , and 64.20 at the end of storage for for fruits under proper cold chain practices and those under fruits under proper cold chain management. On the other farmer practices (no cold chain). However, there was no hand, hues of fruits under poor cold chain management signiﬁcant diﬀerence (P> 0.05) between pulp temperatures ° ° ° ° decreased to 63.80 , 66.52 , 66.0 , and 71.95 , respectively, at of the diﬀerent mango varieties used in the study (Table 1). the end of storage, approximately 18 days earlier compared to fruits under proper cold chain practice (Table 4). 3.3. Physiological Weight Loss (PWL). Physiological weight loss was recorded to be high in fruits under farmer practice. 'ere was a signiﬁcant diﬀerence (P > 0.05) in percentage 3.5. Peel and Flesh Firmness. Peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness de- cumulative weight loss between fruits under proper cold creased gradually as the fruits ripened, irrespective of the chain practices and farmer practices. At the end of storage treatment and variety. Peel ﬁrmness of fruits under poor (days 30–33), fruits under proper cold chain practices cold chain practices decreased from the initial 110.2 N, recorded %PWL of 11.59%, 11.15%, 12.72%, and 7.79% for 153.1 N, 118.5 N, and 115.1 N to 22.7 N, 18.9 N, 30.1 N, and Apple, Ngowe, Kent, and Tommy Atkins varieties, respec- 29.6 N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ tively. 'e fruits under farmer practices recorded signiﬁ- varieties, respectively, at the end of the storage. Fruit under cantly high PWL at the end of storage (days 12–15) averaging proper cold chain practices decreased to 7.7 N, 6.7 N, 15.9 N, Temperature (°C), Humidity (%RH) 7:11:16 8:11:16 9:11:16 10:11:17 11:11:17 12:11:17 13:11:17 14:11:18 15:11:18 16:11:18 17:11:19 18:11:19 19:11:19 20:11:19 21:11:20 22:11:20 23:11:20 00:11:21 01:11:21 02:11:21 03:11:22 04:11:22 05:11:22 06:11:22 Advances in Agriculture 5 Table 1: Diﬀerences in pulp temperature ( C) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means T0 T1 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 b c a b a a b a a ab ab b Cold chain 16.3 27.4 10.9 10.6 11.8 11.5 11.5 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.9 12.6 13.2 Apple a a b d d c No cold chain 31.6 33.5 23.5 24.2 24.8 22.3 26.7 b b a b a a b a a bc b ab Cold chain 16.5 27.8 10.8 10.5 12 11.4 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.7 12.1 12.5 12.8 13.3 Kent a a b bc b c e No cold chain 31.5 33 23.5 22.9 23.6 22.2 20.7 25.3 b c a c a a a a a c a a Cold chain 16.3 27.5 11 11.2 12 11.5 10.6 11.1 11.8 11.9 11.7 12.4 13.3 Ngowe a a b de c d No cold chain 31.6 33 23.5 24.4 24.3 22.8 26.6 b c a a a a b a a a ab ab Cold chain 16.3 27.3 11 9.9 11.7 11.2 11.3 11.3 11.8 11.3 11.9 12.5 13.1 Tommy Atkins a a b e c b No cold chain 31 34 23.6 23.7 24.1 25.8 27.0 0.66 0.66 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.37 0.48 0.4 0.6 0.27 0.4 0.19 0.2 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) %CV 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.5 2.7 1.2 1.8 0.8 0.4 T0: pulp temperature immediately after harvest in the ﬁeld; T1: pulp temperature upon arrival at the aggregation centre. Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Table 2: Changes in % cumulative weight loss of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a a a a a b b b b b Cold chain 0.00 1.66 2.57 3.19 4.51 5.00 7.70 8.47 9.58 10.62 11.59 5.90 Apple b c c b No cold chain 0.00 4.09 8.35 11.30 14.96 7.74 a a a a a ab b b b b Cold chain 0.00 1.52 3.10 3.79 4.57 5.63 7.26 7.99 9.62 10.57 11.51 12.72 6.52 Kent b bc bc b c No cold chain 0.00 3.45 7.68 10.47 13.98 17.71 8.88 a a a a a ab b b b b Cold chain 0.00 1.75 2.65 3.54 4.77 5.58 6.99 7.99 9.22 10.16 11.15 5.80 Ngowe b c bc b No cold chain 0.00 3.75 8.01 10.85 13.46 7.21 a a a a a a a a a a Cold chain 0.00 1.76 2.19 2.58 3.07 3.90 5.10 5.43 6.53 7.19 7.79 4.14 Tommy Atkins b b b b No cold chain 0.00 3.62 6.78 9.40 12.95 6.55 0.97 1.38 1.79 2.31 2 2.2 1.52 1.89 1.6 1.8 3.61 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 20.8 15.3 14.9 14.7 13.1 11.4 10.8 13.9 8.8 9.1 8.1 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. and 9N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ 3.7. Overall Shelf Life. 'e overall shelf life was determined varieties, respectively, at the end storage, 18 days earlier by the number of days to a predetermined end-stage for the compared to fruits under proper cold chain management fruits based on ﬁrmness and visual appearance at which the (Table 5). fruit was saleable. Fruits under poor cold chain practices had Similar trends were recorded in ﬂesh ﬁrmness of fruits a shorter shelf life of 12 days for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, and under the study. Flesh ﬁrmness of fruits under poor cold ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties and 15 days for ‘Kent’ variety. On chain practices decreased from initial 36.6 N, 45.9 N, 66.5 N, the other hand, fruits under proper cold chain practices had and 46.8 N to 3.1 N, 2.4 N, 3.2 N, and 3.1 N for ‘Apple’, a longer shelf life of 30 days for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties and 33 days for ‘Kent variety’ at the end of storage while fruits under proper cold chain (Figure 2). practices decreased to 2.3 N, 1.5 N, 3.9 N, and 2.9 N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, re- spectively, on the ﬁnal day of storage (Table 6). 4. Discussion Temperature management to maintain a proper cold chain 3.6. Total Soluble Solids (TSS). Total soluble solids increased for fresh horticultural produce is key to preserving quality as the fruits ripened irrespective of the treatment and variety. and reducing postharvest losses in perishable commodities 'e TSS for fruits under poor cold chain practices increased [21]. For smallholder horticultural farmers with limited ° ° ° ° from the initial 8.47 Brix, 6.7 Brix, 5.63 Brix, and 8.7 Brix to resources, simple harvest practices coupled with low-cost ° ° ° ° 22.63 Brix, 20.23 Brix, 13.9 Brix, and 18.23 Brix for Apple, cold storage can be used to achieve a desirable cold chain. In Ngowe, Kent, and Tommy Atkins varieties, respectively, at the present study, the eﬀectiveness of these practices and the end of storage while for fruits under proper cold chain technologies was evaluated in mango fruits. 'e study ° ° ° practices they increased to 19.43 Brix, 20.2 Brix, 14.03 Brix, evaluated proper cold chain practices or poor cold chain and 15.90 Brix for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy practices (farmer practices) in four mango varieties, namely, Atkins’ varieties, respectively, at the end of storage (Table 7). ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’. 'e eﬀect of 6 Advances in Agriculture Table 3: Changes in peel hue angles (H ) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a bc cd d b a a a a a a Cold chain 110.33 104.87 102.67 98.05 96.66 96.09 90.46 82.29 81.41 74.60 73.89 1.94 Apple a a a b a No cold chain 110.33 96.96 86.75 74.20 61.85 86.02 b e e f c c d b b b c Cold chain 130.72 130.53 128.63 124.49 123.83 122.69 122.07 120.28 119.58 108.09 104.22 101.29 119.70 Kent b e e f c c No cold chain 130.72 130.47 128.53 119.04 108.42 102.37 119.92 a cd d de b b ab a a a abc Cold chain 112.28 111.40 104.14 103.07 98.81 98.14a 96.47 94.53 86.30 81.41 77.34 96.72 Ngowe a ab bc c a No cold chain 112.28 98.95 94.45 84.14 55.80 89.12 a d d e b b ab a a a ab Cold chain 111.12 111.01 105.92 103.06 102.08 98.61a 97.94 96.02 95.89 88.74 85.11 99.59 Tommy Atkins a ab ab a a No cold chain 111.12 97.85 72.74 70.15 52.30 80.83 4.12 7.78 11. 6.63 9.93 11.95 15.30 16.95 18.86 19.39 24.16 61.30 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 2.00 4.00 6. 3.90 6.40 6. 8.20 9. 10.80 11.80 16.30 18.20 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Advances in Agriculture 7 Table 4: Changes in ﬂesh hue angles (H ) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a c c de c bc ab a a a a Cold chain 87.19 85.05 84.24 83.18 77.29 73.96 72.05 71.88 70.80 67.68 66.87 76.38 Apple a a a a a No cold chain 87.19 71.75 71.51 66.98 63.80 72.25 bc d e f d e f d c c c Cold chain 89.41 89.30 88.99 88.64 87.85 84.56 84.33 83.48 81.12 78.98 77.99 62.19 83.07 Kent bc d d cd c a No cold chain 89.41 89.41 82.04 81.50 71.62 66.52 80.08 ab d e ef d e e c c bc b Cold chain 91.12 88.33 86.73 85.94 84.66 84.00 83.67 81.99 81.61 74.96 73.58 83.33 Ngowe ab b b b b No cold chain 91.12 80.46 78.39 75.17 66.00 78.23 abc d be f d de de d b b b Cold chain 89.12 87.60 83.42 83.20 80.74 80.00 78.94 76.92 73.69 71.22 64.20 79.00 Tommy Atkins abc c c c b No cold chain 89.12 81.76 80.77 75.66 71.95 79.85 10. 3.82 2.73 3. 3. 3.62 3.82 2.47 3.24 3.90 6. 11.82 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 6.20 2.50 1.90 2.20 2.30 2.50 2.70 1.60 2.20 2.70 4.50 4.40 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. 8 Advances in Agriculture Table 5: Changes in peel ﬁrmness (N) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a bc bc d c cd ef b b a a Cold chain 110.22 103.08 95.73 85.42 65.28 63.47 54.20 50.22 30.48 15.02 7.78 61.90 Apple a b a a a No cold chain 110.22 55.47 45.91 27.13 22.68 52.28 c e e f e e g c c b b Cold chain 153.08 146.13 122.47 117.02 101.97 101.33 86.95 72.52 49.93 40.68 16.22 15.92 85.35 Kent c e d b ab No cold chain 153.08 141.43 116.90 67.78d 40.15 30.08 1.57 ab d c c c bc de a a a Cold chain 118.52 107.90 103.22 64.98 60.27 58.22 44.75 42.43 22.72 7.93a 6.73 57.97 Ngowe ab a a a a No cold chain 118.52 34.88 32.77 25.28 18.92 46.07 ab cd c e d d f a ab a a Cold chain 115.08 105.93 102.42 95.10 94.62 64.32 61.30 41.97 24.45 10.93 9.02 65.92 Tommy Atkins ab c b b b No cold chain 115.08 113.90 84.95 47.10 39.57 80.12 16.97 13.25 14.45 12. 14.23 12.46 12.34 6.43 7.70 15.05 4.44 0.78 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 7.40 7.30 8.90 9.70 13.80 11.50 15.70 6.70 12.80 22.60 23.00 1.60 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Advances in Agriculture 9 Table 6: Changes in ﬂesh ﬁrmness (N) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a b b c c bc abc a a ab a Cold chain 36.55 32.50 31.90 25.13 22.85 17.13 14.58 6.73 5.96 4.60 2.27 18.20 Apple a a a a a No cold chain 36.55 10.12 6.92 3.62 3.13 12.07 b d c d d d c a b b b Cold chain 66.47 49.57 42.57 31.07 20.48 20.43 17.50 10.92 9.05 6.13 5.85 3.95 23.67 Kent b cd a ab ab ab No cold chain 66.47 41.78 11.22 8.05 6.80 3.20 22.92 a bc b bc b abc abc a a a a Cold chain 45.98 36.35 32.67 19.13 11.88 9.52 8.82 7.57 6.02 2.78 1.49 16.56 Ngowe a a a a a No cold chain 45.98 6.45 4.82 4.68 2.42 12.87 a bc b c c c bc a a a a Cold chain 46.75 40.82 35.63 33.02 25.58 18.60 15.25 11.27 6.53 3.59 2.95 21.82 Tommy Atkins a b a a ab No cold chain 46.75 38.22 7.05 6.48 3.15 20.33 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV 12.78 13.47 9.87 11.58 8.38 12.9 10.88 9.31 1.8 8.3 2.16 4.1 (%) 15 22 25.3 28.1 23.2 21.6 27.6 21.3 12.6 22.5 23.3 28.5 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Table 7: Changes in total soluble solids (TSS) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Means Variety Treatment 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 c bc b b b b bcd bc b b b Cold chain 8.47 8.60 10.03 10.10 10.20 12.13 13.13 14.20 15.00 15.10 19.43 12.40 Apple c bc c d g No cold chain 8.47 9.07 12.93 13.37 22.63 13.29 a a a a a a a a a a a Cold chain 5.63 6.63 6.67 6.80 8.97 9.20 10.43 11.17 11.53 13.00 13.33 14.03 9.78 Kent a bc b bc c cd No cold chain 5.63 7.10 9.40 11.50 12.80 13.90 10.06 b c b c d e de c c c b Cold chain 6.70 10.10 10.93 11.53 14.80 15.90 16.63 16.93 17.83 18.03 20.20 14.51 Ngowe b e d e f No cold chain 6.70 13.67 17.47 19.73 20.23 15.56 c b a b a cd ab ab a b a Cold chain 8.70 9.00 9.33 9.73 10.40 11.33 12.07 13.17 13.20 14.67 15.90 11.59 Tommy Atkins c d c d e No cold chain 8.70 11.97 12.23 15.20 18.23 13.27 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV 0.85 1.34 1.53 1.66 1.13 1.07 2.93 3.00 1.59 1.65 3.18 2.68 (%) 6.70 8.00 8.30 7.60 4.50 4.50 11.90 12.00 5.90 5.60 9.80 5.40 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Cold No cold Cold No cold Cold No cold Cold No cold chain chain chain chain chain chain chain chain Apple Kent Ngowe Tommy Atkins. Figure 2: Overall shelf life of four mango varieties (‘Apple’, ‘Kent’, ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’) handled either under proper cold chain management or under poor cold chain management practices. Top bars represent SE of means (P≤ 0.05). the two cold chain options (proper and poor cold chain) on handling, which reduces their storage quality [22]. High heat ripening related changes (physiological weight loss, hue load is one of the major causes of deterioration in harvested angle, ﬁrmness, and total soluble solids) and the overall shelf commodities. Harvesting and handling the harvested pro- life of the fruits was evaluated. duce under cool temperatures are critical for postharvest Harvest time greatly aﬀected the pulp temperature with quality preservation [12]. Harvested produce should be fruits harvested during hotter hours of the day recording precooled or cooled immediately after harvest. Fruits har- high pulp temperatures due to high heat load. Horticultural vested during hot hours of the day should be precooled produce accumulates heat during harvesting and postharvest immediately to remove ﬁeld heat and slow physiological Days in storage 10 Advances in Agriculture Peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness decreased as fruits ripened processes [23]. Previous studies have shown that delayed cooling for just one hour can result in a one-day loss of shelf irrespective of the treatment and variety. At the end-stage for fruits under poor cold chain practices, ﬁrmness had de- life [24]. Precooled fruits have reduced metabolic activities rate leading to quality preservation and shelf life extension creased to less than 50% while those under proper cold chain [17]. Precooling can be done either by hydrocooling, vacuum practices remained ﬁrmer till day 30 (’Apple’, ’Ngowe’, and cooling, or forced air cooling, depending on the commodity ’Tommy Atkins’) and day 33 (’Kent’) varieties, respectively. and cost-beneﬁt associated with it [25]. For smallholder 'e decrease in fruit ﬁrmness is attributed to activities of farmers, evaporative coolers can be used to precool fruits enzymes involved in cell metabolism, depolymerization of and vegetables prior to refrigerated transport and storage. cell wall pectin [34]. 'e enzymes include pectin methyl- esterase (PME), polygalacturonase (PG), endo-B-1,4-glu- Precooling also improves cold-resisting ability and mini- mizes chilling injury on fresh produce. A rapid removal of canase (EGase), and pectate lyase [35]. 'e high ﬁrmness retention in fruits under proper cold chain management ﬁeld heat by precooling before storage is critical for the eﬃcient running of the cold storage facility. Evaporative practices results from low temperatures that could have slowed down the activities of the enzymes involved in coolers have been used to achieve cool temperatures nec- essary for precooling and short-term storage of harvested ripening. Reduced transpiration in fruits under proper cold horticultural produce [26]. chain due to high humidity and low temperature could also Proper cold chain management signiﬁcantly reduced the explain the high ﬁrmness in fruits stored under such con- rate of ripening-related changes, including physiological ditions since they remained turgid due to minimal moisture weight loss, peel and ﬂesh colour, peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness, loss [36]. 'e ﬁnding of the present study is in line with and increase in TSS, ultimately increasing the shelf life of previous studies on the eﬀect of low temperatures on the ﬁrmness of mango [17] and avocado [29]. mango fruits by an additional 18 days. Although there was a gradual increase in physiological Total soluble solids increased gradually in all the treat- ments. An increase in TSS is attributed to starch breakdown weight loss during storage irrespective of the treatment, the rate was slower under proper cold chain management. into simple sugar as ripening progress [37]. Fruits under poor cold chain practices had a faster increase in TSS and Physiological weight loss in harvested commodities results in shorter shelf life and loss of quality through wilting and over a shorter period of time as compared to those under shriveling [27]. 'e higher weight loss in fruits under poor proper cold chain practices. For example, ’Apple’ mango cold chain management practices can be attributed to high under poor cold chain practices had TSS of 22.63 Brix on temperatures and low humidity. 'e rate of physiological day 12, compared to 19.43 Brix on day 30 under proper cold weight loss and shriveling is dependent on respiration and chain management. A high increase in TSS of fruits under transpiration and is accelerated with high temperature and warmer conditions in poor cold chain management could be low humidity [28]. Under proper cold chain management attributed to a high respiration rate and other metabolic practices, minimal water loss through transpiration and activities. 'e increase can also be attributed to higher ac- substrate breakdown during respiration resulted from low tivity on enzymes (sucrose synthase, invertase, and amylase) temperatures and high humidity. 'is condition creates a involved in starch breakdown [38]. TSS is varietal-depen- low vapour pressure deﬁcit (VPD) for the fruits and the area dent, hence the observed signiﬁcant diﬀerence among the around the fruit, leading to slowed water loss from the fruits four mango varieties used in the present study [36]. 'e to the surrounding air. Similar results of reduced water loss ﬁnding of this present study concurs with similar studies under low temperatures and high humidity have been re- previously done on mango [17] and grapefruit [39]. ported in mango [17] and avocado [29]. Overall, proper cold chain practices extended the shelf Colour is an important indicator of ripeness and life of mango fruits (all varieties) which remained saleable freshness among fruits. In the present study, peel and ﬂesh until day 30 (’Apple’, ’Ngowe’, and ’Tommy Atkins’) and day color (measured as hue angle) gradually decreased as fruits 33 (’Kent’). 'is was 18 more than fruits under poor cold ripened irrespective of the treatment (cold chain practice) chain practices. 'e shelf life of fruits under proper cold and variety. 'e decrease in hue angles was steady in fruits chain practices was enhanced by a synergistic eﬀect of subjected to poor cold chain management practices, hence proper time of harvest, precooling, storage at low temper- shorter shelf life. 'e slower color change in fruits under ature, and high humidity. 'is in turn reduced the rate of proper cold chain management practices can be attributed to ripening and deterioration of the fruits during storage. low temperatures leading to reduced metabolic activities. Low temperatures also slow down ethylene biosynthesis and 5. Conclusion processes triggered by ethylene in ripening fruits chlorophyll degradation by chlorophyll oxidase [30]. Artes et al. [31] also Application of simple harvest and postharvest handling attribute the colour change to delay in the biosynthesis of practices coupled with simple low-cost cold storage tech- anthocyanins and carotenoids resulting from the reduced nologies can achieve desirable cold chain in perishable metabolic processes due to low temperatures in proper cold commodities such as mango. Proper cold chain practices chain practices. 'e inhibition of metabolic and enzymatic signiﬁcantly maintained lower internal pulp temperatures reactions responsible for ripening due to low temperature (averaging 11 C) when compared to poor cold chain has previously been reported in mango [32] and indigenous practices (averaging 25 C), thus lowering metabolic reac- fruits such as Ber [33]. tions that still take place in harvested fruits that result in Advances in Agriculture 11 (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.),” Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences, faster ripening and deterioration. 'is can in turn extend the vol. 8, no. 5, 2018. shelf life of the perishable commodities and signiﬁcantly [11] Z. S. Ilic, ´ L. Milenkovic, ´ L. Sunic, ´ and M. Manojlovic, ´ “Color increase their marketing period while reducing postharvest shade nets improve vegetables quality at harvest and maintain losses. Overall, proper cold chain management preserved quality during storage,” Contemporary Agriculture, vol. 67, quality (water loss, ﬁrmness, colour, and TSS) and extended no. 1, pp. 9–19, 2018. shelf life of harvested mango fruits by 18 days more when [12] I. Kojo, A. Harrison, K. Ernest Kodzo, and H. Ofori, “Pre- compared to handling practices common among small- harvest and postharvest factors aﬀecting the quality and shelf holder farmers. 'ese practices and technologies can be life of harvested tomatoes: a mini review,” International adopted by smallholder farmers especially those doing ag- Journal of Agronomy, vol. 2015, Article ID 478041, 6 pages, gregation of fruits for later selling and/or processing, thus enabling high bargaining power that results in better returns. [13] E. Pressman, M. M. Peet, and D. Mason Pharr, “'e eﬀect of heat stress on tomato pollen characteristics is associated with changes in carbohydrate concentration in the developing Data Availability anthers,” Annals of Botany, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 631–636, 2002. [14] Z. Yang, Z. Ma, C. Zhao, and Y. Chen, “Study on forced-air 'e data used in this manuscript are available upon request pre-cooling of longan,” in Proceedings of the 2007 ASAE to the ﬁrst author (emmanuelamwoka@gmail.com) and the Annual Meeting American Society of Agricultural and Bio- corresponding author (ambuko@yahoo.com). logical Engineers, Minneapolis, MI, USA, June 2007. [15] K. Cherono, M. Sibomana, and S. W. Tilahun, “Eﬀect of Conflicts of Interest inﬁeld handling conditions and time to pre-cooling on the shelf-life and quality of tomatoes,” Brazilian Journal of Food 'e authors declare that there are no conﬂicts of interest. Technology, vol. 21, 2018. [16] N. Dubey, Technologies for Horticultural Development: CoolBot Provides Inexpensive, Eﬀective Cooling, University of Acknowledgments California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 2011, http://hortcrsp. 'e authors are grateful to the Karurumo horticultural ucdavis.edu/main/media/technologies_CoolBot.pdf. [17] J. Ambuko and E. Karithi, “Postharvest shelf life of mango farmers’ self-help group for allowing them to use their fruits stored in a CoolbotTM cold room,” Acta Horticulturae, aggregation centre during this study. 'e funding of this vol. 1225, 2018. research was provided by the Rockefeller Foundation under [18] A. lal Basediya, D. V. K. Samuel, and V. Beera, “Evaporative Yieldwise Initiative (Grant number: 2016 YWS 328) awarded cooling system for storage of fruits and vegetables - a review,” to Prof. Jane Ambuko of the University of Nairobi. Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 429–442, 2013. References [19] A. Jane, F. Wanjiru, G. N. Chemining’wa, W. O. Owino, and E. Mwachoni, “Preservation of postharvest quality of leafy [1] Horticultural Crops Directorate (HCD), Validated Report amaranth (Amaranthus spp) vegetables using evaporative 2016-2017, Horticultural Crops Directorate (HCD), Kenya, cooling,” Journal of Food Quality, vol. 2017, Article ID 5303156, 6 pages, 2017. [2] FAO, “Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable [20] F. Manyoo and J. Ambuko, “Eﬀectiveness of evaporative food systems. High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE),” Report 8, cooling technologies to preserve the postharvest quality of FAO, Rome, Italy, 2014. tomato,” International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural [3] M. Reid, J. 'ompson, and C. Chih-Ham, Small-scale Cool- Research, vol. 13, 2018. rooms and Cool Transport for Limited Resource Farmers, 2010. [21] M. M. Aung and Y. S. Chang, “Temperature management for [4] L. Kitinoja, Use of Cold Chains for Reducing Food Losses in the quality assurance of a perishable food supply chain,” Food Developing Countries, AMAIZZ, no. 13, , pp. 1–16, Tel Aviv, Control, vol. 40, pp. 198–207, 2014. Israel, 2013. [22] J. H. Venema, P. Linger, A. W. Heusden, P. R. Hasselt, and [5] A. A. Kader, “Postharvest technology of horticultural crops,” W. Bruggemann, ¨ “'e inheritance of chilling tolerance in Agriculture and Natural Resources, vol. 3311, pp. 533–535, tomato (lycopersiconspp.),” Plant Biology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 118–130, 2005. [6] R. Lufu, A. Ambaw, and U. L. Opara, “Water loss of fresh fruit: [23] C. T. Kathryn and W. R. James, Harvesting and Handling inﬂuencing pre-harvest, harvest and postharvest factors,” Peaches, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 2004, http:// Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 272, 2020. www.ent.uga.edu/peach/peachhbk/harvest/ [7] S. Tyagi, S. Sahay, M. Imran, K. Rashmi, and S. Mahesh, “Pre- harvestandhandle.pdf. harvest factors inﬂuencing the postharvest quality of fruits: a [24] G. I. Johnson and P. J. Hofman, “Postharvest technology and review,” Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, quarantine treatments,” in ;e Mango: Botany, Production vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1–12, 2017. and Uses, R. E. Litz, Ed., p. 529605, second ed. edition, CABI, [8] H. Deirdre, Water Relations in Harvested Fresh Produce, Wallingford, UK, 2009. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 2015. [25] B. J. Jobling, “Correct cool chain management is essential for [9] V. Kiaya, “Post-harvest losses and strategies to,” ;e Journal of all fruit and vegetables,” Sydney Postharvest Laboratory, Agricultural Science, vol. 149, no. 3–4, pp. 49–57, 2014. [10] O. gumo, C. N. Kunyanga, J. W. Kimenju, and M. W. Okoth, Sydney, Australia, 2001. [26] B. G. Jahun, S. A. Abdulkadir, S. M. Musa, and H. Umar, “Eﬀects of harvest time and duration before cooling on the post-harvest quality and shelf-life stability of French bean “Assessment of evaporative cooling system for storage of 12 Advances in Agriculture vegetables,” International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1197–1203, 2016. [27] H. A. Rathore, T. Masud, S. Sammi, and A. Hussain Soomro, “Eﬀect of storage on physico-chemical composition and sensory properties of mango (mangifera indica L.) variety dosehari,” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 143–148, 2007. [28] E. Abiso and N. Atheesh, H. Addisalem, “Eﬀect of storage methods and ripening stages on postharvest quality of tomato ( lycopersicom esculentum mill ) cv . Chali eﬀect of storage methods and ripening stages on postharvest tomato (Lyco- persicom Esculentum L .) is botanically classiﬁed as a Fr.” Annals Food Science and Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 127– 137, 2015. [29] R. J. Blakey, J. P. Bower, and I. Bertling, “Importance of cold chain maintenance and storage temperature to avocado ripening and quality,” Acta Horticulturae, vol. 911, no. 911, pp. 555–564, 2011. [30] R. M. Beaudry, “Responses of horticultural commodities to low oxygen: limits to the expanded use of modiﬁed atmo- sphere packaging,” HortTechnology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 491–500, [31] F. Artes, ´ P. A. Gomez, ´ and F. Artes-Hern ´ andez, ´ “Modiﬁed atmosphere packaging of fruits and vegetables,” Critical Re- views in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 28, pp. 1–13, 2006. [32] O. Hafeez, “Impact of diﬀerent packaging types and low temperature shipping durations on fruit quality and mar- ketability of Pakistani mangoes,” International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 47–54, 2012. [33] L. Tembo, “Storage temperature aﬀects fruit quality attributes of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana lamk.) in Zimbabwe,” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 17, pp. 3092–3099, 2008. [34] B. Jarimopas and U. Kitthawee, “Firmness properties of mangoes,” International Journal of Food Properties, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 899–909, 2007. [35] H. Lazan, M. K. Selamat, and Z. M. Ali, “beta-Galactosidase, polygalacturonase and pectinesterase in diﬀerential softening and cell wall modiﬁcation during papaya fruit ripening,” Physiologia Plantarum, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 106–112, 1995. [36] M. Tigist, T. S. Workneh, and K. Woldetsadik, “Eﬀects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient con- ditions,” Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 477–486, 2013. [37] M. W. Siddiqui and R. S. Dhua, “Standardization of ethrel treatment for inducing ripening of mango var. Himsagar,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Horticulture, Nanjing, China, January 2009. [38] S. Kumar, D. K. Das, A. K. Singh, and U. S. Prasad, “Sucrose metabolism during maturation and ripening of mango cul- tivars,” Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 27–32, 1994. [39] O. Pailly, G. Tison, and A. Amouroux, “Harvest time and storage conditions of ’Star Ruby’ grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf.) for short distance summer consumption,” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2004. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Agriculture Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/effectiveness-of-selected-cold-chain-management-practices-to-extend-cTE7HQbOvy

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright: Copyright © 2021 Emmanuel M. Amwoka et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN: 2356-654X
eISSN: 2314-7539
DOI: 10.1155/2021/8859144
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 8859144, 12 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8859144 Research Article Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit 1 1 1 2 Emmanuel M. Amwoka, Jane L. Ambuko , Hutchinson M. Jesang’, and Willis O. Owino Department of Plant Science and Crop Protection, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Kangemi, Nairobi, Kenya Department of Food Science and Technology, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology, P.O. Box 62000–00200, Nairobi, Kenya Correspondence should be addressed to Jane L. Ambuko; ambuko@yahoo.com Received 12 September 2020; Accepted 31 May 2021; Published 8 June 2021 Academic Editor: Jiban Shrestha Copyright © 2021 Emmanuel M. Amwoka et al. 'is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. An on-farm study was conducted among smallholder mango farmers in Embu County of Kenya to demonstrate the eﬀectiveness of simple harvest and postharvest handling practices to attain cold chain and extend mango shelf life. 'e recommended cold chain practices were compared with common farmers' practices. 'Apple', 'Ngowe', 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins' harvested at the mature green stage were used in the study. To demonstrate proper cold chain, fruits were harvested before 8 am, transported in crates lined with dampened newspapers, precooled in an evaporative charcoal cooler, and then transferred to a Coolbot cold room (10± 2 C). To demonstrate common farmers’ practices, fruits were harvested at noon, transported in open crates, and stored at ambient room conditions (25± 7 C, 55± 15%RH). 'e air and fruit pulp temperatures were monitored regularly using HUATO® data loggers. During the storage period, a random sample of 3 fruits (per variety) per treatment was taken after every 3 days to evaluate ripening related changes including physiological weight loss, colour, ﬁrmness, and total soluble solids. Proper ° ° cold chain practices resulted in low fruit pulp temperature (average 11 C) compared to 25 C for fruits handled using common practices by farmers leading to faster ripening as evidenced by lower peel/pulp colour and ﬁrmness, higher physiological weight loss, and higher total soluble solids. For example, ﬂesh ﬁrmness of fruits under poor cold chain practices decreased from initial 36.6 N, 45.9 N, 66.5 N, and 46.8 N to 3.1 N, 2.4 N, 3.2 N, and 3.1 N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, at the end of storage while that of fruits under proper cold chain practices reduced to 2.3 N, 1.5 N, 3.9 N, and 2.9 N, respectively, for the four varieties at the end of storage. Overall, proper cold chain management extended mango shelf life by 18 days. Application of simple harvest and handling practices coupled with simple storage technologies can attain and maintain the cold chain required to preserve quality and extend shelf life. 'is could increase the marketing and storage periods for later selling and processing, respectively, of mango fruits. However, despite the increase in production and mango’s 1. Introduction growing economic importance in recent years, its value has Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is one of the main fruits not been fully exploited due to various factors, including produced in Kenya mainly for the domestic market and to a high postharvest harvest losses along the mango value chain. small extent for export. It is ranked 2nd in both value and It is reported that at least 40–45% of the mango fruits are lost export market after banana and avocado, respectively [1]. due to poor handling of harvest and postharvest handling Mango production has increased over the past years as practices [2]. evidenced by the area under production increasing by Mango is a highly perishable fruit with a short shelf life 1,452 ha from 2016 to 2017, a 3% rise. 'is increase can be after harvest. Ripening and subsequent deterioration of the attributed to increased demand for fresh market, fruit fruit are attributed to various physiological processes, in- processing, and health concerns among the consumers [1]. cluding respiration, softening, and colour changes. 'e rate 2 Advances in Agriculture Harvesting produce during cooler times of the day re- of ripening and deterioration of the fruit due to these physiological processes is aﬀected by environmental factors duces heat load which would otherwise result from high temperatures and exposure to direct sunlight during hotter including temperature and relative humidity [3]. In han- dling perishable commodities such as fruits and vegetables, times of the day [9]. Harvesting early in the morning when maintenance of low but safe temperatures during handling plant cells are turgid minimizes water loss and signiﬁcantly of the produce from harvest to the end-user (cold chain) is enhances shelf life and preserves quality. Studies in French critical for preserving the quality. Cold chain for perishable beans showed that harvesting during hotter hours lost products is the continuous handling of the produce in cool signiﬁcantly higher water during storage [10]. Immediately temperatures during postharvest handling from harvest, after harvest, the use of ﬁeld shades to keep the produce cool collection, transport, storage, processing, and marketing also reduces the amount of heat load in the produce. Field until they reach the ﬁnal consumers [4]. Components of a shades cool produce, thus decreasing metabolic reactions in harvested produce [11]. Harvested produce should be proper cold chain are divided into seven, namely, on-farm cooling, initial cooling, storage, transportation, distribution, transported from the ﬁeld to storage immediately. Delays in the ﬁeld may expose the produce to more heat and hence retail, and consumer, with possible temperature manage- ment. An increase in temperature by 10 C above optimum high heat load in harvested crops, aﬀecting shelf life and quality [10]. For produce destined for cold storage, the increases the deterioration rate in perishable commodities 2- 3-fold. Delays between harvesting and cooling or processing longer the duration to cooling, the longer the time to at- can result in quantitative losses (due to water loss and decay) tainment of set storage temperature. Past studies show that a and qualitative losses (losses in ﬂavor and nutritional delay by one hour between harvest and precooling causes a quality) [5]. Proper cold chain management reduces res- loss of one day in the shelf life [12]. Precooling before cold piration thus lessens perishability, reduces transpiration and storage is necessary to remove ﬁeld heat in harvested pro- hence lessens water loss and shriveling, reduces ethylene duce [4]. Removal of ﬁeld heat by precooling reduces postharvest decay, controls the development of physiological production and increases resistance to ethylene action slowing ripening and natural senescence, decreases the disorders, and decreases metabolic activities such as respi- ration rate and ethylene production, thus delaying ripening, activity of microorganisms, and reduces browning and loss of texture, ﬂavor, and nutrients [4]. Cold chains have been ageing, and senescence [13]. 25–30% postharvest losses are used to maintain postharvest quality of fruits during ship- recorded in unprecooled commercial fruits and vegetables ment, marketing, and storage before consumption. while only 5–10% postharvest losses are recorded for pre- Besides temperature, relative humidity is another en- cooled produce [14]. Precooling coupled with other cool vironmental factor contributing to the deterioration of chain practices and technologies has been used to extend harvested perishable produce such as fruits and vegetables. shelf life and preserve the quality of harvested tomatoes [15]. Physiological water loss that results in shriveling contributes Cold storage in perishable produce can be achieved signiﬁcantly to the production of deterioration and post- through the application of low-cost cold storage technolo- gies. Examples of low-cost technologies that have been used harvest losses in perishable commodities. At harvest, the harvested crop may lose water due to several factors in- successfully to preserve the quality of perishable produce TM include the Coolbot cluding harvest maturity, environmental conditions and cold room, solar-powered coolers, TM harvest techniques, and physical injury [6]. Harvesting fruits and evaporative cooling technologies. 'e Coolbot cold during hot times of the day will result in high heat load in room is a low-cost cold storage alternative to conventional TM harvested produce, leading to high respiration and tran- cold rooms. 'e Coolbot cold room is composed of the spiration and hence increased water loss during prolonged Coolbot , a compatible air conditioner (AC) and an in- TM storage [7]. 'is is due to increased vapour pressure deﬁcit sulated room. 'e Coolbot is an electronic gadget that within the produce tissue that may cause fruit cracking and overrides the thermostat of the AC, thereby enabling it to hence peel permeance allowing increased water loss after cool the room to lower than set temperatures (usually 18 C) TM harvest. Physiological water loss is further aggravated by without ice buildup on the evaporator coils [16]. Coolbot poor postharvest handling practices [6]. Low temperature cold room has been utilized to extend mango’s shelf life [17] and high relative humidity are key in reducing water loss and other produce such as turnips, potatoes, tomatoes, and TM from the fruit to the surroundings, suppress enzymatic and beans. 'e Coolbot cold room’s advantage over con- respiratory activities leading to ripening and senescence, and ventional cold rooms is that it is relatively aﬀordable slow pathological activities creating a safe environment for (compared to the conventional cold room), electricity-eﬃ- fruit preservation. On the contrary, high temperatures and cient, and environmentally friendly [16]. For the oﬀ-grid low relative humidity at harvest time result in water loss smallholder farmers, evaporative cooling provides a feasible causing fruits to shrivel, lowering quality [8]. alternative. Evaporative coolers work on the principle of Most farmers perceive cold chain management as a evaporative cooling whereby when water held in a wetted complex system that requires high-cost infrastructure in- medium (charcoal or sand) evaporates, it draws heat from cluding conventional cold rooms and refrigerated transport. the surroundings, creating a cooling eﬀect [18]. Evaporative However, smallholder farmers can achieve the same beneﬁts coolers are considered feasible and appropriate for small- of the conventional cold chain management practices by holder rural farmers because they can be made from locally applying simple harvest and postharvest handling practices available materials and the costs of running them are low. coupled with low-cost storage technologies. However, the cooling achieved by evaporative coolers is Advances in Agriculture 3 dependent on the surrounding environment, temperature, monitored using HUATO data loggers (Model HE17x, and relative humidity and the cooling attained is often not Huato Electric Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) after every one low enough to slow down some of the deteriorative processes hour. 'e loggers’ data were retrieved at the end of the [19]. Evaporative cooling is eﬀective for precooling and experiment by downloading recorded data using HUATO short-term storage of harvested produce. Diﬀerent evapo- app. rative coolers have been used to extend shelf life and preserve the postharvest quality of horticultural crops such as leafy 2.3.2. Pulp Temperature. 'e pulp temperature of the fruits vegetables [19] and tomato [20]. was recorded at harvest time, upon arrival at the centre, after Application of cold storage technologies can extend the every one hour for precooled fruits till temperatures sta- marketing period of perishable produce such as mango, bilized, and then after every three days in both treatments. thereby avoiding distress sales by smallholder farmers who 'is was done by plunging the temperature probes’ tip into are otherwise vulnerable to middlemen. 'is study’s ob- the 3 sample fruits and measurement on the probe taken. jective was to evaluate the eﬀectiveness of selected cold chain 'e 3 measurements were averaged and presented as the management practices and technologies to achieve eﬀective internal pulp temperature. cooling and extend the shelf life of mango fruit. 2.3.3. Percentage Cumulative Weight Loss. In each treat- 2. Materials and Methods ment, three fruits per variety numbered 1 to 3 were used to 2.1. Study Site. 'e study was conducted in Karurumo area (S measure cumulative weight loss using a digital weighing ° ° scale (Model Libror AEG-220, Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, 0 28′11.6184″ E 37 39′47.466″), Runyenjes subcounty, Embu County in Kenya. Embu County is located in a medium Japan). 'e mango fruits’ initial weight at day 0 after harvest was recorded; then the new weight of the same fruit on each potential region, agroecological zone (AEZ) III. It receives a total annual rainfall of averagely 1067.5 mm (received twice in sampling day was noted. Data were collected every 3 days in both treatments. Percentage cumulative weight loss was a year) at an altitude of 700 m–6500 m above sea level, and the ° ° temperatures range from 26 C to 35 C. calculated using (w1 − w2) (1) cumulative weight loss% � × 100. w1 2.2. Experimental Design. Uniform mature green mango fruits of 'Apple', 'Ngowe', 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins' varieties were harvested at two diﬀerent times of the day from 3 se- 2.3.4. Peel and Flesh Colour. Peel and ﬂesh colour were lected farms. To demonstrate proper cold chain practices, all determined by sampling three fruits per treatment and the four mango varieties were harvested in the morning measuring two diﬀerent spots along the equator using a (before 8 am) and transported to the experimental site in Minolta colour meter (Model CR-200, Osaka, Japan), cali- crates lined with dampened newspapers to simulate evapo- brated with a standard white piece of paper. To access the rative cooling during transit. Upon arrival at the aggregation ﬂesh, the three sampled fruits were cut open longitudinally centre, fruits were sorted for uniformity based on size and and measurements were taken at two diﬀerent spots. Data freedom from damage. 'ey were then precooled in an were collected every 3 days in both treatments. Colour co- evaporative charcoal cooler until temperatures stabilized at ∗ ∗ ∗ ° ° ° ° ordinates (L , a , and b ) were obtained and then hue angles 22.2 C, 22.03 C, 22.1 C, and 22.07 C for 'Apple', 'Ngowe', ∗ ∗ (h ) were calculated by converting a and b as shown in 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins' varieties, respectively, and then TM stored in the Coolbot (12± 2) C) in open crates. In the Hue angle(Ho) � arctan􏼠 􏼡, for + a and + b values. second harvest, in order to demonstrate farmers’ practices, fruits of the same varieties were harvested the same day at (2) midday (noon) and transported to the experimental site in open crates. At the centre, the fruits were sorted for uni- formity and stored directly under ambient conditions 2.3.5. Peel and Flesh Firmness. 'ree fruits per treatment (25± 7 C), with relative humidity of 55± 15%. 'e experi- were sampled and peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness were measured at ment was laid down as a completely randomized design two diﬀerent, intact, and peeled mango spots using a pen- (CRD) with a factorial treatment arrangement. Factor 1 was etrometer (Model CR-100D, Sun Scientiﬁc Co., Ltd., Japan) cold chain practices with two levels: cold chain (Treatment 1) ﬁtted with a 5 mm probe. For the ﬂesh ﬁrmness, the probe and no cold chain (Treatment 2). Factor 2 was variety with 4 was allowed to penetrate to a depth of 1.5 mm and the levels: 'Apple', 'Ngowe', 'Kent', and 'Tommy Atkins'. 'e corresponding force required to penetrate this depth was treatments were replicated three times. determined. Data were collected every 3 days in both treatments. Firmness was expressed as Newton (N). 2.3. Data Collection 2.3.1. Air Temperature and Air Relative Humidity (%). 2.3.6. Total Soluble Solids (TSS). 'ree fruits per treatment 'e air temperature and percentage relative humidity inside were sampled and total soluble solids were determined using TM the Coolbot cold room and ambient room were regularly an Atago hand refractometer (Model 500, Atago, Tokyo, 4 Advances in Agriculture Japan). On each sampling time, 3 ml of the fruit juice was extracted from three diﬀerent fruits by pressing and placed on the hand refractometer to obtain the Brix level. Data were collected every 3 days in both treatments. 'e total soluble solid was then expressed as oBrix. 2.3.7. Overall Shelf Life. 'e mango fruits’ total shelf life was determined by counting the number of days taken to reach the end-stage. End-stage was based on ﬁrmness and visual appearance at which the fruit was saleable. 2.4. Data Analysis. 'e data collected was analyzed using the th GenStat 15 Edition statistical program. Analysis of vari- ance (ANOVA) was used to test for signiﬁcant diﬀerences Time (hours) among treatments for each parameter and means separated Colbot temperature Colbot %RH using Fischer’s protected least signiﬁcant diﬀerence at Ambient temperature Ambient %RH P � 0.05. Figure 1: Diﬀerences in temperature ( C) and relative humidity (%) in the Coolbot cold room and ambient room during the ﬁrst 3. Results ™ 24 hours of storage. 3.1. Changes in Air Temperature and Percentage Relative Humidity in the Coolbot Cold Room and Ambient Room. 14.96%, 13.46%, 17.71%, and 12.96% for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, 'e initial temperature in the Coolbot cold room 16.9 C ™ ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively (Table 2). was preset (10± 2) C, which is the recommended cold storage temperature for mango fruits. 'e preset tempera- ture was attained within an hour and remained stable/ 3.4. Peel and Flesh Colour. 'e peel colour of the fruits constant during the 24-hour observation period. In the gradually changed from green to yellow as the fruits ripened ambient room, the temperatures ﬂuctuated between 24.9 C while the ﬂesh colour gradually changed from whitish- and 32.8 C. 'e percentage relative humidity in the Cool- yellow to full yellow. Hue angles for fruits under farmer bot cold room and ambient room ranged between 80.6%– practices steadily decreased as the fruits ripened faster as 92.6% and 40.4%–71.5%, respectively (Figure 1). compared to fruits under proper cold chain practices. Peel colour of fruits decreased from initial hue angle value of ° ° ° ° 110.33 , 130.72 , 112.28 , and 111.12 for ‘Apple’, ‘Kent’, 3.2. Fruit Pulp Temperature. 'e average internal pulp ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, to ° ° temperatures were 16.4 C and 31.4 C for fruits harvested ° ° ° ° 73.89 , 101.29 , 77.34 , and 85.11 at the end of storage for during the cool morning hours versus hot afternoon, re- fruits under proper cold chain management as compared to spectively. Upon arrival at the centre, pulp temperature of fruits under poor cold chain management that recorded the fruits harvested in the morning averaged 27.5 C while ° ° ° ° 61.85 , 102.37 , 55.8 , and 52.30 , respectively, at the end of that for fruits harvested at midday averaged 33.4 C. After storage (Table 3). precooling, the pulp temperatures stabilized at 22.2 C, Similarly, ﬂesh colour also decreased from initial hue ° ° ° 22.03 C, 22.1 C, and 22.07 C for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ° ° ° ° angle value of 87.19 , 89.41 , 91.22 , and 89.12 for ‘Apple’, ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, after 6 hours. 'ere ‘Kent’, ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, was a signiﬁcant diﬀerence (P> 0.05) in pulp temperature ° ° ° ° to 66.87 , 62.19 , 73.58 , and 64.20 at the end of storage for for fruits under proper cold chain practices and those under fruits under proper cold chain management. On the other farmer practices (no cold chain). However, there was no hand, hues of fruits under poor cold chain management signiﬁcant diﬀerence (P> 0.05) between pulp temperatures ° ° ° ° decreased to 63.80 , 66.52 , 66.0 , and 71.95 , respectively, at of the diﬀerent mango varieties used in the study (Table 1). the end of storage, approximately 18 days earlier compared to fruits under proper cold chain practice (Table 4). 3.3. Physiological Weight Loss (PWL). Physiological weight loss was recorded to be high in fruits under farmer practice. 'ere was a signiﬁcant diﬀerence (P > 0.05) in percentage 3.5. Peel and Flesh Firmness. Peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness de- cumulative weight loss between fruits under proper cold creased gradually as the fruits ripened, irrespective of the chain practices and farmer practices. At the end of storage treatment and variety. Peel ﬁrmness of fruits under poor (days 30–33), fruits under proper cold chain practices cold chain practices decreased from the initial 110.2 N, recorded %PWL of 11.59%, 11.15%, 12.72%, and 7.79% for 153.1 N, 118.5 N, and 115.1 N to 22.7 N, 18.9 N, 30.1 N, and Apple, Ngowe, Kent, and Tommy Atkins varieties, respec- 29.6 N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ tively. 'e fruits under farmer practices recorded signiﬁ- varieties, respectively, at the end of the storage. Fruit under cantly high PWL at the end of storage (days 12–15) averaging proper cold chain practices decreased to 7.7 N, 6.7 N, 15.9 N, Temperature (°C), Humidity (%RH) 7:11:16 8:11:16 9:11:16 10:11:17 11:11:17 12:11:17 13:11:17 14:11:18 15:11:18 16:11:18 17:11:19 18:11:19 19:11:19 20:11:19 21:11:20 22:11:20 23:11:20 00:11:21 01:11:21 02:11:21 03:11:22 04:11:22 05:11:22 06:11:22 Advances in Agriculture 5 Table 1: Diﬀerences in pulp temperature ( C) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means T0 T1 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 b c a b a a b a a ab ab b Cold chain 16.3 27.4 10.9 10.6 11.8 11.5 11.5 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.9 12.6 13.2 Apple a a b d d c No cold chain 31.6 33.5 23.5 24.2 24.8 22.3 26.7 b b a b a a b a a bc b ab Cold chain 16.5 27.8 10.8 10.5 12 11.4 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.7 12.1 12.5 12.8 13.3 Kent a a b bc b c e No cold chain 31.5 33 23.5 22.9 23.6 22.2 20.7 25.3 b c a c a a a a a c a a Cold chain 16.3 27.5 11 11.2 12 11.5 10.6 11.1 11.8 11.9 11.7 12.4 13.3 Ngowe a a b de c d No cold chain 31.6 33 23.5 24.4 24.3 22.8 26.6 b c a a a a b a a a ab ab Cold chain 16.3 27.3 11 9.9 11.7 11.2 11.3 11.3 11.8 11.3 11.9 12.5 13.1 Tommy Atkins a a b e c b No cold chain 31 34 23.6 23.7 24.1 25.8 27.0 0.66 0.66 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.37 0.48 0.4 0.6 0.27 0.4 0.19 0.2 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) %CV 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.5 2.7 1.2 1.8 0.8 0.4 T0: pulp temperature immediately after harvest in the ﬁeld; T1: pulp temperature upon arrival at the aggregation centre. Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Table 2: Changes in % cumulative weight loss of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a a a a a b b b b b Cold chain 0.00 1.66 2.57 3.19 4.51 5.00 7.70 8.47 9.58 10.62 11.59 5.90 Apple b c c b No cold chain 0.00 4.09 8.35 11.30 14.96 7.74 a a a a a ab b b b b Cold chain 0.00 1.52 3.10 3.79 4.57 5.63 7.26 7.99 9.62 10.57 11.51 12.72 6.52 Kent b bc bc b c No cold chain 0.00 3.45 7.68 10.47 13.98 17.71 8.88 a a a a a ab b b b b Cold chain 0.00 1.75 2.65 3.54 4.77 5.58 6.99 7.99 9.22 10.16 11.15 5.80 Ngowe b c bc b No cold chain 0.00 3.75 8.01 10.85 13.46 7.21 a a a a a a a a a a Cold chain 0.00 1.76 2.19 2.58 3.07 3.90 5.10 5.43 6.53 7.19 7.79 4.14 Tommy Atkins b b b b No cold chain 0.00 3.62 6.78 9.40 12.95 6.55 0.97 1.38 1.79 2.31 2 2.2 1.52 1.89 1.6 1.8 3.61 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 20.8 15.3 14.9 14.7 13.1 11.4 10.8 13.9 8.8 9.1 8.1 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. and 9N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ 3.7. Overall Shelf Life. 'e overall shelf life was determined varieties, respectively, at the end storage, 18 days earlier by the number of days to a predetermined end-stage for the compared to fruits under proper cold chain management fruits based on ﬁrmness and visual appearance at which the (Table 5). fruit was saleable. Fruits under poor cold chain practices had Similar trends were recorded in ﬂesh ﬁrmness of fruits a shorter shelf life of 12 days for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, and under the study. Flesh ﬁrmness of fruits under poor cold ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties and 15 days for ‘Kent’ variety. On chain practices decreased from initial 36.6 N, 45.9 N, 66.5 N, the other hand, fruits under proper cold chain practices had and 46.8 N to 3.1 N, 2.4 N, 3.2 N, and 3.1 N for ‘Apple’, a longer shelf life of 30 days for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, respectively, ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties and 33 days for ‘Kent variety’ at the end of storage while fruits under proper cold chain (Figure 2). practices decreased to 2.3 N, 1.5 N, 3.9 N, and 2.9 N for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’ varieties, re- spectively, on the ﬁnal day of storage (Table 6). 4. Discussion Temperature management to maintain a proper cold chain 3.6. Total Soluble Solids (TSS). Total soluble solids increased for fresh horticultural produce is key to preserving quality as the fruits ripened irrespective of the treatment and variety. and reducing postharvest losses in perishable commodities 'e TSS for fruits under poor cold chain practices increased [21]. For smallholder horticultural farmers with limited ° ° ° ° from the initial 8.47 Brix, 6.7 Brix, 5.63 Brix, and 8.7 Brix to resources, simple harvest practices coupled with low-cost ° ° ° ° 22.63 Brix, 20.23 Brix, 13.9 Brix, and 18.23 Brix for Apple, cold storage can be used to achieve a desirable cold chain. In Ngowe, Kent, and Tommy Atkins varieties, respectively, at the present study, the eﬀectiveness of these practices and the end of storage while for fruits under proper cold chain technologies was evaluated in mango fruits. 'e study ° ° ° practices they increased to 19.43 Brix, 20.2 Brix, 14.03 Brix, evaluated proper cold chain practices or poor cold chain and 15.90 Brix for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy practices (farmer practices) in four mango varieties, namely, Atkins’ varieties, respectively, at the end of storage (Table 7). ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’. 'e eﬀect of 6 Advances in Agriculture Table 3: Changes in peel hue angles (H ) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a bc cd d b a a a a a a Cold chain 110.33 104.87 102.67 98.05 96.66 96.09 90.46 82.29 81.41 74.60 73.89 1.94 Apple a a a b a No cold chain 110.33 96.96 86.75 74.20 61.85 86.02 b e e f c c d b b b c Cold chain 130.72 130.53 128.63 124.49 123.83 122.69 122.07 120.28 119.58 108.09 104.22 101.29 119.70 Kent b e e f c c No cold chain 130.72 130.47 128.53 119.04 108.42 102.37 119.92 a cd d de b b ab a a a abc Cold chain 112.28 111.40 104.14 103.07 98.81 98.14a 96.47 94.53 86.30 81.41 77.34 96.72 Ngowe a ab bc c a No cold chain 112.28 98.95 94.45 84.14 55.80 89.12 a d d e b b ab a a a ab Cold chain 111.12 111.01 105.92 103.06 102.08 98.61a 97.94 96.02 95.89 88.74 85.11 99.59 Tommy Atkins a ab ab a a No cold chain 111.12 97.85 72.74 70.15 52.30 80.83 4.12 7.78 11. 6.63 9.93 11.95 15.30 16.95 18.86 19.39 24.16 61.30 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 2.00 4.00 6. 3.90 6.40 6. 8.20 9. 10.80 11.80 16.30 18.20 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Advances in Agriculture 7 Table 4: Changes in ﬂesh hue angles (H ) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a c c de c bc ab a a a a Cold chain 87.19 85.05 84.24 83.18 77.29 73.96 72.05 71.88 70.80 67.68 66.87 76.38 Apple a a a a a No cold chain 87.19 71.75 71.51 66.98 63.80 72.25 bc d e f d e f d c c c Cold chain 89.41 89.30 88.99 88.64 87.85 84.56 84.33 83.48 81.12 78.98 77.99 62.19 83.07 Kent bc d d cd c a No cold chain 89.41 89.41 82.04 81.50 71.62 66.52 80.08 ab d e ef d e e c c bc b Cold chain 91.12 88.33 86.73 85.94 84.66 84.00 83.67 81.99 81.61 74.96 73.58 83.33 Ngowe ab b b b b No cold chain 91.12 80.46 78.39 75.17 66.00 78.23 abc d be f d de de d b b b Cold chain 89.12 87.60 83.42 83.20 80.74 80.00 78.94 76.92 73.69 71.22 64.20 79.00 Tommy Atkins abc c c c b No cold chain 89.12 81.76 80.77 75.66 71.95 79.85 10. 3.82 2.73 3. 3. 3.62 3.82 2.47 3.24 3.90 6. 11.82 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 6.20 2.50 1.90 2.20 2.30 2.50 2.70 1.60 2.20 2.70 4.50 4.40 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. 8 Advances in Agriculture Table 5: Changes in peel ﬁrmness (N) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a bc bc d c cd ef b b a a Cold chain 110.22 103.08 95.73 85.42 65.28 63.47 54.20 50.22 30.48 15.02 7.78 61.90 Apple a b a a a No cold chain 110.22 55.47 45.91 27.13 22.68 52.28 c e e f e e g c c b b Cold chain 153.08 146.13 122.47 117.02 101.97 101.33 86.95 72.52 49.93 40.68 16.22 15.92 85.35 Kent c e d b ab No cold chain 153.08 141.43 116.90 67.78d 40.15 30.08 1.57 ab d c c c bc de a a a Cold chain 118.52 107.90 103.22 64.98 60.27 58.22 44.75 42.43 22.72 7.93a 6.73 57.97 Ngowe ab a a a a No cold chain 118.52 34.88 32.77 25.28 18.92 46.07 ab cd c e d d f a ab a a Cold chain 115.08 105.93 102.42 95.10 94.62 64.32 61.30 41.97 24.45 10.93 9.02 65.92 Tommy Atkins ab c b b b No cold chain 115.08 113.90 84.95 47.10 39.57 80.12 16.97 13.25 14.45 12. 14.23 12.46 12.34 6.43 7.70 15.05 4.44 0.78 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV (%) 7.40 7.30 8.90 9.70 13.80 11.50 15.70 6.70 12.80 22.60 23.00 1.60 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Advances in Agriculture 9 Table 6: Changes in ﬂesh ﬁrmness (N) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Variety Treatment Means 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 a b b c c bc abc a a ab a Cold chain 36.55 32.50 31.90 25.13 22.85 17.13 14.58 6.73 5.96 4.60 2.27 18.20 Apple a a a a a No cold chain 36.55 10.12 6.92 3.62 3.13 12.07 b d c d d d c a b b b Cold chain 66.47 49.57 42.57 31.07 20.48 20.43 17.50 10.92 9.05 6.13 5.85 3.95 23.67 Kent b cd a ab ab ab No cold chain 66.47 41.78 11.22 8.05 6.80 3.20 22.92 a bc b bc b abc abc a a a a Cold chain 45.98 36.35 32.67 19.13 11.88 9.52 8.82 7.57 6.02 2.78 1.49 16.56 Ngowe a a a a a No cold chain 45.98 6.45 4.82 4.68 2.42 12.87 a bc b c c c bc a a a a Cold chain 46.75 40.82 35.63 33.02 25.58 18.60 15.25 11.27 6.53 3.59 2.95 21.82 Tommy Atkins a b a a ab No cold chain 46.75 38.22 7.05 6.48 3.15 20.33 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV 12.78 13.47 9.87 11.58 8.38 12.9 10.88 9.31 1.8 8.3 2.16 4.1 (%) 15 22 25.3 28.1 23.2 21.6 27.6 21.3 12.6 22.5 23.3 28.5 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Table 7: Changes in total soluble solids (TSS) of four mango varieties as aﬀected by cold chain management practices. Days in storage Means Variety Treatment 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 c bc b b b b bcd bc b b b Cold chain 8.47 8.60 10.03 10.10 10.20 12.13 13.13 14.20 15.00 15.10 19.43 12.40 Apple c bc c d g No cold chain 8.47 9.07 12.93 13.37 22.63 13.29 a a a a a a a a a a a Cold chain 5.63 6.63 6.67 6.80 8.97 9.20 10.43 11.17 11.53 13.00 13.33 14.03 9.78 Kent a bc b bc c cd No cold chain 5.63 7.10 9.40 11.50 12.80 13.90 10.06 b c b c d e de c c c b Cold chain 6.70 10.10 10.93 11.53 14.80 15.90 16.63 16.93 17.83 18.03 20.20 14.51 Ngowe b e d e f No cold chain 6.70 13.67 17.47 19.73 20.23 15.56 c b a b a cd ab ab a b a Cold chain 8.70 9.00 9.33 9.73 10.40 11.33 12.07 13.17 13.20 14.67 15.90 11.59 Tommy Atkins c d c d e No cold chain 8.70 11.97 12.23 15.20 18.23 13.27 Treat x variety (LSD 0.05) CV 0.85 1.34 1.53 1.66 1.13 1.07 2.93 3.00 1.59 1.65 3.18 2.68 (%) 6.70 8.00 8.30 7.60 4.50 4.50 11.90 12.00 5.90 5.60 9.80 5.40 Means within each column followed by diﬀerent letters diﬀer signiﬁcantly at P> 0.05. Cold No cold Cold No cold Cold No cold Cold No cold chain chain chain chain chain chain chain chain Apple Kent Ngowe Tommy Atkins. Figure 2: Overall shelf life of four mango varieties (‘Apple’, ‘Kent’, ‘Ngowe’, and ‘Tommy Atkins’) handled either under proper cold chain management or under poor cold chain management practices. Top bars represent SE of means (P≤ 0.05). the two cold chain options (proper and poor cold chain) on handling, which reduces their storage quality [22]. High heat ripening related changes (physiological weight loss, hue load is one of the major causes of deterioration in harvested angle, ﬁrmness, and total soluble solids) and the overall shelf commodities. Harvesting and handling the harvested pro- life of the fruits was evaluated. duce under cool temperatures are critical for postharvest Harvest time greatly aﬀected the pulp temperature with quality preservation [12]. Harvested produce should be fruits harvested during hotter hours of the day recording precooled or cooled immediately after harvest. Fruits har- high pulp temperatures due to high heat load. Horticultural vested during hot hours of the day should be precooled produce accumulates heat during harvesting and postharvest immediately to remove ﬁeld heat and slow physiological Days in storage 10 Advances in Agriculture Peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness decreased as fruits ripened processes [23]. Previous studies have shown that delayed cooling for just one hour can result in a one-day loss of shelf irrespective of the treatment and variety. At the end-stage for fruits under poor cold chain practices, ﬁrmness had de- life [24]. Precooled fruits have reduced metabolic activities rate leading to quality preservation and shelf life extension creased to less than 50% while those under proper cold chain [17]. Precooling can be done either by hydrocooling, vacuum practices remained ﬁrmer till day 30 (’Apple’, ’Ngowe’, and cooling, or forced air cooling, depending on the commodity ’Tommy Atkins’) and day 33 (’Kent’) varieties, respectively. and cost-beneﬁt associated with it [25]. For smallholder 'e decrease in fruit ﬁrmness is attributed to activities of farmers, evaporative coolers can be used to precool fruits enzymes involved in cell metabolism, depolymerization of and vegetables prior to refrigerated transport and storage. cell wall pectin [34]. 'e enzymes include pectin methyl- esterase (PME), polygalacturonase (PG), endo-B-1,4-glu- Precooling also improves cold-resisting ability and mini- mizes chilling injury on fresh produce. A rapid removal of canase (EGase), and pectate lyase [35]. 'e high ﬁrmness retention in fruits under proper cold chain management ﬁeld heat by precooling before storage is critical for the eﬃcient running of the cold storage facility. Evaporative practices results from low temperatures that could have slowed down the activities of the enzymes involved in coolers have been used to achieve cool temperatures nec- essary for precooling and short-term storage of harvested ripening. Reduced transpiration in fruits under proper cold horticultural produce [26]. chain due to high humidity and low temperature could also Proper cold chain management signiﬁcantly reduced the explain the high ﬁrmness in fruits stored under such con- rate of ripening-related changes, including physiological ditions since they remained turgid due to minimal moisture weight loss, peel and ﬂesh colour, peel and ﬂesh ﬁrmness, loss [36]. 'e ﬁnding of the present study is in line with and increase in TSS, ultimately increasing the shelf life of previous studies on the eﬀect of low temperatures on the ﬁrmness of mango [17] and avocado [29]. mango fruits by an additional 18 days. Although there was a gradual increase in physiological Total soluble solids increased gradually in all the treat- ments. An increase in TSS is attributed to starch breakdown weight loss during storage irrespective of the treatment, the rate was slower under proper cold chain management. into simple sugar as ripening progress [37]. Fruits under poor cold chain practices had a faster increase in TSS and Physiological weight loss in harvested commodities results in shorter shelf life and loss of quality through wilting and over a shorter period of time as compared to those under shriveling [27]. 'e higher weight loss in fruits under poor proper cold chain practices. For example, ’Apple’ mango cold chain management practices can be attributed to high under poor cold chain practices had TSS of 22.63 Brix on temperatures and low humidity. 'e rate of physiological day 12, compared to 19.43 Brix on day 30 under proper cold weight loss and shriveling is dependent on respiration and chain management. A high increase in TSS of fruits under transpiration and is accelerated with high temperature and warmer conditions in poor cold chain management could be low humidity [28]. Under proper cold chain management attributed to a high respiration rate and other metabolic practices, minimal water loss through transpiration and activities. 'e increase can also be attributed to higher ac- substrate breakdown during respiration resulted from low tivity on enzymes (sucrose synthase, invertase, and amylase) temperatures and high humidity. 'is condition creates a involved in starch breakdown [38]. TSS is varietal-depen- low vapour pressure deﬁcit (VPD) for the fruits and the area dent, hence the observed signiﬁcant diﬀerence among the around the fruit, leading to slowed water loss from the fruits four mango varieties used in the present study [36]. 'e to the surrounding air. Similar results of reduced water loss ﬁnding of this present study concurs with similar studies under low temperatures and high humidity have been re- previously done on mango [17] and grapefruit [39]. ported in mango [17] and avocado [29]. Overall, proper cold chain practices extended the shelf Colour is an important indicator of ripeness and life of mango fruits (all varieties) which remained saleable freshness among fruits. In the present study, peel and ﬂesh until day 30 (’Apple’, ’Ngowe’, and ’Tommy Atkins’) and day color (measured as hue angle) gradually decreased as fruits 33 (’Kent’). 'is was 18 more than fruits under poor cold ripened irrespective of the treatment (cold chain practice) chain practices. 'e shelf life of fruits under proper cold and variety. 'e decrease in hue angles was steady in fruits chain practices was enhanced by a synergistic eﬀect of subjected to poor cold chain management practices, hence proper time of harvest, precooling, storage at low temper- shorter shelf life. 'e slower color change in fruits under ature, and high humidity. 'is in turn reduced the rate of proper cold chain management practices can be attributed to ripening and deterioration of the fruits during storage. low temperatures leading to reduced metabolic activities. Low temperatures also slow down ethylene biosynthesis and 5. Conclusion processes triggered by ethylene in ripening fruits chlorophyll degradation by chlorophyll oxidase [30]. Artes et al. [31] also Application of simple harvest and postharvest handling attribute the colour change to delay in the biosynthesis of practices coupled with simple low-cost cold storage tech- anthocyanins and carotenoids resulting from the reduced nologies can achieve desirable cold chain in perishable metabolic processes due to low temperatures in proper cold commodities such as mango. Proper cold chain practices chain practices. 'e inhibition of metabolic and enzymatic signiﬁcantly maintained lower internal pulp temperatures reactions responsible for ripening due to low temperature (averaging 11 C) when compared to poor cold chain has previously been reported in mango [32] and indigenous practices (averaging 25 C), thus lowering metabolic reac- fruits such as Ber [33]. tions that still take place in harvested fruits that result in Advances in Agriculture 11 (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.),” Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences, faster ripening and deterioration. 'is can in turn extend the vol. 8, no. 5, 2018. shelf life of the perishable commodities and signiﬁcantly [11] Z. S. Ilic, ´ L. Milenkovic, ´ L. Sunic, ´ and M. Manojlovic, ´ “Color increase their marketing period while reducing postharvest shade nets improve vegetables quality at harvest and maintain losses. Overall, proper cold chain management preserved quality during storage,” Contemporary Agriculture, vol. 67, quality (water loss, ﬁrmness, colour, and TSS) and extended no. 1, pp. 9–19, 2018. shelf life of harvested mango fruits by 18 days more when [12] I. Kojo, A. Harrison, K. Ernest Kodzo, and H. Ofori, “Pre- compared to handling practices common among small- harvest and postharvest factors aﬀecting the quality and shelf holder farmers. 'ese practices and technologies can be life of harvested tomatoes: a mini review,” International adopted by smallholder farmers especially those doing ag- Journal of Agronomy, vol. 2015, Article ID 478041, 6 pages, gregation of fruits for later selling and/or processing, thus enabling high bargaining power that results in better returns. [13] E. Pressman, M. M. Peet, and D. Mason Pharr, “'e eﬀect of heat stress on tomato pollen characteristics is associated with changes in carbohydrate concentration in the developing Data Availability anthers,” Annals of Botany, vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 631–636, 2002. [14] Z. Yang, Z. Ma, C. Zhao, and Y. Chen, “Study on forced-air 'e data used in this manuscript are available upon request pre-cooling of longan,” in Proceedings of the 2007 ASAE to the ﬁrst author (emmanuelamwoka@gmail.com) and the Annual Meeting American Society of Agricultural and Bio- corresponding author (ambuko@yahoo.com). logical Engineers, Minneapolis, MI, USA, June 2007. [15] K. Cherono, M. Sibomana, and S. W. Tilahun, “Eﬀect of Conflicts of Interest inﬁeld handling conditions and time to pre-cooling on the shelf-life and quality of tomatoes,” Brazilian Journal of Food 'e authors declare that there are no conﬂicts of interest. Technology, vol. 21, 2018. [16] N. Dubey, Technologies for Horticultural Development: CoolBot Provides Inexpensive, Eﬀective Cooling, University of Acknowledgments California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 2011, http://hortcrsp. 'e authors are grateful to the Karurumo horticultural ucdavis.edu/main/media/technologies_CoolBot.pdf. [17] J. Ambuko and E. Karithi, “Postharvest shelf life of mango farmers’ self-help group for allowing them to use their fruits stored in a CoolbotTM cold room,” Acta Horticulturae, aggregation centre during this study. 'e funding of this vol. 1225, 2018. research was provided by the Rockefeller Foundation under [18] A. lal Basediya, D. V. K. Samuel, and V. Beera, “Evaporative Yieldwise Initiative (Grant number: 2016 YWS 328) awarded cooling system for storage of fruits and vegetables - a review,” to Prof. Jane Ambuko of the University of Nairobi. Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 429–442, 2013. References [19] A. Jane, F. Wanjiru, G. N. Chemining’wa, W. O. Owino, and E. Mwachoni, “Preservation of postharvest quality of leafy [1] Horticultural Crops Directorate (HCD), Validated Report amaranth (Amaranthus spp) vegetables using evaporative 2016-2017, Horticultural Crops Directorate (HCD), Kenya, cooling,” Journal of Food Quality, vol. 2017, Article ID 5303156, 6 pages, 2017. [2] FAO, “Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable [20] F. Manyoo and J. Ambuko, “Eﬀectiveness of evaporative food systems. High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE),” Report 8, cooling technologies to preserve the postharvest quality of FAO, Rome, Italy, 2014. tomato,” International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural [3] M. Reid, J. 'ompson, and C. Chih-Ham, Small-scale Cool- Research, vol. 13, 2018. rooms and Cool Transport for Limited Resource Farmers, 2010. [21] M. M. Aung and Y. S. Chang, “Temperature management for [4] L. Kitinoja, Use of Cold Chains for Reducing Food Losses in the quality assurance of a perishable food supply chain,” Food Developing Countries, AMAIZZ, no. 13, , pp. 1–16, Tel Aviv, Control, vol. 40, pp. 198–207, 2014. Israel, 2013. [22] J. H. Venema, P. Linger, A. W. Heusden, P. R. Hasselt, and [5] A. A. Kader, “Postharvest technology of horticultural crops,” W. Bruggemann, ¨ “'e inheritance of chilling tolerance in Agriculture and Natural Resources, vol. 3311, pp. 533–535, tomato (lycopersiconspp.),” Plant Biology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 118–130, 2005. [6] R. Lufu, A. Ambaw, and U. L. Opara, “Water loss of fresh fruit: [23] C. T. Kathryn and W. R. James, Harvesting and Handling inﬂuencing pre-harvest, harvest and postharvest factors,” Peaches, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 2004, http:// Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 272, 2020. www.ent.uga.edu/peach/peachhbk/harvest/ [7] S. Tyagi, S. Sahay, M. Imran, K. Rashmi, and S. Mahesh, “Pre- harvestandhandle.pdf. harvest factors inﬂuencing the postharvest quality of fruits: a [24] G. I. Johnson and P. J. Hofman, “Postharvest technology and review,” Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology, quarantine treatments,” in ;e Mango: Botany, Production vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1–12, 2017. and Uses, R. E. Litz, Ed., p. 529605, second ed. edition, CABI, [8] H. Deirdre, Water Relations in Harvested Fresh Produce, Wallingford, UK, 2009. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA, 2015. [25] B. J. Jobling, “Correct cool chain management is essential for [9] V. Kiaya, “Post-harvest losses and strategies to,” ;e Journal of all fruit and vegetables,” Sydney Postharvest Laboratory, Agricultural Science, vol. 149, no. 3–4, pp. 49–57, 2014. [10] O. gumo, C. N. Kunyanga, J. W. Kimenju, and M. W. Okoth, Sydney, Australia, 2001. [26] B. G. Jahun, S. A. Abdulkadir, S. M. Musa, and H. Umar, “Eﬀects of harvest time and duration before cooling on the post-harvest quality and shelf-life stability of French bean “Assessment of evaporative cooling system for storage of 12 Advances in Agriculture vegetables,” International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1197–1203, 2016. [27] H. A. Rathore, T. Masud, S. Sammi, and A. Hussain Soomro, “Eﬀect of storage on physico-chemical composition and sensory properties of mango (mangifera indica L.) variety dosehari,” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 143–148, 2007. [28] E. Abiso and N. Atheesh, H. Addisalem, “Eﬀect of storage methods and ripening stages on postharvest quality of tomato ( lycopersicom esculentum mill ) cv . Chali eﬀect of storage methods and ripening stages on postharvest tomato (Lyco- persicom Esculentum L .) is botanically classiﬁed as a Fr.” Annals Food Science and Technology, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 127– 137, 2015. [29] R. J. Blakey, J. P. Bower, and I. Bertling, “Importance of cold chain maintenance and storage temperature to avocado ripening and quality,” Acta Horticulturae, vol. 911, no. 911, pp. 555–564, 2011. [30] R. M. Beaudry, “Responses of horticultural commodities to low oxygen: limits to the expanded use of modiﬁed atmo- sphere packaging,” HortTechnology, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 491–500, [31] F. Artes, ´ P. A. Gomez, ´ and F. Artes-Hern ´ andez, ´ “Modiﬁed atmosphere packaging of fruits and vegetables,” Critical Re- views in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 28, pp. 1–13, 2006. [32] O. Hafeez, “Impact of diﬀerent packaging types and low temperature shipping durations on fruit quality and mar- ketability of Pakistani mangoes,” International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 47–54, 2012. [33] L. Tembo, “Storage temperature aﬀects fruit quality attributes of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana lamk.) in Zimbabwe,” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 17, pp. 3092–3099, 2008. [34] B. Jarimopas and U. Kitthawee, “Firmness properties of mangoes,” International Journal of Food Properties, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 899–909, 2007. [35] H. Lazan, M. K. Selamat, and Z. M. Ali, “beta-Galactosidase, polygalacturonase and pectinesterase in diﬀerential softening and cell wall modiﬁcation during papaya fruit ripening,” Physiologia Plantarum, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 106–112, 1995. [36] M. Tigist, T. S. Workneh, and K. Woldetsadik, “Eﬀects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient con- ditions,” Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 477–486, 2013. [37] M. W. Siddiqui and R. S. Dhua, “Standardization of ethrel treatment for inducing ripening of mango var. Himsagar,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Horticulture, Nanjing, China, January 2009. [38] S. Kumar, D. K. Das, A. K. Singh, and U. S. Prasad, “Sucrose metabolism during maturation and ripening of mango cul- tivars,” Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 27–32, 1994. [39] O. Pailly, G. Tison, and A. Amouroux, “Harvest time and storage conditions of ’Star Ruby’ grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf.) for short distance summer consumption,” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 65–73, 2004.

Journal

Advances in Agriculture – Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Jun 8, 2021

References

Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE),

FAO
Postharvest technology of horticultural crops,

A. A. Kader
Water loss of fresh fruit: influencing pre-harvest, harvest and postharvest factors,

R. Lufu, A. Ambaw, and U. L. Opara
Pre-harvest factors influencing the postharvest quality of fruits: a review,

S. Tyagi, S. Sahay, M. Imran, K. Rashmi, and S. Mahesh
Post-harvest losses and strategies to,

V. Kiaya
Effects of harvest time and duration before cooling on the post-harvest quality and shelf-life stability of French bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.),

O. gumo, C. N. Kunyanga, J. W. Kimenju, and M. W. Okoth
Color shade nets improve vegetables quality at harvest and maintain quality during storage,

Z. S. Ilić, L. Milenković, L. Šunić, and M. Manojlović
Preharvest and postharvest factors affecting the quality and shelf life of harvested tomatoes: a mini review,

I. Kojo, A. Harrison, K. Ernest Kodzo, and H. Ofori
The effect of heat stress on tomato pollen characteristics is associated with changes in carbohydrate concentration in the developing anthers,

E. Pressman, M. M. Peet, and D. Mason Pharr
Study on forced-air pre-cooling of longan,

Z. Yang, Z. Ma, C. Zhao, and Y. Chen
Effect of infield handling conditions and time to pre-cooling on the shelf-life and quality of tomatoes,

K. Cherono, M. Sibomana, and S. W. Tilahun
Postharvest shelf life of mango fruits stored in a CoolbotTM cold room,

J. Ambuko and E. Karithi
Evaporative cooling system for storage of fruits and vegetables - a review,

A. lal Basediya, D. V. K. Samuel, and V. Beera
Preservation of postharvest quality of leafy amaranth (Amaranthus spp) vegetables using evaporative cooling,

A. Jane, F. Wanjiru, G. N. Chemining’wa, W. O. Owino, and E. Mwachoni
Effectiveness of evaporative cooling technologies to preserve the postharvest quality of tomato,

F. Manyoo and J. Ambuko
Temperature management for the quality assurance of a perishable food supply chain,

M. M. Aung and Y. S. Chang
The inheritance of chilling tolerance in tomato (lycopersiconspp.),

J. H. Venema, P. Linger, A. W. Heusden, P. R. Hasselt, and W. Brüggemann
Postharvest technology and quarantine treatments,

G. I. Johnson and P. J. Hofman
Correct cool chain management is essential for all fruit and vegetables,

B. J. Jobling
Assessment of evaporative cooling system for storage of vegetables,

B. G. Jahun, S. A. Abdulkadir, S. M. Musa, and H. Umar
Effect of storage on physico-chemical composition and sensory properties of mango (mangifera indica L.) variety dosehari,

H. A. Rathore, T. Masud, S. Sammi, and A. Hussain Soomro
“Effect of storage methods and ripening stages on postharvest quality of tomato ( lycopersicom esculentum mill ) cv . Chali effect of storage methods and ripening stages on postharvest tomato (Lycopersicom Esculentum L .) is botanically classified as a Fr.,

E. Abiso and N. AtheeshH. Addisalem
Importance of cold chain maintenance and storage temperature to avocado ripening and quality,

R. J. Blakey, J. P. Bower, and I. Bertling
Responses of horticultural commodities to low oxygen: limits to the expanded use of modified atmosphere packaging,

R. M. Beaudry
Modified atmosphere packaging of fruits and vegetables,

F. Artés, P. A. Gómez, and F. Artés-Hernández
Impact of different packaging types and low temperature shipping durations on fruit quality and marketability of Pakistani mangoes,

O. Hafeez
Storage temperature affects fruit quality attributes of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana lamk.) in Zimbabwe,

L. Tembo
Firmness properties of mangoes,

B. Jarimopas and U. Kitthawee
beta-Galactosidase, polygalacturonase and pectinesterase in differential softening and cell wall modification during papaya fruit ripening,

H. Lazan, M. K. Selamat, and Z. M. Ali
Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions,

M. Tigist, T. S. Workneh, and K. Woldetsadik
Standardization of ethrel treatment for inducing ripening of mango var. Himsagar,

M. W. Siddiqui and R. S. Dhua
Sucrose metabolism during maturation and ripening of mango cultivars,

S. Kumar, D. K. Das, A. K. Singh, and U. S. Prasad
Harvest time and storage conditions of 'Star Ruby' grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf.) for short distance summer consumption,

O. Pailly, G. Tison, and A. Amouroux

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit

Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit

Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

References

Our policy towards the use of cookies