Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Mathematical modelling of Hass avocado firmness by using destructive and non-destructive devices at different maturity stages and under two storage conditions Cover

Mathematical modelling of Hass avocado firmness by using destructive and non-destructive devices at different maturity stages and under two storage conditions

Folia Horticulturae
Volume 34 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Aug 2022
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Spearman correlations of firmness data between destructive and non-destructive devices for Quilhuica (A,B) and Bartolillo (C,D) orchards. The firmness of the fruit stored in RA decreased rapidly once removed from cold storage conditions (day 30). The firmness of the fruit was not easily lost under CA storage and remained unaltered during the prolonged storage stage, and the fruit lost firmness faster after removal from storage at day 55. Figure 2A, 2C show the firmness loss measured by a texture analyser while Figure 2B, 2D show the firmness by a destructive device for Quilhuica and Bartolillo orchards, respectively. Differently from non-destructive devices, little change in firmness was observed when the penetrometer was used (Figure 2B, 2D).

Figure 2

Changes in firmness from harvest until RTE stage of fruit stored in RA and CA storage of both orchards, Quilhuica (A,B) and Bartolillo (C,D). CA, controlled atmosphere; RA, regular air; RTE, ready-to-eat.

Table 1

Model prediction intervals from each regression analysis performed. Four models were tested from different datasets.

ModelFTAFPEFitted FPElwrupr
Q_RA97.79302.60255.13146.99363.27
86.84267.00232.24124.10340.38
93.92249.20247.05138.91355.19
91.70281.24242.40134.26350.54
95.96267.00251.31143.17359.46
82.85249.20223.89115.75332.03
121.22252.76304.13195.95412.31
86.14249.20230.79122.65338.93
ModelFTAFPEFitted FPElwrupr
Q_CA97.79302.60231.53120.30342.76
86.84267.00214.03102.80325.26
157.88284.80327.62216.33438.90
92.81267.00223.58112.35334.81
120.86267.00268.42157.20379.65
82.85249.20207.6496.41318.88
101.42284.80237.34126.12348.56
86.14249.20212.92101.68324.15
ModelFTAFPEFitted FPElwrupr
B_RA68.01234.96200.5083.41317.60
103.33252.76256.18139.09373.27
96.82284.80245.92128.83363.01
81.22284.80221.33104.24338.41
80.86284.80220.76103.67337.84
83.43267.00224.81107.73341.90
113.48284.80272.18155.08389.29
114.79267.00274.25157.14391.36
ModelFTAFPEfitted FPElwrupr
B_CA10.695.3499.55−7.85206.96
83.80252.76210.40103.19317.62
88.70238.52217.84110.62325.05
89.11249.20218.46111.25325.67
83.48249.20209.92102.70317.14
78.88284.80202.9595.73310.17
209.33284.80400.75293.28508.21
8.825.3496.71−10.70204.12

[i] Q_RA and Q_CA are model prediction intervals from Quilhuica firmness data of RA and CA, respectively, and B_RA and B_CA for Bartolillo orchard. FTA and FPE are the observed firmness values measured by a texture analyser (non-destructive device) and penetrometer, respectively. Fitted FPE is the fitted penetrometer firmness by the linear regression model; lwr and upr means lower and upper prediction interval of the model, respectively.

[ii] CA, controlled atmosphere; RA, regular air.

Table 2

Mean comparisons of firmness during storage time after ANOVA by Kruskal–Wallis (non-parametric ANOVA).

Storage time*QuilhuicaBartolillo
FTAFPEFTAFPE
0baab
10aaaa
20babb
30cbbc
RTEdccd

p values were adjusted by Bonferroni test. Analysis was performed for fruit stored in RA.

* Samples stored in RA.

ANOVA, analysis of variance; RA, regular air; RTE, ready-to-eat.

Table 3

Mean comparisons of firmness during storage time after ANOVA by Kruskal–Wallis (non-parametric ANOVA).

Storage time*QuilhuicaBartolillo
FTAFPEFTAFPE
0dccc
20cbba
35aaaa
55babbb
RTEeddd

p values were adjusted by Bonferroni test. Analysis was performed for fruit stored in CA.

* Samples stored in CA

ANOVA, analysis of variance; CA, controlled atmosphere; RTE, ready-to-eat.

Figure S1

Normal Q-Q plots of fruit firmness measured by non-destructive (A,C) and destructive (B,D) devices. (A,B): Fruit stored in RA and (C,D) stored in CA of Quilhuica orchard. CA, controlled atmosphere; RA, regular air.

Figure S2

Normal Q-Q plots of fruit firmness measured by non-destructive (A,C) and destructive (B,D) devices. (A,B): Fruit stored in regular air (RA) and (C,D) stored in the controlled atmosphere (CA) of Bartolillo orchard.

Figure S3

Histograms of normal distributions of firmness measured by non-destructive device and destructive device for both fruit stored in regular and CA of Quilhuica orchard. CA, controlled atmosphere; RA, regular air.

Figure S4

Histograms of normal distributions of firmness measured by non-destructive device and destructive device for both fruit stored in regular and CA of Bartolillo orchard. CA, controlled atmosphere; RA, regular air.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2022-0011 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 139 - 150
Submitted on: Mar 1, 2022
Accepted on: Jun 14, 2022
Published on: Aug 5, 2022
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
destructive fruit firmness,
mathematical modelling,
non-destructive device,
Persea americana,
relationships
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Plant science

© 2022 Virgilio Gavicho Uarrota, Romina Pedreschi, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 34 (2022): Issue 2 (December 2022)
Previous article
Next article