Effect of High Hydrostatic Pressure on the Physiology of Manila Mango
Manila mangoes (Mangifera indica L.) have sensory characteristics that make them attractive for consumption as a fresh fruit. A large portion of the annual yield of this fruit is infested by the Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens), adversely impacting the quality of the crop. Hence, it is necessary to develop economically viable postharvest treatments to reduce the damage caused by this insect. Currently, high hydrostatic pressures are used to guarantee the safety of many processed foods. The objective of this work was to assess the effects of high hydrostatic pressure on mangoes at their physiological maturity. High hydrostatic pressures were applied to mangoes at three levels: 50, 100 and 200 megapascals applied for four different time periods (0, 5, 10 and 20 min). Physiologically mature mangoes were more resistant to changes in response to the pressure of 50 MPa. Reduction of physiological activity by application of high hydrostatic pressure opens a new avenue for the research on treatments intended to enhance preservation of whole fresh fruit.
KeywordsHydrostatic pressure Manila mango Physiology
Hue degree angle values
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of PROMEP (Mexico) through a network grant for utilization of agricultural resources.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.Hoover DG (1997) Minimally processed fruits and vegetables: reducing microbial load by nonthermal physical treatments. Food Technol 51:66–71, WOS: A1997XD90700024Google Scholar
- 4.Reyes J, Santiago G, Hernández P (2000) Mexican fruit fly eradication programme. In: Tan KH (ed) Area-wide control of fruit flies and other insect pests. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, pp 377–380. ISBN 983-861-195-6Google Scholar
- 6.Saltveit ME, Yang SF (1987) Ethylene. In: Rivier L, Crozier A (eds) Principles and practices of plant hormone analysis, vol 2, Chapter 6. Academic Press, New York, pp 367–401. ISBN 0-12-198375-7Google Scholar
- 7.Harker FR, Maindonald JH, Jackson PJ (1996) Penetrometer measurement of apple and kiwifruit firmness: operator and instrument differences. J Am Soc Hort Sci 121:927–936, WOS:A1996VF06300028Google Scholar
- 8.AOAC (1990) In: Kenneth H (ed) Official methods of analysis, vol II, 15th edn. The Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington. ISBN 0-935584-42-0Google Scholar
- 16.Salisbury BF, Ross CW (1992) Plant physiology, 4th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont. ISBN 0534151620Google Scholar
- 17.Ruiz M, Guadarrama A (1992) Comportamiento postcosecha del mango (Mangifera indica) tipo Bocado durante maduración controlada. Rev Fac Agron 18:79–93Google Scholar
- 18.Nip WK (1993) Determining the internal quality of mango fruit. In: Chia CL, Evans DO (eds) Proceedings, Conference on Mango in Hawaii. March 9–11, 1993; Honolulu, Hawaii. Honolulu (HI): University of Hawaii. pp. 41–47. (http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/handle/10125/16476/HITAHR_04-06-93.pdf?sequence=1)
- 19.Osuna JA, Guzmán ML et al. (2002) Calidad del mango Ataulfo producido en Nayarit. Rev Fitotec Mex 254:367–374. ISSN: 0187–7380Google Scholar
- 20.Ikeda F, Baba T et al (2000) Effect of hydrostatic pressure on postharvest physiology in fruit. Acta Hort 518:101–106Google Scholar