Effect of Hot Water and Wax Applications on Storage Life of Cactus

Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.) Fruits

H. Berger, A. Mitrovic, L. Galletti and J. Oyarzún
Centro de Estudios Postcosecha (CEPOC). Universidad de Chile
e-mail hberger@abello.dic.uchile.cl
Keywords: Cactus pear, tuna, postharvest, temperature treatment, red spot, rotting

Abstract
Cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.) fruits were subjected to
postharvest water dip treatments and wax application. Hot water dip (2 min at
55°C.) and tap water dip (2 min at 25°C.) both with or without wax were made. The
fruit was cold stored at 0°C. and 85%-90 % relative humidity (RH). Fruits
evaluation was made 28, 35 and 42 days after cold store at 0°C. and after 3 days
simulated shelf life at 18°C. and 50-60 RH. Dehydration, decay, spine damage (red
spots), external appearance, peel color, fruit firmness, soluble solids, pH and
titratable acidity were evaluated. In addition, a panel using a non-structural pattern
evaluated the acceptability of different treatments. Hot water dip treatments
reduced rotting and red spots, improving external appearance.

INTRODUCTION
The cultivated area of cactus pear in Chile is approximately 1.505 ha, joined
mainly on the Metropolitan Region and in the V Region (INE, 1997). Due to its
agroecologic requirements, this species is adapted to be planted in marginal soils of arid
and semi-arid areas located in the north and center of Chile (Sudzuki, 1997). The
potential surface for the cultivation of the cactus pear in Chile is considered more than
10.000 ha (Sudzuki et al., 1993).
Among the main postharvest problems for cactus pear fruit in storage decay and
dehydration are frequent (Berger et al, 1978; Galletti, 1998). Over the last few years much
attention has been paid to develop or improve 'non-conventional' methods such as heat
therapy for postharvest protection of cactus pear fruits (Schirra, 1998).
Hot water dip treatments constitute a method free of chemical products that offers
the possibility to extend the storage life of many fruits (Lurie, 1998).
On the other hand wax application on certain fruits provides different benefits,
among them, it reduces the dehydration and improve the external appearance (Berger,
1990).
The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of hot water dip and
wax application on the behavior of cactus pear fruit in refrigerated storage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The cactus pear fruit (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.) used for this research came
from a commercial orchard located in Tiltil, Metropolitan Region. Two harvests were
made (February 25 and March 8). Harvest index used in both cases was color (5 GY 7/8
Munsell chart) corresponding to a clear green detecting the beginning of a brilliant
yellowish coloration (Sudzuki et al, 1993; Sudzuki, 1997). Sweeping method was used for
the elimination of thorns. Plastic boxes were used, to transport the fruit from the sweeping
place until the packing area. Six treatments were carried out (Table 1).
Immersion times and the corresponding temperatures were selected from
preliminary tests evaluated at the Postharvest Laboratory CEPOC, University of Chile
(Galletti and Berger data unpublished).
The pH of the water and it temperature were measured constantly with paper
indicator and with digital thermometer respectively. The pH stayed near 7, while the
temperature of the water stayed at 55 ± 1 °C. The wax used corresponded to a white
viscous emulsion, elaborated with nutritious wax formulated for the cover of fruits and

Proc. 4th IC on Cactus Pear and Cochineal

Eds. A. Nefzaoui & P. Inglese
Acta Hort. 581, ISHS 2002 211
vegetables, of direct application, without fungicides. The fruit was packed in cardboard
boxes for export, 24 units per box, and each unit wrapped in paper. Three additional fruit
boxes were considered to characterize the fruit of each harvest. Color, weight, firmness,
soluble solids, pH and titratable acidity were determinate at the laboratory.
The fruit was stored a 0 ± 1 °C with 80-85% RH, both variables were controlled
continually by means of a sensor inside the chamber. At 28, 35 and 42 days of cold
storage 4 fruits were analyzed per box to observe the condition of the fruit and 16 fruits
per box were left for shelf life period (3 days at 18 to 20 °C with 60-70% RH).
Dehydration, fruit color, rotting, "red spots", external appearance, firmness, soluble
solids, pH and titratable acidity were evaluated. Additionally, 4 fruits were used to
determine the acceptability by means of a not trained panel.
The dehydration was based on the weight loss of fruits during the period of
storage and shelf life. The results were expressed in percentage with regard to the initial
weight, being attributed the weight loss to the water loss.
The color of the fruits was measured with a portable Minolta, (Minolta CR 300).
These mensuraments were made in the equatorial area of the fruit.
In each evaluation it was quantified the extent of damaged fruit by the visual
assessment of rotting (Table 2).
The procedure of evaluation of "red spots" was the same one used to determine
rotting intensity, that is to say, it was quantified the problem visually and an average was
obtained pondered by experimental unit. The scale of used evaluation is shown in the
Table 3.
The external appearance of cactus pears was qualified as well following the same
procedure (table 4).
Firmness measurement with Effegi penetrometer, with plunger of 8 mm of
diameter (5/16 inches), expressing the results in kilogram of force (1 lb = 0.45 Kg). The
measurements were made along the equatorial area of the fruit, previous removal of the
epidermis.
For soluble solid determination, fruits juice was extracted and it was analyzed with
an ATAGO refractometer, the results were expressed in °Brix.
The pH was measured with a potenziometer Cole Palmer (model 05669-20) using
for this effect 10 mL of juice. The results were expressed in percentage of citric acid (pH
8,2).
The acceptability was determined by means of a not trained panel, composed by
24 judges using a not structured pattern. It has values from 0 to 15, the smallest values at
7 are of rejection, among 7 and 8 of indifference, and bigger values at 8 are of
acceptability. The experimental design was completely aleatory independent for each
harvest and evaluation date. Using factorial structure of 2 x 3, where the first factor
corresponded to the cover type (without wax, with wax) and the second factor to the
application of water (without water, immersion in tap water and immersion in hot water).
The experimental unit corresponded to a box of 24 fruits, 4 fruits were dedicated
to the analysis made to exit of cold, 16 fruits were analyzed after the shelf life periods and
4 fruits were dedicated to the panel that determined the acceptability. Each treatment had
three repetitions.
The prosecution of the gathered data was made by means of ANOVA, and
differences analyzed by the Duncan’s test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

At harvest evaluation (Table 5) fruits presented similar maturity to the Ortúzar
essay (1976).
The color was a good harvest index since firmness, acidity and soluble solids
content were similar in both dates.
After 28 days of refrigerated storage, the weight loss was 4,9% in harvest 1 fruits
without wax and 3,9% in waxed fruits, with significant differences for this factor. In fruit
coming from the harvest 2, for the same period of storage, the weight loss was 5,5% in

212
fruits without wax and 5,2% in the waxed fruits, with no significant differences. Water
dipping didn’t result in significant differences (Figures 1 and 2).
The weight loss in fruit of harvest 1 were 7,4% in fruits without waxing and 6,4%
in waxed fruits. In fruits of the harvest 2 these values were 8,5% and 7,5% respectively,
with no significant differences. For the same period, in fruit coming from both harvests,
the weight loss was slightly smaller in fruits subjected to immersion in water to 25 °C in
comparison to the control and to the immersion in water to 55 °C.
At the end of 35 days of cold storage the weight loss in cactus pear fruits of
harvest 1 varied between 4,6 and 7,5%. The difference among waxed and without waxed
fruits is approximately 2%, with significant differences for this factor. In fruits of harvest
2 the range of weight loss was from 5,7 to 7,5% and the difference among waxed and
without waxed fruits reduce to 0,7%, with no significant differences for the wax factor. In
fruit of both harvests water application factor didn't represent as significant difference.
After 3 days of shelflife, the ranges of weight loss was from 6,4 to 9,5% in fruits
of harvest 1 and from 7,3 to 8,7% in fruits of harvest 2. In fruit of harvest 1 the difference
among waxed and unwaxe fruits was significant. In fruit of harvest 2 was no significant.
In this stage, the deterioration product of the dehydration in fruits without being
waxed increased severely. On the other hand, in waxed fruits this problem was less
evident
In general terms, in cactus pear fruits stored by 28 days to 0 °C plus three days of
shelf life to 18 °C, didn't exist effects of water application on the fruits color.
After 28 days of refrigerated storage plus 3 days of shelflife, hot water dip reduced
significantly rotting occurrence in waxed and without waxing fruits. This behavior was
observed in fruit of both harvests (Figures 3 and 4). An increment of the decay took place,
after 35 days of storage plus 3 days of shelflife, with regard to the previous evaluation
(28+3), being observed the same types. The smallest percentage and decay intensity was
presented in the immersion treatment in water to 55 °C without wax, behavior that repeats
in fruit of both harvests. In the immersion treatment in water to 55 °C with wax, an
increment is observed in the rotting occurrence, with more than 50% of the affected fruits.
It fits to highlight that it was considered fruit even affected that only presented some
superficial micelio. Higher decay intensity presented the treatments without water and
immersion in water to 25 °C.
Coming out from the cold storage the quantity of red spots was almost nihil,
however, the appearance of the damage became evident during the shelf life period
(figures 5 and 6)
At 28 days, almost all control fruits were classified as " bad ". The immersion
treatment in water at 55 °C gave better results and it was significantly better than the
immersion in water to 25 °C, due mainly to the drop rotting and red spots occurrence.
Regarding the cover condition, the wax application improved the external appearance of
the fruits, increasing the color and the brightness, as well as attenuating epidermis
dehydration.
After 35 days of storage, the external appearance of the cactus pear fruits
progressive declined during the shelf life period due to the strong decay, red spots and
dehydration increment. Regarding the water application the treatments without water and
immersion in water of 25 °C presented the smallest values due to the high decay and red
spots incidence and to the weight loss that became more evident for the high percentage
of fruits that needed wrinkled epidermis. The hot water dip treatments obtained the
highest values, located in range between acceptable and good. In particular, the
immersion treatment in water to 55 °C without wax, presented the highest drop decay and
red spots occurrence.
The water application or the wax treatment had not influence on fruit firmness.
The values for soluble solids at 28 days, in fruit coming from the harvest 1
fluctuated between 14,6 and 15,2 °Brix. In fruit of the harvest 2, the values were located
between 13,3 and 14,4 °Brix.
At 35 days for this evaluation and considering fruits of both harvests, the content

213
of soluble solids varied in a range from 13,9 to 15,8 °Brix. An influence of the cover
factor is not observed on this parameter. Regarding the water application, the subjected
fruits to the immersion in water to 25°C present values average slightly lower.
As for the pH values for waxed fruits, these were slightly smaller that those of
fruits without waxing and although significant statistical difference existed for this factor,
in practical terms, these differences were of little magnitude.
Acidity variations at 28 days, attributable to the immersion type or the waxed,
were small magnitude, difficult to perceive in form practice. As at 35 days it was
observed, in general, a slightly bigger acidity in the waxed fruits, presenting significant
differences, tendency that repeats in fruit of both harvests. Nevertheless, these differences
are of little magnitude. On the other hand, water application effects were not observed on
the titratable acidity of the evaluated cactus pear fruits.
For the storage of 28 days, with 3 additional days to 20 °C, the panel granted
waxed and without waxed fruits of harvest 1 a value average of 9,7 and 9,3 respectively.
For fruit of the harvest 2 these values were 9,8 and 9,3 respectively without they
presented significant differences. The panel did not observe water applications influences
on the acceptability. In general terms the values average always varied between 8,2 and
10,3 in the acceptability range and without significant statistical differences were
observed among the different evaluated treatments. After 35 days of cold storage plus 3
days of exhibition and feigned sale, the not trained panel qualified the fruits without
waxing, of the harvest 1 with a value average near to 9,1 and the fruits waxed with a
value average of 8,2. These groups didn't present significant differences. Regarding the
water application for fruits of the harvest 1 significant differences were not observed. In
general in fruits coming from the harvest 1 the quantity of qualified fruit as acceptable, in
all the evaluated treatments, was approximately of 60%.
In fruit of the harvest 2 the interaction between the factor application of water and
cover didn't allow to separate the effect of each one on the acceptability of the fruits
evaluated by the panel, nevertheless stability was observed in these values. In this case
the quantity of qualified fruits as acceptable varied approximately between 60 and 80%.
After 42 days of storage more shelf life period, it was not possible to evaluate the
entirety of the treatments because, the bad condition of the fruits didn't allow measuring
the variables in satisfactory form. In this context, the fruits of hot water dip treatments
were in better condition, specifically those of the treatment of hot water without wax that
although were affected by decay these didn't commit the pulp, that possibly would allow
the use of the fruit in industrial processes.
Ortúzar (1976), working with cactus pear fruits stored 0 °C by 31 days, observed a
weight loss near to 8% and during the 3 days shelflife period the weight loss was 3%
larger. In the present research, the weight loss was expressed in an important decrease of
the fruit visual qualities, these presented the epidermis wrinkled, in a first stage the
proximal area and then the whole surface of the fruit, situation also described by Berger et
al., (1978). In the waxed fruits this problem was less evident because the wax covered
gave a smooth and brilliant aspect to the epidermis improving the external appearance,
this coincides with that observed by Adriasola (1996).
In the research carried out by Schirra et al. (1997) as in this, the postharvest heat
treatment used didn't affect the development of the external color when comparing control
fruit with the treated fruit. This agrees with that described by other authors (Ortúzar,
1976; Castillo, 1997) regarding the cactus pear fruits low color variation during the
storage.
In other researches (Berger et al., 1978; Schirra et al., 1996), the hot water dip
treatments appear as effective way to reduce rotting incidence during the cactus pear
fruits storage. In general, the rotting began their development in the proximal area of the
fruit, starting from the wound produced at harvest as described by Castillo (1997).
Reduced the immersion in water of 55 °C, the rotting development. D'hallewin (1999)
affirms that the heat treatment melts the layer of wax epicuticular partially, sealing
wounded of the cactus pear fruit, closing the possible entrances to pathogens that require

214
of wounds to penetrate to the fruits, what would offer an additional protection against the
rotting.
Schirra (1998) affirms that the cactus pear fruits maintained to ambient
temperature deteriorate quickly as a result of the maturation process and of the rotting,
especially Penicillium spp. which takes advantage of the micro wounds caused by the
glochids during the harvest and the high content of sugar of the fruits. This agrees with
previous researches (Ortúzar, 1976; Chessa and Barbera, 1984; Adriasola, 1996).
The glochids of cactus pear fruit can damage the surface of the harvested fruits
and the red spot increase their severity with the time of storage and during the shelflife
period (Cantwell, 1995; Sudzuki, 1997). In the research carried out by Adriasola (1996),
the water application treatment and the wax treatment reduce the incidence of damage by
glochids in cactus pear fruits stored by 35 days to 0 °C plus 3 days at 18°C.
Schirra et al., (1996) observed that shelflife period had a harmful effect on the
external appearance of the fruits, on the other hand, in all the heat treatments used in this
research, the external appearance was classified as good, according to the employees
scale.
In general, in this research the variations in the firmness of the fruits, attributable
to the immersion or waxed type, were difficult to perceive in form practice. Parallel, of
the comparison of these results with those obtained in the harvest evaluation, a firmness
of this parameter can settle down during the period of storage, situation that coincides
with that described in previous research (Ortúzar, 1976; Castillo, 1997). In another
research (Adriasola, 1996), for the same period of cold storage and shelflife, the values of
fruit firmness for the treatments: with wax, dip in tap water, they varied between 1,8 and
2 kg (4,0 and 4,4 lb.). Cantwell (1995) sustains that the changes of firmness in fruits of
cactus pear fruit, during the storage, are very small compared with other fruits.
In fruit of both harvest the influence of the water application or waxed on the
content of soluble solids was not relevant. This agrees with that described by other
authors (Schirra et al., 1996; Adriasola, 1996). Cantwell (1995) affirms that the content of
sugar of the cactus pear fruits is certain to the harvest moment, being the changes in
postharvest relatively small.
As in this research, Schirra et al. (1997) observed that titratable acidity was not
affect by heat treatments used.

CONCLUSION
On the base of the antecedents, the used methodology and the results of this
research, concludes that:

1. The applications of water have no significant effect on the loss of weight for
dehydration in the cactus pear fruits. The use of wax can reduce the dehydration and
improves the external appearance of the fruits.
2. The color of the fruits is not affected by the treatments of water, only for the presence
of wax there are differences that are also reflected in the external appearance of the
fruits.
3. The hot water reduces the rotting occurrence considerably and the wax increases it’s
lightly.
4. The presence of red spots was avoided especially by the hot water. Likewise the wax
influenced positively in avoiding even more the development of these stains.
5. The physical-chemical parameters, as firmness, soluble solids, pH and acidity had
minimum variations attributable to treatments.

Literature Cited
Adriasola, E. 1996. Estudio del comportamiento del fruto de tuna (Opuntia ficus-indica
(L.) Mill.) en condiciones de atmósfera modificada. Tesis Ing. Agr., Santiago, Chile.
Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales. 47 p.
Berger, H., Ortuzar, X., Auda, C., Lizana, A. y Reszczynski, A. 1978. Conservación de

215
 tunas (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.) en almacenaje refrigerado. Investigación
Agrícola 1(4):21-24.
Berger, H. 1990. Acondicionamiento de frutas y hortalizas: Aplicaciones de productos
químicos y encerado, pp. 49-55. In: Tecnologías de apoyo a la exportación de frutas y
hortalizas en Chile. Santiago. Universidad de Chile. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y
Forestales. Publicaciones Misceláneas Agrícolas N° 29. 123 p.
Castillo, R. 1997. Estudio del comportamiento del fruto de tuna (Opuntia ficus-indica
(L.)Mill.) en condiciones de atmósfera controlada. Tesis Ing. Agr., Santiago, Chile.
Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales. 47 p.
Cantwell, M. 1995. Postharvest management of fruits and vegetables stems. University of
California, Davis, California, pp. 120-136. In: Barbera Giuseppe (Ed.), Agro ecology,
cultivation and uses of cactus pear. Plant Production and Protecion. FAO Paper N°
132. Roma. 216 p.
Chessa, S. and Barbera, G. 1984. Studies on the cold storage of prickly fruits, cv. Gialla.
(resumen). Horticultural Abstracts 54(12):9581.
D´hallewin, G., Schirra, M. and Manueddu, E. 1999. Effect of heat on epicuticular wax of
cactus pear fruit. Tropical Science 39:244-247.
Galletti, L. 1998. Conservation of cactus pear: Temperature and Modified Atmosphere, p.
24. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Cactus pear and nopalitos,
processing and uses. Santiago, Chile, 1998. 108 p.
INE, Chile. 1997. VI Censo Nacional Agropecuario.
Lurie, S. 1998. Postharvest heat treatments. Postharvest Biology and Technology
14(3):257-269.
Ortuzar, X. 1976. Conservación de tunas (Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.) en almacenaje
refrigerado. Tesis Ing. Agr., Santiago, Chile. Universidad de Chile, Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales. 59 p.
Schirra, M., Barbera, G., D´aquino, S., La Mantia, T. and McDonald, R.E. 1996. Hot dips
and high-temperature conditioning to improve shelf quality of late-crop cactus pear
fruit. Tropical Science 36:159-165.
Schirra, M., Barbera, G., D´hallewin, G., Inglese, P. and La Mantia, T. 1997. Storage
response of cactus pear fruit to CaCl2 preharvest spray and postharvest heat treatment.
Journal of Horticultural Science 72(3):371-377.
Schirra, M. 1998. Storage trials of cactus pear [Opuntia ficus-indica Miller (L.)] fruit with
`non-conventional` methods, p. 17-21. In: Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Cactus pear and nopalitos, processing and uses. Santiago. Chile, 1998.
108 p.
Sudzuki, F., Munoz, C. y Berger, H. 1993. El cultivo de la Tuna (Cactus Pear).
Departamento de Producción Agrícola, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales.
Universidad de Chile. 88p.
Sudzuki, F. 1997. Avances en el cultivo de la tuna. El campesino 3(127): 12-15.

Tables

Table 1. Treatments applied

Treatments Temperature °C Time, minutes

1. Hot water 55 2
2. Cold water 25 2
3. Dry - -
4. Hot water + wax 55 2
5. Cold water + wax 25 2
6. Dry - -

216
Table 2. Scale used to evaluate rotting intensity in cactus pear fruits.

Scale % of the fruit affected by micelio Visualization

0 0% Healthy fruit (Without rotting)
1 <5% Incipient
2 >5% < 25% Light
3 >25% < 50% Moderate
4 >50% Severe

Table 3. Scale used to evaluate the intensity of the "red stains" in cactus pear fruit.

Scale % of the affected fruit Visualization

0 0% Without red stains
1 >0% <25% Light
2 >25% <50% Moderate
3 >50% Severe

Table 4. Scale used to evaluate the external appearance in cactus pear fruit fruits.

Scale External appearance

4 Excellent
3 Good (limit supermarket)
2 Acceptable (eatable limit)
1 Bad (reject potential)

Table 5. Physical-chemical parameters of maturity and color of cactus pear fruits at

harvest.

Parameter Harvest 1 Harvest 2

Firmness (kg) 1,6 a 1/ 1,6 a
Soluble solids (°Brix) 15,1 a 15,4 a
PH 6,5 a 6,3 b
Titratable acidity (percentage of citric acid) 0,052 a 0,053 a
Fruit color 2,5 GY 7/8 2,5 GY 7/8
1/ Duncan (p < 0,05).

217
Figures

without wax (28 days) with wax (28 days)

without wax (28+3 days) with wax (28+3 days)

10
WEIGHT LOSS

6
(%)

0
Dry Cold water Hot water
TREATMENTS

100%

90%
Severe
80%

70%
Moderate
DECAY

60%
Light
(%)

50%

40%

30%
Incipient
20%

10%
Without decay
0%
Without wax

With wax

Without wax

Without wax
Cold water

Hot water
With wax
Cold water

With wax

Hot water
Dry
Dry

TREATMENTS

218
 without wax (28 days) with wax (28 days)
without wax (28+3 days) with wax (28+3 days)

10
WEIGHT LOSS

6
(%)

0
Dry Cold water Hot water
TREATMENTS

100%

90%
Severe
80%

70% Moderate
DECAY

60%
(%)

50% Light
40%

30% Incipient
20%

10% Without decay

0%
With wax

Cold water

Hot water
Without wax

Without wax

Without wax

With wax
Cold water

With wax

Hot water
Dry
Dry

TREATMENTS

100%
Severe
90%
RED STAINS (%)

80%
70% Moderate
60%
50%
40% Light
30%
20%
Without red
10%
0%
stains
Hot water
Without wax

With wax

Without wax

Without wax
Cold water

With wax
Cold water

With wax

Hot water
Dry
Dry

TREATMENTS

219
220
RED STAINS (%)

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Dry
Without wax

Dry
With wax

Cold water
Without wax

Cold water
With wax

TREATMENTS
Hot water
Without wax

Hot water
With wax
Light

stains
Severe

Moderate

Without red