1. ENVIROPAK 36-month final project meeting Sonya Buchner

2. WP1 Experimental design 1: Effect of storage time and temperature on the quality of Packham’s Triumph pears (at 95% RH) Temp (°C) -0.51020 Time (weeks) 863 Analysis Non- destructive DestructiveNon- destructive DestructiveNon- destructive Destructive Testing interval 2 weekly weekly daily2 daily

3. WP1 Experimental design 2: Moisture loss of pears at different relative humidities (at 10°C) RH (%)987566 Testing interval (days) 222 Variables monitored:  moisture loss (fresh weight loss)  Fruit shrivelling (observation)

4. WP1 - Results summary Ripening rate = Temp dependant  As temperature  respiration rate   Climacteric peak reached earlier at 10 and 20°C  Physico-chemical changes associated with ripening = more pronounced Moisture loss = Temperature and RH dependant At 95% RH shrivelling only observed at 20°C (d4, avoid moisture loss  12.92g total fruit weight) At 75 and 66% RH shrivelling observed at d24 (10°C)

5. WP 1 - project summary Report (Deliverable 3) Pertinent information gained: –Ripening of pears at 20°C and ambient RH to give true indication of effect of coating on pear shelf life

6. WP 5 – Coating techniques Kafirin (13%, w/w) dissolves in GAA at room temperature GAA is unsuitable solvent for pear coating –Shiny appearance, sticky, acrid smell, pear skin discolouration (possibly due to low pH damaging cell walls) Application of kafirin coating (ethanol solvent) – > 30°C = opaque appearance –  30°C = matt appearance Kafirin & ethanol coating solution = most suitable for pears & possible at room temperature –No off odour –No pear skin browning

7. WP6 – Shelf life testing of coated pears Thick coatings (  3% kafirin in soln) induced anaerobic respiration & prevented normal ripening at 20°C 2% (w/w) coating soln. extended shelf life –  respiration rate & de-greening significantly –More suitable to prevent ripening and senescence than moisture loss and shrivelling Coating almost doubled shelf life of coated pears at 20°C (from 7d to between 10 & 14d) – despite poor initial pear quality

8. WP 6 – Shelf life cont. For optimal benefit of pear coating: Use export quality pears Seasonal pear quality & intrinsic characteristics impact shelf life Coating of pears after harvest better than after CA storage Ensure ripening is not induced prior to coating (coat before onset of climacteric)

9. WP 6 – Sensory evaluation Descriptive sensory evaluation: –Eat-ripe stage does not necessarily correlate with physiological ripeness –Sensory data more reliable to predict shelf life than physico-chemical data Consumer sensory evaluation: –Coating does not impact negatively on acceptability of coated fruit –Coated fruit was less acceptable than uncoated fruit, probably because controls were at optimum eat-ripe stage

10. WP 6 project summary Reports – deliverables 22 and 23 Provisional patent registered nationally

11. WP 8 – Export of pears 5 boxes uncoated & 5 boxes coated (2%, w/w) Packham’s Triumph pears – obtained from CA storage Stored at 0°C for ± 3 weeks after coating Exported by ship to UK (14d at 0°C) Tested on arrival, after 8 and 13 days at 20°C

12. Results obtained from Orchardworld importers on fruit quality

13. Exported pears after 13d storage at 20°C UncoatedCoated

14. WP 8 Conclusions Coating extended shelf life of pears by retarding de-greening, loss in fruit firmness and the manifestation of typical defects Coating of freshly harvested pears would show more pronounced results than coated CA stored pears