Pertanika 11(2), 203-209 (1988)

Physico-Chemical Changes in Muskmelons (Cucumis melo, L.)during Storage

M.A.AUGUSHN, AZIZAH OSMAN, MOHD. NASIR AZUDIN and SUHAILA MOHAMEDFaculty of Food Science and Biotechnology

Universiti Pertanian Malaysia,43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.

Keywords: Muskmelon, Cucumis melo L., physico-chemical characteristics; storage

ABSTRAKBuah muskmelon ^Cucumis melo, L.t cv. Asukaj yang ditanam dalam sistem hidroponik dituai pada

hah yang ke-37 selepas ante sis dan disimpan pada suhu bilik (25 - 28PC) pada 6 - SPc Ciri-ciri fisiko-kimia buah semasa penstoran ditentukan. Perubahan utama kerosakan yang menghadkan penstoran padasuhu bilik ialah kelembutan buah. Buah yang disimpan pada suhu bilik mempunyai jangka masa penstoranlebih kurang 5 hari tetapi buah yang disimpan pada suhu 6 - SPc tahan selama 3 minggu. Nilai pH dan ke-asidan buah tidak banyak berubah semasa penstoran. Terdapat sedikit kekurangan dalam kandungan fum-lah pepejal terlarut dan jumlah gula terlarut semasa penstoran.

ABSTRACTFruits of muskmelon /'Cucumis melo, L cv. Asuka) grown under hydrophonic condition were har-

vested 37 days after anthesis and stored at room temperature (25 - 2SPC) and at 6 - SPC. The physico-chemical characteristics of the fruits during storage were evaluated. The major limiting deteriorativechange during storage at room temperature was softening of the fruits. Fruits stored at room temperaturehad a shelf-life of about 5 days while those stored at 6 - SPc were acceptable for 3 weeks. The pH andtitratable acidity did not change much during storage. There was a slight decrease in total soluble solidsand total soluble sugars during storage.

INTRODUCTIONThere are a large number of muskmelon (Cucumismelo, L.) cultivars. Work done on different culti-vars have shown that there are marked differencesin growth patterns and ripening phsyioiogy ofmuskmelon. There are obvious differences incolour, flavour and shape. In addition, the qualityof one cultivar can vary with locality (Pratt, 1971;Yamaguchi et al, 1977).

Work on various aspects of ripening andpost-harvest technology of different muskmeloncultivars have been carried out. Studies on fruitdevelopment in muskmelon (cv. Hara Madhu)showed that optimum fruit quality occurred28 - 30 days after flowering (Srinivas et alf

1983). However, Bianco and Pratt (1977) foundthat fruits of muskmelon (cv. Honey Dew and

Powdery Mildew Resistant No. 45) rapidly accu-mulated sugars between 28 and 42 days afteranthesis and suggested that early harvest of musk-melon would lead to loss of quality. Evenson(1983) found that muskmelons picked at thegreen full-slip stage of maturity had higher totalsoluble solids and ascorbic acid content than thoseharvested at the half-slip or yellow full-slip stagesof maturity. Fruits harvested at the green full-slipwere superior to fruits harvested at the half-slipor yellow full-slip stages of maturity for shortterm storage of 2 weeks. Niculescu and Kasmire(1980) stored muskmelon (cv. Casaba) harvestedat 4 maturity stages (green, green/yellow, yellowand very yellow) at 5°C, 10°C and 12.5°C andconcluded that melons harvested at the green/yellow stage were best for storage. Andre et at,(1982) recommended that cantaloupe melons

M.A. AUGUSTIN, AZIZAH OSMAN, MOHD. NASIR AZUDIN AND SUHAILA MOHAMED

should be picked at the "green-turning" stageand stored at 4°C in sealed polyethylene bagsin a controlled atmosphere with < 2% O2

During storage of 6 muskmelon cultivars(Roadside, Superstar, Classic, Harvest Pride,Star Headliner and Star Trek), Evenson (1983)found that there was no evidence of chillinginjury on melons harvested at the half-slip, greenfull-slip or yellow full-slip stages of maturitystored for 2 weeks at 0°C and 1 day at 13°C.However, Lipton (1978) found that muskmelon(Honey Dew) developed chilling injury, whichwas characterized as a reddish-tan surface dis-colouration, when stored at 2.5°C for about2% weeks. Chilling injury was absent in fruitsstored at 5°C (Lipton, 1978). Ethylene treat-ment was found to reduce the incidence of chi-lling injury (Lipton and Aharoni, 1979). Bhat-nagar and Singh (1982) found that muskmelonscould be stored at their room temperature (32 ±8°C) for up to 8 days or at 4°C for up to 25days.

There appears to be much variability bet-ween muskmelon cultivars. The growing condi-tions of the fruit affects the muskmelon charac-teristics. The total soluble solids content of themuskmelon is affected by light intensity andrainfall (Bouwkamp et al, 1978). The % solublesolids in the fruit increases with increasing salini-ty levels (Shannon and Francois, 1978). It isalso affected by physical soil properties (Davisand Schweers, 1971). Soil moisture was foundto be negatively correlated with soluble solidscontent of the muskmelon (Wells and Nugent,1980).

Muskmelon has been grown in Malaysia un-der hydrophonic conditions. There has been nopublished work on the post-harvest storage ofthese fruits. In this study, the physico-chemicalcharacteristics of muskmelon (cv. Asuka) grownunder hydrophonic conditions were evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODSFruit Samples and StorageMuskmelon fruit (Cucumis melo L., cv. Asuka)were obtained from the Hydrophonics Unit ofUniversiti Pertanian Malaysia. All fruits used forthe storage study were grown under hydrophonicconditions. They were harvested 37 days afteranthesis. This harvest date was considered theusual time for harvesting muskmelons of this

variety grown under hydrophonic conditions.The fruit had not reached the 'full-slip' stage bythis time although the net was already wellformed. Fruits were put into their respectivestorage temperatures (i) room temperatures(25° - 28°) and (ii) cold room (6° - 8°C]within 3 hours after harvest. The humidity wasnot controlled.

AnalysesAt intervals during the storage period, \

random sample comprising of 6 muskmeloniwere taken for analyses. Each fruit was quarteredTwo opposite quarters were handpeeled. The seedwere removed and the pulp homogenized in \Waring Blender. The two remaining quarters wer<used for texture measurements.

pH value and Titratable Acidity25 g of homogenized pulp was transferred into100 ml volumetric flask and made to volume wit]distilled water. The filtered solution was used fomeasurement of pH with an Orion PT1 — 1Digital pH meter and for determination of titntable acidity (A.O.A.C. 1975).

Total Soluble SolidsThe soluble solid was measured using an ErmHand Refractometer. The results are reported i% total soluble solids.

Sugar DeterminationThe method for sugar determination by HPLwas based on that of Wills et al. (1980). 5 g <homogenized pulp was extracted with 100 rhot 85% methanol for 20 min. The mixtuwas filtered and the residue re-extracted twiiwith 25 ml volumes of hot 85% methanol. Tlextracts were combined. Methanol was stripp<off using a rotary evaporator. The remainiisolution was made up to 10 ml in a volumetiflask. Portions of the extract were filtered throua C-18 Sep Pak Cartridge that had been pretreatwith water and methanol. The first 2 ml of tfiltrate was discarded and the remaining filtnwas filtered through a 0.45]Ltm Millipore fillprior to HPLC analysis. For recovery studi2 ml of a standard solution containing knoiamounts of fructose, glucose and sucrose vadded to the homogenized pulp and the extrtion carried out as above. The recoveries wi

204PERTANIKA VOL. 11 NO. 2, 1988

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CHANGES IN MUSKMELONS DURING STORAGE

calculated using the difference between theamount determined in spike samples and thatobtained for samples without added sugar.

A HP 1084B liquid chromatograph withan RI detector was used. The column was anNH2 polar bonded phase, lOjum column (250 mmx 4.6 mm I.D.). The mobile phase was acetoni-trile : water (85 : 15). The flow rate was 2.5cm min —1 while the injection volume was lOjil.Quantification of each of the sugars was obtainedby comparing peak areas of samples to peak areasof the standards as peak area was directly pro-portional to the concentration of the standardthroughout the concentration range used. Thepercent recovery of added fructose, glucose andsucrose was in the range of 99 — 107%. Thehigher than 100% recovery may have been causedby an impurity which elutes at the same time asthe sugar.

TextureOnly the middle cross-sectional portions of musk-melon fruit were used because of the possibilityof gradients in texture within the fruit (Mutton,1977). Portions of about 3 cm near both endsof the fruits were discarded. The mesocarp wassliced to 2 cm thickness with a food slicer andthen cut into cylinders using an apple corer witha cross-sectional area of 4.0 cm2.

A value approximating the rigidity modulus(G) of the mesocarp was obtained according to themethod of Smidsrod and Haug (1972). The forcedeformation curves were obtained by using para-llel plate uniaxial compression of an Instron Uni-versal Testing Machine (Model 1140). The flatsurfaces of the cylindrical sample was placedbetween 2 flat plates and one of the plates wasmade to move at a preselected constant speed of5 cm per min. The force developed was recordedas a function of deformation (crosshead displace-ment).

The samples were assumed to be homoge-nous, isotropic and to undergo upright cylinderdeformation, where the area of contact expands.Friction between the plates and the surfaces ofthe very moist fruit can be considered negligibleas the water/juice acts as a lubricant. The G valuereported is the average value of 5 cylindericalsamples taken from the fruit. The yield force (Y)is taken as the force required to rupture the fruit.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONAll fruits were green and of firm texture withlittle aroma on the day of harvest. During roomtemperature storage, most fruits showed signsof yellowing and softening with the developmentof a pleasant aroma on day 3 of storage. Thedegree of yellowing and the development of thepleasant aroma was more pronounced on day 5but there was evidence of softening. However,most fruits were still acceptable. By day 7 atroom temperature storage, the fruits becomeunacceptable as they had very soft pulps anda dehydrated appearance. Fruits kept in thecold room maintained an acceptable appearancefor 3 weeks. Initial signs of dehydration of fruitsstored in the cold room appeared on the 22ndday of storage. In addition, signs of chilling injuryas evidenced by the presence of water-soakedregions of the pulp became evident on the 22ndday.

The results of the physical chemical charac-teristics of fruits during storage are given in TableI;

pH and Titratable AcidityThe pH and titratable acidity of the fruits did notchange appreciably during storage. The range inpH (pH 5.7 - 6.2) and the low titratable aciditywere consistant with the qualitative organolepticassessment of fruit which showed that the melonsdid not acquire a sour taste during storage. Pre-vious workers have indicated that it is rare to havetruly sour melon (Mutton et al 1981).

Total Soluble Solids and Sugar ContentThere was a slight decrease in total soluble solidsand total sugars when muskmelons were stored.The decrease in total sugars may be attributed tothe utilization of sugars, mainly as glucose, forrespiration. Muskmelons do not have the facilityfor synthesizing sugars during storage becausethey do not have starch reserves (Bianco and Pratt,1977).

It is noted that the % total soluble solids andsugar content is very low in these muskmelonseventhough they were picked 37 days after anthe-sis. Hydrophonic muskmelons have only been in-troduced in this region in the last 3 - 4 years.As the legal limit of 9% soluble solids content forU.S. No. 1 grade muskmelons, does not apply

PERTANIKA VOL. 11 NO. 2, 1988 205

TABLE 1Physico-chemical characteristics3 of muskmelon (cv. Asuka) during storage

Temperature

RoomTemperature(25° - 28°C)

Cold Room(6° - 8°C)

Daysafter

Harvest

035

0358

121822

pH

5.80 ±0.096.23 ±0.165.85 ±0.33

5.80 ±0.095.88 ±0.265.74 ±0.075.81 ±0.115.85 ±0.045.79 ±0.075.80 ±0 .10

Titratableacidity

mlO.lNNaOH/lOOg

25.6 ±2.819.6 ±4.424.4 ±6.4

25.6 ±2.827.2 ±3.229.2 ±4.825.2 ±4.023.6 ±4.024.4 ±2.829.6 ±5.2

Total solublesolids

%

5.4±1.24.4 ±0.84.6 ±0.7

5.4 ±1.25.1 ±1.14.8 ±0.75.0 ±1.54.7 ±0.64.7 ±0.35.0 ±0.5

Fructose

1.23 ±0.191.07 ±0.111.10 ±0.16

1.23 ±0.191.17 ±0.221.07 ±0.041.08 ±0.201.01 ±0.161.18 ±0.061.11 ±0.06

Glucose

g/lOOg

1.28 ±0.220.92 ±0.100.79 ±0.25

1.28 ±0.221.18 ±0.191.06 ±0.101.06 ±0.230.94 ±0.141.07 ±0.040.97 ±0.12

Sucrose

1.23 ±0.591.45 ±0.531.32 ±0.59

1.23 ±0.591.21 ±0.641.20 ±0.511.32 ±1.021.05 ±0.431.13 ±0.251.08 ±0.36

Total

3.73 ±0.863.44 ±0.533.22 ±0.55

3.73 ±0.863.54 ±0.903.33 ±0.523.37 ±1.223.00 ±0.653.38 ±0.323.16 ±0.04

RigidityModulus(G)Nm 2 x l 0

5.2 ±1.51.5 ±0.72.3 ±1.0

5.2 ±1.52.8 ±0.82.4 ±0.93.0 ±0.72.6 ±0.72.1 ±0.71.9 ±1.0

Yield (Y)

Nm

3.90.30.7

3.92.22.01.92.01.70.9

fzxl0

± 1.1±0.1±0.6

± 1.1± 0.8± 1.0± 0.6±0.5±0.7±0.7

aEach entry is the mean of 6 fruits ± S.D.

>>

X

fc

Ia

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CHANGES IN MUSKMELONS DURING STORAGE

here, these muskmelons have been marketed suc-cessfully at local retail outlets. In addition, thesucrose/(fructose + glucose) ratio on the day ofharvest was about 0.49 which is also much lowerthan the values of 1.5 and 5.0 for melons of thecultivar 'Honeydew' and PMR 45 obtained frominterpolation of graphical data (Pratt 1971).

There is a marked correlation between sugarcontent (glucose + fructose + sucrose) and % totalsoluble solids. The correlation coefficient wasfound to be 0.88 for 62 pairs of readings. Theobservation that the values for % total solublesolids were higher than % sugar suggested thatcomponents other than glucose, fructose andsucrose contribute to the % total soluble solids.Although Pratt (1977) found that 97% of thetotal solids in maturing melons were in the formof sugar, he mentioned that while his total solublesolids agreed with that of another researcher(Rosa 1928), the latter sugar values were lower.It may also be possible that the contribution ofcomponents other than sugars to the % totalsoluble solids is affected by the turgidity andwater retention in muskmelons.

Variation in Individual SugarsThere are variations in individual sugars and therelative concentrations of glucose, fructose andsucrose during storage (Tables 1 and 2). The rate

of decrease in glucose concentration is markedlyfaster at room temperature than in the cold.Although there are variations in fructose contentduring storage, these were not as pronounced asthose in glucose content. It was difficult to ascer-tain any trend in sucrose content during storageas there are large differences in sucrose contentof individual fruit on the same day of storage andunder the same storage conditions.

Trends in sugar changes became more evi-dent when the relative changes in individual sugarsfor individual fruit were considered. There was anobvious trend of increasing fructose/glucose ratioduring storage which may be rationalized in termsof glucose rather than fructose, being the conven-tional substrate for respiration. There were insig-nificant variations in sucrose/(fructose + glucose)ratio during storage in the cold whereas this ratioseemed to increase at room temperature.

Although the interconversions betweenindividual sugars and factors affecting the utiliza-tion of sugars in stored fruit are complex, thevariations in sugar concentrations may in part berelated to an interplay of the relative importanceof the action of invertase and the rate of respira-tion. Invertase, an enzyme which effects inter-conversion of sucrose to glucose and fructose,has been found to be present in muskmelon(Arasimovich; 1939).

Temperature

Room Temperature(25° - 28°C)

Cold Room(6°-8°Q

TABLE 2Relative changes in sugars* during storage

DaysafterHarvest

0b

35

0358

121822

Fructose

Glucose

0.97 ± 0.041.17 ± 0.111.47 ± 0.30

0,97 ± 0.040.98 ± 0.061.02 ± 0.061.03 ± 0.081.08 ± 0.051.10 ± 0.051.21 ± 0.15

Sucrose

(Fructose + Glucose)

0.49 ± 0.190.74 ± 0.300.75 ± 0.38

0.49 ±0.190.56 ± 0.230.57 ± 0.230.55 ± 0.430.54 ± 0.170.45 ± 0.100.53 ± 0.17

aEach value represents the average of the ratios for 6 different fruits ± S.D.

The value for 0 days of storage is the average for 12 fruits ± S.D.

PERTANIKA VOL. 11 NO. 2, 1988 207

M.A. AUGUSTIN, AZIZAH OSMAN, MOHD. NASIR AZUDIN AND SUHAILA MOHAMED

Texture of FruitMuskmelon showed a general decrease in

firmness with days of storage (Table 1). This canbe numerically quantified by the rigidity or shearmodulus (G), and by the yield stress (Y) requiredto rupture the sample. For both these parameters,the decrease in values are faster in the fruits heldat room temperature than those stored in coldroom.

Since G is the force required to cause smalldeformations in the fruit, it measures the cohesiveforces between points in the frruit. Protopectinis crosslinked to other polymer chains with cal-cium bridges and is bound to other sugars andphosphate derivatives. During storage, the break-down of polymeric carbohydrates, especiallypectic substances and hemicelluloses, weakensthe middle lamella and the cohesive forces bin-ding the cells together. In addition to polymersize, loss of moisture during storage causes thecells to be more flacid, hence the fruit givesway to deformations more easily than turgidcells.

Y indicates the force required to break thepolymer network and this value decreases as theprotopectin is gradually broken down to lowermolecular weight fractions which are more solublein water during storage.

The similar trends in G and Y values suggestthat there is a correlationship between these twoparameters. Both these values have been used fortexture measurements. However, each value mayrelated to firmness or rigidity while Y is relatedto brittleness and crunchiness. However, it shouldbe borne in mind that the Instron can not measureG accurately for ripe melons because the fruitsbreak easily under pressure. Although it is possiblethat a reduction in the rate of deformation couldincrease the accuracy, this was not possiblee as therate used was the lowest for this Instron Model. Inview of this, the yield force, Y, would be a morereliable parameter to use for the soft and ripe me-lons. Work on compressive failure patterns of juicyfruit (Peleg et al, 1976) have shown that in addi-tion to different patterns of compressive failure indifferent fruit, failure patterns themselves alsochanged with degree of ripeness.

When a linear regression was plotted for 100pairs of readings of G against Y, the correlationcoefficient was found to be 0.85. The best fitted

line is expressed as Y=0.9 (G-46229), the stadard error of the slope being 0.5.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by Universiti P<tanian Malaysia. The cooperation provided by t]Hydrophonics Unit of Universiti Pertanian Malasia is gratefully acknowledged. The help given 1Mohd. Nordin Abdul Karim is appreciated.

REFERENCES

ANDRE', P., R. BLANC, M. BURET, Y. CHAMBROP. DAUPLE\ C. FLANZY, and C. PELISS(1982): Storage trials with cantaloup melcRevue Horticole, 227: 23 -33 ; {Hort. Abs. (19852, 5434).

A.O.A.C. (1975): Official Methods of Analysis, 12 e<Washington, D.C.

ARASIMOVICH, V.V. (1939): Invertase differencesmelon Biokimiya 4: 251-259. {Chem. Abs34: 16945).

BHATNAGAR, D.K. and G.P. SINGH (1982): Storastudies on different muskmelon cultivars. HaryaAgricultural University Journal of Research,(3): 456-461; (Hort Abs. (1983): 53, 3311

BIANCO, V.V. and H.K, Pratt, (1977): Compositioichanges in muskmelons during development xin response to ethylene treatment. / Amer. ScSci. 102(2): 127-133.

BOUWKAMP, J.CM F.F. ANGELL, and F.D. SCHALE(1978): Effects of weather conditions on solutsolids of muskmelon. Scienta Hort. 8: 265-27

DAVIS, Jr., R.M. and V.H. SCHWEERS, (1971): Assciations between physical soil properties and aluble solids in cantaloupes. /. Amer. Soc. HoiSci., 96(2): 213-217.

EVENSON, K.B. (1983): Effects of maturity at harveistorage temperature and cultivar on muskmel(quality. Hort Science, 18(6): 907-908.

UPTON, WJ. and Y. AHARONI, (1979): Chilling ijury and ripening of *Honey Dew* muskmelostored at 2.5°C and 5°C after ethylene treatmeat 20°C. /. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci 104(3) 327330.

UPTON, WJ. (1978): Chilling injury of 'Honey-Deimuskmelons: Symptoms and relation to degnof ripeness at harvest. Hort. Science. 13(1): 4546.

MUTTON, L.L. (1977): Flesh firmness in rockmelon

Food Tech. Aust. 29: 417-418.

MUTTON, L.L. B.R. CULLIS, and A.B. BLAKENE1

(1981): The objective definition of eating qualii

208 PERTANIKA VOL. 11 NO. 2, 1988

PHYSICO-CHEMICAL CHANGES IN MUSKMELONS DURING STORAGE

of rockmelons (Cucumis melo).J. Set Food Agric.32: 385-391.

NICULESCU, F. and R.F. KASMIRE (1980): Behaviourin storage of the muskmelon cultivar Casaba.Through Hort. Abs.(l9Z2): 52: 1526.

PELEG, M., B.L. GOMEZ and Y. MALEVSKI (1976):Compressive failure patterns of some juicy fruit.J. Food Set 41(6): 1320-1324.

PRATT, H.K. (1971): Melons. In The Biochemistry ofFruit and their Products. Vol. II, London; Aca-demic Press. Ed. A.C Hulme, pg. 207-232.

ROSA, J.T. (1928): Changes in composition duringripening and storage of melons. Hilgardia 3:421-443.

SHANNON, M.C. and L.E. FRANCOIS (1978): Salttolerance of three muskmelon cultivars. /. Amer.Soc. Hort. Set. 103(1), 127-130.

SMIDSROD, O. and A. HAUG (1972): Properties ofpoly (1, 4 hexuronates) in gel state II. Comparison

of gels of different chemical composition. ActaChem. Scand., 26: 79-88.

SRINIVAS, K., D.M. HEDGE, and S.D. DOUODE(1983):Studies on fruit development in muskmelon{Cucumis melon, L.). South Indian Horticulture,31(2/3): 82-84. {Hort. Abs. (1984): 54: 3481).

WELLS, J.A. and P.E. NUGENT, (1980): Effect of highsoil moisture on quality of muskmelon. Hort.Science, 15(3): 258-259.

WILLS, R.B.H., N. BALMER and H. GREENFIELD(1980). Composition of Australian Foods. 2.Methods of Analysia. Food Technol Aust. 32:198-204.

V\MAGUICHI, M., D.L. HUGHES, D.L., K. TABUMO-TO, and W.C. JENNINGS, (1977): Quality ofcantaloupe melons "Variability and attribute".ScientiaHort 6(1): 59-70.

(Received 1 June, 1987)

PERTANIKA VOL. II NO. 2, 1988 209