0,00 0,50
1,00 1,50
2,00 2,50
3,00
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26 28
30
F ru
it r esis
tance kgf
cm
2
Storage time days
0 ppm 500 ppm
1000 ppm 2000 ppm
Figure 2. Resistance of mangosteen fruit treated with CPPU during storage.
Figure 3. Resistance of mangosteen fruit treated with CoSO
4
during storage.
4.1.2. Pericarp Water Content
Loss of water not only affects appearance or esthetic value but also reduces saleable weight, thus causing direct economic loss. Pericarp water content
was predicted to be concerned with mangosteen fruit hardening. PWC at d0 was almost the same in all treatments, and tended to decrease over storage time
Appendix table 2. PWC was 3-6 reduced at d30 in both fruit treated CPPU and 0,00
0,50 1,00
1,50 2,00
2,50 3,00
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
28 30 F
ru it r
esis tance
kgf cm
²
Storage time days
0 ppm 10 ppm
20 ppm 30 ppm
CoSO
4
, and no statistical differences were observed, except day 18 which showed significant interaction between CPPU and CoSO
4
. Pericarp water contents in fruit treated with CPPU 0 ppm + CoSO
4
500 ppm , CPPU 10 ppm + CoSO
4
2000 ppm, CPPU 20 ppm + CoSO
4
0 ppm, CPPU 10, 20, 30 ppm + CoSO
4
1000 ppm were lowest and significantly different from control fruit at day 18 Table 2. According
to Kondo et al. 2003, skin hardening of mangosteen fruit during storage at low temperature was not accompanied by moisture loss.
Table 2. Effects of CPPU and CoSO
4
interaction on pericarp water content of mangosteen fruit during storage at day18
CPPU ppm CoSO₄ ppm
500 1000
2000 66.48
ab
62.61
d
66.10
ab
66.31
ab
10 68.35
a
66.20
ab
64.89
bcd
62.60
d
20 62.97
cd
65.73
abc
64.56
bcd
66.14
ab
30 67.22
ab
65.70
abc
64.72
bcd
66.31
ab
Note: Different letters indicate significant differences among treatment means P 0.05
by Duncan‟s multiple range test DMRT.
4.1.3. Weight Loss
Mangoteen fruit increasingly lost weight with storage time from day 0 to day 30 in either fruit treated with CPPU or CoSO
4
Figure 4, 5. The rate of weight loss in CPPU-treated fruit was lower than control fruit although no
statistical significance was observed from day 2 to day 12 Appendix table 3. Weight loss of fruit during storage was the results of water loss through
transpiration Yaman and Bayoindirli, 2002 and loss of carbon due to respiration Pan and Bhowmilk, 1992. In mangosteen fruit, pericarp water content was only
reduced 3-6 during storage time from d0 to d30 as seen in appendix table 2. This was not proportional to weight loss which ranged from 9-12. The results
suggested that water loss from aril and other parts of the fruit, and carbon loss by respiration contributed considerably in the loss of fruit weight.
Figure 4. Weight loss of mangosteen fruit treated with CPPU during storage.
Figure 5. Weight loss of mangosteen fruit treated with CoSO
4
during storage.
4.1.4. Fruit Color
