Paper · 2000 · Journal of Food Science

Quality Changes in Fresh‐cut Pear Slices as Affected by Cultivar, Ripeness Stage, Fruit Size, and Storage Regime

J.R. Gorny; R.A. Cifuentes; B. Hess‐Pierce; et al.

11
claims
14
verbatim quotes
144
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Fresh‐cut fruit slices prepared from partially ripened Bartlett pears had longer shelf life than those from Bosc, Anjou, and Red Anjou pears. Pear fruit ripeness, based on flesh firmness of 44 to 58 N, is optimal for fresh‐cut pear slice processing. Pear slices derived from smaller size fruit (122 to 135 g) have greater cut surface discoloration and deteriorate more rapidly than slices derived from larger fruit (152 g). Recently harvested Bartlett pear fruit and whole pears held at –1 °C in a controlled atmosphere of 2%O 2 + 98%N 2 had a longer post‐cutting shelf life than those held in air at –1 °C for the same duration. Cut surface browning, flesh softening, and surface dehydration of the slice cut surface were all contributors to loss of product quality.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Partially ripened Bartlett pear slices had longer shelf life than Bosc slices.

Taxon
pearsPyruse0
Material
Bartlette0
Outcome
shelf lifee0
Direction
longere0
Comparator
Bosce0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus
Pyrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)JLPC · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fresh‐cut fruit slices prepared from partially ripened Bartlett pears had longer shelf life than those from Bosc, Anjou, and Red Anjou pears”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–150 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Partially ripened Bartlett pear slices had longer shelf life than Anjou slices.

Taxon
pearsPyruse0
Material
Bartlette0
Outcome
shelf lifee0
Direction
longere0
Comparator
Anjoue0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus
Pyrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)JLPC · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fresh‐cut fruit slices prepared from partially ripened Bartlett pears had longer shelf life than those from Bosc, Anjou, and Red Anjou pears”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–150 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Partially ripened Bartlett pear slices had longer shelf life than Red Anjou slices.

Taxon
pearsPyruse0
Material
Bartlette0
Outcome
shelf lifee0
Direction
longere0
Comparator
Red Anjoue0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus
Pyrus · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)JLPC · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fresh‐cut fruit slices prepared from partially ripened Bartlett pears had longer shelf life than those from Bosc, Anjou, and Red Anjou pears”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 10–150 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors identify 44 to 58 N flesh firmness as optimal ripeness for fresh cut pear processing.

Outcome
optimal for fresh‐cut pear slice processinge0
Value
44 to 58 Ne0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pear fruit ripeness, based on flesh firmness of 44 to 58 N, is optimal for fresh‐cut pear slice processing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 152–258 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Slices from smaller fruit discolored more than slices from larger fruit.

Material
smaller size fruite0
Outcome
cut surface discoloratione0
Direction
greatere0
Value
122 to 135 ge0
Qualifier
152 ge0
Comparator
larger fruite0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pear slices derived from smaller size fruit (122 to 135 g) have greater cut surface discoloration and deteriorate more rapidly than slices derived from larger fruit (152 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 260–432 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Slices from smaller fruit deteriorated faster than slices from larger fruit.

Material
smaller size fruite0
Outcome
deterioratee0
Direction
more rapidlye0
Value
122 to 135 ge0
Qualifier
152 ge0
Comparator
larger fruite0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pear slices derived from smaller size fruit (122 to 135 g) have greater cut surface discoloration and deteriorate more rapidly than slices derived from larger fruit (152 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 260–432 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recently harvested Bartlett pears had longer post cutting shelf life than pears stored in air.

Material
Bartlette0
Treatment
Recently harvestede0
Outcome
post‐cutting shelf lifee0
Direction
longere0
Comparator
held in air at –1 °Ce0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recently harvested Bartlett pear fruit and whole pears held at –1 °C in a controlled atmosphere of 2%O 2 + 98%N 2 had a longer post‐cutting shelf life than those held in air at –1 °C for the same duration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–638 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Controlled atmosphere stored whole pears had longer post cutting shelf life than pears held in air.

Treatment
held at –1 °C in a controlled atmosphere of 2%O 2 + 98%N 2e0
Outcome
post‐cutting shelf lifee0
Direction
longere0
Comparator
held in air at –1 °Ce0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recently harvested Bartlett pear fruit and whole pears held at –1 °C in a controlled atmosphere of 2%O 2 + 98%N 2 had a longer post‐cutting shelf life than those held in air at –1 °C for the same duration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–638 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cut surface browning contributed to pear slice quality loss.

Organ / stage
slice cut surfacee0
Outcome
loss of product qualitye0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cut surface browning, flesh softening, and surface dehydration of the slice cut surface were all contributors to loss of product quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 640–776 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Slices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–40 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flesh softening contributed to pear slice quality loss.

Organ / stage
slice cut surfacee0
Outcome
loss of product qualitye0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cut surface browning, flesh softening, and surface dehydration of the slice cut surface were all contributors to loss of product quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 640–776 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Slices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–40 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Surface dehydration contributed to pear slice quality loss.

Organ / stage
slice cut surfacee0
Outcome
loss of product qualitye0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cut surface browning, flesh softening, and surface dehydration of the slice cut surface were all contributors to loss of product quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 640–776 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pear Slices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 29–40 · show in text ↑

storage · quality: postharvest · Pyrus communis (pear)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 20 positive, 2 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.