## Results and Discussion  
### Quality Attributes of Stored Apples  
The highly ripe fresh Crimson Crisp apple, harvested 166 dafb, is a bright red fruit [32] with an average fruit weight of 189 \(\pm\) 26 g. With a total soluble solids (TSS) value of 13.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\)Brix and starch degradation of 9.7, the sample showed relatively high values compared to other cultivars [43]. The fruit firmness (FF) of Crimson apples at this stage of high ripeness is higher compared to other cultivars with an average value of 7.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 kg/cm\({}^{2}\)[44]. The titatable acidity (TA) and the juice content (JC) were comparable to those of other cultivars at optimum harvest conditions [43]. Quality attributes were evaluated and compared to the fresh apples after an intermediate storage control of 126 days in storage (4M) and after 199 days in storage (6M) (Table 1). The fruit weight changed mainly due to a loss of water in fruit through transpiration. However, the rate of transpiration is mostly dependent on the surrounding atmosphere of the product, this is described as a pure physical effect [45]. We observed that Crimson Crisp apples from RA, CA or MCP storage did not show significant differences compared to the fresh fruit nor between the sample sets, respectively. Also, the prolonged storage of six months compared to four months did not lead to a significant change in fruit weight. The TSS showed a significant difference between apples stored in RA and in other storage conditions already after four months of storage. After six months, fruits stored under RA conditions (6M-RA) showed significantly lower TSS values compared to the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Weight [g]**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**TSS [\({}^{\circ}\)Brix]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TA [g Malic Acid Equiv./L]**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**pH**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Juice Content [\%]**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Flesh/ Corebrowning [\%]**} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline Fresh & 189 \(\pm\) 26 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 13.9 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 7.9 \(\pm\) 0.9 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 17.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{D}}\) & 3.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 22.5 & 0/0 \\
4M-RA & 192 \(\pm\) 21 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 12.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 6.2 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & / & / & 12.9 & 0/0 \\
4M-CA & 202 \(\pm\) 21 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 13.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 7.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & / & / & 20.6 & 0/0 \\
4M-MCP & 210 \(\pm\) 30 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 13.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 7.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & / & / & 20.2 & 0/0 \\
6M-RA & 193 \(\pm\) 23 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 12.8 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 6.1 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 8.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 3.98 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{D}}\) & 13.1 & 27/13 \\
6M-CA & 194 \(\pm\) 33 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 13.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 7.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 10.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 3.80 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 21.3 & 0/0 \\
6M-MCP & 190 \(\pm\) 28 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 13.7 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{BC}}\) & 8.3 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 14.0 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 3.68 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 21.2 & 0/0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Physical and chemical quality attributes of Crimson Crisp apples at harvest and four months (4M) and six months (6M) of storage under different conditions. The results of one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc pairwise comparison using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test control (\(p\) < 0.05) to check for differences between single samples are reported as letter codes. \({}^{\text{A}\sim\text{D}}\) Averages with the different letters are significantly different. Browning of the flesh or core, respectively, is given in percent affected fruits. -fresh apples after harvest. On the contrary, 6M-CA and 6M-MCP did not show significant differences in TSS to fresh fruits.