Date llllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllll L 3 1293 01686 0847 This is to certify that the thesis entitled EVALUATION OF PROCESSING QUALITY OF SELECTED APPLE CULTIVARS GROWN IN MICHIGAN presented by Korada Sunthanont has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. S. degree in Food Science Major professor 12/04/97 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 1/98 chlRCJDanDuopfiS—p.“ EVALUATION OF PROCESSING QUALITY OF SELECTED APPLE CULTIVARS GROWN IN MICHIGAN BY Korada Sunthanont A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition 1997 ABSTRACT EVALUATION OP PROCESSING QUALITY OP SELECTED APPLE CULTIVARS GROWN IN MICHIGAN BY Korada Sunthanont Fifteen apple selections were processed into applesauce, apple puree, and frozen apple slices after harvest and after 2-month storage (1.1 °C) for a processing potential study. The chemical-physical measurements, subjective measurements, and sensory evaluations, which were conducted only in applesauce, were analyzed. Influences of cultivar, and storage were found for all characteristics of applesauce and frozen apple, except influence of storage on frozen. apple color(—aL). USDA. grading specification of processed products were reported. Sensory evaluations determined that Golden Delicious, Mutsu, Empires, and Honeycrisp were the most acceptable varieties tested. Jonagold apples with 9 different maturities were used for a controlled atmosphere(CA) storage study. One-half of the apples for each maturity was sprayed one month pre- harvest with 200 ppm aminoethoxyvinylglycine(AVG). The apples were stored in CA for 6 months before processed into applesauce. The objective measurements were evaluated. Influences of AVG treatment and maturity were detected on all characteristics of applesauce except consistency. To my parents Mr. and Mrs. Sunthanont iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Mark A. Uebersax, for his encouragement, advice, and thoughtful guidance throughout my graduate program. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Randolph Beaudry, Dr. Jerry Cash, and Dr. Robert Herner, for serving the committee guidance and for critically reviewing the thesis. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Phil Schwallier from Michigan State University Clarksville Research Station, Clarksville, Michigan for his help with the processing of the research samples. I would like to thank Mr. Yong-joo Chung, Ms. Stephanie Davis, Ms. Jose. Jackson, and. Mr. John Roger for apple processing assistance and their encouragement and especially Dr. Yong-soo Chung for his valuable advice. 2[ also would like to thank to all my friends for their support and encouragement. A very special thank you goes to my dear parents, Mr. Kampol Sunthanont and Mrs. Suchada Sunthanont in Thailand, and my sister, Ms. Korakoch Sunthanont in Wisconsin for their love and support throughout my life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE Apple as a food source. . . . . . . . . . . . . Apple varieties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compositions of apples and their changes due to the ripening processes. . . Carbohydrates . . . . . . . . . . . . Organic acids . . . . . . . . . . . . Proteins O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Minerals and vitamins . . . . . . . . Pigments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Flavor volatiles. . . . . . . . . . . Maturation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethylene and apple fruit ripening . . . . . . . Ethylene biosynthesis. . . . . . . . . . . Control of ethylene. . . . . . . . . . . . Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) effects on ethylene biosynthesis. . . . . . . Storage of apples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COld storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Controlled atmosphere (CA) storage . . . . page xiv 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 17 18 19 20 Browning reactions . . . . . . Enzymatic browning. . . . Nonenzymatic browning . . Thermal processing of apples . Blanching . . . . . . . . Apple processing and processed apple Applesauce and apple puree. . . Frozen apple slices . . . products. Individually Quick Frozen (IQF). . . Processed apple product quality. . Color . . . . . . . . . . Soluble solids/acid ratio Texture/consistency . . . Sensory evaluation. . . . STUDY I: ASSESSING THE COMMERCIAL PROCESSING POTENTIAL OF NEW CULTIVARS AND ADVANCED SELECTIONS OF APPLES SUITABLE FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . MATERIALS AND METHODS Sources of Materials.and Sample Apples . . . . . . . . . . Experimental conditions. . Apple processing . . . . . Adult applesauce. . . Frozen apple Slices . Product Quality Evaluations . . Vi Preparations. 24 24 24 26 26 28 29 32 34 34 34 35 36 37 40 43 43 43 44 44 45 47 Adult applesauces . . . . . . . Chemical-physical analyses (objective measurements) . Soluble solids. . . . Acidity/pH. . . . . . Color . . . . . . . . Consistency . . . . . Subjective measurements. . Sensory evaluations . . . Triangle test . . . . Scaling tests . . . . Acceptance tests. . . Frozen apple slices . . . . . . Chemical-physical analyses (objective measurements) . Soluble solids. . . . Acidity/pH. . . . . . Shear resistance. . . Drained weight. . . . Color . . . . . . . . Subjective measurements. . Statistical Analyses . . . . . . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Chemical-physical processing quality (objective measurements) of apple processed products. . . . . Adult applesauce. . . . . . . . vii 47 47 47 47 49 51 51 52 52 53 56 56 56 58 58 58 58 60 60 6O 63 63 Frozen apple Slices. . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Subjective measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Adult applesauces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Frozen apple slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Sensory evaluations of adult applesauces. . . . . 102 Triangle test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Scaling tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 STUDY II: ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF AMINOETHOXYVINYL- GLYCINE (AVG) ON PROCESSING QUALITY OF ADULT APPLESAUCE FROM CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE STORAGE INTRODUflION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 12 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS Sources of Materials and Sample Preparations. . . 126 Apples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Experimental conditions. . . . . . . . . . . 126 Apple processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Product Quality Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Statistical Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Chemical-physical processing quality (objective measurements) of apple processed products . . . . . . . . . . . 129 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 APPENDIX I Apple production by cultivar in the United States (1986-1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 viii Commercial U.S. production by cultivars. . . . . . 150 Production figures for 1992-1993 from USDA figures and estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Top 10 states by apple production. . . . . . . . . 152 Analysis of major sources of supply and major uses of apples by country and region, 1989-1990. 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 153 Importance of various quality factors to different processed products . . . . . . . . . . . 155 APPENDIX II Fresh maturity test for selected apples. . . . . . 156 Comparison of yield of applesauces processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Comparison of yield of frozen apple slices processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Comparison of yield of apple puree processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties (control, 2 month storage) . . . 159 Flow diagram for baby puree process. . . . . . . . 160 Chemical-physical processing qualities (Objective measurement) of baby apple puree processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties (control vs 2 month storage) . . 161 USDA grading specification of adult applesauce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 USDA grading specification of frozen apple slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Approval for human subject application from University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). . . . . . . . . 165 Fresh maturity test for Jonagold apples on sequential harvest dates (UTC vs AVG) . . . . . 166 LIST OF REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 10. Comparison of specific characteristics of superior commercial U.S. apple cultivars and their characteristics . . . . . . . . . Assumed score range for each chemical-physical characteristic of processed applesauce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumed score range for each chemical-physical characteristic of processed frozen apple slices . . . . . . . . . Comparison of sugar/acid ratio mean values of applesauces processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of consistency mean values of applesauces processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of lightness (L) mean values of applesauces processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of greenness (-aL) mean values of applesauces processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . Comparison of yellowness (bL) mean values of applesauces processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . . Descending order for sugar/acid ratios and consistencies of applesauce processed from 15 apple selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Descending order for lightness (L), greenness (-aL) and yellowness (bL) values of applesauces processed from 15 apple selection . . . . . . page 62 62 64 66 68 70 72 73 74 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Analysis of variance for chemical-physical processing quality of applesauce from 15 apple selections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of sugar/acid ratio mean values of frozen apple slices processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . Comparison of shear resistance mean values of frozen apple slices from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of drained weight mean values of frozen apple slices processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of lightness (L) mean values of frozen apple slices processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties. . . . . Comparison of greenness (-aL) mean values of frozen apple slices from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of yellowness (bL) mean values of frozen apple slices processed from traditional, recent, and new varieties . . . . . . . . . . Descending order for sugar/acid ratios, shear resistance, and drained weights of frozen apple slices processed from 14 apple selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Descending order for lightness (L), greenness (~aL) and yellowness values of frozen apple slices processed from 14 apple selection. . Analysis of variance for chemical-physical processing quality of frozen apple slices from 14 apple selections. . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of quality evaluations of applesauces using subjective measurements Comparison of quality evaluation of applesauces using subjective measurements . . Comparison of quality evaluation of frozen apple slices using subjective measurements. . Comparison of quality evaluation of frozen apple slices using subjective measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 76 77 79 81 83 85 87 88 89 91 92 94 95 96 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Descending rank order for quality score of applesauces and frozen apple slices processed from 15 apple selections after fresh harvest and after 2 month storage . . . Comparison of detectable differences of applesauce between control and two month storage from traditional, recent, new varieties in triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of color perception mean values for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in scaling tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of flavor perception mean values for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in scaling tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of texture perception mean values for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in scaling tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance for sensory evaluation (scaling tests)of applesauces from 15 apple selections. . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of color perception mean values for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . Comparison of texture perception mean values for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of sweetness perception mean values for applesauce sensory valuation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of general acceptance mean values for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance for sensory evaluation (acceptance tests) of applesauces from 15 apple selections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii 99 103 104 106 107 108 110 111 112 113 114 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Comparison of sugar/acid ratio mean values for applesauces processed from Jonagold apples on different harvest dates (AVG vs UTC). Comparison of consistency mean values for applesauces processed from Jonagold apples on different harvest date (AVG vs UTC). . . . . Comparison of lightness (L) mean values for applesauces processed from Jonagold apples on different harvest date (AVG vs UTC). . . . Comparison of greenness (-aL) mean values for applesauces processed from Jonagold apples on different harvest date (AVG vs UTC) . . . . . . Comparison of yellowness (bL) mean values for applesauces processed from Jonagold apples on different harvest date (AVG vs UTC). . . . . Analysis of variance for chemical-physical processing quality of applesauces processed from Jonagold apples (control vs AVG) . . . . . xiii 130 135 136 138 142 144 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Ethylene synthesis path way . . . . . . . . . 2. Mechanism of ethylene action . . . . . . . . 3. Formation path way of melanin pigments. . . . 4. Decomposition pathways of amadori compounds to produce melanoidin pigments. . . . . . . . 5. Flow diagram for adult applesauce process . . 6. Flow diagram for frozen apple slices. . . . . 7. Score sheet for applesauce sensory evaluations used triangle test. . . . . . . . 8. Score sheet for applesauce sensory evaluations used scaling test . . . . . . . . 9. Score sheet for applesauce sensory evaluations used acceptance test. . . . . . . 10. Standard shear compression cell (CS-1) with 10 multiple blades. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Color quality of applesauces processed from fresh harvest apples . . . . . . . . . 12. Color quality of applesauces processed from 2-month stored apples. . . . . . . 13. Comparison of color preference score means values (scale from 1 to 9) for applesauce from 15 apple selections processed after fresh harvest in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. Comparison of texture preference score means values (scale from 1 to 9) for applesauce from 15 apple selections processed after fresh harvest in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . xiv Page 16 23 25 27 46 48 54 55 57 59 100 101 115 116 Comparison of sweetness preference score means values (scale from 1 to 9) for applesauce from 15 apple selections processed after fresh harvest in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Comparison of general acceptance score means values (scale from 1 to 9) for applesauce from 15 apple selections processed after fresh harvest in acceptance tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Comparison for sugar/acid ratios of UTC and AVG applesauces on different harvest dates. . . . . . . 131 Linear relationship between sugar content (°Brix) of fresh apples and sugar/acid ratio of applesauces processed from untreated control apples and AVG treated apples . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Comparison for total acidity between applesauces processed from untreated control and AVG treated apples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Linear relationship between %red of surface color of fresh apples and greenness value of applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples . . . 139 Comparison for total greenness value (-aL) between applesauces processed from untreated control and AVG treated apples. . . . . . . . . . . 140 Comparison for yellowness value (bL) between applesauces processed from untreated control and AVG treated apples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 XV REVIEW OF LITERATURE APPLE A8 A FOOD RESOURCE Most of the world's supply of apples come from the temperate zone of the Northern and Southern hemispheres between latitudes 40° and 50° north in Europe and North America, between 30° and 40° north in Asia and between 20° and 40° south in the southern hemisphere. The European continent has been the dominant supplier of apples. The outlook for production in the 1990s reflected a stagnation of European apple production, while growth was expected in the US., Mexico, selected countries of south and east Asia, and among leading producers in the Southern hemisphere such as Chile, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand (O'Rourke, 1994). Apples have been a popular fruit from the earliest times, especially for fresh consumption, and no other fruit can be used in as many ways as apples. Fresh apples are considered a food of moderate energy value, comparable in this respect to many other fruits. Processed apple products are either comparable to fresh apples in energy value or higher because of concentration (dehydration) or the addition of sugars during processing (Lee and Mattick, 1989). Apple varieties There are hundreds of apple cultivars, many of them shown with color plates in The Apples of New Ybrk (Beach, 1903) . Only about twenty cultivars are now grown commercially in the United States. Table 1 presents superior commercial U.S. apple cultivars and their characteristics (Manhart, 1995). Compositions of Apples and Their Changes due to the Ripening Processes CW Carbohydrate are ‘the. principal food. constituents in apple, with starch and sugars the available carbohydrates and pectin, cellulose, and hemicellulose the unavailable fraction (Lal Kaushal and Sharma 1995). Apple fruit cell walls consist mainly of cellulose and pectin, with some hemicellulose and a very small amount of extensin (Knee and Bartley, 1981). Total carbohydrate in fresh apples is approximately 15%. The most common sugars are fructose (3- 11.76%), sucrose (0.88-5.62%), and glucose (O.89-5.58%) (Lee and Mattick, 1989). Immature apples contain a relatively large amount of starch , 3-4%, but as the fruit ripens the starch is converted into sugars remaining very little in quantity (Lee and Mattick, 1989). Starch hydrolysis usually begin in the latter stages of fruits growth but before the onset of climacteric; this contributes to a further increase in free mcwwup can 009cm occuoum you uflmu Uaoo Hanan .nmouu a“ mnucoa mcflxmmun on now ummn mum on as umozm .mmwuo I t adfloma oufimfim mmuca zoaam> uo>o >um> unocm pump 30HH0> Susan own on I on acwpmfi tummzm t uzmfia inmwxcfim mound oHOOMCOH czoun 00 o nuance.“ on us mcpcoa oculmwcmuo moccuo u min 3 a: no? t u 923.3 93me Pxoo bosom uoHoo mauoom c mmsmucfl moxme was Do o no: cmmum .pcamm um mnucoa van uumu hugsn zoaamm um>o you 6006 m cu a: Human .mmumoo muwnz mmmwuum pun Ecwomfi ocmauuou new: 00 o mmnmoo Ham you an 93.3.: Saucmfim 95:3 comma um>o acahomau m on a: now: .aufiu ou nuwcmmum cmcan pun acficma subpoena muoz mmcuouw .34,ch 0.3388 uoHoo sneak uoHoc :Ufi 034m 952 .mmma .uuuncmz “mama .cmaamqoz can sass mmumam amuse: an» as mun>auaco mamas Haaonmaaoo uofiuoacm no hawumfiumuocumco owuwooan no comaucmaoo .a canoe :00um t3oHH0> c0cficum u0>o 0cflu m0mfiuum 0mucat 0Hmmn CLO hauwnu c00um u0xump adwo0a wcwum0oounfl .90 usucoa >H0uwunm .amfiuo IsoHH0> saws O» a min on as .90030 .auwu ca 3040» 60.» #50,: 5:30.: ccgcum 00cmun0mmc uccno0amc= 00x06 u0wmsu 08¢ Aocficaoun Au0zum03 0050002 0>wumcwxo Hooo ou mcwmm0ooum mumfim0uv 0:0 u0mnau 0mumat you u0u0um 30HH0> c0uuov ecwv0fi m0momusm “Yo um >H0Huumm Esau unmwa 30HH0> ou nsowOaa0o :0 029:9: mum new #0030 $0.3m Havana c0UHom 5.2.0.: :00Hou mcwac0mmmcc .uaau .0mfi3u0uno «cvsoc0 0usucu0ma0u new: :00Hm u0>o :m0uu Boon ma Human “a m0mwuum acwuo0 um 0uwa mcwac0anm 0Hmuca no you coco 30cm ocoH 50030 90.30 I :55 “Em: 55605 when 0uoz 0mmuoum “96.3 055x09 uoaoo nu0am HOHOO cwxm 03m 0302 Ammo” .uumnanz “mama .cmafloqoz new sexy magnum cause: an» as muu>fiuaco 0Hcmm H0fl0u0eaoo hoau0mcm uo nodumau0uomumco camao0mm no couwucqaou .d oases «monoum 0am .00900 coaeoo uo>nau .0Ow9n cw u0n00xfl uc0aa0ox0 .cm0uu ocw6c0u0 .6fi00 6cm 3oHH0> 0muca ”0momusn taco ummcm no Guam uncaa >u0> o» Ham :0 .mcoH 600:0acn .00umoo I .c00um 06004 .50ucz cmzan 0ammm vac puma :0w660u 0ouma mcfic00uu mafi000ooum um. canoe #0630500 Canaan 00:5u0a00 on 6:0HOH 0 0co cu m: .cofiu .auwu 30HHO> .c00um ABSH60E 060nm 601.0 A003 60ut0amucm .00:00.0fim 0ocuoum 0mcuou0 x006 c0uuo .mcfiu00 coaeoo space a .0CAEHMO 0ouca :00uu mom ca unocm mfiouc u0uMc uuom 60Qfiuu0 tacfl60a 6000.00fld0 u0nu0u .co >0ecuu0m 00 05000.2 .60“ cu Mom noon a.“ weed .0..n6..n00 moflsnéuom .356 unmflun 534.605 smoucHOz 0mcuou0 uwaam0u as o.~.~ N scam uoaoo um 60uou0 60x00uu0 6ccouo 0amac 0a :00 .«U mmwuo .0uwn3 :00uo 00onuam cw HH03 Ofiucaouc .u06c0u isoHH0x I30HH0> lauds— 0 60.3.90 6:0 pump .62.: .9323 4.53 600 55605 cmcuccon 0902 060.390 026.; 055x08 Rodoo 500.2 uoHoo .530 020 0:82 .mmma .uuancm: “mama .coaamqo: can sass mmumum amuse: on» as 0u0>wuaso 0aamc Howou0fieoo Howu0msm mo moflumwu0uomucco Ofiufio0mm mo comauomaou .H 0ana 00:00 non nn0u nab . 40 6:0 :0nonuon6wc06 .0m0non0 no>0au 6:0 .:0uonu 6Hoo 0nu0aon0 :00nm :00nm n0>o 0mn0~ .60::0o :n n0m00o. no £00..” mmwno 6065..» 60n £52” I nan 6oom mcoa .un0n .0:nn no .0nn:3 .unmnnn acn60fi 60n06H 30HH0» n0>o n0>nnnso 0:n0> 60n 60n 0amnzm 0on0HI o:n000oonn 0 00n0o0 suns :0uno no 00mnnu0 55603 .0Onan 0HQQ0 .mmnno .0nnn3 .:963 on nan 0Hn0nn006 I un0n .Ennu :0w3oaa0a 60n hmmoam fian60el Q000:H3 00:00 3OHH0> 0mn0a ”E03090 mac #0 0Hnu0ao> 00n0oo on 00x0a 0m0n0>0 30H Saunmnam 0on0H .0nmm0 m:nu00 0>on0 50030 .mmnno 60n 2033.3 I I:00nn 0 Haws Inn0n .Ennn :0n30aa0» on 60n .acn60a xno» wcfiww6 non nn0u nan 60H00 mmnno .0onsn #0030 .hbnsn 30HH0> n0>o .00:00.000wa0 “Jo D0 .swn: 6:0 .n06:0u unmwnn 00anu0I60n 0vn0HI ham now n:0nn0ox0 HH03 @000. .mn0:0 .0cnu .cmnzofln0a 6:0 60n 35.60: :n0:unoz 0uoz 0m0non0 no>0nh 0nsnx09 noHoo :00Hm noaoo :nxm 00n0 0E0z Amman .unancaz Amman .cmnnmqo: 0:0 smzc moumum amunco 0:» an 0n0>nnaco 0ama0 H0non0asoo noHn0mcm no monunnn0uo0n0:o 0nnn00am no :omnn0naoo .H 0Hn09 .¢.U 000n0#0 :5 n00:05 n0#n0 .000n0#0 000:#0030 50555 60n 00n05I 6500 :500 #55 :00n0 I505:30nn 555605 :5 0:#:o5 605055 50n5u >055“ 600:5# :#53 :00n0 .X# :#550 I mte #0 #n0# .5n5m .0#5:3 #:05nn 555605 >::50n0 00500 now 6000 #0: #55 .0055n 000n0#0 0:55055 6:0 000550 6500 :5 >5n00 :0uonuon6hn06 0:#:05 m 50nn 00n05 .:00nnI0:5#00 In .00 :5 6:055 n0:#0n >50n0#0 0#553 500n0 0# 050505505 now 6000 05#:05 05 0# #0030 .5n5u 0# 0#5:3 .60n 65500 55050 605 30550» n0>0 60n 0:5#00 500nm >055m 60Q5n#0 00n05 6:0 0:50.000 #n0# .505n0 >n0>5 0# :00n0 0# :50#0 5305 now 6000 I 095500950 .n06:0# 0# 0#5:3 #5055 555605 I:0>0nw 00n05I :05#56:00 555605 000n00 55u#:05506 0# 60500 #Q0ox0 n06:5 .>0:5Q 555605 0002555 550 :0>0 0:05 .50505:5 I I :00n0 I55050 5302502 0#oz 000n0#m n0>05m 0n5#x0.5. n0500 50055 n0500 :550 050 0502 Amman .nnmncmz ammmn .c05nmqoz 0:0 >030 009090 0095:: :5 0n0>5#550 05500 5050n05500 n05n0m50 no 005#05n0#00n0:0 05u50050 no :005n005oo .5 05508 sugars (Beruter et a1. 1985; Knee et a1. 1989). Later, sucrose is slowly hydrolyzed to form more glucose and fructose (whiting, 1970). Sorbitol dehydrogenase is predominant in more mature apples to allow the utilization of the major translocated carbohydrate, sorbitol, for synthesis of the major accumulated sugar, fructose (Beruter, 1985; Yamaki and Ishikawa, 1986). Apples, a good source of fiber, with skin contain more than O.7-O.8% fiber than that in oranges, bananas, apricots, grape fruit, or peaches (Lee and Mattick, 1989). Pectin consists of two separate polymers, a rhamnogalacturonan and a homogalacturonan, and these are both at least 70% methyl-esterified. The rhamnogalacturonan carries side chains of arabinose and galactose residues and may constitute much of the primary wall matrix; the homogalacturonan. may form the middle lamella (Knee and Bartley, 1981). Cell wall compositional changes during ripening are restricted to the pectic polymers. Theme is no evidence of changes in the cellulose or hemicellulose (Nelmes and Preston, 1968; Bartley, 1976). Kertesz et a1. (1959) reported that a higher cellulose content distinguished firmer apples from soft ones, but that the softening that accompanied ripening could not be accounted for on the basis of changes in the cellulose of the fruit. Wiley and Stembridge (1961) presented. evidence ‘that. a decrease in starch.‘was associated. with softening' of apples as they ripened . The ga lactose s ide cha ins of the rhamnogalacturonan are lost (Knee, 1973) and homogalacturonan is solubilized by removal of calcium ions from the wall into the cell during ripening process (Knee, 1978), allowing softening of the apples. Organic—acid Organic acids are among the most important constituents in apples. The primary acid in this fruit is malic acid, although others such as citric, lactic, and oxalic are also present. The acidity in the fruit is of interest because it affects eating and cooking quality (Lal Kaushal and Sharma 1995). Malic acid is metabolized to a greater extent than the others and may fall by 50% during the life of the fruit. It is a major substrate of respiration and this accounts for the respiratory quotient of 1.1 or higher (Fidler and North, 1967). 211959.105 Fresh apples with skin contain about 0.19% protein, thus being a poor source of this important nutrient (Lee and Mattick 1989; Lal Kaushal and Sharma 1995). Aspartic and glutamic acid are the predominant amino acids in apples, followed by lysine and leucine (Gebhardt et al. 1982). Protein synthesis that has been found to increase during the climacteric phase in apples provide the enzymes involved in the ripening processes (Frenkel et al. 1968). This coupled with numerous reports (Looney and Patterson, 1967; Rhodes and W001torton, 1967; Hartmann, 1963; Dilley, 10 1962; Hulme and Wooltorton, 1962) of increased activity of several enzymes during ripening of climacteric fruits. Ethylene synthesis is dependent on protein synthesis at the early-climacteric stage (Frenkel et al., 1968). W The vitamin contained highest in apples is vitamin C (ascorbic acid). The average ascorbic acid content is about 5 mg/100 g of apple, depending on cultivar, maturity stage, and growing condition (Gebhardt et al., 1982). It has been shown that the peel contains up to three to five times more vitamin C than the pu1p(Young, 1975) . Among the popular apple cultivars, McIntosh contains very low amounts of vitamin C (Lee and Mattick, 1989). The average ash (mineral) content of fresh apples with skin is 0.26%. Potassium constitutes the main portion of the total mineral content of apples, and it accounts for more than 40% of the total ash (Gebhardt et al. 1982). Its content in fresh apples with and without skin is 115 mg/100 g and 113 mg/100 g, respectively. Phosphorus (7 mg/100 g with skin, 7 mg/100 9 without skin) and calcium (7 mg/100 g with skin, 4 mg/100 9 without skin) are the second and third most prevalent minerals, which are varied within a cultivar from season to season (Gebhardt et al., 1982). Calcium ions may aid the packing of polygalacturonate chains fitting into a microcrystalline structure and neutralizing mutually repulsive charges (Ree, 1972). Processing caused no change in the content of chromium, cobalt, copper, iodine, 11 magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, or selenium but resulted in an increase in chloride and sodium. This was attributed to dipping of the peeled apples in 3% NaCl to inhibit enzymatic browning (Upshaw et al., 1978). 213091335 The pigments of apples consist of anthocyanins, chlorophylls and carotenoids. Chlorophyll is held tightly bound to the thylakoid membranes within the chloroplast (Tucker 1993) . Anthocyanins are a very diverse range of pigments localized within the vacuole of the plant cell(Timberlake 1981). The main anthocyanin in apples is idaein (cyanidin-B-galactoside) (Timberlake, 1981). Carotenoid pigments are localized within the chloroplast (Tucker 1993). Carotenoids like other photosynthetic higher plant tissues are principally B-carotene, lutein, violaxanthin, neoxanthin and cryptoxanthin (Knee, 1972; Gross et al., 1978). The regulation of color pigment synthesis pathway during ripening is unclear, but may involve enzymatic and chemical reactions (Tucker 1993). The color changes during ripening of apples depend mainly on the simultaneous disappearance of chlorophylls a and b (Knee, 1972, 1980). 75% of chlorophyll content degraded during ripening of Golden Delicious apple, with fivefold increase in xanthophyll contents (Workman 1963). Among the carotenoids, B-carotene decrease, whereas xanthophylls, particularly 12 lutein and violaxanthin increase substantially (Knee, 1972; Gross et al., 1978). v vo ' es Apple flavors depend upon complex mixtures of organic compounds, many of which are synthesized during the climacteric phase. Analysis of the volatiles present in apple indicated at least 230 different compounds (Van Straten 1977) . Typical constituent aliphatic esters are butyl ethanoate, 2-methyl butyl ethanoate and hexyl ethanoate (Dimick and Hoskin, 1983). Furthermore, Drawert et al. (1983) also Idetected 2-frexanol and frexanol of aldehyde and ethyl-Z-methyl butyrate as important compounds contributing to apple flavor. The saturated aliphatic esters usually contribute a generic fruity aroma. Other kinds of volatile compound occur in trace amount or in a restricted range of cultivars. 4-methoxy(propenyl benzene) gives a spicy flavor to some apple cultivars (Williams et al., 1977). Terpenoid compounds are represented among apple volatiles by linalool and its epoxide, as well as farnesene (Dimick and Hoskin, 1983). Flath et al. (1967) has reported that acetaldehyde is generated by senescent apples, likewise hexanal and trans-2-hexenal are formed on tissue disruption, these can be dominant compounds giving a green flavor to immature fruits. 13 MATURATION Horticultural maturity is "The stage of development when a plant or plant part possesses the prerequisites for utilization by consumers far a particular purpose" (Herner et al. 1984). Physiological maturity is "The stage of development when a plant or plant part will continue ontogeny even if detached" (Herner et al. 1984). Harvesting at the appropriate maturity is a critical factor in determining quality of the fruits. Wiley and Thompson (1960) have reported that apple maturity at harvest time has an important effect on canned apple slice quality. Color, flavor, and overall canned grade were observed to be improved with increasing apple maturity, but early-harvest apples gave firmer canned slices. Fully mature apples also produce the best-quality sauce (Way and McLellan, 1989) . Harvested before optimum. :maturity, apples are ‘more susceptible to superficial scald, incomplete development, and decreased in storage life. Harvested after optimum maturity, apples. may’ decrease storage life and increase physiological disorders, such as softening, internal breakdown, mealiness, and are more susceptible to bruising and decay. Apples are commonly harvested just as they begin to ripen or in the preclimacteric stage (Knee, 1993). Predicting harvest date is not only important for quality of the fruits but it is useful in scheduling harvest of processed crops. This allows an even flow of produce through the processing plant which helps increase efficiency. 14 Indices of harvest maturity of apples are based largely on color (external and internal), flesh firmness, composition(starch, sugar, and acid), mechanical properties (rupture force, modules of elasticity), ease of separation from spurs, and days from full bloom to harvest (Salunkhe and Desai 1984). Measurement of fruit firmness, respiration rate, ethylene production, starch hydrolysis, soluble solids, titratable acidity, color' of skin, and cortical tissue are included to monitor the changes in fruit maturity (Fidler 1973). The sorbitol/total sugar ratio , or fructose/glucose ratio has been used to detect the adulteration (Lee and Mattick, 1989) . ' However, the most reliable index of harvest maturity for seversl cultivars is a standard calendar date, i.e., the number of days from full bloom (DAFB) to harvest ‘(Salunkhe and Desai 1984; Mitra 1991) Ethylene and Apple Fruit Ripening Ethylene is a natural product of plant metabolism and is produced by all tissues of higher plants and by some microorganisms. Because of its marked effect on growth and ripening, ethylene is considered to be a plant growth hormone (Pratt and Goeschl, 1969). Fruits can be divided into climacteric and nonclimacteric types. Climacteric fruits are those in which ripening is associated with a distinct increase in respiration and ethylene production such as apples, bananas, 15 avocados, pears, mango, fig, and tomato. In nonclimacteric fruits such as oranges, lemon, strawberry, cherry, pineapple, grape, ripening is protracted and the attainment of the ripe stage is not associated with a marked increase in respiration or ethylene production (Hultin and Milner 1978). It is the effect of ethylene as a self-generating regulator’ that. is important in jpost-harvest. handling' of fruit, particularly the fleshy fruits such as apples. A very small quantity of ethylene within the tissues of the fruit is required to bring about the ripening response, Lprobably 1.0 ppm or less (pratt and Goeschl, 1969). The ethylene is produced in sufficiently high concentrations during the preclimacteric stage to induce the rise in respiration and the ripening process (McGlasson 1970; Pratt and Goeschl et a1. 1969; Burg and Burg et al. 1965). It has been. reported. that, Ethylene stimulates the synthesis of protein which is necessary for the ripening process (Ness et al. 1980; Frenkel et al., 1968). Ethylene biosynthesis Methionine is the principal substrate for ethylene production and a cycle for the synthesis of methionine and its conversion to ethylene has been described (Yang and Hoffman et al. 1984; Yang 1975;Beyer 1985). Figure 1 shows ethylene synthesis path way by Adams and Yang (1979). The conversion of ACC to ethylene has been reported to be oxygen l6 6 A 5'-METHYLTHIORIBOSE-I-P 2-KETO-4-METHYTHIO- AN BUTYRATE s 7 0 5'-METHYLTHIOADENOSINE METHIONINE 4 I 5'-METHYLTHIORIBOSE S-ADENOISYL MATHIONINE l-AMINOCYCLOPROPANE- l-CARBOXYLIC ACID 3 co: _HCN ETHYLENE Methionine adenosyl transferase (EC 2.5.1.6) ACC synthase (EC 4.4.1.14) ACC oxidase 5 Lmethylthioadenosine nucleosidase 5'-methylthi0ribose kinase (EC 2.7.1.100) This step is catalysed by at least three enzymes. This step represents a transamination reaction with glutamine as the most efficient amino donor. \IO‘Ul-‘bWNI‘ Figure 1. Ethylene synthesis pathway (Adams and Yang, 1979) 17 dependent (Adams and Yang, 1979) and heat sensitive process (Field, 1981; Yu et al., 1980). Control of Ethylene The two key control enzymes for the biosynthesis of ethylene are aminocyclopropane carboxylic acid(ACC) synthase and the ethylene forming' enzyme or .ACC oxidase (Tucker 1993). The levels of .ACC are low' in. green fruit and accumulate rapidly and coincident with ethylene synthesis (Hoffman and Yang 1980). In post-climacteric fruit, levels of ACC remain high while ethylene production declines (Hoffman and Yang 1980) . These incidents could indicate roles of ACC synthase and ACC oxidase, respectively (Tucker 1993). Aeinoethozyginylglycine (AVGI, effects on eEQXIene l' I! . A number of papers have shown that AVG [NH2-CH2-CH2-O- CH:CH-CH(NH2)-COOH], a derivative of the antibiotic rhizobitoxine, inhibited ethylene biosynthesis, resulting in delaying of ripening, respiration, and pre-harvest drop in apples (Bufler et al. 1984; Child at al. 1984; Bramlage et al. 1980; ‘Ness et al. 1980; Bangerth et al. 1978; Liebermann et al.1974). Adams and Yang et al.(1979) have reported that AVG, a potent inhibitor that blocks conversion of methionine to ethylene, inhibited the conversion of S- adenosylmethionine (SAM) to 1-Aminocyclopropanecarboxylic acid (ACC) . The soluble and strongly enzyme that can be 18 inhibited by AVG was ACC synthase (Boller et al. 1979). Additional studies suggested that AVG may interfere with other pyridoxal phosphate-dependent reactions (Giovanelli et al. 1971; Owens et al. 1971). It may also inhibit tRNA charging, suppressing protein synthesis in plant tissue which is necessary for the ripening of harvested fruits (Ness et al. 1980; Anderson et a1. 1978). The application of AVG in reducing ethylene production could be a pre- harvest spray or as a post-harvest dip (Child et a1. 1984). Bramlage et a1. (1980) observed that preharvest spray of AVG at 500 ppm delayed ripening and ethylene production in McIntosh apples (after 30 days, ethylene was 10% of that in untreated controls) and inhibited ripening. The effective use of AVG is dependent on cultivars, time of application, and stage of maturity (Child at al. 1984) . The greater benefit of AVG toward less mature fruits has been reported, where the strongest inhibition of ethylene production is in green stage (Baker et al. 1978). Inhibition of ethylene forming enzyme or ACC oxidase was discussed later in controlled-atmosphere storage. Storage of Apples Apples for processing are rarely utilized immediately following removal from the tree for many reasons: the wish to permit further ripening of the fruit to make them more suitable for manufacturing of a particular finished product, the necessity of using up previously harvested fruit to 19 avoid excessive spoilage, or simply the need to lengthen the processing season (Massey, 1989). Shelf life of a fruit during storage is dependent on its initial quality, its storage stability, the external conditions, and the handling methods (Shewfelt, 1986). The practical storage situations benefits can be obtained by maintaining ethylene at low levels in produce (Hultin and Milner 1978). C s 0 The most frequently utilized holding environment for intermediate to long-term holding of apples is low- temperature refrigerated storage (Patchen, 1971). For optimum benefits for CA storage, the fruit should be harvested very early, often 2-3 weeks before conventional harvest dates for ordinary cold storage (Massey 1989). Apple fruit tissue showed increases or decreases of at least 30% for divergencies of 5°C (41°F) from the reference temperature of 20°C (68°F) (Burg and Thimann 1959). The mean percentage increase for a rise in temperature from 38°F -45°F (3.3-7.2 °C) was 40% for C02 output and 60% for 02 uptake, for apples in air. However, Cox's Orange Pippin, Tydeman's Late Orange, and Blenheim Orange apples were susceptible to low temperature injury, the rates of C02 output and 02 uptake, at temperature below 2.8-3.3°C (37- 38°F), increased with time and with onset of injury (Fidler and North 1967) . Additionally, heating Spartan and Golden 20 Delicious apples to 38°C (100.4°F) for 4-6 days after harvest maintained fruit firmness in storage but also significantly decreased titratable acidity (Lidster, 1979). Increased firmness resulting from heat treatments was associated with a decrease in pectin solubility and esterification (Van Buren, 1967; Hoogzand and Doesburg, 1961). C e t 5 here CA stora e Controlled-atmosphere (CA) storage is a system for holding produce in an atmosphere that differs substantially from normal air in respect to the proportion of nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02), or carbon dioxide (C02) (Ryall and Lipton, 1972). The principle of using a CA storage, most effective means of extending storage life, is to slow down respiration, therefore extending the shelf life of respiring fruits (Dalrymple, 1967). A. typical storage atmosphere could be composed of 3% 02 and 3-5% C02 at 0 °C (Blanpied and, Smock 1983; Meheriuk 1985; Patchen 1971; Ryall and Penzer 1981; Smock and Neubert 1950). The combination of 1.25% 02 and 0.75% C02 for CA storage of apples has been reported by Hutin and Milner 1978) . Effectiveness of CA storage varies considerably with cultivar (Meheriuk 1985). The effects of 02 and C02 are basic factors in which a lower concentration of Oz limits the oxidation process of respiration and C02 and also plays a role in carboxylation and decarboxylation activities. With reduced respiration rates, the energy available for the ripening process is 21 limited (Ryall and Pentzer 1974). The benefits of low 02 storage on fruit firmness and titratable acids, depended on fruit maturity, have been confirmed for Turley (Workman 1963), Delicious (Anderson 1967; Lau and Looney 1982), Cox's Orange Pippin' (North et a1. 1976), and McIntosh (Sharples et al. 1978; Lidster et al. 1980; Lau et al. 1986). Lowering 02 and elevated C02 reduce respiration rate of fresh fruits and vegetables (Kader 1986) . Shipway and Bramlage (1973) found that CO; levels above 6% simulated malate oxidation and suppressed oxidation of citrate, 0t- ketoglutarate, succinate, fumarate, and pyruvate in mitochondria isolated from apples. The conversion of ACC, as an intermediate in ethylene synthesis cycle, to ethylene is oxygen-dependent (Yang and Hoffman 1984) . Low oxygen concentration has been found to inhibit the final step in the ethylene synthesis pathway (Reid 1992). Fidler and North (1967); and Smock (1942) agreed that the effect of very low 02 storage would be additional to the inhibitory effects on C2114 production and fruit respiration. Reduced 02 levels below 8% decrease ethylene production by fresh fruits and vegetables and reduce their sensitivity to ethylene (Kader 1986). Burg and Burg (1967; 1969) confirmed that 02 is required for ethylene production and action. At 2.5% 02, ethylene production was halved and fruit ripening was retarded. At 3%02, the binding of ethylene was reduced to about 50% of that in air (Burg and Burg 1967). 22 Figure 2 shows the mechanism of ethylene action. The produced ethylene binds to a protein, called binding site, passing through protein synthesis process. The formed proteins are enzymes that cause the actual ethylene response (Reid 1992). A number of studies reported the means that try to minimize ethylene response by lowering ethylene concentration in CA storage system. Forsyth et al. (1969), Lougheed et al. (1973) and Liu (1979) concluded that removal of CQH4 from CA storage retained fruit firmness in MCIntosh apples in conventional atmosphere. Scrubbing C2H4 (0.304 ml/l) from conventional CA atmosphere (5.0% C0; + 3.0% cu, resulted. in. significantly firmer fruit than in storages which had no C2H4 removal or high C2114 levels (Lidster et al. 1983) . Potassium permanganate delayed ethylene accumulation in the storage atmosphere for 40 days with Golden Delicious and 200 days with Bramley's seedling apples stored at 4 °C in 5% C02 and 3% 02, Knee and Hatfield (1981) found that removal of ethylene retarded softening. Subatmospheric pressure, ‘ a form of controlled atmosphere with reduced atmospheric pressure, at 1% level significantly extended storage life of both Red Kink apples for 3.5 months and Golden Delicious apples for 2.5 months based on delayed losses of sugars and decreases in titratable acidity (Salunkhe and Wu 1973). Jonathan apples stored best at 0.13 atm (Kim et al. 1969). The effects of 23 Chfld'fil C2 "Til: 0.23:3. INA new DNA Figure 2. Mechanism of ethylene new enzyme (V Z preleln polypeptides 1 ACTION 2‘ petyrlbeeetne action (Reid, 1992) 24 hypobaric (low-pressure) storage on horticultural crops were summarized (Lougheed et al. 1978; Jamison 1980). CA storage gave the most striking results with apples such as McIntosh, Newtown, and Cortland, which do not keep well at -1.1-0 °C (30.0-32 °F). However it is also used for other apples that do keep well at -1.1 °C (30.0 °F), such as Delicious, Golden Delicious, Rome Beauty, and stayman, to extend the storage life (Lutz and Hardenberg, 1968). Browning Reactions EnzyeeEie browning The oxidative, or enzymatic, browning is a reaction between oxygen and a phenolic substrate catalyzed by polyphenol oxidase (Whistler and Daniel 1985). Exposure of the cut surface to air results in rapid browning due to the enzymic oxidation of phenols to orthoquinones, which in turn rapidly polymerize to form brown pigments or melanins (Richardson and Hyslop 1985). Figure 3 shows the formation path way of melanin pigments resulting from the oxidation of tyrosine, a major substrate, by phenolase (Richardson and Hyslop 1985). H !° 1 . Nonoxidative, or nonenzymatic, browning includes caramelization and Maillard reaction. Caramelization is a complex group of reactions occurs by direct heating of carbohydrates, particularly sugars and sugar syrups (Whistler and Daniel 1985). Maillard reaction requires the 25 A ’TYROSINASE ‘ 8 +0 I” ‘\ +0 CH2 ENZYHE' H0 (342 ‘5»:sz 0: 3in HO ,LHCOOH VERY Stow HO ,o-Icoon FAST o = ,CHCOOH — II AT FIRST :4 at Hz FAST LATER H2 H2 ‘rvnosme OOPA DOPA QUINONE §+zo FAST 9 HO __ Ca +0 HO HO I + COZ RELATNELY 0:: COOH FAST HO COOH N SLOW N \ N H H ‘\ H \ s, c-omonoimme HALLAcHRoue (RED) ‘ \ LEUCO compouno FAST +0 \\ x 0:. +0 +20 HO mm RELATIVELY ' ”El-ANN 7"" HOG—ECOOH u mow N H H INDOLE 5, G-QUINONE s, G-OIHYOROXYINOOLE - 2 ' CARBOXYLIC ACID 0' HO 921,0 : 03 N’CHCOG‘1+ COOH—. HO ,W‘ O= COOH ‘ N NI H2 H2 H DOPA QUINONE LEUCO COMPOUND OOPA HALLACHRWE Figure 3. Formation pathway of melanin pigments resulting from the oxidation of tyrosine by phenolase. (Lerner and Fitzpatrick, 1950) 26 presence of an amino-bearing compound (usually a protein), a reducing sugar, and some water for minimum reactants. Figure 4 shows decomposition pathways of amadori compounds to produce melanoidin pigments, colloidal and insoluble compounds in Maillard reaction (Whistler and Daniel 1985). Maillard browning can be inhibited by decreasing moisture to very low levels, lowering pH, or lowering temperature (Whistler and Daniel 1985). Thermal Processing of Apples An efficient thermal process could be used to inactivate enzymes without the use of enzyme inhibitor such as 802. Control of thermal softening in the apple tissue is vital to produce a good quality product. The effect of heating on fruits have been reviewed by Holdsworth (1979). 919110111119 Blanching is a kind of pasteurization generally applied to fruits and vegetables primarily to inactivate natural food enzymes, such as lipase, phenolase, lipoxygenase, chlorophyllase, catalase, jperoxidase, and. ascorbic acidoxidase, which cause undesirable flavor, color, and aroma changes in the finished product during storage (Potter, 1986; Foley and. Buckley, 1977). Blanching is regarded as adequate when the relatively heat resistant enzyme, peroxidase, is no longer active (Richardson and Hyslop 1985). Blanching is essential for vegetables that are to be frozen because freezing process only slows enzyme I 27 II ’ - ’ z?_ on n29 - ['1‘ an. Nx @ A = 0 9- OH - 0" 5 11011 ‘_—_———A non . 0H OH .1101! l-emin' —2, 3-ened 101 l l , 2-eneaminol ‘Aflifie Amadori .0“ “ product 6 / g 2 II =N \ .. OH - OH $111: H OH 11011 . O I 1t ‘40; 01-13 110: 0 :0 methyl d-dicarbonyl C: O :0 compound 3-deoxyhexosone H 0.. 2.3.. ' I 0 1L ‘ 4120 “is: - 0H 2H . - on SSH I . +Amine, ' .HZO +Amine. —HZO Melanoidin 4‘20 it “mm V\Mflme methyl reduccones , I'M“. S-hydroxymechyl- c-dicarbonyls Z-furaldehyde Figure 4 . Decomposition pathways of amadori compounds to produce melanoidin pigments (Whistler and Daniel, 1985) 28 activities (Potter, 1986). However, blanching leads to the most important nutrient (Tannenbaum and Young 1985; Foley and Buckley, 1977) and flavor losses (Foley and Buckley, 1977). Surveys of individual unit operations indicated that blanching contributed significantly to overall plant effluent. In most cases over 50% of the plant biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) was due to blanching and cooling (Lee, 1975). It has been reported that the leaching of valuable soluble material during the prolonged stay in heated water can be inhibited by the application of short-high steam treatments or saturated blanching water (Steinbuch, 1976) . High temperature blanching also effects texture changes of frozen fruits and vegetables. However, it has been reported that the LT-LT (Low Temperature Long Time) blanching can maintain desired texture of frozen vegetables (Steinbuch, 1976). Van Buren et al. (1960) reported a relationship between the blanching conditions and the firmness of canned vegetables“ The firming effects of LT-LT blanching' is considered to be related to activation of pectinesterase. APPLE PROCESSINGS AND PROCESSED APPLE PRODUCTS EVALUATIONS The era of most rapid growth in apple processing in the United States was the period from the end of World War II in 1945 to the early 19705. An increasing number of women were working outside the home. House wives were finding many more valuable uses of their time than cooking or preparing popular foods such as apple juice, applesauce, or apple 29 pies. Processors rushed to meet consumers' needs for familiar products minus the drudgery of cleaning, preparation, or cooking (0' Rourke, 1994). Processing quality can be affected by decay, damage, maturity, firmness, color, soluble solids, acids, and other chemical compounds such as tannins contained in the fruit (Downing, 1989). Americans consume an average of 47 lb per capita of apples and apple products per year. Over 27 lb of apples per capita are processed apple products (Diane, 1996). Apples may be grown especially for processing, a practice common among orchards in the eastern United States, but most apples sold to the processor are redeemed from fruit grown for the fresh market (Childers, 1983) . Canned applesauce rank the second to apple juice in importance processed apple products. Of the processing apples, an average of 75% are used for applesauce (Root, 1996). Refrigerated, frozen, or dehydrofrozen apple slices represents about 15% of the apple processed (Root 1996). Applesauce and Apple Puree Quality attributes in raw apples that produce a high— quality finished product are described by LaBelle (1981) . The quality of canned applesauce has been shown to be affected by the varietal characteristics, maturity of the fresh apples, postharvest storage conditions, and storage temperatures of the canned product (LaBelle et al. , 1960, 30 1961; Smock and Neubert, 1950; Wiley and Toldby, 1960; Luh and Kamber, 1963). Desirable characteristics in apples for applesauce include high-sugar solids (usually 11-24 °Brix); high-acid, aromatic, bright golden or white flesh; variable grain or texture; and sufficient water-holding capacity (Root 1996). The brix/acid ratio normally ranges from 25 to 60 (Way and MbLellan, 1989). Acid and Tannins, which are responsible for astringency in taste, decreased in the sauce with increased maturation, while sugars and volatile reducing substances increased (Lee, 1965). Desirable characteristics in apples for applesauce and puree include high. soluble, solid. content, high acid, aromatic, bright golden or white flesh, variable grain or texture, and sufficient water-holding capacity (Diane 1996). Water- holding capacity is the single; most important yield characteristic for the sauce (LaBelle et al., 1961). It is desirable to combine different varieties of apple for sauce manufacture so that the resulting product is well balanced in acidity and flavor quality. A typical apple blend for applesauce might be primarily York (more than 50%) , with Golden Delicious and Rome each contributing a lesser percentage (Way and McLellan, 1989). In traditional applesauce and puree production, selected apples are washed, peeled, diced, then fed into a stainless steel screw-type cooker. Either live steam injected or steam jacketed provides temperature between 93°C 31 (199°F) and 98°C (208°F)for about 4-5 minutes is use to soften the fruit tissue and inactivate polyphenoloidase, which is responsible for enzymatic browning. Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) chemical peeler can be used instead of automatic peeling and coring machine to reduce trim waste and time consumed (Diane, 1996; Woodroof, 1975 ). Sugar, either liquid blend or dry, and other desired ingredients are added into the sauce just before cooking. Liquid sugar is preferred because it imparts a desirable sheen to the finished applesauce. Cooked applesauce is finished with 0.065 to 0.125 in. screens, baby puree with fine 0.033 in. screens; the finished product is then preheated to 90°C (194°F) and piston-filled into glass jars or metal cans immediately. For the last step, containers are cooled to an average of 30-40 °C (95-104 °F) to prevent "stacking cooking" in the warehouse (Diane 1996). There have been many studies to improve quality of the sauce. Sauce color, flavor and grain improved as harvest was delayed to allow the fruit to tree-ripen, particularly if the apples were processed into sauce directly after harvest (LaBelle, 1960) . The flavor of canned applesauce can be improved by fortification with apple essence and citric acid (Buck, et al., 1955; Dyrden and Hills, 1957). Daoud and Luh (1971) reported that higher storage temperatures caused faster corrosion of the tin coating and the formation of hydrogen gas in the head space. The 32 recommended storage temperature for applesauce is 20 °C (68 °F) or lower. Golden Delicious applesauce yield from CA storage (40.6% weight loss) was less than from cold storage (35.8% weight loss), due to longer cooking time (10 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively) to soften the pulp. However, applesauce from CA apples had a superior yellow color than that from cold stored apples (Drake et a1. 1979). Frozen Apple Slices Quality of raw fruit is the most important factor in determining the quality of the frozen product. It is influenced by varietal characteristics, climate of the growing area, irrigation, cultural practices, and ripeness level at harvest (Diane, 1996). Ripening of firm-ripe fruit was required to improve product flavor, and to a lesser extent, color (Caldwell et al 1955). Important characteristics for apple slices are firmness, color, and integrity of the flesh 'when diced. Sweetness is less important in making slices than in sauce (Root 1996). It has been shown that texture attribute may account for about one half of an overall slice grade (Wiley and Thompson 1963). An easily peelable shape and small seed pocket will help to minimize residual peel and carpel that are also undesirable and cause for down-grading under the U.S. Standard. Medium-size wedge slices are preferred because large slices tend to be underbalanced (with brown centers) and also to have excessive residual carpel attached 33 (LaBelle, 1981). The early harvest apples should be ripened 20 days in common storage, or 30-60 days in cold storage. The late harvest apples gave the best product if processed immediately (Wiley and Thompson, 1959) . Generally, processors do not mix cultivars in the production of apple slices (Hall, 1989). Shallenberger et al. (1963) reported that more mature fruit yielded firmer slices. The addition of Ca salts improved firmness of canned vegetable products (Durocher and Roskis 1949; Loconti and Kertesz 1941). In traditional frozen apple slices processing, the dumping, washing, grading, peeling, and coring steps are similar to those used for sauce production. The slicing operation is usually an integral part of the peeling and coring process, where the apples are slices into twelve to sixteen pieces in the coring section. Apple slices are inspected for defects, and conveyed over a shaker screen to remove small chips. The slices are passed through vacuum impregnation, in which the slices are placed in a vessel that is sealed and a 27- to 28- Hg vacuum is pulled. The vacuum is broken by the injection of water, salt, ascorbic acid, and/or sugar. The apples pass through an IQF (Individually Quick Frozen) unit where the slices are individually frozen. The freezing air forced upwards through a perforated tray fluidizes the product plus acts as freezing medium. The slices are packaged and stored frozen. at -17°C (-1°F) or below (Root, 1996). 34 ° ua u'c IQF is the term that , is applied when the freezing process is accomplished rapidly in order to control moisture loss from food products (Singh and Heldman, 1993; Heldman, 1992). Primarily, a form of IQF is obtained using the combination of low-temperature air with high convective heat-transfer coefficient (high air speed) contact directly with a small product leads to short freezing time or rapid freezing (Singh and. Heldman, 1993). Quick frozen food achieves temperature as low as -45°C in 30 minutes or less. The rapid freezing forms only very small ice crystals that do not rupture the cells, reducing tissue damage (Hsu, 1975). The enzyme activity which causes browning and off- flavors is inhibited by quick freezing (Luh et al., 1975). Processed Apple Product Quality 9.912: One of the most critical factors affecting acceptability for consumers is the color of the products. The color of the products mostly relies upon the raw materials, processing operations, and storage conditions. The preferred color for canned applesauce is uniform and bright golden yellow (Root, 1996; USDA, 1974) and that for frozen apples, internally and externally, is a reasonably uniform bright color characteristic of apples of similar varieties (USDA, 1954). 35 Heat processing, freezing, and thawing lead to cell disintegration, pigment degradation and isomerization of carotenoids (Simpson, 1985). Discoloration of canned applesauce stored at high temperature above 20°C (68°F) could have been caused by Maillard browning (slow chemical reaction. between amino acids and. reducing sugars); fragmentation of sugars to furfural and other carbonyl compounds, and formation of hydroxymethyl furfural from hexoses and amino-carbonyl reactions; and reaction of the tannins with iron due to severe can corrosion (Luh and Kamber, 1963). Soluble selidszacid gatio The common use of soluble solids to define product quality came about in response to the need for a more reliable and meaningful direction. An estimation of percent soluble solids, mostly sugar, is determined as the equivalent. eBrix by a representative drop of juice on refractometer (Belle, 1981). The acidity and pH, as chemical and flavor factors, are frequently used in the processing plant as well as in research to evaluate product flavor. Acidity is of special important to the flavor of processed apple products in that, like sweetness, it remains substantially unchanged during normal canning, freezing, or drying (LaBelle, 1981). Since acidity is changing in the opposite direction form soluble solids content during maturation, the ratio of the two, variously referred to as "sugar-acid", "Brix-acid", 36 or "soluble solids-acid", shifts rapidly and is more useful as a guide to determine the optimum maturity, or optimum level for processed products (LaBelle, 1981). W Szczesniak (1963) defined the texture for food as " the composite of the structural elements of food and the manner in which it registers with the physiological senses." Kramer (1973) defined it as ". .. one of the three primary sensory properties of food that relates entirely to the sense of touch or feel and is, therefore, potentially capable of precise measurement objectively by mechanical means in fundamental units of mass or force." According to Reiner and Scott Blair (1967), consistency is the property of a material by which it resists permanent change of shape, defined by the complete stress-flow curve. Various types of consistometers have been used basically for testing semi-solid foods such as paste, sauce, and puree. Most empirical consistometers fall into two groups: devices which measure distance of spread and devices which measure resistance to a rotating spindle or paddle. The Adams and the Bostwick consistometers are typical of the first group. The Adams consistometer measures the area to which a given quantity of the test material will spread under a certain set of conditions. The Bostwick consistometer, an official National Canners Association device for catsup, measures the distance a given amount of the semi-solid will travel down a 37 slanted though upon being released from a container (Szczesniak, 1973) The most common texture measuring instrument for frozen apple slices (solid foods) probably is the Kramer Shear Press (Kramer et al. 1951). The system is driven hydraulically and the force is measured by a force transducer ranging from 0 to 3000 lb capacity. A metal lid containing a set of ten bars that match the bars in the bottom fits over the box (Bourne 1982) . The test samples are placed in the standard test cell and covered with the lid. When the ram is activated, the multi-blades are forced down through the box, first "Compressing" and then "Extruding" the material. The moving blades are propelled downward until they pass between the bars on the bottom of the cell. ev 'o Sensory evaluation is a scientific discipline used to evoke, measure, analyze and interpret reactions to those characteristics of foods and materials as they are perceived by the sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing (IFT, 1975) . Sensory evaluation involves the measurement and evaluation of the sensory characteristics of foods. It also involves the interpretation of panelists' responses. Sensory evaluation of food can provide data and important information essential to successful marketing of new products (Stone, 1985). 38 There are two major classifications of sensory tests, analytical test and affective test. The analytical test involves laboratory evaluation of products for differences or similarities and for identification and quantification of sensory characteristics. The affective test evaluates acceptance and preference of products and require a large number of untrained panelists (IFT, 1981). Most sensory evaluation techniques Use hedonic scaling. The psychological states of like or dislike are measured on a rating scale. Results are interpreted as relating to the sample population's opinion of the product under test. Discussions on the theory and its applications can be found in Moskowitz (1983), Amerine et al.(1965), and Beebe- Center(1932). Kramer (1955) classified sensory quality under the three major senses: appearance as sensed by the eye, flavor as sensed by the papillae on the tongue and the olfactory epithelium of the nose, and texture as sensed by the nerve endings that is attached to muscle. Sensory descriptors for applesauce chosen by trained panelists fell into five categories: visual attributes, aroma (by smell only), aroma (during tasting of the product), taste, and mouthfeel (McLellan et al., 1984). McLellan and Massey (1984) used three sensory attributes: color, flavor, and texture for sensory study of applesauce. A Brix/acid ratio of 48.8 was found ideal for consumers (Dryden and Hills, 1957). Using expert applesauce tasters, 39 the optimal ratio was in the range of 28-45 in still another U.S. study (LaBelle et al., 1960). The preferences change from place to place and time to time, and ideal sensory attribute , such as Brix/acid ratios, must be established for each market. Sensory evaluations, consumer test, for frozen slices were conducted by Greig et al. (1962) with pie made from frozen slices. However, consumer exhibited no significant preference for any one cultivar. STUDY I: ASSESSING THE COMMERCIAL PROCESSING POTENTIAL OF NEW CULTIVARS AND ADVANCED SELECTIONS OF APPLES SUITABLE FOR THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Introduction One of the world’s most successful apple producers, the United States commercial apple production accounts for one eighth of the current annual world production. Apple production in the United States is primarily in the states of Washington, New York, Michigan, California, and Pennsylvania. These states produce over three—quarters of the total U.S. production. From the USDA estimation for 1993, Michigan is second only to the state of Washington in apple production. (Manhart, 1995). The development of exceptional apple cultivars and the improvement and enhancement of production methods make Michigan a key participant in the apple industry world wide. The processing quality of Michigan grown apples could be better evaluated if a consistent state-wide process assessment was used to evaluate products over different seasons. To help alleviate this problem, the Michigan apple industry, apple processors, apple grower, and the Michigan State University research program have joined together to established such procedures. There are many fresh market and processing apple varieties grown in Michigan as well as new dual varieties in experimental stages. Common apple 40 41 varieties currently grown in Michigan and their acreage are listed below: W Acres Red Delicious 14,100 Jonathan 8,150 Golden Delicious 6,090 Rome 5,130 McIntosh 4,680 Idared 4,630 SPY 3,610 Empire 3,330 Gala 990 Winesap 900 Jonagold 820 Mutsu 650 Greening 640 Cortland 520 Spartan 430 Fuji 330 Jonamac 270 (Michigan Fruit Survey - 1995) LaBelle (1981) described in detail the quality characteristics of raw apples that are necessary for the manufacture of high-quality apple products. He found that processed. product quality is affected. by the following characteristics of the raw product: ripeness, damage, decay, fruit size, shape, seed pocket size, specific gravity, skin 42 color, flesh color, firmness, soluble solids, total acid, pH, organic flavor compounds, tannins, tendency to brown by oxidation, and. juiciness. ‘The raw—product factors have differing relative influences depending on the types of final processed products used. Several researchers have sought for innovative alternatives to improve product quality and increase apple yield. Studies have shown that sauce color, flavor and grain improved as harvest was delayed to allow the fruit to tree-ripen, particularly if the apples were processed into sauce directly after harvest (LaBelle, 1960). The flavor of canned applesauce can be improved by fortification with apple essence and citric acid (Buck, et al., 1955; Dyrden and Hills, 1957). Shallenberger et al. (1963) reported that more mature fruit yielded firmer slices. The addition of Ca salts improved firmness of canned vegetable products (Durocher and Roskis 1949; Loconti and Kertesz 1941). The objectives of this study was to analyze and evaluate the processing qualities of processed. products (applesauce, apple puree, and frozen apple slices) of current standard known and new apple varieties both fresh harvest and following common cold storage MATERIALS AND METHODS SOURCES OF MATERIALS AND SAMPLE PREPARATIONS This experiment was conducted to evaluate processing quality of selected apple cultivars, and the influence of storage of fresh apples on their processing quality changes. Apples Fifteen apple selections including; Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, McIntosh, Jonathan, Jonagold, Cortland, Honeycrisp, Rome, Gala, Mutsu, Idared, Northern Spy, and Empire (at early, middle, and late harvest season) were delivered from Michigan State University Clarksville Research Station, Clarksville, Michigan. The apples were harvested at defined stage of maturity by hands in the morning to minimize the loss from mechanical damage and water loss, respectively. The apples were loaded into wood crates providing air circulation and immediately transported to Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Experimental conditions Fifteen apple selections were used. One-half of the apple of each selection, approximately 2 bushels, was manufactured into adult applesauce, baby apple puree, and frozen apple slices after fresh harvest. The other half was 43 44 manufactured after 2 months of cold air storage at 1.1°C (34°F), 99.810.295 relative humidity, in the department of Plant and Soil Science Building, Michigan State University. The apples were stored in the cold storage on the day they were picked. Apple Processing The apples were processed under controlled conditions into unsweetened adult applesauce, baby apple puree, and frozen apple slices in Food Processing Center, at the department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University. First, selectively uniform fruits were separated for frozen apple slices. The rest was divided into two groups, one for applesauce, the other for apple puree. The selected apples were washed using chlorinated water 15.6 °C (60 °F) to remove dirt, debris, and pesticide residues. Adultmlssancs The prepared apples were peeled, cored and trimmed using peeler and trimmer (model N0. 1035, Goodell Co., Antrim, NH) then dipped into 1% NaCl solution to prevent surface discoloration from enzymatic-browning reaction. Then, the apples were sliced into 1/4' width, using a slicer (model No. 101, Qualheim Inc., Racine, WI). The sliced apples were blanched in steam kettles at 98.9 °C (210 °F) for 5 minutes to soften the tissue and inactivate the 45 enzyme , polyphenoloxidase , which is responsible for enzymatic browning. Cooked apples were passed through a pulper (model No. P56E3050M-FP, Reeves Pulley Co., CO) with a 0.060" screen, removing defects and defining texture. The applesauce was preheated up to 90.6°C (195°F) and consistency of the sauce was adjusted with condensate using Bostwick consistometer until the optimum level was reached (5-7 cm/5 seconds). Applesauce was hot filled into 303 x 406 (1602) metal cans at 93.3 °C (200 °F). The closure (model No. 5K21BBG228 No. YP, General Electric Induction Motor) for metal cans was used followed by cooling cycle. Figure 5 shows flow diagram of adult applesauce process. Ezeeee epple sllces Preselected, and washed apples were peeled , cored, and trimmed using peeler and trimmer (model No. 1035, Goodell Co., Antrim, NH). The apples were sliced into twelve, or sixteen pieces depending on their size to achieve approximately 1.6 cm (5/8") wedges. The sliced apples were submerged into chilled water for maximum 3 minutes. After slicing, the apples were inspected for defects such as blossom or calyx, carpel tissue, skin, and bruises. The slices were handled quickly at this point to avoid enzymatic browning. The apple slices were placed in a vessel that was sealed, and a 27- to 28-in. Hg vacuum was held for 15 seconds. The vacuum impregnation was conducted with a solution; containing 1.0% ascorbic acid, 0.5% citric acid, 0.5% NaCl, and 0.3% CaClz. The apples were then spread over 46 Wash Peel, core, trim (slightly) Place in 1% NaCl solution (dip) Dice 1/4" Blanch at 98.9°C (2109F) for 4-5 minutes Finish (0.060-0.077 in. screen) Heat to 93.3°C (200°F) for immediate filling Adjust consistency (Bostwick 5-7 cm/5 sec.) Fill (Full head space 303x460 cans) Invert and cool immediately Cool cans in water to 37.8°C (100°F) Storage at room condition Figure 5. Flow diagram for adult applesauce process 47 metal screens and stored in freezing room with circulating air flow stimulating IQF (Individually Quick Frozen) unit, where the slices were individually frozen. Finally, the frozen apple slices were packaged in polyethylene sandwich bags and held at -28.9°C (~20°F) until evaluated. Figure 6 shows flow diagram of frozen apple slice process. PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION Adult Applesauces Chemical-physical analyses (Objective measurements) Applesauces were held in 303 x 460 (1602.) cans and stored at 24 °C (75.2 °F) prior to analyses. Samples were randomly selected with three replications. Soluble solids Soluble solids were measured using refractometer (Baush & Lomb Optical Co. , Rochester, NY). One drop of sample juice at approximately 25°C was placed on measuring cell. Refractometric method was prescribed in "Official Methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists", 10th edition, page 309. The soluble solid unit was degree brix (°Brix). Aelglgylpfi Representative sample (59 8 25 °C) of each selection was diluted with 25 ml deionized water and titrated with 0.10 N NaOH to phenolphthalein end point (pH = 8.2). An automatic 48 Wash Peel, Core, Trim 12—14 cut, "5/8 heel" Place apples in chilled water 3 minutes (maximum) Vacuum impregnation general solution: with .— Ascorbic acid 1.0% solution Citric Acid 0.5% for 15 seconds Salt 0.5% Calcium chloride 0.3% IQF on trays Package Storage at -28.9°C (-20°F) Figure 6. Flow diagram for frozen apple slice process 49 titrator (Model DL12, Mettler Instrument Co., Hightown, NJ) was used to monitor the end point. Acidity of the sample was calculated in terms of percent concentration of the malic acid, predominant organic acid, occurring in the apple tissue. % acidity = 0.1 me 67 O 5 g x 1000 Where X = used ml of 0.10 N NaOH 67.0 = grams of Malic acid per equivalent. 0.1 = concentration of NaOH (N, meq/ml) Colo; The color of product was measured using Hunter Lab Optical sensor (Model D25-PC2A, Hunter associates Laboratory, Inc., Reston, Virginia). The color meter measures reflectance on three coordinates labeled L, aL, and bL. The L value measures lightness and varies from 100 for perfect white to 0 for black, approximately as the human eye would evaluate it. The aL value represents redness (positive), gray (zero) and greenness (negative). The b1, value represents yellowness (positive), gray (zero) and blueness (negative). Hue angle was calculated for each sample using the representative L, aL, and bL.. Step for calculation of hue angle was as followed; Y = L2 / 100 50 x = (a * L + 1.75L2) / 178.497 2 = (0.7L2 - b * L) / 59.270 L* = 116 * (Y / 100)“3 - 16 a* = 500 * [(x / 98.041)1/3 — (Y / 100)“3 1 5* = 200 * [(Y / 100)“3 - (z / 118.103)1/3 1 0* = (a"2 + 6*2 )1/2 Ha = Arctan (b* / a* ) Estes; L measures lightness and varies from 100 for perfect white to 0 for black, approximately as the human eye would evaluate it. The chromacity dimensions are represented by a and b which give understandable designation of color as follows: a measures redness (positive), gray (zero) and greenness (negative).b measures yellowness (positive), gray (zero) and blueness (negative). If is the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) 1976 psychometric lightness. C* is a measure of the CIE 1976 a, b chroma. Chrome is the radius of an arc located on a plane (afxb' at a height of L*) and expressed as the linear distance between the points A(L*, 0, 0) and B(L*, a*, b*) in a polar coordinate system of (L* a* b*). Ha is a measure of the CIE 1976 a, b hue angle. Hue angle can be visualized as an angle between the line AB and the a' axis in the above polar coordinate system. The 51 closer the hue angle is to 90° indicates an increase in yellowness, while the further away it is from 90° indicates an increase in redness. The Hunter instrument was standardized by a white tile with the coordinate L = +94.5, aL = -O.6, and bi, = +0.4. Approximately 100 g of sample was placed in an optically pure glass dish, covered to prevent interfering light and readings were recorded. Consistency Measurement was measured using USDA flow sheet No.1 (Art and Industrial Lamination Co., Fairfax, VA). Contents of containers were stirred thorough at room temperature, then transferred into plastic cylinder (3-inch inside diameter, 33: inch high) which was placed exactly over the center of the flow sheet. The cylinder was lifted straight up. The spread of the sauce was recorded after 1 minute by averaging the reading in is inch increments at 4 points around the circumference of the plate. Subjective measurements The sample preparation for subjective measurements was the same as that for objective measurements. The products were evaluated using the USDA grading specification for applesauces. The considered characteristics included color, consistency, defects, finish, and flavor. Grades of applesauce were divided into U.S. Grade A, U.S. Grade B, and Substandard. USDA grading specification for applesauces (USDA, 1974) is presented in appendix II. 52 Sensory evaluations Sensory evaluations were performed for applesauce product. To provide typical consumption, applesauce samples were kept at refrigerated temperature over night (4.4-7.2 °C, 40-45 °F) before conducting the tests. The samples were provided in small white cups with the same amount, and served on a white tray at refrigerated temperature (4.4-7.2 °C, 40-45 °F). All samples were coded with 3-digit random numbers. A complete balanced order of sample presentations were made. The panelists were provided with drinking water to wash their pallet of residual tastes between each sample. This brief instance was also used as rest periods of 30 seconds. The tests were conducted in the morning before lunch time. Three sensory assessment techniques were conducted; including triangle test, scaling test, and acceptance test. Triangle test The triangle test (Poste et al., 1991) is use to indicate whether or not a detectable difference exists between two samples. This test was performed to detect significant differences between applesauces processed after fresh harvest and 2 month storage for each variety. The samples were taken from 15 applesauce samples (13 varieties with 3 different maturities of Empires), of 2 different storage times. One set of harvested apples was stored for 2 months while the other was processed into apple sauce immediately after fresh harvest. 53 The subjects, untrained panelists, were provided with three coded samples, was told that two of the samples are the same and one was different, and asked to identify the odd samples. The score sheet is presented in Figure 7. To provide controlled conditions, the tests were conducted in separated room. The panelists were seated in fully lighted isolated booths. Sc t s There are two types of scale, structured scale and unstructured scale. ‘The structured, or category, scale provide panelists with an actual scale showing several degrees of intensity or magnitude of a perceived sensory characteristic using number, words, or combination of the two. The detail of structured and unstructured scale has been explained by Poste et al.(1991). This scaling test was performed to detect significant differences between applesauce processed after fresh harvest and 2 month storage for each variety by focusing on specific attributes including color, consistency, and flavor. The samples were the same as those for triangle test. The subjects were selected from a well-focused group, including professors, and graduate students who were familiar with applesauce processing. The subjects were asked to score the samples at a time based on their sensory perception. The score sheet, 9-point structured scale, is presented in Figure 8. To provide controlled conditions, 54 ummu camcmfiuu com: m20wumcam>m auomcmm mocmmmammm you woman ouoom .h oucmflm .mamfimm usmumuuwc may no Hones: may maoufio .mHQEmm accumuufic on» >ufiucmcw can omumoflc:« umcuo on» c« mmHQEmm may mamas .ucmuwuufic ma mco can mmumowamoo mum mmamamm 039 .mumoaflrm o» so» now moans—swan» on» .45 zoom ca mmHQEmm wows» man whose umfiflz ”mama 55 mummy mcflamom com: mcoflumsam>m >uomcmm mosmmmammo you uwmcm whoom .w musmflm xoflnu >Hmfimuuxm lllll manmufimmc >Hmamuuxw IIIII ucmflun >Hmfimuuxm nnnnn xowcu >nm>HHHHH manmufimmc >HunomeHHHHH ucoflun >um>HHHHH xoflnu >HmumuchEHHHHH manmufimmc\manmuwmmccs umcyflmCHHHHH unvfiun mawumumcoaflflflflH sonny saunmflammmmmm manmuammocs saunmaammmmmm unofiun sauzoflammummm xoflcu MOCHHHHH manmuflmocco >HmfimuumeHHHH unmfiun UOCHHHHH musuxmfi no>wHu uoHoo .3onn mmamom may :0 mamemm comm aw wmcmucfl mo ucsoaw mcu mumoflccH .umuomumno >uomcmm\am0wm>ca mom mmHQSmm mmmcu myocam>m "mpoo mamfimm ”mama umEmz 56 the tests were conducted in separated room. The panelists were seated in fully lighted isolated booths. Acceptance tests (figdonic scaling tests) This is similar to a normal structured scale except that it is not related to any particular physical continuum. Hedonics relates to pleasant and unpleasant state of organism, and in hedonic scaling affective rating of preference or liking and disliking are measured (Piggott, 1988). This test was performed to detect the acceptance among applesauces taken from fifteen samples (13 varieties with 3 different maturities of Empire) which processed after fresh harvest. The subjects were asked to test the samples through sensory perception using hedonic scale. The score sheet, 9- point structured scale, is presented in Figure 9. To prepare uncontrolled and typically consumed condition, acceptance test was conducted at two different places; in Banquet room of Holiday Inn, Lansing, MI and The Community Center of Spartan Village, Michigan State University. Frozen Apple Slices Chemical-physical analyses (Objective measurements) Frozen apple slices were packaged in polyethylene sandwich bags and stored in freezing room at -28.9 °C (~20 °F). Before the analyses, frozen apples were thawed at 4.4- 7.2 °C (40-45 °F) for 2 days. There was an controlled 57 ummu oocmammoom com: mcowQMSHm>m >pomcmm moommmamam no“ woman muoom .m mucowm mmbmmemmfi mmhmmemma mmbmmvmma mmbwmemma mmhmmfimma mmbwmvmwa mmhmmvmma mmhmmcmmfl mmfiwmqmma mmhmmvmma mwhmmcmmfl mmhmmvmmd mmbomemwa mmhomfimma ombmmvmmn mahomvnmfl wocmuamoo< mmmsummzm wocmumwmsoo uoHoo Hmumcmu ucoesoo moou coflumoam>m xuomcmm “maneuwmoo nnoauo eoHneHwnov uncoaudv cowumoouom huoncon ucoa nonwuunoc was» Renaud on» odouwu umusmu mcfimmmooum poom “new "cofiuwnom >uwmum>flcs mkum savanna: «and “AHeBOMumo. oadz newueaoommd muommoooum coon savanna: somalooma dawns Muwneso «Hand unfinmoooum savanna: 58 temperature system to keep frozen products temperature approximately 4 . 4-7 . 2 °C (4 0-45 °F) during conducting the analyses. Samples were randomly selected with three replications. Solubl§_§olid Soluble solids for frozen apple slices was measured the same manner as that for applesauces. AciditylpH Representative juice of the sample (59 @ 25 °C) selection was used. The acidity/pH for frozen apple slices was measured the same manner as that for applesauce. Shear resistance Firmness assessment was proceeded using a Kramer Shear Press (Model TMS-90, Food Technology Corporation, Rockville, Maryland). Thawed and drained samples were placed up to the edge in a Standard Shear-Compression Cell CS-l (Figure 10 with ten multiple blades). The samples were evenly distributed in the cell and sheared. Results of firmness for the thawed apple slices were presented in N force/1009 samples. The firmness was recorded from Kramer Shear resistance as the maximum textural peak force of the thawed apple slices. 5 Drained weight After thawing period, thawed apple slices were weighed for the initial weight before draining, and then poured onto a US Standard No. 8 screen (0.24 cm opening). The sample was drained with the screen set at a 15° angle for two 59 Awwma ..Hm um xmmumnmbv mmcmHn mamfiuass 0H spas Aaumov Hamo sofiwmmumaoo newcm cnmocmum .OH musmwm 3m; om02:§ 0.05) showed significantly lower greenness value after storage. However, it should be obvious that the higher the greenness values, the lower the redness values. Table 8 shows mean values of yellowness (bL) of applesauces. Mutsu applesauce showed the highest (24.03), while Cortland applesauce showed the lowest yellowness value (13.20) among applesauces from all apple selections including those processed using fresh harvested and stored apples. .Among Empires, processed applesauces from both fresh harvested and stored apples harvested at late season showed the highest yellowness value, followed by those harvested at middle and early season, respectively. Evaluation of the yellowness values using a paired t-test for Empire (Early) (P S 0.001) and Empire (Middle) (P S 0.05) showed significantly higher, while Rome (P S 0.001), Honeycrisp (P S 0.001), and Jonagold (P S 0.05) showed significantly lower yellowness values after storage. Table 9 and Table 10 show the rank of processed applesauces from fresh harvested and stored apples based on chemical-physical processing qualities. Golden Delicious as a typical variety for applesauce is highlighted to indicate the standard generally recognized by industry. Desirable characteristics in apples for applesauce include high sugar solids content, high acidity, aromatic with white or golden 72 Table 8. Comparison of yellowness (bL) mean values:l of applesauces from traditional, recent, and new varieties (controlz, 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional Golden Delicious 21.17 20.23 2.94 varieties Northern Spy 21.03 21.53 0.97 McIntosh 17.67 18.40 1.00 Red Delicious 17.53 18.60 2.71 Idared 16.50 16.83 1.88 Jonathan 15.67 15.40 1.22 Rome 15.05 7.23 ll7.50**** Cortland 13.20 12.87 2.77 Recent Mutsu 24.03 23.10 1.10 varieties Empire (Late) 21.67 21.40 1.32 Empire Middle) 19.87 20.90 4.43* Empire (Early) 17.97 20.93 44.50**** New Jonagold 20.33 19.43 7.79* varieties Honeycrisp 18.70 15.90 48.50**** Gala 13.57 13.60 0.09 Lsno,os4 1.96 1.71 1 e ":3, t-teat’ (to,01tabulated value), 14.09 (to,005 tabulated value), * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to,05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 significant at t calculated value 2 *** **** significant at t calculated value 2 31.60 (to.001 tabulated value) 2. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest 3. Applesauces processed after 2 month storage 4. ns3, Least significant difference (LSD0,05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 73 Table 9 . Descending rank order for processing characteristics of applesauces processed from 15 apple selections (controll, 2 monthsz) Order Sugar/acid ratio Consistency No. Control 2 months Control 2 months 1 Red Delicious Red Delicious Cortland Honeycrisp 2 Gas Gfla Impue(mulm Qua 3 lhmsu .kxmgohfl Itxeycruqn Gohknlnehufinus 4 runs GohknnDeLufious Jammflan Redtxuickmm 5 Jomxxud lamsu hkmtnm315py .mmuuman 6 afldmwkdkflmm3 Ikne Emfinaufldfle) Iwuai 7 lmpne(Lme) lhgfie(Lm£) Ram mxuenaqy 8 Empire (Middle) Empire (Early)) Red Delicious Cortland 9 lkmewmflsp Ehphx:(Mfltfle) GohthDekauns Eman3(thfle) 10 Empire (Early) Idared Gala Enpire (Early) 11 lunmmm. lcnmmm. mmaqnd are 12 hkued Ikmewnfisp Lhued Jenmxfld 13 (Intland (kmtlmmi Mcnnxmh Mdhnrsh 14 Jmmmhan Jammman Eqfixe name) )mmsu 15 defiamnsxy NmflhenaSpy lamsu Iaqnxe name) 1. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest 2. Applesauces processed after 2 month storage 3. Golden Delicious designated as industry standards for comparative rank order umpwo xcmn m>flumwmmfioo sow mcumpcmum hnumsccfl m0 cmumcmflmmc mDOAOflamo cmpaoo momuoum canoe N Hmumm commwooum moosmmmammm .N um0>umc cmmnm umuum cmmmmoowa moosmmmamm< .H 74 050m occaywoo mmwuo>0com mmwuoxmcom 080m 050m ma pcmHuuoo Mano .maccwzv madman mama mmauoamcom .xawmmv muwmem ea dado 080m Amumqv madman Amped 0.3.95 3 smoucHoz ma smnumcoo cmnumcon amm cumcuuoz Amacpaxv unseen nuoucHoz n mmmmmm NH mmwuo>mcom common cmumcH ham cumcuuoz dame omumpu Ha emumee msoeoeamo ems memo msoeoeamo 60m maceoedma 60m imeceez. messes oa smoucHoz smoucHoz gamma. 0.395 Madam—4O. paommcoo Qmwwoenmcom m 9304.932. pom genome 9395 3 amps: anus: am cumcuuoz w caoomcoo mmwwoamcom cmnumcoo odommCOH >mw cumnuuoz paoumcon h mmmmmmmmwmmmmmm lessees. messes anus: serumcoe serumeoe msoeoeeoo 60m 6 883.: «Seem also? 636366 60m .8356: 60083 :33. m Aaawmmv muwmem oaoomcoo paoomcom camauuou oceauuoo occauuoo v Amped. messed sum cumruuoz erasuuoo Inseam. masses Amadeus. messes .0084. masses m amm cwmcuwoz Among. mumem smoucHoz cmumpH Amumqv muwmem cucumcon N sous: sous: 060m 080m A>Hummv mummem name a mnucoe m Houucoo mnpcoe m Houucoo mauCOE N Houucoo .02 Anne mmmcsoaamw Asmlv mmwccwmno Adv mmmcucqu mono Ammcucoe m .Haoupcoov mcoHuomamm manna ma some pmmmmooum moosmmmammm mo moflumfluwuomumno ocflmmmooum you umcuo xcmu vcwpcmommn .oa manna 75 flesh, variable grain or texture, and sufficient water- holding capacity (Root 1996). Table 11 shows the analysis of variance for chemical- physical processing qualities of applesauces from 15 apple selections. Significant differences (P S 0.01) of all attributes were detected for both selection (15 apple selections included: Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, McIntosh, Jonathan, Jonagold, Gala, Empire at early season, Empire at middle season, Empire at late season, Honeycrisp, Cortland, Mutsu, Rome, Idared and Northern Spy) and storage (fresh harvest and 2 month storage). There were significant interactions (P S 0.01) between selection and storage for all attributes: sugar/acid ratio, consistency, lightness value, greenness value, and yellowness value. Roa et al. (1986) have reported. that consistency of applesauce ‘was significantly affected by apple cultivar and firmness as well as screen size which was confirmed by this experiment. Frozen apple slices Table 12 shows sugar/acid ratio mean values of frozen apple slices. After fresh harvest, Red Delicious frozen slices showed the highest (27.83 °Brix/malic acid %), while Northern Spy frozen slices showed the lowest sugar/acid ratio (12.14 °Brix/malic acid %) among frozen slices from all apple selections. After storage, Red Delicious frozen slices showed the highest (28.98 °Brix/ma1ic acid %), while 76 momsoum cpcoe m can Aumm>umc ammumv Houusoo "occaocw mommuoum .m onus: pcm.mmfluo>mcom .mfiom .cmumcH .hmm cumnuuoz .pcmauwoo .Acommwm umm>nmc cued umvmuflmem .Acommmm um0>umc maccfle umvmsflmEm .Acommmm um0>wmc waned uwvmwwaem .mHmw .oaomMCOb .cmcuchH .cmoucHoz .msOfloflama copaoo .msofloflamo pmm "occaocfi mcofiuomamm waged .N Ho.o w m 06 unmoeeecmemuee .mo.o w d an unmoeueememu. .mu: .H mH.o~ so.me mm.m ms.m me.e~ >0 « s~.o mo.o Hm.o Ho.o he.o om mouse mmmwoum 44mm.m eeme.e «46>.NH «4mm.o «emo.me ea x coeuomamm mmwwmdmmmmw eems.m «4se.o «*em.m remo.o eemm.omm H «momsoum «4mm.ms «4me.>~ 44oo.~e 44mm.o 446m.mm~ ea «coeuomm wmmwwmmlmwmz Hmmumsvw c002 Addy Admuv RAM ofiumu coflumfluw> mmmc3oaamw_ .wmmccmmuw mmmcunmflq >oc0umwmcoo .0wom\ummsm up no mmowsom m:0wuomamm manna ma Eon“ moosmmmasmm mo >uflamsg mcflmmmooum Hmofim>cmnamofieoco How 00cmflum> mo mwm>amc< .HH dance 77 Table 12. Comparison of sugar/acid ratiol mean values2 of frozen apple slices from traditional, recent, and new varieties (control , 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional Red Delicious 27.83 28.98 1.78 varieties Golden Delicious 19.68 23.96 l8.39*** Rome 18.99 17.04 4.27 Idared 15.93 17.31 4.84* Jonathan 14.50 14.23 0.64 Cortland 13.65 17.86 32.44**** McIntosh 12.72 14.60 12.60** Northern Spy 12.14 14.54 31.26*** Recent Empire (Early) 18.82 16.88 30.58*** varieties Empire (Late) 19.87 17.29 2.81 Empire (Middle) 20.31 18.54 5.69* New Gala 21.47 30.04 3.66 varieties Jonagold 21.42 28.98 6.63* Honeycrisp 13.81 14.61 1.32 L500,055 2.40 3.59 1. °Brix/malic acid (%) = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to,05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2. 9.93 significant at t calculated value 2 2. n=3, t-test, (to,01tabulated value), 14.09 (t0.005 tabulated value), value 2 31.60 (t0.001 tabulated value) 3. Frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest ‘4. Frozen apple slices processed after 2 month storage *** **** significant at t calculated 5. ns3, Least significant difference (LSDo,05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 78 Jonathan frozen slices showed the lowest sugar/acid ratio (14.23 °Brix/ma1ic acid %) among frozen slices from all apple selections. Among Empires, both fresh harvested and stored apples harvested at middle season showed the highest sugar/acid ratio, followed by those harvested at late and early season, respectively. From the evaluation of sugar/acid ratios using a paired t-test , Cortland (P S 0.001), Golden Delicious (P S 0.005), Northern Spy (P S 0.005), McIntosh (P S 0.01), Jonagold (P S 0.05), and Idared (P S 0.05) frozen slices showed significantly higher, while Empire (Early) (P S 0.005) and Empire (Middle) (P S 0.05) showed lower sugar/acid ratios after storage. Table 13 shows shear resistance, a physical property related to texture, mean values of frozen apple slices. After fresh harvest, Cortland frozen slices showed the highest (1788 N/100g), while McIntosh frozen slices showed the lowest shear resistance value (272.8 N/100g) among frozen slices from all apple selections. After storage, Northern Spy frozen slices showed the highest (911.60 N/100g), while Empire(Late) frozen slices showed the lowest shear resistance value (183.50 N/100g) among frozen slices from all apple selections. Among Empires, fresh harvest frozen slices processed from. apples harvested at early season showed the highest shear resistance value, followed by those from middle and late, respectively. However, after storage, frozen slices processed from apples harvested at 79 Table 13. Comparison of shear resistance1 mean values2 of frozen apple slices from traditional varieties, recent varieties , and experimental l ines (control , 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated Traditional Cortland 1788.00 182.90 97.60**** varieties Jonathan 1720.33 765.27 9.82* Idared 1449.67 774.37 l98.93**** Rome 1346.00 274.10 361.27**** Northern Spy 1297.00 911.60 l4.91*** Red Delicious 1257.33 903.40 24.34*** Golden Delicious 1229.7 296.90 40.83**** McIntosh 272.8 233.93 1.37 Recent Empire (Early) 1090.17 211.50 15.45*** varieties Empire (Middle) 990.20 224.83 41.39**** Empire (Late) 310.37 183.50 l7.85*** New Gala 1090.67 927.43 4.34* varieties Jonagold 845.53 698.20 2.57 Honeycrisp 765.10 799.43 1.30 1.500.055 223.31 112.24 1. N/lOOg 2. n=3, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to,05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 (to,01tabulated value), 14.09 (t0.005 tabulated value), value 2 31.60 (to.001 tabulated value) *** **** 3. IFrozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest ‘4. Frozen apple slices processed after 2 month storage significant at t calculated value 2 significant at t calculated 5. n=3, Least significant difference (LSD0,05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 80 middle season showed the highest shear resistance value, followed by those harvested at early and late season, respectively. From evaluation of the shear resistance values using a paired t-test, frozen slices from all apple selections except for those from McIntosh, Jonagold, and Honeycrisp had significantly lower shear resistance values after storage. There was no significant difference in shear resistance values between fresh and after storage for McIntosh, Jonagold, and Honeycrisp. The mushy appearance and texture of thawed apple slices is probably due to increased volume of ice crystals when water is frozen causing mechanically damaged cellular membranes, thus resulting in dramatically decreased shear resistance of most cultivars (Desrosier and. Tressler 1977). The un-stored apples may contain higher starch and other firming substances such as insoluble pectin to support the tissue, so they were less affected by ice crystal damage. Table 14 shows drained weight mean values of frozen apple slices. Jonathan frozen slice showed the highest (99.8 %), while Honeycrisp frozen slices showed the lowest drained weights (71.12 %) among frozen slices from all apple selections including both fresh harvest and stored apples. Among Empires, both fresh harvested and stored apples harvested at middle season showed the highest drained weight, followed by those harvested at early and late season, respectively. From the evaluation of the drained 81 Table 14. Comparison of drained weightl mean valueszof frozen apple slices from traditional, reefnt, and new varieties (control , 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional Jonathan 99.80 99.80 0.16 varieties Cortland 99.56 99.59 6.11 Idared 98.03 92.78 4.48* Golden Delicious 97.91 94.55 1.89 Rome 96.79 92.46 4.96* Northern Spy 94.41 95.16 1.45 Red Delicious 90.74 90.19 0.35 McIntosh 82.61 76.17 5.32* Recent Empire (Middle) 95.29 89.89 2.04 varieties Empire (Early) 90.03 84.30 6.98* Empire (Late) 88.83 84.20 4.24 New Jonagold 92.07 84.54 3.43 varieties Gala 86.84 98.17 11.87** Honeycrisp 71.12 71.24 0.04 L500,055 6.14 7.53 1. % 2. n=3, t-test, (to,01tabu1ated value), 14.09 (to,oos tabulated value), value 2 31.60 (to,001 tabulated value) 3. Frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest 44. Frozen apple slices processed after 2 month storage * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to.05 tabulated ‘value), *8 a significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 *** significant at t calculated value 2 *** significant at t calculated 55. n=3, Least significant difference (LSD0,05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 82 weights using a paired t-test, Gala (P S 0.01) frozen slices showed significantly higher drain weights, while Rome (P S 0.05), Idared (P S 0.05), McIntosh (P S 0.05) and Empire (Early) (P S 0.05) showed significantly lower drained weights after storage. Removing water by freezing causes colloidal solutions to become irreversibly dehydrated within cell membranes and thus causes a change in their permeability and elasticity, resulting in loss of rigidity upon thawing (Desrosier and Tressler 1977). Table 15 shows lightness mean values (L) of frozen apple slices. After fresh harvest, Jonathan frozen slices showed the highest (61.07), while Empire (Early) frozen slices showed the lowest lightness value (35.03) among frozen slices from all apple selections. After storage, Jonathan frozen slices showed the highest (56.03), while Rome frozen slices showed the lowest lightness value (43.33) among frozen slices from all apple selections. Among Empires, frozen slices processed after fresh harvest from apples harvested at late season showed the highest lightness value, followed by those harvested at middle and early season, respectively. However, after storage, frozen slices from late season apples showed the highest lightness value, followed by those harvested at early and middle season, respectively. Evaluation of the lightness values using a paired t-test for Jonagold (P S 0.001), Gala (P S 0.05), Idared (P S 0.05), and Rome (P S 0.05) frozen slices showed 83 Table 15. Comparison of lightness (L) mean values1 of frozen apple slices from ‘traditional, recent, and new varieties (control , 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional Jonathan 61.07 56.03 2.48 varieties Northern Spy 59.27 49.00 9.92* Cortland 57.50 59.37 4.16 Idared 56.93 49.17 7.12* Golden Delicious 51.47 53.20 1.98 McIntosh 50.53 43.87 3.00 Rome 49.00 43.33 6.04* Red Delicious 42.73 45.53 1.30 Recent Empire (Late) 48.67 51.90 2.73 varieties Empire (Middle) 48.40 44.13 3.60 Empire (Early) 35.03 51.43 12.08** New Gala 58.20 52.47 8.26* varieties Jonagold 53.60 46.77 36.82**** Honeycrisp 49.10 44.57 2.36 L500,054 6.26 6.56 1. n=3, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to,05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 significant at t calculated.value 2 (to,01tabu1ated value), 14.09 (to,005 tabulated value), value 2 31.60 (t0.001 tabulated value) 2. Frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest 13. Frozen apple slices processed after 2 month storage *** **** significant at t calculated 44. n=3, Least significant difference (LSD0,05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 84 significantly lower lightness values, while Empire (Early) (F’ S 0.01) showed significantly’ higher lightness values after storage. Table 16 shows greenness mean values (-aL) of frozen slices. Processed after fresh harvest, Northern Spy frozen slices showed the highest greenness value (-8.03), while Rome frozen slices showed the lowest greenness value (5.70) among frozen slices from all apple selections. After storage, Honeycrisp and Cortland frozen slices showed the highest greenness value (-7.03), while Rome frozen slices also showed the lowest greenness value (7.10) among frozen slices from all apple selections. Among Empires, after fresh harvest frozen slices processed from late season apples showed the highest greenness value, followed by those from middle and early season apples, respectively. However, after storage, frozen slices. processed from late season apples showed the highest greenness value, followed by those from early and late season apples, respectively. Evaluation of the greenness values using a paired t-test for Empire (Early) (P S 0.001), Red Delicious (P S 0.05), and Honeycrisp (P S 0.05) showed significantly higher, while Northern Spy (P S 0.005), Rome (P S 0.05), and Idared (P S 0.05) showed significantly’ lower’ greenness 'values ‘values after storage. Again, it should be obvious that the higher the greenness values, the lower the redness values. 85 Table 16. Comparison of greenness (-aL) mean valueslof frozen apple slices from traditional , rec3ent , and new varieties (control , 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional Northern Spy -8.03 -5.30 14.73*** varieties Cortland -6.93 -7.03 0.48 Idared -5.77 -4.00 5.30* Jonathan -4.97 -5.00 0.04 McIntosh -4.87 -3.73 1.06 Golden Delicious -4.70 -5.03 1.00 Red Delicious 2.63 -0.30 4.97* Rome 5.70 7.10 8.08* Recent Empire (Late) -6.97 -6.50 1.21 varieties Empire (Middle) -4.33 -5.47 3.82 Empire (Early) -1.90 -5.97 46.11**** New Honeycrisp -5.57 -7.03 4.40* varieties Jonagold -5.37 -5.27 0.07 Gala -5.l3 -S.07 0.18 Lsoo,os4 5.93 2.97 1. n=3, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to,05 tabulated value), ** 2 significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 significant at t calculated'value 2 (to,01tabulated value), 14.09 (t0.005 tabulated value), value 2 31.60 (to,001 tabulated value) 2. Frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest 13. Frozen apple slices processed after 2 month storage *** **** significant at t calculated ‘4. n=3, Least significant difference (LSD0,05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 86 Table 17 shows yellowness mean values (bL) of frozen apple slices. After fresh harvest, Jonagold frozen slices showed the highest (25.97), while Cortland frozen slices showed the lowest yellowness value among frozen slices from all apple selections. After storage, Empire (Late) frozen slices showed the highest (23.77), while Cortland frozen slices showed. the lowest. yellowness value (16.30) among frozen slices from all apple selections. Among Empires, frozen slices processed from fresh harvested _app1es harvested at late season showed the highest shear press value, followed by those from middle and early season apples, respectively. However, after storage, frozen slices from late season apples showed the highest yellowness value, followed by those from early and middle apples, respectively. From evaluation of the yellowness values using a paired t-test for Empire (Early) (P S 0.01), Honeycrisp (P S 0.05), and Cortland (P S 0.05) showed significantly higher, while Jonagold showed significantly lower yellowness values after storage. Table 18 and Table 19 show the rank order of 14 apple selections as processed into frozen apple slices from fresh harvested and stored apples based on chemical-physical processing qualities. Important characteristics for apple slices are firm, maintain integrity of the flesh when diced, and have good color. Sweetness is less important in making slices than in sauce (Root 1996). 87 Table 17. Comparison of yellowness1 (bL) mean values2 of frozen apple slices from traditional, recent, and new varieties (controla, 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated Traditional Golden Delicious 23.53 22.47 0.88 varieties Northern Spy 23.00 19.90 4.15 Red Delicious 19.63 20.67 1.00 Jonathan 18.83 20.70 2.94 McIntosh 18.40 17.33 0.91 Idared 16.73 19.40 2.98 Rome 14.90 15.17 0.63 Cortland 14.27 16.30 7.81* Recent Empire (Late) 22.57 23.77 1.35 varieties Empire (Middle) 19.73 19.43 0.22 Empire (Early) 16.17 22.50 10.95** New Jonagold 25.97 20.67 20.03*** varieties Honeycrisp 15.97 18.23 6.11* Gala 15.83 19.83 3.47 LSDo,054 4.00 3.72 l 0 D83! t-teat, * a significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to,os tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 significant at t calculated value 2 (to.01tabulated value), 14.09 (to,005 tabulated value), value 2 31.60 (t0.001 tabulated value) 2. Frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest *** **** significant at t calculated :3. Frozen apple slices processed after 2 month storage ‘4. n=3, Least significant difference (LSDo,os) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties umcuo xcmu m>wumsmmeoo you mossccmum anumspcM ms cmumccflmmp 030m use encumCOh .m momuoum canoe ~ amend commmooum mmoflam mamas cmnoum .N um0>usn cumuu menus commmoosm mwoflaw mamas cmuoum .H 88 smoucHoz mmauoamcom ccmHuuoo smoucmoz mmmmmmmm hum cumnuuoz ea mmduo>mcom smoucHoz Amuse. madman Adana. madman xmm cumsuuoz smousHoz ma Amuse. muwmsm same A>aummv mwemem mewsoamcom smoucHoz mmduohmco: NH A>memv mnemEm Amped. muamEm Amacowzv mumem odommcoo mmwuoxmcom pcmHuuoo HH esomucon Auduum. unease smouceoz messes luaums. masses mmmmmmmmm ca 8835 03.95 6:20:06 60m 2.3. 28 2.8. 60.83 m 32638 8m 3888 68828 6038 ESE 385m .33. assess 383 335 m alas sew eumruuoz osoomcon amused smudge needs 5 omumne Amadeus. muedem mmmmmmmm msoeoeamo 60m ocmsuuoo :muexe e msoeuesma cmnaoo duos cmumue sum :umruuoz Amendeze messes Amend. muedsm m xmm cumcuuoz m50aoaamo cmcaow mmauoxmcom elem maceowamo cmcaoo mummEm e memo cmumpH msowoaamo 00m pmumpH paommc06 odommcoo m cemauuoo ocmsuuoo Sam cumruuoz mmmmmmmm msoeoeeuo 60m mane N mmmmmmmm mmmmummm memo enmeuuoo memo msoeoeemo 60m H mausoe m Houucou mcucoe m Howucoo Houucou .oz unowmz condemn museumamms ummzm Owumu caom\umosm umcuo Am mcucoe m .Haouucoov chwuomamm mamas ea Eouu cmuwmooue mmowam mamas cmuosu uo moflumwumuomusno mcflmmmooum How umpuo xcss mcfipcmommo .mH manna a nmcwo xcms 0>flumssmeoo sou mouscsmum asumSUCM mm pmuscmfimmc 080“ can assumson .m monuoum canoe m Hmumm 00mmmooum mmowam mamas cmnoum .m umm>usn cums“ umuwm pmmmmooum mmowam mamas cwnoum .H 89 030s camsuuoo camsuuoo Sam :u0ruuoz mmmm .sdumm. 0uessm ea pcmHuwoo use: mmwno>wcom .mumqv muMmEm amoucHu: msowowamn pom. ma 83502 300 .0003 0035 053.80 .0835 0088s .0835 0580 we mmfluoamcom mmeuowmcom .aawmm. muwmem pmumpH Quenchmcom .mumqv muamem Ha 00003 .3003 039:0 .0835 0395. 03.0005: 03830.. 60s noes. 3 .macpezv wuamem pmumpH amm cumsuuoz paoomcon caoomcoo mmeuommcom m Mano smoucHoz .Dflgfiaoo mace amm cumsuuoz smoucuoz m am 8.05.82 4.13% 200 0.0% 60003 082030.. .0300 s paoomcoo 0:0«oaama 00m msoqoaamo cmcaoo smoucHoz .aaummv madman same m 033630.. 60m .0832. 004.80 09.0.0000 038206 .0300 .083. 00.350 380:2. 0. fig .000: 0035 00.83 .0835 03.050 200 60003 e macaoaamo cmpaoo xmm cumnuuoz smoucHoz .xaummv unseen cacaowamo cmpaoo essauuoo m .aaummv madman 050aowama empaoo meadoeamo 00m mcofiowama 00m .mmmmmmmm ham cumsusoz N .0004. 0uedem neommcoe 086a 030: nemeuuoo mmmmmmmmm H mcucoe m Homecoo mnuc05 m Houucoo mcucos N Hosucoo .02 Anne mmmconamw .osuv mmmccmmuw .qv mwmcucofiq cuo .chucoe m . Houucoov cOMuowamm mamas ea Scum cmmmmooun mwoflam mamas cmuouw mo moflumenmuosumco mcwmmmooue how umcuo onwpcmomma .mH manna 90 Table 20 shows the analysis of variance for chemical- physical processing qualities of frozen apple slices from 14 apple selections. Significant differences (P S 0.01) of sugar/acid ratios, shear resistance values, lightness values, yellowness values, and drained weights were detected for both apple selection (14 apple selections included: Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, McIntosh, JOnathan, Jonagold, Gala, Empire at early season, Empire at middle season, Empire at late season, Honeycrisp, Cortland, Rome, Idared and Northern Spy) and storage (fresh harvest and 2 month storage). For greenness values, significant differences were detected for selection only. There were significant interactions (P S 0.01) between apple selection and storage for all attributes. Subjective Measurements Based upon USDA grading specification, subjective scores for required processing qualities of adult applesauce and frozen apple slices processed after freSh harvest and after 2 month storage were presented in Table 21 to Table 22 and Table 23 to Table 24, respectively. The traditional varieties were Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, McIntosh, Jonathan, Cortland, Northern Spy, Idared, and Rome. The recent varieties were Empire (with 3 stages of maturity: early harvest, middle harvest, and late harvest), and Mutsu. The new varieties were Honeycrisp, Jonagold, and Gala. 91 momuoum canoe m can Asm>0umn ammuwv Houucoo "065H0:« mmmsuoum .m Qmfluo>0com can .meom .cmnmcH .>Qm :smnuuoz .pcmHuHoo .Acommmm um0>us£ mama umvmuwmam .Asommmm umm>wsn maccae pmvmuflmEm .Acommmm umw>umc waumm umvmwflmem .mamw .paommcoh .cmcumcon .cmoucHoz .msoflofiawo cmcaow .msowoflamo 00m "monaocfl macauomawm waned .m Ho.o w a pm unmoeeecmemuee .mo.o w m 00 unmoeeecoemne .mu: .H mo.m H~.ma wm.mm m~.~H me.mm m~.b~ >0 w mm.m om.H wh.H mm.m ««om.ommm mh.o om Houum moonoum *«mw.¢m «ame.~a ««ma.w «sem.o> «emo.ommhem «sem.ha ma . x :vaomamm mmwmmmmmmmw «hh.NOH seem.ma ev.m ¥«ON.HOH «No.m55mwmo eso¢.mm H mmOMHOHm ema.mwm «emm.mv 805m.m> sewm.HmH «eo>.mmmwmm «smo.aea ma NCOwuomm mwmwwwwlmflmfl Hmwumsvm c002 unmwmz .dnq Adele \AAV mocsumfimmu Owumu coflumHum> 00Cwsuo mmmc3oHH0> mmwccmmww mmwcucqu ummnm pwom\wmosm up no mwousom mcowuomamm mamas ea Scum mmofiam mamas cmnouu mo >uflamsv ocflmmmooum Hmoflm>cQIHMOMEmnO you 00cmfiwm> mo mwmhamc< .om manna 92 0mmuoum cucoe N umuum 00mmmoosa mmossmmHmmd .m umm>umn cmwum swans pmmmmooum mmosmmmHmm< .N .eSmH .domov cOHumoHuHomem ochmuo wosmmmHmem coma .H 4 mH mH 0H 0H NH onucoe N c mH mH mH 0N NH Houucoo pmumpH eumecmumnsm 0H 0H m on m arucos m 4 NH mH 0H NH mH Houucoo 050% C mH 0H 0H 0H NH unuCOE N m oH mH 0H NH SH Houucoo ocmHuuoo 4 NH mH wH mH mH mnucoe N cumccsumnsm mH mH oH mH oH Houucoo Sam cumsuuoz 4 ON mH mH mH 0H 93:08 N < mH mH mH 0H NH Houucoo cucumCOH m wH mH mH ON mH mSUCOE N m mH mH mH 0N mH Houucoo smoucHoz m 0H oN mH mH mH unusoe N a mH 0N mH ON ON Howucoo nsoHoHHma cmcHou m mH mH SH mH SH mnucoe N m mH mH SH mH SH Houucoo msoHOHHmo 00m mpmuu anCHm uo>mHm muomumo SocmumHmcoo uoHOO 06H» momuoum coHuomHmm mHmmm .mmmmsoum cucoe N m> Hucmemusmmme 0>Huommnsm ochs mmosmmemes mo mcoHumsHm>0 SUHHmsU no a m Houucoov mHusQEou .HN 0Hnme 93 Adult applesauces USDA grade A applesauces were derived from both after fresh harvest and after 2 month storage of Golden Delicious, Jonathan, Gala, Jonagold, Empire (Late), Empire (Middle), Idared, Honeycrisp, and Mutsu. According to Root (1996), Golden Delicious has been at the top in term of quality because of its high soluble solids and resistance to oxidative browning. Jonathan has been a common cultivar for applesauce processing in Michigan. Northern Spy produced USDA grade A applesauce if it was processed after storage, nonetheless it produced USDA substandard applesauce if it was processed after fresh harvest. According to Wiley and Thompson (1959), Northern Spy is excellent for processing because it has bright yellow flesh, which makes a glossy, bright sauce, excellent flavor, and moderately high in soluble solids. Cortland produced USDA grade B applesauce with apple processed after fresh harvest, but it produced USDA grade A applesauce if allowed 2 month of storage time. It has been reported that with white flesh, Cortland produces a poorly color for sauce (Manhart, 1995) . Rome processed after fresh harvest produced USDA grade A; however, processing after 2-month storage produced USDA substandard applesauce. Rome is less desirable than most cultivars because of poor flesh color (Way and McLellan 1989). Sauce made with a high percentage of Rome apples will have an off-flavor and weak, running texture (Root 1996). USDA Grade B applesauce were derived from both after washoum canoe N amped cmmmmooue mmosmmemgmhm #00500: ammuw umuum cmmmmooum mmossmemm< .N .eSmH .303 0630038000 0560.5 000000300 .30: .H 94 0 0H 0H 0H 0H 0H 000002 m 4 mH mH OH NH ON Houucoo mmHuo>mcom 0 SH SH 0H 0H . 0H menace m 0 6H 0H 0H ow SH Houucoo 0H00 4 0H SH SH om SH arenas m 0 0H SH SH 60 SH Houucoo 0Hom0con m 0H 0H 0H om 0H arenas N m 0H 0H 0H 0H SH Houucou .SHu0m. 00Hdsm 0 0H 0H 0H om 0H 000002 N 0 0H 0H 0H SH 0H Houucoo .0H00Hze 00Hdsm 0 0H 0H 0H om 0H arucos m 0 0H 0H 0H om 0H Hauucoo .000H. 0quEs 0 ON om ON ON om arucos m 0 ON on OS cm on Houucou 500:: 00000 :chHm uo>mHm 0000mmo SocmumHmcoo uoHOo_ 08H» momuoum cOHuomHmm OHQQS .mmmmuoum cucoe N m> Houucoov Hucmfimusmmwa 0>Huomflnsm Ochs mmosmmmHmmm mo mcoHumsHm>0 SUHHmsO mo cmmHsmmfioU .NN 0Hnsa 95 0O000u0 :ucoe N H0uw0 p0mm0ooum m0OHHm 0Hmm0 c0noum .m um0>umc cm0uu H0um0 p0mm0ooue m0oHHm 0Hmmm c0uoum .N .0mmH .comsv :oHumoHOHo0Qm OCHOMHO 0osmm0HQm0 «Om: .H 0 HM OH OH OH msucoe N c vm SH OH OH Houucoo 00.00“; c Nm OH OH ON mcucoe N c mm SH OH ON Houucoo 080m 0 SN OH OH OH msucos N 0 mm 0H 0H 0H H000coo 000H0uoo 0 NM OH OH OH mnucoe N 0 mm 0H 0H 0H Hou0coo >00 00000002 c mm OH OH ON 050.58 N c On OH OH ON Houucou cucumcoh. 0 On OH OH OH 93:08 N 0 on 0H 0H 0H H000cou 00000H0= c mm OH OH ON 93:06 N c Sm ON OH ON Houucoo msOHOHH0O cmcHou 00000000000 H0 0 SH 0 0r0cos N 00000000000 mm 0 SH 0 H000000 monoHHOo 000 00000 000000020 000O0O muHm uoHou_ 0EHu 0omuoum coHuomH0m 0Hmm¢ .m000uoum nucoe N m> Houucoov uc0E0Hsmm0s 0>H000nnsm Ochs m0oHHm 0Hmmm c0nouu mo mcoHumsHm>0 SUHHmsv u m somHHMQEOO .NN 0Hnme 96 mO0uoum canoe N Hmuu0 Ommmmooum mmoHHm mHOQ0 cmuoum .m umm>u0£ ammuu umum0 Ommmwooum mmoHHm mHOQ0 cmnoum .N AVOOH .«OOOV coHu0oHuHoQO OOHO0MO 0050mmHOQ0 «OOD .H 4 mm OH OH ON mnucoe N O Om ON OH ON Houucoo OOHHUchom 0 mm OH 0H OH mnucoe N O em ON OH OH Houucoo 0H0O O NO OH OH OH unuCOE N 0 00 ON 0H on Houucou 0Hom00o0 0 On OH OH OH mauCOE N 0u00c0umnsm mm O OH O Houucoo AaHu0mO ouHOEO 0 ON OH OH NH unuCOE N 0 H0 0H 0H 0H Houucou .200sz 00350 0 ON NH OH OH mnucoe N 0 H0 0H 0H 0H Houucoo .mu0qv muHmem mU0uO umuo0u0no muomOmO mNHO uoHou mEHu mOmuouO :oHuumHmm mHmm4 AmwO0uoum nuCOE N m> NHoupcooV Hucmfifihflmmme m>Huomnnsm Och: mmoHHw mHQO0 cmuouu mo mcoHu0zH0>w >uHHO=v mo comHHOQEou .vN mHn0e 97 fresh harvest and 2 month storage of McIntosh, Red Delicious, and Empire (Early). It has been reported that McIntosh produces watery texture, and dull color for sauce, but it has a high aromatic flavor. Therefore, it is usually blended with other cultivars (Thomas and Ritter, 1958). Frozen apple slices USDA grade A frozen apple slices were derived from both after fresh harvest and 2 month storage of Golden Delicious, Jonathan, Gala, Honeycrisp, and Rome. Desrosier and Tressler (1977) have agreed that Jonathan, Rome and Golden Delicious have been the topping list as to frozen quality. Jonagold, Cortland, and Idared produced USDA grade A frozen apple slices if they were processed immediately after fresh harvest, while they produced USDA grade C frozen slices after 2 month storage. However, Empire (Early) produced USDA grade C frozen slices if processed after 2 month storage; additionally, it produced USDA substandard frozen slices if processed after fresh harvest. USDA Grade C frozen apple slices were derived from both after fresh harvest and. 2 :month storage of Empire (Middle), Empire (Late), McIntosh, and Northern Spy. It has been reported that McIntosh and Cortland tended to disintegrate even when packed soon after harvest (Desrosier and Tressler 1977). In contrast, laboratory tests rated Northern Spy as excellent for all forms of slices and sauce (Way and McLellan, 1989). Red Delicious produced USDA substandard frozen slices. 98 Table 25 shows descending rank order for quality score of applesauces and frozen apple slices processed from 15 apple selections after fresh. harvest and after' 2 month storage. Mutsu produced the best applesauces both processed after fresh and 2 month storage. The top five applesauces processed after fresh harvest were mutsu, Red Delicious, Gala, Jonagold, and Empire (Late); while top five applesauces processed after 2 month storage were Mutsu, Jonagold, Empire (Late), Empire (Early), and McIntosh, respectively. Golden Delicious as industrial standard was ranked the eighth when processed after fresh harvest and the ninth when processed after 2 month storage. The top five frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest were Jonathan, Cortland, Idared, Northern Spy, and Golden Delicious; while top five applesauces processed after 2 month storage were Gala, Jonathan, Red Delicious, Northern Spy, and Cortland, respectively. Figure. 11 shows color’ quality for applesauces when processed after fresh harvest. As described previously, good quality applesauce presents bright (high lightness value) and golden color (high hue angle). Most applesauces showed high color quality except for Rome, Honeycrisp, and Gala. After 2-month storage, most applesauces showed high color quality except for Honeycrisp, Gala and Idared showed medium color quality and Rome showed low color quality. Idared showed medium color quality with decreased hue angle. 99 Table 25. Descending rank order for quality score of applesauces and frozen apple slices processed from 15 apple selections (control , 2 months ) Applesauces Frozen apple slices Control 2 months Control 2 months Mutsu (16.0) Mutsu (16.0) Jonathan (18.3) Gala (15.2) Red D. (15.7) Jonagold (15.9) Cortland (17.8) JOnathan (13.6) Gala (14.9) Red D. (15.7) Idared (16.3) Red D. (12.5) Empire (L)(l4.9) Enguxe (L) (15.6) N. Spy (15.1) N. Spy (12.2) Jaugnd(l¢1) McIntosh (13.3) Idmnd(112) Golden D. (13.1) ame(126) Empue(M)(Lmz) Humamrn¥>(u18) JOmmjan CKL?) lMpUe(E)(HL5) N.Sm{(ML4) antkmd(IQJ) lmpne an(15o) McIntosh (14.2) Impfl£(MHll6) autumd(12A) endean.(122) Oua(1L9) Idned(lL8) N.£$y CHLB) .Rmumman (KL?) mewcrhqp(8.9) Rama(8.5) QfldalD.(150) mme(1¢J) Gaha(13.9) fbdD.(ll3) Impue(M)(LL1) Jamgfld(ll0) :mpua(m)(niz) EwfinfiL)(%3) unmmmu(L5) Hxnwth>flh4) 100005 omkad(lzl) Idnnd(1L6) endauo.(1L5) .kmd;nd(1da) Rne(&£) Empire (E) (8.2) Emin200(&2) 1m9119(LH8-2) filewxflfilfii9) 1cn0001(5A) MOum§ 1. Multiple regression equation: quality score = 0.16(Sugar/acid ratio)- 3.25(Consistency)+0.11(Lightness)-0.04(Hue angle)+16.30 2. Multiple regression equation: quality score = 0.12(Sugar/acid ratio)+0.004(Shear resistance)+0.17(Drained weight)+0.17(Lightness)-17.71 3. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest 4. Applesauces processed after 2 month storage 5. Unavailable selection 100 9000 (II) (III) Rome . 85«» e e 80«- . ° H. 0 .e 0 e O 5, e 75.. o .4 2‘ “ '701~ ° ' e Honeycrisp 5 (I) (II) 65a- . Gala 60~~ 55 ) ) 1 42 47 52 57 62 Lightness (L) Figure 11. Color quality of applesauces processed from fresh harvest apples [(1) = low color quality, (II) = medium color quality, (III) = high color quality] Note: Preferred color quality for applesauce is high lightness value (L) and high hue angle (Ha)- 101 90 -~ (II) (III) 856~ e 80“ I e. ‘0‘ e 5. ' e e 0 75~» : '3. e “ Idared *1 70+ 0 (I) . 0 (II) n a Honeycrisp Gala 65 -~ 60~~ Rome 0 55 a ( ) ( a : ) 0 a 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 Lightness (L) Figure 12. Color quality of applesauces processed from 2- month stored apples [(1) = (II) = medium color quality, quality] Note: Preferred color quality for applesauce is high lightness value (L) and high hue angle (Ha)- low color quality , (III) = high color 102 Figure 12 shows color quality for applesauces when processed after 2-month storage. Sensory Evaluations of Applesauces Triangle test Correct identifications of applesauces processed from 15 apple selections were presented in Table 26. Panelists were able to detect the differences between applesauces processed after fresh harvest and after 2 month storage from all apple selections except for Red Delicious and Golden Delicious. Scaling tests Table 27 shows color perception mean values of apple sauces. Evaluation of the color perceptions used a paired t-test where panelists attempted to detect the color differences between. applesauces processed. after fresh. harvest and 2 month storage in Empire (Early) (P s 0.01), Empire (Middle) (P < 0.05), Golden Delicious (P s 0.05), Northern Spy (P s 0.05), and Gala (P S 0.05). Color perceptions of Empire (Early), Empire (Middle), and Northern Spy scored higher after 2 month cold storage, while those of Golden Delicious and Gala scored lower. Table 28 shows flavor perception mean values of apple sauces. Evaluation of the flavor perceptions also used a paired t-test. Panelists were able to detect the flavor differences between applesauces processed after fresh 103 Table 26. Comparison of detectable difference of applgsauces between control and two month storage . from traditional, recent, and new varieties in trlangle test Category Selection Correct identifications Traditional Red Delicious 7 from 12 panelistsNS varieties Golden Delicious 7 from 12 panelistsNS Jonathan 10 from 12 panelists*** Cortland 8 from 12 panelists* Idared 11 from 12 panelists*** Rome 8 from 12 panelists* Northern Spy 7 from 11 panelists* McIntosh 11 from 11 panelists*** Recent Empire (Late) 7 from 10 panelists* varieties Empire (Middle) 9 from 10 panelists*** Empire (Early) 10 from 10 panelists*** Mutsu 7 from 11 panelists* New Jonagold 8 from 12 panelists* varieties Honeycrisp 8 from 12 panelists* Gala 8 from 12 panelists* Control sample was applesauce processed after fresh harvest 2 month storage sample was applesauce processed after 2 month storage NS (non-significant difference): The panelists were not likely to be able to detect the difference between apple sauce processed after harvest and apple sauce processed after 2 months storage. ‘ * The panelists were likely to detect the difference between apple sauce processed after harvest and apple sauce processed after 2 month storage at the critical value of P=0.05. ** The panelists were likely to detect the difference between apple sauce processed after harvest and apple sauce processed after 2 month storage at the critical value of P=0.01. 104 Table 27. Comparison of color perception mean values1 for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional , recent, and new varieties (control , 2 month storage3) in scaling tests Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional Golden Delicious 7.17 3.67 5.20** varieties Red Delicious 6.00 3.17 2.37 Northern Spy 6.00 7.16 3.80* Idared 5.00 6.00 1.12 Jonathan 3.50 2.83 1.35 Cortland 2.50 3.33 1.54 McIntosh 2.50 2.33 0.24 Rome 2.33 1.83 1.46 Recent Mutsu 7.50 5.83 1.68 varieties Empire (Late) 6.00 6.17 0.24 Empire (Middle) 5.67 6.50 2.71* Empire (Early) 3.50 5.67 4.54** New Honeycrisp 5.83 6.17 0.47 varieties Gala 5.33 3.67 2.99* Jonagold 4.33 3.33 2.24 Ls00,055 3.94 3.72 1. n=6, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 2.57 “10.05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 4.03 (tantabulated value) 2. Applesauce processed after fresh harvest 3. Applesauces processed after 2 month storage 4. The score ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = not bright, 9 = extremely bright) . 5. n=6, Least significant difference (LSDQJB) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 105 harvest and 2 month storage only in Cortland. Cortland with 2-month storage produced applesauce scoring significantly Table 29 shows texture perception mean values of apple sauces. Evaluation of the texture perceptions also used the paired t-test. Panelists were able to detect the texture differences between applesauces processed after fresh harvest and 2 month storage only in Mutsu. Mutsu with 2- month storage produced applesauce scoring significantly lower than applesauce produced from fresh harvest Mutsu (P s 0.05). The analysis of variance for three sensory attributes in scaling tests is presented in Table 30. Significant differences due to selection were found in color and flavor, while due to storage were found in texture. It could be interpreted that longer storage time yield smaller particle size, therefore affecting applesauce consistency (Lanza and Kramer 1967). This results of experiment agreed with Wiley and Toldby (1960); who studied factors affecting the quality of canned applesauce including storage time. They found that flavor was not affected by storage, but color and texture improved up to at least 50% of the storage life of the cultivars. IMcLellan and. Massey (1984) who studied effect of post harvest storage and ripening of apple on sensory quality of processed applesauce supported that flavor was not affected by storage, ripening, or cultivar, but color was significantly influenced by those three factors. Texture was not altered significantly due to 106 Table 28. Comparison of flavor perception mean values1 for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional , recent, and new varieties (control , 2, month storage ) in scaling tests Category 'Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional McIntosh 6.50 6.50 0.00 varieties Golden Delicious 6.00 5.33 0.93 Red Delicious 5.67 4.67 2.24 Jonathan 5.67 4.67 0.76 Northern Spy 5.33 6.00 0.79 Idared 4.50 5.17 1.20 Cortland 4.50 5.17 3.16* Rome 4.33 4.17 0.17 Recent Mutsu 5.33 6.33 0.70 varieties Empire (Late) 6.50 5.00 1.77 Empire (Middle) 5.50 5.33 0.25 Empire (Early) 4.17 4.83 0.67 New Gala 5.50 4.83 0.79 varieties Honeycrisp 4.67 4.33 0.32 Jonagold 4.33 3.33 2.24 Ls00,055 3.02 4.03 1. n=6,t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 2.57 (toxm tabulated value) 2. Applesauce processed after fresh harvest 3. Applesauces processed after 2 month storage 4. The score ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = extremely undesirable, 9 = extremely desirable). . 5. n=6, Least significant difference (LSDOJB)' mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 107 Table 29. Comparison of texture perception mean valueslfor applesauce sensory evaluations from traditional, recent, and new varieties (control, 2 month storage ) in scaling tests Category Selection Control 2 month storage Calculated t Traditional Golden Delicious 6.50 4.33 2.38 varieties McIntosh 5.33 4.17 1.19 Jonathan 5.50 4.83 0.83 Northern Spy 5.33 5.67 1.00 Rome 5.17 4.83 0.40 Red Delicious 5.17 4.83 0.54 Cortland 4.33 4.83 0.70 Idared 4.00 4.83 1.11 Recent Mutsu 7.17 5.17 2.92* varieties Empire (Late) 5.67 5.17 0.81 Empire (Early) 5.00 5.00 0.00 Empire (Middle) 4.83 4.50 1.00 New Gala 5.33 4.00 2.17 varieties Jonagold 5.17 4.67 2.24 Honeycrisp 4.50 5.00 1.46 1.300.055 2.62 3.56 1. n=6,t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 2.57 (toxn tabulated value 2. Applesauce processed after fresh harvest 3. Applesauces processed after 2 month storage 4. The score ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = not thick, 9 = extremely thick) 5. n=6, Least significant difference (LSDOCB) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 108 0O0uoum sucoa N 0:0 .HHouusoov0O0Houm o: ”005HocH m0O0uoum .m amps: 0:0.Q0Hno>0som .0Eom .O0H0OH .>mm cu0nuuoz .pc0Huuoo .Hcom00m umm>u0n 0u0H u0v0HHQEO .Hcom000 um0>u0n 0HOOHE u0O0uHmEm .Hcom00m umm>u0s >Hu00 00V0HHQEO .0H0O .UHOO0SOO .s0su020b .nmoucHoz .mSOHoHH0O G0OHOO .msoHoHH0O 00m "0OSHOCH mCOHuo0H0m 0Hmm< .N Ho.o d 00 0:00H0H06H0.u a0 .mo.o w m 00 0:00H0006H0 u 0 .H NH.Om ON.¢O O0.00 >0 w NN.N hO.N mm.m OOH Houum 00.0 00.H «00H.0 0H 0600000 x :oHuomHmm mmflmmmmmwmw «hN.OH HO.H O0.0 H mmvmuoum v¢.N *h0.0 «tOO.hN 0H NGOHuomHmm 0.000.004.0002 Hm0u0svm :00: 0050x0e Ho>0Hm uoHou up :oHu0HHO> mo w0on=om OCOHuo0H0m 0HQO0 OH ECHO m0os0m0HQQ0 mo H0000» OcHH0omv wcoHu0sH0>0 Naomc0m you 0UC0HH0> mo mHm>H0c¢ .Om 0HQ0B 109 storage, but cultivar and ripening. Acceptance tests Acceptance score mean values for each sensory attribute are presented in Table 31 to Table 34 with least significant difference (LSD) mean separations reported. The analysis of variance for four sensory attributes: color, texture, sweetness, and general acceptance; is presented in Table 35. Significant differences among selections were found for color (P s 0.05), sweetness (P S 0.05), and general acceptance (P s 0.05). The results of acceptance test agreed with that of scaling test on color perception, but disagreed on texture perception. The results of sweetness acceptance contradicted with results of McLellan and Massey (1984) in which perceived sweetness of applesauce was not significantly affected by cultivar. Figure 13 to Figure 16 show sensory acceptance for each attribute of applesauce from 15 apple selections. Golden Delicious applesauce obtained the highest acceptance score for all attributes except for sweetness. Empire applesauce harvested at late season obtained the highest score for sweetness. However, there were no significant differences in sweetness score among the highest four apple selections: Empire (Late), Mutsu, Golden Delicious, and Empire (Middle). There were no significant differences detected for texture among all applesauces from 15 selections. Mutsu received the second highest color and general acceptance score. 110 . 1 Table 31. Comparison of color preference mean values for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in acceptance tests Category Selection Mean value STD4 Traditional Golden Delicious 7.03 1.50 varieties Jonathan 5.67 1.42 Red Delicious 5.00 1.64 Northern Spy 5.00 1.34 Cortland 4.30 1.90 Idared 4.30 1.76 Rome 3.70 1.95 McIntosh 3.17 1.44 Recent Mutsu 6.40 1.89 varieties Empire (Middle) 5.60 1.45 Empire (Late) 5.50 1.43 Empire (Early) 4.43 1.68 New Honeycrisp 5.97 1.75 varieties Gala 5.13 1.81 Jonagold 3.37 1.67 LSD0_05 1.39 1. n=30, Least significant difference (LSD0.05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 2. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest only 3. The score ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = least desirable, 9 = most desirable). 4. Standard deviation 111 Table 32. Comparison of texture preference mean values1 for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in acceptance tests Category Selection Mean value STD4 Traditional Golden Delicious 5.60 1.57 varieties Idared 5.27 1.51 Rome 5.17 1.74 Red Delicious 5.07 2.32 Northern Spy 4.97 1.45 McIntosh 4.90 2.04 Jonathan 4.50 1.70 Cortland 4.63 2.03 Recent Empire (Late) 5.47 1.20 varieties Mutsu 5.43 1.91 Empire (Middle) 5.33 1.56 Empire (Early) 5.20 1.58 New Jonagold 5.50 1.66 varieties Honeycrisp 5.43 1.76 Gala 5.17 2.53 Lsnofls 1.47 1. n=30, Least significant. difference (LSDOJB) mean separation; means are significantly different at p s 0.05 between varieties . 2. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest only 3. The score ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = least desirable, 9 = most desirable). 4. Standard deviation 112 Table 33. Comparison of sweetness preference mean values1 for applesaucez sensory evaluation from traditional, rgcent, and new ‘varleties in acceptance tests . Category Selection Mean value STD4 Traditional Golden Delicious 5.37 1.71 varieties Rome 4.63 1.77 Red Delicious 4.00 1.86 Idared 3.90 1.45 Northern Spy 3.53 1.41 Cortland 3.27 1.86 Jonathan 3.23 1.48 McIntosh 3.13 1.68 Recent Empire (Late) 5.53 1.59 varieties Mutsu 5.40 1.83 Empire (Middle) 5.07 1.57 Empire (Early) 4.67 1.21 New Jonagold 4.47 1.85 varieties Gala 4.07 2.20 Honeycrisp 4.00 1.31 LSD0.05 1.41 1. n=30, Least significant difference (LSDO.05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p s 0.05 between varieties 2. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest only 3. The score ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = least desirable, 9 = most desirable). 4. Standard deviation 113 Table 34. Comparison of general acceptance mean values1 for applesauce sensory evaluation from traditional, recent, and new varieties in acceptance tests . Category Selection Mean value STD4 Traditional Golden Delicious 6.20 1.65 varieties Red Delicious 4.83 1.90 Idared 4.70 1.42 Rome 4.47 1.96 Northern Spy 4 . 3 0 1 .‘ 4 2 Jonathan 4.17 1.44 Cortland '3.90 1.65 McIntosh 3.70 1.73 Recent Mutsu 5.70 1.73 varieties Empire (Late) 5.63 1.10 Empire (Middle) 5.60 1.45 Empire (Early) 5.03 1.19 New Honeycrisp 5.10 1.49 varieties Gala 4.73 1.55 Jonagold 4.10 1.67 L500 , 05 1 . 3 2 ‘ 1. n=30, Least significant. difference (LSDOJB) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 2. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest only 3. The score ranged from 1 to 9 (1 = least desirable, 9 = most desirable). 4. Standard deviation 114 0O0uoum 29:09 N 0:0 .HHouu:oov0O0uoum o: “005H0:H 00O0uoum .n 900:: 0:0.OwHHUN0:oO .0aom .00H0OH .NQO :H0suuoz .O:0Hpuoo .H:0000m um0>u0s 0u0H u0v0uHmem .Hcowm0m um0>u0£ 0HOUHE u0v0uHmem .H:om00m um0>u0: aHs00 90O0MHOEO .0H0O .OH0O0:OO .:0:u0:on .nmou:Hoz .msoHOHH0O :0UHOO .msoHoHH0O 00m “003H0:H mcoHu00H0m 0Hmm< .N Ho.e w o 00 0:00H0H06H0u00 .mo.o w o 00 0:00H0H06H0 u a .H HO.¢ ON.¢ OH.O hO.¢ >0 » Hh¢.N M¢N.m OOh.N Onb.N On¢ HOHHM ¥¥OVH.OH O¢O.m «0OO0.0H *0HO0.00 0H NmGOHuomHmm WMOWMMOIONMS Hm0u0svm :00: 00:0..E0oo0 H000:0O 0.25009 mm0:u003m .0930 up :oHu0Hu0> no 000050...“ m:oHuo0H0m 0HQO0 OH Eon“ 0003000Hmd0 mo A000» 00:0um0oo0v mcoHu0cH0>0 xuom:0m you 00:0HHN> mo me>HOQ< .Om 0Hn0e 115 ”d n unouuxow d)- f l 5 n pto euop _ F O m ”OH Pu'TQJOO 4.3 3 pazva W“%wawwr 00000000) ¢ ., ("(0) (WWW) Hulls] ; AHMHHHHIIII 1W(JiliilHifliilfl) (KIIFEMJTGIHE 53811 InOIoIIaG pan 1 ates -.mmmmmmmmmmmmmm(mmmmmmmmmMMMM( (eas1)ezxdmz (etpprn)ezrdma usqasuop c: O L__ dsrzoxeuoa nsann - mmmmmmmmwmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm BnOTDTIBQ 099100 execs esuexe;ezd zeros Comparison of color preference score means values for applesauces from 15 apple selections processed after fresh harvest. desirable and 9 = most desirable) Figure 13. least 1 = (9—point. scale: 5'2 502 502 5.1 5.3 116 ID V 4.9 5.0 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ill”):l)!l.!iflttf (MMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)((1000110) (mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 00000 2'0“ (Hummnu I I); g I 5mm)!“ ( (y)? u) (I)(((((:((()(((I))u)))( WHUWWV ' MM)! hMMmhMMMMMMMmmmmmm ( . I I [Illli‘il‘dm Mmmn .anmn ll ('1‘ “HUM“ \D In L 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I ‘0 ¢ M N H O execs esuOJOJeJd ornate; usqaeuor pustazoo uncuUIaw Ids uzsquzon InOIOIIaa pas smog ates (£1193)e11dma 00:00; (atppr)81Idma dsIJoKeuoa nsanu (susq)e11dma ptobeuop snoroxtea “39109 Comparison of texture preference score means values for applesauces from 15 apple selections processed after fresh harvest. desirable and 9 - most desirable) Figure 14 . 1 - least (9-point scale: 117 WUOQUIOR unqueuop Pu‘TQJOO Ids uzeqqzou n 903391 9 [V dsIJoKeuon .¢ 0) H I e ; I I s In ; E A ptobcuop I o 000 ‘ H :- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (name-name IEEE! II IEIE EEE EIIIIIII IIIEII IIIIEIII EEEEEEIE EEEI EEEIEEEIIEI EEEEIEEI IIEIE [III II II EIEIEI m IIIIII I'IIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII" II I IIIIIIIIII III III IIII IIIII. IIS IE (.IPPTW)3JTM snoxoxtea O “SPTOS | I IIIIIIII I I I I IIIIII IIIEI IIEIEIE EIEII IIII IIEEIIE'EIEEEEII EIIII IIIll III |IIIIEI Ii IIIIII II IIIIIIII EIII ““3“" IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIEII III (8‘4"!)811503 T I I I I In fl' M N H O 3100' 0030103015 SCOUQOOIB 1 - least (9-point scale: apple selections processed after fresh harvest. Figure 15. Comparison of sweetness preference score means values for applesauces from 15 desirable and 9 - most desirable) 6.2 118 M uloauxan o no zoo n p I: 7 [I probruoc .¢ -EI- uoqatuop Ads uxoqqzou omoa pavaI i h [ u c ¢ I o o '“OTOTIOG pea m WWMWI (KIJVaIOJTdma fl I dsTJoKeuoH In I 9 IMWMMMWWMWMWMWWWMWWWIWWWWWWWWWIWI (BTPPTRIBJTdma 9 IIWWWWMNWWWWWIWWWWWMWMIWWIWWWWI (aar1)aztdma F IEHEIEIIIII EEIIIIE'E IE I III IEEEIIIIEEIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIEI IIIEIIII 5 IIIMIIMIWIMWIWMMMMMMIIMImmmmmmmmu henna snoxoxtoa “99109 l ‘0 In V' M N H O 0109' 0OU‘Qd0OO0 I010n09 least 1 Comparison of general acceptance score means values for applesauce from 15 (9-point. scale: apple selection processed after fresh harvest. desirable and 9 = most desirable) Figure 16. 119 sweetness. HOwever, there were no significant differences in sweetness score among the highest four apple selections: Empire (Late), Mutsu, Golden Delicious, and Empire (Middle). There were no significant differences detected for texture among all applesauces from 15 selections. Mutsu received the second highest color and general acceptance score. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Chemical and physical analyses of applesauces from traditional, recent, and new varieties showed significant differences in chemical and physical characteristics including sugar/acid ratios, consistencies, lightness values, greenness values, and yellowness values. The applesauces jprocessed. after fresh.jharvest, were compared. Red Delicious showed the highest sugar/acid ratio. Mutsu showed the highest consistency. Gala showed the highest lightness value. Honeycrisp showed the highest greenness value. Mutsu showed the highest yellowness value. Storage of apples (2 months in 1.1. °C/34 °F) had significant effect on all characteristics including sugar/acid ratio, consistency, lightness value, greenness value, and yellowness value. Most selections showed higher sugar/acid ratios except for Red Delicious which showed significantly lower sugar/acid ratio. Significantly lower consistencies were shown in applesauces produced from Red Delicious, Idared, Honeycrisp and Gala apples, while significantly higher consistencies were shown in applesauces produced from Cortland, Rome, Empire (Early), Empire (Middle) and Jonagold. Significantly higher lightness 120 121 values were shown in applesauces produced from Idared, Empire (Middle), Empire (Early) apples, while significantly lower lightness values were shown in applesauces made from Rome, Gala, Jonagold, and Honeycrisp. Most applesauce selections showed lower greenness values except for applesauces made from Idared, Empire (Late), Empire (Middle), Empire (Early) apples which showed significantly higher greenness values. Most selections produced lower yellowness values except for applesauces made from Empire (Early) and Empire (Middle) apples which showed significant higher yellowness values. Sensory evaluations of applesauces included triangle test, scaling tests, and acceptance tests. Triangle test showed that panelists were able to detect the differences between applesauces processed after fresh harvest and those which were processed after two-month storage for all selections except Red Delicious and Golden Delicious. The scaling tests showed that panelists were able to detect the differences of color and flavor among the 15 selections. The scaling tests also showed that the panelists were able to detect differences of texture after two-month storage. From the scaling test, Mutsu scored brightest in color and thickest in texture; McIntosh and Empire (Late) scored most desirable in flavor. The acceptance tests showed that panelists were able to detect the differences in color, sweetness, and general acceptance among the 15 selctions. From the acceptance test, Golden Delicious scored most 122 desirable in color, texture and general acceptance; Empire (Late) scored most desirable in sweetness. Chemical and physical analyses of frozen apple slices from ‘traditional, recent, and. new 'varieties showed significant differences in chemical and physical characteristics including sugar/acid ratios, shear resistances, drained weights, lightness values, greenness values, and yellowness values. The frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest were compared. Red Delicious showed the highest sugar/acid ratio. Cortland showed the highest shear resistance. Jonathan showed the highest drained. weight and lightness. INorthern Spy showed the highest greenness value. Jonagold showed the highest yellowness value. Storage time (2 months in 1.1 °C/34 °F) had significant effects on most characteristics including sugar/acid ratio, shear resistance, lightness value, and yellowness value except for greenness value. Most selections showed higher sugar/acid ratios except for Empire (Early). All selections showed lower shear resistance. Only Idared, Rome, McIntosh and Empire (early) showed significantly lower drained weights. Only Empire (Early) showed significant increase in lightness value when compared to the fresh harvest products. Red Delicious, Empire (Early), and HOneycrisp showed significantly higher greenness values. Most selections showed higher yellowness values except for Jonagold. 123 Using Multiple regression equations to present rank order of quality score for applesauces and frozen apple slices, Mutsu produced the best quality applesauce when both processed after fresh and after 2 month storage. Jonathan produced the best quality frozen apple slices when processed after fresh harvest, while Gala produced the best quality frozen apple slices when process after 2 month storage. STUDY II: ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF AMINOETHOXYVINYL- GLYCINE (AVG) ON PROCESSING QUALITY OF ADULT APPLESAUCE FROM CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE STORAGE Introduction Apples for processing are rarely utilized immediately after removal from the trees for many reasons: the intention to permit further ripening of the fruit to make them more suitable for manufacturing of a particular finished product, the necessity of using up previously harvested fruit to avoid excessive spoilage, or simply the need to lengthen the processing season. Controlled atmosphere (CA) storage has been a successful invention for delaying the senesence of apples. Ripening of many apples cultivars is almost stopped for months in CA storage (Manhart, 1995) . There have been numerous studies regarding CA storage of apples (Blanpied and Smock 1983; Meheriuk 1985; Patchen 1971; Ryall and Penzer 1981; Smock and Neubert 1950). Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) is another agent used to control the ripening processes of apple fruits. A number of papers have shown that AVG inhibited ethylene biosynthesis, resulting in delaying of ripening, respiration, and pre- harvest drop in apples (Bufler et al. 1984; Child et al. 1984; Bramlage et al. 1980; Ness et al. 1980; Bangerth et al. 1978; Liebermann et al.1974). 124 125 The objectives of this study was to analyze and evaluate the processing qualities of applesauces processed from apples stored under controlled atmosphere and treated with aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG). MATERIALS AND METHODS SOURCES OF MATERIALS AND SAMPLE PREPARATIONS This experiment was conducted to assess the processing quality of adult applesauces processed from Jonagold apples with and without AVG treatment. The effect of maturity was also studied. Apples Jonagold apples with nine representative harvest dates were used. The nine harvest dates included 16 Sep, 19 Sep, 23 Sep, 26 Sep, 30 Sep, 3 Oct, 7 Oct, 10 Oct, and 14 Oct representing early, middle, and late harvest season, respectively. Experimental conditions . One-half of the apples for each. harvest date ‘were sprayed with 200 ppm aminoethoxyvinylglycine(AVG) 100 gallons/acre, approximately one month before harvest (20 Aug, 1996). Apple sprayed with AVG represented AVG-treated samples. The other half . without AVG spray represented untreated controlled samples (UTC) . Then all samples were stored in controlled atmosphere storage: 1.3-1.8% 02, 2-4% C02, 0.1°C (32.18°F), and 99.8% relative humidity) until 6 months in the department of Horticulture, Plant and Soil Sciences Building, Michigan State University. The apples 126 127 were stored in the CA storage within 1-2 days from the day they were picked. After CA storage all samples were processed into adult applesauces. Apple Processing The apples were processed under the same conditions, and process as that for applesauces in study I. PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION The applesauce quality evaluations were the chemical- physical analyses (objective measurements), which were. conducted the same manner as those for applesauces in part I. The chemical-physical analyses (objective measurements) included soluble solids, acidity/pH, color, and consistency. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The effects of AVG treatment and maturity of apple on chemical-physical processing qualities of applesauce were analyzed. using' the analysis of 'variance (ANOVA) of the statistical program, Stat View for window, version 4.5. The chemical-physical processing qualities were analyzed as a two-way interaction ANOVA, with AVG treatment and maturity of apple. F values were reported. The significant level were set at p S 0.05 (*) and p S 0.01 (**). Coefficient of variation (%CV) expresses the standard deviation as a percent of the calculated mean. The differences between chemical-physical processing qualities of each harvest date due to AVG treatment were 128 determined using the t-test statistical program (paired two sample for means), Microsoft excel for Window 95 (Ver.7). The two sets of data were evaluated by comparing the calculated t value with tabulated t value. When t (calculated) value is higher than t (tabulated) value, it indicated significant difference. The significant level were set at p S 0.05 (*), p S 0.01 (**),p 5 0.005 (***), and p g 0.001 (****). The correlations between sugar content of apple and sugar/acid ratios of applesauce due to AVG treatment, between red percentage of surface color of apple and greenness value of applesauce were determined using linear regression equation from graph creating program, Microsoft excel for Window 95 (Ver.7). The coefficient of determination (r2) were reported. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 36 shows sugar/acid ratio mean values of applesauces processed from untreated control (UTC) and Aminoethoxyvinylglycine treated (AVG) apples after 6 month in control atmosphere (CA) storage. Increasing maturity, due to sequential harvest dates, was related to increases in sugar/acid ratios. From early to late harvest dates, the sugar/acid ratios ranged from 26.73 to 33.84 °Brix/malic acid % in UTC samples and from 25.43 to 29.07 °Brix/malic acid %. Compared with AVG samples using paired t-test, UTC samples showed significantly higher sugar/acid ratios on 19 Sep (P s 0.05), 26 Sep (P s 0.05), 30 Sep (P 5 0.005), 3 Oct (P 5 0.005), 7 Oct (P g 0.005), 10 Oct (P 5 0.005), and 14 Oct (P S 0.001). The significant differences for sugar/acid ratios between UTC and AVG samples were between middle and late of harvest season. Figure 17 shows comparison for sugar/acid ratios between UTC and AVG applesauces on sequential harvest dates. UTC applesauces showed higher sugar/acid ratio through all maturities. Increasing maturity resulted in increase in different degree. Figure 18 shows linear regression between sugar content (°Brix) of fresh apples and sugar/acid ratio of applesauces 129 Table 36. Comparison 3 applesauces 130 f sugar/acid ratio1 mean values from Jonago d apples on different harvest dates (AVG‘, UTC ) 2 for Harvest date UTC AVG Calculated t 16.Sep.96 26.73 25.43 2.83 l9.Sep. 96 27.91 25.76 7.80* 23.Sep.96 29.58 26.26 3.94 26.Sep.96 30.43 27.38 8.79* 30.Sep.96 31.54 27.65 17.30*** 3.0ct.96 31.43 27.39 21.66*** 7.0ct.96 32.01 28.59 19.24*** 10.0ct.96 31.97 28.31 20.50*** 14.0ct.96 33.84 29.07 51.34**** $00,055 2.07 1.24 1. °Brix/malic acid(%) 2. n=3, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (130.05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 (to.01tabulated value), *** = significant at t calculated value 2 14.09 “0.005 tabulated value), *** = significant at t calculated value 2 31.60 (110.001 tabulated value) 3. Applesauces processed from Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) treated apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage 4. Applesauces processed from untreated controlled apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage 5. n=3, Least significant difference (LSDOJB) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties Sugar/acid ratio 131 --o~-UTC applesauces -—lh—AVG applesauces 351- .3. ....o----o--"""" 30 -- ..-"'. as ,.-0" g, . ,fi 25 o d o 20~~ .H F: 3 1‘ 151. N .d H £1 10:- 5.1. O 16-Sep l9-Sep«- 23-Sepq~ 26-Sep- 30-Sep- 3-Oct- 7-Oct~- lO-Oct«~ 14-Octi Harvest data Figure 17. Comparison for sugar/acid ratios of applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apple on sequential harvest dates (UTC = Untreated controlled; AVG = AVG-treated) 132 O 0 0 3 I I IA E0 '6 “'8 25 r2 - 0.9178 Md 00 on: 20* 3H :3 ‘; 15-- ‘U-d vii-I :e. \_ 10-- II 3. g .. a 5 0 : : : : : : : : M N G N In G H C ID 14 e e 0 '4 e e e e M n V In 0 O m H H H H H H H Bria (degree) of UTC apples : 30.. o s 3 . 29. a“. One- a 28- o o-« > u ‘ ‘ 27~ m o are OH -« I 2‘ r2 . 0.9338 u-\ 3.5 u « 'u n 25 adv 0 :. 24-- u a m g 23 : é : : : 1 : : o H m 0 m In 0) ‘D 0 H H H H H H H Brix (degree) of fresh AVG apples Figure 18. Linear relationship between sugar content.(°Brix) of apples and sugar/acid ratio (9Brix [malic acid %) of applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples (UTC = Untreated controlled; AVG = AVG- treated) 133 processed from UTC apples and AVG apples after 6 month in CA storage. Linear relationships were found for both UTC and AVG samples. The coefficient of determination (r2) for UTC samples was 0.9178, and that for AVG samples was 0.9338. Therefore, we could use sugar content of fresh apples to predict sugar/acid ratio of processed applesauces. Figure 19 shows comparison for total acidity between applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples. Decreasing acidity followed sequential harvest dates in both UTC and AVG samples ‘were observed» Chen and. Mellenthin (1982) reported that the energy and carbon sources in fruit for the maintenance of living activities during long term storage must be contributed by organic acids rather than sugars after studying storage behavior of ‘d' ANJOU' pears in low oxygen and air. Table 37 shows consistency mean values of applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples after 6 month in CA storage. Evaluation of the consistencies using a paired t— test showed that there were no significant differences between UTC and AVG samples on each sequential harvest date. However, the processing procedures that were conducted were included. improvement. of applesauce consistency' using additions of their condensates to adjust final consistency. Table 38 shows lightness mean values (L) of applesauces from UTC and AVG apples after 6 month in CA storage. From evaluation of the lightness values using a paired t-test, 134 --e~-UTC applesauces -—I——AVG applesauces Total acidity (% malic acid) 0 b l6-Sep l9-Sep- 23-Sep-» 26-Sep«~ 30—Sep~1 3-Oct- 7-Oct—- 10-Octa~ 14-OctJ- Harvest date Figure 19. Comparison for total acidity (malic acid %) between applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples (UTC = Untreated controlled; AVG = AVG- treated) Table 37. Comparison of consistency1 mean values 135 2 for applesauces3 from Jonagold apples on different harvest date (AVG4, UTC ) Harvest date UTC AVG Calculated t 16.Sep.96 4.17 3.85 3.80 19.Sep. 96 3.82 4.03 4.02 23.Sep.96 4.37 4.30 1.00 26.Sep.96 4.23 4.28 1.07 30.Sep.96 4.38 4.29 2.94 3.0ct.96 4.44 4.48 2.74 7.0ct.96 4.47 4.54 1.68 10.0ct.96 4.15 4.16 0.14 14.0ct.96 4.18 4.05 1.49 1800.055 0.31 0.29 1. 2. USDA flow sheet (cm/minute); higher numbers indicate less limited flow (lower consistency) n=3, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value .>. 4.303 (130.05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 (to,01tabulated value), *** significant at t calculated value 2 14.09 (110.005 tabulated value), *** = significant at t calculated value 2 31.60 (to,001 tabulated value) Applesauces processed from Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) treated apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. Applesauces processed from untreated controlled apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. n=3, Least significant difference (LSDQJE) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties Table 38. 136 Comparison of lightness (L) mean values1 for applesauces from Jona old apples on different harvest date (AVGZ, UTC ) Harvest date UTC AVG Calculated t 16.Sep.96 55.73 55.60 0.61 19.Sep. 96 55.83 55.18 3.22 23.Sep.96 55.23 54.50 2.82 26.Sep.96 55.07 54.40 3.29 30.Sep.96 54.90 54.93 0.11 3.0ct.96 55.20 55.30 0.48 7.0ct.96 55.00 54.67 2.5 10.0ct.96 55.00 55.80 2.49 14.0ct.96 56.07 55.40 1.60 1.500.054 0.13 0.97 1. n=3, t-test, 4.303 (to,05 calculated value significant tabulated value), 2 31.60 (toxml tabulated value) at t tabulated value), 2 9.93 calculated *** = ** a significant at t calculated value 2 significant at t (to,01tabulated value), *** = value significant at t calculated value 2 14.09 (1.10.005 Applesauces processed from Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) treated apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. Applesauces processed from untreated controlled apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. n=3, Least significant difference (LSD0.05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 137 the significant differences between UTC and AVG samples were not found on each sequential harvest date. Table 39 shows greenness mean values (-a;) of applesauces from UTC and AVG apples. Increasing maturity, due to sequential harvest dates, was related to decrease in greenness values. From early to late harvest dates, the greenness values ranged from -3.60 to -4.26 in UTC samples and from -4.03 to -4.53 in AVG samples. Evaluation of the greenness value ‘using' paired. t-test, UTC samples showed significantly lower greenness values on 16 Sep (P S 0.05), 19 Sep (P S 0.05), 3 Oct (P S 0.05), 7 Oct (P S 0.01), and 10 Oct (P S 0.05) than AVG samples. The significant differences for greenness value were found between apples in the early and the late harvest season. Figure 20 shows linear regression between %red on surface color of apples and greenness value of applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples after 6 month in CA storage. The linear relationship were found for both UTC and AVG samples. The coefficient of determination (r2) for UTC samples was 0.9443, and that for AVG samples was 0.7506. Therefore, we could use %red on surface color of apples to predict greenness value of processed applesauces. Figure 21 shows comparison for greenness values of UTC and AVG applesauces on sequential harvest dates. UTC applesauces showed lower greenness values through all maturities. However, increasing maturity resulted in decrease in Table 39. Comparison of greenness applesauces from Jona harvest date (AVG 138 ('aL) mean values1 for gold apples on different ) Harvest date UTC AVG Calculated t l6.Sep.96 -4.26 -4.53 8.00* 19.Sep. 96 -4.17 -4.40 7.00* 23.Sep.96 -4.00 -4.26 3.02 26.Sep.96 -3.90 -4.03 0.92 30.8ep.96 -3.80 -4.23 2.98 3.0ct.96 -3.67 -4.17 5.00* 7.0ct.96 -3.67 -4.03 ll.00** 10.0ct.96 -3.63 -3.93 5.20* 14.0ct.96 -3.60 -4.03 2.60 $00.05" 0.32 0.45 1. n=3, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (to,05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 (to_01t_abulated value), *** == significant at t calculated value 2 14.09 (110.005 tabulated value), *** = significant at t calculated value 2 31.60 (110.001 tabulated value) 2. Applesauces processed from Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) treated apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. 3. Applesauces processed from untreated controlled apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. 4. n=3, Least significant difference (LSD0.05) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 0 3. --0.5 ‘ o I 0 -1 '3 g 3 -1.5 8" -2 >8 a ‘ -€.5 3 .‘g’ -3 8 N so -305 ° -4 -4.5 $5 66 -&7< 33 Greenness value (-aL) of AVG applesauces Figure 20. Linear 139 3 Red of UTC apples Q M Q c) Q In C . . . . . . 0‘ O H o In In m 0‘ N V In In \D \D I" I" F l l l l l I l J I Y I I I 1 I | F: A 2 ' r = 0.9443 T. M ‘ % Red of AVG apples 9! v e cs 9 q 9* x w 52 8 S: {S E 23 g F: 8 : : : . l l I r I I I db db relationship between %red of surface color of apples and greenness value (-aL) of applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples (UTC = Untreated controlled; AVG = AVG-treated) 140 Harvest date a. o. o. a. n. ‘u .9 m m m w m .u .u 0 o a: m In a: m o C) CI 0 I I I I I o O I I w -2e5 "" a 8 a -3 q»- 8 o '3.5 r ... s T ..............0‘. . -4 -'9' -4.5 -5_. Figure 21. Comparison for total greenness values (-aL)- between applesauces processed from UTC and AVG apples (UTC = Untreated controlled; AVG = AVG- treated) 141 greenness values of both UTC and AVG samples in the same direction. Table 40 shows yellowness mean values (bL) of applesauces from UTC and AVG apples. Increasing maturity, due to sequential harvest dates, was related to increase in yellowness values. From early to late harvest dates, the yellowness values ranged from 20.56 to 21.77 in UTC samples and from 21.03 to 22.57 in AVG samples. Evaluation of the yellowness value using paired t-test, UTC samples showed significantly lower yellowness values on 26 Sep (P S 0.05), 30 Sep (P s 0.01), 3 Oct (P s 0.05), 7 Oct (P s 0.01), 10 Oct (P S 0.01), and 14 Oct (P S 0.01) than AVG samples. The significant differences for yellowness values were found between apples from middle and the late harvest season. Figure 22 shows comparison for yellowness values of UTC and AVG applesauces on sequential harvest dates. UTC applesauces showed lower yellowness values through all maturities. However, increasing maturity resulted in decrease in yellowness values during the early and middle harvest season. and. then slightly increase in. yellowness values at the late harvest season of both UTC and AVG samples in the same direction. The analysis of variance for chemical-physical processing qualities of applesauces is presented in Table 41. The effects of treatment (UTC and AVG) and harvest 142 Table 40. Comparison of yellowness (bL) mean values1 for applesauces from onago}d apples on different harvest date (AVG , UTC ) Harvest date UTC AVG Calculated t 16.Sep.96 20.56 21.03 0.96 19.Sep. 96 20.27 20.90 1.73 23.Sep.96 19.27 20.53 3.64 ‘ 26.Sep.96 19.70 20.92 8.92* i 30.Sep.96 19.82 21.10 13.83** 3.0ct.96 20.90 21.43 6.05* 7.0ct.96 20.83 21.27 l3.00** 10.0ct.96 20.92 21.17 6.60* 14.0ct.96 20.85 21.2 4.04 1.300.054 1.39 2.24 1. n=3, t-test, * = significant at t calculated value 2 4.303 (110.05 tabulated value), ** = significant at t calculated value 2 9.93 (to,01tabulated value), *1” = significant at t calculated value 2 14.09 (130.005 tabulated value), *** = significant at t calculated value 2 31.60 (110.001 tabulated value) 2. Applesauces processed from Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) treated apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. 3. Applesauces processed from untreated controlled apples after 6 month in controlled atmosphere storage. 4. n=3, Least significant difference (LSDOJE) mean separation; means are significantly different at p S 0.05 between varieties 143 --e~-UTC applesauces -—I—-AVG applesauces 21.5.— 21 " "'--e--°"‘"'-e 8 " v 20.5 .. U ' ' a. “ -' a 20‘“ 2 f > ~ .,.e a -" a 19.5-- , E ‘ 3 19 4» H 0 >0 18.5“ 18 I I I I I I I _I a. u u u u 3 8‘ 8‘ 3‘ 0 0 o O O m m m a: m o o o o I I I I I I I I I \D 0‘ M \O o M I‘ o V H H N N ('3 H I'I Harvest date ,‘T‘ I? ‘ “:3 - Wt:— Figure 22. Comparison for yellowness values (b1) between applesauces processed from untreated control and AVG treated apples .. 4 r r“. . 6."... “Nina mmuwo umw>ums m "mosaocfl mount umw>umx .m noncommammm O>¢ can noncommammm OED "mocaocfi mucmeummue .m ac.c w m um ucmofluwcmHmIII .mc.c w m um ucmofiuficmfimII .nnc .H 144 ¢¢.n wo.b mm.o mo.m vn.w >0 & o~.o Ho.o OH.o woo.o om.o on HORNE mumc umm>uon o~.o No.0 «smn.o «swo.o «#Hm.H m x Hamfiucmuu mmHMWMMMMQH ssmo.a «swm.o ssmw.o ««¢~.o ssom.ha m nmumfl umw>ums aeom.o ssmw.a «aow.o oco.o tama.o¢H H Nucmfiummuu 3.608044% ammuosvm com: A I mmmnmmva H m w mmOACMOth—O www.m“qu aocmum a mcou ca oomwuumoumsm up ucooflmummowuufimhm mmammm OHOUOCOh Eoum ommmmooud moosmmonQm mo >pfiamsv mcflmmmooum HOme>nQIHOOwach How mocmwum> mo mfiwxamcc .He manna 145 date (9 harvest dates) were found on sugar/acid ratios (P S 0.01), lightness values (P S 0.01), greenness values (P S 0.01), and yellowness values (P S 0.01). However, consistency was affected by only harvest date. There were significant interactions of harvest date and treatment on sugar/acid ratio (P S 0.05), consistency (P S 0.01), and lightness value (P S 0.01). It could be interpreted that aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) inhibits ethylene: synthesis) and, consequently, ripening processes in apples (Bangerth, 1978). The ethylene productions of both UTC and AVG samples through sequential harvest dates are presented in appendix I. After 6 month in CA storage, the most obvious result describing the influences of AVG on the ripening processes of apples, and ultimately the applesauces, is the retardation of the expected increase: of sugar/acid. ratio and acidity loss. Therefore using AVG may enhance the apple flavor of applesauce or other apple processed products, because organic acids in apples have been shown to be contributors to their own fruit flavor (Dimick and Hoskin, 1983). Many studies have shown that AVG also improves fruit firmness (Child et al., 1984 and Hess and Romani, 1979), which is consistent with the firmness test for fresh apples presented in appendix I. However, no significant difference in applesauce consistency due to AVG treatment found in this study could be accounted for as a result of the consistency 146 adjustment during processing steps and the limitation of storage time. Mohr (1989) who studied the influence of cultivar, fruit maturity and fruit anatomy on applesauce particle size and texture reported that the particle size distribution in sauce made from Idared showed little change until the apples had been stored for 8 months, when an increase in the proportion of large (> 0.1 mm) particles occurred. Spartan, McIntosh, Red Delicious, and Northern Spy also showed little change until late storage (8 months). The lower greenness values in AVG applesauces could also be due to the effects of AVG delaying loss of chlorophyll pigment. However, the yellowness values in AVG applesauces were higher than those in UTC applesauces through all maturities (all harvest date). Jonagold, the cultivar used in this study, may need required time for the initiation of alteration of yellow pigments. Another explanation for the difference in yellowness values could be attributed to the effect of temperature on the efficiency of AVG. Matso et al. (1977) described that AVG is less effective in controlling ethylene production at low temperature and the present results of yellowness value measurements with cold stored apples (0.1°C) may confirm this. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) significantly affected the over all chemical and physical characteristics of applesauces including sugar/acid ratio, consistency, lightness value, greenness value, and yellowness value. AVG applesauces had lower sugar/acid ratios than UTC applesauces after 6 month in CA storage (1.3-1.8% 02, 2-4% C02, o.r%n. However, AVG applesauces also had higher total acidities, greenness values and yellowness values. The significant differences of consistencies and lightness were not found on each sequential harvest date. Apple maturity significantly affected the chemical and physical characteristics of applesauces including sugar/acid ratio, lightness, greenness, and yellowness values. Increasing sugar/acid ratio, greenness and yellowness values of UTC and AVG applesauces were related to increasing maturity. Lightness values were decreasing during the early harvest season and then increasing during the late harvest season. From linear regression, sugar content (°Brix) of fresh apple could be used to predict the sugar/acid ratio of both UTC and AVG applesauces; and red percentage of surface color 147 148 of fresh apples could also be used to predict the greenness values of both UTC and AVG applesauces. APPENDIX I 149 Apple production by cultivar in the United States (1986-1987) Cultivar Primary Region Production (tons) Delicious (all) Golden Delicious McIntosh Rome Beauty Grainy Smith Jonathan York Stayman Cortland Newtown Winesap Northern Spy Rhode Island Green n Gravens éfin West West East EAST West Central East East East West West East East West 1,917,500 650,500 380,750 265,000 198,250 179,250 141,250 116,000 79,500 79,500 77,750 62,750 62,000 44,250 150 Commercial U.S. production1 by cultivars (Manhart, 1995) Cultivar 1987 1988 1989 Red Delicious 114,940,000 88,570,000 97,180,000 Golden Delicious 41,370,000 36,560,000 36,370,000 McIntosh 16,500,000 15,380,000 15,980,000 Granny Smith 10,550,000 12,010,000 14,250,000 Home 15,140,000 13,900,000 13,510,000 Jonathan 9,570,000 8,320,000 8,790,000 York 6,800,000 7,000,000 5,750,000 Stayman 5,220,000 4,710,000 4,410,000 Newtown 4,250,000 3,930,000 4,150,000 Cortland 3,120,000 2,550,000 2,790,000 R.I. Greening 2,730,000 2,250,000 3,420,000 Winesap 4,070,000 3,520,000 3,630,000 Idared 3,440,000 3,350,000 4,160,000 Northern Spy 3,080,000 2,400,000 2,730,000 Gravenstein 2,550,000 1,850,000 2,140,000 All others 12,588,000 11,736,000 12,442,000 Grand total 255,918,000 218,036,000 231,702,000 1. USDA statistics (42-pound boxes) 151 Production figures for 1992-1993 from USDA figures and estimates1 (Manhart, 1995) Cultivar 1992 1993 Red Delicious 108,690,000 108,070,000 Golden Delicious 39,060,000 37,450,000 Granny Smith 16,830,000 16,370,000 Home 15,230,000 16,230,000 McIntosh 16,810,000 14,730,000 Jonathan 9,160,000 8,120,000 York 6,720,000 6,720,000 Idared 5,060,000 5,060,000 Fuji (estimated) N/A 4,580,000 Gala (estimated) N/A 4,170,000 1. In millions of 42-pound boxes Top 10 states by apple production 152 1 (Manhart, 1995) State 1992 1993 Washington 114,286,000 114,286,000 Michigan 25,714,000 26,190,000 New York 27,857,000 24,286,000 Califirnia 20,000,000 20,238,000 Pennsylvania 11,905,000 13,095,000 Virginia 8,810,000 9,048,000 North Carolina 5,714,000 7,619,000 West Virginia 5,357,000 5,119,000 Oregon 4,167,000 3,690,000 Idaho 1,786,000 3,571,000 1. USDA records (estimated for 1993) Auuommu .mnoouuo Hocowmmooo .cmcuwansccsc .O.o .couccmmmas .muuocmm amass nuanceaoo c8008 .mcm .o om~.mam omm.o~a ooh.mmo Canon mmm.o on.mo oom.~o~ Hon.mm~ oom.m>m oOm.mmH ooo.m>m nocaauonumz oom.wc oom.N~m ooH.mm~ omh.mm~.a omH.¢mH.~ omH.n> ooo.Hmo.~ hauum oo~.om ooo.H mmm.v «no.6mfl oo~.om~ mm mma.omm moomuo oov.va www.mme mmo.am mms.amm.a mam.omm.m Hum.mNo peo.~m>.fl .3 .hcmEumo ooo.no ooo.oo~ ooH.mom omn.mno.a omv.mom.a oom.maa 0mm.amm.a museum 0 ooo.mm me~.v ncm.mod NNH.~¢H www.mv oom.~m xueacoo oom.c mo¢.mm mmo.~oa Hho.om~ pam.mmv ~mo.~oa mom.om~ stIEsAoHOm uuomxo cowuisOcoo Hazeuosuwz mcammmooum cumum nouns aammsm uuomen coauosooum sodomm Lemma .mxusom.oc ommanmmma .cofimmu can xuucsoo >n meadow no mom: manna can adamam no mmousom Manna mo mwmxaoc< 154 II'... 1. Auuoamu .wnomuuo chodmoooo .cmcmfiansccsc .O.c .coumcflcmmz .8006508 00:08 mcofioflamo 68008 .848 .ccmc “somDOm a0m.~0n nuc.0>«.o 000.pou.n 00n.0nn.¢n 00.nmo.vu o.o~v.« 0np.~¢0.nn vauuomox Meade o nah.man.u 0n0.nno.u mno.vvn.u ono.~vm.n ouu.n0n 0nm.0nv.n aheamedlan .u 0 00m.~na 0H0.ANN N00.¢0N 000.0mm 0 000.0mm coauut .m 0 nmN.0¢H how.0au 0m0.0m 0m0.nflv 0NH.M 000.00v Oceanus 302 0 00m.mh~ 00m.p~m 000.0Ha 000.0Hh 0 000.H¢h caano o 0 0m0.m om0.0m¢ 000.000 000.00H 000.com Hausum 0 00m.van mbv.¢~ mum.nma 00m.nmm 0 00m.mmn swanky-s: 0 000.0«0 ooo.mNN 00m.u~u 00m.coo.d o 00m.>00.u seducoou< o omn.ocn Nov.m0 hnu.vnw.n onv.ono.n ono.¢o~ can.umm.n sand 0 00m.um «00.00 mmv.nho.a 000.0m0.a 0 000.0m0.n amxusa 0 Own 0 www.maa mav.mHH mm0.¢0a 00m.mH cszwsa 0 00H.nHN 00¢.H 00m.~¢0 000.>m0.fl 0 000.>mo.a coach 0 nu0.snn.n oom.hnv omn.ou0.n oon.ono.m omn.nnn 0mm.n0n.m undue-d .2 0 0mm.0¢m.H 000.03.. 000.0NN.N 0mN.mHm:v 0mN§HH 000.00n.¢ .m.0 0 www.mnn 0 0mm.wmm 09.1000 000.2” 00m.mmv 004x02 0 00m 4 cm." 00m . >0 000 . man 000 . m00 000 .mOH 000 .00m 002.50 0 00m.Nnm 00m.omn 00.81098. 0912.0; 0 00m.:.¢..n Gauche—fl .fl 0 000.com 000.0n ooo.nm~ 000.n~m 0 000.0Nm sa>suuomsw o 00m.~mn 00m.0~m 00m.mm~ 00m.emm 0 00m.¢mm Summon: uuomxm coHumEamcoo Huzcupnuqx ocammoooum .cmmum sauna Sammsm shaman cauuospoum coamom Avmma .mxusom.oc comaummma .coflomu 0:0 auucsoo kn mmamds no new: Manna 0cm adamsm no mmousom Hanna mo mamaaocc 155 men0H00mI0cch0E Addum 00 000a on .umuuoa 0:0 u0mu0a 0:» .000qa0 00:» u0:u0u 00040 uu.v cEsHoo 000000 0:» :4 000004004 H0>0A 0000000 SHH0EHO: on 00000000 0oc0uuomed I II I.n 0000000084 00 000000 I +++ ++ +.N mcaocaan accrue: coauoauc> 0Hmcaa n0 0:400:008 no 00400000 H0505 0:» :0 0000A aw 0000000054 ~000«00>.n + + + I I I II 850005 000040450 + ++ +++ + ++ 30a 00 000% II 30H 000009 + ++ ++ + ++ Eda00e. 0awu0ao> I I ++ ++ + ++ 850008 :0 I I ++ ++ + ++ 9:500:— 0400 dance ++ +++ cod: 805568 08068 +++ + ++ +++ + :04: 00daou OHQsHOm + ++ +++ ++ +++ Sham muoceuam + +++ + + ++ 3OHH0> uOHOO :00Hm ++ + + 000 no: uoHoo saxm I ++ I can: 60038008 ++ ++ +++ +++ HH080 u0xoom 0000 + + ++ ++ 30H 000:0 ++ 00 .++ ++ ++ + I.00E 0040 + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ +++ 30H %0000 + ++ ++ +++ +++ 30H 000600 ++ + mI Esw00e 00000000 «coaua0coo ++ + ++ + ++ Has“ auauau0z + + ++ ++ ++ N++ H0 >00Au0> 0:03 0 00000000000 cououu c0uouu 0H000 H0>0H 00020 0000 002:... 09.30 005000.304 0.00.300 005.00 uo £00.; 00300 00.3000 nouo0u huaa0so Aawma .0HH000AV muoa0oua 000000000 #c0umuufi0 ou muouo0m >00H050 050wu0> mo 0oc0uHOQEH APPENDIX II I;- H 156 0:00302.m 0000 >0 00050005 ”00600 0000050 00 0006.6 060 00 00006 000 0O00> 0:060:00 00 00006600005 00 800.6 0&000.~ 00560> c005 .o6uc.6 “06660 6600 Xa0mo.6 6 O0 6 5000 06000 >00000> £000 000 #0000 000000000 020 00 00000600 000 0000 000006 >0 0005000z.0 6.66 6.6 6.66 6.66 66.66 666 66\66 656606666 660 66 6.6 6.66 6.66 66.66 666 66\66 >66 .2 6.66 6 66.66 6.66 66.6 666 66\66 5605: 6.66 6.6 66.66 6.66 66.66 666 66\66 6660 66 6.6 6.66 6.6 66.6 666 66\66 06666566 6.66 6.6 6.66 6.66 66.6 666 66\66 0660 6.66 6.6 6.66 66 66.6 666 66\66 660666 I 6.6 6.66 6.66 66.6 I 66\66 6660066560 6.66 6.6 6.66 6.6 66.6 666 66\66 656606666 5660 6.66 6.6 6.66 6.66 66.6 666 66\66 656606666 660 6.66 6.6 6.66 6.66 66.6 666 66\66 65660060 0000 600050 6200000 600005000 6000 600060000 0000003 .000>00m 006000600 AH 005000 006000 00000600 00 60000 00005005 00000 157 Comparison of yeild} of applesauce processed fr m traditignal, recent, and new varieties (control , 2 month ) storage Category Selection Control 2 month storage Traditional McIntosh 75.65 62.00 varieties Cortland 68.20 38.80 Jonathan 67.80 48.60 Red Delicious 66.90 55.70 Northern Spy 65.60 65.20 Golden 65.02 50.80 Rome 59.50 66.80 Idared 55.84 72.80 Recent Mutsu 76.00 68.70 varieties Empire (Early) 73.00 48.00 Empire (Late) 68.60 52.00 Empire (Middle) 64.05 57.00 New Honeycrisp 69.30 62.50 varieties Jonagold 63.46 60.80 Gala 58.30 61.10 1.as % of initial weight (1b) of selected apples 2. Applesauces processed after fresh harvest 3. Applesauces processed after 2 month harvest 158 Comparison of yeild}‘of frozen apple slices processed and new varieties from traditional, recent, month storage ) (control 2 I Category Selection Control 2 month storage Traditional McIntosh 80.16 79.73 varieties Rome 76.69 71.74 Golden 72.35 67.26 Red Delicious 71.96 60.30 Idared 68.44 82.90 Jonathan 68.44 75.38 Cortland 68.32 74.99 Northern Spy 62.56 71.78 Recent Empire (Late) 67.30 63.98 varieties Empire (Middle) 65.09 60.42 Empire (Early) 59.69 63.80 New Honeycrisp 69.18 73.02 varieties Jonagold 67.10 75.70 Gala 57.30 57.04 1.as % of initial weight (1b) of selected apples 2. Frozen apple slices processed after fresh harvest 3. Frozen apple slices processed after 2 month harvest 2 ‘7 fir... 159 Comparison of yeild1 of apple puree processed from traditignal, recent, and new varieties (control , 2 month storage ) Category Selection Control 2 month storage Traditional Cortland 79.70 55.83 varieties Red Delicious 75.90 68.30 Golden 75.40 73.00 Northern Spy 71.96 72.80 Jonathan 71.90 65.40 McIntosh 68.44 44.00 Idared 62.82 78.40 Rome 56.60 80.40 Recent Mutsu 78.80 63.90 varieties Empire (Late) 78.69 42.00 Empire (Middle) 76.32 46.00 Empire (Early) 70.05 45.00 New Honeycrisp 82.10 75.76 varieties Gala 76.80 75.23 Jonagold 75.20 70.00 1.as % of initial weight (1b) of selected apples 2. Apple puree processed after fresh harvest 3. Apple puree processed after 2 month harvest 160 Wash Slice Steam 10 minutes at 100°C (212°F) I 1!.- Finish (0.060") F Finish (0.033") Heat to 93.3°C (200°F) for immediate filling Adjust consistency Fill in 205 x 210 (4oz.) jars Sterilization 102.8°C (217°F), 15 minutes Cooling to 37.8°C (100°F) Storage at room condition Flow diagram for baby apple puree process [quill Ill...“— .Uom~ um “<2 . counmsoum ..ocH mmwuoumuonmq mcwuomc«0cm caoauxooum .HHu>o access uwuwsoomw> Sansone oaosuxooum sn omusmmms .muwcs Essa o-oa.m comm um mccoomu 0 GA uosooum ms» «0 0000 mcwcmomua 0:» an cmum>oo umumaoumwmcoo x0w3umom a co cowfimscmum mo unmeasc.v .ucsaom ofiams\xaum..n omnuoum nucoa N Huuum 00mmmooun «mung «H00¢.~ umm>umn ammuu Houum commmooun mmusm 0H00¢.H 161 0 0 0N.0 ~32 0n.0 >0.0N H0.0 h 0H.0 00.0 and H flag «.0 0.0." HN.0 bu; 2.0 00.00 00.0 min 00.0 05.0 0N.0 p.00 NN\0~ 9:0” 060m 0 0 and um...” 00.0 2200 no.0 0 «.10 00.0 0 0 ma}: H.0 0.0." 0.70 00.0 2.0 bu.0v 00.0 n.~ «.70 «V; 0.0a 0.0." NN\0H :\0H cannon o o oa.o oo.H mm.o mp.nv ~o.o a. oH.o on.m so.o m nH\na sum H.0 0.0a 0H.0 0.70 00.0 hméc H0.0 min .30 m0.m 0H.H ~23 N~\0H H10.” cucnuuoz h m 0n.0 no.0 .30 3.0M 0v.0 0 3.30 5.0 31m H .132" v.0 0.3 ev.0 00.« v0.0 MN.N¢ 00.0 54 00.0 00.0 vw.0 0.0a h0\0H 0N\00 usuauuoo h 0 m~.0 «0.0 mn.0 nn.0¢ 00.0 p 2.0 pm...“ nu.0 0 >02 0N H.0 «.3 3.0 0N.m 0n.0 00:; 0m.0 n4 0.70 00.0 00.0 0.0..” h0\0.n n~\00 cmnuncoo 0 n 00.0 m0.0 m~.0 36¢ «0.0 m 2.0 5....” 0m.0 v ~H\~0 0.0 1: 0.70 0~.H 00.0 2.; 00.0 n.m 3.0 no...” m~.0 m.0~ nH\NH 0:00 snoucuuz p M 0m .0 cm . N ma in 0m .0m H00 m 00.0 on .v N N v0\~H msoaowamo 0.0 0.3 0m.0 om.~ main 0~.0n 0.010 aha 00.0 006 H.m~ 1mm 0:00.. 00\0H covaoo 0 0 dud 3... 3.0 5.0.00 No.0 0 00.0 ms...” 00.0 m v0\NH msoaofimo H.0 0.: 3.0 :6 0.70 00.2.” 50.0 0.~ 00.0 504.. 00.0 5.2” 0d\0.n m0\0H com cum 93 Gun 95 can 95 pan 96 can 95 can 02" «van must A40. «Am. .0. moaumu anugoHHo» uuosomm mumcuzowq . m>uauoona> chucouaducoo cauufiuumsm nuoooum amaze: coauuoHum A momuoum cucoa N m> Monacoov mmwuowum> 30: can .ucmomu .Hmcofiufiomuu scum mummmooua mmuaa macaw anon mo mmfluflamsv mcflmmmOOHQ Hmowmhcmuamofiamso .oom0 um 00: . 000000000 ..000 000000000000 00000000000 0000000000 .00u>a 0000:. umuusoom0> 0mu000a 00m0uxoo00 an 00050000 .mp0:9 0000 0-o0.m 0900 00 0000000 0 00 0000000 000 00 0000 000000000 000 an 0000>00 0000000000000 x0030000 0 00 0000000000 00 0000000.0 Ancu0om 000aa\x000..n 0000000 00000 0 00000 000000000 00000 00000.0 000>000 00000 00000 000000000 00000 00000.0 162 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00\00 50.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.00 00.0 0.0 00.0 50.0 00.0 0.00 00\00 50\00 00000000 00.0 55.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 5 00.0 50.0 00.0 5 00\00 00.0 00.00 00.0 I 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 m0\00 00\00 0000 00.0 50.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00\00 00.0 00.00 00.0 05.0 00.0 00.00 50.0 5.0 50.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 m0\00 50\00 n000.3.0025: 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.00 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00\00 0000.0. 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.50 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 00\00 00\00 000900 00.0 00.00 00.0 50.0 00.0 50.00 50.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00\00 0000000: 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.00 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 00\00 00\00 000900 00.0 50.00 50.0 00.0 00.0 05.00 50.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00\00 000.0000 00.0 00.00 05.0 00.5 50.0 00.50 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 00\00 m0\00 000050 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 50.0 00.00 00.0 5 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00\00 00.0 55.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 5.0 00.0 50.0 00.0 5.00 00\00 00\00 000:: 000 0>0 000 0>0 000 96 000 0>0 000 0>0 000 020 0000 0000 .00. 0000 .00 0000300000 00000000 000000000 0“000000.; 0000000000000 000 00 \00030 0000000 000000: 000 000000 0000000 00000 0 0> 00000000 00000000> 300 000 .000000 .00000000000 0000 m00000000 00000 0000 >000 no 000000000 0000000000 00000000I00000000 163 000000 0.0 0000000 0.0 0000000 0.0 v 00o>00u 000 000000 0000000300: 0o>00u «no 00 0000 0006 000 .0o>00u x000 0o>00u 0000 00000 0000 >000000000 00o>00u 000 no 0000 .0o>000 00000 0000 0o>000 0 00000 000000 00 000000000 >0600 0o >>000 0o >0000 >0000000 00 000 00 00:00 >>000 0o >0000 >00 .>000m 00000 .>0000 .>>000 00 >06 .0000>00 >000>0 0o >>000 000 .00000 .000000 .0000>00 >000>0 000000 0000000000 + a. .6 x .3 an x .0. so 02 .3 .8 x .3 so a: o 32.8» «0000 ”0000 0006 000 .000 0006 000 .000 0000000000 .000000 .0000 .000000000 + .2 an 0 3. so 0 a. so 0 .3 so 0 .00 so 0 o 002. 0006 00 0 m 0 0 0:0 0 0006000 0000000 0.0. 0.0. + .8 o.0 so 0 3. so 006 so To 8. :5 mm... o 00:30 0000 + 200.0 .8 0.00;. 20 0.70.0 so 0.0-0.0 .8 0.0-9.... :6 0.01.0.0 3000 8. on 8 >00000000oo 00000 000 000 I 000000000 >000 00 0000 03000 >0000000 00 000000000 00 0:0 0000000000000 00 00 >06 .600000: >000000000 .0000 00000000» 00000 000 000 .00000 0000 00 >06 00 0000m>0 .6000000 >000000o00m .000000 00000 0000 00 00 00 50 00 00 00 00000000000 0 0 0000000 00000 0:000:00000 000000 ooHV 00:0 0m>m0 000:0000 = m m 0 gm “0000 000000 00500 .4000 “0000 0>00o0mnzmv 00000000000 0cm 0000000000000 0000000 <00: 164 'II}: , lbw. I.. {It mamEdm .No am Mon c mocha ham vozoaao mowmm 03¢ mmmmm \AmeEdm .uo ma umm ¢ onuuu uou cascaau am. unaduonmu ocuuuaaxoumnn honouuaucou a no can nude hmasn and van» confide .oameum .uo ma ham 1 Guano ham vczoaau an. mama s; can» «HOE \\Auammdu .uo oa\vozoaan ad. .co«uuuo~oouav Hucuouxo no aucuoucq hunuo .oouEuo uooucd .uouwaun czoun xudv .auquouue 0:0 eoauo~n mandamuluaummquum huomouuo can» cued Hana nouou no coauuom no accuuuom uo uaoaau 04 no «mud van unoceudu o» mcwvuooou ax uuoooxu uuuoo .ueouu .uo>doH venoun ohm madman hausa nun» auauun u u m u a czoun unoqa .dwua ounmmuomu :x muomuxm Amamsdm .no Hum < maufla am away ”mom can ouuuo uou umzoaau pod. .auommuuo a mvoum new .umuu was» ouca anon huoduu> masoa mm udauu no munomuummgx 2:24:42 umnu no onlm on .No ma ham Anna mumsvu a uummuxm uuzu wom .unodm3 an mood uoHoo Handmau o mum an no noun cm can» muoe no: ammm cmmum Imm an Hausa caudau may ucwnmum our an a umo mmmamm maon3 haummc uo 0H0£3 casozn hum mm :x H mum.~ manna «a mwloN va «a mnv mnlem 0 :x H m.m|mm.~ «Hum ma 0 manna ma 0 ma «In on :H mm.~|~ mum ma vHIHH on ma mum hm ;V\num o.Hump.o muc pH oflnm ha pH a and on =~\Hn« m>.oum.o «In ma mnm on ma Hlo an a :v\alo m.lm~.o nun an a can an 4 ma 0 ov =0 mm.O|o «no on Nlo. on on ocuum Nana... a ouoom 0093 .3930 you a cause a muoum manna uuo 0 Ghana 009.5 0.30: umuumuunu muomumc Guam acaoo .No ma "muflm mamamm Awmma .aomb mummy 0>Huomnnamv mmowam manna cmuoum you coflumoflufiommm vcficmuo dam: 165 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY August 3, 1997 To: Mark A. Ueberaax 204 G M. Trout PSHN Building RE: IRE“: 97-‘61 TITLE: SENSORY EVALUATION OF APPLESAUCE REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CA TEGOR l-G APPROVAL DATE: 07/30/97 The university Committee on Research Involving human Subjects'(UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I an plu used to adVise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and nethods to obtain informed consent are a ropriate. herefore, the UCRIRS approved this project and any rev sions listed ’ a mve. RIKIIAL: UCRIRS approval is valid for one cal wdar beginning with Fr: the approval date shown abov:. Investigatorsr planni ng 1 continu ue a projec the year must use the green renewal % ‘ fore (enclosed with original roval letter or whena pro ect is renewed) to seek t certification. There is a can nun of four such expedit renewals ssible. Investigators wishi to continue a roject beyond the tine need to submit it again or complete rev ew. RBVISIONS UCRIES must review an change rocedures involvingh Y ' subjects, prior to1 initiation of mtge change If this ism“n done at 1 o renewal , please use the en renewal fora. reviseale an a roved protocol at an o r tine during the year send youru ntten request to the 133m ir. re eating revised approval and referm the project's IRE cm itle. Include in request a descr ptionp of the eand any revised ins runents. consent tforns or advertisements that are applicable. raosnsus/ Clhlfllsx Should either of the follow arise work, investigators Inst noti ted a de effects coup ints, metc. subsectsor in w) or new es res iron-ant Mornation indicating greater risk to the" human sub ects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed approved. ”course of the mil, robin-s Ifw can be ofm my future help please do not hesitate to contact us at (511)355- 2100 or FAX (511)4 i- Sincerely. IbhuflhCuuMMu MnumahnMMn mmuaflnhdx «mam» demsue ' ' 246 Aammsnsm Buckling DE" ‘ bed Enusmmlucnm ma+mm MILES?!” FAX‘5171432-lt11 avid 3. Wright. ucnras Chair : Korada Sunthanont Approval for human subject application from University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects 166 anmo.oa m 0» a Baum canon aumwun> some you uumso monmumumu 0:» cu counofioo can pump unapoH an pousmnmz.m mnou3oz.m mwhm an pounmwma "Moaou mOMMHSm no omuw.h “Hm no Houfla Hum Homn> unmaxnum no mumuwaouooa no Emm.o mfimum.m mwammc coupon» U>¢.¢ mmammn Houucou pmunmuuca.m hufluzunfi can unmeummuu 0>4 uo zpsum on» uom.~ momma :souo m Baum monam> came .muc.a m.mH m.mH MH.w nH.m H¢.wh hm.nh m.m@ o.Nb mw.o hm.¢ m.mo~ o.mNN om\.v.n\o.n 0.0H “Tod wm.m nw.m NH.mh Hm.mh ¢.hh m.mb mm.o mm.v N.wom m.¢NN mm\o.n\o.n m.m.n H.w.n ow.v om.w mb.nm mw.mh N.mh w.mn NH.o HN.N o.hom O.NMN mm\~.0\o.n m.mH m.m.a Nm.m oo.m mm.Nw cafnw w.~m o.mm no.0 ¢O.H NIHON m.MNN mm\m0\o.m mZvH o.mH wo.m wh.m mm.Nm 55.0w mivm n.mw mo.o m¢.o N.me o.mom wm\OM\mo w.m.n NJ; om.N om.N mm.Hw .2105 N.mm m.om hv0.9 mm.o m.OHN m.vHN wm\mm\mo m.m.n w.m.n ov.N wH.m vol—Va mat—hm ®.Nm minm No.0 HH.O N.mm.n o.mo~ mm\mm\mo H.MH N.m.n whim OH.N Nwivw om.mw ¢.m¢ w.w¢ Ho.o no.0 m.wh.n m.hmH mm\mH\mo m.NH 01m." ovin om.H mH.bw mm.om N.mm m.m¢ no.0 mo.o ¢.me m.NmH wm\w.n\mo was 095 0>4 UBD U>< OED U>< OED U>< OED v0>4 mUBD munfl gunman mnoumum mummcfiuwm poem nonmaanpm mucounmz umm>umm AHH accumv mmpmo umm>umc Hafiunmsvmm co «mmammn UHOOMCOb you Humwu wuflnnums ammum LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Adams, D.0. and Yang, S.F. 1979. Ethylene biosynthesis: Identification of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid as an intermediate in the conversion of methionine to ethylene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76: 170-174. Amerine, M.A.; Pangborn, R.M.; and Roessler, E.B. 1965. Principles of sensory evaluation. Academic Press, New York. Anderson, R.E. 1967. Experimental storage of eastern grown "Delicious" apples in various controlled atmospheres. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 91: 810-820. Anderson, J., Liebermann, M., Mattoo, A. and Chalutz, E. 1978. Rhizobitoxine analogs (enol ether amino acids) as inhibitors of ethylene and amino acid incorporation. Plant Physiol. 61: S-495. Anderson, J., Liebermann, M., Mattoo, A. and Chalutz, E. 1979. Influence of enol ether amino acids, inhibitors of ethylene biosynthesis, on aminoacyl transfer RNA synthetases and protein synthesis. Plant Physiol. 64: 289-292. Anon. 1993. Apple marketing clinic report #94. International Apple Institute. McLean, VA. Baker, J.E., Lieberman, M. and Anderson, J.D. 1978. Inhibition of ethyleneproduction in fruit slices by a rhizobitoxine analog and free radical scavengers. Plant Physiol. 61: 886-888. Bangerth, F. 1978. The effects of substituted amino acids on ethylene biosynthesis, respiration, ripening, and preharvest drop of apple fruits. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci.103: 401-404. Bartley, I.M. 1976. Changes in the glucans of ripening apples. Phytochem. 15: 625-626. Bartley, I.M. 1986. Changes in sterol and phospholipid composition of apples during storage at low temperature and low oxygen concentration. J. Sci. Food Agric. 37: 31-36. 167 r. 168 Beach, S.A., Booth, M.0. and Taylor, 0.M. 1903. The Apples of New York. Report of the New York Experiment Station, II, Ithaca, NY. Beebe-Center, J.G. 1932. The psychology of pleasantness and unpleasantness. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Berglund, P.T., Lau, K. and Holm, E.T. 1992. Improvement of triangle test data by use of incentives. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND Beruter, J. 1985. Sugar accumulation and changes in the activities of related enzymes during development of the apple fruit. J. Plant Physiol. 121: 331-341. Beyer, E.M. 1985. Ethylene Metabolism. Ethylene and Plant Development. Edited by Robert, J.A. and Tucker, G.A. Univ. Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, England. P “‘5— . E Blackman, F.F. and Parija, P. 1928. Analytic studies in plant respiration I: The respiration of a population of senescent ripening apples. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 103: 412. Blanpied, 6.0., and Smock, R.M. 1983. Storage of Fresh- market Apples. Cornell Univ. Coop. Ext. Info. Bull. 191. Boller, T., Herner, R.C. and Kende, H. 1979. Assay for and enzymatic information of an ethylene precursor, 1- Aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid. Planta. 145: 293- 303. Borochovy A., Halevy, .A.H. and, ShiniZkyy M. 1982. Plant Physiol. 69: 296. Bourne, M.C. 1982. Food Texture and Viscosity: Concept and Measurement. Academic Press Inc., New York. Bramlage, W.J.; Greene, D.W.; Antio, W.R. McLaughlin, J. M. 1980. Effects of aminoethoxyvinylglycine on internal ethylene concentration and storage of apples. J. 1981. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 105: 847-851. Buck, M.L., Dryden, E.C. and Hills, C.H. 1955. Chromatographic comparison of nonvolatile acids of fresh and stored. apple juice concentrate. J. Food. Chem.3:960. Bufler, G. 1984. Ethylene-enhanced 1-aminocyclopropane-1- carboxylic acid synthase activity in ripening apples. Plant Physiol. 75: 192-195. 169 Burg, S.P. and Thimann, K.V. 1959. The physiology of ethylene formation in apples. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 45: 335-344. Burg, S.P. and Burg, E.A. 1965. Ethylene action and the ripening of fruit. Science. 148: 1190-1196. Burg, S.P. and Burg, E.A. 1967. Molecular requirements for the biological activityof ethylene. Plant Physiol. 42:144. Burg, S.P. and Burg, E.A. 1969. Interaction of ethylene, oxygen and carbon dioxidein the control of fruit ripening. Qual. Plant. Mater. Veg. 19: 185. Cald, J.S., Culpepper, C.W., and Demaree, K.D. 1955. Quality of frozen apples related to variety and ripeness. J. Agr. Food Chem.3:513 Chen, P.M. and Mellenthin, W.M. 1982. Storage behavior of ‘d'ANJOU' pears in low oxygen and air. Controlled Atmospheres for Storage and Transport of Perishable Agricultural Commodities. (ed Richardson, D.G. and Meheriuk, M.). Timber Press, Beaverton, OR. Child, R.D., Anthony, A.W., Gordon, V.H. and Christopher R.E. 1984. The effects of Aminoethoxyvinylglycine on Maturity and Post-harvest Changes in Cox's Orange Pippin Apples. J. Sci. Food Agric. 35: 773-781 Childers, N.F. and Sherman, W.B. (eds.) 1988. The Peach. Horticultural Pub., Gainesville, FL. Dalrymple, D.G. 1967. The deve10pment of controlled atmosphere storage of fruit. USDA Div. Marketing Util. Serv., Federal Ext. Serv. Pamp. Daoud, H.N., and Luh, B.S. 1971. Effect of partial replacement of sucrose by corn syrup on quality and stability of canned applesauce. J. Food Sci. 36: 419- 422. Desrosier, N.W. and Tressler, D.R. 1977. Freezing fruits. Fundamentals of Food Freezing. AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, Connecticut. Diane M.B., Laszlo P.S., and Hui Y.H. 1996. Volume 2. Processing Fruits: Science and Technology: Major Processed Products. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Dilley, D.R. 1962. Malic enzyme activity in apple fruit. Nature. 196: 387-88. 170 Dimick, P.S. and Hoskin, J.C. 1983. Review of apple flavor- State of the art. CRC Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 18: 387-409. Drake, S.R., Nelson, J.W., and Powers, J.R. 1979. The influence of controlled atmosphere storage and processing conditions on the quality of applesauce from "Golden Delicious" apples. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104(1): 68-70. Drawert, F., Heimann, W., Emberger, R., and Tressl, R. 1983. Uber die biogenese von aromastoffen. Phytochemistry. 7: 881. Dryden, E.C. and Hills, C.H. 1957. Consumer preference studies on apple sauce: sugar-acid relation. Food Technol.11: 589. Durocher, J. and Roskis, G. 1949. I'Emploi des sels de calcium dans I'industrie des conserves alimentaires. L'Officiel de la Conserve. 4: 25. Fidler, J.C. and North, C.J. 1967. The effect of storage on the respiration of apples I. The effect of temperature and concentration of carbon dioxide and oxygen on the production of carbon dioxide and uptake of oxygen. J. Hort. Sci. 42: 189-206. Flath, R.A., Black, D.R., Guadagni, D.G., McFadden, W.H. and Schultz, T.H. 1967. Identification and organoleptic evaluation of compounds in Delicious apples essence. J. Agri. Food Chem. 15: 29-35. Foley, J. and Buckley, J. 1977. Pasteurization and thermisation of milk and blanching of fruit and vegetables. Food Quality and Nutrition: Research Priorities for Thermal Processing. (ed. Downey, W.K.). Applied Science Publishers Ltd., Essex, England. Forsyth, F.R., Eaves, C.A., and Lightfoot, H.J. 1969. Storage quality of McIntosh apples as effected by removal of ethylene from the storage atmosphere. Can. J. Plant Sci. 49: 567-572. Frenkel, C., Klein, I. and Dilley, D.R. 1968. Protein synthesis in relation to ripening of pome fruits. Plant Physiol. 43: 1146-1153. Gebhardt, S.E.; Cutrufelli, R. and Matthews, R.H. 1982. Composition of foods. Agric. Handbook 8-9. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 171 Giovanelli, J.; Owens, L.D. and Mudd, S.H. 1971. Mechanism of inhibition of spinach B-cystathionase by rhizobitoxine. Biochem Biophys. Acta 227: 671-84. Gross, J., Zachariae, A., Lenz, F. and Eckhardt, G. 1978. Carotenoid changes in the peel of the "Golden Delicious" apples during ripening and storage. Zeitschrift fur pflanzenphysiologie. 89: 321-332. Greig, W.S.; Bedford, C.L.; and Larzelere. 1962. Consumer preferences among apple varieties in fresh and processed forms. Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn. Q. Bull. 44(3): 511-13. Hall, G.C. 1989. Refrigerated, frozen, and dehydrofrozen apples. Processed Apple Products, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 1-29. Hartmann, C. 1963. L'Activite aldolasigue des tissus de pomme et de poire pendant la maturation et la senescence des fruits. Phytochem. 2: 407-11. Heldman, D.R. 1992. Food freezing. Handbook of Food Engineering. (ed. Heldman, D.R. and Lund, D.B.). Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, Basel, Honkong. Herner, R.C., Kader, A.A., Romani, R.J., Staby, G.L., and Watada, A.E. 1984. Terminology for the Description of Developmental Stages of Horticultural Crops. HortScience.19(1):20 Hoffman, N.E. and Yang, S.F. 1980. Changes of 1- aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid content in ripening fruit in relation to their ethylene production rates. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105: 492-495. Holdsworth, S.D.1979. Effects of Heating on FOod Stuffs: Fruits (Ed.) R. J. Priestly. Applied Science Publisher, London. Hoogzand, C. and Doesburg, J.J. 1961. Effect of blanching on texture and pectin of canned cauliflower. Food Technol. 15: 160. Hsu, E.J. 1975. Factors affecting microflora in processed fruits. Commercial Fruit Processing. (ed. Luh, B.S. and Woodroof, J.G.). AVI Publishing Co, Inc. Westport, CT. Hulme, A.C. and I.S.C. Wooltorton. 1962. Separation of the enzymes present in the mitochondrial fraction from apple peel. Nature. 196: 388-89. 172 Hultin, H.0. and Milner, M. 1978. Role of hormones in ripening and senescence. Postharvest Biology and Biotechnology. Food & Nutrition Press, Inc. Westport, Connecticut. IFT Sensory Evaluation Div. 1975. Business meeting at 35th Ann. Meet., Inst. Of Food Technologists. Chicago, IL. IFT Sensory Evaluation Div. 1981. Sensory evaluation guide for testing food and beverage product and guidelines for preparation and renew papers reporting sensory evaluation data. Food Technol. 35(11): 50. Jamison, W. 1980. Use of hypobaric conditions for refrigerated storage of meats, fruits, and vegetables. Food Technol. 34(3): 64. Kader, A.A. 1986. Biochemical and physiological basis for effects of controlled and modified atmospheres on fruits and vegetables. Food Technol. 40: 99-104. Kertesz, z.I. , Eucare, M., and Fox, G. 1959. A study of apple cellulose. Food res. 24: 14-19. Kim, K.S., Lee, K.L., Hong, S.Y., and Sohn, T.H. 1969. Studied on the reduced pressure storage of fruit. II. Preservation of Jonathan under various storage chamber pressures. J. Korean. Agr. Chem. Soc. 11: 77. Knee, M. 1972. Anthocyanin, carotenoid, and chlorophyll changes in the peel of Cox's Orange Pippin apples during ripening on and off the tree. J. Exp. Botany. 23: 184-96. Knee, M. 1973. Polysaccharide changes in cell walls of ripening apples. Phytochem. 12: 1543-1549. Knee, M. 1978. Properties of polygalacturonate and cell cohesion in apple fruit cortical tissue. Phytochem. 17: 1257-1260. Knee, M. 1980. Methods of measuring green color and chlorophyll content of apple fruit. J Food Technol. 15: 493-500 Knee, M. and Bartley, I.M. 1981. Composition and metabolism of cell wall polysaccharides in ripening fruits. Recent Advances in the Biochemistry of Fruits and Vegetables (eds J. Friend and M.J.C. Rhodes). Academic Press, London. Knee, M. and Hatfield, A. 1981. Benefits of ethylene removal during apple storage. Ann. Biol. 98: 157. 173 Knee, M.; Hatfield, 8.6.8. and Smith, S.M. 1989. Evaluation of various indicators of maturity for harvest of apple fruit intended for long-term storage. J. Hort. Sci. 64: 413-419. Knee, M. 1993. Pome Fruits. Biochemistry of Fruit Ripening. eds G.B. Seymour, J.E. Taylor and G.A. Tucker). First edition. Chapman & Hall, New York. Kramer, A., Burkarst, G.J., and Rogers, H.P. 1951. The shear press: a device for measuring food quality. The Canner. 112(5): 34. Kramer, A. 1955. Food quality and quality control. Handbook of Food and Agriculture. (ed. By Blanck). Reinhold Publ. Co., New York Kramer, A. 1973. Food Texture: Definition, measurement and relation to other food quality attributes. Texture Measurements of Foods. A. Kramer and S. Szczesniak, 8. (Ed.). Reidel Publ, Dordrecht, Netherlands. P. 1 LaBelle R.L., Schallenberger, R.S., Way, R.D, Matlick, L.R. and Moyer, J.C. 1960. The relationship of apple maturity to applesauce quality. Food Technol. 14:463-468. LaBelle, R.L., Schallenberger, R.S., and Meyer, J.C.1961. How to choose the best apples for sauce. Canner/Packer.130(8):30 LaBelle, R.L.1981. Apple quality characteristics as related to various processed products. Quality of Selected Fruits and Vegetables of NOrth America, American Chemical Siciety, Washington, DC, pp.61-76. Laconti, J.D. and Kertesz, 2.1. 1941. Identification of Ca pectate as the tissue firming compound formed by treatment of tomatoes with CaCl. Food Research. 6: 449. Lal Kaushal, B.B. and Sharma, P.C. 1995. Apple. Handbook of Fruit Science and Technology: Production, COmposition, Storage, and Processing. (Salunkhe, D.K. and Kadam, S.S., eds.). Marcel Dekker, New York. Lanza, J.and Kramer, A. 1967. Objective measurement of graininess in applesauce. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 90: 491. Lau, G.L., and Looney, N.E. 1982. Improvement of fruit firmness and acidity in controlled-atmosphere-stored "Golden Delicious" apples by a rapid 02 reduction procedure. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 107(4): 531-534. 174 Lau, G.L., Yastremski, R., and Heheriuk, M. 1986. Influence of maturity, storage procedure, temperature, and oxygen concentration on quality and disorders of "McIntosh" apples. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111(6): 93-99. Lee, C.Y. 1975. New blanching techniques. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 7: 2, 100-106. Lee, C.Y. and Mattick, L.R. 1989. Composition and nutritive value of apple products. Processed Apple Products. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. Lerner, A.B. and Fitzpatrick, T.B. 1950. Biochemistry of melanin formation. Physiol. Rev. 30: 91-126 Lidster, P.D., Tung, M.A., Garland, M.R., and Porritt, S.W. 1979. Texture Modification of processed apple slices by a postharvest heat treatment. J. Food Sci. 44: 998-1000, 1007 Lidster, P.D., Forsyth, F.R., and Lightfoot, H.J. 1980. Low 02 and C02 atmospheres for storage of McIntosh apples. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 299-301. Lidster, P.D., Lightfoot, H.J., and McRae, K.B. 1983. Fruit quality and respiration of McIntosh apples in response to ethylene, very low oxygen and carbon dioxide storage atmospheres. Sci.Hort. 20: 71-83. Liebermann, M.; Kunishi, A.T; Owens, L.D.1974. Specific Inhibitors of Ethylene Production as Retardants of the Ripening Process in Fruits. Colloq. Int. Cent. Natl. Rech. Sci. No.238, Paris. Liu, F.W. 1979. Interaction of daminozide, harvesting date, and ethylene in CA storage on McIntosh apple quality. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104: 599-601. K. Looney, N.E. and Patterson, M.E. 1967. Chlorophyllase activity in apples and bananas during the climacteric phase. Nature. 214: 1245-46. Lougheed, E.C., Franklin, E.W., Miller, S.R., and Proctor, J.T.A. 1973. Firmness of McIntosh apples as effected by alar and ethylene removal from the storage atmosphere. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53: 317-322. Lougheed, E.C., Murr, D.P., and Berard, L. 1978. Low pressure storage for horticultural crops. Hort. Sci. 13:21. Luh, 8.8. and Kamber, P.J. 1963. Chemical and color changes in canned apple sauce. Food Technol. 105: 105-108. 175 Luh, B. S., Feinberg, B., Chung, J. I. 1975. Freezing of fruits. Commercial Fruit Processing. (ed. Luh, B. S. and Woodroof, J. G. ). AVI Publishing Co, Inc. Westport, CT. Lutz, J.M. and Hardenberg, R.E. 1968. U.S. Dept. Agr. Handbook 66. Matso, A. V., Baker, J. E., Chalutz, E., Liebermann, M. 1977. Effect of temperature on the Ethylene synthesizing systems in apple, tomato, and Penicillium digitatum. Plant Cell Physiol. 18: 715- -719. Manhart, W. 1995. Apples for the TWenty-First Century. Published by the North American Tree Company, Portland, E OR. Massey, L. M. 1989. Harvesting, storing, and handling i processing apples. Processed Apple Products. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York. mfi McGlasson, W. B. 1970. The ethylene factor. The Biochemistry of Fruits and Their Products. Vol. 1. A. C. Hulme Editor). Academic Press, New York. McLellan, M. R.; Lind, L. R.; and Kime, R. W. 1984. Determination of sensory components accounting for intervarietal variation in applesauce and slice using factor analysis. J. Food Sci. 49: 751- 55. Meheriuk, M. 1985. Controlled-atmosphere storage conditions for some more commonly grown apple cultivars. In Proc. Fourth Controlled-Atmosphere Res. Conf. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, 395-421. Mohr, W. P. 1989. Influence of cultivar, fruit maturity and fruit anatomy on apple sauce particle size and texture. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 24:403-413. Morre, D.J. 1975. Membrane biogenesis. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 26: 441-481. Moskowitz, H.R. 1983. Product testing and sensory evaluation of foods. Marketing and R&D Approaches. Food and Nutrition Press, Westport, CT. Nelmes, B.J. and Preston, R.D. 1968. Wall development in apple fruits: a study of the life history of a parenchyma cell. J. Exp. Botany. 19: 496. Ness, P. J. and Romani, R. J. 1980. Effects of aminoethoxy- vinylglycine and countereffects of ethylene on ripening of Bartlett pear fruits. Plant Physiol. 65: 372- -376. 176 North, C.J., Bubb, M., and Cockburn, J.T. 1976. Storage of Cox's Orange Pippin apples in 1% oxygen. East Malling Annual Rpt. For 1975. Owens, S.D.; Lieberman, M. and Kunishi, A. 1971. Inhibition of ethylene production by rhizobitoxine. Plant Physiol. 48:1-4. O'Rourke, A.D. 1994. World apple supplies. The World Apple Market. Food products press. An Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc, New York, London, Norwood (Australia). Patchen, 6.0. 1971. Storage of Apples and Pears. Marketing Res. Rep. 924. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 5 1" V; n Piggott, J.R. 1988. Second edition. Scaling and ranking methods. Sensory Analysis of Foods. Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd. Barking, Essex IG11 8JU, England. —r_"“.hw. ‘ A' n” Poste, L.M., Mackie, D.A., Butler, G. and Larmond, E. 1991. Descriptive test. Laboratory Methods for Sensory Analysis of Food. Canada Communication Group-Publishing Centre, Ottawa, Canada K1A OS9. Potter, N.N. 1986. 4th Edition. Heat preservation and processing. Food Science. AVI Publishing Co, Inc. Westport, CT. Pratt, H.K. and Goeschl, J.D. 1969. Physiological roles of ethylene in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 20:541- 548. Rees, D.A. 1972. Shapely polysaccharides. Biochem. J. 126: 257. Reid, M.S., Rhodes, M.J.C. and Hulme, A.C.1973. Change in ethylene and 002 during the ripening of apples. J. Sci. Food Agric. 24: 971-979. Reid, M.S. 1992. Ethylene in postharvest technology. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. 2nd ed. Edited by Kader, A.A. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland, California. Reiner, M and Scott Blair, G W. 1967. Rheological terminology. Rheology Theory and Application. Vol. IV. (ed. F.R. Eirich). Academic Press, New York. Rhodes, M.J.C. and Wooltorton, L.S.C. 1967. The respiration climacteric in apple fruits. The action of hydrolytic enzymes in peel tissue during the climacteric period in fruit detached from the tree. Phytochem. 6: 1-12. 177 Richardson, T. and Hyslop, D.B. 1985. Enzyme. Food Chemistry. (Fennema, O.R., ed.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. Root, W.H. 1996. Apples and apple processing. Major Processed Products. L.P. Somogyi, D.M. Barrett, and Y.H. Hui, eds. Technomic Publishing Company Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Ryall, A.L. and Lipton, W.J. 1972. Refrigerated storage. Handling, Transportation, and Storage of Fruits and Vegetables. v.1. The AVI Publishing Co, Inc. Westport, CO. Ryall, A.L. and Pentzer, W.T. 1974. Handling, Transportation, and Storage of Fruits and vegetables. AVI. Westport, CT. p. 1. Ryall, A.L., and Penzer, W.T. 1981. Handling, transportation, and storage of fguits and vegetables. Vol. 2, Fruits and Nut Crops. 2n ed. AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT. Salunkhe, D.K. and Wu, M.T. 1973. Effects of subatmospheric pressure storage on ripening and associated chemical changes of certain deciduous fruits. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 98: 113. Salunkhe, D.K. and Desai, B.B. 1984. Postharvest Biotechnology of fruits. Vol. I. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. P.1. Shallenberger, R.S., Moyer, J.C., LaBelle, R.L., Robinson, W.B., and Hand, D.B. 1963. Firmness of canned apple slices as affected by maturity and steam-blanch temperature. Food Technol. 17: 102-104. Sharples, R.O., Chappell, D.J., and Sharp, L.E. 1978. Semi- commercial scale storage of Cox's Orange Pippin apples in 1.25%02. East Malling Annu. Rep. 1977. Shewfelt, R.L. 1986. Postharvest treatment for extending the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. Food Technol. 40(5): 70-89. Shipway, M.R. and Bramlage, W.J. 1973. Effects of C02 on activity of apple mitrochondria. Plant Physiol. 51: 1095. Simpson, K.L. 1985. Chemical changes in natural food pigments. Chemical Changes in Food during Processing. (ed. Richardson, T. and Finley, J.W.). AVI Publishing Co, Inc. Westport, CT. 178 Singh, R.P. and Heldman, D.R. 1993. 2nd edition. Food freezing. Introduction to Food Engineering. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, CA. Smock, R.M. 1942. Influence of controlled atmosphere storage on the respiration of McIntosh apples. Bot. Gaz. 104: 178-184. Smock, R.M. and Neubert, A.M.1950. Apples and Apple Products. Interscience Publ., New York. Steinbuch, E. 1976. Improvement of texture of frozen vegetables by stepwise blanching treatments. J. Food Technol. 11: 313-316. Stone, H. and Sidel, J.L. 1985. Sensory EValuation Practices. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Szczesniak, A.S. 1963. Classification of texture characteristics. J. Food Sci. 28: 385. Szczesniak, A.S. 1973. Instrumental methods of texture measurements. Texture Measurements of Fbods. (ed. A. Kramer and A.S. Szczesniak). D. Reidel Publishing Co., Boston. Tannenbaum, S.R. and Young, V.R. 1985. Vitamins and minerals. Food Chemistry. (Fennema, O.R., ed.). Marcel Dekker, Inc.,New York. Timberlake, C.F. 1981. Anthocyanins in fruits and vegetables. Recent Advances in the Biochemistry of Fruits and Vegetables. (eds J. Friends and M.J.C. Rhodes). Academic Press, London. Thomas, F.B. and Ritter, C.M. 1958. Varietal influences on quality of applesauce blends. Penn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Progress Rep. 193 Tucker, G.A. 1993. Introduction. Biochemistry of Fruit Ripening. Edited. Seymour, G.B., Taylor, J.E., and Tucker, G.A. Chapman & Hall, London. Tufts, W.P. 1929. Seasonal temperature and fruit ripening: A preliminary report. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 26: 163. USDA. 1954. United states standards for Grades of frozen apple, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Processed product standardization and inspection branch, Washington, D.C. 179 USDA. 1974. United states standards for Grades of canned applesauce, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Processed product standardization and inspection branch, Washington, D.C. Upshaw, S.C.; Lopez, A.; Williams, H.L. 1978. Essential elements in apples and canned applesauce. J. Food Sci. 43: 449-56. Van Buren, J.P., Moyer, J.C., and Wilson, D.E. 1960. Influence of blanching conditions on sloughing, splitting, and firmness. of canned snap beans. Food Technol. 14: 233. Van Buren, J.P. 1967. Pectic substances of sweet cherries and their alteration during 802 brining. J. Food Sci. 32: 435. Van Straten, S. 1977. Volatile compounds in food. TNO. Zeist. Way, R.D. and McLellan, M.R. 1989. Apple cultivars for processing. Processed Apple Products, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, pp. 1-29. Whistler, R.L. and Daniel, J.R. 1985. 2nd ed. Carbohydrate. Food Chemistry. (Fennema, O.R., ed.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. Whiting, G.C. 1970. Sugars. Biochemistry of Fruits and Their Products. Vol. 1. (ed. AC. Hulme). Academic Press, London. Wiley, R.C. and Thompson, A.H. 1959. Influence of Apple Variety, Maturity, and Storage on the Quality of Canned Slices. Nat. Canners Assoc. Information Letter NO. 1720. Wiley, R.C. and Thompson, A.H. 1960. Influence of apple variety, maturity, and storage on the quality of canned slices. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 75: 61. Wiley, R.C. and Toldby, V. 1960. Factors affecting the quality of canned apple sauce. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 76: 112. Wiley, R.C. and Stembridge, G.B. 1961. Factors influencing apple texture. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 77: 60. Williams, A.A., Tucknott, O.G. and Lewis, M.J. 1977. 4-meth- oxyallylbenzene, an important aroma component of apples. J. Sci. Food Agric. 28: 185-190. 180 Woodroof, J.G. and Luh, B.S.1975. Fruit wasting, Peeling, and preparation for Processing. Cbmmercial Fruit Processing. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc, Westport, Connecticut, pp.78-99. Workman, M. 1963. Controlled atmosphere studies on Turley apples. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 83: 126-134. Yamaki, S. and Ishikawa, K. 1986. Roles of four sorbitol related enzymes and invertase in the seasonal alteration of sugar metabolism in apple tissue. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 111: 134-137. Yang, S.F. 1975. Ethylene biosynthesis in fruit tissues. Facteurs et Regulation de la Maturation des Fruits. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Yang, S.F. and Hoffman, N.E. 1984. Ethylene biosynthesis and its regulation in higher plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35: 155-89. Young, C.T. 1975. Composition and nutritive value of raw and processed fruits. Commercial Fruit Processing. (ed. Luh, B.S. and Woodroof, J.G.) AVI Publishing Co, Inc. Westport, CT.