Submitted Dissertation 17 TH April 2013

A review of ethylene management techniques
controlling the shelf life of perishables and
research into two new types of ethylene
scrubbing technologies.
Lisa Wray-French
Food Safety and Quality Management Masters
2013
i
DEDICATION
This piece of work is dedicated to my partner Gem for her invaluable support throughout the
course of my studies and for acting as a soundboard on so many occasions.
ii
DECLARATION
I declare that this thesis:
Title: A review of ethylene management techniques controlling the shelf life of

perishables and research into two new types of ethylene scrubbing technologies.
Is my own work, where other people’s work has been used it has been properly and clearly
acknowledged in the text.
This work has not been accepted in substance for any degree or at any other institution, and is
not submitted for any other award other than that of Master of Science (MSc) in Food Safety
and Quality Management to the Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich.
Name: Lisa Wray-French
Signed:………………………………………….. Date ……17th April 2013……………..
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Sincere thanks and appreciation go to my supervisor Debbie Rees (Ph.D.) and to my program
leader Mrs Linda Nicolaides for their advice, encouragement and support.
Special thanks go to Karen Thurston at East Malling Research (EMR) for all of her kind
assistance and to all other staff at EMR for their help.
Thanks also to my parents Christine and David Smith for their financial assistance and
Angela Wray for the same reason. I could not have achieved this goal without any of you.
Lastly but by no means least sincere gratitude to Valerie at The Lively Crew for introducing
me to Fresh Pod, allowing me to research the product and for her enthusiasm in doing so!
iv
List of Contents
Subject Page Number
Abstract 10
1. Introduction 11
1.1. Background and problems statement 11
1.2. Rationale 12
1.3. Aims and objectives 14
2. Literature Review 15
2.1. Ethylene and Fruit Ripening 16
2.2. Detrimental Effects of Ethylene 20
2.3. Commercial Ethylene Level Management & Removal 21
2.3.1. Low Temperature & Humidity Storage 23
2.2.3. Ventilation (Forced Air) 24
2.3.3. Ozone Technology 25
2.3.4. Controlled Atmosphere Storage 26
2.3.5. Modified Atmosphere Storage 27
2.3.6. Modified Atmosphere Packaging 28
2.3.7. Ethylene Antagonists (competitors) 29
2.3.8. Chemical Removal (Scrubbing) 30
2.4. Consumer Ethylene Removal (Scrubbing) 31
2.4.1. The Fresh Pod System 32
2.4.2. The E+ System 33
3. Materials and Methods 34
v
3.1. Research Programme 34
3.2. Study to determine the baseline concentration of ethylene 34
in domestic refrigerators
3.3. Survey of Fruit and Vegetable Purchases 36
3.4. Fresh Pod and E+ Trial 36
3.5. Visual Quality Scoring System 39
4. Results and Discussion 40
4.1. Baseline ethylene levels found in domestic refrigerators 40
4.2. Survey of Fruit and Vegetables Purchases 41
4.3. Refrigerator Trial 43
4.3.1 Ethylene Levels 43
4.3.2. Weight Loss 44
5. Conclusion and Recommendation 51
5.1. Conclusions 52
5.2. Recommendations 53
References 56
Appendices 60
vi
List of Acronyms
AMI Agricultural Market Information
AFAM Automated Fresh Air Management
CA Controlled Atmosphere
CABI Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International
EGG Ethylene Gas Guardian
EMR East Malling Research
GC Gas Chromatography
MA Modified Atmosphere
MAP Modified Atmosphere Packaging
RH Relative Humidity
WRAP Waste Recycling Action Project
vii
List of Figures
Figure Number Description Page Number
FIGURE 2.1 Net chemical equation for respiration 17
FIGURE 2.2 Respiration rates in climacteric fruit 18
FIGURE 2.3 Respiration rates in non-climacteric fruit 18
FIGURE 2.4 Effect of temperature on quality retention 23
FIGURE 2.5 Purfresh Ozone Technology 24
FIGURE 2.6 The Fresh Pod Kit 31
FIGURE 2.7 The E+ System 32
FIGURE 3.1 Gas collection from domestic refrigerators 35
FIGURE 3.2 Refrigerator loading conditions 37
FIGURE 3.3 Drawing gas samples for GC analysis 38
FIGURE 3.4 WISA circulating air pump 38
FIGURE 4.1 Fruit purchase survey 41
FIGURE 4.2 Vegetable purchase survey 42
FIGURE 4.3 Ethylene levels inside domestic refrigerators 43
FIGURE 4.4 Weight loss data for all produce 44
FIGURE 4.5 Weight loss data for plastic bag produce 46
FIGURE 4.6 Weight loss comparison graphs 46
FIGURE 4.7 Quality scores for all produce 47
FIGURE 4.8 Quality scores for plastic bag produce 49
viii
List of Tables
Table Number Description Page Number
TABLE 2.1 Fruits and vegetables in season 2010 12
TABLE 2.2 Internal ethylene concentrations of some 19
climacteric and non-climacteric fruit
TABLE 2.3 Storage recommendations and ethylene 21
sensitivities of some perishable produce
TABLE 4.1 Ethylene levels found in domestic refrigerators 40
TABLE 4.2 Comparison of weight loss with produce stored 47

in a plastic bag or without.
ix
ABSTRACT
The extent to which ethylene gas, (a gas that increases deterioration of fresh produce) affects
consumer stored fresh produce was examined preceding this trial. Results indicated that sufficiently
high concentrations were found in domestic refrigerator that could result in produce deteriorating
more rapidly and that in this case home consumers would benefit from ethylene scrubbing technology
being employed inside their refrigerator. With this in mind, a survey was conducted and the produce
that was routinely purchased (apples, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, cucumber, grapes, kiwi fruit, lettuce,
melon, mushrooms, pears, satumas and tomatoes) were then refrigerated and monitored for a period of
33 days to test the effectiveness of two ethylene scrubbing technologies that have recently emerged in
the market place. The technologies evaluated were ‘Fresh Pod’ and ‘E+’, both technologies claimed
to remove ethylene gas from the atmosphere produced by fresh produce.
Results indicated that the ‘Fresh Pod’ system had a considerable effect on ethylene gas concentration
in the test situation. Ethylene concentrations were reduced from 696 ppb to 450 ppb on a simulated
week day (fridge door sealed overnight) and from 1552 ppb to 599 ppb over a simulated weekend
(fridge door sealed over 3 nights) period. E+ also had a significant effect, performing slightly less
well, reducing concentrations from 696 ppb to 615 ppb on a weekday and from 1552 ppb to 607 ppb
over a weekend.
In the case of kiwifruit and tomato both ethylene scrubbing technologies appeared to slow down
quality deterioration. Fresh pod seems to perform better than E+ in the case of broccoli and cabbage
storage. For produce in plastic bags there is not a clear pattern.
Moisture losses were decreased for some commodities with both technologies;- the Fresh Pod reduced
weight losses for cabbage and the E+ system showed reduced weight losses for carrots, satsuma and
tomatoes, however Fresh Pod did cause higher water loss that that of the E+ system. The use of
plastic bags was proven to eliminate this problem, dramatically reducing water losses in all cases.
Further research would be valuable to ascertain the specific produce that would benefit from ethylene
scrubbing technologies.
10
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Problem Statement
As human populations have increased and spread out across the globe, the need to store food
and to transport it to where it is needed, often over long distances has become increasingly
important. Some of our foods (cereals, grains and pulses) are very durable, meaning that they
are very hardy during storage and can be transported easily. Fruits and vegetables however
are not quite so durable and are classed as perishable or semi-perishable.
All of these foods are metabolically active and this in turn will dictate the storage life of the
product in question. Fruits and vegetables have a higher metabolic rate than a cereal or grain
and therefore need specialist management techniques during transport and storage. A major
problem during fruit and vegetable storage is the presence of ethylene gas (a plant hormone)
which can decrease storage life dramatically by speeding up metabolism and triggering
senescence. This proves to be a major problem as the population demands the availability of
fresh fruits and vegetables all year round.
With this in mind the author has studied the effects of ethylene gas on fresh fruits and
vegetables with a view to investigating the effects of new consumer products that claim to
reduce the gases effects. This could then lead to improvements in the shelf life of produce
and facilitate the transport to more destinations for longer periods.
11
1.2 Rationale/Justification
The principle causes of post-harvest losses are physiological deterioration, mechanical
damage (physical injury) and diseases and pests, with these being influenced by external
conditions such as temperature and relative humidity. These losses can occur at any time
after harvest or during the actual harvesting itself, during storage on farm or pack house,
during transportation, or even when in storage at supermarkets or consumer households.
There has been extensive research carried out to determine the optimal conditions at which to
store fruits and vegetables to control physiological deterioration, notably at the post-harvest
technology centre at the University of California, with temperature and humidity
recommendations for all produce widely available (UC Davis 2011). Controlling stability of
fruits and vegetables under storage conditions at different atmospheres has also been
researched widely with new innovations being used all the time (Kader 2004). Studies over
recent years include genetic manipulation to control susceptibility to harmful entities such as
pests, diseases and even manipulation to render produce less sensitive to physiological stress,
such as drought tolerance.
A physiological issue that has also been widely researched is that of the effects of ethylene
gas on perishable commodities. Ethylene gas is a plant hormone produced by most plant
tissues. It effects many physiological processes including ripening of fruit and senescence in
fruit and vegetables and therefore impacts on deterioration of produce. Reported by
Theologis (1992) ‘as large losses of fruits and vegetables are incurred annually (billions of
dollars worldwide) due to ethylene’s effects on plant senescence (ageing), the significance of
a means to control the ripening process and prevent spoilage is clear’ . This evidence coupled
with more and more emphasis on reducing waste and our current economic climate; figures
suggest that 6.7 million tonnes of food is thrown away each year, with approximately 40% of
12
this (by weight) being made up of fruits and vegetables (Johnson et al. 2008); it is proposed
to concentrate my area of study on a review of this gas produced by fruit and vegetables; and
the many ways that have been employed by industry to control it.
However, it seems that the majority of the research and innovations available to lengthen
storage life are aimed at the commercial side of the food transport chain, before it reaches the
consumer as this is no doubt where the most gain is to be made financially. A new product to
the UK market called ‘Fresh Pod’ has come to light that will benefit the consumers to enable
them to store perishable products for longer periods, if proven to be effective. The
marketing team behind promoting this new product claim that it can ‘reduce the negative
effects of ethylene gas to increase the shelf life of fresh produce by maintaining produce
quality for longer’ (Fresh pod 2010). The product itself is a sachet inside a plastic cage,
containing a chemical that removes ethylene by scrubbing from the atmosphere. Consumers
place it inside their fridge or fruit bowl alongside their produce and the sachet would need
replacing every six months to remain effective.
Running alongside this trial, attention has also been drawn to another product that is due to be
tested with regards to retail packaging of fresh fruit. The product called E+ is also an
ethylene scrubber in a material ‘strip’ form and looks very much like a plaster, it contains
certain chemicals (not disclosed) that effectively scrub ethylene from the atmosphere.
As these products are aimed at the end user and therefore complete the transport chain of
perishable produce, it was considered that it would be a worthwhile exercise to research and
report on the effectiveness of these products.
13
1.3 Aim and Objectives of the Research
This study was conducted to:
Review the impact of ethylene on shelf-life of fresh produce with reference to a range of
storage technologies currently employed.
Assess the effectiveness of specific ethylene scrubbing technologies in lengthening the
storage life of perishable commodities in a domestic refrigerator.
This involved assessing the effects of the technologies on a range of perishable commodities
in terms of:
i. Weight loss
ii. Visual quality
iii. Storage length
iv. Ethylene concentrations
14
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The use of gases to ripen fruit has long been documented even though not fully understood,
with the ancient Egyptians burning fires to gas figs to stimulate their ripening and the ancient
Chinese burning incense in closed rooms to ripen pears. More recent investigations into the
biological activity of illuminating gas (gas lighting) brought about the modern discovery of
the biological activity of ethylene. However, it was not formally identified as ethylene until
1901 when Neljubow showed that the active component of this ‘illumination gas’ was
ethylene and that it was a biologically active component, which caused pea seedlings
germinated in the dark to grow in a horizontal direction when exposed to laboratory air
containing burnt gas. Gas lighting for lighting streets and homes was produced from the
partial combustion of coal, which was a mixture of various saturated hydrocarbons including
up to 5% ethylene (Crocker and Knight 1908) and was supplied to the population via
underground pipes. Unfortunately the pipes that supplied the gas often leaked into the
ground, homes, offices, factories and green-houses with Fahnestock (1858) reporting that
“such leakage was responsible for severely damaging plants in a Philadelphia greenhouse”
and seemingly confirming this Girardin (1864) reported that this gas also damaged
‘boulevard trees’ in a few German cities (Crocker and Knight 1908).
Crocker and Knight (1908) showed the toxicity of illumination gas to cut flowers in this case
carnations, was determined by the amount of ethylene the gas actually contained. Harvey
(1915) showed that ethylene affected respiration by retarding CO 2 production and 02
absorption stating “Ethylene was found to be very effective in producing changes in the
general processes of plant metabolism”.
15
2.1 Ethylene and Fruit Ripening
Many publications around early 1900 indicated that ethylene gas was useful to promote
ripening. Denny (1922) used ethylene to ripen bananas, pears and tomatoes, and a year later
in, 1923 he used the smoke from kerosene lamps to de-green citrus. Having found that the
smoke from these lamps contained ethylene as the active ingredient Denny (1927) actually
filed a patent for this process that same year. Experiments by Kidd and West (1934) showed
that there were similarities of effects on fruit surrounded by gases given off by ripe apples
and by that of ethylene gas at low concentration, leading to the possibility that ethylene was
given off by plant tissue during ripening (Kidd and West 1945).
It was not until 1934 when Gane (1934) reported with conclusive proof that “ethylene was
actually produced by some ripening fruits” and consequently also reported the “identification
of ethylene among the volatile products released by ripe apples” and Denny and Miller
(1935) that this was found to be the case in all plant tissue. Burg and Stolwijk (1959) posed
further questions by showing that ethylene production occurred just before the onset of
ripening in some fruits (climacteric), whilst Morgan and Hall (1964) posed the possibility of
hormonal interactions by ethylene gas that were earlier mentioned by Zimermann and
Wilcoxon (1935). By now the presence of ethylene in fruit and the influence it had on the
ripening and development, scientists came to believe that ethylene was in fact an endogenous
growth regulator i.e., plant hormone, with Burg and Burg (1965) stating “Ethylene influences
the growth and development of plants and is the hormone that initiates fruit ripening”. In fact
ethylene has several effects on plants including, promoting ripening, inducing fruit
abscission, inducing flowering, promoting seed germination, breaking dormancy, promoting
root initiation and vegetative dwarfing (Curry 1998).
16
Fruits are now classed in respect to their ethylene response, being named climacteric and
non-climacteric. Non-climacteric fruit do not depend on ethylene for their maturation whilst
climacteric fruit show an extraordinary increase in ethylene production which coincides with
their respiratory peak during ripening, this is called the respiratory climacteric crisis (Abeles
et al. 1992) shown in Figures 2.2 and 2.3. Respiration (Figure 1) is one part of metabolic
activity but it is an important one as it is the way in which living cells obtain the energy to
drive the rest of metabolism. As the commodity is relying on its own reserves to survive after
harvest the commodity is vulnerable and depletion of reserves will in turn decrease the
storage ability or shelf-life.
C6H12O6 + 6O2 6CO2 + 6H2O
Carbohydrate + Oxygen Carbon Dioxide + Water
Figure 2.1 Net Chemical Equation for Respiration
Figure 2.2 clearly displays the massive peak in respiration rate for breadfruit and cherimoya,
which marks the beginning of fruit maturation and ripening in climacteric fruits. This surge
and resultant increase in ethylene levels is not seen in non-climacteric fruits which show a
steady decrease in respiration rate and steady ethylene production rate.
17
Respiration Rate Climacteric Fruit
200
Breadfruit
180 Cherimoya 40
160 35
140 Strawberry
30
O2 or CO2/kg.hr
120
25 Grape
100 Mango
80 20
Pineapple
60 15 Cherry
Fig
40 10 Lemon
20 Tomato 5
Apple
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Time
Source: Abeles et al. 1992
Figure 2.2 Respiration rates climacteric fruit. Figure 2.3 Respiration rates non-climacteric fruit.
When ripening has started in climacteric fruit it
cannot be stopped as once ethylene is released it will stimulate the synthesis of more ethylene
thus a cycle of production commences. In non-climacteric fruit, ripening can be halted by the
removal of ethylene.
With the demand for fresh fruit and vegetable increasing, 1.5 billion tonnes of fruits and
vegetables were produced worldwide last year (nearly 700 million tonnes of fruit and 800
million tonnes of vegetables) with that figure steadily increasing over the last few years (AMI
2010) with grapes, oranges, melons and bananas being the world’s leading fruit varieties,
accounting for about 60% of global production, improved storage techniques are vital. This
ever increasing demand and the fact that the consumer demands more variety of fruits and
vegetables in their diet regardless of the season, for example during the autumn season in the
UK there are limited fruits and vegetables available that are actually grown within our own
country (see table 2.1) this argument is further endorsed. With the governments drive
towards healthy eating to help improve our nation’s nutrition and tackle obesity it would be
impossible to actually have affordable produce available year round to achieve and fulfil a
healthier lifestyle, therefore we rely on imported produce.
18
Table 2.1: Fruits and Vegetables In Season September
UK
Fruits Vegetables
Apples Aubergine
Blackberries Beetroot
Peaches Broad beans
Pears Courgettes
Plums Leeks
Raspberries Potatoes
Source: eattheseasons.co.uk, 2010.
This change in fruit from mature to ripe is initiated when cellular quantities of ethylene reach
a threshold level (Yang 1985). It is extremely difficult to ascertain these levels as they vary
for different fruit and between species of fruit.
Table 2.2 shows some internal concentrations of ethylene in fruit during their development.
The table shows the vast differences in ethylene levels during the development of climacteric
fruits from relatively low to the peak that is coincidental with the onset on ripening and the
steady levels of ethylene present in non-climacteric fruits throughout their development.
Table 2.2: Internal ethylene concentrations measured in several climacteric and non-climacteric fruits.
Fruit Ethylene (μL/L)

Climacteric
Apple 25 - 2500
Pear 80
Peach 0.9 - 20.7
Avocado 28.9 - 74.2
Mango 0.04 - 3.0
Passion fruit 466 - 530
Plum 0.14 - 0.23
Non-climacteric
Lemon 0.11 - 0.17
Lime 0.30 - 1.96
Orange 0.13 - 0.32
Pineapple 0.16 - 0.40
SOURCE S.P.Burg and E.A.Burg (1962). The role of ethylene in fruit ripening. Plant Physiology, 37, pp. 179-189.
19
2.2 Detrimental Effects of Ethylene
During the time lapsed from harvest to customer purchase i.e., the transport chain, keeping
fresh produce in an optimum condition is of paramount importance so as to achieve the best
price possible for it. If ethylene levels are left to accumulate they can have detrimental
effects including initiating or speeding up respiration as discussed, as well as enhancing
excessive softening of fruits, chlorophyll loss (yellowing), sprouting, discolouration
(browning) and increasing decay development (Saltveit 2004). Generally there is an inverse
relationship between respiration rates and post-harvest life of perishable commodities
(Saltveit 2004), the higher the respiration rate the more perishable i.e., shorter post-harvest
life.
Normal atmospheric concentrations of ethylene are 0.005µL/L unless contaminated by
outside sources such as gas from pipes or heavy traffic (combustion engines) (Wills et al.
2007), therefore it would be desirable to achieve lower or as near to this figure as possible
around fresh produce. It is therefore supposed that any reduction in ethylene concentration
below the normal level around the produce would increase post-harvest life (storage life).
This theory was studied in non-climacteric fruit (Ku et al. 1999) using low ethylene levels at
ambient and low temperature (0-5oC) showing in fact that across 23 kinds of produce there
was about a 60% extension in post-harvest life when stored in <0.005µL/L ethylene.
20
2.3 Commercial Ethylene Level Management & Removal
Simple ways to control ethylene levels are good housekeeping habits, such as storing ripe and
un-ripe produce in separate storage areas; storing ethylene sensitive produce away from
produce that produces ethylene at high concentrations; making sure that all rotted or damaged
produce is regularly removed as damaged produce will emit ethylene; keeping all sources of
natural gas away from the produce and ensuring adequate ventilation in the storage areas.
There are vast amounts of data available on ethylene sensitivity and rates of ethylene
produced by fresh produce therefore general housekeeping relative to separating ethylene
sensitive produce should be relatively easy (Table 2.3). Compatibility charts for fruit and
vegetables whilst in short-term storage are available to assist with separation and they explain
how to group produce according to the optimal storage requirements if space is limited, for
example apples produce ethylene at very high rate therefore they should not be stored with
very sensitive produce like kiwifruit or carrots. In the case of apples which emit ethylene at a
very high rate (VH) and are extremely sensitive (H) to the gas the storekeeper would know to
make sure that the storage chamber has a high ventilation rate to dispel ethylene quickly and
efficiently. In the case of lettuce which has a low production rate (VL) but high sensitivity
(H), providing that the produce is stored alone and regularly checked the ventilation shouldn’t
have to be set too high, saving money for the storekeeper. As discussed previously if this
separation isn’t possible, having production and sensitivity charts at hand gives a quick
indication of fruits that store well together and those that don’t.
21
Table 2.3 Storage Recommendations and Ethylene Sensitivity of Some Perishables
Recommended
Storage
Temperature Ethylene Ethylene Approximate
o
Common Name C Production* Sensitivity** Storage Life
Apple -1.1 to 0 VH H 3-6 months
Banana 13 to 15 M H 1-4 weeks
Broccoli 0 VL H 10-14 days
Carrot 0 VL H 3-6 months
Cauliflower 0 VL H 3-4 weeks
Cherry -1 to 0 VL L 2-3 weeks
Cucumber 10 to 12 L H 10-14 days
Grapefruit 10 to 15 VL M 6-8 weeks
Kiwifruit 0 L H 3-5 months
Lettuce 0 VL H 2-3 weeks
Mango 13 M M 2-3 weeks
Melon, cantaloupe 2 to 5 H M 2-3 weeks
, honey-dew 5 to 10 M H 3-4 weeks
Mushroom 0 VL M 7-14 days
Nectarine -0.5 to 0 M M 2-4 weeks
Orange 3 to 9 VL M 3-8 weeks
Peach -0.5 to 0 M M 2-4 weeks
Pear -1.5 to -0.5 H H 2-7 months
Strawberry 0 L L 7-10 days
Tomato, green 10 to 13 VL H 2-5 weeks
*Ethylene production rate: **Ethylene sensitivity
VL = very low (<0.1µL/kg-hr at 20oC) L = low sensitivity
L = low (0.1µL/kg-hr) M = moderately sensitive
M = moderate (1.0-10.0µL/kg-hr) H = highly sensitive
H = high (10-100µL/kg-hr)
Source: Adapted from Cantwell, M, UC Davis 2001.
As well as simple separation of ethylene emitting produce from ethylene sensitive produce,
more sophisticated methods to lengthen storage life can be employed. There are numerous
technologies available now to extend perishables shelf-life to manipulate the production and
effects of ethylene. They are summarised below:
22
2.3.1 Low Temperature Storage
The first demonstration of the process of refrigeration was carried out by William Cullen in
1756, but had no practical application, others such as John Gorrie (1842) built unsuccessful
commercial systems, but Jacob Perkins (1834) filed the first patent for a vapour-compression
refrigeration system in the commercial world (STS Refrigeration 2010) and by 1911
refrigerators were widely used in the USA (New World Encyclopaedia 2010) in households.
In recent times simple refrigeration of fresh produce has become an effective, relatively low
cost way to extend storage life, with temperature being the most important factor in
maintaining post-harvest quality. Wills et al. (1999) demonstrated that lower temperatures
via refrigeration actively decreased ethylene response. Backed up by Wills et al. (2007) who
also stated ‘that lowering the temperature of both climacteric and non-climacteric produce
lowers their rate of deterioration, and for climacteric fruit as well as the rate ethylene
production being slowed the rate of response of the tissues to ethylene, is also reduced, thus
effectively delaying the onset of ripening’. The effect of decreased temperature on shelf life
can be seen in Figure 2.4, the increase in produce shelf life as the temperature is lowered is
clearly displayed. Assuming that the vertical units are days this shows an increase in storage
time from only 1 day at 30oC and 8 days at 0oC, an impressive improvement.
Figure 2.4 Effect of temperature on quality retention (i.e. length of shelf life)
23
Source Wills et al. (2007).
Obviously this is only an indicative graph and not produce specific.
2.3.2 Ventilation (Forced Air Cooling)
Produce is normally pre-cooled (the first step in temperature management) via Forced Air
Cooling which has replaced the slower room cooling method before longer term storage. It is
important that this is done as rapidly as possible to remove ‘field heat’ after harvest at which
time the fresh produce is still respiring at a high rate. Forced Air Cooling is where fans are
used to pull cool air through packages of fresh produce and if employed correctly with the
right cooling rate and air flow is actually 75-90% faster than room cooling (Bachmann &
Earles 2000) methods. Thermostats are used on the fans to shut off automatically when the
desired product temperatures are reached. Thermoking an international shipping company
has developed an Automated Fresh Air Management System (AFAM+) that it uses in its
refrigerated lorries to maintain fresh produce at optimum condition. The system ‘will open
the fresh air exchange to a specific setting in ft 3/min or m3/hr. through the refrigeration unit’s
controller’ (Brecht 2001). It can be used to remove field heat from harvested produce quicker
and then open to a pre-determined setting (specific to O 2 or CO2 concentrations required) to
maintain the atmospheric conditions, with all actions/conditions recorded via data loggers.
Relative Humidity around the fresh produce is also important to manage the moisture content
as moisture loss can severely affect produce quality and therefore lose traders money. Most
fruits and vegetables retain better quality at high relative humidity (80 to 95%) but as this
high humidity can encourage disease growth refrigeration is needed to reduce this (Bachmann
et al. 2000). However the actual process of refrigeration removes moisture, so it is critically
important to monitor humidity levels continually to maintain appropriate levels.
24
2.3.3 Ozone Technology
A new ‘green technology’ or ‘clean technology’using gaseous ozone, oxidizes and destroys
ethylene gas that is released when fruits and vegetables begin to ripen (Amfil Technologies
2010) is the latest technology being used in the war against fresh produce deterioration.
Using the same technology ‘Purfresh’ manages the atmosphere inside refrigerated
transporters using oxygen passed through the containers air flow system to produce ozone
molecules which are injected via the refrigeration unit to protect produce from bacteria as
demonstrated in Figure 2.5. The ‘ozone’ is toxic to the microbes and leaves no residue on the
fruit or inside the container. The system monitors continuously to maintain volatile organic
compounds and ethylene levels (ContainerLINE 2009) by keeping a constant supply of ‘fresh
air’ circulating around the produce, ethylene build up should be prevented. ‘Ozonizing the air
in a cold storage rooms can reduce the level of ethylene in the air. Ozone generators may be
of most use in places where ethylene-producing and ethylene-sensitive fruits and vegetables
may be stored in the same room’ (Amfil Technologies Inc. 2010).
Figure 2.5 Purfresh Ozone Technology

Source: Purfresh Transport, 2008.
25
2.3.4 Controlled Atmosphere Storage
The first application of Controlled Atmosphere (CA) storage was displayed by the Egyptians
by using limestone crypts (International Controlled Atmosphere 2010) although the first
research workers that actually reported on the beneficial effects of high concentrations of
carbon dioxide and low oxygen in the preservation of fruits were Kidd and West in 1934,
who studied the effects on apples.
CA technologies are widely used in industry today under close monitoring, with the addition
or removal of certain gases, usually carbon dioxide (CO 2) or Oxygen (O2) to manipulate the
respiration process. This is used at optimum temperature and RH to supplement the
maintenance of post-harvest life of fresh produce, with the exposure of produce to low O 2
and/or elevated CO2 atmospheres within the tolerated range of each commodity to reduce
respiration and ethylene production rates (Kader 2004). Research carried out on Kiwifruit
(Arpaia 1985) suggested that the longest storage life can be achieved at 0oC when the
atmosphere contains 2% O2 and 5% CO2 but only when ethylene is excluded as completely as
possible and Agoreyo (2007) found that ethylene production was effectively halted by
controlled atmosphere storage of bananas. Controlled atmosphere storage with its high
degree of control is expensive and so it is more suited to produce that is suitable for long term
storage such as apples, cabbages, kiwifruit and pears (Kader et al. 1988).
Controlling the atmosphere, from that of the normal composition of 78% Nitrogen, 21%
Oxygen, 1% Carbon Dioxide and other gases including Argon, is a precise science. When O 2
levels are to low and/or CO 2 levels too high, plant tissues respire anaerobically and produce
ethanol, lactic acid or acetaldehydes. These poison the plant tissue and can cause off
flavours. As well as slowing metabolism, CA storage slows the ripening process; can prevent
26
some physiological disorders (e.g. chilling injury in pineapple); can prevent pathogen
development and help control insect pests. As far as ethylene is concerned, reducing O2
levels reduces ethylene synthesis whilst increasing CO2 actually reduces the response to
ethylene. If managed correctly CA storage is very effective at extending the shelf-life of
perishables.
2.3.5 Modified Atmosphere Storage
Modified atmosphere storage (MA) is closely linked to Controlled Atmosphere storage (CA)
but is not usually strictly controlled and is much less expensive at a basic level as it usually
entails packaging produce in plastic bags or such like to modify the atmosphere within. The
earliest use of MA storage was attributed to the Chinese where litchis were transported in
clay pots containing grass and leaves, during the journey the respiration of these and the fruit
generated a high CO2 and low O2 atmosphere which retarded the litchis from ripening (Wills
et al. 2007). The first scientific report stating observations of different atmospheres on fruit
ripening was generated by Berard during 1819 – 20 in France, but it wasn’t until Kidd and
West carried out their various research at the Low Temperature Research Station in
Cambridge, UK that MA was seen as a sound way of storing fresh produce.
Usually atmospheric conditions are established for the selected produce for a period of time
and the products physiology and the atmosphere whilst in storage maintains these conditions
within broad limits. MA is often used as a generic term for atmospheric change in storage, so
the terms MA and CA are often grouped together to mean one and the same, as with CA the
respiration of fruits and vegetables can be manipulated to enhance storage ability.
27
2.3.6 Modified Atmosphere Packaging
MA has been used to store cut produce in MA Packaging, Jurin et al. (1963) suggested that
modifying O2 and CO2 inside packaging for apples could be beneficial in reducing textural
changes and browning caused by respiration. Modified-atmosphere packaging (MAP) could
be designed to maintain non damaging partial pressures of O 2 and CO2 over a range of
temperatures (Beaudry et al. 1992) however as shown by Cameron et al. (1989), Kader
(1989) and Beaudry et al. (1992) the steady-state levels of both gases are dependent on
interactions of respiration of the product and permeability properties of packaging film.
Many companies have since invested thousands of pounds into researching the benefits of
MAP and fresh cut produce. New innovations are surfacing all the time, together with
temperature control this has proven a beneficial technique in controlling post-harvest shelf
life and has actually enabled the availability of fresh cut produce to the consumer. Its use has
been seen for meat and fish products for many years (Marks and Spencer introduced MAP
meat in 1979) but has only recently emerged for fresh fruit and vegetables.
New ‘Smart’ or ‘Intelligent’ packaging has now enabled the packaging of fresh fruit and
vegetables, even if they are classically known as high respirators, the packaging is
impregnated with a chemical that doesn’t come into contact with the produce inside. These
chemicals interact with the atmosphere inside along with the product characteristics ensuring
that optimum conditions are maintained and enhances the product shelf life (Phillips 1996).
The packaging can function as an ‘oxygen scavenger’, for ‘ethylene removal’, as an ‘ethylene
emitter’ or for ‘Carbon dioxide formation’ along with others depending on requirements of
the product. Limited data is available on research into the success of MAP and fruits and
vegetables due to its complex nature and much of the research is commercially ‘confidential’
28
but the very fact that consumers can actually buy produce that has been prepared shows that
is has been extremely beneficial.
2.3.7 Ethylene Antagonists (competitors)
As well as direct application to counteract ethylene gas itself once produced by the fruit,
much research has been carried out to actually manipulate the biochemical event in the first
place. There have been many breakthroughs with Beyer (1976) first testing the ability of
Silver Ions to block ethylene action thus reducing its effects. Other antagonists have been
researched and shown to some degree to block ethylene action. Cyclopropenes have been
known for some time to be effective ethylene blockers (Sisler et al. 1985, 1993, 2001) with
the latest being 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP). Huber (2008) showed the effects of 1-MCP
to be varied and complicated due to the precise nature of responses shown by produce which
varies greatly.
A relatively new commercial application of this antagonist is the Smart Fresh Quality system
founded by Agrofresh in 1999 which has been employed by the apple industry to counteract
ethylene production. The preparation is a sugar-based powder formulation (cyclodextrine -
dextrose), including 3.3 % of 1-methylcyclopropene, which is dissolved in water and left to
diffuse into the atmosphere. It is claimed that ‘during storage and transport, Smart Fresh
technology interacts with the ethylene-sensitive sites in fruits and as a consequence, the
negative effects of ripening occur at a much slower rate and the freshness, flavour and
appearance of fruit can be sustained, whilst the fruits keep their firmness better on the shelf
and at home’ (Agrofresh Inc. 2010).
The use of 1-MCP to block ethylene action is relatively expensive and not all research carried
out favours the use as in Bower et al. (2003), who concluded that ‘ethylene removal or
29
treatment with 1-MCP are unlikely to be useful storage techniques for strawberry fruit’,
however the level of success depends on the commodity itself and the potential for significant
improvement to shelf-life.
2.3.8 Chemical Ethylene Removal (Scrubbing)
A low cost method to control ethylene levels is to scrub it from the air, using a chemical
agent on a matrix (Knee & Hatfield 1981), this matrix increases the surface area available to
the chemical agent so as much of it as possible is available to oxidise the ethylene such as,
celite, alumina, vermiculite, zeolite or clay soaked with Potassium Permanganate (KMNO 2).
Potassium Permanganate is a stable purple solid that is a strong oxidising agent and readily
oxidises ethylene (Wills & Warton 2004).
This scrubbing method was first demonstrated by Forsyth et al. (1967) on apples and showed
reduction of ethylene concentration in the air around horticultural produce. Potassium
permanganate has also been effective in ethylene removal and subsequent delay in ripening
of many climacteric fruits (Wills & Warton 2004) such as bananas (Scott et al. 1970),
kiwifruit (Scott et al. 1984), mango (Esguerra et al. 1978) and avocado (Hatton and Reeder
1972).
The scrubbers are usually in the form of a sachet filled with granules impregnated with the
chemical in question which absorb the ethylene and convert it harmlessly to CO 2 and water.
These sachets can be used on their own i.e., placed in the boxes of fresh produce for lower
capital cost or the media can be housed inside Recirculation Air systems for larger
commercial applications. Either way the sachets or media will need to be replaced
periodically to maintain performance. Ethylene absorbers have been used successfully by the
US Army to transport their fresh fruit and vegetables with minimum possible spoilage and the
30
results have been positive. The produce (plums with apples) shipped for 10 weeks at 40 oF
(4.4oC) showed 60% less spoilage when ethylene absorbers were used (Ayoub et al. 1999).
2.4 Consumer ethylene removal (scrubbing).
Most of the research carried out into the effects of ethylene on the storage life of fresh
produce is aimed at the commercial operations end of the scale but more recently some
emphasis has been given to the consumers themselves. There have been products on the
market that claim to keep your fruits and vegetables fresher for longer, for many years.
Products have included ‘The E.G.G’(Ethylene Gas Guardian), Fresh Disc and more recently
2 other products, called ‘Fresh Pod’ which is a product that claims to ‘remove 98% of
Ethylene Gas from the environment keeping fruit, vegetables and flora fresher for up to four
times longer (Fresh Pod 2010) and Ethylene +. The Fresh Pod has been used in the USA both
commercially (within Air Filtration Systems) and by the consumer via a small sachet
containing potassium permanganate granules in a small plastic cage that gets placed in the
+
fridge or fruit bowl, whilst Ethylene (E+) is currently under investigation by a company
based in the UK.
There have been limited tests carried out on the commercial application of these technologies
by researchers, with the findings thus far being very positive but there is currently no real
data available on the effectiveness of these products to the consumer. This research aims to
fill that gap.
As the consumer is the last link in the transport chain it is only right that they have the
opportunity to keep their produce fresh for as long as they can, after all it is the consumer that
inevitably pays for the produce in the first place and without the consumer and the demand
31
for fresh fruit and vegetables none of the commercial entities will exist. In fact, research has
found that the majority of food and drink waste occurs at the end of the chain – in the
household (WRAP 2009).
2.4.1 The Fresh Pod System
Figure 2.6 The Fresh Pod Kit
As the testing of a so far only consumer aimed product would not be financially beneficial to
commercial businesses, the author met with a representative of the ‘Fresh Pod’ marketing
team with the intention of testing the product. The Fresh Pod system is 100% recyclable and
the sachet contains a natural zeolite and a small percentage of potassium permanganate,
which is converted into magnesium dioxide after approximately 6 months, which can be
sprinkled onto pot plants as a natural fertiliser. The actual sachets are made from
Dupont’Tyvek’ and the inks used on them are soya based, both of these have been approved
for use with food. The sachets are put into the green plastic cage, also recyclable which is
supplied as part of the kit and then this is placed into your fridge, usually the salad
compartment. If the pod is as effective as it claims to be, fruit and vegetable should last up to
4 times longer, vitamins and nutrients are retained, odours from aging produce are reduced,
money would be saved and waste would be reduced (Fresh Pod 2010).
32
2.4.2 The E+ System
Figure 2.7 The E+ System, Source Its Fresh.com
E+™ Ethylene Remover extends the shelf life of pre-climacteric fruits, vegetables and
flowers. Additional testing at Cranfield University, demonstrated the impact of e+™ on the
nutritional and taste aspects of the avocado. Test results showed the extension of shelf-life in
cold storage using e+™, with fruit softening delayed for two weeks. Ripening was not
impeded at ambient temperature once fruit was removed from cold storage with e+™. There
was no degradation of avocado-derived fatty acids (nutritionals) and sugars (taste) using e+™
as compared to control (Its Fresh 2011). E+™ Ethylene Remover is a palladium based
absorber of ethylene.
33
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Research Programme
A study was conducted to ascertain the levels of ethylene gas normally given off by fruits and
vegetables stored in domestic refrigerators. This trial was undertaken to gauge the scale of
ethylene as a problem with regards to storage of perishables in a domestic household
refrigerator and their ultimate deterioration due to ethylene build up.
A survey was then conducted to ascertain the fruits and vegetables normally purchased by the
average consumer to enable an ‘everyday’ scenario in which to test.
A study was then undertaken at East Malling Research to simultaneously test the
effectiveness of the ‘Fresh Pod’ system and ‘E+ Strips’, both new technologies that claim to
reduce ethylene gas in the consumer refrigerator and supermarket retail packs respectively.
3.2 Study to determine the baseline concentration of ethylene in domestic refrigerators
10 participants were chosen to take part in this study and for the purposes of the study were
referred to as Participant A, B, C through to J. The study was conducted using an identical
set of instructions (shown below) and an identical set of apparatus.
Instructions given for Gas collection
In the evening
1) Record the content of perishables inside your refrigerator, including quantity.
2) Pass the clear tubing provided through the outer rubber seal of your fridge and
secure in place with a plastic bag tie to the middle shelf inside the refrigerator and
then secure the outside end with a clip, to make a seal.
3) The end inside the fridge should be left open (check that it is free of obstructions).
4) Close the fridge door overnight (for at least 8 hours) and record the time.
34
The next morning
5) BEFORE the door is opened, make the gas collection bag ready to use, remove the
clip from the outside end and attach the syringe provided to the collection tube.
6) Pull the syringe until full of air from inside the fridge and replace the clip.
7) Empty the syringe into the collection bag until fully empty, (this bag will hold the
sample for analysis in the laboratory later).
8) Repeat the process until the bag is full, with the bulldog clip replaced in between
each sampling to reduce loss as much as possible.
Fig 3.1 Gas Collection from Domestic Refrigerators
Analysis of air samples
The air samples were analysed on an Agilent Technology 689ON Network GC system, using
a Nitrogen carrier gas. A sample was withdrawn with a 1ml syringe fitted with a 1” 25G
microlance, from the gas collection bag and injected directly into the GC column. The
resultant ethylene peak was produced against an ethylene gas standard. Standard samples for
calibration were run before each set of samples were analysed and again afterwards. The GC
35
system was also calibrated every week that it was in use. A full GC methodology is given in
appendix 2.
3.3 Survey of Fruit and Vegetables Purchases
A survey was conducted of consumer purchases of fruits and vegetables on an average
shopping week. 35 people were asked what fruits and vegetables they regularly bought at the
supermarket at what quantity and where they stored the commodities at home. Of the 35
people surveyed 10 were family members and were asked on a face to face basis, whilst the
remaining 25 were asked via Facebook, ‘a social utility that connects people with friends and
others who work, study and live around them’ (Facebook 2012). The results were recorded
and used to ascertain the ‘most bought’ fruits and vegetables, see appendix 3. The ones that
were generally stored in the fridge at home were then considered for use in the trial.
3.4 Fresh Pod and E+ Trial
The fruits and vegetables highlighted by the consumer survey were purchased on the day the
trial was due to start from Tesco Supermarket in Larkfield Kent and transported by car to
East Malling Research (EMR) where the trial was to take place. All produce was selected to
ensure that it was of optimal quality and examined as far as possible to ensure that there were
no visible rots or other physical damages present. A local supermarket was selected for
convenience and to mimic the actions of consumers as far as possible. Note: The possibility
of obtaining produce directly from a pack house was considered, but with the relatively small
quantities to be used for a wide range of produce this was found to be impractical.
The commodities were weighed, visually assessed, scored accordingly (using a quality
scoring system developed at EMR included in Appendix 5) and 6 sets of identical produce
placed inside 6 domestic refrigerators. All data was recorded in a laboratory notebook. The
36
refrigerators were all situated in a cold storage environment adjacent to each other but
randomly placed to avoid familiarity and possible pattern building.
The trial commenced on the 8th July 2011 using two refrigerators with a fresh pod, two with
E+ and two as controls without any ethylene scrubbing system. Trials were carried out using
the fridge compartments of a set of ‘Beko’ 300L domestic fridge-freezers. This particular
make of fridge is frequently used in the UK, and is similar to many other commonly
purchased models (WRAP 2011). Each refrigerator was fitted with a ‘loop system’ using
plastic tubing to facilitate the drawing of gas samples throughout the trial period.
The fresh produce was loaded according to ethylene production characteristics, (figure 3.2)
with the high ethylene producers (apples and pears) on the bottom shelf, and the highly
sensitive and less physically robust produce on the middle and top shelves. A cut melon was
included on the bottom shelf to produce good levels of ethylene gas. The doors were closed
and the refrigerators left for a period of one week, with the door opened daily to simulate
everyday use.
Fig 3.2 Refrigerator loading conditions
Each refrigerator was opened in the morning and in the evening during the week, but was
kept closed during the weekend (simulating a situation where the owner has gone away for
the weekend. After the first week, a sample of the gas inside each refrigerator was taken,
37
using a Wisa circulating air pump attached to the plastic tubing ‘loop system’ (figure 3.3 and
3.4) to draw out a 1ml sample into a syringe, which was then analysed on the GC for ethylene
level. The produce was weighed, examined for any visual quality changes, scored
accordingly and photographic evidence taken. The produce was then placed (if still fresh and
intact), back into the refrigerators and the doors closed.
FigureFigure
3.3 Drawing gas
3.4 Wisa sample forair-pump
circulating GC analysis
The same process was repeated one week later and
the same measurements taken, if after 3 weeks the produce was still in good condition final
observations and measurements were repeated. It was thought that physical changes would
only be seen sometime after the first week and that they would develop over a period of days
rather than hours, so more frequent assessment was not deemed necessary.
Any differences in weight, visual quality of the selected produce and ethylene levels inside
the refrigerators at the end of weeks 1, 2 & 3 if seen were then reported.
38
3.5 Visual quality scoring system
Quality assessment was carried out over time based on visual quality, using a visual score
system created for another research trial by WRAP (2011).
‘All products were weighed on a daily basis and a full visual description of
quality made. Symptoms associated with senescence of the products included
yellowing, softening, decay, abscission and browning. A photographic record
was kept so that visual quality could be matched with the descriptions and a
scoring system developed. This process was continued for each product until
it deteriorated to an unacceptable level. A subjective assessment was made by
the investigators of the point at which each product became unacceptable for
use’ (WRAP 2011).
The resulting scoring system is given in appendix 5. As the fresh produce deteriorated the
score increased from 1 (good) to 5 (poor quality).
39
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Baseline ethylene levels found in domestic refrigerators
Of the ten domestic refrigerators assessed, seven showed significant ethylene levels, being
17, 46, 50, 60, 85, 570 and 754 ppb (parts per billion) against an ethylene standard (see table
4.1). The contents of the refrigerators are shown in Appendix 1. Of the ten refrigerators
tested, seven of them contained tomatoes at the time of measurement, concurring with
evidence that suggests that tomatoes are high ethylene emitters and three contained apples
which are also known to emit ethylene at high levels, (see table 2.1 in the literature review).
Three refrigerators showed no ethylene present and this could be due to a poor or worn seal
around the door, the door being opened inadvertently or by difficulty in filling the gas bag
(mentioned by one participant) prior to testing.
Table 4.1 Ethylene levels found in 10 domestic refrigerators

Participant Ethylene Level (ppb) Ethylene Level (ppm)
A 570 0.57
B 0 0
C 0 0
D 50 0.05
E 85 0.085
F 754 0.754
G 17 0.017
H 60 0.06
I 0 0
J 46 0.046
However the fact that significant ethylene levels were found would suggest that using an
ethylene scrubber in domestic refrigerators could be beneficial in increasing the storage life
of perishable produce.
40
4.2 Survey of Fruit and Vegetables Purchases
A survey consisting of 35 people (full data set in Appendix 3) highlighted the most popular
fruits and vegetables bought most by consumers and subsequently stored in their refrigerator
at home (Fig. 4.1, 4.2). This was carried out to assess the buying habits of the general public
to best simulate ‘a domestic situation’ as far as possible to give an accurate depiction of an
average consumer.
Figure 4.1 Number of people (out of 35 surveyed) that purchase each fruit each week
Key: Most purchased fruit.
The fruits chosen to go forward to the refrigerator trial were apple, easy peelers
(clementine’s, satsuma’s or mandarins), grape, pear and tomato. Banana was not selected as
this commodity was not normally stored in the refrigerator.
In order to create a situation in the trials which represented a “bad case” scenario (i.e. higher
concentrations of ethylene), fruits which are known to emit high levels of ethylene, (melons),
were also included, although they were not among the highest purchased by consumers This
would enable any differences (if seen) to be identified and quantified more easily.
41
Figure 4.2 Number of people (out of 35 surveyed) that purchase each vegetable each week
Key: Most purchased vegetables.
The vegetables chosen to go forward to the refrigerator trial were broccoli, cucumber, carrot,
lettuce and mushrooms. Onion and potato were not selected as these commodities were not
normally stored in the refrigerator.
The survey was undertaken during September, therefore the autumnal season where these
types of fruits and vegetables were widely available. Often they are on offer (reduced price)
due to the sheer volume on sale and are of excellent quality. This is why these proved to be
the ‘most purchased’ types, had the survey been taken at a different time i.e. the summer
months the fruits and vegetables routinely purchased and subsequently stored in the
refrigerator would have been entirely different.
42
4.3 Refrigerator Trial
4.3.1 Ethylene Levels
During the trial the refrigerators were opened once each morning and each evening on week
days, but were left closed all weekend, simulating the situation when the owners go away for
the weekend. The refrigerators that had no ethylene scrubber present showed the highest
levels of 696ppb during the week and between 1397 and 1706 after a weekend, as shown in
Figure 4.3. Reduction of ethylene gas was seen in all four refrigerators using both ethylene
scrubbing technologies. The most effective technique was seen to be the Fresh Pod system
with levels of 450 ppb during a normal week day and between 531 and 667 ppb after a
weekend (during which the doors would have been closed). The E+ system was also
effective with ethylene levels of 615 during the week, and between 509 and 704 ppb after the
weekend.
Figure 4.3 Ethylene levels inside refrigerators. Each data point is the average of
measurements from two refrigerators
43
4.3.2 Weight Loss
The fresh produce was assessed on days 1, 12, 19, 26 and 33. Weight loss is due to water loss
and also increased respiration results in further increased water loss which would result in the
produce losing weight. This is a valuable measurement used to illustrate changes in produce
quality due to ethylene action as illustrated by Burdon et al (2005).
Over time all fresh produce lost weight due to transpiration and respiration. With only two
replicate fridges per treatment, no statistical analysis can be made of this data, but it can be
used to indicate trends. East Malling Research was deemed the best facility to conduct the
trial, however due to existing commitments, space at EMR was limited, as there were many
on-going commercial trials being conducted which were using the commercial storage
facilities and to best simulate a ‘domestic situation’ 6 domestic refrigerators purchased for a
previous research trial that could be used solely for this research were provided. It was
decided that only one set of produce be placed in each refrigerator to avoid cross
contamination and to allow a wider selection of fruits and vegetables to be stored. To employ
the same conditions as far as possible the refrigerators being identical in size and volume was
critical and therefore these were ideal. With this in mind only two replicates for each
research condition could be employed.
Figure 4.4 Weight Loss Data All Produce
44
45
The % weight loss data is shown in Figure 4.4. No differences between all treatments were
seen for apples, kiwi fruit and pears, they all displayed similar weight loss, probably due to
normal transpiration and the fact that these types of produce can be stored for long periods of
time under refrigerated conditions with no quantifiable changes. However, the Fresh Pod
reduced weight losses for cabbage and the E+ system showed reduced weight losses for
carrots, satsuma and tomatoes.
During the quality assessments and weight loss recording, the moisture losses were noted
and deemed significant. Therefore an extra set of produce was added to each refrigerator.
The produce was put into plastic bags and stored in the salad drawer for the duration of the
trial and removed to assess with the rest of the produce. Results showed that the weight loss
was significantly reduced when produce was stored in plastic bags, see Figure 4.5 and Table
4.2 below.
46
Figure 4.5 Weight Loss Data Produce in Plastic bags
% Weight Loss
With Plastic Bag Without Plastic Bag
No Fresh No Fresh
Commodity Treatment Pod E+ Treatment Pod E+
Broccoli 3.5 6.5 3.6 27.8 28.1 30
Carrots 2.7 2.7 3.4 29.7 29.5 21.4
Lettuce 4.1 5.5 5.6 ND ND ND
Mushrooms 5.8 5.2 8.5 24.7 28.6 24.7
* ND indicates that produce w as lost after the first w eek, therefore no data available
Table 4.2 Comparison of weight loss with produce stored in a plastic bag or without.
4.4 Quality Scoring and Assessment
The quality scores for produce stored without bags and with bags are shown in Figure 4.7 and
4.8 respectively. In the case of kiwifruit and tomato both ethylene scrubbing technologies
appeared to slow down quality deterioration. Fresh pod seems to perform better than E+ in
47
the case of broccoli and cabbage storage. For produce in plastic bags there is not a clear
pattern.
There are cases where the quality scores are higher for the controls than with ethylene
removal technology; this is illustrated in the case of tomato and kiwi fruit. Even if not
statistically tested this merits investigation.
Figure 4.6 Quality Scoring All Produce
48
49
Quality Scoring Produce in Plastic Bags
Figure 4.7 Quality Scoring Produce in Plastic Bags
As Fresh Pod is a new technology that is new to the UK market on a consumer level, it is not
possible to corroborate these findings, however, a trial undertaken by QMS Agri Science in
South Africa claims that the Fresh Pod commercial sachet removed 95% of airborne ethylene
(Fresh Pod 2011). The research carried out herein does show a significant ethylene reduction
but not at the levels claimed, but this could be due to the fact that only one sachet was used in
each refrigerator. Conversely the results found by Agri Science and reported by Fresh Pod do
not indicate how many sachets were used and by what proportion the commercial sachet is
larger than the consumer product. That said the ethylene scrubbing technique has also been
used in the USA for many years on a commercial scale and has been used with much success,
including use by the US army to carry fresh fruit and vegetable on board ship (Ayoub et al.
1999). The commercial product has been tested by scientists in Tokyo, Japan by the San-Ani
50
Corporation and has shown to reduce ethylene levels when placed with fresh produce
including, apples, grapes, pears, strawberries and tomatoes (Ethylene Control 2012).
In the case of the E+ strip it is presently being researched in the UK inside retail packs of
strawberries and the author awaits results with interest.
51
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The decision to carry out measurement of ethylene levels in normal domestic refrigerators
was proven to be a valuable exercise. Levels up to 0.75 ppm were detected, which on the
basis of earlier studies (Wills et al. 1999) suggested that the use of ethylene scrubbing
technology would be beneficial in the consumer situation to increase storage life of fresh
produce. The highest levels seen were in refrigerators that contained apples and tomatoes,
unsurprising as both of these have been shown to emit high levels of ethylene.
The ‘new product’ trials conducted showed that ethylene scrubbing technology definitely has
the effect of lowering the ethylene concentration inside domestic refrigerators. Fresh Pod had
the greatest effect using just one potassium permanganate sachet. E+ performed slightly less
so with the addition of 20 strips (8 cm x 4.5 cm). The ethylene concentration inside the
fridges with no ethylene scrubbing system applied was significantly higher that of those with
Fresh Pod inside.
Ethylene scrubbing technology showed slower deterioration for both kiwi fruit and tomato,
indicated by a clear difference in the resulting quality score at the end of the trial for the
produce without any scrubbing applied. That said both red and green apples, cabbage and
pears also showed slower deterioration with the produce without scrubbing technology
reaching the highest level of deterioration after only 19 days, which was approximately half
way through the trial.
Due to the complex nature of the different produce used in the trial, it should be noted that
mixing ethylene sensitive produce with produce that emits ethylene at a high level could
adversely affect the produce and could therefore affect the ability or indeed inability of the
scrubbing technique.
52
5.2 Recommendation s
Given the encouraging results for both scrubbing technologies tested, it is therefore suggested
that more extensive research be carried out on separate produce to ascertain exactly which
produce would benefit from the ethylene scrubbing technology discussed. Using higher
replicates of each type of produce could provide a thorough examination of the effectiveness
of these type of technology and identify what produce would benefit. A more thorough
examination could also highlight where best the technology could be employed.
In the case of Fresh Pod it is recommended that 2 pods be used in each domestic refrigerator,
where 1 pod would be employed in the main body of the refrigerator and the second in the
salad drawer or compartment. This is advised as ethylene gas can build up to relatively high
levels around salad vegetables, particularly tomatoes as proven by the trial undertaken herein
and having a pod in close proximity would eliminate the problem before it can adversely
affect the rest of the refrigerator contents.
In the case of E+ strips it is recommended that they be employed in a smaller, more compact
environment due to the number of strips that would be needed to produce ethylene reduction
as illustrated by the trial results. The sheer volume of the refrigerator itself and the mix of
commodities stored within it would seem to be beyond the capability of the E + strip, although
it undoubtably did show some ethylene gas reduction. The use of E + within smaller retail
packs of fruit should produce good results, although the types of fruit would have to be
investigated further.
This could be particularly useful for high value produce and where different types of produce
cannot be separated due to space constraints. The technology if proven useful would not only
53
benefit the consumer but also the supermarket chains that sell it. The storage length if only
increased for 1 day would make millions of pounds each year and save tonnes of waste.
Since this research was conducted the Its Fresh E + strip has been adopted by two major
retailers and is now to be found in retail packs of tomatoes and strawberries (Its Fresh 2012).
This would strengthen the authors argument that retails packs would be the best environment
for this product.
54
References
Abeles F.B., Morgan P.W. and Saltveit M.E.J. (1992) Ethylene in Plant Biology. San
Diego: Academic press.
Agricultural Market Information Service. (2010) Market statistics. [Online]

Available: statistics http://marktundpreis.de. Last accessed 7th September 2010.
Agrofresh Inc (2010) Smart Fresh Quality System. Rohm and Haas Europe Trading
ApS – UK Branch.
Agoreyo, B.O., Golden, K.D., Asemots, H.N. and Osagie, A.U. (2007) Postharvest
biochemistry of the plantain. Journal of biological science. 7, 136-144.
Amfil Technologies Inc. (2010) mPact cold storage ozone fumigation system. CSF,
London, Ontario, Canada.
Arpaia, M.L., Mitchell, F.G., Kader, A.A. and Mayer, G. (1985) Effects of 2% O2
and Varying Concentrations of CO2 with or without C2H4 on the Storage Performance
of Kiwifruit. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science. 110, 200-203.
Ayoub, J.A., Driver, M.G. and Taub, I.A. (1989) Use of ethylene absorbers in
extending shelf life. Meeting held on October 5-6, 1988, at U.S. Army Natick
Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA. 41, 93-98.
Bachmann, J. and Earles, R. (2000). Postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables:

Horticulture Technical Note, ATTRA; Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas, 19p.
Beaudry, R.M., Cameron, A.C., Shirazi, A. and Dostal-Lange, D.L. (1992) Modified
atmosphere packaging of blueberry fruit: Effect of temperature on package O and
2
CO . Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science. 117, 436-441.

2
Berard, J. (1821) Experiments on storage of fruits in various gas mixtures, University

of Montpellier, France.
Beyer, E.M. (1976) A potent inhibitor of ethylene action in plants. Plant Physiology.
58, 268–271.
Bower, J.H., Biasi, W.V. and Mitcham, E.J. (2003) Effects of ethylene and 1-MCP on
the quality and storage life of strawberries. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 28,
417-443.
Brecht, P. and Brecht, J. (2001) Automatic fresh air management for fruit and
vegetables. PEB Commodities Inc., Petaluma, California, 5p.
Burdon, J., Lallu, N., Haynes, G., Francis, J., Pidakala, P. and Billing, D. (2005)
Mode of action of water loss on fruit quality of ‘Hass’ avocados, New Zealand and
Australia Avocado Grower’s Conference 20-22 September 2005. Tauranga, New
Zealand. Session 6. Postharvest quality, outturn. 11 pp.
i
Burg, S.P. and Burg, E.A. (1962) The role of ethylene in fruit ripening. Plant
Physiology. 37, 179-189.
Burg, S.P. and Burg, E.A. (1965) Ethylene Action and the Ripening of Fruits.
Science 148, 1190 – 1196.
Burg, S.P. and Stolwijk, J.A.A. (1959) A highly sensitive katharometer and its
application to the measurement of ethylene and other gases of biological importance.
Journal of Biochemistry, Microbiology, Technology and Engineering. 1, 245-259.
Cameron, A.C., Boylan-Pett, W. and Lee, J. (1989) Design of modified atmosphere

packaging systems: Modelling oxygen concentrations within sealed packages of
tomato fruits. Journal of Food Science. 54, 1413-1416 & 1421.
Cantwell, M. (2001) Properties and recommended conditions for long-term storage

of fresh fruits and vegetables. Department of Plant Sciences, UC Davis Faculty,
California.
ContainerLINE (2009) Purfresh Transport-A fresh approach to protecting perishable

cargo. November. p.2.
Crocker, W. and Knight, L.I. (1908) Effect of illuminating gas and ethylene upon
flowering carnations. Bottanical Gazette. 46, 259-276.
Curry, .E.A. (1998) Ethylene in fruit ripening. 14th Annual Postharvest Conference,
Yakima, Washington.
Denny, F.E. (1923) Methods of colouring citrous fruits. US Patent no.1, 475,938.
Denny, F.E. (1927) The effect of small amounts of chemicals in increasing the life
activities of plants. Proc. N. A. S. 13, 555-561.
Denny, F.E. and Miller, L.P. (1935) Production of ethylene by plant tissues as
indicated by the epinastic response of leaves, Contribution Boyce Thompson Institute.
7, 97-102.
Eat the seasons (2010) In Season. [Online] Available:

www.eatheseasons.co.uk/weekbyweek.html. Last accessed 14th September 2010.
Esguerra, E.B., Mendoza, J.R. and Pantastico, E.B. (1978) Regulation of fruit
ripening. II. Use of perlite-KMnO4 insert as an ethylene absorbent. Philippine Journal
of Science. 107, 23–31.
Ethylene Control (2012) Floral, Fruit & Vegetable Tests With and Without our
Sachets. [Online] Available http://ethylenecontrol.com/sachet-test. Last accessed 28th
June 2012.
Fahnestock (1858) Memoranda of the Effects of Carburetted Hydrogen Gas on a

Collection of Exotic Plants, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, May.
ii
Forsyth, F.R., Eaves, C.A. and Lockhard, C.L. (1967) Controlling ethylene levels in
the atmosphere of small containers of apples. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 47,
717–718.
Fresh Pod Ltd (2010) The natural way to enjoy fresher and tastier fruit and
vegetables. Fresh Pod, Norwich, Norfolk, UK.
Fresh Pod Ltd (2011) Fresh Pod Commercial Sachets – Removing Ethylene, Bacteria
and Mould from Your post-Harvest Produce.
Gane, R. (1934) Production of ethylene by some ripening fruits. Nature. 134, 1008.
Girardin (1869) Einfluss des leuchtgases auf die promenaded und Strassenbaume.
Jahresber Agrikultur. 7, 199-200.
Harvey, E.M. (1915) Some effects of ethylene on the metabolism of plants. Botanical
Gazette. 60, 193-214.
Hatton, T.T. and Reeder, W.F. (1972) Quality of ‘Lula’ avocados stored in controlled
atmospheres with or without ethylene. Journal of the American Society of
Horticultural Science. 97, 339–343.
Huber, D.J. (2008) Suppression of ethylene responses through application of 1-

methylcyclopropene: A powerful tool for elucidating ripening and senescence
mechanisms in climacteric and non climacteric fruits and vegetables. Horticultural
Science. 43, 106-111.
International Controlled Atmosphere (2010) CA Storage, Tonbridge Wells, Kent, UK.
It’s Fresh (2011) Intelligent food freshness solutions, E+ ethylene remover. [Online]
Available http://www.itsfresh.com/?page_id=27. Last accessed 21st October 2011.
Johnson, D., Hipps, N. and Hails, S. (2008) Waste and Resources Action Programme,
Helping consumers reduce fruit and vegetable waste. Final Report.
Jurin, V. and Karel, M. (1963) Studies on control of respiration of McIntosh apples by

packaging methods. Food Technology. 17, 104-108.
Kader, A.A., Zagory, D. and Kerbel, E.L. (1988) Modified atmosphere packaging of
fruits and vegetables. Critical Review of Food Science. 28, 1-30.
Kader, A.A. (2004) Controlled atmosphere storage. In Gross KC, Wang CY, Saltveit
M (eds.). The commercial storage of fruits, vegetables, florist and nursery stocks. .
Washington DC: USDA, ARS. 4.
Kidd and West (1934) The influence of the composition of the atmosphere upon the
incidence of the climacteric in apples. Report of the Food Investigation Board for
1933. 51-57.
iii
Kidd and West (1945) Respiratory activity and duration of life of apples gathered at
different stages of development and subsequently maintained at constant temperature.
Plant Physiology. 20, 467-504.
Knee, M. and Hatfield, S.G.S. (1981) Benefits of ethylene removal during apple
storage. Annals of Applied Biology. 98, 157 – 165.
Kupferman, E. (1989) The Early Beginnings of Controlled Atmosphere Storage, Post-

Harvest Pomology Newsletter, 7, 3-4, September 1989.
Morgan, P.W. and Hall, W.C. (1964) Accelerated release of ethylene by cotton
following application of indolv-l-3-acetic acid. Nature. 201, 99.
mPact (2010) Cold Storage, Ozone Fumigation System. AMFIL Technologies Inc.,
London, Ontario.
Neljubow, D. (1901) Ueber die horizontale nutation der stengel von Pisum sativum
und einiger Anderer. Pflanzen Beih Bot Zentralbl. 10,128–139
New World Encyclopaedia (2010) Refrigeration. [Online] Available

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Refrigeration. Last accessed 29th October,
2010.
Phillips, C.A. (1996) Review: Modified Atmosphere Packaging and its effects on the
microbiological quality and safety of produce. International Journal of Food Science
and Technology. 30, 63-479.
Practical Action (2011) Technical Brief: Cold storage of fruits and vegetables, 4pp.
Purfresh Transport (2008) Bananas, O3 – How it works, Purfresh Inc. 4p.
Saltveit (2004) Ethylene Effects. In Gross KC, Wang CY, Saltveit M. (eds.). The
commercial storage of fruits, vegetables, florist and nursery stocks. . Washington DC:
USDA, ARS.
Saltveit (2002) Respiratory Metabolism. In Gross KC, Wang CY, Saltveit M. (eds.).
The commercial storage of fruits, vegetables, and florist and nursery stocks.
Washington DC: USDA, ARS.
Scott, K.J., McGlasson, W.B. and Roberts, E.A. (1970) Potassium permanganate as an
ethylene absorbent in polyethylene bags to delay ripening of bananas during storage.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. 10, 237–240.
Scott, K.J., Guigni, J. and Bailey, W. (1984) The use of polyethylene bags and
ethylene absorbent to extend the life of kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis Planch) during
cool storage. Journal of Horticultural Science. 50, 563–566.
Sisler, E.C., Goren, R. and Huberman, M. (1985) Effect of 2, 5-norbornadiene on

abscission and ethylene production in citrus leaf explants. Plant Physiology. 63, 114–
120.
iv
Sisler, E.C. and Blankenship, S.M. (1993) Diazocyclopentadiene (DACP), a light
sensitive reagent for the ethylene receptor on plants. Plant Growth Regulator. 12,
125–132.
Sisler, E.C., Alwan, T., Goren, R., Serek, M. and Apelbaum, A. (2001) 1-substituted
cyclopropenes: Effective Blocking Agents for Ethylene Action in Plants, Plant
Growth Reg. 10, 223–228.
STS Refrigeration (2010) Cool Facts, A breath of fresh air in refrigeration, Fruit
Focus Event, East Malling Research, 21st July 2010.
Theologis (1992) One Rotten Apple Spoils the Whole Bushel: The Role of Ethylene
in Fruit Ripening. Cell. 70, 181-184, July 24.
Wills, R. McGlasson, B. Graham, D. and Joyce, D. (2007) Effects of temperature. In

Wills, R .McGlasson, B. Graham, D. and Joyce, D. (eds.). An introduction to the
physiology and handling of fruit, vegetables and ornamentals. 5th ed. Sydney, NSW:
University of New South Wales Press Ltd and CABI. 54.
Wills and Warton (2004) Efficacy of potassium permanganate impregnated into

alumina beads to reduce atmospheric ethylene. Journal of the American Society of
Horticultural Science. 129, 433-438.
Wills, R.B.H., Ku, V.W., Shohet, D. and Kim, G.H. (1999) Importance of low
ethylene levels to delay senescence of non-climacteric fruit and vegetables.
Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 39, 221-224
Wrap (2011) Testing ethylene control technologies in domestic fridges, February

2011.
Yang, S.F. (1985) Biosynthesis and action of ethylene. Horticultural Science. 20, 41-
45.
Zimermann, P.W. and Wilcoxon, F. (1935) Several chemical growth substances

which cause initiation of roots and other responses in plants. Contrib. Boyce
Thompson Inst. 7, 209-229 and 948.
v
Appendices
Appendix 1
Baseline ethylene trial result sheets
Domestic Fridge Ethylene Levels Trial Sheet
Name Date Trial Started Time Trial Started

Gemma Wray-French 21st May 2011 22:00
Participant Date Trial Finished Time Trial Finished

A 22nd May 2011 08:30
Fridge
Model/Capacity
Larder
Fridge Contents (Perishables only) Quantity
Spinach (packaged) 160g
Brocolli (Florettes; packaged) 200g
Apples 6
Mushrooms 250g
Carrots 10
Aubergine 1
Cucumber 1 whole
Lettuce 1
Tomatoes 6
Cabbage 1
Beetroot (pickled) 5
Red Peppers 5
Green Peppers 2
Cauliflower (Florettes; packaged) 200g
Courgettes 4
Runner Beans 205g
Parsnips 2
Cherries 500g
Ethylene Reading (ppb)
vi
570

Rachel Head 21st May 2011 22:00

B 22nd May 2011 09:00

Fridge Model/Capacity
Larder


Onions 6

New Potatoes 1 bag

Cucumber 1 half

Beetroot (pickled) 4

Oranges 5

Runner Beans 250g

Red Peppers 5

Tomatoes 4

0

vii

Marie Smith 21st May 2011 22:00

C 22nd May 2011 09:00

Larder


Sweet Leaf Salad (packaged) 215g

Strawberries 500g

Apples (Red Gala) 7

Mushrooms 250g

Garlic 2

0

viii

Christine Smith 21st May 2011 21:00

D 22nd May 2011 09:00

Fridge
Model/Capacity
Larder


Lettuce 1

Cucumber 1 half

Mushrooms 250g

Tomatoes 5

50


Kim Rix 21st May
ix 2011 22:00

E 22nd May 2011 10:00


Lisa Wray-French 21st May 2011 22:30

F 22nd May 2011 08:30

Fridge
Model/Capacity
Larder


Swede 1 half

Spring Onions 9

Apples 9

Mushrooms 250g

Carrots 1.5kg

Leek 500g

Cucumber 1 half

Parsnips 500g

Tomatoes 6

Greens 2

Lemon 1

Brussels 500g
75

x

Richard Colgan 21st May 2011 23:00

G 22nd May 2011 07:30

Fridge
Model/Capacity
Larder


Cucumber 1 half

Tomatoes 400g

Lettuce 1

Peppers 300g


17ppb

xi

Ben Bennett 21st May 2011 22:00

H 22nd May 2011 07:30

Larder


Onions 250g

Tomatoes 6

Celery 250g


60ppb

xii

Debbie Rees 21st May 2011 22:30

I 22nd May 2011 07:30

Fridge
Model/Capacity
Larder


Melon Half

Tomatoes 2

Cucumber 1 whole

Sliced Pineapple

Peppers 1½

Lettuce 1


0

xiii

Ann Nunn 21st May 2011 22:30

J 22nd May 2011 09:00

Fridge
Model/Capacity
Larder


Oranges 4

Tomatoes 6

Cucumber 1 whole

Onions 4

Cabbage 1

Lettuce 1


46

xiv
Appendix 2
Gas Chromatography Methodology
EZChrom Instructions
1. Start up the system
Turn on hydrogen, air and nitrogen gases at the valves on the wall
Switch on the GC
Switch on the computer
Run EZChrom from the icon on the desktop
Double click the 6890GC icon in the right hand window
Put in the username and the project, or enter ethylene as both the username and the
project
2. To run a single sample
Go to “control” and “single run”. The sample entry box below will appear
Under sample ID, enter a short description of the sample

Under method, press the yellow button to select the method (see paragraph 3)
Under data path enter the place where the data is going to be stored.
Under data file, enter the filename. If several samples are to be run enter “sample-
<001>”. The sample will be stored as sample-001 and when another sample is started
it will automatically be stored as sample-002
Press “start”. The method will be downloaded to the GC. When the GC is ready, the
bar at the bottom of the screen will change from orange to purple, with the words
“waiting for trigger”
xv
Inject the sample and press “start run” on the GC.
3. The method
Methods control all the settings on the GC. They tell EZChrom how long to collect
data for and at what data rate (data points per second). They also contain the settings
for the report that will be displayed at the end of the run.
Events table
Go to “Method” and “integration events”…
The events table is a list of parameters that control the integration of the peak:
 Peak width: is the value in minutes of the narrowest peak in the chromatogram
 Threshold: is a value where the computer recognises a peak above the background
noise. If the chromatogram is noisy then you will need a higher value to integrate
properly.
 Integration off: will not integrate anything before 0.6 minutes
Peak table
Go to “Method”, “Peaks/groups”. The peak table shows the peak name, with its
expected retention time and its calibration levels (see paragraph 6)…
Instrument settings
Go to “Method”, “Instrument setup”. This shows all the temperature and pressure
settings for the GC
4. Calibration
xvi
Open the peak table – Go to “Method”, “Peaks/groups”. The peak table shows the
peak name, with its expected retention time and its calibration levels…
Levels 1 is 1ppm, levels 2 is 10ppm etc.
Run single calibration samples, but tick the “calibrate” box. Enter the level that this
calibration is for. Tick the “clear calibration for level” box.
If you want to clear all the stored calibration data for all levels then tick the “clear all
calibration” box…
Press start
5. Reporting
Open a data file. Go to “analysis” and “analyse”. Go to “report” and “view” and
“method custom report”. This will show a single page report for the sample.
Review the calibration data
Go to “Method” and “review calibration”
xvii
For ethylene on an FID, the peak “curve” should generally be a straight line, up to the
point when the detector id overloaded.
xviii
Appendix 3 Results of consumer purchases survey
Consumer purchase survey fruit
Commodity Purchased
Strawberry
Clementine
Nectarine
Avocado
Satsuma
Tomato
Apricot
Banana
Orange
Cherry
Lemon
Grape
Melon
Peach
Apple
Plum
Participant
Lime
Kiwi
Pear
Name
Pam Abela 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nicole Adams 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Dave Austin 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sam Austin 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Carla Beresford 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Pete Foreman 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Debbie French 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
Tammy French 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Louise Graber 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Ann Harris 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Rachel Head 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Jen Heathfield 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
Carol Hill 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
Clare Homewood 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Jo Le Breton 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Chris Long 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Jenny Malone 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Nicky Norman 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Brenda Nunn 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Alex Ongley 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Kathryn Page 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lorna Platt 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
Chelsea Phillips 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Caroline Punya 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1
Catherine Pullen 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Kim Rix 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Andreea Simon 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Christine Smith 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Sam Taylor 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Mandy Thompson 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Vicky Towner 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Angela Wray 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Julie Wray 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
Stephen Wray 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Gem Wray-French 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 26 1 2 30 3 4 15 4 3 1 2 11 7 6 8 8 11 5 31
Key: 1 = purchased by customer, 0 = not purchased by customer
xix
Consumer purchase survey vegetables
Commodity Purchased
Brussel sprout
Spring Onion
Runner Bean
Cauliflower
Mushroom
Cucumber
Aubergine
Cabbage
Broccoli
Parsnip
Lettuce
Pepper
Carrot
Celery
Potato
Garlic
Swede
Onion
Chilli
Participant
Leek
Name
Pam Abela 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Nicole Adams 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Dave Austin 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Sam Austin 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Carla Beresford 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
Pete Foreman 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
Debbie French 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Tammy French 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Louise Graber 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ann Harris 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Rachel Head 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Jen Heathfield 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Carol Hill 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
Clare Homewood 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Jo Le Breton 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1
Chris Long 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Jenny Malone 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Nicky Norman 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Brenda Nunn 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Alex Ongley 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Kathryn Page 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Lorna Platt 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1
Chelsea Phillips 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Caroline Punya 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Catherine Pullen 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Kim Rix 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Andreea Simon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Christine Smith 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Sam Taylor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Mandy Thompson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Vicky Towner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Angela Wray 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Julie Wray 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Stephen Wray 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Gem Wray-French 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
Total 4 17 11 22 14 7 3 4 8 4 21 26 8 4 35 3 5 1 29 26
Key: 1 = purchased by customer, 0 = not purchased by customer
xx
Appendix 4
Weight Loss Data Tables
Original Produce
No Treatment Fresh Pod Scrubbed

Percentage Weight Loss Percentage Weight Loss Percentage Weight Loss
Day 1 Day 12 Day 19 Day 26 Day 33 Day 1 Day 12 Day 19 Day 26 Day 33 Day 1 Day 12 Day 19 Day 26 Day 33
Commodity Commodity Commodity
Grapes 0 3.4 5.2 7.8 10.9 Grapes 0 3.9 5.7 8.9 12.0 Grapes 0 3.3 6.3 8.6 11.7
Mushrooms 0 9.9 18.9 24.7 34.4 Mushrooms 0 15.3 22.0 28.6 37.4 Mushrooms 0 14.2 21.1 29.4 36.8
Satsumas 0 2.6 3.4 4.9 6.8 Satsumas 0 2.5 3.6 5.2 7.2 Satsumas 0 2.4 3.3 5.0 6.6
Tomatoes 0 1.1 2.0 3.3 4.7 Tomatoes 0 1.3 2.2 3.2 4.4 Tomatoes 0 0.3 1.7 2.7 3.9
Broccoli 0 14.6 20.2 27.8 36.6 Broccoli 0 16.3 22.0 28.1 37.2 Broccoli 0 15.8 22.4 30.0 40.0
Cabbage 0 7.4 9.7 12.1 14.3 Cabbage 0 6.7 9.1 13.1 13.4 Cabbage 0 7.3 9.7 12.2 16.7
Carrots 0 13.2 19.6 29.7 -* Carrots 0 11.9 18.9 29.5 -* Carrots 0 9.5 15.7 21.4 -*
Cucumber 0 10.9 16.4 -* -* Cucumber 0 7.4 12.7 24.1 -* Cucumber 0 8.8 14.9 26.0 -*
Kiwi Fruit 0 1.7 2.5 3.8 5.5 Kiwi Fruit 0 1.3 2.5 3.9 5.4 Kiwi Fruit 0 1.1 2.4 4.0 5.6
Apples (Green) 0 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 Apples (Green) 0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 Apples (Green) 0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9
Apples (Red) 0 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.4 Apples (Red) 0 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.9 Apples (Red) 0 0.7 1.1 1.6 2.4
Melon Halves 0 6.4 9.1 13.0 -* Melon Halves 0 6.5 9.9 13.2 -* Melon Halves 0 6.2 9.5 13.0 -*
Pears 0 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.5 Pears 0 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.5 Pears 0 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.4
* Produce disposed
Plastic bag produce
No Treatment Fresh Pod Scrubbed

Percentage Weight Loss Percentage Weight Loss Percentage Weight Loss
Day 1 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 1 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 1 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21
Commodity Commodity Commodity
Broccoli 0 1.2 2.2 3.5 Broccoli 0 1.8 4.3 6.5 Broccoli 0 1.6 2.7 3.6
Carrots 0 1.5 1.9 2.7 Carrots 0 1.4 1.8 2.7 Carrots 0 2.0 2.9 3.4
Lettuce 0 2.1 2.8 4.1 Lettuce 0 3.2 4.4 5.5 Lettuce 0 2.5 4.0 5.6
Mushrooms 0 1.5 3.7 5.8 Mushrooms 0 1.5 2.8 5.2 Mushrooms 0 2.0 5.1 8.5
xxi
Visual Quality Data Tables
Day 1 Day 12 Day 19 Day 26 Day 33
No Fresh No Fresh No Fresh No Fresh No Fresh

Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed
Grapes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 2 2 2 2.5 3 2.5 3.5
Mushrooms 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4.5 5 4 4.5 5 5 5
Satsumas 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 2 2 2 2 2
Tomatoes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.5 2 3 2 2 4 3 3
Broccoli 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 2.5 2 2.5 3 2.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5
Cabbage 1 1 1 1.5 2 2 3.5 2.5 2 3.5 3 3.5 4 3 4
Carrots 2 2 2 2.5 2.5 2 4 3.5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Cucumber 1 1 1 1.5 1 1.5 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Kiwi Fruit 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 2.5 1.5 1.5 3 2.5 2 3 2.5 2.5
Lettuce 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Apples (Green) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Apples (Red) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Melon Halves 1 1 1 2.5 2.5 2 5.5 4.5 5.5 6 6 6 6 6 6
Pears 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
No Fresh No Fresh No Fresh No Fresh No Fresh

Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed Treatment Pod Scrubbed
Broccoli 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.75 1.5 2 2 1.75 2.5 2 2.5
Carrots 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 2 2 1.5 2 2 2.25 3 3 3
Lettuce 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2.5 2.5 2.25 2.5
Mushrooms 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1.75 2 2 3 3.5 2.25 3
Appendix 5
xxii
Visual Scoring System Developed at EMR
Apple
1. Bright, turgid, not greasy. 2. Less shine, slightly greasy,

firm.
Note: scores above 2 are not shown as apples did not deteriorate beyond this level during the whole
timescale of trials.
Broccoli
xxiii
1. Tight heads, blue tinge. Green leaves, firm stalk. 5. Yellowing increasing. More brown heads.
2. Heads less tight. Occasional yellowing of florets. 6. Almost completely yellow
3. Increase in yellowing. 7. All florets yellow or brown. Some mould.
4. Over third of surface yellow. Some browning.

Cabbage
xxiv
1. Leaves turgid and green. Cut end dry, white and 3. Increase in yellowing and root growth.
clean.
2. Slight yellowing of outer leaf edges. Some root 4. Yellowing progressing down leaf margins of outer
growth on cut end. leaves. Heart still firm and compact.
Carrot
xxv
1. Blemish free and turgid. Clean stalk base.
2. Still turgid. Slight browning of root initials.
3. Progressive blackening of root initials. Continued shoot growth.
4. Extensive silvering. Progression of stalk re-growth and browning. Root initials continue to
blacken.
Cucumber
xxvi
1. Turgid and firm. Dark green, disease free, no lesions.
2. Shrivel on stalk end. Still firm. Lighter green/yellow lines and areas visible. Some transport damage.
3. Stalk end extremely shrivelled. Approx. half surface area yellow. Overall scuffed and dried out.
Grape
xxvii
1. Stems and berries generally green and firm. 2. Berries firm but showing browning around stalk
attachment and small areas of damage. Some stem
browning.
3. More damage and disease visible. Majority of fruit still firm. 4. Level of disease increasing.
5. Extensive rot development. Few healthy fruit remaining.
Kiwifruit
xxviii
1. Firm and blemish free 2. Still firm. Some darker patches 3. Darker patches more prevalent.
visible on skin.
Lettuce
xxix
1. Cut end brown but dry. Stem tissue white. 3. Progression in effects of damage. Outer leaves
Leaves green and turgid. yellow and wilted. Head still firm and green.
2. Some damage evident on stems and leaves. 4. Significant damage and decay on outer regions.
Slight yellowing and loss of turgidity in outer Heart still green and turgid.
leaves.
Melon
xxx
1. Firm texture. Cut surface shinny 2. Cut surface showing effects of 3. Flesh level lower than outer skin.
with green outer ring and creamy drying.
centre. No disease. Texture less firm.
4. Flesh increasingly sunken. Slight 5. Flesh sunken. Increase in mould 6. Extensive mould coverage.
mould development. development.
Overall texture still firm.
Mushroom
xxxi
1. Buttons tight. Cut ends white and dry. Overall colour white. 2. Some gill exposure. Overall colour off-white.
3. All gills exposed. Cut ends browning. Caps developing feathered 4. Gills fully exposed. Cut ends brown. Caps scaly and browning.
effect around edges. Overall colour more brown.
5. Dehydration evident. Disease on cut ends. Overall brown

shrivelled appearance.
Pear
xxxii
1. No shrivel. Firm and turgid. 3. Generally softer, riper. More yellow (2.5)
Green colour (1.0)
2. No shrivel, firm. Slight skin 4. Softer. Progression in evidence of

damage. damage. Further yellowing (3.0)
Less green
(1.5)
Orange
1. Firm to touch. Peel bright and shiny 2. Less bright and shiny
Tomato
xxxiii
1. Calyx green, mould free. Firm and shiny. 3. Generally more red and soft. Progression
of calyx mould.
2. Calyx slightly mouldy. Firm and shiny, 4. Further progression of calyx mould. Little
more red. other visible change. Soft.
Appendix 6
xxxiv
Visual Quality Trial Photographs
Day 1 Complete Fridge Contents
No Treatment A No Treatment B
Fresh Pod A Fresh Pod B
E+ A E+ B
xxxv
No Treatment Replicate A
Top Shelf
Middle Shelf
Bottom Shelf
xxxvi
No Treatment Replicate B
Top Shelf
Middle Shelf
xxxvii
Bottom Shelf

Fresh Pod Replicate A
Top Shelf
xxxviii
Middle Shelf
Bottom Shelf

Fresh Pod Replicate B
xxxix
Top Shelf
Middle Shelf
Bottom Shelf

E+ Replicate A
xl
Top Shelf
Middle Shelf
Bottom Shelf
xli
E+ Replicate B
Top Shelf
Middle Shelf
Bottom Shelf
xlii
xliii

Submitted Dissertation 17 TH April 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Submitted Dissertation 17 TH April 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A review of ethylene management techniques

controlling the shelf life of perishables and

research into two new types of ethylene

Food Safety and Quality Management Masters

I declare that this thesis:

Title: A review of ethylene management techniques controlling the shelf life of

Name: Lisa Wray-French

Signed:………………………………………….. Date ……17th April 2013……………..

Subject Page Number

1.1. Background and problems statement 11

1.3. Aims and objectives 14

2.1. Ethylene and Fruit Ripening 16

2.2. Detrimental Effects of Ethylene 20

2.3. Commercial Ethylene Level Management & Removal 21

2.3.1. Low Temperature & Humidity Storage 23

2.2.3. Ventilation (Forced Air) 24

2.3.3. Ozone Technology 25

2.3.4. Controlled Atmosphere Storage 26

2.3.5. Modified Atmosphere Storage 27

2.3.6. Modified Atmosphere Packaging 28

2.3.7. Ethylene Antagonists (competitors) 29

2.3.8. Chemical Removal (Scrubbing) 30

2.4. Consumer Ethylene Removal (Scrubbing) 31

2.4.1. The Fresh Pod System 32

2.4.2. The E+ System 33

3. Materials and Methods 34

3.2. Study to determine the baseline concentration of ethylene 34

3.3. Survey of Fruit and Vegetable Purchases 36

3.4. Fresh Pod and E+ Trial 36

3.5. Visual Quality Scoring System 39

4. Results and Discussion 40

4.1. Baseline ethylene levels found in domestic refrigerators 40

4.2. Survey of Fruit and Vegetables Purchases 41

4.3. Refrigerator Trial 43

4.3.1 Ethylene Levels 43

4.3.2. Weight Loss 44

5. Conclusion and Recommendation 51

AMI Agricultural Market Information

AFAM Automated Fresh Air Management

CABI Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International

EGG Ethylene Gas Guardian

EMR East Malling Research

MAP Modified Atmosphere Packaging

WRAP Waste Recycling Action Project

Figure Number Description Page Number

FIGURE 2.1 Net chemical equation for respiration 17

FIGURE 2.2 Respiration rates in climacteric fruit 18

FIGURE 2.3 Respiration rates in non-climacteric fruit 18

FIGURE 2.4 Effect of temperature on quality retention 23

FIGURE 2.5 Purfresh Ozone Technology 24

FIGURE 2.6 The Fresh Pod Kit 31

FIGURE 2.7 The E+ System 32

FIGURE 3.1 Gas collection from domestic refrigerators 35

FIGURE 3.2 Refrigerator loading conditions 37

FIGURE 3.3 Drawing gas samples for GC analysis 38

FIGURE 3.4 WISA circulating air pump 38

FIGURE 4.1 Fruit purchase survey 41

FIGURE 4.2 Vegetable purchase survey 42

FIGURE 4.3 Ethylene levels inside domestic refrigerators 43

FIGURE 4.4 Weight loss data for all produce 44

FIGURE 4.5 Weight loss data for plastic bag produce 46

FIGURE 4.6 Weight loss comparison graphs 46

FIGURE 4.7 Quality scores for all produce 47