DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of film liners, ethylene scrubber, alcohol releaser and chlorine dioxide on the berry quality during simulated marketing in 'Campbell Early' grapes

  • Kim, Sung-Joo (Department of Horticulture, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Choi, Cheol (Department of Horticulture, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Ahn, Young-Jik (Department of Horticultural Forestry, Paichai University) ;
  • Lim, Byung-Sun (National Institute of Horticultural & Herbal Science) ;
  • Chun, Jong-Pil (Department of Horticulture, Chungnam National University)
  • 투고 : 2020.05.15
  • 심사 : 2020.06.24
  • 발행 : 2020.09.01

초록

This study investigated the effects of an ethylene scrubber (ES) with a micro-perforated polypropylene (MP-PP, 30 ㎛) or a high density polyethylene (MP-HDPE, 30 ㎛) film liner for the export carton packaging box in 'Campbell Early' grapes. Rachis browning was highest in the untreated group, followed by MP-PP and MP-HDPE for 14 days of simulated marketing at 20℃. The combination treatment of ES with the film liners showed a partial inhibition of the rachis browning regardless of the film liners. The effects of an alcohol releaser (AR) sachet or chlorine dioxide (CD) diffuser co-packaging were also investigated in the 'Campbell Early' grapes packed with the MP-HDPE (40 × 99 pin hole·m-2) film liner. The CD 1 g treatment showed a very limited weight loss of 1.1%, which was significantly lower than the 4.7% of the untreated control after 14 days of simulation marketing at 20℃. The berry shatter was 0.7% for the MP-HDPE + CD 1 g treatment and 1.8% for the MP-HDPE + CD 5 g treatment on the 10th day of the simulated marketing, which was significantly lower than the 8.9% of the control. The stem browning was significant suppressed until the 10th day of the simulated marketing. In particular, the CD 1 g treatment in combination with the MP-HDPE showed a low rachis and pedicel browning index of 2.0, which is 50% and 40% lower than that of the untreated control and the MP-HDPE single treatment, respectively. In addition, the CD 1 g treatment group showed a higher decay reduction effect than the CD 5 g treatment group, which caused high concentration damage.

참고문헌

  1. Candir E, Ozdemir AE, Kamiloglu O, Soylu EM, Dilbaz R, Ustun D. 2012. Modified atmosphere packaging and ethanol vapor to control decay of 'Red Globe' table grapes during storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology 63:98-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.09.008
  2. Cayuela JA, Vazquez A, Perez AG, Garcia JM. 2009. Control of table grapes postharvest decay by ozone treatment and resveratrol induction. Food Science and Technology International 15:495-502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013209350539
  3. Centioni L, Tiberi D, Pietromarchi P, Bellincontro A, Mencarelli F. 2014. Effect of postharvest dehydration on content of volatile organic compounds in the epicarp of Cesanese grape berry. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 65:333-340. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2014.13126
  4. Chen S, Wang H, Wang R, Fu Q, Zhang W. 2018. Effect of gaseous chlorine dioxide ($ClO_{2}$) with different concentrations and numbers of treatments on controlling berry decay and rachis browning of table grape. Journal of Food Process and Preservation 42:e13662. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13662 https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13662
  5. Chervin C, El-Kereamy A, Roustan JP, Latche A, Lamon J, Bouzayen M. 2004. Ethylene seems required for the berry development and ripening in grape, a non-climacteric fruit. Plant Science 167:1301-1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.06.026
  6. Chervin C, Westercamp P, Monteils G. 2005. Ethanol vapours limit Botrytis development over the postharvest life of table grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology 36:319-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2005.02.001
  7. Crisosto CH, Mitchell FG. 2002. Postharvest handling systems: Small fruits. pp. 223-231. In: Kader AA (ed.). Postharvest technology of horticultural crops. 3rd Ed. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, USA.
  8. Crisosto CH, Smilanick JL, Dokoozlian NK. 2001. Table grapes suffer water loss, stem browning during cooling delays. California Agriculture 55:39-42. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v055n01p39
  9. de Almeida FC, de Camargo Cham JFL, Ham BL, Ferreira SM, Gabbardo M, del Aguila JS. 2014. Use of plant growth regulators in the conservation of grapes "Italy" as aids in post-harvest. Bio Web of Conferences Vol. 3. 37th World Congress of Vine and Wine and 12th General Assembly of the OIV (Part 1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20140301003
  10. Islam MZ, Mele MA, Park JM, Kim IS, Kang HM. 2017. Chlorine dioxide gas retain postharvest quality and shelf life of tomato during modified atmosphere packaging storage. Agrivita Journal of Agricultural Science 39:233-238.
  11. Jin RY, Hu SQ, Chi ZC. 2011. Effect of chlorine dioxide gas treatment on surface sterilization of grape. Advanced Materials Research 236-238:2939-2944. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.236-238.2939
  12. KATI. 2020. Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation. Accessed in www.kati.net/product/basisinfo on 5 March 2020. [in Korean]
  13. Kim SJ, Noh SI, Choi C, Lim BS, Ahn YJ, Chun JP. 2019a. Effects of salicylic acid and 1-methylcyclopropene on physiological disorders and berry quality in 'Campbell Early' table grapes. Protected Horticulture and Plant Factory 28:218-224. https://doi.org/10.12791/KSBEC.2019.28.3.218
  14. Kim SJ, Noh SI, Lim BS, Chun JP. 2019b. Comparison of the change in quality indices during distribution period by import season in three grape cultivars. Korean Journal of Agricultural Science 46:45-56. [in Korean]
  15. Kou L, Luo Y, Ding W, Liu X, Conway W. 2009. Hot water treatment in combination with rachis removal and modified atmosphere packaging maintains quality of table grapes. HortScience 44:1947-1952. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.44.7.1947
  16. Lichter A, Kaplunov T, Zutahy Y, Daus A, Alchanatis V, Ostrovsky V, Lurie S. 2011. Physical and visual properties of grape rachis as affected by water vapor pressure deficit. Postharvest Biology and Technology 59:25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.07.009
  17. Lichter A, Zutkhy Y, Sonego L, Ben-Arie R. 2002. Ethanol controls postharvest decay of table grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology 24:301-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(01)00141-7
  18. Lichter A, Zutkhy Y, Sonego L, Dvir O, Kaplunov T, Lurie S. 2008. Evaluation of table grape storage in boxes with sulfur dioxide-releasing pads with either an internal plastic liner or external wrap. HortTechnology 18:206-214. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.18.2.206
  19. Li L, Kaplunov T, Zutahy Y, Daus A, Porat R, Lichter A. 2015. The effects of 1-methylcyclopropene and ethylene on postharvest rachis browning in table grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology 107:16-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.04.001
  20. Lurie S, Pesis E, Gadiyeva O, Feygenberg O, Ben-Arie R, Kaplunov T, Zutahy Y, Lichter A. 2006. Modified ethanol atmosphere to control decay of table grapes during storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology 42: 222-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.06.011
  21. Martinez-Romero D, Guillen F, Castillo S, Valero D, Serrano M. 2003. Modified atmosphere packaging maintains quality of table grapes. Journal of Food Science 68:1838-1843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb12339.x
  22. Moyls AL, Sholberg PL, Gaunce AP. 1996. Modified-atmosphere packaging of grapes and strawberries fumigated with acetic acid. HortScience 31:414-416. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.31.3.414
  23. Nelson KE. 1991. Quality and preservation of fruits. Chapter 7. The grape. (Eds. Eskin EAM). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
  24. Prange RK, DeEll JR. 1997. Preharvest factors affecting postharvest quality of berry crops. HortScience 32:824-830. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.32.5.824
  25. Ramin AA, Khoshbakhat D. 2008. Effects of microperforated polyethylene bags and temperatures on the storage quality of acid lime fruits. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences 3:590-594.
  26. Rosales R, Fernandez-Caballero C, Romero I, Escribano M, Merodio C, Sanchez-Ballesta M. 2013. Molecular analysis of the improvement in rachis quality by high $CO_{2}$ levels in table grapes stored at low temperature. Postharvest Biology and Technology 77:50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.10.009
  27. Sun X, Zhou B, Luo Y, Ference C, Baldwin E, Harrison K, Bai J. 2017. Effect of controlled-release chlorine dioxide on the quality and safety of cherry/grape tomatoes. Food Control 82:26-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.06.021
  28. Taylor SL. 1993. Why sulfite alternatives? Food Technology 47:14.
  29. Watharkar RB, Burbade RG, Landge KC. 2017. Effect of packaging material on shelf life and quality attributes of grapes (Vitis Vinifera L.). International Archive of Applied Sciences and Technology 8:1-8.
  30. Watkins CB. 2006. The use of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) on fruits and vegetables. Biotechnology Advances 24:389-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2006.01.005
  31. Zoffoli JP, Latorre BA, Rodriguez EJ, Aldunce P. 1999. Modified atmosphere packaging using chlorine gas generators to prevent Botrytis cinerea on table grapes. Postharvest Biology and Technology 15:135-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(98)00078-7