Ultrasound in Postharvest Management of Fruits and Vegetables: Mechanisms, Applications, and Future Directions
2026 Volume 14 Issue 3 Pages 64-85
Details
2026 Volume 14 Issue 3 Pages 64-85
Postharvest deterioration of fruits and vegetables remains a major source of global food loss, reducing both nutritional and economic value. Power ultrasound (20–100 kHz) is a non-thermal technology that supports postharvest handling through acoustic cavitation, with reported benefits for surface decontamination and quality retention. This systematic review synthesizes recent advances and highlights key gaps to guide future research and application. Across the literature, ultrasound performs most reliably when integrated with other postharvest treatments, including sanitizers, controlled or modified atmosphere packaging, coatings, calcium salts, and gentle heating. These combined approaches more often achieve stronger microbial reductions and better retention of firmness, color, and bioactive compounds than ultrasound alone, which typically shows modest, commodity dependent effects. Major barriers to wider use include incomplete reporting of ultrasound parameters, variable responses across commodities and product forms, and limited pilot scale validation. Progress toward commercial adoption will require standardized reporting and validation protocols, clearer guidance on commodity specific application windows, and technoeconomic evaluation alongside mechanistic studies that track longer term biological responses during storage.
Postharvest losses of fruits and vegetables remain substantial, largely due to microbial decay and progressive quality degradation during handling, transport, and storage. To mitigate these losses, non-thermal and low-residue preservation methods are gaining attention for their ability to extend shelf life while maintaining sensory and nutritional quality. Among these, ultrasound has emerged as a sustainable technology that uses only water and electricity yet effectively reduces surface microbes and delays quality losses [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
Early studies focused mainly on microbial reduction, but research has now shifted toward practical postharvest use and combined applications with controlled atmospheres, electrolyzed water, calcium salts, or oxidants [2, 7]. Across a range of commodities, ultrasound treatments at frequencies of 20–40 kHz for durations of 5–30 min typically preserve firmness, color, and vitamin C [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. When combined with other postharvest treatments, ultrasound can improve microbial safety while maintaining texture and color [7, 9, 14, 15, 16].
Despite these promising findings, several limitations remain. Treatment outcomes are strongly influenced by commodity type, treatment intensity and exposure time, while experimental reporting is often incomplete. Many studies omit key operational details suc１parison difficult. Moreover, higher ultrasound intensities may induce undesirable softening or degradation of heat-sensitive compounds [17, 18, 19]. It also remains unclear whether ultrasound alone can consistently preserve quality or whether synergistic co-treatments are required [7]. These uncertainties currently limit industrial-scale adoption [2, 4].
In this review, we take the position that ultrasound is most effective when it is used as part of a combined postharvest strategy rather than as a standalone preservation method. Across commodities, ultrasound alone often gives modest and variable effects, but its value becomes clearer when paired with complementary treatments such as sanitizers, controlled or modified atmospheres, coatings, calcium salts, or heat treatment. With this viewpoint in mind, we summarize key mechanisms and practical process parameters, then synthesize evidence on microbial safety and quality retention to propose application windows and reporting priorities that support reproducibility and scale-up.
This systematic review was conducted using a predefined search and screening approach guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework [20]. Study identification, screening, and inclusion are summarized in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Fig. 1). Eligibility criteria were defined before screening using a PICO framework (Table 1).
| Element | Definition for this review |
|---|---|
| Population (P) | Fresh fruits and vegetables (intact or fresh cut) |
| Intervention (I) | Postharvest ultrasound in an aqueous medium, alone or combined with another postharvest treatment |
| Comparison (C) | Untreated control, ultrasound alone vs combined treatments, or comparison among ultrasound conditions |
| Outcomes (O) | Microbial reduction and/or quality preservation during storage (decay, firmness, color, browning, nutrient retention, respiration, ethylene, shelf life) |
| Included study types | Research articles, review articles, conference proceedings (English, 2010–2025) |
| Excluded study types | In vitro only without produce, non aqueous systems, processed foods, ultrasound for extraction or processing, insufficient treatment reporting |
Searches were conducted in Scopus, PubMed, Wiley-Blackwell, and Springer using combinations of ultrasound terms (ultrasound, ultrasonication, sonication, acoustic cavitation) and postharvest produce terms (postharvest, fruit, vegetable, shelf life, storage, washing, decontamination, quality). Database specific queries and filters are shown in Table 2. Searches were limited to English language publications from 2010 to 2025.
2.3 Screening and data extractionFor each included study, the following information was extracted into a structured table: commodity and product form (intact or fresh cut), climacteric status when relevant, ultrasound conditions, treatment medium and temperature, bath volume and product load when available, co-treatments, and quality outcomes. In this review, ‘treatment intensity’ refers to the reported ultrasound settings (power or power density and exposure time), since delivered energy is not consistently reported.
| Database | Representative query | Filters applied | Records retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scopus | TITLE ABS KEY ( ultrasound OR ultrasonication OR sonication OR “acoustic cavitation” ) AND TITLE ABS KEY ( postharvest OR “shelf life” OR storage OR fruit OR vegetable OR “postharvest quality” ) | Year 2010–2025, English, document type article or review or conference proceeding, publication stage final | 145 |
| PubMed | (ultrasound[Title Abstract] OR ultrasonication[Title Abstract] OR sonication[Title Abstract]) AND (postharvest[Title Abstract] OR “postharvest quality”[Title Abstract]) | Year 2010–2025, English, full text filter as applied in the search | 90 |
| Springer | With all the words of ultrasound postharvest | Year 2010–2025, English, article type research article and review article | 215 |
| Wiley- Blackwell | (ultrasound[Title Abstract] OR ultrasonication[Title Abstract] OR sonication[Title Abstract]) AND (postharvest[Title Abstract] OR “postharvest quality”[Title Abstract]) | Year 2010–2025 | 339 |
The study selection process is summarized in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1). From the records identified across databases, 41 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final synthesis. To highlight how research themes have evolved in postharvest ultrasound, a keyword co-occurrence map was generated using VOSviewer (Fig. 2). Figure 2 suggests a shift in research emphasis over time.
Earlier studies, around 2010 to 2015, suggest that research was still in an exploratory phase, rather than being dominated by a single well-defined theme. During this period, the keywords were distributed across tomato-based applications, enzyme inactivation, retention of chemical quality attributes such as ascorbic acid, process optimization, and microbial control. In contrast, more recent studies, particularly from the late 2010s to the early 2020s, have increasingly emphasized quality retention, antioxidant related outcomes, and commodity specific mechanisms, with notable attention to asparagus, spinach, strawberry, and banana.
Ultrasound refers to acoustic waves above 20 kHz, and postharvest applications commonly operate between 20 and 100 kHz [21, 22]. In aqueous systems, an ultrasonic transducer converts electrical energy into mechanical oscillations that create alternating compression and rarefaction cycles, leading to acoustic cavitation [1, 23]. Cavitation involves bubble growth and collapse events that can generate highly localized hot spots, with temperatures approaching 5000 K and pressures around 50 to 100 MPa [1, 17, 24].
Two cavitation regimes are relevant to postharvest treatment. Stable cavitation promotes microstreaming that improves mass transfer near produce surfaces. Transient cavitation produces stronger mechanical forces (microjets, shockwaves) and generates reactive species in the surrounding liquid [23, 24]. Cavitation intensity depends on frequency, power density, duty cycle, water temperature, dissolved gases, product load, and system geometry [22, 23]. Short treatments in cool water, often at 20 to 40 kHz, and pulsed operation are commonly used to limit unwanted heating and tissue stress [1, 25].
Figure 3 summarizes how cavitation translates into microbial and quality outcomes through linked physical and biological steps. At the surface, microjets, shear forces, and cavitation derived oxidants, including H₂O₂, can damage microbial cells and weaken biofilms, while microstreaming improves contact with sanitizers in combined treatments. Together, these effects support decontamination and reduced decay [8, 26]. In plant tissues, the same stimulus can shift redox balance and generate ROS signals that interact with ethylene biology, particularly in climacteric commodities. Ultrasound may also shift epiphytic microbial communities, which could indirectly influence ethylene related outcomes, for example through ACC deaminase activity, although direct evidence in postharvest ultrasound systems remains limited. This ROS and ethylene interaction then regulates downstream cell wall metabolism, including enzymes such as pectin methylesterase and polygalacturonase, which control softening. When exposure is mild, these pathways may be moderated, and ripening can slow. When exposure is excessive, stress and micro injury may amplify ethylene associated responses and accelerate softening and ripening.
For transparent reporting and reproducibility, studies should clearly describe key parameters, including frequency, electrical power, bath volume, power density, duty cycle, exposure time, liquid temperature, product load, and ultrasonic setup geometry, as these factors strongly affect cavitation behavior and therefore treatment outcomes [1, 22].
Ultrasound can be applied at several points in the postharvest chain, each serving a specific purpose (Fig. 4). These uses generally fall into four functional categories: quality assessment, cleaning and decontamination, quality preservation, and enhanced chemical treatment. The versatility of this technology allows it to be used either as a diagnostic tool, a cleaning aid, or a preservation enhancer depending on the stage of handling.
One key application is non-destructive quality evaluation. Pulse-echo ultrasound has been used to assess the internal condition of citrus fruit without damaging it, enabling detection of firmness differences and hidden defects. This approach offers a fast, contact-based way to support sorting and quality control during fruit reception or before shipping [27].
The most common use is during washing and microbial decontamination. Cavitation produced by ultrasound improves the efficiency of sanitizers and helps loosen soil and biofilms from the fruit surface. On cherry tomatoes, for instance, previous research reported that combining ultrasound with sodium dichloroisocyanurate reduced both natural contaminants and Salmonella Typhimurium more effectively than the sanitizer alone [28]. Similar effects were seen in purple cabbage [29] and strawberries [26]. Together, these studies confirm ultrasound as a practical intensification step in commercial wash systems, largely due to the increased shear and mixing caused by cavitation bubbles.
Another important application concerns pesticide residue removal. Ultrasonic cleaning has been shown to lower pesticide residues more effectively than water washing alone by disrupting boundary layers and enhancing mass transfer. A previous study reported significant removal of several pesticides from rape and grape using an ultrasonic washer [30], while a similar result was observed in strawberries [31]. In fresh-cut processing, ultrasound is often paired with antioxidant dips to reduce enzymatic browning. For example, the combination of ultrasound with an ascorbic acid dip suppressed polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase activity in fresh-cut apples more effectively than the dip alone [32].
Integration with packaging provides another promising opportunity. For cucumbers, application of ultrasound treatment before controlled atmosphere conditions reduced microbial growth and maintained firmness and color [13]. Similarly, a brief ultrasonication pretreatment followed by modified-atmosphere packaging (MAP) showed a slowed respiration and maintained the visual quality of pakchoi more effectively than MAP alone [33]. Ultrasound can also support targeted chemical applications. A previous study showed that dipping mandarins and lemons in sonicated imazalil solutions improved penetration and distribution of the fungicide, allowing for shorter treatment times and lower chemical doses without damaging the rind [34].
Overall, ultrasound can be incorporated at multiple stages of the postharvest process. Its main advantages are improved mass transfer, enhanced sanitization, and the potential to influence biochemical responses that support quality retention. The effectiveness of each application depends on the power level, exposure time, and sensitivity of the commodity, which must be optimized for reliable use at commercial scale.
Ultrasound offers a clear advantage of addressing microbial safety while preserving the sensory and nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables. Evidence summarized in Table 3 and 4 indicates that its effectiveness varies among commodities.
3.3.1 Microbial safetyA consistent message in the literature is that ultrasound rarely performs best as a standalone treatment. When used alone, it usually gives moderate microbial reductions and the outcome depends on the commodity and treatment settings. More reliable improvements are reported when ultrasound is combined with another mild intervention. In practice, ultrasound mainly supports other treatments by improving surface cleaning, helping detach cells from irregular surfaces, and increasing the contact between microbes and antimicrobial agents.
Across the commodities summarized in Table 3, ultrasound generally reduced surface microbial populations, but the magnitude depended strongly on whether it was applied alone or as part of a combined treatment. Standalone ultrasound commonly resulted in reductions of around 1 to 2 log CFU/g, while combinations with mild heat, sanitizers, or surfactants more often achieved larger reductions, sometimes reaching 4 to 5 log CFU/g. Overall, this pattern suggests that ultrasound is better used in combination with other postharvest treatments rather than as a replacement for conventional decontamination methods.
The main mechanism is acoustic cavitation. Bubble collapse near the produce surface generates shear forces and microjets that can disrupt cell envelopes and weaken biofilms. Reactive species formed during cavitation may also contribute to damage of microbial membranes and nucleic acids, so inactivation can involve both physical disruption and oxidative effects [1, 23]. As a result, ultrasound can reduce spoilage organisms such as total aerobic counts, yeasts, and molds, and it has also been reported to act against targets such as Salmonella, Bacillus cereus spores, and Penicillium digitatum under certain conditions [10, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37].
Several studies also show that pairing ultrasound with another postharvest treatment improves performance. For example, hot water plus ultrasound reduced microbial counts on bananas to about 5 log CFU/g compared with around 11 log CFU/g in untreated fruit [35]. Similar improvements have been reported when ultrasound was combined with sanitizers in cherry tomatoes and grapes [28, 38]. However, responses are not always consistent. In fresh cut lettuce, combining ultrasound with sodium hypochlorite increased the initial reduction but did not clearly improve suppression during storage compared with sanitizer treatment alone [14]. These mixed results highlight the need to optimize exposure time and acoustic conditions for each commodity and target organism. Overall, the most consistent value of ultrasound is its ability to enhance existing washing or sanitizing steps, not to replace them.
| Type of produce | Ultrasound condition: Freq. (kHz), Power (W), Time (min), Water temp. (°C) | Co- treatment | Bacteria (log CFU) | Yeast & Mold (log CFU) | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple |
Freq: 28 Power: 50 Time: 15 Water temp: 20-25 |
None | US reduced 1.2 log CFU/g compared to control at day 14 | US reduced 1.8 log CFU/g compared to control at day 14 | [10] |
| Banana |
Freq: 42 Power: 245 Time: 10 Water temp: 37 |
HW | US+HW reduced 5.79 log CFU/g at day 12 compared to control | US+HW reduced 4.51 log CFU/g at day 12 compared to control | [35] |
| Cherry |
Freq: 33 Power: 60 Time: 10-60 Water temp: N/A |
None | US(30 min) showed 2 log CFU/g reduction at day 15 compared to control | US(30 min) showed 0.53 log CFU/g reduction at day 15 compared to control | [36] |
| Cherry Tomato |
Freq: 20 Power: 40, 64, 87 (Calculated) Time: 4 (intermittent) Water temp: 25 |
None | US(87 W) reduced initial load by 1.04 log CFU/g | US(87 W) reduced initial load by 0.93 log CFU/g | [19] |
| Cherry Tomato |
Freq: 20/40 (Dual) Power: 300 Time: 10 Water temp: 25 |
Chemical Sanitizers | US+PAAH reduced 3.07 log CFU/g compared to control | US+PAAH reduced 3.10 log CFU/g compared to control | [12] |
| Cherry Tomato |
Freq: 45 Power: N/A Time: 10 Water temp: N/A |
Chemical Sanitizers | US+PA reduced aerobic mesophiles by 4.4 and inoculated Salmonella by 3.9 log CFU/g | US+PA reduced molds and yeasts by 3.4 log CFU/g | [28] |
| Cherry Tomato & Strawberry |
Freq: 40 Power: 240 Time: 10 Water temp: N/A |
SAEW | US+SAEW reduced 1.77 in cherry tomato and 1.29 log CFU/g in strawberry | US+SAEW reduced 1.5 in cherry tomato and 1.29 log CFU/g in strawberry | [49] |
| Fresh-cut cucumber |
Freq: 20 Power: 400 Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: 20 |
MAP | US(10 min)+MAP reduced 1.44 log CFU/g at 15 days compared to control | US(10 min)+MAP reduced 0.92 log CFU/g at 15 days compared to control | [50] |
| Fresh-cut cucumber |
Freq: 40 Power: 400 Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: N/A |
NaClO | US+NaClO reduced by 1.73 to 2.17 log CFU/g | Not measured | [51] |
| Fresh-cut lettuce |
Freq: 42 Power: 130 Time: 3, 7, 10, 20, 30 Water temp: <15 |
NaClO & MAP | US+NaClO initially gave higher reductions (1.1–3.3 log CFU/g) but growth was higher during storage | NaClO and US+NaClO caused similar initial reductions (2.2–3.1 log CFU/g) but growth was higher during storage | [14] |
| Fresh-cut lettuce |
Freq: 25, 37, 45, 80 Power: 100, 120 Time: 5 Water temp: ~16 |
PA | US+PA showed no significant reduction compared to control (PA alone) | US+PA showed no significant reduction compared to control (PA alone) | [52] |
| Grapes |
Freq: 40 Power: N/A Time: 0.5 Water temp: 25 |
SAEW | US+SAEW showed substantial reduction by 2.23 log CFU/g | US+SAEW showed substantial reduction by 2.76 log CFU/g | [38] |
| Green Asparagus |
Freq: 40 Power: 360 Time: 10 Water temp: N/A |
AG | US+AG inhibited the growth (similar trend with fungi) | US+AG reduced 1.41 log CFU/g at the end of storage compared to control | [46] |
| Kiwifruit |
Freq: 30 Power: N/A Time: 8 Water temp: 25 |
NaOCl | US+NaOCl reduced counts (3.48 log CFU/cm²) | US+NaOCl significantly reduced counts (2.32 log CFU/cm²) | [41] |
| Lettuce |
Freq: 24 Power: 285 Time: 2-10 Water temp: ~15 |
EC | US+EC inactivated between 2.45 and 2.64 log CFU/g. | US+EC did not completely inactivate the yeasts and molds | [53] |
| Lettuce (Romaine) |
Freq: 26 Power: 200 Time: 5 Water temp: N/A |
None | US significantly reduced Salmonella at 5°C but not the total viable count | Not measured | [54] |
| Lettuce & Carrots |
Freq: 40 Power: N/A Time: 1-5 Water temp: 25 |
Surfactants | US+Tween 20 significantly reduced Bacillus cereus spores (reductions of 2.49 and 2.22 log CFU/g on lettuce and carrots, respectively) | Not measured | [37] |
| Pakchoi |
Freq: 30 Power: N/A Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: 20 |
MAP | US(10 min)+MAP reduced from 7.11 to 6.01 log CFU/g | Not measured | [33] |
| Plum |
Freq: 40 Power: 80, 100, 120 Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: 20 |
ClO₂ | US(100W–10 min)+ClO₂ reduced aerobic mesophilic and psychrotrophic (3.7 and 3.9 log CFU/g, respectively) at day 40 compared to control | US(100W–10 min)+ClO₂ reduced 2.9 log CFU/g at day 40 of storage compared to control | [55] |
| Purple cabbage |
Freq: 40 Power: 500 Time: 5 Water temp: N/A |
Chemical Sanitizers | US+SD reduced inoculated S. Typhimurium (almost 4 log CFU/g reduction) | Not measured | [29] |
| Strawberry |
Freq: 25, 28, 40, 59 Power: 350 Time: 10 Water temp: 20 |
None | US(40 kHz) reduced 0.8 log CFU/g compared to control at day 8 | US(40 kHz) reduced 0.86 log CFU/g compared to control at day 8 | [56] |
| Strawberry |
Freq: 33 Power: 60 Time: 10–60 Water temp: 25 |
None | US(40 min) reduced 5.91 to 3.91 log CFU/g at day 15 | US(40 min) reduced 4.80 to 3.58 log CFU/g at day 15 | [18] |
| Strawberry |
Freq: 40 Power: 500 Time: 5 Water temp: 7 |
Chemical Sanitizers | US+PA reduced 1.8 log CFU/g compared to control | US+PA reduced 2.0 log CFU/g compared to control | [26] |
| Strawberry |
Freq: 40 Power: 250–450 Time: 5–15 Water temp: N/A |
None | US(250W–9.8 min) reduced 2.42 log CFU/g compared to control at day 8 | US(250W–9.8 min) reduced 2.45 log CFU/g compared to control at day 8 | [40] |
| Tomato |
Freq: 45 Power: N/A Time: 1-19 Water temp: 10 |
None | US(100% power level–19 min) reduced initial load 2.95 log CFU/g | No significant changes between treatments and control | [43] |
| Watercress, Parsley, Strawberry |
Freq: 45 Power: N/A Time: 10 Water temp: 25 |
Chemical Sanitizers | US+PA reduced 6.5, 6.3, and 4.0 log CFU/g in watercress, parsley and strawberry, respectively | US+PA reduced 3.3, 2.5, and ~4.0 log CFU/g in watercress, parsley and strawberry, respectively | [57] |
US: ultrasound, N/A: not available, HW: hot water, MAP: modified atmosphere packaging, PAAH: peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide, PA: peracetic acid, SD: sodium dichloroisocyanurate, SAEW: slightly acidic electrolyzed water, AG: acetic acid and gibberellic acid, EC: (low intensity) electrical current.
3.3.2 Quality attributesAcross commodities, quality benefits are most consistent when ultrasound is used with another mild postharvest treatment, while ultrasound alone often gives modest and condition dependent effects (Table 4). Many studies report slower softening, better color stability, and improved retention of vitamins and antioxidant compounds, but responses vary with commodity sensitivity, treatment intensity, and exposure time.
Firmness retention is one of the most frequently reported outcomes under moderate conditions. In apples, mushrooms, and strawberries, ultrasound has been associated with slower softening, which has been linked to reduced activity of cell wall related enzymes such as pectin methylesterase and polygalacturonase [10, 39, 40]. However, the response is strongly dependent on treatment intensity and exposure time. Higher intensity or longer exposure can damage tissues and promote faster softening, as reported for kiwifruit and bananas [41, 42].
Bananas also illustrate this dual response. Ultrasound applied alone (25 kHz, 10–30 min) accelerated ripening, with increased CO₂ and ethylene production, faster yellowing, and higher weight loss [42]. In contrast, studies that paired ultrasound with a partner treatment reported more reliable preservation, such as hot water plus ultrasound improving firmness and delaying color change [35], or ultrasound with salicylic acid supporting firmness retention and reducing peel browning [58]. This helps explain why combined approaches are often preferred, since the co-treatment provides the main protective effect while ultrasound is kept within a safer range.
Ultrasound has also been linked to improved color retention and higher levels of phytochemicals. Several studies report higher ascorbic acid, phenolics, and flavonoids, along with increased antioxidant activity in commodities such as apples, grapes, and tomatoes [10, 38, 43]. These outcomes are often discussed alongside lower polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase activity, consistent with reports in litchi pericarp and fresh cut sweet potato [44, 45]. Reduced respiration and lower water loss have also been reported in asparagus and mushrooms, which may indicate better maintenance of tissue integrity during storage [39, 46].
Overall, Table 4 shows that ultrasound contributes most reliably to quality retention when integrated with complementary treatments. Examples include controlled atmosphere storage for cucumbers, 1 methylcyclopropene for apples, and calcium dips for strawberries, where combinations more often achieved stronger firmness, color, and nutritional retention than single treatments [13, 47, 48]. Taken together, these studies support viewing ultrasound as a supportive tool within multi step preservation systems, rather than a standalone solution.
| Type of produce | Ultrasound condition: Freq. (kHz), Power (W), Time (min), Water temp. (°C) | Co- treatments | Quality outcome | Result | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple | Freq: 20 Power: 130 Time: 7.5, 15, 30 Water temp: ~22 | None | Firmness | US caused a significant decrease in cell wall stiffness (Young's modulus) | [11] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US increased pectin solubilization within the cell walls | ||||
| Apple | Freq: 28 Power: 50 Time: 15 Water temp: 20-25 | None | Firmness | US significantly preserved firmness | [10] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US was most effective at retaining ascorbic acid, TPC, TFC, and antioxidant capacity; lowest PPO and PME activity | ||||
| Color / Browning | US effectively limited enzymatic browning | ||||
| Apple | Freq: 50 Power: 200 Time: 5 Water temp: 20 | 1-MCP | Firmness | US+1-MCP was most effective at maintaining firmness | [47] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US+1-MCP was most effective at restraining ethylene production and respiration rate | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+1-MCP was most effective at enhancing antioxidant enzyme activities (POD, SOD, CAT) | ||||
| Banana (Preservation) | Freq: 42 Power: 245 Time: 10 Water temp: 37 | HW | Firmness | US+HW was most effective at retaining firmness | [35] |
| Weight Loss | US+HW resulted in the lowest weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+HW retained higher levels of ascorbic acid and antioxidant activity | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+HW delayed color changes | ||||
| Banana (Preservation) | Freq: 40 Power: 350 Time: 10 Water temp: 25 | SA | Firmness | US+SA effectively preserved firmness compared to control | [58] |
| Weight Loss | US+SA effectively reduced weight loss compared to control | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+SA resulted in higher total phenol content and antioxidant capacity; reduced PPO activity | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+SA reduced chilling injury (peel browning) | ||||
| Banana (Ripening) | Freq: 25 Power: N/A Time: 10, 20, 30 Water temp: N/A | None | Firmness | US(30 min) significantly decreased firmness, accelerating softening | [42] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US(30 min) significantly increased CO₂ and ethylene production, inducing ripening | ||||
| Weight Loss | US(30 min) significantly increased weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US(30 min) significantly increased antioxidant activity after treatment | ||||
| Color / Browning | US(30 min) accelerated yellow color development by 1–2 days | ||||
| Cherry | Freq: 33 Power: 60 Time: 10–60 Water temp: 25 | None | Firmness | US(30–40 min) retained firmness better than control | [36] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US(30–40 min) retained better TSS, TA, and antioxidant activity | ||||
| Color / Browning | US(30–40 min) retained better color during ripening | ||||
| Cherry Tomato | Freq: 20 Power: 39.98, 63.71, 87.44 (calculated) Time: 8 Water temp: 25 | None | Firmness | US(63.71 W) inhibited softening and maintained firmness better than control | [19] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US(63.71 W) inhibited ethylene production and respiration rate, delaying the climacteric peak | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US (63.71 W) maintained higher levels of total phenolics, flavonoids, and ascorbic acid | ||||
| Cherry Tomato | Freq: 20/40 (Dual) Power: 300 Time: 10 Water temp: 25 | Chemical Sanitizers | Firmness | US+PAAH caused initial firmness loss, but impeded firmness loss during storage | [12] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US+PAAH significantly increased initial TPC and TFC | ||||
| Cucumber | Freq: 20 Power: 100, 200, 300 Time: 10 Water temp: 25 | CA | Firmness | US+CA (200W) was most effective in retaining firmness | [13] |
| Weight Loss | US+CA (200W) resulted in the lowest weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+CA (200W) preserved flavor volatiles and taste characteristics | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+CA (200W) had the lowest total color difference (TCD) | ||||
| Fresh-cut cucumber | Freq: 20 Power: 400 Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: 20 | MAP | Firmness | US(10 min)+MAP was most effective at retaining firmness | [50] |
| Weight Loss | US(10 min)+MAP had the lowest weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US(10 min)+MAP was most effective at retaining TSS and ascorbic acid | ||||
| Color / Browning | US(10 min)+MAP had the lowest total color change (ΔE) | ||||
| Fresh-cut cucumber | Freq: 40 Power: 400 Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: N/A | NaClO | Firmness | US+NaClO slowed the decline of firmness | [51] |
| Weight Loss | US+NaClO resulted in the lowest weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+NaClO reduced the accumulation of malondialdehyde | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+NaClO reduced chlorophyll degradation | ||||
| Fresh-cut lettuce | Freq: 42 Power: 130 Time: 3-30 Water temp: <15 | NaClO & MAP | Firmness | US+NaClO+MAP gave no significant effect on instrumental or sensory firmness | [14] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US+NaClO+MAP gave no significant effect on respiration rate | ||||
| Weight Loss | US+NaClO+MAP gave no significant difference between treatments | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+NaClO+MAP gave no significant effect on browning attributes | ||||
| Fresh-cut sweet potato | Freq: 40 Power: 100 Time: 10 Water temp: 25 | None | Bioactive Compounds | US enhanced antioxidant capacity by inducing PAL and retaining higher TPC, and activating antioxidant enzymes (SOD, CAT) | [45] |
| Color / Browning | US significantly inhibited browning by reducing PPO and POD activities, maintaining higher luminosity (L*) | ||||
| Grapes | Freq: 40 Power: N/A Time: 0.5 Water temp: 25 | SAEW | Firmness | US+SAEW treatment resulted in consistently higher hardness | [38] |
| Weight Loss | US+SAEW minimized weight loss compared to control | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+SAEW preserved higher levels of total phenolics, ascorbic acid, anthocyanins, and antioxidant enzymes (PAL, SOD, CAT) | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+SAEW led to significantly less color change after 12 days | ||||
| Green Asparagus | Freq: 40 Power: 360 Time: 10 Water temp: N/A | AG | Firmness | US+AG showed better sensory evaluation | [46] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US+AG significantly slowed the respiration rate | ||||
| Weight Loss | US+AG treatment resulted in the lowest weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+AG retained higher levels of TSS, ascorbic acid, chlorophyll, and TPC | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+AG retained better color scores | ||||
| Kiwifruit | Freq: 30 Power: N/A Time: 8 Water temp: 25 | NaOCl | Firmness | US+NaOCl decreased firmness | [41] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US+NaOCl increased respiration rate, suggesting stress induction | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+NaOCl showed no significant effect on vitamin C | ||||
| Lettuce | Freq: 24, 40 Power: 285 Time: 2-10 Water temp: ~15 | EC | Color / Browning | US+EC showed no major changes observed in color or other physicochemical properties | [53] |
| Lettuce | Freq: 26 Power: 200 Time: 5 Water temp: N/A | None | Firmness | Not measured quantitatively, but US showed no effect in sensory analysis | [54] |
| Color / Browning | US had a negative impact on sensory quality (appearance, browning, off-odor) | ||||
| Litchi | Freq: 40 Power: 120 Time: 10 Water temp: N/A | None | Firmness | Not explicitly measured, but US reduced electrolyte leakage suggests better tissue integrity | [44] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US reduced degradation of anthocyanins and total phenolics; inhibited PPO & POD activity in early storage | ||||
| Color / Browning | US significantly delayed pericarp browning | ||||
| Loquat fruit | Freq: 40 Power: 400 Time: 6 Water temp: 20 | PA | Firmness | US+PA maintained firmness | [59] |
| Weight Loss | US+PA reduced weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+PA maintained TPC, flavonoids, and antioxidant enzymes (SOD, CAT, APX, POD) | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+PA reduced decay and browning | ||||
| Pakchoi | Freq: 30 Power: N/A Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: 20 | MAP | Weight Loss | US(10 min)+MAP reduced weight loss rate | [33] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US(10 min)+MAP retained vitamin C and total soluble solids (TSS) | ||||
| Color / Browning | US(10 min)+MAP retained chlorophyll content | ||||
| Plum | Freq: 40 Power: 80, 100, 120 Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: 20 | ClO₂ | Firmness | US(100 W–10 min)+ClO₂ effectively maintained firmness | [55] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US(100 W–10 min)+ClO₂ inhibited the rise in respiration rate | ||||
| Weight Loss | US(100 W–10 min)+ClO₂ reduced weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US(100 W–10 min)+ClO₂ retained total flavonoids, ascorbic acid, reducing sugars, and titratable acids | ||||
| Purple cabbage | Freq: 40 Power: 500 Time: 5 Water temp: N/A | Chemical Sanitizers | Firmness | US+SD did not alter sensory texture | [29] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US+SD did not significantly alter anthocyanin content | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+SD did not significantly alter color or sensory characteristics | ||||
| Shiitake Mushroom | Freq: 40 Power: N/A Time: 10, 20 Water temp: N/A | None | Firmness | US(20 min) preserved hardness | [39] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US(20 min) reduced respiration intensity | ||||
| Weight Loss | US(20 min) reduced weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US(20 min) maintained higher levels of cell wall components and antioxidant enzymes (PAL, SOD, CAT) | ||||
| Spinach | Freq: 40 Power: 100 Time: 15 Water temp: N/A | None | Firmness | US maintained freshness and turgor | [60] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US suppressed ethylene signaling by upregulating EBF1 and EBF2 genes, which allowed for ABA-induced stomatal closure | ||||
| Weight Loss | Not measured, but stomatal closure implies reduced water loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | Transcriptome analysis showed US upregulated of EBF1 and EBF2 genes | ||||
| Straw mushroom | Freq: 40 Power: 300 Time: 3, 10, 30 Water temp: N/A | RH | Firmness | US(3 min)+RH(95%) gave the maximum firmness retention | [61] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US(10 min)+RH(95%) significantly inhibited the respiration rate | ||||
| Weight Loss | US(10 min)+RH(95%) had the lowest weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US(10 min)+RH(95%) retained higher levels of TSS and TSP; inhibited PPO and respiration-related enzymes | ||||
| Color / Browning | US(10 min)+RH(95%) significantly inhibited browning | ||||
| Strawberry | Freq: 28 Power: N/A Time: 3 Water temp: 15 | None | Firmness | US effectively inhibited firmness loss; reduction rate was 41.7% lower than control | [62] |
| Respiration / Ethylene | US affected ethylene production (initially higher but significantly lower than control by day 21) | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US significantly inhibited pectin-degrading enzymes (PE and PG) | ||||
| Strawberry | Freq: 25, 28, 40, 59 Power: 350 Time: 10 Water temp: 20 | None | Firmness | US(40 kHz) markedly inhibited fruit softening and maintained higher firmness | [56] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US(40 kHz) maintained significantly higher levels of TSS, TA, and vitamin C | ||||
| Color / Browning | Not measured, but US(40 kHz) reduced decay incidence | ||||
| Strawberry | Freq: 33 Power: 60 Time: 10–60 Water temp: 25 | None | Firmness | US(30–40 min) significantly maintained firmness | [18] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US(30–40 min) resulted in higher retention of TSS, TA, ascorbic acid, and total phenolics | ||||
| Color / Browning | US(30–40 min) maintained color (higher L* and a* values) | ||||
| Strawberry | Freq: 40 Power: 500 Time: 5 Water temp: 7 | Chemical Sanitizers | Bioactive Compounds | US+PA showed no changes to Vitamin C or other physicochemical properties | [26] |
| Color / Browning | US+PA treatment showed no significant sensory differences from the control | ||||
| Strawberry | Freq: 40 Power: 240 Time: 20 Water temp: 20 | Calcium lactate (Ca) | Firmness | US+Ca was most effective in maintaining firmness | [48] |
| Weight Loss | US+Ca showed the lowest weight loss | ||||
| Bioactive Compounds | US+Ca maintained higher levels of ascorbic acid and TPC; inhibited PPO and POD activity | ||||
| Color / Browning | US+Ca resulted in the lowest total color change (ΔE) | ||||
| Strawberry | Freq: 40 Power: 250, 350, 450 Time: 5, 10, 15 Water temp: 20 | None | Firmness | US(250 W–9.8 min) inhibited the decrease of firmness | [40] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US(250W–9.8 min) maintained significantly higher levels of TSS, TA, and vitamin C | ||||
| Tomato | Freq: 45 Power: N/A Time: 1–19 Water temp: 10 | None | Firmness | US (55%–10 min, 80%–15 min and 100%–19 min) preserved firmness | [43] |
| Bioactive Compounds | US (55%–10 min, 80%–15 min and 100%–19 min) increased total phenolic content (TPC) | ||||
| Color / Browning | US (55%–10 min, 80%–15 min and 100%–19 min) delayed red color development | ||||
| Watercress, Parsley, Strawberry | Freq: 45 Power: N/A Time: 10 Water temp: 25 | Chemical Sanitizers | Firmness | US generally reduced firmness in strawberries but increased it in watercress and parsley | [57] |
| Color / Browning | US+PA caused darkening in watercress and parsley, but US+HP gave the best color retention in strawberries |
US: ultrasound, N/A: not available, TPC: total phenolic content, TFC: total flavonoid content, PPO: polyphenol oxidase, PME: pectin methylesterase, 1-MCP: 1 methylcyclopropene, POD: peroxidase, SOD: superoxide dismutase, CAT: catalase, HW: hot water, SA: salicylic acid, TSS: total soluble solids, TA: titratable acidity, PAAH: peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide, CA: controlled atmosphere, MAP: modified atmosphere packaging, SAEW: slightly acidic electrolyzed water, PAL: phenylalanine ammonia lyase, AG: acetic acid and gibberellic acid, EC: (low intensity) electrical current, PA: peracetic acid, APX: ascorbate peroxidase, SD: sodium dichloroisocyanurate, RH: relative humidity, TSP: total soluble protein, PE: pectin esterase, PG: polygalacturonase, HP: hydrogen peroxide.
3.4 Discussion: A synthesis of the literatureThe reviewed literature supports ultrasound as a promising non-thermal approach to improve microbial safety and slow quality loss in fresh produce. However, outcomes vary with treatment intensity and exposure time, commodity type, and storage conditions, so commodity specific optimization remains essential. These recurring strengths and limitations are synthesized in Table 5.
3.4.1 Microbial safety and decay control across timeAcoustic cavitation is widely recognized as the central physical mechanism underlying ultrasound effects in liquids [24]. Within the literature screened in this review (2010 onward), microbial reduction was increasingly shown to depend strongly on frequency, power, and exposure time, with repeated caution that excessive intensity can lead to diminishing returns and quality damage [19]. Recent studies, especially from 2020 to 2025, more often focus on protocol refinement and report that ultrasound can reduce microbial loads alone but achieves more consistent reductions when paired with sanitizers [1, 38, 64, 65, 66].
3.4.2 Quality retention, sensitivity, and when to combineAs the literature expanded during 2010 to 2020, quality preservation became a stronger theme, with repeated reports of improved firmness, color, and nutritional attributes under tolerable ultrasound conditions [8, 19, 38, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71]. At the same time, broader commodity testing clarified a major limitation: delicate tissues and fresh-cut products are more prone to softening or browning at high energy input, whereas sturdier commodities tolerate a wider range [19, 36, 72]. In practice, ultrasound is most suitable as a standalone step when the target is moderate decontamination or cleaning support with a simple process and when the commodity tolerates the treatment well. It is more consistently effective in combination when higher microbial reduction is required or when quality must be protected under realistic storage conditions, which is why combined approaches have become more prominent from 2010 onward and particularly during 2020 to 2025 [1, 9, 33, 38, 59, 63, 64, 65, 71, 73, 74]. Responses can still differ across fruit types and storage environments, indicating that ultrasound interacts with ripening physiology and the broader postharvest context rather than acting as an isolated step [36, 47, 59, 73]. These variable responses suggest that ultrasound does not function only as a cleaning or decontamination tool, but may also influence postharvest physiology through underlying physical and molecular mechanisms.
3.4.3 Mechanistic direction and practical operating windowThe effects of standalone ultrasound in postharvest systems can be interpreted at both physical and physiological levels. At the physical level, acoustic cavitation in the surrounding liquid generates microjets, shear forces, and localized pressure and temperature gradients, which contribute to surface cleaning, microbial detachment, and microbial cell disruption [15, 17, 21, 22, 24]. At the physiological level, ultrasound may act as a mild abiotic stressor that can trigger signaling and defense responses in plant tissues, including reactive oxygen species signaling, antioxidant responses, and modulation of metabolism associated with ripening and stress adaptation [19, 60, 62, 66, 75]. A likely mechanistic interpretation is that the transient physical stress caused by ultrasound induces an early oxidative signal, which then activates protective responses rather than only causing damage under tolerable conditions. These responses may include reinforcement of antioxidant systems, regulation of browning related metabolism, modulation of cell wall related processes, and shifts in ripening related hormonal pathways, particularly those associated with ethylene and jasmonic acid [8, 62, 66, 68, 75]. Through these linked responses, ultrasound may influence microbial load, delay quality deterioration, and alter postharvest behavior [19, 62, 66]. Nevertheless, the outcome remains strongly dependent on treatment frequency, power, exposure time, temperature, and commodity specific tissue tolerance [19, 36, 72, 76].
Mechanistic understanding has progressed from quality-based inference in earlier studies to more frequent enzyme level measurements after 2010 and, more recently, transcriptomic approaches during 2020 to 2025. Enzyme level responses have commonly been reported for browning related enzymes, cell wall related enzymes, and antioxidant systems, while emerging proof of concept transcriptomic evidence supports the regulation of stress signaling and cell wall related genes, including pathways associated with ethylene, jasmonic acid, and reactive oxygen dynamics [8, 62, 66, 68, 75]. Together, these findings suggest that ultrasound does not merely clean produce surfaces, but can also influence intracellular stress perception, defense activation, and ripening related regulation. However, these molecular responses are strongly context dependent, with their direction and magnitude varying according to power level, treatment timing, and maturity stage, which likely contributes to the inconsistent enzyme trends observed across studies [36, 62, 72, 76]. Across commodities, effective operating conditions are often reported around 20 to 40 kHz, 100 to 400 W, and 2 to 15 min, commonly with temperature control near 30 to 40 °C [9, 66, 69, 77, 78, 79]. Conditions beyond this range are more often associated with tissue damage or accelerated senescence [19, 76]. Because cavitation intensity is also influenced by system level factors such as water temperature, bath volume, and product load, consistent reporting remains essential for reproducibility and for meaningful comparison of treatment intensity across studies.
| Aspect | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| Microbial Inactivation and Safety |
・US reduces microbial loads (bacteria, yeasts, molds) and can extend shelf life in several commodities [38, 69, 70] ・US combined with SAEW or chemical sanitizers often improves reductions compared with single treatments [12, 38]. ・Cavitation driven inactivation is widely reported as the main mechanism. [5, 7]. |
・Reported log reductions vary widely by commodity, surface, and treatment conditions, and some studies show modest or inconsistent effects [19]. ・Resistant populations (for example spores, biofilms, stress adapted cells) are rarely examined in a comparable way across studies. Post treatment regrowth during storage is not consistently monitored [36]. |
| Preservation of Physicochemical and Nutritional Quality |
・Many studies report retention of firmness, color, and antioxidant related traits in different fruits and vegetables [18, 66, 79]. ・US can delay browning and senescence and maintain sensory quality in some commodities [68, 80, 81]. ・Combined treatments (MAP, sanitizers) can further support quality retention [9, 33, 82]. |
・High intensity or long exposure can cause quality loss (softening, discoloration, tissue injury), showing a narrow commodity dependent window [19, 72, 76]. ・Nutritional outcomes are not consistent across studies and decreases in phenolics or antioxidant activity are occasionally reported [43, 72]. |
| Mechanistic Insights and Molecular Responses |
・Some studies use transcriptomic, enzymatic, and physiological data to link US to antioxidant defense, senescence, and phenolic metabolism [47, 63]. ・US is often discussed as an abiotic elicitor that triggers ROS and hormone related responses [75, 63]. |
・Mechanistic evidence is concentrated in a small number of commodities and mostly short-term time points [63, 66]. ・Many studies remain correlative, with limited functional validation of proposed genes, enzymes, or pathways. |
| Optimization and Standardization of US Parameters |
・Several studies evaluate frequency, power, time, and temperature to identify conditions that balance microbial reduction and quality [67, 69, 79]. ・The use of response surface methodology and factorial designs enhances robustness of parameter selection [77, 79]. |
・Treatment reporting is not uniform across studies (for example power density, bath volume, duty cycle, load, geometry), which limits direct comparisons [1, 19, 76, 83]. ・Commodity factors and storage environments are not always described in enough detail to interpret differences between studies. |
| Synergistic Effects with Other Preservation Technologies |
・US combined with MAP, sanitizers, or natural antimicrobials often improves microbial and quality outcomes [9, 33, 38, 82]. ・Hurdle approaches can reduce reliance on higher chemical doses in some cases [7, 16]. |
・Combined treatments vary widely in design, which makes it hard to separate the contribution of US from the co-treatment [63]. ・Mechanisms of interaction are not always tested, and negative tradeoffs may be underreported [12]. |
| Methodological Robustness and Data Quality |
・Many studies include controls and multiple endpoints (microbial, physicochemical, enzymatic, sensory) [19, 69, 81]. ・The integration of molecular techniques in some works enhances data depth [47, 63]. |
・Some research relies on limited sample sizes, or single batch experiments, which may reduce statistical power and generalizability [67, 76]. ・Variability in measurement techniques and lack of standardized quality metrics hinder cross-study comparisons. |
| Practical Application and Industrial Feasibility |
・US is commonly described as nonthermal and residue free with potential for postharvest use [1, 2]. ・Studies demonstrate feasibility in diverse commodities and highlight energy efficiency and environmental benefits [83, 84]. ・Optimization studies provide frameworks for scaling and integration with existing preservation systems [2, 79]. |
・Despite potential, industrial adoption is constrained by equipment costs, process complexity, and lack of standardized protocols [1, 85]. ・Limited pilot- and commercial-scale studies impede assessment of economic viability and operational challenges. |
US: ultrasound, SAEW: slightly acidic electrolyzed water, MAP: modified atmosphere packaging.
3.5 Knowledge gaps and future workThe accumulated evidence establishes ultrasound as a robust nonthermal technology for managing microbial safety and physiological quality. However, the transition from successful laboratory trials to reliable industrial application is hindered by significant methodological inconsistencies. While moderate treatments generally preserve tissue integrity, the lack of defined thresholds often leads to unintended softening or accelerated senescence in sensitive commodities.
To move beyond these limitations, research must pivot toward the development of standardized reporting frameworks and longitudinal molecular assessments. Table 6 identifies the primary gaps currently facing the food industry and proposes a strategic research agenda focused on scalability, nutritional bioavailability, and consumer acceptance. By addressing these priorities, the scientific community can provide the food industry with the validated, high-resolution protocols necessary for global supply chain integration.
| Gap Area | Description | Future Research Directions | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standardization of Protocols | Heterogeneity in treatment conditions (geometry, power density) complicates reproducibility. | Develop a "Minimum Information" reporting framework mandating power density (W/L) and calorimetric efficiency | Standardization is a prerequisite for broader industrial application and regulatory approval [1, 77, 79]. |
| Long-term Molecular Impacts | Most studies focus on immediate responses, leaving gaps in understanding sustained molecular pathways. | Execute longitudinal multi-omics studies (transcriptomics, proteomics) to map stress-memory signals during long-term storage. | Mechanistic insights are essential for predictive control of quality and shelf life extension [66, 63]. |
| Microbial Dynamics and Resistance | Insufficient data on efficacy against biofilms and potential microbial regrowth under supply chain conditions. | Investigate post-treatment microbial dynamics and relocation using realistic storage and "last-mile" simulation. | Understanding resistance is critical for ensuring consistent food safety and shelf life reliability [19, 36]. |
| Natural Synergies | Integration with emerging natural antimicrobials and nanoparticles remains underexplored | Map synergistic effects of US with novel natural agents and edible coatings using sensory and mechanistic evaluation. | Combining treatments reduces chemical residues and enhances sustainability while maintaining quality [86, 87]. |
| Bioavailability of Nutrients | While US raises phenolic content, its impact on actual human nutritional efficacy is unclear. | Apply in vitro digestion models and clinical studies to investigate the metabolic fate of US-induced compounds. | Validating health claims through bioavailability studies will guide the design of nutritionally-focused treatments. |
| Industrial Techno-economics | Few pilot- or commercial-scale studies exist assessing operational challenges, costs, and energy efficiency of US in postharvest management. | Conduct techno-economic analyses and pilot-scale trials to evaluate scalability, cost-benefit, and integration with existing postharvest systems. | Industrial adoption depends on demonstrated feasibility and cost-effectiveness; current research is mostly lab-scale [1, 2, 84]. |
US: ultrasound
In conclusion, current evidence suggests that ultrasound is more effective when used as part of multihurdle postharvest systems than when applied alone as a preservation technology. Across the reviewed studies, combined treatments more consistently achieved stronger microbial reduction and better quality retention, whereas ultrasound alone generally showed more modest and commodity dependent responses. Nevertheless, standalone ultrasound may still be useful for specific purposes, such as cleaning support or moderate decontamination, particularly in commodities that tolerate the treatment well.
Further progress in postharvest ultrasound applications will depend on standardized reporting and pilot scale technoeconomic validation under realistic postharvest conditions. In parallel, deeper mechanistic understanding through longitudinal multiomics approaches, together with robust food safety and sensory evaluation of combinations with natural agents or edible coatings, will be important for practical adoption.
Abdi: Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization Kasumi Nakagawa: Writing – Review and editing, Supervision. Manasikan Thammawong: Writing – review and editing, Supervision Kohei Nakano: Writing – review and editing, Supervision.
