# Effects of the Fruit Harvest Date and Shelf-Life Nexus of Apples on Different Quality Perspectives
## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Texture Profile Analysis  
The texture profile analysis and firmness for two apple varieties are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. For the Braeburn apples (Table 3), statistically significant differences regarding both the harvest date and shelf life testing day were observed for fracturability, springiness, average peak load, and firmness. Parameter firmness reached maximum values in unripe fruit and on day '0' of shelf life and then decreased. Cohesiveness was statistically different depending on the harvest date and had the highest values in unripe fruits. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **DH** & **ADH** & **FRA** & **COH** & **SPR** & **GUM** & **CHEW** & **Peak** & **FIRM** \\ \hline Harvest date (H) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The effects of harvest date and shelf life testing day on texture profile analysis and firmness for the Braeburn variety. Parameters are reported as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (Mean \(\pm\) StD). Different letters within columns indicate significant mean differences according to Tukey HSD test (\(p\leq\) 0.05). n.s., *, **, and *** denote non-significant or significant effects at \(p<\) 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. As for Golden Delicious apples (Table 4), parameter firmness was statistically different for harvest date, shelf life testing day, and their interaction. For Braeburn apples, this parameter reached its maximum in unripe fruit and on day '0' of shelf life, and, after that, values started to decrease. Springiness statistically differed in terms of the harvest date, with the highest value for overripe fruit, which was completely different from the Braeburn variety, where unripe fruit had the highest values significantly. Statistically significant differences were observed for adhesiveness and average peak load regarding harvest date, and they had the highest values in unripe fruits. For these two parameters, there were also statistically significant differences for harvest date and shelf life testing day interaction. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **D6H** & **ADH** & **FRA** & **COH** & **SPR** & **GUM** & **CHEW** & **Peak** & **FIRM** \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Harvest date (H)} & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Harvest date (H)} & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Unripe} & 9.31 \(\pm\) 12.2 & 2.72 \(\pm\) 1.65 \({}^{\ast}\) & 45.87 \(\pm\) 12.11 & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 1.67 \(\pm\) 1.08 \({}^{\ast}\) & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.62 & 32.04 \(\pm\) 8.31 \({}^{\ast}\) & 8.09 \(\pm\) 0.72 \({}^{\ast}\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{Bree} & 9.63 \(\pm\) 1.45 & 1.64 \(\pm\) 1.20 \({}^{\ast}\) & 42.22 \(\pm\) 7.31 & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 3.98 \(\pm\) 373 \({}^{\ast}\) & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 0.54 \(\pm\) 2.16 & 24.44 \(\pm\) 3.61 \({}^{\ast}\) & 7.77 \(\pm\) 0.59 \({}^{\ast}\) \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{Overripe} & 8.43 \(\pm\) 3.16 & 1.74 \(\pm\) 1.04 \({}^{\ast}\) & 46.38 \(\pm\) 10.98 & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 4.45 \(\pm\) 3.87 \({}^{\ast}\) & 1.09 \(\pm\) 3.52 & 0.99 \(\pm\) 3.53 & 27.34 \(\pm\) 6.44 \({}^{\ast}\) & 7.15 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\ast}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Shef life testing day (D)} & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Day 0 & 7.99 \(\pm\) 2.58 & 2.65 \(\pm\) 2.69 & 44.86 \(\pm\) 5.03 & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 3.85 \(\pm\) 3.73 & 1.54 \(\pm\) 4.23 & 2.12 \(\pm\) 4.69 & 31.37 \(\pm\) 7.60 & 8.05 \(\pm\) 0.90 \({}^{\ast}\) \\ Day 0 & 5.97 \(\pm\) 0.0 This led to the conclusion that, in comparison to Braeburn, Golden Delicious apples experience fewer levels of alteration during shelf life but are more affected by harvest date and shelf life testing day interactions. Both varieties are strongly influenced by the harvest date. Despite the lack of biochemical analysis in this work, it is widely recognized that apple ripening involves two important processes that affect the tissue's mechanical properties, including its fracture mechanism [55].