Next Article in Journal
The Role of BrKS in Leafy Head Formation Was Confirmed by Two Allelic Mutants of Chinese Cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssp. pekinensis)
Previous Article in Journal
Predicting Blooming Day of Cut Lily through Wavelength Reflectance Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 8
10.3390/horticulturae10080803
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

An Overview of Low-Cost Approaches for the Postharvest Storage of Fruits and Vegetables for Smallholders, Retailers, and Consumers

by
Mohamed Hawali Bata Gouda
1,2,3 and
Arturo Duarte-Sierra
1,2,3,*
1
Food Science Department, Laval University, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
2
Center for Research in Plant Innovation (CRIV), Laval University, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
3
Institute on Nutrition and Functional Foods (INAF), Laval University, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(8), 803; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10080803
Submission received: 4 July 2024 / Revised: 25 July 2024 / Accepted: 26 July 2024 / Published: 30 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Trends and Progress in Postharvest Management: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Quality Preservation, Loss Reduction, and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Food loss and waste occur throughout the food supply chain and represent food security and environmental, economic, and societal problems. Fresh fruit and vegetables contribute to over 40% of global food loss and waste. A significant portion of fruit and vegetables loss takes place on the farm during postharvest handling in developing countries, which is linked to smallholders’ financial and geographic constraints in purchasing modern postharvest handling technologies. While in developed countries, waste is the main problem identified at the retail and consumption levels because of inadequate logistics management, storage, and consumer behavior. The loss and waste deprive the population of a significant quantity of healthy food. To address this challenge, cost-effective, easy-to-use, and affordable approaches could be supplied to stakeholders. These strategies encompass the utilization of shading, low-cost packaging, porous evaporative cooling, zero-energy cooling chambers, and pot-in-pot coolers, for reductions in loss in developing countries. Meanwhile, in developed countries, biosensors, 1-methylcyclopropene, and imaging processing are employed to assess the quality of fresh fruit and vegetables at both retail and consumer levels. By exploring these methods, the review aims to provide smallholders, retailers, and consumers with efficient methods for improving produce operating techniques, resulting in reduced losses and waste and higher income.

1. Introduction

Fresh fruits and vegetables are living products known for their high nutritional value and health benefits [1]. A minimum of 400 g per day of fruits and vegetables is recommended to prevent chronic diseases [2,3]. However, 40% of fresh fruits and vegetables is lost due to high moisture content, transpiration and respiration, physical damage, and microbial growth [4]. They are among the product categories that experience the highest rate of food loss and waste [5,6,7]. Postharvest loss and waste present a significant challenge and concern for countries at any level of development. The loss can take place throughout the postharvest stage, from harvesting to transportation, storage, retail, and consumption [8]. Inadequate handling or management of any steps can result in significant postharvest losses on a large scale [9]. It was observed that deficient postharvest handling is responsible for more than 40% of loss and waste in developing countries, such as South Asian countries [10] and Sub-Saharan Africa [11], while in developed countries, such as the United States, it is estimated at around 12% [12]. For example, studies reported that 42% of Rutisu Valley’s (Zimbabwe) fresh oranges is lost due to the lack of adequate facilities [13] and 40% of tomatoes is lost in Nigeria due to improper postharvest handling [8].
More precisely, losses occur during the stages before the consumption of the product, while waste refers to previously ready-for-consumption products that were discarded because they were not consumed for reasons related to consumer preferences or product deterioration due to storage for an extended period [1]. Elik et al. [14] reported that food waste is higher at the consumer level in developed countries compared to developing countries, where the losses occur at the farm stage due to a lack of technology to harvest, package, transport, and store the produce. As evidence, a study found that, in the United States, retail and consumer waste accounted for approximately 28% and 30%, respectively, of fruits and vegetables [15], which is higher in comparison to the loss percentage of 12% reported by Gosa, Aga, and Geleta [12]. In addition, Mattsson, William, and Berghel [16] reported that the fruit and vegetable department accounts for 29% and 34% of the total mass of product wasted at the retail level in Sweden and Italy, respectively. Moreover, studies showed that fruits and vegetables constituted 53% of the overall monetary value of food waste in Austria [17] and 46% of the total carbon footprint of waste in Sweden [18].
This loss and waste deprive the population of a significant quantity of healthy food and represent food security, environmental, economic, and societal problems. To take on this issue, smallholders, retailers, and consumers must be given access to scalable and inexpensive food preservation technology, which has the potential to mitigate losses of fruits and vegetables at every stage of the production process. It could help to reduce poverty and make fresh food more accessible to people everywhere. Thus, we aim to highlight innovative and low-cost postharvest technologies utilizable by smallholders at farms, retailers in supermarkets and restaurants, and consumers at home to limit fresh crops’ deterioration during postharvest storage.

2. Cause of Postharvest Loss and Waste

Fruit and vegetable postharvest loss and waste are major issues throughout the entire food supply chain, ranging from harvest to consumption, and rely on several interconnected factors that determine the shelf life and quality of agricultural products [19]. These factors include the product’s physiological characteristics (i.e., respiration and maturation), environmental conditions (i.e., temperature and humidity), harvesting and postharvest handling, transportation, and consumer behavior [11], as well as socioeconomic factors [19]. Fluctuations in these parameters can accelerate the ripening process, promote mold growth, and cause quality degradation. It is therefore critical to understand the causes and possible reasons for these losses to establish methods to ensure food security around the world.

2.1. Postharvest Loss at the Farm Level

At the farm level, losses are discernible throughout the entire process that precedes product marketing and consumption (Figure 1). This encompasses all stages, ranging from harvesting to transport, which includes sorting, grading, cleaning, packaging, storage, loading, and unloading [20,21,22].
Harvest signifies the commencement of postharvest management. It is a manual or automated operation, depending on the product’s characteristics and the producer’s technical and financial resources [20]. However, farmers in developing countries typically harvest manually [10]. Harvesting is a crucial process that impacts product quality and shelf life. Therefore, the timing and weather conditions, as well as the method and equipment used for harvesting, are influential factors that can determine the quality of the fresh product [14]. Mechanical damage and physiological deterioration are the main causes of fruit and vegetable loss during harvest.
Mechanical injuries can be caused by nails, falls, and projections, and the damaged part constitutes an entry point for various types of pathogens. It can also be associated with the use of an unsuitable container (e.g., basket or plastic crate) during harvest and inadequate packaging during transport [10]. The packaging is primarily intended to protect the product from mechanical damage and contamination. A study reported that rapid deterioration and high losses are correlated with unsuitable packaging crate, increasing product loss [23]. These authors explained that when the plastic bag is overfilled, a static load is applied to the product, creating a deformation and bruise on the fresh fruit, which may be discarded during sorting and grading. Gosa, Aga, and Geleta [12] also reported that 20% of postharvest losses is attributed to the rough handling of harvest containers, while 44% is the result of pathogen contamination.
In addition, maturity at harvest can impact the quality of fresh fruits and vegetables. Maturity refers to the condition in which the process of natural growth and development is deemed to be fully accomplished or suitable [24]. The handling, transportation, and marketing conditions are also determined by the fresh product’s maturity level. Overripe or underripe products are more prone to physiological problems [25]. According to Gosa, Aga, and Geleta [12], most farmers harvest their crops at the late stage of maturity, resulting in mechanical damage and reducing product shelf life. In addition, the temperature influences the physiological state of the product. High temperatures during harvest caused an increase in respiration, exposing the product to rapid breakdown [26]. The absence of shade and climatic conditions contribute to elevated temperatures during harvesting [23]. Furthermore, failure to precool the fresh product immediately after harvest to reduce its temperature before packaging results in significant losses.
Once precooling is complete, the products must be stored in an area insulated from heat to prevent temperature increases. Unfortunately, producers in developing countries face a shortage of refrigeration facilities, primarily due to limited financial resources and a lack of access to electricity [10,11]. As a result, they are compelled to market the products immediately, either on or off the farm, and at exorbitant prices. Unsold products will end up exposed to higher temperatures, causing deterioration and loss. For example, more than 30% of India’s fresh fruits and vegetables is lost due to a lack of adequate storage facilities [1].
Following the various stages of harvesting and packaging, the products are transported from the field to a processing facility, storage facility, or market. In contrast to developed countries, developing nations still have an inadequate transport system. These countries rely on traditional methods of transportation, such as animal carts, animal backs, open carts, bicycles, tricycles [27], and even men’s shoulders and on women’s heads [12]. In addition, the poor condition of the roads generates vibrations that are absorbed by the fruit. They collapse on each other, causing textural damage. Likewise, improper packaging can increase the rate of loss throughout transport [4].
Ludwig-ohm, Dirksmeyer, and Klockgether [28] reported that low resale prices relative to product harvesting costs due to decreased consumer demand for fruits and vegetables at certain seasons, especially during the winter, lead to farm-level postharvest loss because, in this situation, producers prefer not to harvest the product.

2.2. Postharvest Waste at the Retail Level

Retailers are the link between producers and consumers. Fresh produce can be traded at markets or supermarkets. Unfortunately, several studies have found a high rate of wasted fruits and vegetables at this stage of the supply chain [29]. This may include waste before the product enters the retail environment (pre-store waste) or waste within the store (in-store waste) [16] (Figure 1). Pre-store waste is defined as rejection on delivery at the store gate and can be due to inadequate transport and packaging. Meanwhile, in-store waste occurs within the store after the retailer accepts the product [18].
Fruit and vegetable waste in the market is linked to substandard packaging quality, inadequate cold storage, and poor cold chain management. Additionally, displaying large amounts of products, ineffective inventory management, and insufficient knowledge about product handling among employees and customers also contribute to this waste [29]. The results of the survey carried out by Lebersorger and Schneider [17] at 612 retail outlets in Austria revealed that obvious flaws were among the causes of waste. It was found that 54% of products was discarded due to color change, and 52% because of dents. Others are also discarded as they are overripe, damp, wilted, or moldy. These flaws could be the result of poor product handling in the early stages of its life cycle or insufficient handling and storage during retail. It may also illustrate how the various phases are interdependent along the food supply chain. Boxes protect the product from physical damage and deterioration, but when used for consumer convenience, just like mesh netting, they can be a source of waste. According to Mattsson [30], if several products are packaged in a mailbox or plastic, and one or two of them turn out to be defective, the entire package is rejected by customers. Furthermore, spoiled products can contaminate the rest of the batch, and the entire product’s package is typically discarded, even if it still contains some good product.

2.3. Postharvest Waste at the Consumer Level

At this stage, developed countries are more concerned about waste than developing countries. According to Joardder [27], food waste is insignificant in developing countries due to limited household income and the fact that consumers generally buy just what they need for the day. As stated by Laurentiis, Corrado, and Sala [5], fruits and vegetables account for 44% to 47% of the overall food waste generated at the national level by households in the UK, Germany, and Denmark. Meanwhile, across Europe, the average amount of discarded fruits and vegetables by households is around 63%. This is attributed to consumer behavior as well as inadequate cold storage practices. When considering consumer behavior, we are referring to their shopping habits, diet, and frequency of consumption, as well as their attitude toward managing products at home. Most consumers demonstrate insufficient foresight and tend to overstate the quantity of fruits and vegetables they purchase [31,32,33]. In addition, research has shown that consumers possess a limited understanding of the temperature settings of their refrigerators and the ideal storage temperature for the fruits and vegetables they purchase [34,35], which may result in the item being improperly stored and an increase in waste. Furthermore, product quality can be affected by the duration of transportation from the supermarket to the consumer’s home, as well as the tendency of some consumers to shop at multiple stores. This time interval is sufficient to induce a temperature variation, which is conducive to the multiplication of food-borne organisms and, consequently, the loss of product, when the items are not packaged and transported in accordance with the recommended temperature [36,37]. These variations can accelerate deterioration and shorten the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. For example, green leafy vegetables can wilt quickly, affecting the amount of available vitamin C [38,39].

3. Low-Cost Approaches to Prevent Postharvest Loss and Waste

Reducing postharvest losses necessitates an integrated and coordinated approach and technology at all levels of the supply chain, ranging from production to consumption, to ensure a sustainable and adequate food supply.
Postharvest approach and technology refer to methods and technology used to handle agricultural products after harvest to ensure their quality is maintained and provide high-quality products to consumers [10]. The principle is to reduce respiration, delay the postharvest ripening of fresh fruits and vegetables, and prevent microorganism proliferation. Technological advancements have facilitated the development of cutting-edge equipment for preserving fresh produce, such as modified atmosphere, controlled atmosphere, vacuum packaging, cold plasma, freezing, and refrigeration [40,41,42,43,44]. However, the high costs and significant energy requirements of these advanced technologies make them inaccessible for small-scale producers in developing countries. They are also unprofitable for sellers and will certainly have an impact on household financial portfolios. Knowing that in today’s world, environmentally friendly and energy-efficient technologies entice customers, we propose approaches and techniques that are simple to implement, affordable, and energy-efficient, and that benefit smallholders, retailers, and consumers.

3.1. Approaches and Technology at the Farm Level

Postharvest losses are prevalent in developing countries at the farm level because of inadequate harvesting and handling practices and techniques, as well as a lack of appropriate packaging and storage tools.
Harvesting technique, containers and harvesting tools, maturation level, packaging, storage, and transportation conditions are some of the factors that need to be considered at this point of the food supply chain to minimize losses.

3.1.1. Harvesting and Maturity

Harvesting is an important unit operation that determines the quality and shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables, and it helps to avoid significant losses. Therefore, prior to beginning any sort of endeavor, harvesters need to receive training on the correct methods for harvesting and handling produce. Harvesting must be carried out during the cooler temperatures of the day (i.e., in the morning) and at a good maturity level (i.e., avoid early and late maturity). Wakholi et al. [45] found that, in East Africa, some farmers begin their harvest during the evening when the temperature is lower than in the afternoon.
Harvest maturity is an important factor for ensuring high-quality products and maximizing shelf life. Fresh products are harvested at various stages of maturity based on their nature, quality, and conservation goals [46]. Climacteric products are harvested before reaching horticultural or commercial maturity (which is the development stage where the product attains the characteristics consumers desire) because they can ripen optimally during storage [24]. This practice optimizes the flavor and ensures the product’s firmness and its shelf-life extension. Likewise non-climacteric products are required to be harvested at horticultural or commercial maturity, as further ripening does not significantly improve their taste or other sensory characteristics [47]. Physical and chemical parameters are generally used to determine the maturity level and harvest period of fresh produce (Table 1). The physical indices include crop weight, size, shape, color, firmness, and the number of days from bloom to harvest, whereas chemical indices include total soluble solids (TSSs), acidity, ascorbic acid, tannins, and volatiles content [48,49,50]. Although some of these chemical parameters are mostly determined in the laboratory, farmers can assess the maturity on the farm by quantifying the TSSs using a hand refractometer or brix hydrometer [51]. A study found that the ideal time to harvest the ‘Kitchiner’ mango cultivar is 15 to 16 weeks after flowering, when the TSSs (total soluble solids) value is between 12 and 15 °Brix, and the pH or acidity value is between 2.8 and 3.0 [52]. They also indicated that the ‘Alphonse’ cultivar of mango can be collected when the total soluble solids (TSSs) measure between 13 and 20 °Brix, with a pH of 2.8, which corresponds to an interval of 16 weeks after the flowering stage. However, the commercial maturity is variable and depends on the type and variety of product and standards established by the country’s organizations [49,53,54].
In addition to harvesting time and maturity level, the containers used during the process play a crucial role. Harvest containers can be made of materials such as wood, natural or synthetic fibers, and plastic. These containers must be easy for harvesters to handle and transport. They are determined by the physical properties of the fruit or vegetables [55]. Elik et al. [14] stated that shoulder bags can be used to harvest firm-skinned fruits, such as citrus and avocados. Smooth, plastic buckets with no sharp edges are ideal for fruit like tomatoes. Papers sprayed with water can also be placed inside crates for harvesting to prevent high temperatures and promote cooling.

3.1.2. Handling and Processing

While carrying out the postharvest steps, the products must be kept out of the sun. A study has found that the simple shading during the packing of spinach on the agricultural site contributes to the inhibition of the weight loss of spinach. The result showed a loss of 1% when the product was packed in the shade compared to a loss of 5% when packed in the sun [58]. They also found during their study in Rwanda that sorting, grading, and packing tomatoes in the sun led to a 2.5% weight loss within 4 h, while it was insignificant (0.5%) when conducted in the shade. Shade can be provided by trees on the farm site, plastic sheds, or thatched-roof structures. In addition, products must be promptly precooled following harvest to eliminate heat or reduce temperature. Subsequently, the product must be kept at an optimal temperature throughout the entire food chain, including transport, storage, retail level, and consumer level [4].
There are several methods of precooling, among which evaporative cooling [59] and hydrocooling [60] are suitable for smallholders. Hydrocooling is appropriate for products that tolerate wetting, such as asparagus, carrots, cashew apples, lettuce, peaches, and tomatoes [61,62,63,64]. This method is useful for smallholders because it allows them to disinfect fresh crops while precooling by adding a disinfectant, such as sodium hypochlorite, to cold water. This allows two tasks to be completed in one step, saving both time and energy. On the other hand, the evaporative cooling system benefits both wetting-tolerant and non-tolerant products, such as strawberries, bulb onions, and garlic [26,65].

3.1.3. Storage

The primary purpose of storing fresh fruits and vegetables is to prevent spoilage and keep them fresh for an extended period. According to Joardder [27], cold storage is one of the most effective techniques for better preservation. Storage can take place on the agricultural production site for farmers, at a store for retailers, or at home for consumers. The proper storage of fruits and vegetables contributes to product availability and reduces food insecurity.
Maintaining the fresh crop at a low temperature reduces respiration and water loss, along with slowing down biochemical reactions. Therefore, temperature management is important for extending fresh-product shelf life and reducing postharvest loss [25]. Technologies such as evaporative cooling, mechanical refrigeration, hydrocooling, natural convection cooling, vacuum cooling, room cooling, and forced air cooling have the advantage of maintaining fresh fruits and vegetables at an appropriate temperature [66].
However, evaporative cooling is the most cost-effective for smallholders for short-time and on-farm storage. It can be built with locally available materials and is the most environmentally friendly and energy-efficient storage and cooling technology. It is an alternative to mechanical refrigeration and is effective at preserving fruits and vegetables. Evaporative cooling works by converting hot and dry surrounding air into cool air. Indeed, the surrounding air passes through a wet pad, removing heat from the air and allowing the water contained in the pad to evaporate, generating a cooling effect [67].
Depending on the airflow, two types of evaporative cooling systems have been identified: the active evaporative cooling system and the passive evaporative cooling system. Active evaporative cooling requires the use of an external device or just a little energy to force air through the wetted material, whereas in passive evaporation, the air moves naturally across the pads [68].

Active Evaporative Cooling System

The active evaporative cooling system utilizes a mechanical component that helps in the evaporation process. It is uses a fan to circulate air through the wetted cooling medium (Figure 2). It may additionally involve pumps that move water. In addition, a supplementary fan or duct may be required to ensure uniform distribution throughout the fresh air storage area. However, the fans and pumps in this system require very little energy to operate [26]. For this reason, Olasunde, Aremu, and Onwude [69] developed an active evaporative cooling system powered by solar energy. As a result, people in rural areas who lack access to electricity may utilize the active evaporating system powered by a solar panel to preserve fresh fruits and vegetables. The active evaporative cooling system operates at a lower temperature than the passive cooling system.

Passive Evaporative Cooling System

A passive evaporative cooling system uses the natural principles of evaporation to cool an indoor space without utilizing mechanical components, such as fans and pumps. Different kinds of this low-cost technology have been reported, among which we have the zero-energy cool chamber (ZECC), porous evaporative cooling system (PECSS), pot-in-pot cooler, and charcoal cooler [70].
  • Zero-energy cool chamber
The zero-energy cold room functions on the principle of direct evaporative cooling, in which water is exposed to hot air, causing it to evaporate and absorb heat from the air, lowering the temperature [71]. It reduces the temperature of fresh fruits and vegetables by 10 °C to 15 °C while maintaining a relative humidity of approximately 90%. The materials required for its construction are typically available locally and at a lower cost. These include bamboo bricks and sand. The bricks are used to build a double-layer wall, with sand filling the space between them. A water system that allows the water to penetrate the sand improves its humidification. Fresh crops are placed in the chamber. Then, the chamber is covered with soft materials (Figure 3). This system promotes cooling of the chamber through evaporation from the bricks’ surfaces. The system enables farmers to store their products after harvest, reducing losses and increasing profits.
  • Porous evaporative cooling storage structure
The porous evaporative cooling storage structure is a variant of ZECC, designed by researchers from the department of agricultural construction and environmental engineering at the Sylhet Agricultural University of Bangladesh [72]. In this structure, the double-layer wall is built using soil and porous materials, leaving an empty area between the two walls. This space is filled with a blend of multiple materials, such as sand, clay, zeolite, rice husk, and charcoal, unlike in ZECC where only sand is used to occupy the space between the double-layer wall. In addition, the top opening is covered with straw materials. During the experimental sessions, which were conducted at an ambient temperature ranging from 24 °C to 29 °C and a relative humidity ranging from 50% to 71%, they realized that the temperature and relative humidity differences between the interior and outside of the PECSS were 5 °C to 9 °C and 20% to 30%, respectively. This was valid for both a sand and clay pad and one made up of sand, clay, and zeolite. It has been used to increase the shelf life of okra, eggplant, Malabar spinach, and stem amaranth by 3 to 5 d. PECSS has also demonstrated significant efficacy in extending the storage period of lemons and oranges.
  • Pot-in-pot cooler
This consists of two pots, one large and one small, with sand filling the gap between them. The product to be stored or cooled is placed in the small pot (Figure 4). The sand is moistened with water. This system functions similarly to the ZECC but has a smaller capacity and is thus more suitable for home use. Studies have also shown that water can be used instead of sand [70]. The pot’s opening is closed with a damp cloth.
  • Charcoal cooler
In comparison to other sorts of evaporative coolers that rely on sand, clay, or zeolite for the wet pad, this variation exclusively uses charcoal. Furthermore, the walls are replaced by fences (interior and exterior) that hold the charcoals. The charcoal is then sprayed with water to facilitate the evaporation process [73]. Ronoh, Kanali, and Ndirangu [74] found that a charcoal evaporative cooler had a cooling efficiency of 91.5% during the postharvest storage of tomatoes and kale in Kenya. The temperature and relative humidity differences between the evaporator and the external environment were 9.2 °C and 36.8%, respectively. Similarly, Shitanda, Oluoch, and Pascall [75] observed a temperature and relative humidity difference of about 11 °C and 38%, respectively, between a 27 m3 volumetric capacity and 100 mm wall-thickness charcoal cooler and its surroundings.

3.1.4. Transportation

The shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables is significantly influenced by transportation conditions. These include the processes of loading and unloading, the storage environment in the transportation vehicle, and most importantly, the temperature throughout the journey.
To prevent mechanical damage, products should be loaded and unloaded with care. In addition, overloading must be avoided as it causes excessive compression on the products at the bottom, causing deformation and heat accumulation, ultimately resulting in a significant loss [76]. Furthermore, to prevent product movement, it is essential to use proper packaging, such as crates with linear, straw, or foam-padded interiors, as well as smaller packages. The incorporation of these soft materials (banana leaves, burlap, foam, liner, straw, and wood wool) in crates and boxes would cushion shocks during transport and thus minimize mechanical damage, despite the poor condition of the roads. A study conducted by Idah, Ajisegiri, and Yisa [77] demonstrated the effects of simulating tomato damage by dropping them onto various surfaces, such as cardboard, foam, metal, plastic, and wood. The results indicated that tomatoes dropped on foam experienced the smallest degree of damage compared to the other surface conditions. In addition, an experiment in India used reusable and locally manufactured corrugated cardboard liners to transport guavas. The findings revealed that the use of these liners helped to prevent bruising, while 12.5% of products transported in crates without liners were bruised [58]. Bruising causes enzymatic breakdown in the affected areas of fruit, particularly the cell walls. This leads to softened spots on the fruit’s surface, discoloration, and moisture loss. These changes accelerate the quality deterioration of the fruit, thereby reducing its shelf life. This highlights the importance of using cushioning and softer materials during transportation and handling to mitigate mechanical damage [78]. Furthermore, products must be covered if transported using open carts, tricycles, or by humans on their heads or backs, as is common in some developing countries, to avoid sun exposure and contamination. An often overlooked but critical aspect of transportation is the disinfection of transportation equipment. To avoid microbial contamination, which can cause spoilage and foodborne illnesses, the vehicle, containers, and any other objects used to transport the fresh product must be cleaned and disinfected on a regular basis. This includes using food-safe disinfectants to clean any surfaces that come into contact with the product. Furthermore, regular monitoring during transportation should be performed to ensure that the conditions remain within the optimal range, preserving the product’s quality and extending its shelf life [79].

3.2. Approaches and Technology at the Retail Level

The technologies and approaches discussed in this section are primarily aimed at reducing fruit and vegetable waste in developed countries.
At this stage of the food chain, the key factors for minimizing postharvest waste and prolonging the commercial shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables are primarily the storage conditions and the type of packaging employed. Effective storage involves maintaining the product at the ideal temperature and using proper packaging to slow down respiration, ripening, and microbial growth. Fruits and vegetables exhibit different physiological and morphological characteristics [29]. Special attention should be given to their storage, as they necessitate specific temperatures to maintain their freshness. For instance, leafy vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, root and tuber vegetables, and cruciferous vegetables can be stored above 0 °C, whereas cold-sensitive fruits and vegetables, such as tomatoes, bananas, eggplants, and cucumbers, have an optimal storage temperature range of 12 to 17 °C [80]. Therefore, each product should be stored at its optimal temperature and relative humidity in suitable refrigerated display cases. In addition, storage in display cases can be combined with modified atmospheric packaging to extend the shelf life significantly. Effective packaging is crucial for minimizing both bruising and moisture loss [28]. In this instance, retailers might prioritize the packaging of products in small quantities to enable consumers to make purchases that align with their requirements. This could potentially reduce waste by preventing the product from being stored for an extended period in both the store and with the consumer. Nevertheless, plastic packaging has detrimental effects on the environment; thus, it would be highly advantageous to explore the use of renewable packaging. Some reusable packaging materials include elements with antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, which help extend the shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables [81,82,83].
Sensors can also be placed on product packaging or inserted into refrigerated display cases making them smart [84]. Sensors are chemical or biological receptors designed to detect a specific analyte. They include a physical transducer that converts the detection process into a measurable signal, generating a quantitative and/or qualitative outcome [85]. Biosensors utilize biomolecules, such as antibodies, aptamers, enzymes, and phages, to recognize targets. The biomolecules are combined with the physical transducer to improve selectivity for the target analyte [86]. Thus, smart packaging or smart refrigerators can assess the overall state of fruits and vegetables. In this regard, a fruit ripeness sensor (ripeSenseTM) has been developed (Figure 5). This device employs a sensor label that responds to the aromas released by fruits during ripening [84]. Initially red, the sensor transitions to orange and eventually yellow. This could serve as an indicator for both retailers and consumers. By viewing the color of the sensor, retailers can have an idea about the maturity of the product and receive an estimation of the storage period, and consumers could choose packaged fruit that is at their preferred ripeness.
Moreover, 1-MCP treatment could be considered for prolonging the shelf life of fresh products in stores. 1-MCP is an ethylene antagonist, which reduces ethylene production and subsequent maturation [87]. According to Wang et al. [88], 1-MCP has shown a positive effect of slowing the softening of Huanghua pears and plums, as well as lowering the respiratory rate and weight loss of Anxi persimmons. Products could be treated with 1-MCP prior to packaging. By combining the benefits of 1-MCP and packaging for storing fruits and vegetables, resellers will be able to keep products for longer periods of time than if 1-MCP or packaging were used alone. For retailers, an ethylene absorption sachet could be a good alternative to slow down the maturation of fresh crops. This product was used by Amarante and Steffeus [89]. They noticed that one or two ethylene absorption sachets in 18 kg fruit packed in standard carton boxes reduced ethylene levels inside the package during storage at both refrigeration and room temperatures. By implementing these strategies, retailers can reduce waste while also benefiting financially from their investment.
Furthermore, with the advancement of new technologies and artificial intelligence (AI), humans are surrounded by highly intelligent systems capable of communicating with them and offering a variety of assistance in their daily lives. Artificial intelligence includes the replication of human cognitive functions, including learning and reasoning [90]. It integrates technologies, such as deep learning, machine learning, image recognition, and natural language processing [91], which have the potential to have a positive impact on the reduction in food waste [92]. Employees, for example, can scan products to access information about their maturity, quality, and shelf life by integrating an image identification system application on a smartphone. This information will allow the rapid identification of products that must be removed from the shelves and know which ones must be sold as a priority, thus reducing waste. As the mobile phone has become one of the most important portable devices in daily life, several studies have focused on detecting the quality of fruits and vegetables using smartphone images. Li et al. [93] used the colorpicker app available on Google Play to assess the quality of kiwifruit during cold storage by extracting RGB values. Intaravanne, Sumriddetchkajorn, and Nukeaw [94] also developed a cellphone-based 2D sensor that can classify areas of an entire banana as immature, ripe, or overripe. In addition, Tata et al. [95] developed an Android app that allows you to assess the quality of fruits and vegetables by examining an image (Table 2). The system assesses quality based on color, shape, and the histogram of oriented gradients (HOGs). These methods enable retailers to quickly assess the quality and shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables. An integration of biological sensors and artificial intelligence may result in a more accurate assessment of fruit and vegetable quality, resulting in less wastage.

3.3. Approaches and Technology at the Consumer Level

Consumer behavior during the purchase and handling of produce, along with insufficient cold storage practices at home, have been identified as factors contributing to fruit and vegetable waste.
Reducing the amount of wasted fruits and vegetables by consumers is essential, as it not only contributes to food security and sustainability, but also has a positive impact on household economy. The reduction is contingent upon the purchasing habits of consumers and the management of stocks and storage temperature. Prior to shopping, it is important to establish an accurate list of essential items to circumvent over-purchasing [15]. In addition, consumers can select fruits at different stages of maturity, allowing the ripest fruits to be consumed first and preventing all products from ripening at the same time. They can also use mobile apps, such as Yuka and Fruit ShelfLife, to assess fruit quality, maturity stage, and shelf life (Table 2). According to a study, consumers tend to spend too much time at the store or on other errands after purchasing fresh produce, resulting in an increase in the temperature of products requiring refrigeration [37]. In view of this, it is suggested that consumers buy fruits and vegetables at the end of their shopping. This practice helps to minimize temperature increases and reduces the mechanical pressure from other products.
In addition, to overcome temperature deviation during the purchase and the transport of fresh fruits and vegetables from the supermarket to home, consumers can use insulated bags. These bags help keep the produce at a convenient temperature until they reach home. A study conducted by Aramyan et al. [104] demonstrated that insulated bags can effectively delay the increase in air and pulp temperature by approximately 20% and 10%, respectively, over a period of 3 h compared to plastic bags. Furthermore, online shopping and home delivery services are viable alternatives. Consumers might be encouraged to use these services, as a study has shown that delivery services typically keep the product at a suitable temperature, ensuring the freshness and quality of the produce upon arrival [105].
Moreover, customers should be encouraged to consume more fruits and vegetables. Mobile apps can help raise consciousness (Table 2) and reduce food waste. These apps can provide practical advice on how to store produce, recipes for using fruits and vegetables to their full potential, and nutritional information. Promoting such practices will not only reduce fruit and vegetable waste, but also improves consumer health and protects the environment.
It is common for households in developed countries to have at least one traditional refrigerator, with the freezer compartment operating at a temperature ranging from −15 °C to −23 °C and the fresh food compartment maintained between −1 °C and 7 °C [106,107]. Porat et al. [6] reported that these temperatures are not suitable for preserving cold-sensitive fruit, which require optimal storage conditions of 10–12 °C [108]. The adoption of “pot-in-pot” evaporative cooling technologies in households could also serve as an alternative for preserving fruits and vegetables, particularly those sensitive to cold. It may also be possible to combine modified atmosphere packaging with pot-in-pot evaporation cooling. In addition to temperature control, consumers should segregate climacteric fruits (apple, apricot, avocado, banana, kiwi, tomato, and so on) from non-climacteric fruits, such as cherry, clementine mandarin, cucumber, orange, and watermelon, during storage. This is because climacteric fruit continue to release ethylene during storage, which can hasten the ripening and deterioration of non-climacteric fruits, ultimately diminishing their shelf life [109,110]. Given the progress in technology, the high living standards in developed nations, and the widespread access to electricity, an intelligent refrigeration system or refrigerator with multiple compartments and an intermediate temperature ranging from 10 °C to 15 °C may be a more effective solution to extend the shelf life of crops and reduce waste.
Smart or intelligent refrigerators are technologically advanced appliances based on the internet of things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI). They are designed to identify interior items and track packaged items with details such as the expiration date, freshness, and instructions for use through radio-frequency identification (RFID) and barcode scanning, send notifications, evaluate food quantity, and create a shopping list [111,112]. Among engineered smart refrigerators (Table 3), there are the Samsung Family Hub refrigerator [97] (Figure 6a), LG instaView smart refrigerator, Electrolux MMS fridge [96], and ifridge developed by Xie et al. [113]. These devices are typically connected to smartphones via specific applications such as SmartThing Classic and SmartThinQ for Samsung and LG smart refrigerators, respectively (Table 2). The smart refrigerators include a variety of smart food management features with integrated cameras that allow the user to see the inside of the refrigerator without opening it from anywhere using the designed app on their phone (Figure 6b). The functions are also accessible through the touch-screen located on the refrigerator door (Figure 6c). The user can also add product expiration dates to receive alerts over time. The system analyzed and processed the collected data before informing consumers via SMS or email about the length of time some items have been stored in the refrigerator [114]. Some smart refrigerators, such as Electrolux TasteLock, are equipped with a smart crisper that can block dry air and remove excess humidity. This feature helps to prevent deterioration, mold, and the shriveling of products [115]. These refrigerators are a promising waste-prevention devices.
However, smart refrigerators currently available on the market are expensive, making them unaffordable for people with average incomes. Researchers investigated the issue and proposed alternatives. Knowing that, in developed countries, each household has at least one conventional refrigerator, they opted to convert traditional refrigerators into smart refrigerators. Researchers have developed a smart camera (smarter FridgeCam) that can be deployed in any refrigerator (Figure 7a). It takes a photo of the interior of the fridge every time the door is opened and closed. The image is sent to the user via the smarter FridgeCam mobile application called “Smarter app” (Figure 7b) [98]. The camera is equipped with a tool that monitors the expiration date and shelf life of products. The camera is equipped with a tool for tracking product shelf life and expiration dates. As the expiry date approaches, the user receives a notification. The application can also generate a shopping list based on the products in the refrigerator, thereby preventing the consumer from manually compiling a list.
In addition, Fujiwara et al. [97] designed an intelligent fridge for foodstuff management with a weight sensor and voice interface. The weight sensor possesses the capability to assist the consumer in documenting product information. Afterward, the system records the name and weight of every food item in a database. The device’s voice interface also enables the user to communicate directly with it. Sandholm et al. [120] proposed a CloudFridge testbed that can be implemented in standard refrigerators to provide smart functionality. The CloudFridge employs sensors and applications to coordinate and provide item recognition, as well as track item removals by automatically detecting their position in the refrigerator.
Smart refrigerators simplify food management and are ideal for food inventory management. They assist users in keeping a regular inventory, preventing unnecessary food purchases, and overstocking the fridge. This will undoubtedly promote household waste reduction.

4. Conclusions and Perspectives

The effort to fight loss and waste necessitates the involvement of everyone, ranging from the scientific community to the consumer, including farmers and retailers. Efficiently minimizing losses and waste will enhance the revenue of farmers and retailers, promote the well-being of consumers, and preserve our planet.
This review provides a thorough analysis of the main causes contributing to the loss of fresh fruits and vegetables in developing nations, as well as the predominant sources of waste in developed countries. Based on this, solutions adapted to local contexts were suggested, such as fruit and vegetable storage employing evaporative cooling systems in developing countries and the use of smart refrigerators and smart food packaging in developed countries. By considering these approaches, it is possible to efficiently reduce fruit and vegetable waste and loss. The approaches must be duly considered and executed by the relevant actors. The various technologies necessitate the attention of scientists for improvement, as well as the support of governments, potential investors, and extension services for research funding and technology popularization.
However, the adoption of the proposed solutions will vary among individuals, organizations, and countries. It raises the question of which strategies could be utilized to enhance awareness and encourage consumers to reduce waste if the suggested solutions are not adopted. In addition, what are the main barriers to adopting these technologies and how can they be overcome? And, how do smart packaging and refrigerators affect consumer purchasing and consumption behaviors? Finally, how can evaporative cooling technologies be improved to better meet the needs of developing-country consumers?
By responding to these inquiries, future research can more effectively comprehend and advance the innovations required to mitigate food loss and waste while also considering consumer behaviors and eating habits.

Author Contributions

A.D.-S. Designed the study, reviewed the manuscript, and supervised the work. M.H.B.G. reviewed the literature, designed the figures, and drafted the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bancal, V.; Ray, R.C. Fruits and Vegetable Wastes Valorization to Bioproducts and Platform Chemicals; Springer: Gateway East, TX, USA; Singapore, 2023; ISBN 9789811695278. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zaman, R.; Nawaz, R.; Nasreen, R.; Fatima, N.; Siddique, R. Postharvest Management and Chemical Treatments for Apricot Preservation in Pakistan. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev. 2024, 4, 1116–1131. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jain, S.; Nidhi, N.; Ausari, P.K.; Sangam; Das, P.; Singh, A.; Kumar, L.; Sharma, R. A Comprehensive Review on Nature and Causes of Deterioration in Fruits and Vegetables. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 3548–3558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Singh, V.; Zaman, P.; Meher, J. Review Article Jpht Postharvest Technology of Fruits and Vegetables: An Overview. J. Postharvest Technol. 2015, 2, 124–135. [Google Scholar]
  5. Laurentiis, V.D.; Corrado, S.; Sala, S. Quantifying Household Waste of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables in the EU. Waste Manag. 2018, 77, 238–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Porat, R.; Lichter, A.; Terry, L.A.; Harker, R.; Buzby, J. Postharvest Losses of Fruit and Vegetables during Retail and in Consumers’ Homes: Quantifications, Causes, and Means of Prevention. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 139, 135–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cicatiello, C.; Franco, S.; Pancino, B.; Blasi, E.; Falasconi, L. The Dark Side of Retail Food Waste: Evidences from in-Store Data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Balana, B.B.; Aghadi, C.N.; Ogunniyi, A. Improving Livelihoods through Postharvest Loss Management: Evidence from Nigeria. Food Secur. 2022, 14, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Stathers, T.; Holcroft, D.; Kitinoja, L.; Mvumi, B.M.; English, A.; Omotilewa, O.; Kocher, M.; Ault, J.; Torero, M. A Scoping Review of Interventions for Crop Postharvest Loss Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 821–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Faqeerzada, M.A.; Rahman, A.; Joshi, R.; Cho, B. Postharvest Technologies for Fruits and Vegetables in South Asian Countries: A Review. Korean J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 45, 325–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sugri, I.; Abubakari, M.; Owusu, R.K.; Bidzakin, J.K. Postharvest Losses and Mitigating Technologies: Evidence from Upper East Region of Ghana. Sustain. Futures 2021, 3, 100048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gosa, A.S.; Aga, M.C.; Geleta, R.J. Assessment of Postharvest Losses of Fruits in West Shewa Zone Assessment of Postharvest Losses of Fruits in West Shewa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. J. Plant Sci. 2022, 10, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Musasa, S.T.; Mvumi, B.M.; Manditsera, F.A.; Chinhanga, J.; Musiyandaka, S.; Chigwedere, C. Postharvest Orange Losses and Small-Scale Farmers’ Perceptions on the Loss Causes in the Fruit Value Chain: A Case Study of Rusitu Valley, Zimbabwe. Food Sci. Qual. Manag. 2013, 18, 2224–6088. [Google Scholar]
  14. Elik, A.; Yanik, D.K.; Istanbullu, Y.; Guzelsoy, N.A.; Yavuz, A.; Gogus, F. Strategies to Reduce Post-Harvest Losses for Fruits and Vegetables. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 5, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Buzby, J.C.; Hyman, J.; Stewart, H.; Wells, H.F. The Value of Retail- and Consumer-Level Fruit and Vegetable Losses in the United States. J. Consum. Aff. 2011, 45, 492–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mattsson, L.; Williams, H.; Berghel, J. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Waste of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables at Retailers in Sweden—Measuring and Calculation of Mass, Economic Cost and Climate Impact. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 130, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lebersorger, S.; Schneider, F. Food Loss Rates at the Food Retail, Influencing Factors and Reasons as a Basis for Waste Prevention Measures. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1911–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Scholz, K.; Eriksson, M.; Strid, I. Resources, Conservation and Recycling Carbon Footprint of Supermarket Food Waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 94, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mutungi, C.; Manda, J.; Feleke, S.; Abass, A.; Bekunda, M.; Hoschle-Zeledon, I.; Fischer, G. Adoption and Impacts of Improved Post-Harvest Technologies on Food Security and Welfare of Maize-Farming Households in Tanzania: A Comparative Assessment. Food Secur. 2023, 15, 1007–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wike, N.Y.; Olaniyan, O.T.; Adetunji, C.O.; Adetunji, J.B.; Gloria, O.; Dauda, W.P.; Ogundolie, F.A. Key Contributors to Postharvest Losses and the Scale of the Problem. In Evaporative Coolers for the Postharvest Management of Fruits and Vegetables; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 1–15. ISBN 9780323898645. [Google Scholar]
  21. GC, A.; Ghimire, K. Estimating Postharvest Loss at the Farm Level to Enhance Food Security: A Case of Nepal. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci. 2019, 3, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ambler, K.; Brauw, A.D.; Godlonton, S. Measuring Postharvest Losses at the Farm Level in Malawi. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2017, 60, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kitinoja, L.; AlHassan, H.Y. Identification of Appropriate Postharvest Technologies for Small Scale Horticultural Farmers and Marketers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia—Part 1. Postharvest Losses and Quality Assessments. Acta Hortic. 2012, 934, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kyriacou, M.C.; Rouphael, Y. Towards a New Definition of Quality for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 234, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rajapaksha, L.; Gunathilake, D.C.; Pathirana, S.; Fernando, T. Reducing Post-Harvest Losses in Fruits and Vegetables for Ensuring Food Security—Case of Sri Lanka. MOJ Food Process. Technol. 2021, 9, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sipho, S.; Tilahun, S.W. Potential Causes of Postharvest Losses, Low-Cost Cooling Technology for Fresh Produce Farmers in Sub-Sahara Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 16, 553–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Joardder, M.U.H. Food Preservation in Developing Countries: Challenges and Solutions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; ISBN 9783030115296. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ludwig-ohm, S.; Dirksmeyer, W.; Klockgether, K. Approaches to Reduce Food Losses in German Fruit and Vegetable Production. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ramírez, J.A.; Castañón-rodríguez, J.F.; Uresti-marín, R.M. An Exploratory Study of Possible Food Waste Risks in Supermarket Fruit and Vegetable Sections. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 2061, 967–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mattsson, L.; Williams, H. Avoidance of Supermarket Food Waste-Employees’ Perspective on Causes and Measures to Reduce Fruit and Vegetables Waste. Sustainability 2022, 14, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aschemann-witzel, J.; Hooge, I.D.; Normann, A. Consumer-Related Food Waste: Role of Food Marketing and Retailers and Potential for Action. J. Int. Food Mark. 2016, 28, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Aldous, E.D.; Geeoffrey, D.R. Horticulture: Plants for People and Places; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Heidelberg, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2014; ISBN 9789401785778. [Google Scholar]
  33. Gunders, D. Wasted: How America Is Losing up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. Natural Resources Defense Council: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. van der Vossen-Wijmenga, W.P.; den Besten, H.M.W.; Zwietering, M.H. Temperature Status of Domestic Refrigerators and Its Effect on the Risk of Listeriosis from Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Cooked Meat Products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2024, 413, 110516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marklinder, I.M.; Lindblad, M.; Eriksson, L.M.; Finnson, A.M.; Lindqvist, R. Home Storage Temperatures and Consumer Handling of Refrigerated Foods in Sweden. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 2570–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Managa, M.G.; Tinyani, P.P.; Senyolo, G.M.; Soundy, P.; Sultanbawa, Y.; Sivakumar, D. Impact of Transportation, Storage, and Retail Shelf Conditions on Lettuce Quality and Phytonutrients Losses in the Supply Chain. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 1527–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Godwin, S.L.; Coppings, R.J. Analysis of Consumer Food-Handling Practice from Grocer to Home Including Transport and Storage of Selected Foods. Res. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2015, 18, 55–62. [Google Scholar]
  38. Agüero, M.V.; Ponce, A.G.; Moreira, M.R.; Roura, S.I. Postharvest Biology and Technology Lettuce Quality Loss under Conditions That Favor the Wilting Phenomenon. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 59, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kailasapathy, K.; Koneshan, T. Effect of Wilting on the Ascorbate Content of Selected Fresh Green Leafy Vegetables Consumed in Sri Lanka. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1986, 34, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zárate-Carbajal, A.; Lagarda-Clark, E.; Mikhaylin, S.; Duarte-Sierra, A. Untargeted Metabolomic Analysis of Strawberries Exposed to Pulsed Electric Fields and Cold Plasma before Postharvest Storage. Future Foods 2024, 9, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, F.; Mi, S.; Chitrakar, B.; Li, J.; Wang, X. Effect of Cold Shock Pretreatment Combined with Perforation-Mediated Passive Modified Atmosphere Packaging on Storage Quality of Cucumbers. Foods 2022, 11, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kahramanoǧlu, I.; Usanmaz, S. Improving Postharvest Storage Quality of Cucumber Fruit by Modified Atmosphere Packaging and Biomaterials. HortScience 2019, 54, 2005–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ma, L.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Gao, Z. Recent Developments in Novel Shelf Life Extension Technologies of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 64, ISBN 5108580797. [Google Scholar]
  44. Barth, M.; Hankinson, T.R.; Zhuang, H.; Breidt, F. Microbiological Spoilage of Fruits and Vegetables. In Compendium of the Microbiological Spoilage of Foods and Beverages; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 9781441908261. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wakholi, C.; Cho, B.-K.; Mo, C.; Kim, M.S. Current State of Postharvest Fruit and Vegetable Management in East Africa. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2015, 40, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. MI, G.; JA, T.; Martinez-Sanchez, A.; MC, L. Harvest Maturity Indicators of Leafy Vegetables. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2012, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Karagiannis, E. Postharvest Physiology of Climacteric and Nonclimacteric Fruits and Vegetables. In Oxygen, Nitrogen and Sulfur Species in Post-Harvest Physiology of Horticultural Crops; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 1–21. ISBN 9780323917988. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lagarda-Clark, E.A.; Goulet, C.; Duarte-Sierra, A. Biochemical Dynamics during Postharvest: Highlighting the Interplay of Stress during Storage and Maturation of Fresh Produce. Biomol. Concepts 2024, 15, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Prasad, K.; Jacob, S.; Siddiqui, M.W. Fruit Maturity, Harvesting, and Quality Standards. In Preharvest Modulation of Postharvest Fruit and Vegetable Quality; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 41–69. ISBN 9780128098073. [Google Scholar]
  50. Okiror, P.; Balitta, P.; Agea, J.G.; Ocan, J.J.; Lejju, J.B.; Bahati, J.; Rugunda, G.K.; Sebuuwufu, C.I. Local Knowledge of Maturity Indicators for Priority Fruits and Vegetables in Uganda. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. 2017, 9, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Premarathne, R.; Marapana, R.; Perera, P.R.D. Determination of Physiochemical Characteristics and Antioxidant Properties of Selected Climacteric and Non—Climacteric Fruits. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2021, 10, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ahmed, O.K.; El Tayeb Ahmed, S. Determination of Optimum Maturity Index of Mango Fruits (Mangifera indica, L.) in Darfur. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2014, 5, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Irtwange, S. V Maturity, Quality and Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR Ejournal 2015, 8, 7. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lado, J.; Rodrigo, M.J.; Zacarías, L. Maturity Indicators and Citrus Fruit Quality. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2014, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kumar, S.; Singh, R.P.; Rizwanullah, M.; Kumar, P. Different Maturity Indices of Fruits and Vegetables Crops. In Current trends in Horticulture; Biotech books: New Delhi, India, 2023; pp. 101–118. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jain, S.; Y, G.; Rathod, M.; Thakur, A. Measurement of Maturity Indices for Fruits and Vegetables. In Modern Aspects of Horticulture; Golden Leaf Publishers: Lucknow, India, 2023; ISBN 9788119906321. [Google Scholar]
  57. Gast, K.L.B. Postharvest Management of Commercial Horticultural Crops: Harvest Maturity Indicators for Fruits and VegetablesKansas State University; Reasech Gate: Berlin, Germany, 1994; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  58. Saran, S.; Roy, S.K.; Kitinoja, L. Appropriate Postharvest Technologies for Small Scale Horticultural Farmers and Marketers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Acta Hortic. 2012, 934, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Amwoka, E.M.; Ambuko, J.L.; Jesang, H.M.; Owino, W.O. Effectiveness of Selected Cold Chain Management Practices to Extend Shelf Life of Mango Fruit. Adv. Agric. 2021, 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chepngeno, J.; Owino, W.; Kinyuru, J.; Nenguwo, N. Effect of Calcium Chloride and Hydrocooling on Postharvest Quality of Selected Vegetables. J. Food Res. 2016, 5, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oliveira, E.D.; Sena, A.; Silas, P.; Grazielle, H.; De Araujo, S.; Crystiane, M.; Batista, D.A.; Nogueira, P.; Alonso, S.; Fernando, L.; et al. Postharvest Biology and Technology Postharvest Quality of Cashew Apple after Hydrocooling and Coold Room. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2019, 155, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. França, C.F.M.; Ribeiro, W.S.; Silva, F.C.; Costa, L.C.; Rêgo, E.R.; Finger, F.L. Hydrocooling on Postharvest Conservation of Butter Lettuce. Hortic. Bras. 2015, 33, 383–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. DeEll, J.R.; Vigneault, C.; Lemerre, S. Water Temperature for Hydrocooling Field Cucumbers in Relation to Chilling Injury during Storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2000, 18, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vigneault, C.; Bartz, J.A.; Sargent, S.A. Postharvest Decay Risk Associated with Hydrocooling Tomatoes. Plant Dis. 2000, 84, 1314–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Singh, S. Preservation Technologies for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2011, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tolesa, G.N.; Workneh, T.S. Influence of Storage Environment, Maturity Stage and Pre-Storage Disinfection Treatments on Tomato Fruit Quality during Winter in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 3230–3242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xuan, Y.M.; Xiao, F.; Niu, X.F.; Huang, X.; Wang, S.W. Research and Application of Evaporative Cooling in China: A Review (I)–Research. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3535–3546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ndukwu, M.C.; Manuwa, S.I.; Olukunle, J.; Oluwalana, I.B. Analyses of Some Local Material as a Possible Cooling Pad in Active Evaporative Cooling System. Balk. Agric. Eng. Rev. 2013, 18, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  69. Olosunde, W.A.; Aremu, A.K.; Onwude, D.I. Development of a Solar Powered Evaporative Cooling Storage System for Tropical Fruits and Vegetables. Food Process. Preserv. 2015, 40, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kaur, J.; Aslam, R.; Saeed, P.A. Storage Structures for Horticultural Crops: A Review. Environ. Conserv. J. 2021, 22, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Basediya, A.L.; Beera, V. Evaporative Cooling System for Storage of Fruits and Vegetables—A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ishaque, F.; Hossain, A.; Sarker, A.R.; Rahman, H. A Study on Low Cost Post Harvest Storage Techniques to Extend the Shelf Life of Citrus Fruits and Vegetables. J. Eng. Reasearch Rep. 2019, 9, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Defraeye, T.; Schudel, S.; Shrivastava, C.; Motmans, T.; Umani, K.; Crenna, E.; Shoji, K.; Onwude, D. The Charcoal Cooling Blanket: A Scalable, Simple, Self-Supporting Evaporative Cooling Device for Preserving Fresh Foods. Biosyst. Eng. 2024, 238, 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ronoh, E.K.; Kanali, C.L.; Ndirangu, S.N. Effectiveness of an Evaporative Charcoal Cooler for the Postharvest Preservation of Tomatoes and Kales. Res. Agric. Eng. 2020, 66, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Shitanda, D.; Oluoch, O.K.; Pascall, A.M. Performance Evaluation of a Medium Size Charcoal Cooler Installed in the Field for Temporary Storage of Horticultural Produce. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR JournalCIGR J. 2015, 13, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  76. Cherono, K.; Workneh, T.S. A Review of the Role of Transportation on the Quality Changes of Fresh Tomatoes and Their Management in South Africa and Other Emerging Markets. Int. Food Res. J. 2018, 25, 2211–2228. [Google Scholar]
  77. Idah, P.A.; Ajisegiri, E.S.A.; Yisa, M.G. An Assessment of Impact Damage to Fresh Tomato Fruits. Aust. J. Technol. 2007, 10, 271–275. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mutari, A.; Debbie, R. The Effects of Postharvest Handling and Storage Temperature on the Quality and Shelf of Tomato. Afr. J. Food Sci. 2015, 5, 446–452. [Google Scholar]
  79. Negi, S. Factors Impacting the Quality of Fresh Produce in Transportation and Their Mitigation Strategies: Empirical Evidence from a Developing Economy. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 11, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Holsteijn, F.V.; Kemna, R. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Minimizing Food Waste by Improving Storage Conditions in Household Refrigeration. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 128, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lai, W. Design of Polymeric Films for Antioxidant Active Food Packaging. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 6295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, Y.; Wang, B.; Lu, F.; Wang, L.; Ding, Y.; Kang, X. Plant-Derived Antioxidants Incorporated into Active Packaging Intended for Vegetables and Fatty Animal Products: A Review. In Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A; Francis, T., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2021; Volume 38, pp. 1237–1248. [Google Scholar]
  83. Motelica, L.; Ficai, D.; Ficai, A.; Oprea, O.C.; Andronescu, E. Biodegradable Antimicrobial Food Packaging: Trends and Perspectives. Foods 2020, 9, 1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kuswandi, B.; Wicaksono, Y.; Jayus; Abdullah, A.; Heng, L.Y.; Ahmad, M. Smart Packaging: Sensors for Monitoring of Food Quality and Safety. Sens. Instrum. Food Qual. Saf. 2011, 5, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mustafa, F.; Andreescu, S. Chemical and Biological Sensors for Food-Quality Monitoring and Smart Packaging. Foods 2018, 7, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Bahadir, E.B.; Sezgintürk, M.K. Applications of Commercial Biosensors in Clinical, Food, Environmental, and Biothreat/Biowarfare Analyses. Anal. Biochem. 2015, 478, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Watkins, C.B. The Use of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) on Fruits and Vegetables. Biotechnol. Adv. 2006, 24, 389–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Wang, H.; Chen, G.; Shi, L.; Lin, H.; Chen, Y.; Lin, Y.; Fan, Z. Influences of 1-Methylcyclopropene-Containing Papers on the Metabolisms of Membrane Lipids in Anxi Persimmons during Storage. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Amarante, C.V.T.D.; Steffens, C.A. Ethylene Absorption Sachets in Postharvest of “Royal Gala” Apples. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2009, 31, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Irfan, D.; Tang, X.; Narayan, V.; Mall, P.K.; Srivastava, S.; Saravanan, V. Prediction of Quality Food Sale in Mart Using the AI-Based TOR Method. J. Food Qual. 2022, 2022, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sundaram, S.; Zeid, A. Artificial Intelligence-Based Smart Quality Inspection for Manufacturing. Micromachines 2023, 14, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Onyeaka, H.; Tamasiga, P.; Nwauzoma, U.M.; Miri, T.; Juliet, U.C.; Nwaiwu, O.; Akinsemolu, A.A. Using Artificial Intelligence to Tackle Food Waste and Enhance the Circular Economy: Maximising Resource Efficiency and Minimising Environmental Impact: A Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Li, H.; Lv, S.; Feng, L.; Peng, P.; Hu, L.; Liu, Z.; Hati, S.; Bimal, C.; Mo, H. Smartphone-Based Image Analysis for Rapid Evaluation of Kiwifruit Quality during Cold Storage. Foods 2022, 11, 2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Intaravanne, Y.; Sumriddetchkajorn, S.; Nukeaw, J. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical Cell Phone-Based Two-Dimensional Spectral Analysis for Banana Ripeness Estimation. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2012, 168, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tata, J.S.; Kalidindi, N.K.V.; Katherapaka, H.; Julakal, S.K.; Banothu, M. Real-Time Quality Assurance of Fruits and Vegetables with Artificial Intelligence. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2325, 012055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jain, P.; Chawla, P. Smart Module Design for Refrigerators Based on Inception-V3 CNN Architecture. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Electronics and Sustainable Communication Systems, ICESC 2021, Coimbatore, India, 4–6 August 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 1852–1859. [Google Scholar]
  97. Fujiwara, M.; Moriya, K.; Sasaki, W.; Fujimoto, M.; Arakawa, Y.; Yasumoto, K. A Smart Fridge for Efficient Foodstuff Management with Weight Sensor and Voice Interface. In Proceedings of the 47th International Conference on Parallel Processing, ICPP 2018, Eugene, OR, USA, 13–16 August 2018. [Google Scholar]
  98. Lau Yuet Ning, C. Ambient-Aware Food Recognition and Management in Context of Smart Fridge; Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman Kampar: Perak, Malaysia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  99. Bhole, V.Y.; Kumar, A. Flutter-Based Real-Time Mobile App for Fruit Shelf-Life Prediction (FSP) Using Multi-Modality Imaging. Int. J. Inf. Retr. Res. 2022, 12, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sgroi, F. Digital Technologies to Remove the Information Asymmetry in the Food Market. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023, 5, 100326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Hendrie, G.A.; James-Martin, G.; Williams, G.; Brindal, E.; Whyte, B.; Crook, A. The Development of VegEze: Smartphone App to Increase Vegetable Consumption in Australian Adults. JMIR Form. Res. 2019, 3, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Appleton, K.M.; Passmore, D.; Burn, I.; Pidgeon, H.; Nation, P.; Boobyer, C.; Jiang, N. An Interactive Mobile Phone App (SMART 5-A-DAY) for Increasing Knowledge of and Adherence to Fruit and Vegetable Recommendations: Development and Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e14380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Vepsäläinen, H.; Skaffari, E.; Wojtkowska, K.; Barliska, J.; Kinnunen, S.; Makkonen, R.; Heikkilä, M.; Lehtovirta, M.; Ray, C.; Suhonen, E.; et al. A Mobile App to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Acceptance among Finnish and Polish Preschoolers: Randomized Trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Chaiwong, S.; Bishop, C.F.H. Use of an Insulated Bag from the Supermarket to Maintain “Elsanta” Strawberry Temperature to Households. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1079, 187–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Aramyan, L.; Grainger, M.; Logatcheva, K.; Piras, S.; Setti, M.; Stewart, G.; Vittuari, M. Food Waste Reduction in Supply Chains through Innovations: A Review. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2021, 25, 475–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Choi, S.; Han, U.; Cho, H.; Lee, H. Review: Recent Advances in Household Refrigerator Cycle Technologies. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 132, 560–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. James, C.; Onarinde, B.A.; James, S.J. The Use and Performance of Household Refrigerators: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 160–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Nunes, M.C.N.; Pierre, J.; Rauth, M.; Dea, S.; Chau, K. V Postharvest Biology and Technology Environmental Conditions Encountered during Typical Consumer Retail Display Affect Fruit and Vegetable Quality and Waste. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 51, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chen, Y.; Grimplet, J.; David, K.; Castellarin, S.D.; Terol, J.; Wong, D.C.J.; Luo, Z.; Schaffer, R.; Celton, J.M.; Talon, M.; et al. Ethylene Receptors and Related Proteins in Climacteric and Non-Climacteric Fruits. Plant Sci. 2018, 276, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Paul, V.; Pandey, R.; Srivastava, G.C. The Fading Distinctions between Classical Patterns of Ripening in Climacteric and Non-Climacteric Fruit and the Ubiquity of Ethylene-An Overview. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Floarea, A.-D.; Sgârciu, V. Smart Refrigerator Comparison. Proceedings of 2016 8th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Ploiesti, Romania, 30 June–2 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  112. Prapulla, S.B.; Shobha, G.; Thanuja, T.C. Smart Refrigerator Using Internet of Things. J. Multidiscip. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2015, 2, 1795–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Xie, L.; Sheng, B.; Yin, Y.; Lu, S.; Lu, X. IFridge: An Intelligent Fridge for Food Management Based on RFID Technology. In Proceedings of the UbiComp’13, Zurich, Switzerland, 8–12 September 2013; pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  114. Nasir, H.; Aziz, W.B.W.; Ali, F.; Kadir, K.; Khan, S. The Implementation of IoT Based Smart Refrigerator System. In Proceedings of the 2018 2nd International Conference on Smart Sensors and Application, ICSSA 2018, Kuching, Malaysia, 24–26 July 2018; pp. 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Electrolux. Electrolux Refrigerators. Available online: https://www.electrolux.ca/en/Kitchen-Appliances/Refrigerators/French-Door-Refrigerators/ERMC2295AS/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  116. Samsung. Samsung Family Hub Smart Refrigerator. Available online: https://www.samsung.com/us/explore/family-hub-refrigerator/overview/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  117. LG. LG InstaView Door-in-Door. Available online: https://www.lg.com/ca_en/refrigerators/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  118. GE. Appliance GE Profile Refrigerator. Available online: https://www.geappliances.com/profile-refrigerators/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  119. Bosch. Bosch Series 800 French Door. Available online: https://www.bosch-home.ca/en/products/refrigerators/ (accessed on 28 May 2024).
  120. Sandholm, T.; Lee, D.; Tegelund, B.; Han, S.; Shin, B.; Kim, B. CloudFridge: A Testbed for Smart Fridge Interactions. arXiv 2014, arXiv:1401.0585. [Google Scholar]
Horticulturae 10 00803 g001
Figure 1. A diagram of the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, highlighting the origin and causes of loss and waste. In the figure, the chevron Horticulturae 10 00803 i001 represents the sources of losses and wastes and the rectangle Horticulturae 10 00803 i002 represents root causes of losses and wastes.
Figure 1. A diagram of the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, highlighting the origin and causes of loss and waste. In the figure, the chevron Horticulturae 10 00803 i001 represents the sources of losses and wastes and the rectangle Horticulturae 10 00803 i002 represents root causes of losses and wastes.
Horticulturae 10 00803 g001
Horticulturae 10 00803 g002
Figure 2. Active evaporative cooling system. The figure illustrates the active evaporation cooling system principles. In this set up, the fan circulates air through a wet pad and the pump provides water for evaporation that absorbs and releases cool air.
Figure 2. Active evaporative cooling system. The figure illustrates the active evaporation cooling system principles. In this set up, the fan circulates air through a wet pad and the pump provides water for evaporation that absorbs and releases cool air.
Horticulturae 10 00803 g002
Horticulturae 10 00803 g003
Figure 3. Zero-energy cool chamber. The structure consists of sand filling the space between the double-layer walls, while water is used for humidification. As the airflow passes through the wet sand, it induces water evaporation, which absorbs heat and releases cool air inside the interior wall where the produce is stored.
Figure 3. Zero-energy cool chamber. The structure consists of sand filling the space between the double-layer walls, while water is used for humidification. As the airflow passes through the wet sand, it induces water evaporation, which absorbs heat and releases cool air inside the interior wall where the produce is stored.
Horticulturae 10 00803 g003
Horticulturae 10 00803 g004
Figure 4. Pot-in-pot evaporative cooler. A small earthenware pot with fruits and vegetables is placed inside a larger earthenware pot. Sand fills the space between the two pots, serving as a wet medium. Water is added to the sand, and as it evaporates, it removes heat from the inner pot, effectively cooling its contents.
Figure 4. Pot-in-pot evaporative cooler. A small earthenware pot with fruits and vegetables is placed inside a larger earthenware pot. Sand fills the space between the two pots, serving as a wet medium. Water is added to the sand, and as it evaporates, it removes heat from the inner pot, effectively cooling its contents.
Horticulturae 10 00803 g004
Horticulturae 10 00803 g005
Figure 5. RipeSenseTM sensor reflects the ripening of fruit. It changes color when reacting with the aroma released by the fruit as it ripens.
Figure 5. RipeSenseTM sensor reflects the ripening of fruit. It changes color when reacting with the aroma released by the fruit as it ripens.
Horticulturae 10 00803 g005
Horticulturae 10 00803 g006
Figure 6. Samsung Family Hub 3.0 smart refrigerators and features: (a) smart refrigerator; (b) mobile app providing the user remote access to the interior of the refrigerator and its contents; (c) touch screen located on the refrigerator door providing the user with a visual display of the interior and the products stored within.
Figure 6. Samsung Family Hub 3.0 smart refrigerators and features: (a) smart refrigerator; (b) mobile app providing the user remote access to the interior of the refrigerator and its contents; (c) touch screen located on the refrigerator door providing the user with a visual display of the interior and the products stored within.
Horticulturae 10 00803 g006
Horticulturae 10 00803 g007
Figure 7. Conventional refrigerator equipped with a smart FridgeCam: (a) smart FridgeCam mounted on the interior of the door of the refrigerator to capture and evaluate the produce inside the refrigerator; (b) smarter app showing the interior of the refrigerator to the user on a smartphone.
Figure 7. Conventional refrigerator equipped with a smart FridgeCam: (a) smart FridgeCam mounted on the interior of the door of the refrigerator to capture and evaluate the produce inside the refrigerator; (b) smarter app showing the interior of the refrigerator to the user on a smartphone.
Horticulturae 10 00803 g007
Table 1. Fruit and vegetable maturity indices [55,56,57].
Table 1. Fruit and vegetable maturity indices [55,56,57].
Maturity IndicesDescriptionExample of Commodity
ColorThe color change in fruits and vegetables’ skins, seeds, or flesh is a common and reliable indicator of ripening and maturity. Many fruits change color dramatically when they become more mature. For example, the skin color can range from green to yellow, orange, or red.Apple, banana, eggplant, guava, mango, peach, pear, papaya, pineapple, tomato, muskmelon, and watermelon
Days from bloom to harvestThe number of days from bloom to harvest can vary significantly from year to year and from one location to another due to changes in environmental conditions.Banana, cabbage, mango, radish, and pineapple
ShapeAs fruits mature, they often develop a more uniform shape, which can be a helpful indicator of their level of ripeness.Bananas and mango
SizeDuring their growth and maturation process, fruits and vegetables generally expand in size until they achieve their best form.Baby corn, sweet corn, okra, and leafy vegetables
TSSsAs fresh crops mature and ripen, their TSSs typically increase. The Brix value, measured with a refractometer, is a common method for quantifying TSSs in produce. It represents the sugar concentration in an aqueous solution, with a one degree Brix equaling one gram of sucrose per 100 g of solution.Apple, cherry, grape, melon, pear, tomato, and blueberry
AcidityWhen fruits ripen and mature, their acidity level decreases.Citrus, tomato, kiwi, and pomegranate
FirmnessA key indicator of fruit and vegetable maturity and ripeness. Fruits and vegetables tend to lose firmness as they ripen. It is frequently used along with other maturity indices to determine the best harvest time.Avocado, cabbage, pear, lettuce, and stone fruits
Leaf changeA valuable indicator of crop maturity, particularly for root vegetables. As these crops grow, their leaves change color, size, and overall health, which can provide clues about the development of the product beneath the ground.Potato, carrot, and radish
T-shapeThe T-stage, also known as the “turning stage”, is a critical maturity point for many fruits, characterized by a 90° angle between the fruit receptacle and the pedicel. This angle is greater than 90° early in the season, but it gradually decreases as the fruit matures, eventually becoming less than 90° as the fruit ripens. Apple
Table 2. Examples of mobile apps designed for assessing, managing, and encouraging the consumption of fruits and vegetables.
Table 2. Examples of mobile apps designed for assessing, managing, and encouraging the consumption of fruits and vegetables.
Mobile AppOperating PrincipleReference
ColorpickerAssess the quality of kiwifruit during cold storage
by extracting RGB values		[93]
Cellphone-based 2D sensorCan classify areas of an entire banana as immature, ripe, or overripe[94]
SmartThing Classic and Smart ThinQSamsung Family Hub and LG smart refrigerator apps. Able to take a photo of the inside of the refrigerator, perform a regular checkup, and create a shopping list[96,97]
Smarter appSmarter FridgeCam apps. Deployable in any refrigerator. Takes an interior photo of the refrigerator to notify the user[98]
Fruit ShelfLifeShelf-life prediction app based on a mango fruit case study and limited to RGB color and internal damage[99]
YukaPerforms a product analysis by scanning its barcode[100]
VegEzeFor vegetable consumption increase in Australian adults[101]
Smart 5-A-DAYTo enhance knowledge of the UK’s fruit and vegetable guidelines practically by offering detailed recommendations at the time of consumption to support proper intake[102]
Mole’s VeggieIncreases fruit and vegetable consumption among Finnish and polish preschoolers[103]
Table 3. Summary of easy-to-use techniques and some intelligent refrigerators available for the preservation of fruits and vegetables at home in both developed and developing countries.
Table 3. Summary of easy-to-use techniques and some intelligent refrigerators available for the preservation of fruits and vegetables at home in both developed and developing countries.
Techniques/ApproachesDescription References
Pot in potPassive evaporative cooling system.
Utilizable in both developed and non-developed countries by consumers at home		[70,72]
Active cooling systemActive evaporative cooling system.
Suitable for consumers in developing countries		[69]
Smart refrigerator (Samsung Family Hub, LG instaView door-in-door, GE profile, Bosch series 800 French door, Electrolux MMS, and Whirlpool smart French door refrigerator)Built with internal cameras for viewing contents without opening the door, and food management capabilities via the mobile app. Appropriate for developed-country consumers[96,115,116,117,118,119]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gouda, M.H.B.; Duarte-Sierra, A. An Overview of Low-Cost Approaches for the Postharvest Storage of Fruits and Vegetables for Smallholders, Retailers, and Consumers. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 803. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10080803

AMA Style

Gouda MHB, Duarte-Sierra A. An Overview of Low-Cost Approaches for the Postharvest Storage of Fruits and Vegetables for Smallholders, Retailers, and Consumers. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(8):803. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10080803

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gouda, Mohamed Hawali Bata, and Arturo Duarte-Sierra. 2024. "An Overview of Low-Cost Approaches for the Postharvest Storage of Fruits and Vegetables for Smallholders, Retailers, and Consumers" Horticulturae 10, no. 8: 803. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10080803

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop