reading

Cover
Preface
1 Enhancing Food Security Through Postharvest Technology
1. 1.1 Introduction
2. 1.2 Food Security: Changing Paradigms Linked to Food Quality and NCD Challenges
3. References
4. Links
2 Ripening and Senescence of Fleshy Fruits
1. 2.1 Introduction
2. 2.2 Fruit Growth and Development
3. 2.3 Climacteric and Non‐climacteric Fruits
4. 2.4 Metabolic and Physiological Changes During Fruit Ripening
5. 2.5 Regulation of Fruit Ripening
6. 2.6 Transcriptional Regulation of Fruit Ripening
7. 2.7 Nitric Oxide and ROS Regulate Fruit Ripening and Senescence
8. 2.8 Epigenetic Modulation of Ripening Regulators
9. 2.9 Concluding Remarks
10. Author Contribution and Acknowledgments
11. References
3 Ethylene Signal Transduction During Fruit Ripening and Senescence
1. 3.1 Introduction
2. 3.2 Ethylene Biosynthesis
3. 3.3 Membrane Lipid Catabolism during Ripening and Senescence
4. 3.4 Phospholipase D and its Role in Plant Developmental Processes
5. 3.5 Role of PLD in Growth and Development
6. 3.6 Signal Transduction Sequences During Ripening
7. 3.7 Function and Roles of Biomembrane in Signaling
8. 3.8 Phosphatidylinositol 3‐Kinase: A Potential Link in Ethylene Signal Transduction
9. 3.9 C2 Domains of PLD and PI3K
10. Acknowledgment
11. References
4 Preharvest and Postharvest Technologies Based on Hexanal: An Overview
1. 4.1 Introduction
2. 4.2 Ripening and Senescence
3. 4.3 Changes in Cell Membrane Structure and Properties
4. 4.4 Hexanal‐based Technologies
5. 4.5 Compositions for Preharvest Sprays and Postharvest Dips of Fruits and Vegetables
6. 4.6 Mechanism of Action of Hexanal
7. 4.7 Summary of Treatments and Effects
8. References
5 Nitric Oxide Signaling in Plants
1. 5.1 Introduction
2. 5.2 Chemical Features of NO
3. 5.3 Endogenous Production of NO in Plants
4. 5.4 NO, Redox Balance, and Stress Tolerance
5. 5.5 The Crosstalk between NO and Phytohormones
6. 5.6 Conclusion and Prospects
7. Acknowledgments
8. References
6 Postharvest Uses of Ozone Application in Fresh Horticultural Produce
1. 6.1 Introduction
2. 6.2 History
3. 6.3 Properties and Reactions of Ozone
4. 6.4 Hazard Regulations
5. 6.5 Ozone Generation and Its Application
6. 6.6 Effect of Ozone Application on Ethylene Levels and Respiration Rates
7. 6.7 Effect of Ozone Application on Fruit Quality
8. 6.8 Effect of Ozone Application on Surface Microbial Population and Storage Life of Fruits and Vegetables
9. 6.9 Limitations and Negative Impacts of Ozone Application
10. 6.10 Conclusions
11. References
7 Active and Intelligent Packaging for Reducing Postharvest Losses of Fruits and Vegetables
1. 7.1 Introduction
2. 7.2 Strategies Used in Preservation of Fruits and Vegetables
3. 7.3 New Developments in Fruit and Vegetable Packaging
4. 7.4 Conclusions
5. References
8 Application of Hexanal‐containing Compositions and Its Effect on Shelf‐life and Quality of Banana Varieties in Kenya
1. 8.1 Introduction
2. 8.2 Preharvest and Postharvest Hexanal Treatments of Banana
3. Acknowledgment
4. References
9 Hexanal Compositions for Enhancing Shelf‐life and Quality in Papaya
1. 9.1 Introduction
2. 9.2 Papaya Fruit
3. 9.3 Importance of Papaya in Food Security
4. 9.4 Postharvest Losses
5. 9.5 Storage of Papaya
6. 9.6 Fruit Quality and Shelf‐life Enhancement
7. 9.7 Hexanal‐based Technologies for Papaya
8. Acknowledgment
9. References
10 Effect of Hexanal Composition Treatment on Wine Grape Quality
1. 10.1 Introduction
2. 10.2 Experimental Protocols
3. 10.3 Observations
4. References
11 Benefits of Application of Hexanal Compositions on Apples
1. 11.1 Introduction
2. 11.2 Preharvest Spray of Hexanal Compositions in Reducing Apple Fruit Drop
3. 11.3 Prevention of Superficial Scald in Apples
4. 11.4 Effects of Preharvest Spray Treatment of Honeycrisp Apples with Hexanal Formulation
5. References
12 Preharvest Spray Application of Blueberry Fruits with Hexanal Formulations Improves Fruit Shelf‐life and Quality
1. 12.1 Introduction
2. 12.2 Quality‐determining Features of Berries
3. 12.3 Common Blueberry Postharvest Issues
4. 12.4 Experimental Protocols
5. 12.5 Observations
6. References
13 Improving Shelf‐life and Quality of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) by Preharvest Application of Hexanal Compositions
1. 13.1 Introduction
2. 13.2 Quality‐determining Features of Sweet Cherries
3. 13.3 Technologies to Enhance Postharvest Quality of Sweet Cherry
4. 13.4 Experimental Protocols
5. 13.5 Observations
6. References
14 Hexanal Effects on Greenhouse Vegetables
1. 14.1 Introduction
2. 14.2 Postharvest Losses and Issues
3. 14.3 Current Technologies Used for Storage
4. 14.4 Experimental Protocols
5. 14.5 Observations
6. 14.6 Effect of Postharvest Hexanal Vapor Application on Bell Pepper Fruit Shelf‐life, Ripening, and Postharvest Quality
7. 14.7 Conclusion
8. References
15 Reduction of Preharvest and Postharvest Losses of Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis L. Osberck) Using Hexanal in Eastern Tanzania
1. 15.1 Introduction
2. 15.2 Socioeconomic Importance and Production of Sweet Orange in Tanzania
3. 15.3 Constraints to Sweet Orange Production and Postharvest Handling
4. 15.4 Field and Laboratory Tests on Effectiveness of Hexanal
5. References
16 Postharvest Technologies in Tender Fruits: Peach, Nectarine, Plum, and Apricot
1. 16.1 Introduction
2. 16.2 Fruit Composition and Antioxidant Potential
3. 16.3 Postharvest Physiology of Tender Fruits
4. 16.4 Reasons for Postharvest Losses in Tender Fruits
5. 16.5 Postharvest Handling and Storage Techniques to Enhance Shelf‐life
6. Acknowledgment
7. References
17 Effect of Hexanal Compositions on Guava Fruits
1. 17.1 Introduction
2. 17.2 Postharvest Constraints
3. 17.3 Postharvest Technologies
4. 17.4 Methodology
5. 17.5 Effects of Preharvest Spray Treatments on Postharvest Quality of Guava Fruit
6. 17.6 Effect of Postharvest Dip Treatments on Guava Fruit Quality
7. 17.7 Conclusion
8. References
18 Effect of Hexanal Vapor Treatments on Delay of Flower Senescence
1. 18.1 Introduction
2. 18.2 Hexanal Vapor Treatment on Shelf‐life and Quality of Cut Carnation Flowers
3. 18.3 Effect of Postharvest Hexanal Vapor Treatment on Shelf‐life and Quality of Cut Roses
4. 18.4 Postharvest Hexanal Vapor Treatment on Shelf‐life and Quality of Cut Chrysanthemums
5. References
19 Applications of Nanostructured and Microstructured Materials in Postharvest Packaging of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
1. 19.1 Introduction
2. 19.2 Modified Atmosphere Packaging
3. 19.3 Indirect Delivery of Volatile Compounds
4. 19.4 Non‐woven Carriers from Electrospinning
5. 19.5 Direct Delivery of Bioactive Compounds
6. 19.6 Scavenger Systems
7. 19.7 Intelligent Packaging
8. 19.8 Summary
9. Acknowledgment
10. References
20 Economic Impact of Hexanal‐based Nanotechnology on Mango Value Chain in Tamil Nadu State, India
1. 20.1 Introduction
2. 20.2 Uses of Mango
3. 20.3 Nutritional Status of Mango
4. 20.4 World Scenario
5. 20.5 Status of Mango Production in India
6. 20.6 Preharvest and Postproduction Losses of Mango in Tamil Nadu
7. 20.7 Review of Research in Mango Economy
8. 20.8 Mango‐producing Domains in Tamil Nadu
9. 20.9 Intervention in Mango‐growing Areas
10. 20.10 Characteristics of Mango‐producing Farms
11. 20.11 Preproduction and Postproduction Losses of Mango
12. 20.12 Introduction of Postharvest Nanotechnologies into Agricultural Practices
13. 20.13 Conclusion
14. 20.A Appendix
15. References
16. Links
21 Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complex for Smart Delivery of Volatiles in Nano‐Food Systems
1. 21.1 Introduction
2. 21.2 β‐Cyclodextrin
3. 21.3 Complexation Phenomena in Cyclodextrins
4. 21.4 Hydration State
5. 21.5 Preparation of Cyclodextrin Inclusion Complexes
6. 21.6 Controlled Release of Volatiles Using β‐Cyclodextrin
7. 21.7 Cyclodextrin Metal Organic Frameworks
8. References
Glossary
Index
End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 01
1. Table 1.1 Trends in world human activity and repercussions 1990–2014.
2. Table 1.2 Trends in world food supply 1990–2014.
Chapter 04
1. Table 4.1 A few examples of upregulated genes from hexanal‐treated blueberry fruit.
2. Table 4.2 A few examples of downregulated genes from hexanal‐treated blueberry fruit.
Chapter 06
1. Table 6.1 Comparison of different properties of aqueous and gaseous ozone.
2. Table 6.2 Effects of gaseous ozone application on storage life, quality and postharvest diseases in various horticultural crops.
3. Table 6.3 Effects of aqueous ozone application on storage life, quality, and postharvest diseases in various horticultural crops.
Chapter 07
1. Table 7.1 List of plant species whose essential oils show sturdy antimicrobial properties.
Chapter 08
1. Table 8.1 Changes in peel color in Grand Nain variety bananas in Meru County (AEZ II) sprayed with 2% or 3% hexanal either once (30 d) or twice (30 and 15 d) before harvest, and untreated control (sprayed with water).
2. Table 8.2 Changes in peel color in Grand Nain variety bananas in Machakos County (AEZ IV) sprayed with 2% or 3% hexanal either once (30 d) or twice (30 and 15 d) before harvest, and untreated control (sprayed with water).
Chapter 09
1. Table 9.1 Area under cultivation and production statistics of papaya in top 10 papaya‐producing countries in 2014.
2. Table 9.2 Papaya exports and projected increase in exports.
3. Table 9.3 Papaya consumption during 2012–2014 and projected.
4. Table 9.4 Nutritional composition of papaya (per 100 g edible portion).
Chapter 10
1. Table 10.1 Physicochemical parameters of musts from Pinot Noir, Gamay, Cabernet Franc, and Merlot (2000 harvest).
2. Table 10.2 Composition of the musts from Pinot Noir (P), Merlot (M) and Vanessa (V) (2001 harvest).
3. Table 10.3 Composition of wines from Pinot Noir and Merlot (2001 harvest).
Chapter 11
1. Table 11.1 Firmness (lb) of Honeycrisp apples from Simcoe subjected to preharvest spray treatment with hexanal formulation.
2. Table 11.2 Diseases and physiological disorders (%) of Honeycrisp apples subjected to preharvest spray treatments with hexanal formulation.
Chapter 12
1. Table 12.1 Details of formulations used for preharvest spray application of blueberry fruit.
2. Table 12.2 Firmness changes of treated and control blueberry stored at 4 and 21 °C.
3. Table 12.3 Weight loss percentage of treated and control blueberry stored at 4 °C.
Chapter 13
1. Table 13.1 Summary of changes in quality parameters in sweet cherry subjected to preharvest and postharvest treatments.
Chapter 14
1. Table 14.1 Effect of 0.01% hexanal vapor treatment on color (a*), firmness (N), weight loss (%), and electrical conductivity (EC) of bell pepper fruit stored for 21 days at 12 °C and 90–95% relative humidity.
Chapter 16
1. Table 16.1 Storage potential, recommended O₂ and CO₂ concentrations for storage and transportation, and tolerance to elevated CO₂ and low O₂ levels of stone fruits.
Chapter 17
1. Table 17.1 Details of preharvest and postharvest treatments of guava fruit.
2. Table 17.2 Summary of effects of preharvest and postharvest treatments with hexanal‐containing EFF solutions on quality of guava fruit during cold storage for 35 days.
Chapter 18
1. Table 18.1 Effect of hexanal vapor treatment on senescence of carnation flowers.
2. Table 18.2 The number of hybrid tea roses at different stages one week after treatment with hexanal at 4 °C in the dry state.
3. Table 18.3 Effect of hexanal vapor treatment on senescence of chrysanthemums.
Chapter 20
1. Table 20.1 Top ten mango‐producing countries of the world (2014).
2. Table 20.2 Fruit production in India (2013–2014).
3. Table 20.3 Mango production in India.
4. Table 20.4 Production status of fruits and mango in Tamil Nadu (2013–2014).
5. Table 20.5 Distribution of farmers based on land holding.
6. Table 20.6 Varietal distribution of mango.
7. Table 20.7 Area under major annual and perennial crops.
8. Table 20.8 Major soils in the mango orchards.
9. Table 20.9 Irrigation type.
10. Table 20.10 Normal bearing season.
11. Table 20.11 Gender participation in mango farming.
12. Table 20.12 Cost of establishment and cost of cultivation.
13. Table 20.13 Cost economics of mango farming.
14. Table 20.14 Plant protection methods.
15. Table 20.15 Plant protection measures adopted by farmers.
16. Table 20.16 Ranking of parameters adopted to assess fruit quality.
17. Table 20.17 Production constraints.
18. Table 20.18 Marketing constraints.
19. Table 20.19 Best part of being a farmer.
20. Table 20.20 Worst part of being a farmer.
21. Table 20.21 Preharvest and postharvest losses of mango.
22. Table 20.22 Preharvest and postharvest losses of mango.
23. Table 20.23 Impact of EFF.
24. Table 20.24 Impact analysis of EFF for Tamil Nadu.
25. Table 20.A.1 Major mango‐growing regions in India.
26. Table 20.A.2 Predominant mango varieties cultivated across the states.
27. Table 20.A.3 Area and production of mango in districts of Tamil Nadu (2013–2014).
28. Table 20.A.4 Nutritional status of mango.
29. Table 20.A.5 Gender participation in EFF spraying.
30. Table 20.A.6 Economics of EFF for preharvest spray.
31. Table 20.A.7 Economics of EFF for dip treatment of mango.
32. Table 20.A.8 Economics of EFF stickers/sachets for mango.
Chapter 21
1. Table 21.1 Cyclodextrin inclusion complexes for smart delivery of gaseous or organic molecules in different food systems.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01
1. Figure 1.1 (a) Percentage of children under five years who are stunted. (b) Percentage of children under five years who show symptoms of wasting, average data between 2006 and 2014. Both panels represent countries with the highest incidences. The standards for comparison are not clear. By nature, different ethnic groups may possess different physical characteristics. Especially in a society where plant‐based meals are prevalent, children may tend to be undernourished.
2. Figure 1.2 Overall production of food (million tonnes) in different regions of the world.
3. Figure 1.3 Per capita food loss (kg per year) in various regions of the world at various steps in the food value chain, and at the consumer level.
4. Figure 1.4 Losses in the fruit and vegetable value chain across different segments in various regions of the world.
Chapter 02
1. Figure 2.1 Flower tissue contributing to edible parts (indicated in parentheses) of commonly consumed fleshy fruits. Climacteric fruits are in bold and non‐climacteric fruits are in italic.
2. Figure 2.2 A generalized pattern of physiological changes during fruit growth, development, ripening, and senescence. Pattern of a development phase in fruits may vary depending upon cultivar and growth conditions. Dotted lines indicate gradual increase or decrease in the physiological phase with respect to peak rate (solid line). Various physiological changes collated include cell division, chlorophyll, cell expansion, starch, soluble sugars (sucrose, glucose, fructose), carbohydrates, total soluble solids, total acidity, carotenoids, anthocyanins, volatiles, ABA, firmness, ripening, ethylene, and other metabolites. Illustration was developed based on the information available in previous reports on tomato (Giovannoni 2004; Kumar et al. 2014; Leng et al. 2014), strawberry (Jia et al. 2011), cucumber (Leng et al. 2014), sweet cherry cv. Sunburst (Valero and Valero 2013), grape (Panagiotis et al. 2012; Corso et al. 2016; Santo et al. 2016), apple (Valero and Valero 2013), persimmon (Leng et al. 2014), plum (Valero and Valero 2013), pear (Wang et al. 2013), and kiwifruit (Richardson et al. 2011).
3. Figure 2.3 A schematic illustration of factors regulating fruit ripening and senescence. Concerted functions of multiple factors including hormones and sugar, transcription factors (e.g. MADS‐1), enzymatic activities, and microRNAs have been identified as regulating fruit ripening processes including loss of firmness and enhancement of pigment; accumulation of carotenoids, flavonoids, volatile compounds, and other soluble solids; and loss of chlorophyll and reduction in organic acids and reactive oxygen species. Several mutations that have played significant roles in deciphering molecular mechanisms (CNR, NOR, RIN) are shown in the box on the right. Ethylene plays a key role in inducing ripening in climacteric fruits whereas abscisic acid (ABA) and sugars are dominant players of ripening in non‐climacteric fruits. NO is emerging as a regulator of fruit ripening by inhibiting ethylene and auxin biosynthesis and by enhancing ABA production. Other hormones and plant growth regulators modulate fruit ripening by promoting or inhibiting ethylene or ABA levels during fruit development. Several transcription factors control fruit ripening by regulating expression of a multitude of ripening genes directly or indirectly. LeBH‐1 binds at promoter of ACO1 and induces its expression. NAC transcription factors positively regulate fruit ripening through ethylene or ABA‐mediated pathways. RIPENING INHIBITOR (RIN), COLORLESS NON‐RIPENING (CNR), and NON‐RIPENING (NOR) are major ripening regulators. Transcription factor APETALA2a (AP2a) is induced by these ripening regulators and induces expression of fruit ripening genes but also inhibits ethylene biosynthesis and signaling. MADS1 inhibits ethylene biosynthesis and carotenoid accumulation in tomato fruit. TOMATO AGAMOUS‐LIKE 1 (TAGL1), FRUITFULL1 (FUL1), and FUL2 interact with RIN and positively regulate fruit ripening. TAGL1 in tomato and SHATTERPROOF‐LIKE (SHP) in strawberry both induce fruit ripening, suggesting a conserved role of MADS‐box transcription factors in regulating ethylene‐ or ABA‐mediated ripening of climacteric and non‐climacteric fruits, respectively. Homologs of FUL regulate fruit ripening both independently and by interacting with RIN. MicroRNAs regulate ripening by degrading CNR and AP2a mRNA. RIN regulates expression of small heat‐shock protein chaperone genes in an ethylene‐dependent manner. DML2‐regulated DNA demethylation is required for inducing expression of ripening related genes. Hyper‐accumulation of hydrogen peroxide is generally considered a hallmark of the termination of fruit ripening and onset of fruit senescence phase. Other details and the sources of information to infer this model are given in the manuscript. Black lines terminating in arrowheads or filled circles indicate stimulatory or inhibitory effects, respectively. ABA, abscisic acid; AO, alternate oxidase; AP2a, APETALA2a; Aux, auxin; CK, cytokinin; CMTs, CHROMOMETHYLASE(s); CNR, COLORLESS NON‐RIPENING; DML2, DEMETER‐LIKE DNA demethylase 2; DRMs, DOMAINS REARRANGED METHYLTRANSFERASE(s); FUL, FRUITFULL; GA, gibberellins; H₂O₂, hydrogen peroxide; HB‐1, homeobox domain protein 1; JA, jasmonic acid; MADS1, MADS‐box transcription factor; MET1, DNA METHYLTRANSFERASE 1; NO, nitric oxide; NOR, NON‐RIPENING; PA, polyamine; RIN, RIPENING INHIBITOR; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SA, salicylic acid; sHSP, small heat‐shock protein chaperone.
Chapter 03
1. Figure 3.1 A simplified diagram illustrating the overall regulation of membrane and cell wall degradation during senescence. Ethylene is synthesized through a biosynthetic pathway and ethylene levels increase in climacteric fruits during ripening. Ethylene binds to its receptor (rectangular bars) which causes the dissociation of CTR1 (black circle), which continuously suppresses downstream signal transduction in the absence of ethylene. After ethylene binding, CTR1 dissociates from the receptor, and this activates downstream signal transduction components. Gene expression for membrane‐degrading enzymes (e.g. phospholipase D) and cell wall‐degrading enzymes (e.g. polygalacturonase, cellulase) is enhanced through transcription factors and their binding to the response elements in the nucleus (rectangle on left) after ethylene binding.
2. Figure 3.2 Schematic illustration of various reactions involved in membrane deterioration. The autocatalytic nature of the cycle derives from the accumulation of lipid degradation products in the membrane that cause progressively increasing membrane destabilization and loss of membrane compartmentalization.
3. Figure 3.3 PLD is encoded by a multigene family in Arabidopsis. Diagram shows various PLD isoforms with locus identification and gene structure. The figure was generated based on gene sequences from the Arabidopsis genome library (www.arabidopsis.org).
4. Figure 3.4 Diagrammatic representation of domain structure of phospholipase D. An N‐terminal C2 domain is characteristic of most PLDs except the zeta (ζ) and the phi (ϕ) class of PLD in rice. PLDs belonging to the zeta class are characterized by the presence of pleckstrin (PX) and PHOX (PH) homology domains, as observed in PLDs of mammals and yeast. Phi class PLD is exclusive to rice so far, and has a signal peptide instead of C2 domain or PX/PH homology. The figure was generated from the genome sequences available at GenBank.
5. Figure 3.5 The amino acid sequence alignment of the C2 domain of various plant phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase (PI3K) enzymes using ClustalW.
6. Figure 3.6 A phylogenetic tree based on the amino acid sequences of PI3K C2 domains in plants.
7. Figure 3.7 Comparison of structures of C2 domains: (a) phospholipase D (PLD)α of S. lycopersicum; (b) PLDα of Fragaria ananassa; (c) phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase (PI3K) of S. lycopersicum. Model was built on X‐ray diffraction structure of synaptotagmin III as a template using Swiss Model (https://swissmodel.expasy.org; Guex et al. 2009). The C2 domain sequence of PI3K is quite different from that of PLDα. PLDα shows extensive loop regions (loops at top shaded gray) which are believed to facilitate membrane binding. C2 domain shows identity to the core β‐sheet regions (depicted as ribbons in black). Though there may not be sequence similarities between PLD C2 and PI3K C2, specific regions adopt similar conformation in these C2 domains. Subtle differences in the amino acid sequence may result in variation to calcium sensitivity, binding to anionic phospholipid domains, pH responses, etc. For detailed information on PLDα C2 domain, refer to Tiwari and Paliyath (2011).
8. Figure 3.8 A proposed integration of biochemical and molecular events in ethylene signal transduction. The model shows the potential sequential steps that have been elucidated by several researchers (Alonso et al. 1999; An et al. 2010; Ju et al. 2012; Cho and Yoo 2015; Yang et al. 2015; Pak‐Dek et al. 2017). Ethylene perception: Ethylene receptors (ETR/ERS; ethylene receptor/ethylene response sensor) is active in the absence of ethylene suppressing the downstream signal transduction pathway, through a MAP kinase cascade, initiated by the binding of CTR1 (constitutive triple response 1, analogous to a Raf‐kinase) to the cytosolic C‐terminal component of the ETR. EIN2, a component localized close to the ethylene receptor, is a substrate for phosphorylation by CTR1 (raf‐kinase), and causes the destruction of a downstream component EIN2 (ethylene insensitive 2) through proteasomal degradation. This blocks the transmission of signal downstream to EIN3, a transcription factor located in the nucleus), thus preventing the transcription of ripening‐related genes. Ethylene binding results in the inactivation steps of the ETR/ERS/CTR component, which is proposed to occur through the dissociation of CTR1 and disruption of the kinase cascade. The absence of phosphorylation prevents the action of proteasomal degradation of EIN2. As a result, EIN2 becomes stabilized. However, proteolytic cleavage of the cytosolic C‐terminal end of EIN2 results in a peptide (CTERM), which migrates into the nucleus. Transcription of ethylene responsive genes are facilitated through binding of EIN3 to the elements of promoters of several transcription factors such as EIL (ethylene insensitive like) and ERF (ethylene response factor), which are then able to move to the nucleus and activate transcription of ethylene responsive genes. Again, this is another point of regulation at EIN3. In the absence of ethylene stimulation, EIN3 is continuously being degraded via the proteasomal degradation pathway after binding with EBF1/2 (EIN3 binding F box 1, 2), preventing its accumulation in the nucleus. However, after ethylene stimulation, the CTERM released from EIN2 binds to EBF1/2, thus inactivating the proteasomal degradation of EIN3 and enabling its accumulation in the nucleus. This facilitates the initiation of transcription of key genes. Apart from the EIN2‐mediated pathway, there is evidence suggesting the existence of alternate pathways to activate EIN3 directly (Yoo et al. 2008). Early events after ethylene perception: What happens immediately after ethylene binding is a mystery. From previous research we have shown that both PI3K and PLD are cytosolic enzymes and are capable of binding to the membrane in response to a stimulus through their C2 domains. But which of these binds to the membrane first is not established. PLD preferentially binds to anionic domains created by phosphoinositides. Therefore, it is likely that the binding of PI3K could be an earlier event after ethylene stimulation. PI3K‐overexpressing tobacco plants show accelerated senescence, and the seedlings express a triple response phenotype (Pak‐Dek et al. 2017). In the proposed model, ethylene binding to the receptor initiates a process that enables binding of PI3K to the membrane, generating negatively charged domains to which PLD can subsequently bind. PLD action generates PA, which is an inhibitor of CTR1, and this may enable the dissociation of CTR1 from ETR. This could break the inactivation chain, and releases the downstream pathway from suppression as described earlier. Thus, the amount of PA generated by PLD action may determine the ratio of the pool of inactive to active CTR. If there are high levels of PA in the membrane, more CTR1 could be inactivated, and the downstream pathways may also be proportionately higher. This ratio may thus determine the pace of ripening/ethylene action. Ethylene production in ripening fruits becomes autocatalytic, so is the degradation of biomembranes. As more and more anionic domains are generated by PLD action, still more PLD can bind to the membrane. Thus, PI3K may serve as only a trigger, and subsequent action is primarily propagated by PLD. The sites of inhibition of the ripening/senescence inhibitors used in studies are indicated by red circles with an X. 1‐MCP, which blocks the ethylene receptor, and wortmannin (Wm), which inhibits PI3K (Pak‐Dek et al. 2018), are very active in inhibiting ripening/senescence. Both can effectively shut down the ripening process, indicating that ethylene binding as well as PI3K binding are potentially sequential steps. In contrast, hexanal (H) inhibition of PLD is less severe, and lets the signal transduction pathway proceed at a slower pace. This is the basis for the hexanal‐based technologies that have been developed for the enhancement of shelf‐life and quality of horticultural produce (Paliyath et al. 2003). Hexanal only delays ripening and the fruit attains full quality when fully ripened. PLD appears to be a converging point for all the ripening inhibitors mentioned here. 1‐MCP, wortmannin and hexanal all inhibit the transcript levels of PLD in tomato (Pak‐Dek 2015). Hexanal also inhibits PLD enzymatically. Thus, PLD could serve as a focal point for the signal transduction systems induced by other hormones and stresses that are important in the regulation of ripening, stress, and senescence.
Chapter 04
1. Figure 4.1 Hydrolysis of phosphatidylcholine by PLD, PLC, PLA2, PLA1, PLB, and lysoPLA, and the respective reaction products. Note that the arrows for PLD, PLC, and PLA2 indicate their site of hydrolysis, but those for PLB, lysoPLA, and PLA1 do not. PLA1 hydrolyzes the sn‐1 acylester bond, whereas lysoPLA removes the last fatty acid from lysophospholipids that can be produced by PLA2 and PLA1, as marked by the curved arrows. PLB sequentially removes two fatty acids from phospholipids, and its final reaction products are the same as those of lysoPLA. Cho, choline; P‐Cho, phosphocholine; FA, fatty acid.
2. Figure 4.2 PLD‐catalyzed hydrolysis and transphosphatidylation reactions. The model summarizes data from biochemical and structural experiments that define the catalytic mechanism of PLD and related enzymes. Catalysis proceeds via the formation of a covalent enzyme–phosphatidic acid intermediate. Hydrolysis or transphosphatidylation involves nucleophilic attack on the diester phosphate group of this intermediate by water or the hydroxyl group of a primary alcohol. Aldehydes such hexanal and hexanol are potent inhibitors of PLD activity, apparently by blocking complete hydrolysis of the phosphatidic acid intermediate, due to lack of hydroxyl group.
3. Figure 4.3 Inhibition of phospholipase D activity by hexanal.
4. Figure 4.4 Hexanal vapor treatment and preservation of (a) chlorophyll a and (b) chlorophyll b in broccoli florets. The florets were exposed to varying concentrations of hexanal vapor. Con. Ini, levels at initial stage; Con air, level after 10 days of storage.
5. Figure 4.5 Effect of hexanal vapor treatment of broccoli florets: (left) control; (middle) 0.25 ml hexanal/2 kg or 0.01% w/w; (right) 0.5 ml hexanal/2 kg or 0.02% w/w. The florets were exposed to 15 hours in the hexanal vapor. Photographs were taken after 10 days of storage at 7 °C.
Chapter 05
1. Figure 5.1 The various routes of nitric oxide formation in plants. Reductive pathways (nitrite dependent) include nitrate reductase (NR), root‐specific, membrane‐bound nitrite NO reductase (NiNOR), mitochondrial electron transfer chain under low oxygen concentration, xanthine oxidoreductase (XOR), and non‐enzymatic reduction of nitrite in the apoplast. There is also evidence, though mostly indirect, arguing for the existence of an oxidative pathway through NO synthase (NOS) to make NO in plants. Several substrates are proposed, such as arginine, polyamines, and hydroxylamines, but no enzyme has been identified thus far. See text for other abbreviations.
2. Figure 5.2 Schematic representation of NO and ROS redox regulation by NO during plant biotic/abiotic stress. NO and superoxide anions (O₂˙⁻) are produced during biotic stress. NADPH oxidase, one of the major source of O₂˙⁻, can be inhibited by NO via S‐nitrosylation. NO can react with glutathione (GSH) to form S‐nitrosoglutathione (GSNO), a natural NO reservoir, which participates in NO signaling and which can be further degraded to oxidized GSH (GSSG) and ammonia (NH₃) by GSNO reductase (GSNOR). NO and O₂˙⁻ can directly mediate post‐translational modifications (PTMs) of proteins or can react together to form peroxynitrite (ONOO⁻), a very reactive compound responsible for PTMs. Hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) can be produced from O₂˙⁻ by superoxide dismutase (SOD), and further degraded to H₂O by ascorbate peroxidase (APX), catalase (CAT), and peroxiredoxin II E (PrxII E). Both enzymes are sensitive to NO donors. Abscisic acid (ABA) is extensively associated with a wide range of abiotic stress signals and with growth and development processes in plants. GA, gibberellins; JA, jasmonates; SA, salicylic acid; ET, ethylene.
3. Figure 5.3 Schematic representation of interactions among NO and phytohormones. Abscisic acid (ABA) increases NO levels in guard cells, and several targets or effectors downstream of NO are identified in ABA‐mediated stomatal closure. An interplay between NO and gibberellins (GAs) through the DELLAs pathway is currently suggested. In roots, the presence of auxins leads to an increase in NO levels, and several effectors acting downstream of NO have been identified mediating changes in root architecture. CO upregulates NO production and the crosstalk between CO and NO plays positive roles in enhancing plant abiotic stress resistance through the enhancement of antioxidant defense systems resistant to oxidation. Ethylene and NO exert opposite effects on senescence, as well as postharvest conservation of plant products. Salicylic acid (SA) induces NO production to protect plant cells from damage. H₂S and cytokinins are also important phytohormones acting on plant growth and stress responses, but there are still arguments about their interactions with NO. The interactions also exist among different phytohormones in plants.
Chapter 06
1. Figure 6.1 Resonance forms of ozone.
2. Scheme 6.1 The reaction of ozone with ethylene.
3. Scheme 6.2 Reactions of some amino acids with ozone.
4. Scheme 6.3 Reactions of guanine and cytosine with ozone.
Chapter 07
1. Figure 7.1 Schematic comparison of MA packaging types, their advantages, and drawbacks.
2. Figure 7.2 Model predictions: effect of package parameters on the dynamics of oxygen level in MA packages of a respiring product (fresh‐cut melon). (a) Initial oxygen partial pressure: 21 (i), 15 (ii), or 5 (iii) kPa; (b) package volume (due to depth variation): 900 (i), 600 (ii), 300 (iii) cm³; (c) number of laser microperforations per package: 2 (i), 1 (ii), 0 (iii); (d) oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of a non‐perforated packaging material: 4500 (i), 1500 (ii), 75 (iii) cm³ m⁻² atm⁻¹ d⁻¹; (e) OTR of a microperforated packaging material (one laser hole per package): 4500 (i), 1500 (ii), 75 (iii) cm³ m⁻² atm⁻¹ d⁻¹.
3. Figure 7.3 Experimental validation of the predicted oxygen steady‐state levels in active and passive MA packages containing 100 g of fresh‐cut melons (cv. Sorbeto) in 480 cm³ trays. Open squares, non‐perforated packages; filled circles: one microperforation of 70 μm per package; filles triangles, two microperforations per package; open circles, two macroperforations of 2 mm per package. Solid lines, steady‐state level predictions; dotted lines, experimental measurements. Initial oxygen levels: 21 kPa in passive MA, 5 kPa in active MA.
4. Figure 7.4 Schematic representation of working active and intelligent packaging system.
Chapter 08
1. Figure 8.1 Hexanal preharvest spray‐treated (a–d) and control (e) Grand Nain variety bananas at day 9 after harvest.
2. Figure 8.2 Hexanal preharvest spray‐treated (a–d) and control (e) sweet banana variety at day 9 after harvest.
3. Figure 8.3 Hexanal postharvest dip‐treated (a, b) and control (c) Grand Nain variety bananas on day 15 after treatment. EFF, Enhanced Freshness Formulation.
4. Figure 8.4 Effect of preharvest spray (a, c) and postharvest dip (b, d) applications of hexanal on peel firmness in Grand Nain variety bananas from AEZ IV (Machakos County) and AEZ II (Meru County). Bars indicate least significant difference (LSD) between means at P < 0.05.
5. Figure 8.5(a) Effect of preharvest spray and dip of banana fruits harvested from multiple locations, on changes in their Vitamin C content during postharvest storage. Preharvest sprays were conducted on fruits 30 days and 15 days before harvest, using 2% and 3% hexanal solutions. For dipping, unsprayed fruits were harvested and the fruits were dipped in 2% and 3% hexanal solutions for a period 5 minutes. Samples were removed for the analysis of Vitamin C content periodically using 2,6‐dichlorophenol indophenol following standard procedures. Changes in total soluble sugar content in bananas subjected to preharvest spray (30 days and 30 + 15 days before harvest; 2% and 3 % hexanal solution). TSS levels were determined by a hand‐held refractometer. Changes in titratable acidity in banana fruits from multiple locations treated with hexanal solutions either as spray (30 days and 15 days before harvest; 2% and 3% hexanal solution) or as dip. TSS was determined by titration of the fruit juice against 0.1Mol/L NaOH, using phenolphthalein as an indicator).
Chapter 09
1. Figure 9.1 Anthracnose disease symptoms in papaya, fungal colony characteristics in a nutrient media, and microscopic view of the spores of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides.
2. Figure 9.2 Development of anthracnose diseases symptoms on papaya after five days of dip treatment of hexanal‐based formulation in concentrations of (a) 0.3%, (b) 2%, and (c) control. Spore germination is inhibited after 3% treatment (d) compared with control (e) where it showed germination after 17 hours.
Chapter 10
1. Figure 10.1 Effect of preharvest spray treatment with hexanal composition on fermentation profiles of wines prepared from grapes of Pinot Noir control (PN_C), Pinot Noir treated (PN_T), Merlot control (M_C), and Merlot treated (M_T).
2. Figure 10.2 Tannin content in grape juice and wines of Pinot Noir control, Pinot Noir treated, Merlot control, Merlot treated, Vanessa control, and Vanessa treated. C, control; T, treated grapes and wines.
3. Figure 10.3 Control and hexanal formulation spray treated Pinot Noir grapes after cold storage for five weeks. The shiny appearance of hexanal formulation‐treated grapes is clearly visible.
4. Figure 10.4 Scanning electron micrographs of grape skin surface: (a) Merlot control; (b) Merlot hexanal formulation treated; (c) Pinot Noir control; (d) Pinot Noir hexanal formulation treated. Bar = 6 μm. Magnification ×5000.
Chapter 11
1. Figure 11.1 Effect of preharvest application of a control composition without hexanal on fruit drop in Idared apples. The composition was applied 30 and 15 days before harvest.
2. Figure 11.2 Effect of preharvest spray of Idared apples with the hexanal composition (0.01%) on fruit drop. The sprays were conducted 30 and 15 days before harvest.
3. Figure 11.3 Effect of postharvest dip of Cortland apples in hexanal composition (0.01%) on superficial scald development. (a) Apples dipped in a composition without hexanal. (b) Apples dipped in hexanal composition (for full composition, see Paliyath and Murr 2007). Refer to Chapter 4 for the contents of the composition.
Chapter 14
1. Figure 14.1 Effect of preharvest spray application (twice per week) of aqueous solutions of hexanal (1 mM) and EFF (contains 1 mM hexanal) on (a) L value, (b) red color intensity (a*), (c) fruit firmness, and (d) ascorbic acid content of tomato fruit harvested after 21 days. Control represents unsprayed fruit. Data represent mean ± standard error of three replicates.
2. Figure 14.2 Effect of postharvest dip treatments of aqueous solutions of hexanal (2 mM) and EFF (contains 2 mM hexanal) on (a) L value, (b) red color intensity (a*), (c) fruit firmness, and (d) ascorbic acid content of tomato fruit stored at 15 °C for 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment. Control represents unsprayed fruit. Data represent mean ± standard error of three replicates.
Chapter 15
1. Figure 15.1 Effects of preharvest application of hexanal formulations on fruit drop of (a) Early Valencia, (b) Jaffa and (c) Late Valencia orange varieties.
2. Figure 15.2 Effects of preharvest application of hexanal formulations on non‐marketable yield of (a) early Valencia, (b) Jaffa, and (c) late Valencia orange varieties.
3. Figure 15.3 Effects of preharvest application of hexanal formulations on pest incidence of fruits of (a) Early Valencia and (b) Jaffa.
4. Figure 15.4 Effects of postharvest dip treatments with hexanal formulations on physiological weight loss (PWL) in Early Valencia oranges at (a) four days and (b) eight days after harvest, and in Jaffa oranges at (c) four days and (d) eight days after harvest. Different lower case letters between values indicate statistical significance.
5. Figure 15.5 The effects of postharvest dip treatments with hexanal formulations on firmness (N mm⁻²) in Early Valencia oranges under (a) ambient storage conditions and (b) cold storage conditions, and in Jaffa oranges at (c) four days after storage and (d) eight days after storage. Different lower case letters between values indicate statistical significance.
Chapter 16
1. Figure 16.1 Schematic diagram representing the major potential sources of antioxidants in tender fruits.
2. Figure 16.2 (a) Nectarine fruits exhibiting initial symptoms of internal browning toward the periphery of the flesh and mealiness expressed by separation of individual strands of the flesh. (b) Advanced stages of mealiness, showing soft fruit with no free juice and flesh stranding. (c) Initial stages of internal bleeding radiating from the pit of the fruit.
3. Figure 16.3 Incidence of internal browning symptoms in nectarine fruits harvested and stored at 2 °C for 54 days, showing effects of hexanal.
Chapter 17
1. Figure 17.1 Appearance of guava fruits dipped in hexanal composition (a–c) and control fruit dipped in water (d–f): (a, d) fruits at harvest; (b, e) fruits after 14 days of storage; (c, f) fruits after 28 days of storage. The fruits were stored at 6–8 °C. Fruits dipped in a control solution without hexanal appeared brown in color due to oxidation of phenolic components.
Chapter 18
1. Figure 18.1 Effect of hexanal vapor treatment on senescence of carnation flowers. Flowers were treated at the tight bud stage. (a) Untreated control flowers; (b) flowers exposed to 0.01% hexanal vapor; (c) flowers exposed to 1 ppm 1‐MCP. Treatments were conducted for a period of 15 hours at ambient temperature.
2. Figure 18.2 Effect of hexanal vapor treatment (0.01%) on senescence of roses (seven days after treatment): (a) control; (b) treated.
Chapter 19
1. Figure 19.1 Different modes of action of hypothetical active packaging systems for extending the shelf‐life of fresh produce.
2. Figure 19.2 (a) Optimal CO₂ and O₂ concentrations for selected fruits and vegetables. Thick shaded sloping lines indicate permselectivity values for hypothetical package film (β = 3 and 5) and air (β = 0.8). (b) Illustrations of development of headspace CO₂ and O₂ concentrations for passive and active MAP.
3. Figure 19.3 Poly(alkyl acrylate) polymer with crystallizable side chains for the production of temperature‐switchable membrane.
4. Figure 19.4 Electrospun poly(lactic acid) (PLA)‐poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) blend non‐wovens for the entrapment of mustard seed meal powder, a biological precursor for AITC. (a) Scanning electron micrographs of electrospun non‐woven at different PLA/PEO blend ratios. (b) Representative cumulative AITC release profiles from electrospun non‐wovens in 1 l glass jar at saturated RH, 20 °C. (c) Differential scanning calorimetry thermograms of electrospun non‐wovens at different polymer blend ratios.
5. Figure 19.5 Formation of 1,3‐dibenzylethane‐2‐pentyl imidazolidine hexanal precursor using N,N′‐dibenzylethane‐1,2‐diamine as a reaction substrate. Acid‐catalyzed hydrolysis of the precursor resulted in rapid release of hexanal.
6. Figure 19.6 Scanning electron micrographs of ethylcellulose particulate (10% precursor in the polymer solution) and poly(lactic acid) non‐woven (10% precursor in the polymer solution). Hexanal release profiles are measured at 5, 25, and 45 °C. Arrows indicate when 0.1 N citric acid was added to the precursor‐containing ethylcellulose and poly(lactic acid) matrices.
7. Figure 19.7 Conceptual representation of layer‐by‐layer (LBL) deposition approach for forming multiple nanolayers of opposite charged polyelectrolytes on a solid substrate. Repeating the adsorption and washing steps allows the successive building of polyanionic/cationic bilayers. Similar LBL techniques can be used for the formation of emulsion in which the dispersed colloidal liquid droplets or particles are covered with oppositely charged polyelectrolytes.
8. Figure 19.8 Schematic representation of the UV‐activated oxygen indicator involving TiO₂ nanoparticles.
9. Figure 19.9 Schematic representation of how swelling and shrinking of hydrogel matrix affects the inter‐particle spacing and thus the wavelength of light diffracted from a photonic surface. Reproduced with permission of American Chemical Society.
Chapter 20
1. Figure 20.1 Top ten mango producers in the world.
2. Figure 20.2 Map showing the mango‐growing domains in Tamil Nadu.
3. Figure 20.3 (a) Prominent mango varieties on sale at a retail outlet in northwestern Tamil Nadu. (b) View of a mango field (Bangalora variety) in Krishnagiri District of Tamil Nadu.
4. Figure 20.4 Biological method of pest control at a model farm in central Tamil Nadu.
5. Figure 20.5 Chemical measures of pest control at a model farm in northeastern Tamil Nadu.
6. Figure 20.6 Anthracnose disease‐affected mango fruit in a farmer's field in Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
7. Figure 20.7 Stem‐end rot in mango fruits collected from traders (retailers) in Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
8. Figure 20.8 Losses due to improper handling of mango fruits transported from farm to market in Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
9. Figure 20.9 Field‐level losses due to inadequate management on poorly maintained sample farm in Theni, District, Tamil Nadu.
10. Figure 20.10 Damage due to bruising on fruits collected from sample farm.
11. Figure 20.11 Effect of hexanal preharvest spray in field experiments.
12. Figure 20.12 Protocols used for treatment of mango fruits with hexanal.
13. Figure 20.13 Value addition training for mango.
Chapter 21
1. Figure 21.1 The α, β, and γ types of cyclodextrin indicating the six, seven, and eight sugar molecules, respectively.
2. Figure 21.2 Potential site of interaction between β‐cyclodextrin and hexanal.