*3.1. Total Soluble Solids, pH and Titratable Acidity*

At harvest, the total soluble solids (TSS) was 18.33 ± 0.06 (%), pH 4.09 ± 0.06 and titratable acidity (TA) 0.49 ± 0.02% (*w/w*) malate (Table 1).

**Table 1.** Total soluble solids (TSS), pH values and titratable acidity (TA) of juice in cherries at harvest.


<sup>a</sup> Numbers are means of three replicates of 10 cherries each ± standard deviations.

### *3.2. Fruit Color, Weight Loss and Respiration Rates*

The color parameter *L\** was 29.9 at harvest (Figure 2a). Changes in controls during storage were significant, exhibiting the highest value on day 14 and the lowest on day 28. Analysis of all data from 7 d showed that *L\** remained almost stable in controls, G25, G50 and Polys, whereas in chitosan-treated fruit, it increased substantially, reaching the highest value on day 14 and then decreased gradually, being significantly lower at the end of storage, but similar to the remaining treated fruit. The treatment effect and storage days were significant, but not their interaction.

**Figure 2.** Effect of edible coatings on changes in peel color parameters, *L\** (**a**), hue angle (**b**) and *C\** (**c**), in cherries during storage. Points are means of three replicates of 10 cherries each; bars on the points, ± standard deviations. NS, non significant; \* significant at *p* < 0.05; \*\* significant at *p* < 0.01; \*\*\* significant at *p* < 0.001. *Pcd*, probability of storage days in controls (one-way ANOVA from day 0); HSDcd, honest significant difference calculated from ANOVA. *Ptr*, probability of edible coating treatment; *Pd*, probability of storage days; *Ptr* × *d*, probability of interaction (two-way ANOVA from day 7); HSD, honest significant difference calculated from ANOVA.

Values of hue angle increased gradually during storage in controls from 13.4 on day 0 to 16.5 on day 21 and remained stable thereafter (Figure 2b). From day 7, increases in hue angle were observed in all samples, with chitosan-treated fruit exhibiting the lowest increases. The treatment effect and storage days were significant, but not their interaction.

In controls, the parameter *C\** was 15.9 at harvest and remained almost stable up to 14 d and then decreased until 28 d (Figure 2c). Factorial analysis showed the significant effect of days, but no effect of treatment or their interaction.

Weight loss (WL) averaged 1.61% on day 7 in all samples and increased progressively during storage up to day 28 (Figure 3a). WL in controls, being higher than in the remaining treatments from day 14 up to the end of storage, reached 6.48% after 28 d. WL increased in the other treatments, but at a slower and similar rate, averaging 4.86% on day 28. Indeed, the effect of treatments and days in storage were both highly significant, but not their interaction. The factor treatments, as the main effect, showed significant differences between controls and treatments, but no difference among treated fruit.

At harvest, CO2 production rates were approximately 311 nmol kg−<sup>1</sup> s−1, but thereafter elevated sharply in controls up to 21 d, reaching 578 nmol CO2 kg−<sup>1</sup> s−1, and then decreased (Figure 3b) (*Pcd* < 0.001). In all treated fruit, increases were consistent after 7 d, but much lower than controls throughout storage. The effect of treatment and storage days were both highly significant, in contrast to their non-significant interaction.

**Figure 3.** Effect of edible coatings on changes in weight loss (WL) (**a**), respiration (**b**), firmness (**c**) and microbial decay (**d**) in cherries during storage. Points are means of three replicates of 10 cherries each; bars on the points, ± standard deviations. NS, non significant; \* significant at *p* < 0.05; \*\*\* significant at *p* < 0.001. *Pcd*, probability of storage days in controls (one-way ANOVA from day 0); HSDcd, honest significant difference calculated from ANOVA. *Ptr*, probability of edible coating treatment; *Pd*, probability of storage days; *Ptr* × *d*, probability of interaction (two-way ANOVA from day 7); HSD, honest significant difference calculated from ANOVA.

#### *3.3. Fruit Firmness and Decay, and Pedicel Removal Force*

The initial firmness value was 1.71 N, and after 14 d it increased gradually in controls, reaching the level of 2.61 N on day 28 (Figure 3c). However, chitosan-treated cherries showed the highest average levels in store (2.4 N).

In particular, chitosan exhibited a burst in firmness on day 7 (2.31 N), remained at almost stable levels up to day 14, peaked at 2.59 N on day 21 and declined to 2.39 N at the end of storage. Firmness in G25 and G50 also showed increased levels similar to the respective days in chitosan on days 7 and 21, while averaging 2.22 N between 7 and 28 d. Polys showed the lowest increases on average. The effect of treatments and days in storage were both highly significant, but not their interaction.

The mold development (%) of fruit increased during storage, with an overall mean of 0.05% and averaging 0.02% in both controls and chitosan and 0.026% in G25 during storage (Figure 3d). In Polys and G50, the decay averaged 0.084% and 0.1%, respectively. Additionally, on day 28, the decay increased in all treatments, being significantly higher in G50 than in G25.

At harvest, pedicel removal force (PRF) in controls was 7.18 N and then fluctuated between 6.68 and 7.67 N (Figure 4). In all treatments, changes in PRF were not consistent during storage. The effects of treatments, storage days and their interaction were all insignificant.

**Figure 4.** Effect of edible coatings on changes in pedicel removal force in cherries during storage. Points are means of three replicates of 10 cherries each; bars on the points, ± standard deviations. NS, non significant. *Pcd*, probability of storage days in controls (one-way ANOVA from day 0); HSDcd, honest significant difference calculated from ANOVA. *Ptr*, probability of edible coating treatment; *Pd*, probability of storage days; *Ptr* × *d*, probability of interaction (two-way ANOVA from day 7); HSD, honest significant difference calculated from ANOVA.
