Postharvest Biology and Technology 43 (2007) 351357

Effect of ear orientations on hydrocooling performance and

quality of sweet corn
Clement Vigneault a,b, , Bernard Goyette a , Yvan Gariepy b , Patrick Cortbaoui a,b ,
Marie Ther`ese Charles a , Vijaya G.S. Raghavan b
a
b

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 430 Blvd. Gouin, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, Canada J3B 3E6
Department of Bioresource Engineering, Macdonald Campus of McGill University, 21,111 Lakeshore road,
Sainte-Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9
Received 14 October 2005; accepted 16 September 2006

Abstract
Three cultivars of sweet corn were precooled immediately after harvest using a hydrocooler system. Combinations of two water flow
patterns, immersed and spray, and two cob orientations, parallel and perpendicular to the water flow were tested. Corn cobs cooled passively in
cold room served as control treatment. Both precooled and room cooled corn cobs were stored for 7 and 21 days at 1 C and 9095% RH. Half
cooling time and quality attributes were measured to assess the performance of the hydro cooler compared to room cooling. Immersed-in-water
type flow and perpendicular orientation of corn cobs reduced significantly the cooling time. On the other hand, hydrocooled sweet corn cobs
kept a high standard of quality up to 21 days by conserving high total soluble solids and moisture contents and maintaining excellent quality
index. The three cultivars of sweet corn were different in their keeping quality over time. However, sanitation of water is a must in order to
avoid the contamination by spoilage organisms that can reduce significantly the overall quality of corn cobs after 21 days of storage.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Precooling; Water; Orientation; Half cooling time; Performance

1. Introduction
Quality is the most important factor in judging the acceptability of the consumer to purchase food commodities. Since
temperature has a noticeable influence on deterioration, its
management is fundamental in preserving quality of horticultural crops during postharvest processes (Sargent et al.,
1988). Studies showed that for each 10 reduction in produce
temperature, the rate of respiration of horticultural produce
is reduced by a factor of 24 (Golob et al., 2002). Sweet corn
(Zea mays L. spp. saccharata) is classified as extremely high
respiration rate produce (Kader, 2002) with its production of

Agriculture and Agro Food Canada contribution number: 335/

2006.10.02R.
Corresponding author at: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 430 Blvd.
Gouin, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, Canada J3B 3E6.
Tel.: +1 450 346 4494x120; fax: +1 450 346 7740.
E-mail address: vigneaultc@agr.gc.ca (C. Vigneault).

0925-5214/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.09.013

3051 mg CO2 kg1 h1 and 282435 mg CO2 kg1 h1 at

0 C and 25 C, respectively (Gross et al., 2004). Its taste and
quality depends on its sugar content which decreases rapidly
after harvest if kept at ambient temperature (Boyette et al.,
1990). Therefore, rapid reduction of corn cob temperature to
the lowest and safe temperature range maximizes its storage
life while maintaining its pre-harvest quality (Golob et al.,
2002).
Precooling may be accomplished by several techniques
using air, water, ice or latent heat of water evaporation. Cold
water, or hydrocooling process, is a demonstrated effective
mean for quick cooling of a wide range of fruits and vegetables including celery, sweet corn, carrots, apples, peaches
(Kader, 2002). Hydrocooling takes advantages of the fact
that surface heat transfer coefficient of produce-to-water is
much higher than that of air (ASHRAE, 2002). Hydrocooling provides faster and more uniform cooling through the
produce treated than air generally (Golob et al., 2002). One
great advantage of hydrocooling over air cooling resides in

352

C. Vigneault et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 43 (2007) 351357

the absence of crop mass loss during the precooling process

(Thompson, 2003). Cooling rate is dependent on the size and
the shape of the commodity being cooled (Goyette et al.,
1996). For rapid heat removal, cooling water must be maintained at 0 C for non-chilling-sensitive produces; however
the water temperature must be adjusted for chill-sensitive
crops according to produce tolerance (DeEll et al., 2000).
The basic principle for this cooling method is that cold
water coming from the evaporator coil gets into direct contact
with the surface of the warm produce; the surface temperature
of the commodity becomes basically identical to that of the
water. Conductive heat transfer process occurs through the
produce, resulting in a produce temperature reduction.
Hydrocoolers can be conceived according to two different
patterns of water flow: (1) showering or spraying water on
the produce and (2) submerging (immersion) the commodity
in cold water (Kays, 1997).
With a spray-type hydrocooler, cold water is pumped to
a perforated-floor reservoir located at the top of the produce
container. The water circulates through the mass of produce
which can be packaged in a box or pallet-bin or left on a
conveyor belt (Kader, 2002). The outgoing warmer water is
filtered to remove plant residues or debris and is directed
toward the refrigeration coils, cooled down again and circulated again.
The other common hydrocooler principle is by complete
immersion of warm produce in the cold water. In this system, the produce moves through a water bath. This type of
hydrocooler, best suited for products that do not float (Kader,
2002), is also recommended for produce with relatively low
density such as cucumber (DeEll et al., 2000). Water must be
pumped at adequate flow rate to avoid restriction to its movement and to achieve the desirable final temperature within
the shortest possible time (Singh and Chakraverty, 2001).
In general, the produce cooled by water must have a high
resistance to wetting, low vulnerability to physical wound
caused by water on their surface and low susceptibility to
damage by chemicals (chlorine) used to sanitize the water
from spoilage organisms that might be present while cooling
the produce (Kays, 1997).
Both types of hydrocooler are not recommended for produce containing air space such as sweet pepper or tomato.
Cooling this air during the process creates a negative pressure
inside the produce forcing water into the produce and resulting in drastic increase of contamination potential (Vigneault
et al., 2000). Hydrocooling requires additional maintenance
such as cleaning the shower pan on a regular basis to avoid
holes plugging. Placing the cooled produce immediately in
a cold room before re-warming takes place is also very

important (Kader, 2002). Finally, packaging material must

be tolerant to wetting and easy to handle (Golob et al., 2002).
The main objective of the present study was to assess the
performance of two sweet corn hydrocooling systems, while
the specific objectives were (1) to determine the effect of
water flow patterns and cob orientations on the half cooling
time; (2) to evaluate the effect of those parameters on keeping
quality of sweet corn stored at 1 C for 7 and 21 days; (3) to
assess and compare the keeping quality of three precooled
sweet corn cultivars after 7 and 21 days of storage at 1 C.

2. Materials and methods

Produce handling procedures locally produced mature
sweet corn (Z. mays L. spp. saccharata) of Fleet, Sensor and
Promise varieties was manually harvested during sunny warm
summer days. The corn was maintained under shed and then
transported to the Research Centre within 1 h after harvest.
The harvest was performed at mid July, mid-August and midSeptember. The sweet corn cultivars were chosen based on
their availability at each period which resulted in using early,
mid-late and late maturity sweet corn (Table 1). The initial
produce temperature before precooling was near 24 C.
At each day of the test, ears were gathered together. Eight
experimental units were prepared by randomly picking up
16 ears, for which mass and the largest diameter of each
corn ear were measured before any treatment. One corn cob
was added in each experimental unit and used to follow the
temperature profile of the produce during the precooling process, obtaining 17-ear sample total masses of approximately
5504 kg, 5844 kg and 5653 kg for Fleet, Sensor and Promise
corn varieties, respectively. Two type-T thermocouples, with
a maximum length of junction of 1 mm, were positioned one
between the corn leaves and the kernels, and one between
the kernels and the core of the ear. Two experimental units
ready for precooling process were put at the time in a standard
plastic container (Vigneault and Goyette, 2002).
2.1. Experiment set-up
Two hydrocooling systems, spray and immersed, were
tested to cool batches of 34 corn cobs. For the immersed-inwater type, a 406 mm square plastic box of 457 mm high was
built. Both sides of water pathway were equipped with two
perforated aluminum plates with 51% openings allowing uniform water distribution (Fig. 1). The box was entirely covered
with 51 mm thick polystyrene foam to ensure adequate insulation. In the case of spray-type, sweet corn inside a standard

Table 1
General characteristics of the sweet corn cultivars used for the water precooling study
Cultivar

Date of harvesting

Maturity period

Ear mass (g)

Diameter size (mm)

Sweetness

Color

Fleet
Sensor
Promise

Mid-July
Mid-August
Mid-September

Early
Medium
Late

315332
336352
324341

4451
5358
4854

High
Very high
High

Bicolor
Bicolor
Bicolor

C. Vigneault et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 43 (2007) 351357

353

Fig. 1. Experiment set-up used to measure the effects of immersed-type water flow: (a) parallel and (b) perpendicular orientations of the sweet corn cobs on
the cooling time.

plastic container, was placed into a 600 mm 500 mm chamber, 550 mm in height, of a lab-scale hydrocooler (Fig. 2)
described in detail by DeEll et al. (2000).
For each set-up, 3.93 L s1 of 0 C water was circulated
through the mass of produce returning by gravity into a
375 L refrigerated reservoir. This water flow corresponds
to the value recommended by Kader (2002) for bulk produce hydrocooled. Corn ear temperatures were measured
with thermocouples and recorded to a data acquisition system
(Agilent Technology Packard, Loveland, CO, USA) driven by
a portable computer. The same data acquisition system was
also used to record corn temperature profiles and water temperature before and after being in contact with the produce
at every 30 s. The Data logger software (Benchlink, Agilent
Technologies, Loveland, CO, USA) was used to record the
data. The half cooling time (HCT) was calculated from the
temperature data using a dedicated Excel MacroTM built and
described in detail by Goyette et al. (1996). HCT is defined
as the time required to extract half of the energy contained
in a unit of produce based on its initial temperature and the
ambient temperature to which the produce is exposed.
2.2. Experiment procedure
For each hydrocooling system, two produce orientations
were tested. Sweet corn ears were positioned in parallel or
perpendicular to the water flow direction. The cooling process lasted until the temperature of the produce decreased to

12.5% of the difference between its initial temperature and

the temperature of the water.
Two tests, representing replicates, were conducted on 2
consecutive days at each of three harvest dates during the
summer. Two other experimental units of 16 corn cobs were
placed inside a corrugated carton box to represent refrigerated room cooling method and be used as control units. Four
temperature data loggers, Hobos (onset, T-type, H 12), were
used to measure the temperature of two corn cobs by placing
the thermal sensor in the produce at the two same localizations; i.e. one between the corn leaves and the kernels and one
between the kernels and the core of the ear. A 5-min interval
was used to record the temperature changes. The box was
then put in a cold room at 1 C and 9095% RH generating
a 20 h cooling process.
2.3. Quality evaluation
Once cooled, all the corn cobs were placed in plastic boxes
in the same 1 C and 9095% RH conditioned room for 7
and 21 days of storage. The plastic boxes containing the corn
cobs were covered with perforated plastic bags to ensure high
humidity.
Mass of the corn cobs was measured immediately after
harvest, after precooling, and at the end of each storage
period. The mass losses during the cooling processes and
storage period were calculated as the difference between
initial and final mass of the produce divided by the initial

Fig. 2. Experiment set-up used to measure the effects of spray-type water flow: (a) perpendicular and (b) parallel orientations of the sweet corn cobs on the
cooling time.

354

C. Vigneault et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 43 (2007) 351357

Table 2
Full description of quality index scales of sweet corn (Vigneault et al., 2004)
Quality index

Quality

Description

Excellent

Good

Average

Poor

Unmarketable

Husks of freshly harvested turgid appearance, dark green, slightly moist. Silks light-colored (greenishyellow) and turgid. Kernels bright and very turgid. Absence of major defects
Green husks, slightly wilting. Silks light-colored, slight loss of turgidity. Kernels reasonably bright and
turgid. Absence of major defects
Pale green husks, withered or slightly dry. Silks lightly browning, some dried. Kernels dull but not dented.
Absence of major defects
Husks very pale, some yellowing and perhaps browning, much withered and partly dry. Silks brown, soft
and possible dry. A few dented kernels. Major defects possible
Husks yellow, straw-colored or brown. Very withered or dry. Many dented kernels. Major defects present

mass. Mass losses were expressed in percentage of the initial

mass.
Moisture content and total soluble solids (TSS) of the
corn were also measured as follow: from each experimental
unit, 150 g of whole kernels were taken out, mixed together
and then separated into six sub-samples of 25 g each. Three
sub-samples were dried using a lab-scale oven (Isotemp Premium Ovens, Fisher Scientific, 700 series) for 72 h at 60 C,
and then put in a vacuum desiccator for 1 h before measuring
their mass using a 0.001 g precision scale. Percent moisture
content (MC) was obtained from mass difference before and
after corn drying according to the standard method (Anon,
1982).
The three other sub-samples were rapidly frozen in liquid
nitrogen and kept at 20 C until TSS analysis. TSS was
measured using a handheld refractometer (Fisher Scientific,
Ottawa, Canada). Each sub-sample was blended for 1 min
and centrifuged for 15 min at 2000 g. Few drops of the
supernatant were used for the TSS reading.
Visual appearance was evaluated for individual cobs
before cooling and on the 7th and 21st storage day using
a nine point hedonic scale. The following parameters were
considered: husk color, husk drying, silk appearance, kernel
appearance and presence of defects (Brecht et al., 1990). A
quality index (QI) (Table 2) summarizing these parameters
was determined and the total score for each parameter was
calculated according to the method described by Rodov et al.
(2000).
Finally, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by
the Duncans multiple range test for means comparison was
conducted using XLSTATPro 7 software (Addinsoft, Paris,
France).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Initial quality
The initial quality attributes of corn cobs measured immediately after harvest were used as reference for quality evolution (Table 3). High quality index was observed for all three
cultivars however, Fleet was significantly lower in quality
compared to the others. Although the three cultivars were
classified as sugar enhanced (se) sweet corn, they were sig-

nificantly different in their degree of sweetness. TSS level

reached up to 27% in Sensor cultivar while reaching only
23% and 21% for Fleet and Promise, respectively. Moisture
content was higher in Fleet and Promise compared to Sensor.
Since juiciness may play a role in keeping quality of corn,
one could expect a better maintenance of quality for Fleet
and Promise than for Sensor.

3.2. Precooling performance evaluation

3.2.1. Water ow pattern
Differences between the temperatures of water recorded
before and after the precooling process were negligible very
quickly after the beginning of all tests, showing that the water
flow rate used was not a limiting factor in the precooling
process (data not presented).
Calculated data for HCT (min) and mass changes (% of
initial mass) for the two water flow patterns used are presented in Table 4. Produce orientation was the principal
factor affecting HCT. HCT was significantly lower (36%)
for perpendicular cobs compared to parallel ones ( = 0.05).
Immersed cobs tend to show a lower HCT than sprayed cobs
(9%), independently of cobs orientation. However, for cobs
with similar orientation, there was no significant difference in
HCT due to the water flow pattern. The lower HCT recorded
for immersed cobs may be due to the higher degree of contact between the produce surface and cold water. Moreover,
there was no significant difference in the HCT between core
and kernel position measurement supporting the theoretical
assertion claiming that the cooling rate at any point in a uniform produce should be the same (Holman, 1986). During the
experiment, it was noticed that HCT was lower for cultivars
Fleet and Promise compared to Sensor (data not shown). This
cooling time reduction is likely due to their smaller diameter
size (Table 1). Similar observation with broccoli was reported
by Goyette et al. (1996).
No mass loss was observed for hydrocooled cobs, independently from cob orientation or water flow pattern. There
was even an increase in mass contrary to results obtained by
Cortbaoui et al. (2006) during forced-air cooling. The average mass gain was 7.03% of the initial mass during cooling
process with a significant higher increase for the perpendicular cobs in the immersed-type hydrocooler compared to

C. Vigneault et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 43 (2007) 351357

355

Table 3
Quality attributes for different precooled cultivars of sweet corn after storage at 1 C
Storage duration (days)

Mass gain during storage (%)

TSS (%)

Moisture content (%)

Quality index

0
7
21

0.00 b
4.96 a
3.80 a

22.70 a
20.25 b
19.07 c

75.70 b
77.97 a
75.84 b

7.75 a
7.73 a
7.38 a

0
7
21

0.00 b
4.61 a
3.37 a

27.10 a
25.38 b
24.74 c

68.80 b
70.35 a
69.07 b

8.87 a
7.84 a
6.25 b

0
7
21

0.00 b
4.14 a
3.28 a

21.50 a
18.08 b
17.26 c

76.50 c
78.78 a
77.91 b

8.69 a
8.23 a
6.74 b

Fleet

Sensor

Promise

Values in the same column with the same letter and sweet corn cultivar are not significantly different at = 0.05.

the other treatment combinations. It is possible that mass

gain in the spray-type hydrocooler was lower due to the
distance between the corn cobs and the sprinklers, and to
the gravity effect but no test was performed to verify this
hypothesis.

obtained under perpendicular cob orientation. The cold water

was circulated perpendicularly to the corn cob surface,
increasing the impact force to migrate water particles into
the first husk of the ear when hitting its surface compare to
parallel water circulation.

3.2.2. Orientation of corn cobs

Results (Table 4) showed the effect of cob orientation on
HCT and mass gain during the precooling process. For both
systems, spray and immersed, the perpendicular orientation
produced a smaller HCT of sweet corn cobs compared to
parallel orientation. This effect may be due to a higher water
turbulence reducing the immobile film of water at the surface
of the produce as the water hits the produce perpendicularly.
Additionally, the perpendicular ears could be more exposed
at a maximum degree of contact, resulting in faster cooling in
all locations through the entire length of the cob and in higher
uniformity of cooling through different parts of the produce.
Moreover, under parallel orientation, some cold water was
circulating from side to side through small open channels created by adjacent corn cobs bypassing direct contact between
them and resulting in less efficient cooling rate. Furthermore,
with parallel orientation, the direct surface of contact was
minimal and only one end of the ears was exposed perpendicularly to the cold water requiring more time to cool down.
However, to demonstrate this theory, more studies must be
performed.
The results also showed a difference in mass gain between
the two cob orientations. The highest value (9.5%) was

3.2.3. Room cooling

When compared to water, HCT obtained in room cooling
(436 min) is by far higher than all other combinations used
(Table 4). Regardless of the water flow pattern, during parallel
cob orientation precooling process, HCT (27.4 min) of sweet
corn was reduced by approximately 93% relative to room
cooling.
3.3. Storage duration
The effect of hydrocooling parameters on quality
attributes of sweet corn is presented in Table 5. For the same
storage duration, results demonstrated that quality attributes
including TSS, moisture content and quality index were similar for all precooling combinations tested; whereas, room
cooling showed a mass loss with significant lower quality index values. Apparently, hydrocooling parameters had
no significantly adverse effect on the quality attributes of
corn cobs, which remained high during storage. However, it
should be pointed out that the decline in quality observed
after 21 days was particularly due to the occurrence of
bacterial growth on some hydrocooled samples. Bacteria,
pink in color and with an unpleasant odor, were observed

Table 4
Half cooling time (HCT) and mass gain (%) for different hydrocooling combinations compared to room cooling
Precooling parameters

HCT (min)

Mass gain during cooling (%)

Corn cob orientation

Water flow pattern

Core

Kernel

Parallel
Parallel
Perpendicular
Perpendicular
Room Cooling

Spray
Immersed
Spray
Immersed

27.9 b
26.9 b
19.2 c
16.1 c
436.7 a

27.4 b
26.6 b
18.6 c
15.8 c
434.6 a

Values in the same column with the same letter are not significantly different at = 0.05.

5.17 b
5.77 b
5.71 b
9.48 a
0.38 c

356

C. Vigneault et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 43 (2007) 351357

Table 5
Quality attributes of sweet corn for different hydrocooling combinations compared to room cooling after 7 and 21 days of storage at 1 C
Precooling parameters

Mass gain during storage (%)

TSS (%)

Moisture content (%)

Quality index

Corn cob orientation

Water flow pattern

7 days
Parallel
Parallel
Perpendicular
Perpendicular
Room cooling

Spray
Immersed
Spray
Immersed

5.41 a
5.65 a
3.95 a
6.25 a
1.96 b

21.21 a
21.77 a
20.98 a
21.32 a
20.90 a

76.45 a
76.27 a
75.41 a
76.17 a
74.20 a

8.39 a
7.74 a
8.62 a
7.99 a
6.04 b

21 days
Parallel
Parallel
Perpendicular
Perpendicular
Room cooling

Spray
Immersed
Spray
Immersed

4.07 b
5.36 ab
3.79 b
5.68 a
2.29 c

20.41 a
20.56 a
20.67 a
20.39 a
19.76 a

74.30 a
74.11 a
74.76 a
74.92 a
73.26 a

6.58 a
6.17 a
6.98 a
6.71 a
5.48 b

Values in the same column with the same letter and storage duration are not significantly different at = 0.05.

as small colonies of 15 mm diameter over the entire corn

cob when present. According to Sargent et al. (1988), with
hydrocooling, sanitation of water is mandatory, especially if
water is recycled as in the systems described in the present
study. Water should be taken from a clean source and disinfected by adding chlorine to the extent that the free chlorine
level is 100 to 150 L L1 (Sargent et al., 1988). The same
authors recommended frequent water draining and system
sanitation.
3.4. Cultivar effects
Table 3 showed the effect of precooling on quality factors of the three sweet corn cultivars after storage. All three
cultivars had gained mass during hydrocooling and this free
water seems to be absorbed into the kernels during storage
since kernel moisture content increased with time storage.
This amount of increase tended to reduce over time. At the
beginning of the experiment, TSS was different among cultivars and tended to decline in all cultivars during storage.
The loss of sweetness was higher after 21 days of storage for
Promise (19.7%) was followed by Fleet and Sensor cultivars
with 16% and 8.7%, respectively. A significant increase of
the moisture content was measured after 7 days of storage
compared to the initial data for all cultivars, but there was
no significant difference between the initial values and those
recorded on the 21st day of storage. Cultivar Fleet maintained the higher quality index after 21 days of storage. This
index tended to decline after the 7th day and was significantly reduced after 21 days for both Sensor and Promise
cultivars.

4. Conclusion
Performance of a hydrocooling system for sweet corn
depends to a great extent upon operating practices such as
orientation of corn cobs, type of water flow, and system effi-

cacy. HCT was reduced by 42.3% when the corn cob was
immersed in 0 C water and oriented perpendicular to the
direction of water flow compared to parallel and spray-type
water flow. Under the same conditions, HCT was reduced to
3.7 mean temperature can be reduced from 24 C to 12 C
within 16 min. None of the water precooling combinations
under evaluation affected significantly the quality parameters of corn cobs during storage. Specific attention should be
given to good management practices that preserve equipment
cleanliness and water quality in order to avoid contamination
that could favor proliferation and transfer of microorganisms
responsible for human food borne diseases and produce deterioration.

References
Anon, 1982. Determination de la teneur en mati`ere s`eche par dessiccation
sous pression reduite et determination de la teneur en eau par distillation azeotropique. Produits derives des fruits et legumes Norme ISO
1026:1982. Organisation internationale de normalisation.
ASHRAE, 2002. Methods of precooling fruits, vegetables, and cut flowers. In: Refrigeration Handbook, vol. 14. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia,
pp. 34.
Boyette, M.D., Wilson, L.G., Estes, E.A., 1990. Postharvest Cooling and
Handling of Sweet Corn. Extension Service State Agricola N.C. State
University, Raleigh, pp. 413414.
Brecht, J.K., Sargent, S.A., Hochmuth, R.C., Tervola, R.S., 1990. Postharvest
quality of supersweet (SH2) sweet corn cultivars. In: Proceedings of
the Annual Meeting of the Florida State Horticulture Society, vol. 103.
Florida State Universty, Gainesvilles, FL, pp. 283288.
Cortbaoui, P., Goyette, B., Gariepy, Y., Charles, M.T., Raghavan, G.S.V.,
Vigneault, C., 2006. Forced air cooling system for zea mays. J. Food
Agric. Environ. 4 (1), 100104.
DeEll, J.R., Vigneault, C., Lemerre, S., 2000. Water temperature for hydrocooling field cucumbers in relation to chilling injury during storage.
Postharvest Biol. Technol. 18 (1), 2732.
Golob, P., Farrell, G., Orchard, J.E. (Eds.), 2002. Postharvest Science and
Technology, Principles and Practices, vol. 1. Blackwell Science, p. 554.
Goyette, B., Vigneault, C., Panneton, B., Raghavan, G.S.V., 1996. Method
to evaluate the average temperature at the surface of a horticultural crop.
Can. Agric. Eng. 38 (4), 291295.

C. Vigneault et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology 43 (2007) 351357

Gross, K., Wang, C.Y., Saltveit, M., 2004. The commercial storage of fruits, vegetables, and florist and nursery stocks. Agriculture Handbook number 66. USDA/ARS, Beltsville, MD, USA,
http://usna.usda.gov/hb66/contents.html.
Holman, J.P. (Ed.), 1986. Heat Transfer. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Toronto, Ontario, p. 675.
Kader, A.A. (Ed.), 2002. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops, 3rd
ed. Coop. Ext. Uni. of Ca. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Univ. of CA, Davis, CA. Publ. no. 3311, 535 p.
Kays, J.S. (Ed.), 1997. Postharvest Physiology of Perishable Plant Products.
Eaton Press, Athens, Georgia, p. 532.
Rodov, V., Gopel, A., Aharoni, N., Aharoni, Y., Wiseblum, A., Horev,
B., Vinokur, Y., 2000. Nested Modified-atmosphere Packages maintain
Quality of Trimmed Sweet Corn during Cold Storage and the Shelf Life
Period, vol. 18. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Postharvest Biology
and Technology, pp. 259266.

357

Sargent, S.A., Talbot, M.T., Brecht, J.K., 1988. Evaluating precooling methods for vegetable packinghouse operations, florida cooperative extension
service. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 101, 175182.
Singh, R.P., Chakraverty, A. (Eds.), 2001. Postharvest Technology: Cereals, Pulses, Fruits and Vegetables. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, NH,
USA, p. 356.
Thompson, K.A. (Ed.), 2003. Fruits and Vegetables: Harvesting, Handling
and Storage, 2nd ed. Blackwell publishing, Oxford, UK, p. 460.
Vigneault, C., Goyette, B., 2002. Design of plastic container openings to
optimize forced-air precooling of fruits and vegetables. Appl. Eng. Agric.
18 (1), 7376.
Vigneault, C., Bartz, J.A., Sargent, S.A., 2000. Postharvest decay risk associated with hydrocooling tomatoes. Plant Dis. 84 (12), 13141318.
Vigneault, C., Gariepy, Y., Roussel, D., Goyette, B., 2004. The effect of
precooling delay on the quality of stored sweet corn. Int. J. Food Agric.
Environ. 2 (2), 7173.