Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Scientia Horticulturae
journal homepage: www. e lsev i er . com/locate/ s cihorti

Changes in fruit firmness, quality traits and cell wall constituents of two
highbush blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) during postharvest cold
storage
⁎
Binghua Liua,b, Kaifang Wanga,b, Xiuge Shua, Jing Lianga,b, Xiaoli Fana, Lei Suna,b,
a
Shandong Academy of Forestry, 250014, Jinan, Shandong, China
b
Economic Forest Products Quality Inspection Test Center of State Forestry Administration (Jinan), 250014, Jinan, Shandong, China

A RT I CLE INFO AB S T RA CT

Keywords: Blueberries are now the second most economically important soft fruit. However, they are highly perishable and
Blueberry susceptible to rapid spoilage. Softening is one of the main reasons for short postharvest life of blueberries. The
Cell wall composition
changes of fruit firmness, weight loss, flavor quality and cell wall composition of Vaccinium corymbosum cv.
Firmness
Bluecrop and Vaccinium corymbosum cv. Sierra were investigated in this study. The results showed that fruit
Softening
Weight loss firmness declined concomitantly with the increase of fruit weight loss and water soluble pectin (WSP) content
paralleled by a decrease in the content of cellulose (CEL) and hemicellulose (HCEL) during postharvest cold
storage at 0 ℃ and 90% relative humidity. Compared with Sierra blueberries, Bluecrop blueberries were much
more resistant to postharvest cold storage as manifested by the higher values in fruit flavor quality and firmness
which were associated with less weight loss, lower WSP content and higher amount of CEL and HCEL.

1. Introduction extending the postharvest life of blueberry by delaying senescence and

Blueberries (Vaccinium spp.), the second most important soft fruit
species after strawberry, are highly appreciated for their various human
health benefits, unique taste, and nutritional value (Giongo et al.,
2013). In particular, blueberries contain high amounts of phenolic
compounds, including anthocyanins, flavonols, chlorogenic acid and
procyanidins (Wang et al., 2017), and have been illustrated a wide
diversity of bioactivities such as antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-
proliferative, lifespan-prolonging, anti-inflammatory, carcinogenesis
preventive, and cardioprotective activities (Bunea et al., 2013; de Souza
et al., 2014; Diaconeasa et al., 2015; Figueira et al., 2016; Folmer et al.,
2014). However, blueberries are highly perishable and susceptible to
rapid spoilage because of microbial decay, mechanical damage, and
moisture and nutritional loss (Hancock et al., 2008; Paniagua et al.,
2014). One of the main reasons for short shelf-life is postharvest soft-
ening, which may influence not only fruit quality, but also its storage
life, transport ability and resistance of postharvest diseases, thereby
significantly reducing commercial value of blueberry fruit (Chen et al.,
2015). Temperature is the most important environmental factor af-
fecting blueberry quality during postharvest storage. Postharvest sto-
rage at 0–5 ℃ and 90–95 % relative humidity (RH) is recommended for
preserving fruit quality of blueberry (Chiabrando et al., 2009; Paniagua
et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2014).
Fruit quality is a consequence of many biochemical processes that
result in changes of its intrinsic properties such as color, texture, flavor
and aroma, together with the exterior appearance (size, color and
shape) and nutritional value (Bianchi et al., 2016). Postharvest changes
in blueberry quality during cold storage are determined by diverse
physiological, biochemical, physical and pathological processes (Chen
et al., 2015; Chiabrando et al., 2009; Giongo et al., 2013; Zhou et al.,
2014), and have been reported correlated with a number of factors
including fruit firmness, fruit weight loss (WL), total soluble solids
(TSS) content and effective acidity (pH) (Chiabrando et al., 2009; Lobos
et al., 2014; Saftner et al., 2008). As well as TSS and pH, fruit firmness
is one of the most important quality properties that influence accept-
ability by consumers (Zhang et al., 2010). In blueberries, fruit firmness
is strongly associated with the general concept of fruit freshness and
quality, and affected by cellular organelles and biochemical con-
stituents, water content, and cell wall compositions (Chiabrando et al.,
2009; Saftner et al., 2008; Silva et al., 2005). Changes in firmness of
blueberry occur due to changes in the chemistry of the primary cell wall
components including water soluble pectin (WSP), cellulose (CEL) and

Abbreviations: CEL, cellulose; HCEL, hemicellulose; RH, relative humidity; TSS, total soluble solid; WL, fruit weight loss; WSP, water-soluble pectin
⁎
Corresponding author at: Shandong Academy of Forestry, 250014, Jinan, Shandong, China.
E-mail address: sun7776@163.com (L. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.042
Received 7 September 2018; Received in revised form 5 November 2018; Accepted 14 November 2018
0304-4238/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

46
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

hemicelluloses (HCEL) that a 2 was subjected to a two-cycle

occur during growth and l . compression with 5 s between
a 2 cycles. Data were collected by
development or postharvest
n . using Texture Expert Version
storage (Chen et al., 2015,
d 1.17 software. The highest
2017a; Deng et al., 2014; Giongo
s P value of force required to
et al., 2013; Konarska, 2015). t h compress the sample during
Therefore, investigating the o y the first compression cycle was
postharvest changes in fruit r s
firmness and physicochemical a recorded as fruit firmness of
i
compositions will be beneficial g c blueberry.
to illustrating the fundamental e o Prior to the TPA test, samples
of postharvest quality changes c c were kept for 2 h at room
o h temperature (20 ℃), because
of blueberry during cold
n e firmness of most fruits and
storage. In order to test the d m vegetables was influenced by
hypothesis, the present study it i increasing temperature
was designed to observe the i c
dynamic changes in fruit o (Chiabrando et al., 2009;
a
firmness, quality traits (WL, n l Paniagua et al.,
TSS and pH) and cell wall s 2
components (WSP, CEL and 0
d 1
HCEL) of two highbush Fruits of two northern
e 4
blueberries (Vaccinium highbush blueberry cultivars t ;
corymbosum cv. Bluecrop and (Vaccinium corymbosum cv. e
Vaccinium corymbosum cv. Sierra) Bluecrop and Vaccinium r
corymbosum cv. Sierra) were m Z
during 50 days of postharvest
hand-harvested from five-year- i h
storage at 0 ℃ and 90% RH, as o
old blueberry plants in a n
well as the correlation u
blueberry farm located in a
relationships between fruit t
firmness and physicochemical Chentuan town (119°27′N,
i e
compositions. 35°50′E), Rizhao City, Shandong o t
Province, China, in early June n
of 2017. All fruits at
2 a
commercial ma- turity, as 2
. l
determined by complete blue . .
skin color (100% blue colora- 2 ,
M tion), were packed in .
a 1
commercial vented clamshell
t . 2
e containers, and then were placed
0
r in a 120 L incubator with ice at 1
i the bottom, and then were F 4
a transported to the laboratory in r )
l u .
4 h for experimental treatment.
s i
In the laboratory, the fruits t
were screened for uniform size 2
a and maturity. Defective fruits .
n fi
(crushed, cracked, or immature) 2
d r
were elimi- nated. For each m .
cultivar, the selected fruits n 2
m were placed in plastic e .
e containers with snap-on lids s
t and each contained one s F
h Fruit firmness of r
hundred fruits. Ten containers
o u
per cultivar. The containers blueberries was obtained from
d i
s were stored in a tempera- ture- texture profile analysis (TPA)
test. Instrumental TPA test as t
controlled cold room under
2 regular storage conditions: described by Chen and Opara
normal atmosphere, 0 ℃, with (2013) with a 35 mm diameter w
.
stainless probe was performed e
1 a relative humidity of 90% that
i
. has been re- commended for in a Stable Micro Systems TA-
g
F maintaining postharvest storage XT Plus texture analyzer h
r quality of blueberry fruit equipped with an Acoustic t
u Envelop Detector (AED) device
(Chiabrando et al., 2009).
it
Samples were taken initially and (Stable Micro Systems Ltd.,
m l
at 10- day intervals for Godalming, UK). Samples were o
a
t physicochemical determination compressed to 75% of their s
e during storage of 50 days. original height at a crosshead s
−1
r speed of 2 mm s . Each sample
i

47
B. Liu et al.
( 2.2.3.
W Total
L soluble
) solids
WL was calculated as the
percentage difference between
the initial and the final weight
of the plastic containers
containing fruit. Weight loss was
calculated according to the
following equation: WL (%) =
(WI
− WF)/WI × 100, where WI
and WF are the initial and final
sample
weight (g), respectively. A
digital balance (BSA224S
Beijing Sartorius, China) with
0.001 g precision was used for
these weight measurements.
Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562
ethanol and maintained in
boiling water for 30 min. to a
inactivate enzymes. Then the n
sample was homogenized after a
(TSS) cooling and incubated l
content overnight with y
and pH s
90% (v/v) dimethysulphoxide
After the TPA test, three i
at 4 ℃ to remove starch. The
replicates of ten blueberries s
residues were subsequently
each cultivar were grinded
washed three times with water,
and centrifuged (Rotofix 32, The experiments were
2:1 (v/v) chloro- form-ethanol,
Hettich Zentrifugen, Tuttlingen, performed by using a completely
and acetone, respectively. The
Germany) at 3000 × g for 10 randomized design. All the
isolated cell wall materials were
min at 20 ℃. TSS content was measurements were conducted
dried overnight in a vacuum
measured with a digital in triplicate. Data were
oven at 40 ℃ to get the final
handheld refractometer presented as mean ± standard
weight and then stored over
(AtagoPAL-1, Japan). A drop of deviation (SD). Statistical
silica gel in a vacuum
the filtered juice was carefully analysis was carried out using
desiccator for further de-
placed into the lens and values the SPSS-13.0 for Windows
termination.
were recorded. Calibration was statistical software package
The cell wall materials was
made with deionized water and (Standard released version 13.0
fractionated according to the
the lens was rinsed between for Windows; SPSS Inc., IL,
methods of Chen et al. (2017a,
different samples. USA). Tukey’s HSD (honestly
2017b, 2015) and Li et al.
The pH was measured with significant difference) post hoc
(2006). WSP fraction was
a digital portable electrode pH- test (P ≤
obtained by suspending cell
meter (JENCO 6010, USA) 0.05) was performed to test the
wall materials in 50 mM sodium
equipped with temperature existence of statistical
acetate buffer (pH 6.5) for 6 h
probe. Rinse the pH electrode differences be- tween different
of shaking, and collecting
and temperature probe with treatments. Analyses of two-
supernatant by cen- trifuging at
distilled water and immerse way variance (ANOVA) were
10,000 × g for 10 min at 4 ℃.
them in the 1:10 (v/v) diluted used to evaluate the effects of
The sediment was re-sus-
juice to measure pH. Remove cultivar and cold storage time.
pended three times in 50 mM
any air bubbles trapped around Correlation relationships
sodium acetate buffer (pH 6.5)
the probe by shaking or stirring between firmness and
containing
the probe. physicochemical para- meters
50 mM EDTA, shaken for 6 h, and
were determined by using the
centrifuged as above. The residue
2 Pearson’s correlation
was re-suspended three times
. coefficients test.
2 again in 50 mM Na2CO3
. containing 2 mM EDTA, shaken
3
4 and centrifuged as above. The .
. remaining residue was re-
suspended in 4 mM NaOH
R
C containing 100 mM NaBH4,
e
e shaken and centrifuged. The s
l supernatant was collected as u
l hemicellulosic fraction and the l
final residue was cellulosic t
w fraction. The WSP content was s
a measured via m-
l hydroxydiphenyl method by a
l using galacturonic acid as n
standard (Paul and Jerome, d
c 1982; Wang et al., 2015).
o Contents of CEL and HCEL were d
m determined via anthrone i
p s
method by using glucose as
o c
n standard (Vicente et al., 2005;
Wang et al., 2015). u
e s
n s
t 2 i
s . o
Cell wall materials were 3 n
obtained as ethanol insoluble .
residue using the methods 3
described by Chen et al. D .
(2017a, 2017b, 2015). Briefly, a 1
blueberries (10 g) were ground, t .
extracted by 95% (v/v) a
48
 B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

C
h
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

f
r
u
i
t

fi
r
m
n
e
s
s

Fruit firmness is one of the

most critical quality indices for
blueberry (Angeletti et al.,
2010; Chen et al., 2017a,
2015; Chiabrando and
Giacalone, 2017; Li et al., 2011;
Perkins-Veazie et al., 1994). It
is ty- pically used as a measure
of eating quality, as well as an
estimate of

49
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

Table 1
Changes in fruit firmness and fruit weight loss (WL) of two highbush blueberry cultivars during postharvest cold storage.

Parameters Firmness (N) WL (%)

Cultivar Bluecrop Sierra Bluecrop Sierra

A, a B, a
Storage times (days at 0 ℃) 0 6.82 ± 0.13 6.27 ± 0.11 — —
A, a B, ab B, b A, b
10 6.76 ± 0.07 5.93 ± 0.13 1.06 ± 0.10 1.17 ± 0.25
A, a B, b B, b A, b
20 6.53 ± 0.09 5.85 ± 0.12 1.72 ± 0.22 1.93 ± 0.15
A, ab B, b B, ab A, ab
30 6.45 ± 0.08 5.54 ± 0.10 2.43 ± 0.18 3.02 ± 0.15
A, b B, b B, ab A, ab
40 5.92 ± 0.12 5.07 ± 0.13 3.45 ± 0.26 4.11 ± 0.22
A, b B, b B, a A, a
50 5.63 ± 0.16 4.75 ± 0.08 4.87 ± 0.20 5.21 ± 0.14
ANOVA analyses
*** **
FC 11.38 10.55
** ***
FS 9.52 17.36
* *
FC × S 7.46 6.38

Values are the means ± standard deviation (SD). Capital superscript letters in the same column are used to compare the cultivar influence. Small case superscript
letters in the same row are used to compare the storage time influence. Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test
at P ≤ 0.05 level. FC: cultivar effect; FS: storage time effect; FC × S: cultivar × storage time effect. *, **, and ***, significant at P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001,
respectively.

50
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562
(Chen et al., 2017a, v
storability and resistance to 2017b, 2015; Paniagua et al., Although, there were still many o
injury of the product during 2014, 2013). In this study, WL different results of those r
postharvest handling, storage of Blue- crop and Sierra changes of blueberry during
and marketing (Szczesniak, blueberries was determined and storage under experimental q
2002). In recent years, the results shown in Table 1. conditions (Angeletti et al., u
numerous researches on fruit WL was significantly influenced 2010; Chen et al., 2017a, 2015; a
firmness dynamics of blueberry by cultivar (P ≤ 0.01), storage Giongo et al., 2013; Li et al., l
i
during fruit growth and time (P ≤ 0.001) and cultivar 2011; Nunez-Barrios et al.,
t
development or postharvest × storage time interaction (P 2005). All the variable firmness y
storage were reported (Chen et ≤ 0.05). WL of Bluecrop and and weight loss behavior which
al., 2017a, 2015; Chiabrando et Sierra blueberries significantly were previously observed in Fruit quality is a
al., 2009; Giongo et al., 2013; Li increased with the increasing blueberries validates the consequence of many
et al., 2011; Paniagua et al., postharvest storage time (P ≤ responses obtained under the biochemical processes that result
2014, 2013), and the results 0.05, Table 1). Fruit weight of experiment storage conditions in changes of its intrinsic
showed that changes in fruit Sierra lost more sharply than which led to either blueberry properties (color, texture, flavor
firmness of blueberry during Bluecrop, as manifested by the softening or firming. and aroma), exterior
growth, ripening, and WL value ranged from 1.17% to The significant differences appearance (size, color and
postharvest storage have a 5.21% and from 1.06% to 4.87% in firmness and WL and their shape) and nutritional value
profound effect on consumer for Sierra and Bluecrop, change extents between (Bianchi et al., 2016).
acceptability. respectively (Table 1). different blueberry cultivars Postharvest changes of
In the present study, fruit Significant difference of WL was during postharvest cold storages blueberry flavor quality, always
firmness of Vaccinium found between the two were mainly associated with determined by fruit TSS and pH,
corymbosum cv. Bluecrop and cultivars, and Sierra had higher their genetic origin property. play an important role in
Vaccinium corymbosum cv. Sierra value in WL than Bluecrop Previous researches had shown consumer satisfaction and
during postharvest cold storage during the 50 days’ storage (P ≤ that fruit texture quality of influence fruit further
were measured by using a 0.05, Table 1). Additionally, the blueberry was influenced by consumption (Chiabrando et al.,
texture profile analyzer which results of Pearson’s correlation the Vaccinium species (Giongo 2009; Lobos et al., 2014;
helps in quality control and analysis in Table 4 showed that et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2005) Perkins-Veazie et al., 1994;
fruit development to quantify WL had significant negative and cultivar (Chen et al., 2017a; Saftner et al., 2008).
desired char- acteristics (Singh correlation relationship with Chiabrando et al., 2009; In the present study, TSS
et al., 2013). The results firmness (R = Hancock et al., 2008; Lobos et content and pH in Bluecrop
showed that fruit firmness was −0.831, P ≤ 0.001). It al., 2014; Li et al., 2011; and Sierra blueberries at
significantly influenced by suggested that maintaining Paniagua et al., different postharvest cold
cultivar (P ≤ 0.001), storage firmness of blue- berries for 2014; Saftner et al., 2008). All storage times were measured.
time (P ≤ extended storage period could the above validated that fruit Two-way ANOVA analysis
0.01) and cultivar × storage be achieved by preventing fruit texture quality of blueberry is indicated that storage time had
time interaction (P ≤ 0.05). weight loss. a trait under genetic control significant effect on TSS
Sierra blueberries were softer Changes in fruit firmness and it has high heritability content (P ≤ 0.01) and pH (P
than Bluecrop blueberries as and WL of blueberry under the (Burgher et al., 2002; Edwards ≤ 0.05) (Table 2). In- creasing
manifested by the lower value same storage condition have et al., 1974), thus with a high storage time resulted an increase
in firmness of Sierra than that also been reported in other potential impact on breeding in TSS content and pH, and a
of Bluecrop during the cultivars (Chiabrando et al., programs. greater increase was observed in
postharvest cold storage times 2009; Lobos et al., 2014; Sierra (ranged from 10.49% to
(P ≤ 0.05, Table 1). Increasing Paniagua et al., 2013). 11.02% and from 3.26 to 4.25,
3
storage time resulted in a respectively) than those in
.
significant decrease (P ≤ 0.05) 2 Bluecrop (ranged from 11.32%
in fruit firmness of both . to 11.66% and from 3.45 to 4.39,
blueberry cultivars, and a slower respectively) (Table 2). Since
decrease was observed in Blue- blueberry fruit does not have
C
crop than that in Sierra (Table h starch to support soluble sugar
1). After 50 days of cold a synthesis after harvest, the little
storage, the firmness of Sierra n increase in TSS may be a
blueberry decreased rapidly g consequence of cell wall
from 6.27 N to 4.75 N, while e
degradation (Cordenunsi et al.,
Bluecrop blueberry decreased s
2003). Acidity, determined by
slowly from 6.82 N to 5.63 N. pH value, was increased during
In addition, the same reduction i the first 20 days and then kept
trend of firmness was observed n
in stable level (Table 2) that
in both blueberry cultivars, usually related to good storage
which decreased slightly in the f quality (Chiabrando et al.,
first 10 days and then r
2009).
decreased rapidly (Table 1). u
i Fruit flavor quality of
Pervious researches showed blueberry is a trait under
t
that WL of blueberry is the genetic control (Burgher et al.,
major cause of firmness change 2002; Perkins-Veazie et al.,
during postharvest storage fl
a 1994), and that has been proved

51
 B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562
by the significant differences
among many different
blueberry cultivars (Duan et al.,
2011; Duarte et al., 2009;
Gündüz et al., 2015;

52
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

Table 2
Changes in total soluble solid (TSS) content and pH of two highbush blueberry cultivars during postharvest cold storage.

Parameters TSS content (%) pH

Cultivar Bluecrop Sierra Bluecrop Sierra

B, b A, b B, b A, b
Storage times (days at 0 ℃) 0 10.49 ± 0.15 11.32 ± 0.16 3.26 ± 0.07 3.45 ± 0.04
B, ab A, ab A, ab A, ab
10 10.76 ± 0.09 11.47 ± 0.12 3.72 ± 0.08 3.78 ± 0.05
B, b A, ab B, a A, a
20 10.68 ± 0.16 11.56 ± 0.16 4.05 ± 0.05 4.17 ± 0.03
B, ab A, ab B, a A, a
30 10.87 ± 0.15 11.52 ± 0.16 4.16 ± 0.01 4.31 ± 0.05
B, ab A, ab B, a A, a
40 11.02 ± 0.15 11.66 ± 0.18 4.25 ± 0.07 4.39 ± 0.05
B, a A, a B, a A, a
50 11.26 ± 0.07 11.87 ± 0.13 4.24 ± 0.05 4.39 ± 0.03
ANOVA analyses
*** ***
FC 16.42 11.73
** *
FS 10.03 7.88
**
FC × S 5.28 3.24

Values are the means ± standard deviation (SD). Capital superscript letters in the same column are used to compare the cultivar influence. Small case superscript
letters in the same row are used to compare the storage time influence. Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test
at P ≤ 0.05 level. FC: cultivar effect; FS: storage time effect; FC × S: cultivar × storage time effect. *, **, and ***: significant at P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001,
respectively.

Table 3
Changes in contents of water-soluble pectin (WSP), cellulose (CEL) and hemicellulose (HCEL) of two highbush blueberry cultivars during postharvest cold storage.
−1 −1 −1
Parameters WSP content (mg g ) CEL content (mg g ) HCEL content (mg g )

Cultivar Bluecrop Sierra Bluecrop Sierra Bluecrop Sierra

A, b A, b A, a A, a A, a B, a
Storage times (days at 0 ℃) 0 0.27 ± 0.01 0.28 ± 0.01 3.62 ± 0.06 3.47 ± 0.05 1.76 ± 0.02 1.61 ± 0.05
A, ab A, ab A, a A, a A, ab A, a
10 0.36 ± 0.00 0.38 ± 0.00 3.45 ± 0.07 3.35 ± 0.15 1.45 ± 0.07 1.42 ± 0.05
A, ab A, ab A, a B, ab A, ab B, ab
20 0.39 ± 0.00 0.41 ± 0.01 3.47 ± 0.11 3.02 ± 0.12 1.28 ± 0.05 1.15 ± 0.02
B, ab A, a A, ab B, ab A, b A, ab
30 0.42 ± 0.01 0.47 ± 0.01 3.26 ± 0.05 2.88 ± 0.13 1.06 ± 0.05 0.97 ± 0.03
A, a A, a A, b B, b A, b B, b
40 0.46 ± 0.00 0.49 ± 0.01 2.98 ± 0.07 2.65 ± 0.14 0.98 ± 0.05 0.87 ± 0.04
B, a A, a A, b B, b A, b B, b
50 0.48 ± 0.01 0.53 ± 0.01 2.87 ± 0.12 2.38 ± 0.10 0.87 ± 0.04 0.74 ± 0.03
ANOVA analyses
* ***
FC 3.28 6.86 11.37
*** *** ***
FS 10.59 13.02 12.25
* ** **
FC × S 5.18 8.54 9.97

Values are the means ± standard deviation (SD). Capital superscript letters in the same column are used to compare the cultivar influence. Small case superscript
letters in the same row are used to compare the storage time influence. Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test
at P ≤ 0.05 level. FC: cultivar effect; FS: Storage time effect; FC × S: cultivar × storage time effect. *, **, and ***: significant at P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001,
respectively.

Table 4
Linear Pearson’s correlation coefficients (R) between firmness and physicochemical parameters (n = 36) of the two highbush cultivars during postharvest cold
storage.

Physicochemical parameters WL TSS content pH WSP content CEL content HCEL content

*** ** ** *** ** ***

Firmness −0.831 −0.792 −0.755 −0.821 0.637 0.805

WL: fruit weight loss, TSS: total soluble solid, WSP: water-soluble pectin, CEL: cellulose, HCEL: hemicellulose.
* **
, , and ***: significant at P ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.

53
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

Konarska, 2015; Paniagua et life, transport ability and

relationship with firmness (P ≤ diseases re- sistance (Chen et
al., 2013; Saftner et al., 2008). 0.01, Table 4). It suggested that
In this study, significant effect al., 2015; Deng et al., 2014;
good postharvest flavor quality Hancock et al., 2008; Paniagua
of cultivar on TSS content and of blueberry can be achieved by
pH was found (P ≤ 0.001, et al., 2013). Blueberries’
maintaining fruit firmness during softening, as in peach (Zhang et
Table 2). Postharvest flavor the postharvest storage. Good
quality of Sierra was much al.,
fruit storage quality of the two 2010), pear (Chen et al.,
better than Bluecrop as Bluecrop and Sierra blueberries 2017b), apple (Costa et al.,
manifested by the significant manifested by small firmness 2012), melon
higher values in TSS and pH loss, low WL (< 2.0%) and pH
during the storage times (P ≤ (< 4.0) during the first 20 days
0.05, Table 2), and that is of cold storage time indicates
mainly due to the genetic origin again that the experimental
property of the two different storage condition at
blueberry cultivars. Changes in 0 ℃ and 90% RH is the optimum
fruit flavor quality of the same conditions recommended for
or different blue- berry cultivars highbush blueberry storage to
under the same postharvest obtain the maximal postharvest
storage condition also have been life (Chiabrando and Giacalone,
reported by many previous 2017; Chiabrando et al., 2009;
researches (Chiabrando et al., Paniagua et al., 2014; Zhou et
2009; Paniagua et al., 2013; al., 2014).
Saftner et al., 2008). Although,
different changes of these
quality parameters under 3
different experimental .
conditions also have been 3
published (Angeletti et al., .
2010; Duan et al., 2011; Duarte
et al., 2009; Nunez-Barrios et al., C
2005; Paniagua et al., 2014; h
Saftner et al., 2008). All the a
n
variable behavior of flavor
g
quality observed in blueberries e
validates the responses obtained s
under the experimental storage
conditions which led to either i
deterioration or shelf-life pro- n
longation of fresh blueberries.
Pearson’s correlation
c
analysis indicated that TSS
e
content (R =
l
−0.792) and pH (R = l
−0.755) had significant
negative correlation
w
a
l
l

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s

Softening is one of the main

reasons for fruit high
perishability and susceptible
spoilage of blueberry during
postharvest storage and in-
fluence fruit quality, storage

54
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

55
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

(Bianchi et al., 2016), tomato Results in this study that also had been mani- fested blueberry showed greater
(Saladié et al., 2007; Xie et al., demonstrated that the by the higher flavor quality of firmness and the process of
2017), strawberry (Vicente et degradation of cell wall Bluecrop (higher TSS content softening was delayed due to
al., 2005), and date (Singh et materials in blueberries of the and S/H) blueberries than lower WL and WSP content, and
al., 2013) is pri- marily due to two highbush cultivars Sierra blueberries during higher levels of CEL and HCEL
the degration of cell wall (Bluecrop and Sierra) during postharvest storage (Table 2). during the postharvest cold
components including WSP, CEL postharvest cold storage were storage.
and HCEL, leading to the characterized by an in- crease 4 There is potential for
.
disassembly of the cellulose- in WSP content and decrease industry to benefit from the
hemicellulose network of cell in contents of CEL and HCEL relationship be- tween firmness
wall structure during fruit (Table 3) as manifested by the C and physicochemical
development, ripening, and significant positive correlation o compositions by minimizing
n
postharvest storage phases (Chen between hardness and the blueberry weight loss (or
c
et al., 2017a, 2015; Deng et al., content of CEL (R = 0.637, P l moisture loss) and cell wall
2014; Giongo et al., 2013; ≤ 0.01, Table 4) and HCEL (R u degradation during the
Konarska, 2015; Silva et al., = 0.805, P ≤ 0.001, Table 4) s postharvest storage as a way
2005). and the significant negative i to delaying softening and
In the current study, correlation between hardness o maintaining good quality of
contents of WSP, CEL and and WSP content (R = n fresh blueberries.
HCEL in blueberry was −0.821, P ≤ s
significantly influenced by 0.001, Table 4), which were A
storage time (P ≤ 0.001, Table associated with softening of In summary, the present c
3). WSP content in both blueberries during postharvest work showed that during fruit k
cultivars increased with cold storage (Tables 1 and 2). In softening in blueberries, the n
decline of fruit firmness o
increasing storage time, and the the current study, cell wall
accompanying with flavor loss w
WSP content in Bluecrop composition of both cultivars
was associated with increased l
increased slower than that in showed sustained increase in e
Sierra (Table 3). After 50 days’ WSP content and a continuous WSP content and WL, and
d
postharvest storage at 0 ℃ and decrease in contents of CEL and decreased contents in CEL and g
90% RH, WSP content in HCEL (Table 3). Similar results HCEL. Compared with Sierra e
Bluecrop and Sierra also have been reported in many blueberry, Bluecrop m
increased from 0.27 mg g−1 other fruits species such as peach e
n
to (Zhang et al., 2010), pear (Chen
t
0.48 mg g−1 and from 0.28 et al., 2017a,b), apple (Costa et s
−1 −1
mg g to 0.53 mg g , al., 2012), melon (Bianchi et
respectively al., 2016), and cherry (Wang et This research was supported
(Table 3). Further comparison al., 2015), etc. by the Special Fund Project for
showed that Sierra exhibited Results from cell wall Forest Scientific Research in the
slightly higher WSP content components analyses showed Public Interest (201204402).
than Bluecrop during the storage degradation of cell wall during
time (P ≤ 0.05, Table 3). The authors are grateful to Yang
cold storage supported by the Li for help in revising our
Contents of CEL and HCEL in increase of WSP content and the
fruits of both blueberry cultivars English composition and to
decrease of the contents of Wolin Agricultural (Qingdao)
declined rapidly with increasing CEL and HCEL (Table 3). Low
storage time, and the contents co., LTD. for supply of
temperature can postpone Bluecrop and Sierra blueberries.
of CEL and HCEL in Bluecrop degradation of cell wall
blueberries declined much
components of blueberries R
slower than that in Sierra
during postharvest cold storage e
blueberries. In Bluecrop
through slowing reduction of f
blueberries, the contents of
CEL and HCEL and increasing e
CEL and HCEL reduced from
−1 −1 production of WSP (Chiabrando r
3.62 mg g to 2.87 mg g and e
−1
and Giacalone, 2017; Chen et
from 1.76 mg g to 0.87 mg al., 2017a, 2015; Deng et al., n
−1
g , respectively (Table 3). In c
2014; Giongo et al., 2013). In
terms of Sierra blueberries, the e
addition, due to the higher s
contents of CEL and HCEL amount of CEL and HCEL and
reduced from 3.47 mg g−1 their slower reduction of
Angeletti, P., Castagnasso, H., Miceli, E.,
to Bluecrop blueberries than Sierra Terminiello, L., Concellon, A.,
2.38 mg g−1 and from 1.61 blue- berries (Table 3), the Chaves, A., Vicente, A.R., 2010.
mg g−1 to 0.74 mg g−1, higher hardness in Bluecrop Effect of preharvest calcium
respectively applications on postharvest quality,
blueberries was ob- served softening and cell wall degradation
(Table 3). Further comparison during the postharvest cold of two blueberry (Vaccinium
showed that Bluecrop storage (Table 1). These corymbosum) vari- eties. Postharvest
blueberries dis- played higher results showed that Bluecrop
Biol. Technol. 58, 98–103.
Bianchi, T., Guerrero, L., Gratacós-
contents of CEL and HCEL than blueberries were much more Cubarsí, M., Claret, A., Argyris, J.,
Sierra blueberries during the resistant to post- harvest cold Garcia-Mas, J., Hortós, M., 2016.
storage (P ≤ 0.05, Table 3). storage than Sierra blueberries,
Textural properties of different
melon (Cucumis melon L.) fruit

56
 B. Liu et al.
types: sensory and physical-
chemical evaluation. Sci. Hortic.
201, 46–56.
Bunea, A., Rugină, D., Sconţa, Z., Pop,
R.M., Pintea, A., Socaciu, C.,
Tăbăran, F., Grootaert, C., Struijs,
K., VanCamp, J., 2013.
Anthocyanin determination in blue-
berry extracts from various
cultivars and their antiproliferative
and apoptotic prop- erties in B16-
F10 metastatic murine melanoma
cells. Phytochem. 95, 436–444.
Burgher, K.L., Jamieson, A.R., Lu,
X.W., 2002. Genetic relationships
among lowbush blueberry
genotypes as determined by
randomly amplified polymorphic
DNA ana- lysis. J. Am. Soc.
Hortic. Sci. 127, 98–103.
Chen, L., Opara, U.L., 2013.
Approaches to analysis and
modeling texture in fresh and
processed foods-A review. J. Food
Eng. 119, 497–507.
Chen, H.J., Cao, S.F., Fang, X.J., Mu,
H.L., Yang, H.L., Wang, X., Xu, Q.Q.,
Gao, H.Y.,
2015. Changes in fruit firmness,
cell wall composition and cell wall
degrading en- zymes in
postharvest blueberries during
storage. Sci. Hortic. 188, 44–48.
Chen, Y.H., Hung, Y.C., Chen, M.Y., Lin,
H.T., 2017a. Effects of acidic
electrolyzed oxi-
dizing water on retarding cell wall
degradation and delaying softening
of blueberries during postharvest
storage. LWT–Food Sci. Technol. 84,
650–657.
Chen, Y.H., Sun, J.Z., Lin, H.T., Huang,
Y.C., Zhang, S., Lin, Y.F., Lin, T., 2017b.
Paper-
based 1-MCP treatment
suppresses cell wall metabolism
and delays softening of
Huanghua pears
during storage. J.
Sci. Food Agric. 97,
2547–2552.
Chiabrando, V., Giacalone, G., 2017.
Shelf-life extention of highbush
blueberry using 1-
methylcyclopropene stored under
air and controlled atmosphere. Food
Chem. 126,
1
8
1 extract in acute inflammation and
2 collagen-induced arthritis in the rat.
– Biomed. Pharmacother. 83, 1191–
1 1202.
8 Folmer, F., Basavaraju, U., Jaspars, M.,
1 Hold, G., EI-Omar, E., Dicato, M.,
6 Diederich, M.,
. 2014. Anticancer effects of
Chiabrando, V., Giacalonea, G., Rolle,
L., 2009. Mechanical behaviour and
quality traits of highbush blueberry
during postharvest storage. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 89, 989–992.
Cordenunsi, B.R., Nascimento, J.R.O.,
Lajolo, F.M., 2003. Physico-
chemical changes re- lated to
quality of five strawberry fruit
cultivars during cool-storage. Food
Chem. 83,
1
6
7
–
1
7
3
.
Costa, F., Cappellin, L., Fontanari, M.,
Longhi, S., Guerra, W., Magnago, P.,
Gasperi, F., Biasioli, F., 2012.
Texture dynamics during
postharvest cold storage ripening in
apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.).
Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562
Postharvest Biol. Technol. 69, 54–
63.
de Souza, V.R., Pereira, P.A.P., Silva,
T.L.T., de Oliveira Lima, L.C., Pio, R.,
Queiroz, F.,
2014. Determination of the
bioactive compounds, antioxidant
activity and chemical composition
of Brazilian blackberry, red
raspberry, strawberry, blueberry and
sweet cherry fruits. Food Chem.
156, 362–368.
Deng, J., Shi, Z.J., Li, X.Z., Liu, H.M.,
2014. Effects of cold storage and
1-methycyclo- propene treatments
on ripening and cell wall
degrading in rebbiteye blueberry
(Vaccinium ashei) fruit. Food Sci.
Technol. Int. 75, 1–12.
Diaconeasa, Z., Leopold, L., Ruginã,
D., Ayvaz, H., Socaciu, C., 2015.
Antiproliferative and antioxidant
properties of anthocyanin rich
extracts from blueberry and black-
currant juice. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16,
2352–2365.
Duan, J.Y., Wu, R.Y., Strik, B.C., Zhao,
Y.Y., 2011. Effect of edible coatings on
the quality
of fresh blueberries (Duke
and Elliott) under
commercial storage
conditions. Postharvest Biol.
Technol. 59, 71–79.
Duarte, C., Guerra, M., Daniel, P.,
Camelo, A.L., Yomm, A., 2009.
Quality changes of highbush
blueberries fruit stored in CA
with different CO2 levels. J. Food
Sci. 74,
1
5
4
–
1
5
9
.
Edwards, T.W., Sherman, W.B., Sharpe,
R.H., 1974. Evaluation and
inheritance of fruit color size, scar,
firmness and plant vigor in
blueberry. HortScience 9, 20–22.
Figueira, M.E., Oliveira, M., Direito, R.,
Rocha, J., Alves, P., Serra, A.T.,
Duarte, C., Bronze, R., Fernandes,
A., Brites, D., Freitas, M.,
Fernandes, E., Sepodes, B., 2016.
Protective effects of a blueberry
bioactive berry compounds.
Phytochem. Rev. 13,
2
9
5
–
3
2
2
.
57
B. Liu et al. Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562

58
B. Liu et al.
Giongo, L., Poncetta, P., Loretti, P.,
Costa, F., 2013. Texture profiling
of blueberries (Vaccinium spp.)
during fruit development,
ripening and storage. Postharvest
Biol. Technol. 76, 34–39.
Gündüz, K., Serçe, S., Hancock, J.F.,
2015. Variation among highbush
and rabbiteye cultivars of
blueberry for fruit quality and
phytochemical characteristics. J.
Food Compos. Anal. 38, 69–79.
Hancock, J., Callow, P., Serce, S.,
Hanson, E., Beaudry, R., 2008.
Effect of cultivar, controlled
atmosphere storage, and fruit
ripeness on the long-term storage
of high- bush blueberries.
HortTechnology 18, 199–205.
Konarska, A., 2015. Development
of fruit quality traits and
comparison of the fruit
structure of two Vaccinium
corymbosum (L.) cultivars. Sci.
Hortic. 194, 79–90.
Li, X., Nakagawa, N., Nevins, D.J.,
Sakurai, N., 2006. Changes in the
cell-wall poly- saccharides of outer
pericarp tissues of kiwifruit during
development. Plant Physiol.
Biochem. 44, 115–124.
Li, C.Y., Luo, J.W., MacLean, D.,
2011. A novel instrument to
delineate varietal and harvest
effects on blueberry fruit
texture during storage. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 91,
1653–1658.
Lobos, G.A., Callow, P., Hancock, J.F.,
2014. The effect of delaying
harvest date on fruit quality and
storage of late highbush blueberry
cultivars (Vaccinium corymbosum L.).
Postharvest Biol. Technol. 87, 133–
139.
Nunez-Barrios, A., NeSmith, D.S.,
Chinnan, M., Prussia, S.E., 2005.
Dynamics of rabbiteye
blueberry fruit quality in
response to harvest method and
postharvest handling
temperature. J. Small Fruit
Rev. 4, 73–81.
Paniagua, A.C., East, A.R., Hindmarsh,
J.P., Heyes, J.A., 2013. Moisture
loss is the major cause of firmness
change during postharvest storage
of blueberry. Postharvest Biol.
Technol. 79, 13–19.
Paniagua, A.C., East, A.R., Heyes, J.A.,
2014. Interaction of temperature
control defi- ciencies and
atmosphere conditions during
blueberry storage on quality
outcomes. Postharvest Biol.
Technol. 95, 50–59.
Paul, K.K., Jerome, P.V.B., 1982.
Carbohydrate interference and its
correction in pectin analysis using
the m-hydroxydiphenyl method. J.
Food Sci. 47, 756–759.
Perkins-Veazie, P., Collins, J.K., Clark,
J.R., Magee, J., Substation, S.F.,
1994. Postharvest quality of
southern highbush blueberries.
Science 27, 1254–1255.
Scientia Horticulturae 246 (2019) 557–562
Saftner, R., Polashock, J., Ehlenfeldt,
M., Vinyard, B., 2008.
Instrumental and sensory quality
characteristics of blueberry fruit
from twelve cultivars. Postharvest
Biol. Technol. 49, 19–26.
Saladié, M., Matas, A.J., Isaacson, T.,
Jenks, M.A., Goodwin, S.M., Niklas,
K.J., Ren, X.L., Labavitch, J.M.,
Shackel, K.A., Fernie, A.R.,
Lytovchenko, A., O’Neill, M.A.,
Watkins, C.B., Rose, J.K.C., 2007. A
re-evaluation of the key factors that
influence tomato fruit softening and
integrity. Plant Physiol. 144, 1012–
1028.
Silva, J.L., Marroquin, E., Matta, F.B.,
Garner, J.O.J., Stojanovic, J., 2005.
Physicochemical carbohydrate and
sensory characteristics of highbush
and rabbiteye blueberry cultivar. J.
Sci. Food Agric. 85, 1815–1821.
Singh, V., Guizani, N., Al-Alawi, A.,
Claereboudt, M., Rahman, M.S., 2013.
Instrumental
texture profile analysis (TPA) of
date fruits as a function of its
physico-chemical properties. Ind.
Crop. Prod. 50, 866–873.
Szczesniak, A.S., 2002. Texture is a
sensory property. Food Qual. Prefer. 13,
215–225.
Vicente, A.R., Costa, M.L., Martínez,
G.A., Chaves, A.R., Civello, P.M.,
2005. Effect of heat treatments on
cell wall degradation and softening
in strawberry fruit. Postharvest Biol.
Technol. 38, 213–222.
Wang, L., Jin, P., Wang, J., Jiang, L.L.,
Shan, T.M., Zhang, Y.H., 2015.
Effect of β-ami- nobutyric acid on
cell wall modification and
senescence in sweet cherry during
sto- rage at 20 ℃. Food Chem. 175,
471–477.
Wang, H.L., Guo, X.B., Hu, X.D., Li, T.,
Fu, X., Liu, R.H., 2017. Comparison of
phyto-
chemical profiles, antioxidant and
cellular antioxidant activities in
different varieties of blueberry
(Vaccinium Spp.). Food Chem. 217,
773–781.
Xie, F., Yuan, S.Z., Pan, H.X., Wang,
R., Cao, J.K., Jiang, W.B., 2017.
Effect of yeast mannan
treatments on ripening progress
and modification of cell wall
poly- saccharides in tomato
fruit. Food Chem. 218, 509–
517.
Zhang, L.F., Chen, F.S., Yang, H.S., Sun,
X.Y., Liu, H., Gong, X.Z., Jiang, C.B., Ding,
C.H.,
2010. Changes in firmness,
pectin content and
nanostructure of two crisp
peach cultivars after storage.
LWT–Food Sci. and Technol. 43,
26–32.
Zhou, Q., Ma, C., Cheng, S.C., Wei, B.D.,
Liu, X.Y., Ji, S.J., 2014. Changes in
antioxidative
metabolism accompanying pitting
development in stored blueberry fruit.
Postharvest
Biol. Technol. 88, 88–95.
59