3.2.2. Fruit Lineal Size

The loss in moisture and weight leads to loss in fruit length, diameter, fruit circumference, and sphericity, which may lead to shrivelling, shrinkage, and loss in visual appeal. Generally, all liner treatments minimised loss in fruit length, diameter, and circumference compared to the no-liner treatment throughout the storage period. The non-perforated 'Decco' and 'Zoe' liners were significantly better in minimising loss in fruit length, diameter, and circumference compared to micro-perforated Xtend® and 2 and 4 mm macro-perforated HDPE liners (Table 3).


**Table 3.** Effect of plastic liner treatment on cumulative loss in fruit length, diameter, and circumference of pomegranate (cv. Wonderful) fruit stored at 5 ◦C and 90% relative humidity (RH).

Results presented as mean ± S.E. Different letter(s) on column per liner treatment indicate statistically significant differences (*p* < 0.05) according to Duncan's multiple range test. HDPE: high density polyethylene.

At the end of the 84 d of cold storage, fruit in no-liner lost 8.6% of the initial fruit length, while fruit packed in non-perforated 'Decco' and 'Zoe' liners lost 1.2% and 1.0% in fruit length, respectively. Fruit in micro-perforated Xtend® liners lost 2.7% of initial fruit length compared with 3.4 and 5.1% for fruit packed in 2 and 4 mm macro-perforated HDPE liners, respectively. A similar pattern was observed for loss in fruit diameter, where fruit packed with no-liner lost 5.4% compared to 1.1 and 0.8% for fruit packed with non-perforated 'Decco' and 'Zoe' liners, respectively. Micro-perforated Xtend®, 2 mm macro-perforated HDPE, and 4 mm macro-perforated HDPE liners minimised loss in fruit diameter to 2.2, 2.1, and 3.7%, respectively. A reduction in fruit circumference is a direct indicator of fruit shrinkage. After 84 d of cold storage, fruit packed with no-liner lost 4.1% of their initial circumference, compared to 1.0% and 0.8% for fruit packed in non-perforated 'Decco' and 'Zoe' liners, respectively. Perforated liners minimised the loss in fruit circumference to about half the loss in no-liner. Fruit packed with micro-perforated Xtend® liners lost 2.3% of their initial circumference compared to 1.8 and 2.8% for fruit packed in 2 and 4 mm macro-perforated HDPE liners, respectively.

Generally, the loss was more in fruit length than in fruit diameter. Shrivelling was more concentrated on the base of the fruit than on the sides. Quite similar results observed by Al-Mughrabi et al. [43] on different pomegranate cultivars conventionally stored in plastic boxes at storage temperatures of 5 ◦C, 10 ◦C, and ambient temperature for 56 d. The authors observed that the loss in fruit length and diameter is influenced by storage time, temperature, and cultivar. In their study, the cv. 'Manfaloti' with relatively lower

fruit weight loss also registered lower loss in fruit diameter and length, as compared to cv. 'Banati'.

## 3.2.3. Peel Thickness

The dynamics of moisture loss of fruit may influence each of the fruit fractions differently. The porous nature and position of the pomegranate fruit skin makes it so prone to moisture loss because it comes into direct contact with the surrounding. Moisture loss in pomegranate fruit is primarily from the peel resulting in a reduction in peel thickness [5,44]. The greatest loss in peel thickness was observed in fruit packed with no-liner. Fruit packed in non-perforated liners retained more peel thickness than fruit packed in perforated liners (Figure 9). After 84 d of cold storage, fruit packed with no-liner lost 41.8% of the initial peel thickness. However, non-perforated 'Decco' and 'Zoe' liners minimised the loss in fruit peel thickness to 14.8 and 13.2%, respectively. Fruit lost 26.8% peel thickness when packed in micro-perforated Xtend® liners, and 22.0 and 26.7% in 2 mm macro-perforated and 4 mm macro-perforated HDPE liners, respectively. Similarly, Arendse et al. [5] reported a decrease in peel thickness with storage time of pomegranate (cv. Wonderful) packed in conventional corrugated boxes and stored at different temperatures (5, 7.5, 10, and 21 ◦C). The authors attributed the drastic decrease in peel thickness to low RH and high temperature (21 ◦C). The thicker peel of fruit packed with non-perforated liners can be attributed to higher RH inside bags compared to fruit packed with perforated liners.

**Figure 9.** Peel thickness of pomegranate (cv. Wonderful) fruit stored at 5 ◦C and 90% relative humidity (RH). Mean values (vertical bars) with different letters are significantly different (*p* < 0.05) according to Duncan's multiple range test. HDPE: high density polyethylene.
