Application of Principle Component Analysis of Fruit Storability Between Harvested ‘Nanfeng’ and ‘Xinyu’ Tangerines

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2019.12.022

Abstract

Abstract:

Cultivar is one of the most important factor affecting the storability of postharvest citrus fruit. Principle component analysis (PCA) was used to evaluate the difference of fruit storability between harvested ‘Nanfeng’ and ‘Xinyu’ tangerines, the two main cultivars of mandarin in Jiangxi Province. Fourteen physiological and biochemical indexes of decay rate, weight loss, citrus color index (CCI), browning index (BI), titrable acid (TA), vitamin C (VC), total soluble solid (TSS), total sugar, respiration rate, relative electrical conductivity (REC), antioxidant enzymes activities in ‘Nanfeng’ and ‘Xinyu’ tangerines during cold storage were statistically analyzed. Three important major constituents were selected, which representing 88.781% comprehensive information about the fruit storability of above two citrus cultivars. The first principal component was reflected the information of weight loss, CCI, BI, TA, respiration rate, REC, CAT and PPO. The second one was used to obtain the information of the decay rate, TSS, total sugar, SOD and POD. The third one was just expressed for VC content. PCA can be used to evaluate the difference of fruit storability between harvested ‘Nanfeng’ and ‘Xinyu’ tangerines. The fruit storability of ‘Nanfeng’ tangerine was superior to ‘Xinyu’ tangerine.

Key words: citrus fruit, cultivar, storability, PCA

CLC Number:

S666.2

CHEN Chuying,LIU Shanjun,FU Yongqi,PENG Xuan,CHEN Jinyin. Application of Principle Component Analysis of Fruit Storability Between Harvested ‘Nanfeng’ and ‘Xinyu’ Tangerines[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(12): 2474-2480.

Figures/Tables 4

References 25

[1]	刘勇, 吴波, 刘德春 , 等. 江西柑橘地方品种资源及野生近缘种SSR分子标记[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2005,27(4):486-490.
[2]	刘滨, 叶咏梅, 康小兰 . 江西省柑橘产业国际竞争力研究——基于2001-2015年的时间序列数据[J]. 新疆农垦经济, 2017(3):63-68.
[3]	陈楚英, 陈明, 陈金印 , 等. 壳聚糖涂膜对新余蜜橘常温贮藏保鲜效果的影响[J]. 江西农业大学学报, 2012,34(6):1112-1117.
[4]	廖云生, 简火仔, 邹志强 . 新余蜜橘产业现状与发展对策[J]. 现代园艺, 2016(17):44-45.
[5]	Hipólito C, Ramalheira R, da Costa S B , et al. The effect of fruit cultivar/origin and storage time on sorbets quality[J]. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 2016,68:462-469. DOI URL
[6]	Patras A, Brunton N P, Downey G , et al. Application of principal component and hierarchical cluster analysis to classify fruits and vegetables commonly consumed in ireland based on in vitro antioxidant activity[J]. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 2011,24(2):250-256. DOI URL
[7]	Saavedra J, Córdova A, Gálvez L , et al. Principal component analysis as an exploration tool for kinetic modeling of food quality: A case study of a dried apple cluster snack[J]. Journal of Food Engineering, 2013,119(2):229-235. DOI URL
[8]	杨焱, 杨朴丽, 徐荣 , 等. 不同诺丽种质外观性状与营养成分的分析及评价[J]. 热带作物学报, 2017,38(1):53-58.
[9]	Šamec D, Maretić M, Lugarić I , et al. Assessment of the differences in the physical, chemical and phytochemical properties of four strawberry cultivars using principal component analysis[J]. Food Chemistry, 2016,194:828-834. DOI URL PMID
[10]	王俊宇, 尹蓉, 张倩茹 , 等. 16个草莓品种品系果实品质的多元分析与评价[J]. 农学学报, 2017,7(9):36-41.
[11]	王友升, 张萌, 王丹 , 等. 减压处理对草莓贮藏效果及活性氧代谢影响的多变量解析[J]. 中国食品学报, 2015,15(6):231-239.
[12]	Liu F X, Fu S F, Bi X F , et al. Physico-chemical and antioxidant properties of four mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars in China[J]. Food Chemistry, 2013,138(1):396-405. DOI URL
[13]	石胜友, 马小卫, 许文天 , 等. 不同芒果种质果实品质性状多样性分析[J]. 热带作物学报, 2014,35(11):2168-2172.
[14]	邵明灿, 胡花丽, 王毓宁 , 等. 基于主成分分析法分析一氧化氮对绿芦笋贮藏品质的影响[J]. 食品科学, 2012,33(20):318-322.
[15]	张雷刚, 黎春红, 罗淑芬 , 等. 不同包装材料对绿芦笋货架期品质影响的多变量分析[J]. 核农学报, 2018,32(6):1133-1143.
[16]	肖志伟, 王仁才, 罗洪波 , 等. 猕猴桃果实贮藏期间生理生化指标的主成分分析[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2013(15):90-93.
[17]	Zeng R, Zhang A, Chen J , et al. Postharvest quality and physiological responses of clove bud extract dip on ‘Newhall’ navel orange[J]. Scientia Horticulturae, 2012,138(2):253-258. DOI URL
[18]	曹建康, 姜微波, 赵玉梅 . 果蔬采后生理生化实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社, 2007.
[19]	Jiang Y, Shiina T, Nakamura N , et al. Electrical conductivity evaluation of postharvest strawberry damage[J]. Journal of Food Science, 2001,66(9):1392-1395. DOI URL
[20]	Havir E A, McHale N A . Biochemical and developmental characterization of multiple forms of catalase in tobacco leaves[J]. Plant Physiology, 1987,84(2):450-455. DOI URL PMID
[21]	De Ancos B, Cilla A, Barberá R , et al. Influence of orange cultivar and mandarin postharvest storage on polyphenols, ascorbic acid and antioxidant activity during gastrointestinal digestion[J]. Food Chemistry, 2017,225:114-124. DOI URL PMID
[22]	林艺芬, 刘木水, 林河通 , 等. “乌叶”与“兰竹”荔枝果实的耐贮性比较[J]. 热带作物学报, 2009,30(10):1537-1542.
[23]	王瑞, 岑顺友, 谢国芳 , 等. 不同晚熟蓝莓贮藏期间的品质变化研究[J]. 现代食品科技, 2014,30(3):43-48.
[24]	林艺芬, 林毅雄, 林河通 , 等. ‘东壁’和‘福眼’龙眼果实果皮褐变差异的生理机制[J]. 食品科学, 2016,37(20):221-227. DOI URL
[25]	林毅雄, 林河通, 孔祥佳 , 等. 采后‘长营’和‘惠圆’橄榄果实的耐贮性比较[J]. 热带作物学报, 2016,37(3):622-626.

成分 Components	特征值合计 Sum of eigenvalues	方差贡献率 Variance contribution rate/%	累积方差贡献率 Cumulative variance contribution rate/%
1	6.940	49.569	49.569
2	3.632	25.940	75.509
3	1.858	13.271	88.781
4	0.731	5.218	93.999
5	0.308	2.202	96.201
6	0.264	1.883	98.084
7	0.157	1.123	99.207
8	0.062	0.445	99.652
9	0.024	0.170	99.822
10	0.016	0.115	99.937
11	0.006	0.040	99.977
12	0.002	0.017	99.994
13	0.001	0.006	100.000
14	0.000	0.000	100.000

成分 Components	特征值合计 Sum of eigenvalues	方差贡献率 Variance contribution rate/%	累积方差贡献率 Cumulative variance contribution rate/%
1	6.940	49.569	49.569
2	3.632	25.940	75.509
3	1.858	13.271	88.781
4	0.731	5.218	93.999
5	0.308	2.202	96.201
6	0.264	1.883	98.084
7	0.157	1.123	99.207
8	0.062	0.445	99.652
9	0.024	0.170	99.822
10	0.016	0.115	99.937
11	0.006	0.040	99.977
12	0.002	0.017	99.994
13	0.001	0.006	100.000
14	0.000	0.000	100.000

生理生化指标 Physiological and biochemical indexes	载荷系数 Loading coefficients			特征向量 Eigenvectors
生理生化指标 Physiological and biochemical indexes	成分1	成分2	成分3	成分1	成分2	成分3
腐烂率	0.588	-0.685	0.392	0.085	-0.189	0.211
失重率	0.888	0.210	0.322	0.128	0.058	0.174
CCI	0.911	-0.193	0.101	0.131	-0.053	0.054
BI	0.876	-0.037	-0.221	0.126	-0.010	-0.119
TA	-0.872	0.296	0.173	-0.126	0.081	0.093
VC	-0.501	0.068	-0.776	-0.072	0.019	-0.418
TSS	-0.171	0.876	0.441	-0.025	0.241	0.237
总糖	0.015	0.874	0.457	0.002	0.241	0.246
呼吸强度	-0.798	-0.195	0.203	-0.115	-0.054	0.109
相对电导率	0.846	-0.367	0.353	0.122	-0.101	0.190
SOD	0.421	0.815	-0.019	0.061	0.224	-0.010
CAT	0.798	0.363	-0.365	0.115	0.100	-0.197
POD	0.497	0.698	-0.352	0.072	0.192	-0.189
PPO	0.867	0.032	-0.285	0.125	0.009	-0.153

生理生化指标 Physiological and biochemical indexes	载荷系数 Loading coefficients			特征向量 Eigenvectors
生理生化指标 Physiological and biochemical indexes	成分1	成分2	成分3	成分1	成分2	成分3
腐烂率	0.588	-0.685	0.392	0.085	-0.189	0.211
失重率	0.888	0.210	0.322	0.128	0.058	0.174
CCI	0.911	-0.193	0.101	0.131	-0.053	0.054
BI	0.876	-0.037	-0.221	0.126	-0.010	-0.119
TA	-0.872	0.296	0.173	-0.126	0.081	0.093
VC	-0.501	0.068	-0.776	-0.072	0.019	-0.418
TSS	-0.171	0.876	0.441	-0.025	0.241	0.237
总糖	0.015	0.874	0.457	0.002	0.241	0.246
呼吸强度	-0.798	-0.195	0.203	-0.115	-0.054	0.109
相对电导率	0.846	-0.367	0.353	0.122	-0.101	0.190
SOD	0.421	0.815	-0.019	0.061	0.224	-0.010
CAT	0.798	0.363	-0.365	0.115	0.100	-0.197
POD	0.497	0.698	-0.352	0.072	0.192	-0.189
PPO	0.867	0.032	-0.285	0.125	0.009	-0.153

品种 Cultivar	贮藏天数 Storage time/d	Z₁	Z₂	Z₃	F
‘南丰’蜜橘	0	-1.76	-0.11	0.79	-0.78
	15	-1.01	0.40	0.56	-0.32
	30	-0.45	0.86	0.16	0.02
	45	-0.10	1.06	0.37	0.27
	60	0.32	1.44	0.83	0.65
	75	0.89	1.03	0.36	0.75
	90	0.90	0.20	1.11	0.65
‘新余’ 蜜橘	0	-1.69	-1.02	-0.48	-1.16
	15	-0.84	-0.47	-1.37	-0.73
	30	0.13	0.22	-1.44	-0.08
	45	0.84	0.37	-1.30	0.33
	60	1.07	-0.48	-1.05	0.26
	75	0.92	-1.32	0.14	0.14
	90	0.70	-2.11	1.51	0.02