2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.07.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust NIRS models for non-destructive prediction of postharvest fruit ripeness and quality in mango

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

7
44
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 108 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
7
44
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Vásquez-Caicedo et al (2005) proposed a ripening index (RPI) for mango ripeness, combining the fruit firmness with sugar acid ratio. A vast range of RPI values were reported in many studies (Blanes et al, 2015;Kienzle et al, 2012;Rungpichayapichet et al, 2016). Even negative RPI values were found for ripe fruits in our preliminary study (Nambi et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 42%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Vásquez-Caicedo et al (2005) proposed a ripening index (RPI) for mango ripeness, combining the fruit firmness with sugar acid ratio. A vast range of RPI values were reported in many studies (Blanes et al, 2015;Kienzle et al, 2012;Rungpichayapichet et al, 2016). Even negative RPI values were found for ripe fruits in our preliminary study (Nambi et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 42%
“…But these studies did not propose any consolidated model or index to quantify or predict ripeness level. Saranwong et al (2004) and Rungpichayapichet et al (2016) reported on the prediction of ripeness and eating quality of mangoes using NIR spectroscopy. All these methods cannot be used as a ready reckoner with minimum inputs, and they need high cost instruments like NIR spectrometer and complex algorithms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An efficient histogram analysis 62 algorithm was proposed for real-time automated fruit surface quality evaluation (Zhang et al 63 2014a and 2014b). Internal quality attributes of mango were accurately predicted by short-wave 64 near-infrared spectroscopy and Fruit ripeness classification by NIRS calibrations showed 65 accuracies between 59 and 88% (Rungpichayapichet et al, 2016). An appropriately crafted 66 mixture of fifteen different visual features was used in their computer vision based date 67…”
Section: Introduction 28mentioning
confidence: 94%
“…More recently, a portable Luminar 5030 NIR was used by Jha et al () to assess a maturity index estimated based on SSC, DM, and TA in seven mango varieties. Rungpichayapichet, Mahayothee, Nagle, Khuwijitjaru, and Müller () used a portable VIS‐NIR photo‐diode array spectrometer (HandySpec Field 1000, tec5AG) to study mango fruit quality and maturity and good results were reported for SSC prediction, standard error of prediction (SEP) of 1.2% and a correlation coefficient ( R 2 ) of 0.90, for firmness prediction (SEP of 4.22 N and R 2 of 0.82), and for TA prediction (SEP of 0.38% and R 2 of 0.74). Marques, Freitas, Pimentel, and Pasquini () studying ‘Tommy Atkins’ mangoes used a portable MicroNIR 1700 to predict SSC, DM, TA, and firmness with low root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP), 0.92°Brix, 0.51%, 0.17%, and 12.2 N, respectively.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%