6/16/2013

1

Water Loss and Postharvest Quality 

Marita Cantwell, UC Davis

micantwell@ucdavis.edu

http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu

Water Loss and Postharvest Quality

Topics to cover

• How does water loss occur

• What are critical levels of water loss

• Where does water loss occur in handling 

• How to control water loss

Postharvest Water RelationsWater lossWater gain

6/16/2013

2

Fresh Produce and Water Loss

• Fresh produce contains  65% (garlic) to 95% (lettuce) water; water content for most products is 85‐90%

• Harvested products begin to lose moisture immediately upon cutting from the plant

• Water loss = transpiration 

• Water loss = weight loss (except if significant dry matter loss during storage)

• Water loss is water vapor movement from product to the environment

• Water loss is affected mainly by packaging, temperature, relative humidity and airflow

Water loss• Through stem end

• Through epidermis and stomates

• Through peel and lenticels 

• Through damaged areas

J.L.J. Bezuidenhout. 2005.  Lenticels different  plant species, Thesis. Univ. Pretoria., SA. Light microscopy mango lenticels

6/16/2013

3

Critical levels for many products <3% no visual effect, texture3-5% visual quality affected>5% shrivel, lose salability

Impacts on QualityLoss of Salable WeightLoss Fresh Appearance

GlossShrivelPitting, sunken areas

Loss of Texture, TurgidityChanges in Product Physiology

Water loss is Cumulative

These berries wereheld at ambienttemperature and lost more than10% weight and look old and tired

These berrieswere kept coldand lost lessthan 1% weight and look fresh

Ripened at 15C Higher gloss Less weight loss Firmer

TomatoesRipened at 20C

0.4%                5.2%            10.3%              13.9%

Romaine Lettuceis marketable until  5% weight loss

6/16/2013

4

% Weight loss

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

% F

irmne

ss lo

ss0

20

40

60

80

y = 5.68x + 9.69R2 = 0.80

% Firmness loss vs % Weight loss

Iceless BroccoliTemperature-yellowingMoisture loss-softening

ICELESS BROCCOLIMinimize delay from harvest to cooling Use plastic liners with holes to reduce water loss Keep it coldAbout 3-4% weight loss = soft head

Texture and Water loss

Water Loss and Fruit RipeningWater loss during initial phase of ripening affects rates of ripeningWater loss is a stress and caused increased synthesis of ethyleneTherefore minimize water loss during initial 72 hours after harvest

Burdon, J. et al. 2005. Mode of action of water loss on fruit quality of ‘Hass’ avocadoes.NZ and Australia Grower’s Conf., 2005

Stage when induce water loss

Total % Water loss

Days to ripen

Pre-climacteric 5.6 14.1

Climacteric 5.3 15.7

Post-climacteric 5.2 17.0Early season fruit; Induced water loss conditions: 20C with 20%RHControl, 20C 95%RH lost only 1.3% weight and required 16.4 days to ripenDecay was less on fruit from treatments with water loss than on control fruit

Water Loss and Fruit Physiology

6/16/2013

5

Cluster Tomato Fruit AbscissionInteraction of Water Loss and Fruit Ripening

No abscission: store for 2 weeks at 20C & 95%RH No Abscission: 10 ppm ethylene 8days at 20C & 95%RH No abscission: store at 20C and 20%RH if fruit full red

before sepal shrivel (cannot detach fruit without damage) Abscission occurred: storing fruit at 20C and 20% or

50%RH and if sepals shrivel before fruit is full red

Weight loss during harvest and initial handling is most critical

JK Brecht and KM Cordasco. 2006. HortScience 41(4) Abstract 979

Fruit100% RH in air spacesAssume 20C 100% RH

Environment

TemperatureRelative Humidity—less than 100%Air velocity

Skin/epidermis

Vapor pressure deficit

Assume 20C with 40%RH

VPD increases exponentially with rising temperature

VPD increases linearly with falling humidity

6/16/2013

6

Water loss and temperatureWt loss (%/day) = product K x VPD

Psychrometric ChartThermodynamic properties of airTemperature and Water Content

VPD increases exponentially with rising temperature

VPD increases linearly with falling humidity

Typical field and storageconditions

BasilHighly susceptible to water lossVery chilling sensitive

Situation:Excellent quality cropHarvesting late in dayHigh temperatures, ~30°CLow RH, ~50%; Little protection from ambientLong delays to packinghouse

What can be done to improve this handling???

Handling at harvest is critical for water loss management

6/16/2013

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 hr32°F, 95% RH

32°F 95% RH, air at 0.5 mph

Load at 32°F,Transport at 40°F

6 hrs 80°F 20% RH

Cooled at40°F, 75% RH

Stored at 32°F, 75% RHair at 2 mph

Load at 40°F,Transport at 40°F

Table GrapesIdeal vs Poor Postharvest Handling

Delay Before Cooling

6 hours Cooling

7 dayStorage

7 dayTransit

% Water Loss From G. Mitchell, UC Davis

Weight loss of Tuscan melons held for different periods at 37°C (99°F) before cooling, storage and shelf-life.

Hours at 37°C (99°F)

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

% w

eig

ht

loss

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

y = 0.1068x -0.049R2=0.99

Tuscan melon weight loss and time at 37°C (99°F) 20%RH

Water loss is Cumulative

Suture browning Tuscan melons

Cooling delay% weight loss before

cool

% weight loss storage

10D 5°C

% weight loss shelf-life

4D 20°C

TotalWeight loss

%

Suture browning

score

0 h delay control 0.00 2.14 0.97 3.08 1.2

4 h delay 0.38 1.95 0.96 3.25 1.3

8 h delay 0.85 1.85 0.78 3.45 1.3

12 h delay 1.19 1.62 0.79 3.56 1.4

16 h delay 1.50 1.32 0.85 3.63 2.8

20 h delay 2.06 1.47 0.68 4.15 4.0

24 h delay 2.80 1.41 0.71 4.85 4.2

LSD.05 0.21 0.42 ns 0.60 0.8

1=none 5=severe

Cantwell, UC Davis

6/16/2013

8

Delays to cool of Tuscan Melons; fruit held at 37°C (99°F)

0 h

16 h 24 h

8 h0.0%

2.8%1.5%

0.8%

Weight loss

Melon visual quality after delays to cool, storage 10d 5°C (41°F) + 4d 20°C (68°F)

0 h 8 h

16 h 24 h

Total Weight loss

3.0% 3.2%

4.0% 4.8%

6/16/2013

9

Stems as freshness indicators• Initially stems contribute 40% to weight loss• As stems dry, less water loss through them

Weight and water content cherries and stems. 21°C, 66%RH, restricted natural convection, 6days

Linke et al. 2010. Green peduncles may indicate postharvest freshness of sweet cherries. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 58: 135-141.

Parameter Fruit with stems

Fruit bodies

Stems

Initial fresh weight, g 11.89 11.76 0.14

Final fresh weight, g 11.02 10.95 0.06

Water loss, % 7.4 6.8 54.4

Initial water content, % 80.98 81.11 69.37

Final water content, % 73.58 74.28 14.72

Predicted postharvest moisture loss from litchi with idealized handling.

StageTemp. (°C)

RH (%)Wind speed (m s−1)

Duration (h)

Predicted moisture loss (%)

Cumulative moisture loss (%)

Harvest 30 65 1.5 3 1.87 1.87

Pre-cooling 5 75 1 5 0.38 2.25

Storage 5 75 0 5 0.06 2.31

Transport 7 66 0 12 0.23 2.54

Wholesale 5 75 0 3 0.04 2.58

Wholesale display

25 22 0 2 0.27 2.85

Transport 7 66 0 2 0.04 2.89

Retail 20 50 0.5 6 0.90 3.79 38h

Litchi Browning: Water loss is a major contributor: 8% water loss for peel browning. Mechanical damage, senescence, improper storage temperature, and postharvest pathogens also contribute.

Bryant, P.H. 2012. A model of postharvest moisture loss under air currents to reduce pericarpbrowning of litchi. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 73: 8-13.

6/16/2013

10

Litchi~8% weight loss = desiccation browning

Harvest Conditions

Temp. (°C)

RH (%)

Wind speed (m s−1)

Duration (h)

Predicted moisture loss (%)

Standard 30 65 1.5 3 1.9

No wind 30 65 0 3 0.3

Delay 30 65 1.5 6 3.6

Extreme 35 50 1.5 6 6.3

Bryant, P.H. 2012. A model of postharvest moisture loss under air currents to reduce pericarpbrowning of litchi. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 73: 8-13.

Wind speed and weight loss

Minimize Weight loss and Firmness Loss in Peppers

Variety% Weight loss

% Firmnessloss

Allegiance 3.9 35.0Baron 6.4 60.2Classic 4.7 56.8Cypress 5.1 53.5Double Up 5.8 52.4Excel 6.3 37.7Karisma 4.0 45.6Patriot 4.4 53.5RPP 22984 6.4 67.3Wizard 4.9 45.8

Average 5.2 50.8LSD.05 0.6 8.2

14D 7.5°C + 3D 20°C

Water loss and Cultivars

6/16/2013

11

Cultivar Shrivel * % weight loss

Ahern 299 3.5 13.2

Amsterdam 3.2 15.2

Harris LI-34 4.6 15.6

Hazera 1319 4.3 18.0

Rotterdam 2.4 11.8

TC 1260 3.6 14.9LSD.05 0.6 1.5

*Shrivel score -1-5 scale, 1=none, 2=slight, 3=moderate, 4=moderately severe, 5=severe

Role of cultivar in postharvest quality loss Example: Grape tomatoes and weight loss

Cantwell, UC Davis 20041 2 3 4 5

12days 20C 50%RH

Simple packaging to reduce water loss.Need to cool product before packaging (room or hydrocool)or used vented packaging and vacuum cool (romaine lettuces)

6/16/2013

12

Wei

ght

loss

, %

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

LSD.05

A. % Weight loss, bags folded over

Days at 10°C (50°F)

0 2 4 6 8 10

Firm

ness

, N fo

rce

to c

omp

ress

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LSD.05

B. Firmness, bags folded over

No Bag, waxed carton

Lettuce bag, folded over

Extend bag, folded over

New Peak Fresh bag, folded over

Smart bag, folded over

Broccoli weight lossand firmness losscan be minimized withplastic liners.

Liners placed in fieldAnd product vacuum cooled

Simple perforated PElettuce or basil linersperform as well as more expensive plastic films.

Cantwell, UC Davis

Condensation—worse than water loss for many products

Dew point

Strawberries do not tolerate free moisture

Salad kale does not tolerate free moisture

6/16/2013

13

“Cold and Dry”

Bacterial growth: temperature and moisture

Vapor pressure deficit, g moisture/kg dry air

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Wei

ght

loss

, %

per

day

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24 Weight loss in relation to VPD in 4 products

Products at 0, 10, 20 and 30C exposed or in vented plastic bags

Strawberry

Broccoli

Romaine

Mushroom y = 1.66x - 1.29; R2 = 0.98

y = 1.15x -0.68; R2 = 0.98

y = 0.70x -0.23; R2 = 0.97

y = 0.583x - 0.25; R2 = 0.95

A small amount of controlled water loss leads to longer postharvest life; Avoid free moisture

Leafy green grower, Singapore. Product harvested in afternoon, cooled overnight in marine container, slightly dehydrated (5-10% weight loss) and then consumer packaged the following day.

“Cold and Dry” Handling

6/16/2013

14

Low =72%RHMedium =85%RHHigh =99%RH

Percent Damaged Leaves

Overall Visual Quality

Medina et al. 2012. Postharvest Biol. Tech. 67: 1-9.

Washed Baby SpinachHumidity controlled Pre-wash and Storage 36h 15°C prewash; 19.7, 11.0 and 0.5% wt. loss12d 7°C storage in MAP (~5%O2+8%CO2)

Leaf damage causes decrease in shelf-lifeand increase microbial load.

Water loss controlLow temperaturePackaging appropriateMinimize time

6/16/2013

15

Display ready reusable packagingWhat are advantages and disadvantages?

Water loss and Retail Handling

Days storage

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

% w

eig

ht

loss

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

W eight loss rate per day:2.5°C = 0.03%5°C = 0.06%10°C = 0.085%

2.5°C 36°F 5°C 41°F 10°C 50°F

Retail Spinach Bags: W eight Loss

Display ready reusable crates-whatare advantages and disadvantages

For product to tolerate such conditionsat retail, must minimize water loss at earlier steps in handling chain

Additional paper or plastic packagingcan notably reduce water loss

Exposed

Bag withperforations

8 days

0.5°C (33°F) 5°C (41°F) 10°C (50°F)

5.2% 10.3% 13.9% weight loss

0.4% 0.5% 0.7% weight loss

6/16/2013

16

Water Loss and Postharvest Quality• Water loss occurs through natural pores and damaged areas

• Environmental conditions at harvest cause high rates of water loss

• Harvest when cool

• Protect and shade in the field

• Reduce delays from harvest to start cooling

• Cool efficiently, then reduce air flow over product

• Manage Temperature, RH, air flow during storage and transport

• Use protective packaging

• Use protective treatments in some cases (waxes, coatings)

• Weight loss is cumulative, store only as long as necessary

• Controlled weight loss may be beneficial to shelf-life

• Problem conditions are at the beginning and end of the value chain

REFERENCES

Ben-Yehoshua, S. and V. Rodov. 2003.Transpiration and water stress. In: J.A. Bartz and J.K. Brecht. (Eds.). Postharvest Physiology and Pathology of Vegetables. 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., NY. Pp. 111-159.

Rodov, V., S. Ben-Yehoshua, and N. Aharoni. 2010. Modified Humidity Packaging of Fresh Produce. Horticultural Reviews 37: 281-329.

Thompson, J.T. 2002. Psychrometrics and perishable commodities. Ch13. In A.A. Kader (ed.). Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. Publication 3311, Univ. California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland. pp. 129-134.

Tijskens, L.M.M., S. Jacob, R.E. Schouten, J.P. Fernández-Trujillo, N. Dos-Santos,E. Vangdal, E. Pagán and A. Pérez Pastor. 2010. Water Loss in Horticultural Products -Modelling, Data Analysis and Theoretical Considerations. Acta Horticulturae 858: 465-471.