Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.K. and D.J.; methodology, A.K. and D.J.; formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, A.K. and M.A.U.; resources, A.K., D.J. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.; writing—review and editing, A.K., M.A.U., P.J., N.W., A.M., E.H., D.I., R.W. and D.J.; supervision, D.J.; project administration, D.J., E.H. and A.M.; funding acquisition, D.J. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
‘B74’ mango fruit dry matter percentage (DM%) (A) and fruit weight (B) distributions in supply chains from two regions, the Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ), in the 2020/21 harvest season. Small black dots represent outliers. Ends of lower and upper whiskers represent minimum and maximum data values, respectively. Upper and lower whiskers represent 25% of the data set. Boxes represent the intermediate 50% of the data set. The transverse line within boxes is the median value.
Figure 1.
‘B74’ mango fruit dry matter percentage (DM%) (A) and fruit weight (B) distributions in supply chains from two regions, the Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ), in the 2020/21 harvest season. Small black dots represent outliers. Ends of lower and upper whiskers represent minimum and maximum data values, respectively. Upper and lower whiskers represent 25% of the data set. Boxes represent the intermediate 50% of the data set. The transverse line within boxes is the median value.
Figure 2.
‘B74’ mango fruit weight distribution in supply chains from two regions, Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ), in 2021/22 (A) and 2022/23 (B) harvest seasons. Small black dots represent outliers. Ends of lower and upper whiskers represent minimum and maximum data values, respectively. Upper and lower whiskers represent 25% of the data set. Boxes represent the intermediate 50% of the data set. Transverse line within the boxes is the median value.
Figure 2.
‘B74’ mango fruit weight distribution in supply chains from two regions, Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ), in 2021/22 (A) and 2022/23 (B) harvest seasons. Small black dots represent outliers. Ends of lower and upper whiskers represent minimum and maximum data values, respectively. Upper and lower whiskers represent 25% of the data set. Boxes represent the intermediate 50% of the data set. Transverse line within the boxes is the median value.
Figure 3.
‘B74’ mango fruit dry matter percentage (DM%) distribution in supply chains covering two regions of Australia, the Northern Territory (NT), and North Queensland (NQ), in 2021/22 (A) and 2022/23 (B) harvest seasons. Dots represent outliers. Ends of lower and upper whiskers represent minimum and maximum data values, respectively. Upper and lower whiskers represent 25% of the data sets. Boxes represent the intermediate 50% data set. Transverse line within the boxes is the median.
Figure 3.
‘B74’ mango fruit dry matter percentage (DM%) distribution in supply chains covering two regions of Australia, the Northern Territory (NT), and North Queensland (NQ), in 2021/22 (A) and 2022/23 (B) harvest seasons. Dots represent outliers. Ends of lower and upper whiskers represent minimum and maximum data values, respectively. Upper and lower whiskers represent 25% of the data sets. Boxes represent the intermediate 50% data set. Transverse line within the boxes is the median.
Figure 4.
Internal disorders observed during simulated supply chain monitoring: flesh cavity (FC; left-hand side), flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP; middle), and flesh browning (FB; right-hand side).
Figure 4.
Internal disorders observed during simulated supply chain monitoring: flesh cavity (FC; left-hand side), flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP; middle), and flesh browning (FB; right-hand side).
Figure 5.
Incidence of flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) in nine different supply chain case studies over the 2020/21 harvest season for vapor heat treated (VHT) fruit. Values not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 5.
Incidence of flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) in nine different supply chain case studies over the 2020/21 harvest season for vapor heat treated (VHT) fruit. Values not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 6.
Incidence of flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) in 27 different supply chain case studies over the 2021/22 harvest season for vapor heat treated (VHT) fruit. Values not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 6.
Incidence of flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) in 27 different supply chain case studies over the 2021/22 harvest season for vapor heat treated (VHT) fruit. Values not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 7.
Incidence of flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) in seven different supply chain case studies over the 2022/23 harvest season for vapor heat treated (VHT) fruit. Values not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 7.
Incidence of flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) in seven different supply chain case studies over the 2022/23 harvest season for vapor heat treated (VHT) fruit. Values not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 8.
Flesh browning (FB) incidence in nine separate case study supply chains during the 2020/21 harvest season. Levels not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 8.
Flesh browning (FB) incidence in nine separate case study supply chains during the 2020/21 harvest season. Levels not represented by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 9.
Flesh browning (FB) incidence in 27 separate case study supply chains during the 2021/22 harvest season. Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 9.
Flesh browning (FB) incidence in 27 separate case study supply chains during the 2021/22 harvest season. Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 10.
Flesh browning (FB) incidence in seven separate case study supply chains during the 2022/23 harvest season. Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 10.
Flesh browning (FB) incidence in seven separate case study supply chains during the 2022/23 harvest season. Levels not connected by the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Figure 11.
Average dry matter (DM; n = 102) and flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) incidence (%) in nine case study supply chains for ‘B74’ mango fruit subjected to vapor heat treatment (VHT). FCWP incidence % presented is the sum of incidences for three severities: viz., slight, moderate, and severe. Vertical bars show ± standard error of the mean.
Figure 11.
Average dry matter (DM; n = 102) and flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) incidence (%) in nine case study supply chains for ‘B74’ mango fruit subjected to vapor heat treatment (VHT). FCWP incidence % presented is the sum of incidences for three severities: viz., slight, moderate, and severe. Vertical bars show ± standard error of the mean.
Figure 12.
Average dry matter (DM; n = 102) and flesh browning (FB) incidence (%) in nine different case study supply chains for ‘B74’ mango fruit. The FB incidence % presented is the sum of incidences over the three severity classes: slight, moderate, and severe. Vertical bars are the ± standard error of the mean.
Figure 12.
Average dry matter (DM; n = 102) and flesh browning (FB) incidence (%) in nine different case study supply chains for ‘B74’ mango fruit. The FB incidence % presented is the sum of incidences over the three severity classes: slight, moderate, and severe. Vertical bars are the ± standard error of the mean.
Table 1.
Production season, region, orchard block, and supply chains assessed.
Table 1.
Production season, region, orchard block, and supply chains assessed.
Year | Region | Orchard Block Code | Supply Chain Number |
---|
2020/21 | NT | B1 | 1–3 |
B2 | 4 |
B3 | 5 |
NQ | B4 | 6–7 |
B5 | 8–9 |
2021/22 | NT | B3 | 1–5 |
B2 | 6–13 |
B1 | 14 |
NQ | B4 | 15–25 |
B6 | 26–27 |
2022/23 | NT | B3 | 1 |
B2 | 2 |
NQ | B4 | 3–5 |
B6 | 6 |
B7 | 7 |
Table 2.
Effect of treatment (+/− vapor heat treatment (VHT)) on shelf life (mean ± SE) of ‘B74’ mango in 27 case study supply chains during the 2021/22 harvest season. Shelf life was calculated from the day of VHT to the day the fruit reached a hand firmness rating scale of 4. No data appear for supply chain 16 because only fruit that underwent VHT were available during monitoring.
Table 2.
Effect of treatment (+/− vapor heat treatment (VHT)) on shelf life (mean ± SE) of ‘B74’ mango in 27 case study supply chains during the 2021/22 harvest season. Shelf life was calculated from the day of VHT to the day the fruit reached a hand firmness rating scale of 4. No data appear for supply chain 16 because only fruit that underwent VHT were available during monitoring.
Supply Chain | Shelf Life (Days) | |
---|
+VHT | −VHT | Sig. |
---|
1 | 13.46 ± 0.83 b | 18.27 ± 0.13 a | * |
2 | 13.75 ± 0.25 b | 16.40 ± 0.82 a | * |
3 | 14.55 ± 1.41 b | 19.43 ± 0.97 a | * |
4 | 12.00 ± 1.73 b | 18.33 ± 0.33 a | * |
5 | 18.50 ± 0.32 b | 21.67 ± 0.43 a | ** |
6 | 15.80 ± 0.71 b | 19.47 ± 0.61 a | ** |
7 | 13.87 ± 0.99 b | 19.16 ± 0.73 a | ** |
8 | 16.47 ± 0.92 | 16.94 ± 3.38 | NS |
9 | 15.64 ± 1.52 | 17.22 ± 2.42 | NS |
10 | 19.90 ± 0.45 | 21.13 ± 0.34 | NS |
11 | 21.98 ± 0.51 a | 20.61 ± 0.63 b | * |
12 | 19.75 ± 0.11 | 20.92 ± 0.92 | NS |
13 | 22.39 ± 0.84 | 23.3 ± 0.49 | NS |
14 | 16.35 ± 16.35 | 14.25 ± 0.67 | NS |
15 | 22.65 ± 0.07 | 22.88 ± 0.06 | NS |
16 | - | - | - |
17 | 18.08 ± 0.13 b | 19.47 ± 0.35 a | * |
18 | 20.16 ± 0.83 | 22.25 ± 0.62 | NS |
19 | 20.12 ± 1.09 | 21.44 ± 0.61 | NS |
20 | 20.51 ± 0.91 b | 23.88 ± 0.67 a | * |
21 | 20.87 ± 1.82 | 23.10 ± 0.56 | NS |
22 | 21.16 ± 0.42 | 22.18 ± 0.66 | NS |
23 | 18.7 ± 0.21 b | 24.08 ± 0.50 a | ** |
24 | 22.33 ± 0.90 | 23.9 ± 1.21 | NS |
25 | 20.12 ± 0.89 | 21.79 ± 1.35 | NS |
26 | 21.76 ± 1.10 | 21.80 ± 0.53 | NS |
27 | 17.1 ± 0.99 | 23.02 ± 2.60 | NS |
Table 3.
Effect of treatment (+/− vapor heat treatment (VHT)), region (Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ)), harvest season (2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23) and harvest orchard blocks (B1–7) on Flesh Cavity with White Patches (FCWP) incidence of ‘B74’ mango fruit in 3-year monitoring trials. Data from all supply chains for each year were pooled for multiple regression. The variations in FCWP incidence across the season, region, and blocks were evaluated using the linear mixed model (LMM) in the R package ‘lme4’.
Table 3.
Effect of treatment (+/− vapor heat treatment (VHT)), region (Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ)), harvest season (2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23) and harvest orchard blocks (B1–7) on Flesh Cavity with White Patches (FCWP) incidence of ‘B74’ mango fruit in 3-year monitoring trials. Data from all supply chains for each year were pooled for multiple regression. The variations in FCWP incidence across the season, region, and blocks were evaluated using the linear mixed model (LMM) in the R package ‘lme4’.
Variable | Incidence % | Standard Error (SE) % | Adjusted SE | z Value | p Value |
---|
Intercept | 8.1 | 5.2 | 5.2 | 1.6 | 0.11 |
Treatment VHT | 39.8 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 15.8 | 0.00 *** |
Region NT | −18.7 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 7.3 | 0.00 *** |
Harvest season 2021/22 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.16 |
Harvest season 2022/23 | −9.0 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 0.04 * |
Block B1 | −29.3 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 2.8 | 0.00 ** |
Block B2 | −25.0 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 2.7 | 0.00 ** |
Block B3 | −22.1 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 2.3 | 0.02 * |
Block B4 | −6.1 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 0.7 | 0.50 |
Block B5 | −14.8 | 11.3 | 11.4 | 1.3 | 0.19 |
Block B6 | 0.7 | 9.8 | 9.9 | 0.1 | 0.94 |
Table 4.
Effect of treatment (+/− vapor heat treatment (VHT)), region (Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ)), harvest season (2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23), and harvest orchard blocks (B1–7) on Flesh Browning (FB) incidence of ‘B74’ mango fruit in 3 years of monitoring trials. Data from all supply chains for each year were pooled for multiple regression. The variations in FB incidence across the season, region, and blocks were evaluated using the linear mixed model (LMM) in the R package ‘lme4’.
Table 4.
Effect of treatment (+/− vapor heat treatment (VHT)), region (Northern Territory (NT) and North Queensland (NQ)), harvest season (2020/21, 2021/22, and 2022/23), and harvest orchard blocks (B1–7) on Flesh Browning (FB) incidence of ‘B74’ mango fruit in 3 years of monitoring trials. Data from all supply chains for each year were pooled for multiple regression. The variations in FB incidence across the season, region, and blocks were evaluated using the linear mixed model (LMM) in the R package ‘lme4’.
Variable | Incidence % | Standard Error (SE) % | Adjusted SE | z Value | p Value |
---|
Intercept | 64.8 | 11.4 | 11.5 | 5.6 | 0.00 *** |
Treatment VHT | −13.5 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 4.9 | 0.00 *** |
Region NT | −5.1 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 0.11 |
Harvest season 2021/22 | 8.3 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 1.9 | 0.06 |
Harvest season 2022/23 | 16.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 3.0 | 0.00 ** |
Block B1 | −41.1 | 11.7 | 11.8 | 3.5 | 0.00 *** |
Block B2 | −56.8 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 5.5 | 0.00 *** |
Block B3 | −26.2 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 2.5 | 0.01 * |
Block B4 | −38.3 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 3.8 | 0.00 *** |
Block B5 | −55.5 | 13.0 | 13.1 | 4.3 | 0.00 *** |
Block B6 | −32.8 | 10.8 | 10.8 | 3.0 | 0.00 ** |
Table 5.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between individual fruit dry matter (DM)% from each supply chain with the flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) and flesh browning (FB) severity in 27 different case study supply chains monitoring during 2021/22 harvest season. FCWP and FB severity for individual fruit were rated on a scale of 0 to 3.
Table 5.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between individual fruit dry matter (DM)% from each supply chain with the flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) and flesh browning (FB) severity in 27 different case study supply chains monitoring during 2021/22 harvest season. FCWP and FB severity for individual fruit were rated on a scale of 0 to 3.
Supply Chain | FCWP | FB | Supply Chain | FB |
---|
DM% | 1 | −0.29 | 0.35 ** | Shelf life | 1 | 0.21 |
2 | 0.17 | 0.24 * | 2 | 0.26 * |
3 | −0.16 | 0.02 | 3 | 0.21 * |
4 | 0.2 | 0.26 * | 4 | 0.12 |
5 | 0.21 | 0.29 ** | 5 | 0.15 |
6 | −0.04 | 0.00 | 6 | 0.00 |
7 | 0.49 *** | 0.00 | 7 | 0.18 |
8 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 8 | 0.00 |
9 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 9 | 0.08 |
10 | −0.12 | 0.00 | 10 | 0.27 * |
11 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 11 | 0.41 *** |
12 | 0.08 | −0.09 | 12 | 0.09 |
13 | −0.12 | 0.23 | 13 | 0.33 *** |
14 | −0.04 | 0.00 | 14 | 0.00 |
15 | −0.21 | 0.31 ** | 15 | 0.16 |
16 | 0.00 | 0.16 | 16 | - |
17 | −0.44 ** | 0.36 *** | 17 | 0.27 *** |
18 | −0.38 ** | 0.32 ** | 18 | 0.27 *** |
19 | −0.03 | −0.02 | 19 | 0.43 *** |
20 | −0.11 | 0.45 *** | 20 | 0.40 *** |
21 | −0.44 ** | 0.34 *** | 21 | 0.16 |
22 | −0.34 * | 0.23 * | 22 | 0.33 *** |
23 | −0.24 | 0.33 * | 23 | 0.33 *** |
24 | −0.28 * | −0.01 | 24 | 0.12 |
25 | −0.40 * | 0.32 *** | 25 | 0.17 |
26 | −0.11 | 0.05 | 26 | 0.21 * |
27 | −0.43 ** | 0.20 * | 27 | 0.48 *** |
Table 6.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between time from packing to vapor heat treatment (VHT) facility, postharvest time (h), and temperature unit sums (TTUs) from packing to VHT, and the individual fruit DM% with flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) and with flesh browning (FB) incidence in 27 different case study supply chains monitored during the 2021/22 harvest season. Postharvest TTUs are the product of average daily temperature with time.
Table 6.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between time from packing to vapor heat treatment (VHT) facility, postharvest time (h), and temperature unit sums (TTUs) from packing to VHT, and the individual fruit DM% with flesh cavity with white patches (FCWP) and with flesh browning (FB) incidence in 27 different case study supply chains monitored during the 2021/22 harvest season. Postharvest TTUs are the product of average daily temperature with time.
| Disorder | Correlation (r) | Probability Value |
---|
Time (h) | FCWP incidence | 0.05 | 0.79 |
FB incidence | 0.49 ** | 0.00 |
Postharvest TTUs | FCWP incidence | −0.04 | 0.83 |
FB incidence | 0.39 * | 0.05 |
DM% | FCWP incidence | 0.15 | 0.45 |
FB incidence | 0.61 *** | 0.00 |