Erwerbs-Obstbau (2023) 65:941–950

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00806-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE / ORIGINALBEITRAG

Relationship Between Mass Loss and Fruit Quality of Sweet Orange at

Two Different Storage Conditions
Samina Khalid1 · Muhammad Irfan Ullah2 · Muhammad Shafique Khalid1 · Muhammad Asif Naeem1 ·
Natasha Natasha1 · Rahina Kausar3 · Saeed Ahmad Qaisrani1

Received: 22 August 2022 / Accepted: 21 November 2022 / Published online: 5 January 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert an Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Mass loss from fresh produce is linked to a reduction of its aesthetic value. However, a relationship between mass loss and
biochemical quality parameters at different storage conditions has not been widely explored. Therefore, the current study
is designed with the objectives to determine the behavior of fruit quality parameters and a relationship between fruit mass
loss and fruit quality at two different storage conditions. Sweet orange fruit stored in a zero energy cool chamber (ZECC)
had greater shelf-life of more than 15 days, fruit size (62.40 mm) and peel (35.15%) and lower mass loss (4.94%), juice
(32.19%) and electrical conductivity (EC) (2.06 S/m) as compared to ambient conditions in laboratory during 25 days of
storage. In ZECC, only EC was positively correlated (r = 0.57) with mass loss, whereas at room temperature EC (r = 0.76),
total soluble solids (TSS) (r = 0.60) and fruit internal temperature (r = 0.64) were positively and peel (%) (r = –0.52) and
fruit diameter (r = –0.49) were negatively correlated with mass loss. Correlation of combined storage conditions revealed
that EC (r = 0.47) and TSS (r = 0.50) were positively and peel (%) (r = –0.77) and fruit diameter (r = –0.55) were negatively
correlated with mass loss (%). The principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that the scores of room temperature
were strongly associated with TSS, pH, EC, mass loss (%), juice (%) and internal temperature (°C), whereas scores
of ZECC were strongly associated with pulp (%), ascorbic acid (mg 100 mL–1), acidity (%), and fruit diameter (mm).

Keywords Ambient conditions · Principal component analysis · Fruit quality · Orange · Zero energy cool chamber

Abbreviations PCA Principal component analysis

AA Ascorbic acid t tonnes
AH At harvest TA Titratable acidity
Covid-19 Coronavirus disease of 2019 TSS Total soluble solids
DAH Days after harvest ZECC Zero energy cool chamber
EC Electrical conductivity
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
h Hectare Introduction

Fruit mass loss results in a direct loss of return to the indus-

Data Availability Statement Data will be available on reasonable
request
try due to loss of visual quality, succulence, firmness and
nutritional loss of fresh produce and indirect loss of saleable
 Samina Khalid fruit weight (Lufu et al. 2019; Xanthopoulos et al. 2017)
saminakhalid@cuivehari.edu.pk,
if the commodity is sold by weight. Transpiration and res-
saminakhalid@ciitvehari.edu.pk
piration processes are responsible for removal of moisture
1
Department of Environmental Sciences, COMSATS from fresh commodities and these processes depend upon
University Islamabad, 61100 Vehari Campus, Pakistan the surrounding relative humidity and temperature, which
2
Department of Entomology, University of Sargodha, in turn determine the storage life and quality of fresh pro-
40100 Sargodha, Pakistan duce (Castellanos and Herrera 2015). Between 3 and 10%
3
Soil and Water Conservation Research Station, 43350 Fateh mass loss is enough to start shriveling and make products
Jang, Pakistan unmarketable (Ben-Yehoshua 1987). The storage potential

K
942 S. Khalid et al.

of most perishable commodities decreased with increased
in handling temperature (Kitinoja 2013).
Citrus fruit are gaining more importance due to their im-
munity boosting properties in the era of the Coronavirus dis-
ease of 2019 (COVID-19 pandemic) (Bhutada et al. 2020).
In Pakistan oranges are cultivated on an area of 136,435 h
with production of 1,615,198 t in 2019 (FAO 2020). Pak-
istan ranks 13th among orange producing countries in the
world (FAO 2020). In the past, the majority of citrus grow-
ers in Pakistan were underprivileged with less than one
hectare orchard land (Ali 2004) and they sold their fresh
produce directly to contractors due to the lack of marketing
knowledge, availability of financial resources and on-farm
storage facilities (Siddique and Garnevska 2018). But citrus
growers are now becoming more market oriented and in-
stead of selling their crops to contractors they are adopting
different marketing networks to get high margins for their
crop (Siddique and Garnevska 2018). However, marginal
growers cannot afford the expensive and highly technical
cold storage facility for their fresh produce. Evaporative
cooling is a very simple and easy way to decrease the tem-
perature and increase relative humidity for the short-term
storage of horticultural crops.
The zero energy cool chamber (ZECC) is a low cost alter-
native to refrigerators and works on the principle of evapo-
rative cooling. The effectiveness of ZECC is tested in many
countries. ‘Kinnow’ mandarin shelf-life in ambient condi-
tions was 6 days as compared to evaporative cool chambers
with 15 days shelf-life in a cool chamber filled with river
bed sand and 24 days shelf-life with a rice husk and ash
filled cool chamber (Singh and Yadav 2011). Mango kept
in ZECC demonstrated lesser mass loss and soft rot preva-
lence, while firmness, Mg and Ca contents were seen to be
higher as compared with ambient condition (Girma et al.
2016). Mass loss was lower and shelf-life was higher in
mangoes and banana stored in a cool chamber as compared
to ambient conditions (Rayaguru et al. 2010). Mass loss in
limes was 1.8% when placed in ZECC for 10 days, whereas
in ambient conditions it was nearly 9.8% (Marikar and Wi-
jerathnam 2010). In Malta fruit, mass loss and rotting were
reduced, whereas shelf-life was improved to almost 90 days
by placing fruits in ZECC as compared with ambient con-
ditions (Dasmohapatra et al. 2011). Parasad et al. (2015)
revealed that banana stored under cool chamber conditions
kept their flavor, appearance, and quality for 7 days as com-
pared to 3 days for those stored under ambient conditions.
Thus, the current study was planned to evaluate the
postharvest performance of sweet orange under ZECC and
ambient conditions and to determine the relationship be-
tween mass loss and fruit physical and physio-chemical
quality attributes during evaporative cooling and open shelf
market conditions.
Material and Methods
Plant Material and Experimental Site
Sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) fruit were picked in October
from farmer’s fields situated in Tehsil Vehari (29.36°0 and
30.22°0 N and 71.44°0 and 72.53°0 E), Punjab, Pakistan, and
brought to the Environmental Sciences Laboratory, COM-
SATS University, Islamabad, Vehari Campus.
Experimental Procedure
Sweet orange fruit after sorting, washing and air dry-
ing were randomly divided into 33 lots of five fruit each
(Table 1). Three lots (A, B and C) were used to analyze
the properties at harvest. A total of 15 lots were allo-
cated for zero energy cool chamber (ZECC) and another
15 were allocated to ambient conditions, representing two
storage conditions, five removals and three replications
(2 × 5 × 3 = 30). The ZECC was established as described by
Pal and Roy (1988) and Khalid et al. (2020). The struc-
ture comprised two brick walls nested facing one another
and the gap between the two walls was filled with sand
(Fig. 1). The sand was moistened by drip irrigation through
a perforated pipe attached to a water tank. Fruits were
kept in plastic crates in ZECC and at room temperature.
Fruit were analyzed after a 5-day interval for the period of
25 days. Temperature and relative humidity of both ZECC
and laboratory were recorded with a thermo-hygrometer
(TFA Dostman/D-97877 Wertheim, Germany) three times
a day at 9 am, 12 pm and 3 pm and a water tank to wet the
sand in the ZECC was filled twice a day.

Table 1 Layout plan for the experiment on sweet orange

AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
ZECC A B C 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29
Ambient 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
conditions
DAH Days after harvest, AH At harvest, ZECC Zero energy cool chamber, R Replication

K
Mass loss and fruit quality under different storage conditions
Fig. 1 Diagram of Zero energy cool chamber
Physical Fruit Quality Parameters
Physical fruit quality parameters including fruit size (mm),
mass loss (%), juice (%), peel (%), pulp (%) and fruit inter-
nal temperature (°C) were determined as stated by Khalid
(2013) with some adjustments. Fruit size was determined
by Vernier calipers (Mitutoyo Digimatic calipers) and de-
scribed in mm. Mass loss (%) was determined by subtract-
ing the fruit final mass from its initial mass and their per-
centage was determined. The shelf-life of fruit was con-
sidered ended when mass loss (%) was greater than 5%.
Peel and pulp mass was determined separately and juice
mass was determined by subtracting combined peel and
pulp mass from fruit mass and percentage of individual
components was calculated. Fruit internal temperature was
measured with the help of a probe thermometer by inserting
its needle inside the fruit.
Biochemical Fruit Quality Parameters
Titratable acidity (%), pH, electrical conductivity (S/m),
ascorbic acid (mg 100 mL–1) and total soluble solids (TSS)
(%) were determined as explained by Khalid (2013) with
slight adjustments. Sweet orange juice was extracted in
a beaker. The pH of the orange juice was determined with
digital pH meter (Milwaukee pH55) by inserting its probe
into a juice sample. The EC was measured with Lovibond
Senso Direct Con 110 Digital EC meter by dipping the elec-
trode of EC meter in the juice. Juice TSS was measured
943
with the help of digital a refractometer (Atago, ATC-1,
Tokyo, Japan). Titratable acidity (%) was determined by
titrating 10 mL juice sample against 0.1 N NaOH by adding
2–3 drops of phenolphthalein indicator (Hortwitz 1960),
and the results were expressed as (%) citric acid by using
the following formula:
N=10 NaOH used  0.064  10
Titratable acidity .%/ = (1)
Volume of sample used
Ascorbic acid (AA) (mg100 mL–1) was measured by
titrating 5 mL of juice aliquot (taking 10 mL juice and 90 mL
of 0.4% oxalic acid in 100 ml flask, mix well and filter 5 mL
of this aliquot) with 2,6-dichlorophenolindophenol dye so-
lution (mixing 21 mg baking soda [NaHCO3] and 26 mg
2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol dissolved in distilled water
to make 100 mL volume) till light pink end point (Rusk
1961). AA was calculated by using following formula:
D1  V  100
Ascorbic Acid .mg=100 ml/ = (2)
DAB
Where
 D1 = ml dye used in titration of aliquot
K
944 S. Khalid et al.

a b
30 100
29
80
28
27 60
26 40
25
20
24 ZECC Room temperature ZECC Room temperature
23 0
9am 12pm 3pm 9am 12pm 3pm
Fig. 2 Temperature (°C) (a) and relative humidity (%) (b) in ZECC and room temperature during 25-day storage. ZECC Zero energy cool chamber

 D = ml of dye used in titration of 1 ml standard ascorbic
acid solution prepared by adding 1 ml of 0.1% ascorbic
acid +1.5 ml of 0.4% oxalic acid
 A = ml of juice used
 V = volume of aliquot made by addition of 0.4% oxalic
acid
 B = ml of aliquot used for titration
Statistical Analysis
Two factor factorial completely randomized design (CRD)
was used to analyze the data by using Statistix (ver. 8.1)
software (Analytical Software, 2105 Miller Landing Rd,
Tallahassee, FL 32312, USA) and means were compared
with LSD at p ≤ 0.05. Pearson correlation was also deter-
mined between mass loss and fruit quality parameters in
each storage conditions and in both combined storage con-
ditions using Statistix (ver. 8.1) software. Principle compo-
nent analysis (PCA) was applied to determine the relation-
ship among fruit quality parameters under different storage
condition by using XLSTAT (ver. 19.4).
Results and Discussion
Temperature (°C) and Relative Humidity (%) During
Storage
Temperature was lower and relative humidity was higher
in zero energy cool chamber (ZECC) during the storage
(Fig. 2a,b). On an average temperature difference between
ZECC and room temperature was higher (3.2 °C) in the
morning and lower (2.15 °C) in the evening, whereas the
relative humidity difference was lower in the morning
(31.5%) and higher at noon (37.5 °C) and the evening
(37 °C). Evaporation of moisture from wet sand resulted
in a decrease in temperature and an increase in relative
humidity in the chamber. Ambuko et al., (2017) reported
a difference of 0–55% relative humidity and 1–10 °C tem-
perature between the ambient and evaporative cool storage
conditions in Kenya. Similarly, Hakimi et al. (2021) also
reported a 70% increase in relative humidity and an 18 °C
reduction in temperature in ZECC from Afghanistan.
Fruit Physical Quality Parameters
Fruit internal temperature was lower in ZECC and higher
at room temperature (Table 2) during all storage inter-
vals (Fig. 3a). Mass loss was lower (4.94%) in ZECC and
higher (20.10%) at room temperature (Table 2) throughout
the storage duration, and mass loss increased with an in-
crease in storage duration (Fig. 3b). The lower temperature
and higher relative humidity in ZECC must have reduced
the respiration and transpiration from fresh produce lead-
ing to lower mass loss in ZECC as compared to ambient
conditions. Similar findings were reported in ‘Malta’ fruit
(Dasmohapatra et al. 2011); Jamun cv ‘Goma Priyanka’
(Kanak and Sanjay 2013); pear (Singh et al. 2017) and
apple (Sharma et al. 2010). Shelf-life was higher (more
than 15 days) in ZECC and lower in room temperature (less
than 5 days) (Fig. 3b). Similarly, Lekshmi et al., (2021) re-
ported an enhanced shelf-life of 1.66 days of papaya fruit
under ZECC conditions. Islam and Morimoto (2012) re-

Table 2 Effect of storage conditions on fruit physical quality parameters

Conditions Fruit internal Fruit mass loss (%) Fruit diameter (mm) Juice (%) Peel (%) Pulp (%)
temperature (°C)
ZECC 24.36b 4.94b 62.40a 32.19b 35.15a 32.66
Room temperature 27.07a 20.10a 59.49b 38.63a 29.99b 31.38
P-value 0.00 0.00 0.016 0.01 0.000 0.55

K
Mass loss and fruit quality under different storage conditions 945

a ZECC Room temperature b ZECC Room temperature

35 35
Fruit internal temperature (°C)

30 30

Mass loss (%)

25 25

20 20
End of shelf-life
15 15
End of shelf-life
10 10

5 5

0 0
AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH

c ZECC Room temperature d ZECC Room temperature

80 60
70 50
Fruit diameter (mm)

Juice (%)
60
40
50
40 30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH

e ZECC Room temperature f ZECC Room temperature

80 60
70
50
60
40
50
Pulp (%)
Peel (%)

40 30
30
20
20
10 10

0 0
AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH

Fig. 3 Effect of storage conditions and storage duration on fruit physical quality parameters. Effect of storage condition and storage duration on
fruit internal temperature (°C) (a), mass loss (%) (b), fruit diameter (c), juice (%) (d), peel (%) (e) and pulp (%) (f) of sweet orange. DAH_Days
after harvest, AH at harvest, ZECC zero energy cool chamber

ported a higher shelf-life of 16 and 9 days of tomato and
egg plant in ZECC as compared to 7 and 4 days at room
temperature. ‘Kinnow’ mandarin fruit when stored in evap-
orative cool chambers with river bed sand and evaporative
cool chambers with rice husk ash had higher shelf-life of
15 and 24 days, respectively, as compared to ambient condi-
tions with 6 days of shelf-life (Singh and Yadav 2011). Fruit
diameter was significantly higher in ZECC (62.40 mm) and
lower (59.49 mm) at room temperature (Table 2). Juice con-
tent was significantly higher (38.63%) and peel was lower
(29.99%) at room temperature as compared with ZECC
with (32.19%) juice and (35.15%) (Table 2). Juice (%) in-
creased while peel (%) decreased during storage at both
storage conditions (Fig. 3d,e).
Fruit Biochemical Quality Parameters
Juice electrical conductivity (EC) was significantly higher
(2.14 S/m) at room temperature and lower (2.06 S/m) in
ZECC (Table 3). The EC is the ability of a material to

K
946 S. Khalid et al.

Table 3 Effect of storage conditions on fruit biochemical quality parameters

Conditions TSS Titratable acidity TSS: titratable pH Electrical conductivity Ascorbic acid
(%) (%) acidity (s/m) (mg 100 mL–1)
ZECC 9.58 0.67 14.87 3.47 2.06b 78.38
Room temperature 10.07 0.62 16.69 3.57 2.14a 74.07
P-value 0.09 0.24 0.091 0.06 0.04 0.54

a ZECC Room temperature b ZECC Room temperature

12 0,9
0,8

Titerable acidity (%)

10
0,7
TSS (%)

8 0,6
0,5
6
0,4
4 0,3
0,2
2
0,1
0 0
AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH

c ZECC Room temperature d ZECC Room temperature

25 3,8
3,7
TSS:Titratable acidity

20 3,6
3,5
15
pH

3,4
3,3
10
3,2
5 3,1
3
0 2,9
AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH

e ZECC Room temperature f ZECC Room temperature

3 180
160
Ascorbic acid (mg100 mL-1)
Electrical conductivity (S/m)

2,5
140
2 120
100
1,5
80
1 60
40
0,5
20
0 0
AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH AH 5DAH 10DAH 15DAH 20DAH 25DAH

Fig. 4 Biochemical quality parameters influenced by storage conditions and storage durations. Effect of storage condition and storage duration on
juice TSS (%) (a), titratable acidity (%) (b), TSS: titratable acidity (c), pH (d), electrical conductivity (S/m) (e) and ascorbic acid (mg 100 ml-1) (f)
of sweet orange. DAH Days after harvest, AH at harvest, ZECC zero energy cool chamber

K
Mass loss and fruit quality under different storage conditions 947

Table 4 Correlation between

Parameters ZECC Ambient conditions Combine
mass loss (%) and fruit
quality under different storage Juice (%) r = –0.25 r = 0.04 r = 0.36*
conditions P = (0.36) P = (0.88) P = (0.05)
Internal temperature (°C) r = 0.14 r = 0.64* r = 0.17
P = (0.61) P = (0.01) P = (0.38)
TSS (%) r = 0.48 r = 0.60* r = 0.50*
P = (0.07) P = (0.02) P = (0.00)
Acidity (%) r = 0.01 r = –0.00 r = –0.21
P = (0.97) P = (1.00) P = (0.27)
Peel (%) r = –0.48 r = –0.52* r = –0.77*
P = (0.07) P = (0.05) P = (0.00)
pH r = 0.21 r = 0.09 r = 0.33
P = (0.44) P = (0.74) P = (0.07)
Ascorbic acid r = –0.40 r = –0.51* r = –0.31
P = (0.14) P = (0.05) P = (0.10)
Electrical conductivity (S/m) r = 0.57* r = 0.76* r = 0.47*
P = (0.03) P = (0.00) P = (0.01)
Pulp (%) r = 0.38 r = 0.31 r = 0.07
P = (0.16) P = (0.26) P = (0.72)
Fruit diameter r = –0.28 r = –0.49 r = –0.55*
P = (0.31) P = (0.06) P = (0.00)
N 15 15 30
n 13 13 28
r 0.51 0.51 0.36
p ≤ 0.05

conduct an electric current. The electrical conductivity in-
creased linearly with an increase in temperature (Sarang
et al., 2008). Increases in EC might be due to increase in
ionic mobility of juice at higher temperature (Sosa-Morales
et al. 2009). The EC of strawberry (Icier and Ilicali 2004)
and six different fruits (golden apple, peach, pear, pineap-
ple and red apple) (Sarang et al. 2008) increased with an
increase in temperature. Moreover, the loss of moisture/
mass loss from the fruit during storage (Table 2) could have
contributed to the increase in juice concentration and ion
contents of the juice. Sosa-Morales et al. (2009) found that
the EC of apple and sour cherry juices were significantly
increased with temperature and concentration. Other bio-
chemical quality parameters like total soluble solids (TSS),
pH, titratable acidity, TSS: titratable acidity ratio and ascor-
bic acid were statistically similar at both storage conditions
(Table 1 and Fig. 4a–f).
Correlation Between Mass Loss and Fruit Quality
The correlation between mass loss and fruit quality param-
eters at different storage conditions is presented in Table 4.
In ZECC, only EC was positively correlated (r = 0.57) with
mass loss whereas at room temperature EC (r = 0.76), TSS
(r = 0.60) and fruit internal temperature (r = 0.64) were pos-
itively and peel % (r = –0.52), and ascorbic acid (r = –0.51)
negatively correlated with mass loss. The correlation of
combined storage conditions revealed that EC (r = 0.47),
TSS (r = 0.50) and juice % (r = 0.36) were positively and
peel % (r = –0.77) and fruit diameter (r = –0.55) were neg-
atively correlated with mass loss. Mass loss is the result
of moisture loss from fresh produce. When moisture loss
occurred from juice, ions and solids become concentrated
results in increase in EC and TSS. Lufu et al. (2019) re-
ported a positive relation between mass loss and TSS of
pomegranate juice. Moreover, when moisture is lost from
peel its contents decreased. Similar results of negative cor-
relation between moisture loss and peel contents were also
reported by Lufu et al. (2019) in pomegranate when kept in
cold storage and at ambient conditions.
Principle Component Analysis (PCA)
A multivariate analysis was performed to develop a set of
observations of possibly correlated variables and to estab-
lish a correlation between fruit quality parameters of orange
under ZECC and room temperature (Fig. 5; Table 5). The
PCA of data separated all the attributes into five component
factors (F1–F5) (Table 5). The contributions of F1, F2, F3,
F4 and F5 were 29%, 20%, 19%, 12% and 7%, respec-
tively, in total variance (Table 5). For F1, mass loss (%),
peel (%) and fruit diameter (mm) were the major loading
contributors. The juice (%), pulp (%) and TSS were the
key contributors to F2. Similarly, F3 had a main contribu-
tion from pH and acidity (%). However, ascorbic acid and

K
948 S. Khalid et al.

Fig. 5 Two-dimensional prin-

ciple component analysis
(F1:29.50%, F2:20.86%) of
various parameters of sweet
orange under two different
storage conditions: zero energy
cool chamber () and ambient
conditions (4)

EC were the key contributors to F4 and F5, respectively
(Table 5).
The PCA graph showed two major groups (Fig. 5). In
the PCA biplot, the distance from the origin of score’s
orthogonal projection onto variable is suggestive of the
strength of that relationship. The scores of room tempera-
ture were strongly associated with TSS, pH, EC, mass loss
(%), juice (%) and internal temperature, whereas scores of
ZECC were strongly associated with pulp (%), ascorbic
acid, acidity (%), pulp (%) and fruit diameter. F1 explained
29.50% of the variance in the data set and F2 explained
20.86%. F1 had positive loading of mass loss (%) and neg-
ative loading of fruit diameter and peel (%). F2 had positive
loading of pulp (%), AA and negative loading of internal
temperature and juice (%).

Table 5 Relative contributions F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

of different variables of sweet
orange in PCA factors Mass loss (%) 0.83 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04
Juice (%) 0.29 0.39 0.12 0.20 0.00
Peel (%) 0.69 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.07
Pulp (%) 0.01 0.66 0.06 0.21 0.02
Fruit diameter (mm) 0.42 0.00 0.34 0.05 0.03
TSS 0.34 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.03
pH 0.18 0.01 0.51 0.17 0.02
EC 0.38 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.48
Acidity 0.02 0.01 0.68 0.13 0.10
AA 0.05 0.20 0.26 0.35 0.06
Internal temperature 0.04 0.58 0.04 0.23 0.03
Eigenvalue 3.24 2.29 2.12 1.39 0.88
Variability (%) 29.50 20.86 19.27 12.66 7.97
Cumulative % 29.49 50.36 69.63 82.29 90.27

K
Mass loss and fruit quality under different storage conditions
There were 11 weighed vectors represented by arrows.
Vectors away from origin demonstrate that the linked vari-
able has greater impact on the explained variation in data
(Bro and Smilde 2014). Internal temperature, juice (%) and
pulp (%) influenced the variation. The nearness of two
variables denotes their degree of relationship within the
PCA biplot. Mass loss (%) and EC were closely associated.
Mass loss (%) was strongly and negatively linked with peel
(%) and fruit diameter. Ascorbic acid and pulp (%) were
strongly and negatively associated with juice (%) and inter-
nal temperature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, shelf-life and fruit quality parameters were
better in ZECC. Electrical conductivity (S/m) of orange
juice correlated positively with mass loss (%) at all storage
conditions. Pulp (%), ascorbic acid (mg 100 mL–1), titratable
acidity (%), fruit diameter (mm) and peel (%) improved
in ZECC, whereas TSS (%), pH, electrical conductivity
(S/m), mass loss (%), juice (%) and internal temperature
(°C) increased at room temperature.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the Pakistan
Science Foundation (PSF) for providing funding under project No.
PSF/NSLP/P-CIIT (664) {project title: Evaluating the potential of zero
energy cool chamber (ZEEC) for horticultural crops} to conduct this
research.
Author Contribution SK contributed in conceptualization, formal
analysis, investigation and writing. MIU carried out investigation,
discussion and revision. MSK participated in formal analysis and re-
search methodology, MAN helped in data curation, formal analysis,
investigation and revision, NN contributed in methodology, review-
ing and editing discussion and writing, RK did data analysis and
table formulation, SAQ helped in research methodology, revision and
editing.
Declarations
Conflict of interest S. Khalid, M.I. Ullah, M.S. Khalid, M.A. Naeem,
N. Natasha, R. Kausar and S.A. Qaisrani declare that they have no
competing interests.
References
Ali T (2004) Marketing of citrus fruit in Pakistan. Department of Com-
merce, University of Karachi, Karachi
Ambuko J, Wanjiru F, Chemining’wa GN, Owino WO, Mwachoni
E (2017) Preservation of postharvest quality of leafy amaranth
(’Amaranthus’ spp.) vegetables using evaporative cooling. J Food
Quality. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5303156
Ben-Yehoshua S (1987) Transpiration, water stress, and gas exchange.
postharvest physiology of vegetables. In: Postharvest physiology
of vegetables (eBook)
949
Bhutada RS, Rathi R, Dasar D (2020) Immunity boosting diet dur-
ing Covid 19. Int J Res Pharm Sci. https://doi.org/10.26452/ijrps.
v11iSPL1.3089
Bro R, Smilde AK (2014) Principal component analysis. Anal Methods
6(9):2812–2831
Castellanos DA, Herrera AO (2015) Mathematical models for the rep-
resentation of some physiological and quality changes during fruit
storage. J Postharvest Technol 03(01):18–35. https://doi.org/10.
5281/zenodo.47675
Dasmohapatra R, Nautiyal MC, Sharma SK (2011) Effect of pedicel
retention and zero energy cool chamber on storage behaviour of
malta fruits. Int J Agric Sci 3(2):78
FAO (2020) FAOStat. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL. Ac-
cessed 23 Dec 2022
Girma G, Garo G, Fetena S (2016) Influence of postharvest treat-
ment on physical characteristics and mineral content of mango
(Mangifera Indica L) fruit in Arba Minch, Southern Ethiopia.
Int J Nutr Food Sci 5(6):395. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnfs.
20160506.14
Hakimi SS, Raina R, Saharawat YS (2021) Impact of evaporative
cooling technology & post-harvest treatments on shelf life and
quality of tomato of two different harvesting stages (Solanum ly-
copersicum var. Pearson). J Ecoscience Plant Revolut 2(1):8–16.
https://doi.org/10.37357/1068/jepr.2.1.02
Hortwitz W (1960) Official and tentative methods of analysis. Associ-
ation of the Official Agriculture Chemist, Washington DC.
Icier F, Ilicali C (2004) Electrical conductivity of apple and sour cherry
juice concentrates during ohmic heating. J Food Process Engi-
neering 27(3):159–180
Islam MP, Morimoto T (2012) Zero energy cool chamber for extend-
ing the shelf-life of tomato and eggplant. Japan Agric Res Q
46(3):257–267
Kanak L, Sanjay S (2013) Cost effective on farm storage: zero en-
ergy cool chamber for the farmers of Gujarat. Asian J Hortic
8(1):50–53
Khalid S (2013) Fruit quality and storability of ’Kinnow’ mandarin
(Citrus reticulata Blanco) in relation to tree age (Doctoral disser-
tation, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad Punjab, Pakistan).
Khalid S, Majeed M, Ullah MI, Shahid M, Riasat AR, Abbas T,
Farooq A (2020) Effect of storage conditions and packaging
material on postharvest quality attributes of strawberry. J Hortic
Postharvest Res 3:195–208. https://doi.org/10.22077/JHPR.2019.
2826.1093
Kitinoja L (2013) Use of cold chains for reducing food losses in devel-
oping countries. Population 6(1.23):5–60
Lekshmi SG, Mini C, Manju RV (2021) Post harvest quality parame-
ters of papaya stored in Zero Energy Cool Chamber under humid
tropics. J Trop Agric 59(1):134–143
Lufu R, Ambaw A, Opara UL (2019) The contribution of transpiration
and respiration processes in the mass loss of pomegranate fruit
(cv. Wonderful). Postharvest Biol Technol 157:110982. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2019.110982
Marikar FMMT, Wijerathnam RW (2010) Post-harvest storage of lime
fruits (Citrus aurantifolia) following high humidity and low tem-
perature in a modified brick wall cooler. Int J Agric Biol Eng
3(3):80–86
Pal RK, Roy SK (1988) Zero-energy cool chamber for maintaining
post-harvest quality of carrot (Daucus carota var sativa). Indian J
Agric Sci 58(9):665–667
Prasad R, Ram RB, Kumar V, Rajvanshi SK (2015) Study on effect
of different packaging materials on shelf life of banana (Musa
paradisiaca L.) cv. ’Harichal’ under different conditions. Int J Pure
Appl Biosci 3(4):132–141
Rayaguru K, Khan MK, Sahoo NR (2010) Water use optimization in
zero energy cool chambers for short term storage of fruits and veg-
K
950
etables in coastal area. J Food Sci Technol 47(4):437–441. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0072-7
Rusk JA (1961) Chemical methods for analysis of fruits and vegetables.
Research Station Summerland. Publication No. 1154. Contribu-
tion No. B7, Research Station, Summerland B. C.; 50. Canada
Department of Agriculture, Ottawa
Sarang S, Sastry SK, Knipe L (2008) Electrical conductivity of fruits
and meats during ohmic heating. J Food Eng 87(3):351–356
Sharma RR, Pal RK, Singh D, Samuel DVK, Kar A, Asrey R (2010)
Storage life and fruit quality of individually shrink-wrapped ap-
ples (Malus domestica) in zero energy cool chamber. Indian J
Agric Sci 80(4):338–341
Siddique MI, Garnevska E (2018) Citrus value chain(s): a survey of
Pakistan citrus industry. In: Egilmez G (ed) Agricultural Value
Chain. IntechOpen, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.5772/
intechopen.70161
Singh Y, Yadav YK (2011) Evaluation of evaporative cool chambers
using alternative materials for storage of horticultural produce.
J Dairy Foods Home Sci 30(4):302–306
S. Khalid et al.
Singh V, Dudi OP, Goyal RK (2017) Effect of different packaging
materials on post-harvest quality parameters of pear under zero
energy chamber storage condition. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci
6(9):1167–1177. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.141
Sosa-Morales ME, Tiwari G, Wang S, Tang J, Garcia HS, Lopez-
Malo A (2009) Dielectric heating as a potential post-harvest
treatment of disinfesting mangoes, Part I: Relation between di-
electric properties and ripening. Biosyst Eng 103(3):297–303
Xanthopoulos GT, Templalexis CG, Aleiferis NP, Lentzou DI (2017)
The contribution of transpiration and respiration in water loss of
perishable agricultural products: The case of pears. Biosyst Eng
158:76–85
Springer Nature oder sein Lizenzgeber (z.B. eine Gesellschaft oder
ein*e andere*r Vertragspartner*in) hält die ausschließlichen Nutzungs-
rechte an diesem Artikel kraft eines Verlagsvertrags mit dem/den Au-
tor*in(nen) oder anderen Rechteinhaber*in(nen); die Selbstarchivierung
der akzeptierten Manuskriptversion dieses Artikels durch Autor*in(nen)
unterliegt ausschließlich den Bedingungen dieses Verlagsvertrags und
dem geltenden Recht.