The apricot tree belongs to the rosacea family. The history of the apricot tree goes back 5,000 years in China during the reign of the emperor. It is one of the most common fruits grown in temperate climate zones [2]. Apricots with 2 to 3 lb-force (8.9 to 13.3 N) flesh firmness are ready to eat. Most cultivars soften very fast, making them susceptible to bruising and subsequent decay, a harvest date is determined by changes in skin ground color from green to yellow. The exact yellowish-green color depends on the cultivar and shipping distance, Apricots should be picked when still firm because of their high bruising susceptibility when fully ripe and soft, Apricots are always harvested by hand Mir and Beaudry [3]. Consumers are willing to pay more for fruit with high sensory quality, such as excellent taste. Fruit taste includes sweetness and acidity, which is correlated with the contents and types of soluble sugars and organic acids However, among these sugar or organic acid components, which is the main contributor to consumer satisfaction Mikulic-Petkovsek et al. [4]. Although apricot fruits have high attributes and commercial importance, they cannot be enjoyed for long period due to the short duration of the fruits display in the markets and poor shelf life. Moreover, apricot fruits are climacteric fruits that produce a great amount of ethylene which accelerates the ripening processes quickly after harvest Stanley. Apricot is a fragile fruit that is climacteric and produces a large amount of ethylene that makes it ripen quickly after harvest. Therefore, the loss of physical and chemical characteristics begins and the fruits face several physiological disturbances in weight, damage and yield losses through fungi and microbes that affect the marketing life of the fruits [5,6]. In many cases, stone fruits are harvested in the pre-climacteric stage where the products are resistant to mechanical stress. Owing to the fact that apricots are sensitive to mechanical damage and water loss, they are also harvested at this stage. In recent years, the always growing demand for food worldwide, the ongoing climate change, the dangerous consumption of farmlands and the increasing attention of consumers to high quality, safe and environmental-friendly food products have stimulated the search for alternative biological methods that can meet this demand. Among the alternatives that are currently under investigation to avoid the use of chemical products to control plant diseases and increase crop productivity, are the biopolymer-based materials. In several cases, these materials have shown adequate activity against pathogens with low toxic effects on mammals and marginal impact on the environment. In addition, these biomaterials are also able to increase the productivity of many agricultural plants avoiding the use of large amounts of chemical fertilizers and dangerous farming practices. Among the tested biomaterials, the best results were obtained from those based on the biopolymer Chitosan, chemically a linear unbranched polymer of β-1, 4-D-glucosamine, is obtained from chitin, a co-polymer of N-Acetyl-D-glucosamine and D-glucosamine constituting the main component of the exoskeleton of arthropods. Chitin is also present in diverse organisms such as fungi, mollusks, diatoms and marine and fresh water sponges, this natural polymer is convenient and largely available as waste from shell of shrimps and crabs processed by the seafood industry. In fact, chitin is the second largest renewable carbon source in the word after cellulose with a production of over 1011 tons per year. This makes its utilization of commercial interest for the production of Chitosan. Worldwide, industrial preparation produces more than 2000 tons per year of Chitosan [7]. Everything considered Chitosan has multiple advantages over other biopolymers (cellulose, starch, galactomannans, etc.): it is safe, inexpensive and its chemical structure easily allows the introduction of specific molecules to design polymers for selected applications. These characteristics confer to Chitosan a role of great importance for a wide range of potential users ranging from medical and biotechnological industries to agricultural applications [8,9]. Chitosan coating for prolonging the storage life of plant foods has been reported in several studies Eshghi et al. [10]. Postharvest chitosan treatments have been considered safe for the consumer and the environment and suitable alternative treatment to replace the use of synthetic fungicides Romanazzi et al. [11]. Biopolymers are usually hydrophilic thereby act as a good barrier against hydrophobic compounds like lipids, oxygen and certain flavors. The commodities with edible coating lose water slowly that has led to their application in fruits like apple, mango strawberry, apricot, melon, etc. Dhall [12]. Most of fruits and vegetables is not consumed after harvest and should be stored for a short or a long period of time and in the absence of adequate packaging, they are quickly withered and brown and lose their quality and marketability. Choosing the right packaging is very effective to increase the shelf life of agricultural products. Experts have done extensive researches in the field of packaging techniques. Modified atmosphere packaging is one of the techniques that is very common these days. By using this method, a perishable product is preserved in the altered atmosphere which takes place of normal air. Respiration rate, packaging film type, storage temperature and the ratio of gas mixtures are very important Alden et al. [13]. Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) is a technology that is based on the changing the gas composition in the package surrounding the food commodity, for this purpose, various polymeric packaging materials have vapor-barrier and gas-barrier properties including Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) are used, considering mechanical damages and also commercial reasons the thickness of the films must be between 15 to 100 µm [14,15]. Complementary techniques such as coating, Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) and the use of different permeable films are of interest to prolong the shelf life of fresh apricots. Muftuoglu [16]. Edible coatings and films are also applied on fresh fruits to reduce moisture transfer, oxidation and respiration rate and increase the shelf life [17,18]. Muftuoğlu et al. [16], investigated the quality of edible film coated ‘Kabaaşı’ apricots after being packed by passive and active modified atmosphere conditions with different packaging materials. MAP was found to be very effective in preserving the fruit quality of both coated and uncoated apricots during 28 days of storage at 4°C. Moreover, Mohsen [19] and Kuzucu and Önder [20], discussed the effect of MAP application on the storage quality of apricots. In another study younas et al. [21], mentioned that the fortified chitosan-coated apricots showed better control for weight and moisture loss, total soluble solids contents and acidity as compared to control treatment. Zhang et al. [22], found that the apricot was coated with chitosan was changes to several parameters including weight loss, firmness, titra-table acidity, soluble solids content of apricots stored at 2 °C.

The fruits of the first experiment with all of their treatments were picked at the same maturity stages and stored in the cold room at 2˚C and 85-90% R.H. for a month. After that the fruits were taken from the cold room, at cold storage in college of agriculture university of Kirkuk and the following parameters were taken from the fruits: Fruits from control trees were picked at two maturity stage (matured fruits and ripened stage) as mentioned in the first experiment. The fruits were divided to five groups each group with 3 replicates. The studied factors were as follow:

• Maturity stages: (Maturity stage, ripening stage)

• Coating treatments: (Control fruits, perforated polyethylene packaging, Imperforated polyethylene packaging, Chitosan 1%, Chitosan 2 %)

Chitosan was dissolved in acidified solution (add 0.1N HCL to 100 mL of distilled water) because chitosan is insoluble in water according to the method Romanazzi et al. [23]. After the treatments the fruits will stored for 1 month in the cold room at 2C and 85-90% RH. An end of storage period, the following parameters were: (Total soluble solids (TSS %), Titratable acidity (%), Total sugar (TS %), Total soluble solids /acid ratio (TSS/TA), Fruit weight loss (%), Fruit firmness (kg.cm2), Vitamin C (mg.100 mL-1 juice), Peel carotene content (mg.100 mL-1), Decayed fruits percent.

Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed with the computer using SAS program [24]. The differences between various treatment means were tested with Duncan Multiple Range test at 0.05 levels [1].

Fruit Weight Loss (%)

Results in the Table 1 exposed that all coating treatments reduced fruit weight loss (%) significantly as compared with uncoated fruits; the minimum fruit weight loss was from 2% chitosan fruits, while the highest fruit weight loss was founded from uncoated fruit. 

Table 1: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction On Fruit Weight Loss (%) of Apricot Fruits Stored for 30 Days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the same letters are not significantly different from each other according to Duncan’s multiple range test at 5% level

Chitosan coatings act as barriers, thereby restricting water transfer and protecting fruit skin from mechanical injuries, as well as sealing small wounds and thus delaying dehydration [25] and the principal mechanism of weight loss in fruits is the evaporation of water due to the water vapour pressure gradient at different points [26]. Weight loss was enhanced during cold storage for all apricots. However, chitosan treatments significantly decreased weight loss for all apricots. The principal mechanism of weight loss in fruits is the evaporation of water due to the water vapour pressure gradient a tdifferent points [26]. Bal [27], showed that chitosan coating effectively reduced respiration rate and weight loss of plums stored at 0-1°C. The epidermal cell layer and cuticle are the natural structures that reduce Transpiration. Hence, edible coatings act as a further layer that covers the stomata and reduces weight loss by decreasing transpiration. It is the primary advantage of edible coatings. Therefore, coating treatments have been used to preserve many fruits, such as apricots, peppers, peaches, sweet cherries and litchi [17,28].

Total Sugar (TS %)

Table 2, displayed that fruits coated with 2% chitosan gave the highest total sugars, while the lowest was from control fruits. Chen et al. [29], showed that alginate coating could increase TSS, TA and total sugar in Nanfeng mandarin fruits and they demonstrated that coatings provided a beneficial semipermeable film around the fruits modifying the internal atmosphere by elevating CO₂ and/or reducing O₂ levels. This phenomenon could delay the degradation rate of nutrients in fruits [30]. 

Table 2: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction On Total Sugars of Apricot Fruits Stored for 30 Days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the same letters are not significantly different from each other according to Duncan’s multiple range test at 5% level

The ripened fruit has significantly higher total sugars than matured fruits. Kahlon and Uppal [31], suggested that conversion of starches and polysaccharides into simple sugar with the advancement of storage was responsible for the increase of reducing sugar and on ward decline was due to the utilization of sugar in evapotranspiration and other biochemical activities. 

The interaction between the ripened fruits coated with 2% chitosan resulted in higher total sugars which differed significantly with all interactions fruits except interaction between the ripened fruits coated with 2% chitosan, while the lowest total sugars were from the mature control fruits.

Total Soluble Solids (TSS %)

The data clarified that the TSS of the fruits stored in perforated polyehylene was higher significantly than control fruits which were the lowest in TSS contents (Table 3). A possible explanation for this phenomenon is the solubilization of polyuronides and hemicelluloses presented in cell wall, moreover, the water loss due to transpiration might also contribute to the increment in TSS. It is found that sugar is one of the main substrates for respiratory metabolism in fruit. Therefore, the use of sugar for respiration processes might cause the reduction in TSS level [32]. 

Table 3: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction On Total Soluble Solids of Apricot Fruits Stored for 30 Days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the same letters are not significantly different from each other according to Duncan’s multiple range test at 5% level

In the study, the ripening of fruit was delayed with MAP and therefore lower SSC was obtained. Hu et al. [33], reported similar results in his study that was carried out in ‘’Qinmei’’ kiwifruit cultivar. Matured fruits were highest significantly in TSS than ripened fruits. Hydrolyzing enzymes activity in the cell wall of climacteric fruits is increased due to ethylene production [34]. Fruit softening can take place by way of two possible mechanisms. The first is related to the decomposition of polymeric carbohydrates that occurs during ripening and that cause weakening of the cell walls and increase in total soluble solids.

Also, the interaction between matured fruits coated with 2% chitosan was higher in TSS contents and differed significantly from uncoated ripened fruits, which were the lowest in TSS contents.

Titratable Acidity (TA %)

Fruits that were coated with 2% chitosan were the highest titratable acidity significantly than all other coated fruits, where the lowest titratable acidity was from control fruits (Table 4). 

Table 4: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction on Titratable Acidity (%) of Apricot Fruits Stored for 30 Days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the Same Letters Are Not Significantly Different from Each Other According to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at 5% level

Reduction in acidity may be expected as a result of metabolic changes in fruit or due to the use of organic acids in the respiratory process. Maintaining titratable acidity in chitosan treated fruits might be due to reduction in metabolic changes of organic acid into carbon dioxide and water. Also it was thought that the reason for this slower increase in titratable acidity in the chitosan-coated groups could be due to the reduction of organic acid use in respiration through chitosan acting as a barrier [35]. Aday and Caner [36], reported that the titratable acidity of cherries coated with various edible coatings (whey protein isolate, chitosan and shellac) was always higher than uncoated cherries. Scalon et al. [37], explained the compounds responsible for acidity (organic acids) in fruits release hydrogen ions, contributing to increased acidity and showing the senescence stage progress.

No significant differences appeared between matured fruits and ripened fruits. Uncoated matured fruits were the highest titratable acidity content and differed significantly from all other interaction treatment fruit except the uncoated ripened fruits.

TSS/Titratable Acidity (TSS/TA)

The data clarified that the fruit TSS/TA of fruits coated with 2% chitosan was higher significantly than control fruits which were the lowest in (Table 5). 

Table 5: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction on TSS/ Titratable Acidity (%) of Apricot Fruits Stored for 30 Days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the same letters are not significantly different from each other according to Duncan’s multiple range test at 5% level

No significant defers between matured fruit and the ripened fruit in TSS/TA (Table 5). 

Also, the interaction between matured fruits coated with 2% chitosan was higher in TSS/TA and differed significantly from uncoated fruits, which were the lowest in TSS/TA contents (Table 5).

Fruit Firmness (kg.cm2)

Fruit firmness was influenced significantly with coating treatments that coated fruits with 2% chitosan were the firmest, while, uncoated fruits were the least (Table 6). 

Table 6: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction On Firmness (kg) of Apricot Fruits Stored for 30 Days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the same letters are not significantly different from each other according to Duncan’s multiple range test at 5% level

Chitosan is polysaccharides which do not allow oxygen and other non-polar substances to pass through [38]. Application of chitosan as surface coatings for apricot was expected to reduce oxygen permeability and thus to reduce respiration rate. Subsequently, the ripening process and possibly the hydrolysis activities would slow down. This can cause fruit softening. This phenomenon was shown by the positive effect of these coatings on firmness [39]. It was proposed that MAP-treated fruit had lower respiration rate and losses of the firmness than other treatments. The CO2 concentration in the air ambient is play a role more effective than O2 concentration in slowing respiration and delaying softening of the fruit during cold storage [40]. 

Also, Taglienti et al. [41], reported that the losses of water caused weight loss increases the rate of cell wall enzyme activity and respiration, therefore cell wall degradation has accelerated and caused fruit softening. Again Guan and Dou stated that MAP technology, which slows down the weight loss and respiration and delay the fruit softening, can be used as an effective postharvest technology. The loss in  firmness in control fruits could be attributed to the enzyme polygalacturonase which could result in polymer breakdown in cell wall [42]. Kaji et al. stated that flesh softening was delayed at higher CO₂ concentrations than at lower CO₂ concentrations for Japanese apricot under a Perfectly Controlled Atmosphere (PCA). 

Matured fruits were firmer significantly than ripened fruits. The demethylation of pectinmethylesterase (PME) and the hydrolysis of polygalacturonase (PG) made the protopectin substances continue to be degraded and increased the content of soluble pectin [43]. Wang et al. proposed that the solubility of pectin during ripening also led to an increase in soluble pectin content [44]. The soluble pectin content was significantly in matured fruits. This indicated that the pectin that constitutes the cell structure was degraded by enzymes due to the after-ripening effect and the fruits continued to soften and gradually mature [45]. Coated matured fruits with 2% chitosan resulted in firmer fruits and differed significantly with all other interactions treatments fruits.

Vitamin C (mg.100mL-1 Juice)

Coating treatments had a positive effect on fruit vitamin C, as the maximum vitamin C represented in fruits coated with 1% or 2% chitosan, while uncoated fruits represented the lowest value (Table 7). 

Table 7: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction On Vitamin C (mg.100mL-1 juice) of apricot fruits stored for 30 days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the same letters are not significantly different from each other according to Duncan’s multiple range test at 5% level

Ascorbic acid content of fruits had decreased during storage due to oxidizing enzymes like ascorbic acid oxidase, peroxidase, catalase and polyphenol oxidase [46]. Chitosan coatings led to increased content of vitamin C, possibly because the coating reduces the gas exchange rate with the environment, inhibiting the ascorbic acid exposure to O2 and concentrating it in the fruit. The higher the carbon dioxide contents in the initial gas component, the earlier the inhibitory effect of vitamin C loss. MAP treatment could maintain the vitamin C content of the fruits. The reason for this phenomenon may be due to the initial gas composition that led the fruits to undergo different physiological processes [47]. Vitamic C was higher in packaged fruits than control fruits, this result may have occurred because MAP treatment suppress the activity of cytochrome oxidase, ascorbic acid oxidase and peroxidase enzymes [48] and the low O2 in MAP inhibits their oxidation of these enzymes [49]. Thus, it has been reported that MAP treatment in broccoli [50] and papaya [51], has delayed the loss of total phenolics and vitamin C. 

Matured fruits reversed the highest vitamin C significantly than ripened fruits Meanwhile, a possible explanation for lower vitamin C in ripened fruits that there was increment in ACC oxidase in this stage. 

All coating treatments of matured or ripened fruits were higher in vitamin C contents than uncoated fruits, were as ripened fruits coated with 1% or 2% chitosan were higher in vitamin C contents.

Fruit Peel Carotene (mg.cm² Solution)

The results in a Table 8, showed that the coated treatments increased the development of carotene in the fruits peel significantly, uncoated fruits supremacy in peel carotene than all other treatments, it is worth noting that the lowest peel carotene (0.03). 

Some research showed that high carbon dioxide and low oxygen conditions could more effectively inhibit the yellowing of fruits during postharvest storage. This effect could be explained by the ability of carbon dioxide to inhibit chlorophyll degradation, as reported for dragon fruit [52] and blue honeysuckle fruits [44]. Besides, MAP treatment inhibited the physiological metabolism of mangoes and delayed the ripening process, which was also one of the important reasons. 

No significant differences in peel carotene between matured fruits and ripened fruits. 

Matured fruits coated with 2% chitosan had the highest peel carotene than all other treatments, while the least was from uncoated matured fruits.

Decayed Fruits (%)

The senescence spoilage percent reduces significantly when the apricot fruits were coated with 1% or 2% chitosan, while uncoated fruits were the highest (Table 9). Liu et al. [53], mentioned that chitosan was capable of damaging the plasma membranes in spores of Penicillum expansum and Botrytis cinerea.

Table 9: Effect of Coating and Maturity Stage and Their Interaction On Decayed Fruit (%) of Apricot Fruits Stored for 30 days at 2°C and 80-90% RH

Columns with the same letters are not significantly different from each other according to Duncan’s multiple range test at 5% level

However, the reasons for the antimicrobial effect of chitosan remain controversial. There are two hypotheses as follows: The polycationic chitosan consumes the electronegative charges on cell surfaces, consequently the cell permeability is changed and this interaction causes the leakage of intracellular electrolytes and proteinaceous constituents. Chitosan enters fungal cells and adsorbs the essential nutrients, which inhibit or reduce the synthesis of mRNA and protein [54]. In addition, chitin induces chitinase activity which may have many biological roles including the antifungal activity [45]. Chitosan can also induce host resistance by increasing the activities of several defenserelated enzymes such as chitinase and β- 1, 3- glucanase in many fruits [55]. In the same trend, chitosan elicits the responses of plant defense by activating pathogenesis related gene functions, such as chitinase [56], chitosanase, β-glucanase and lignin [57], besides callose formation [58]. Zhang et al. emphasized that chitosan could inhibit postharvest diseases by indirect inducement of defense related enzymes (POD, PPO, PAL and GLU). Romanazzi [59], reported that chitosan has a double mechanism of actions, i.e., it inhibits the development of decay-causing fungi and induces resistance responses of host tissues. It is considered as an ideal preservative coating because it has a disease suppressive effect, resulting from both physical and biochemical mechanisms. Chitosan also induces chitinase activity and elicits phytoalexins and defense barriers in the host tissues [60], as well as the defense responses in several plant systems. Also the antimicrobial activity of chitosan may be due to the fact that positively charged amino groups on the chitosan bind to negatively charged carboxyl groups on the bacterial cell membrane, thereby changing the distribution of charge on the cell surface, resulting in impaired membrane stability [61]. Senescence spoilage was higher significantly in matured fruits than ripened fruits. Phakdee and Chaiprasart [62], showed that MAP treatment could decrease the respiration rate and ethylene production.

1. Duncan, D.B. “Multiple range and multiple f tests.” Biometrics, vol. 11, no. 1, 1955, pp. 1–42.

2. Feng, J. et al. “Segregation of apricots for storage potential using non-destructive technologies.” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 86, 2013, pp. 17–22.

3. Mir, N. and R.M. Beaudry. “Modified atmosphere packaging.” The Commercial Storage of Fruits, Vegetables and Florist and Nursery Stocks, vol. 66, 2004.

4. Mikulic-Petkovsek, M. et al. “Comparison of major taste compounds and antioxidative properties of fruits and flowers of different sambucus species and interspecific hybrids.” Food Chemistry, vol. 200, 2016, pp. 134–140.

5. Egea, M. et al. “Influence of different storage treatments on antioxidant systems of apricot var. ‘Bulide’.” Acta Horticulturae, vol. 717, 2007, pp. 337–341.

6. Ezzat, A. et al. “Storability of some apricot varieties as affected by storage period.” International Journal of Horticultural Science, vol. 18, no. 1, 2012, pp. 339–342.

7. Kurita, K. “Chitin: Functional biopolymers from marine crustaceans.” Marine Biotechnology, vol. 8, 2006, pp. 203–226.

8. Anitha, A. et al. “Chitin and chitosan in selected biomedical applications.” Progress in Polymer Science, vol. 39, 2014, pp. 1644–1667.

9. Malerba, M. and R. Cerana. “Chitosan effects on plant systems.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 17, 2016, p. 996.

10. Eshghi, S. et al. “Effect of nanochitosan-based coating with and without copper loaded on physicochemical and bioactive components of fresh strawberry fruit (Fragaria × ananassa Duchesne) during storage.” Food and Bioprocess Technology, vol. 7, no. 8, 2014, pp. 2397–2409.

11. Romanazzi, G. et al. “Shelf life extension of fresh fruit and vegetables by chitosan treatment.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 57, no. 3, 2017, pp. 579–601.

12. Dhall, R.K. “Advances in edible coatings for fresh fruits and vegetables: A review.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 53, no. 5, 2013, pp. 435–450.

13. Alden, K.M. et al. “A review of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) technology for extending shelf-life of agricultural products.” National Conference on Sustainable Development, Strategies and Challenges with Focus on Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Tourism, 2017, pp. 6–11.

14. Zhang, M. et al. “Recent application of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) in fresh and fresh-cut foods.” Food Reviews International, vol. 31, no. 2, 2014, pp. 172–193.

15. Briano, R. et al. “Biodegradable and compostable film and modified atmosphere packaging in postharvest supply chain of raspberry fruits (cv. Grandeur).” Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, vol. 39, 2015, pp. 2061–2073.

16. Muftuoğlu, F. et al. “Modified atmosphere packaging of Kabaaşi apricot (Prunus armeniaca L. ‘Kabaaşı’): Effect of atmosphere, packaging material type and coating on the physicochemical properties and sensory quality.” Food and Bioprocess Technology, vol. 5, no. 5, 2012, pp. 1601–1611.

17. Ayranci, E. and S. Tunc. “The effect of edible coatings on water and vitamin c loss of apricots (Armeniaca vulgaris Lam.) and green peppers (Capsicum annuum L.).” Food Chemistry, vol. 87, no. 3, 2004, pp. 339–342.

18. Campos, C.A. et al. “Development of edible films and coatings with antimicrobial activity.” Food and Bioprocess Technology, vol. 4, no. 6, 2011, pp. 849–875.

19. Mohsen, A.T. “Performance of peach and apricot fruits at cold storage and shelf life as affected by modified atmosphere packaging.” American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science, vol. 10, no. 5, 2011, pp. 718–727.

20. Kuzucu, F.C. and A. Önder. “Effect of different packaging applications on fruit quality of apricots.” Effects of Different Packaging Applications on Fruit Quality of Apricots, 2010, pp. 16–20.

21. Younas, M. et al. “Development of zinc fortified chitosan and alginate-based coatings for apricot.” Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 51, no. 4, 2014, pp. 1033–1039.

22. Zhang, L. et al. “Impact of soybean protein isolate-chitosan edible coating on the softening of apricot fruit during storage.” Food Science and Technology, vol. 96, 2018, pp. 604–611.

23. Romanazzi, G. et al. “Effect of chitosan dissolved in different acids on its ability to control postharvest gray mold of table grape.” Phytopathology, vol. 99, no. 9, 2009, pp. 1028–1036.

24. SAS Institute Inc. Statistical Analysis System. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 2003.

25. Ribeiro, C. “Optimization of edible coating composition to retard strawberry fruit senescence.” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 44, 2007, pp. 63–70.

26. Yaman, O. and L. Bayoιndιrlι. “Effects of an edible coating and cold storage on shelf life and quality of cherries.” Food Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 2, 2002, pp. 146–150.

27. Bal, E. “Postharvest application of chitosan and low temperature storage affect respiration rate and quality of plum fruits.” Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 15, 2018, pp. 1219–1230.

28. Dong, Y. et al. “Calcium content and its correlated distribution with skin browning spot in bagged huangguan pear.” Protoplasma, vol. 252, 2015, pp. 165–171.

29. Chen, C. et al. “Ficus hirta Fruits extract incorporated into an alginate-based edible coating for nanfeng mandarin preservation.” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 202, 2016, pp. 41–48.

30. Lin, D. and Y. Zhao. “Innovations in the development and application of edible coatings for fresh and minimally processed fruits and vegetables.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, vol. 6, no. 3, 2007, pp. 60–75.

31. Kahlon, P.S. and R.S. Uppal. “Effect of post-harvest treatments on shelf life of mango cv. Chausa.” Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences, vol. 34, nos. 1–2, 2005, pp. 51–53.

32. Gol, N.B. et al. “Improvement of quality and shelf life of strawberries with edible coatings enriched with chitosan.” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 85, 2013, pp. 185–195.

33. Hu, J.G. et al. “Changes in post-harvest physiology and quality of hami melon with different maturities at harvest.” China Cucurbits and Vegetables, vol. 24, no. 3, 2011, pp. 10–15.

34. Valero, D. and M. Serrano. Postharvest Biology and Technology for Preserving Fruit Quality. CRC Press, United States, 2010, pp. 54–56.

35. Nabifarkhani, N. et al. “Effect of nano-composite and thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris L.) Coating on Fruit Quality of Sweet Cherry (Takdaneh cv.) during Storage Period.” Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 3, no. 4, 2015, pp. 349–354.

36. Aday, M.S. and C. Caner. “Understanding the effects of various edible coatings on the storability of fresh cherry.” Packaging Technology and Science, vol. 23, 2010, pp. 441–456.

37. Scalon, S.P.Q. et al. “Postharvest conservation of guevara (Campomanesia adamantium Camb.) under different coating and temperatures of storage.” Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, vol. 34, 2012, pp. 1022–1030.

38. Lacroix, M. and C. LeTien. “Edible films and coatings from nonstarch polysaccharides.” Innovations in Food Packaging, Academic Press, United States, 2005, pp. 338–361.

39. Ziaolhagh, S.H. and S. Kanani. “Extending the shelf life of apricots by using gum tragacanth-chitosan edible coating.” Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, vol. 23, no. 2, 2021, pp. 319–331.

40. Mastromatteo, M. et al. “Combined effect of active coating and MAP to prolong the shelf life of minimally processed kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa cv. Hayward).” Food Research International, vol. 44, no. 5, 2011, pp. 1224–1230.

41. Taglienti, A. et al. “Postharvest structural changes of Hayward kiwifruit by means of magnetic resonance imaging spectroscopy.” Food Chemistry, vol. 114, no. 4, 2009, pp. 1583–1589.

42. Pretel, M.T. et al. “Use of passive and active modified atmosphere packaging to prolong the postharvest life of three varieties of apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.).” European Food Research and Technology, vol. 211, no. 3, 2000, pp. 191–198.

43. Ibarra-Garza, I.P. et al. “Effects of # (Mangifera indica L. cv. Keitt).” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 103, 2015, pp. 45–54.

44. Dziedzic, E. et al. “Effect of modified (MAP) and controlled atmosphere (CA) storage on the quality and bioactive compounds of blue honeysuckle fruits (Lonicera caerulea L.).” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 265, 2020, p. 109226.

45. Li, M. et al. “Textural Property and Cell wall metabolism of ‘golden bosc’ and ‘D’ Anjou’ pears as influenced by oxygen regimes after long-term controlled atmosphere storage.” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 151, 2019, pp. 26–35.

46. Manoj, H.G. et al. “Studies on chitosan and Aloe vera Gel Coatings on Biochemical Parameters and Microorganisms in Chilled Pork Products.” Food Microbiology, vol. 19, 2016, pp. 175–182.

47. Chang, E.H. et al. “Cell wall degrading enzymes activity is altered by high carbon dioxide treatment in postharvest ‘MIHONG’ peach fruit.” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 225, 2017, pp. 399–407.

48. Rocha, A.M.C.N. et al. “Shelf life of chilled cut orange determined by sensory quality.” Food Additives and Contaminants: Part A, Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure and Risk Assessment, vol. 6, 1995, pp. 317–322.

49. Zagory, D. and A.A. Kader. “Quality maintenance in fresh fruits and vegetables by controlled atmospheres.” Quality Factors of Fruits and Vegetables, vol. 405, 1989, pp. 174–188.

50. Serrano, M. et al. “Maintenance of broccoli quality and functional properties during cold storage as affected by modified atmosphere packaging.” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 39, 2006, pp. 61–68.

51. Singh, S.P. and D.S. Rao. “Effect of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) on the alleviation of chilling injury and dietary antioxidants levels in ‘solo’ papaya during low temperature storage.” European Journal of Horticultural Science, vol. 70, no. 5, 2005, pp. 246–252.

52. Ho, P.L. et al. “Effect of controlled atmosphere storage on the quality attributes and volatile organic compounds profile of dragon fruit (Hylocereus undatus).” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 173, 2021, p. 111406.

53. Liu, J. et al. “Effects of chitosan on control of postharvest diseases and physiological response of tomato fruit.” Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 44, 2007, pp. 300–306.

54. Chen, S.P. et al. “Preparation of high antimicrobial activity thiourea Chitosan-Ag⁺ Complex.” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 60, 2005, pp. 33–38.

55. Meng, X.H. et al. “Effects of chitosan and Oligochitosan on growth of two fungal pathogens and physiological properties in pear fruit.” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 81, 2010, pp. 70–75.

56. Benhamou, N. and G. Thériault. “Treatment with chitosan enhances resistance of tomato plants to the crown and root rot pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Radices-lycopersici.” Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, vol. 41, 1992, pp. 33–52.

57. Notsu, S. et al. “Stimulation of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity and lignification in rice callus treated with chitin, chitosan and their derivatives.” Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry, vol. 58, 1994, pp. 552–553.

58. Kauss, H. et al. “The degree of polymerization and n-acetylation of chitosan determine its ability to elicit callose formation in suspension cells and protoplast of Catharanthus roseus.” Planta, vol. 178, 1989, pp. 385–392.

59. Romanazzi, G. “Chitosan treatment for the control of postharvest decay of table grapes, strawberries and sweet cherries.” Fresh Produce, vol. 4, no. 1, 2010, pp. 111–115.

60. El-Ghaouth, A. “Antifungal activity of chitosan on two postharvest pathogens of strawberry fruits.” Phytopathology, vol. 82, 1992, pp. 398–402.

61. Moreira, M.R. et al. “Effectiveness of chitosan edible coatings to improve microbiological and sensory quality of fresh-cut broccoli.” LWT–Food Science and Technology, vol. 44, no. 10, 2011, pp. 2335–2341.

62. Phakdee, N. and P. Chaiprasart. “Modified atmosphere storage extends the shelf life of ‘nam dok mai sri tong’ mango fruit.” International Journal of Fruit Science, vol. 20, 2019, pp. 1–11.

63. Hernandez, M.P. et al. “Effect of chitosan coating combined with postharvest calcium treatment on strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) quality during refrigerated storage.” Food Chemistry, vol. 110, 2006, pp. 428–435.

64. Infante, R. et al. “Effect of harvest maturity stage on the sensory quality of ‘Palsteyn’ apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) after Cold Storage.” The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, vol. 83, no. 6, 2008, pp. 828–832.

65. Janick, J. “The origins of fruits, fruit growing and fruit breeding.” Plant Breeding Reviews, vol. 25, Wiley and Sons, 2005, pp. 255–320.

66. Kamil, O.Th. et al. “The impact of nano chitosan and nano silicon coatings on the quality of canino apricot fruits during cold storage.” Zagazig Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 46, no. 6, 2019, pp. 233–241.

67. Lateef, M.A. et al. “The effect of foliar spraying with salicylic acid and calcium chloride on the growth, yield and storage traits of two strawberry cultivars, Fragaria × ananassa Duch.” International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical Sciences, vol. 17, no. 2, 2021, pp. 611–615.

68. Maftoonazad, N. et al. “Shelf-life extension of peaches through sodium alginate and methyl cellulose edible coatings.” International Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 43, 2008, pp. 951–957.