effect of different coatings and packaging films on the shelf life and quality of pear cv....
DESCRIPTION
Fruit Science ThesisTRANSCRIPT
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT COATINGS AND PACKAGING FILMS ON THE SHELF LIFE AND
QUALITY OF PEAR cv. PATHARNAKH
Thesis
Submitted to the Punjab Agricultural Universityin partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in
POMOLOGY (Minor Subject: Botany)
ByJaspreet Singh
(L-2008-A-53-M)
Department of Horticulture College of Agriculture
©PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITYLUDHIANA-141004
2010
CERTIFICATE – I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effect of different coatings and packaging
films on the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh.” submitted for the degree of
Master of Science in the subject of Pomology (Minor Subject: Botany) of the Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana, is a bonafide research work carried out by Jaspreet Singh
(L-2008-A-53-M) under my supervision and that no part of this thesis has been submitted for
any other degree.
________________________
Major Advisor
(Dr. B.V.C. Mahajan)
Senior Horticulturist
Department of Horticulture
Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhiana – 141004
2
CERTIFICATE – II
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effect of different coatings and packaging
films on the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh.” submitted to the Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of science in the subject of Pomology (Minor Subject: Botany) has been approved
by the student’s advisory Committee along with Head of the Department after an oral
examination of the same.
_____________________ ___________________
Head of the Department Major Advisor
(Dr. P. S. Aulakh) (Dr. B.V.C. Mahajan)
_______________________
Dean, Post Graduate Studies
(Dr. (Mrs.) S.K. Mann)
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, with a sense of gratitude I bow to the ‘Almighty’ for
showering his blessings for the successful completion of this work.
I express my deep sense of gratitude and reverence to my major
advisor, Dr. B.V.C. Mahajan, Senior Horticulturist, Department of
Horticulture, PAU, Ludhiana, for his continuous inspiration, able guidance,
constructive criticism, parental behavior and creative suggestions
throughout the tenure of present work.
I pay my sincere thanks to all the members of my advisory
committee Dr. W.S. Dhillon (Prof. of Horticulture) Department of
Horticulture, Dr. Kushal Singh, Senior Plant Physiologist-cum-Head,
Department of Botany and Dr. M.I.S. Gill, Professor of Horticulture (Dean
PGS Nominee) Department of Horticulture, for their valuable suggestions
and advice during my thesis work.
I am thankful to Dr. P.S. Aulakh, Professor of Horticulture-cum-
Head, Department of Horticulture for providing me necessary research
facilities during my whole Master’s Programme.
I fall short of words to thank my parents, Sr. Sukhdev Singh and
Mrs. Sukhbir Kaur for always beleiving in me, for their every prayer and
unending upport, for their steadfast love and blessings, enduring patience
and care that brought me here upto. I dedicate this golden chapter of
my life to my parents. No choice of words will suffice to adequately
register my gratitude to my loving family members for their love, moral
advocacy and boosting me up during the periods of distress.
I express my deep gratitude to my friends, especially Manpreet,
Gaurav, Raman and my classmates for their motivation during the course
of study and cheerful company.
My sincere thanks are due to the faculty and staff of the
Department of Horticulture for their encouragement and cooperation. I
wish to especially thank the staff at Punjab Horticultural Post Harvest
Technology Centre for their ever-willing and whole-hearted cooperation
during this study.
All may not be mentioned but none is forgotten. Needless to say,
errors and omissions if any are mine.
4
Jaspreet SinghQIss dw ivSw : "v`K-v`K mom-prqW Aqy
ilPwPwbMdI dw nwSpwqI dI iksm p`QrnwK dI GzvkoheoB AvDI Aqy guxv`qw qy pRBwv"
ividAwrQI dw nW Aqy dw^lw nMb : jspRIq isMG (AYl-2008-ey-53-AYm)
mu`K ivSw : &l ivigAwnlGU ivSw : pOdw ivigAwnmu`K slwhkwr dw nW Aqy Ahudw : fw. bI.vI.sI. mhwjn
sInIAr hortIklcirst bwgbwnI ivBwg
id`qI jwx vwlI ifgrI : AYm. AYs. sI (&l ivigAwn)ifgrI id`qy jwx dw swl : 2010ku`l pMny : 79 + vItwXUnIvristI dw nW : pMjwb KyqIbwVI XUnIvristI,
luiDAwxw-141004
incoV
mOjUdw jWc "v`K-v`K mom-prqW Aqy ilPwPwbMdI dw nwSpwqI dI iksm p`QrnwK dI GzvkoheoB AvDI Aqy guxv`qw qy pRBwv" isrlyK ADIn swl 2009-10 dOrwn bwgbwnI ivBwg Aqy pMjwb hwrtIklcrl post hwrvYst tYknwlojI sYNtr, pMjwb KyqIbwVI XUnIvristI luiDAwxw iv`c kIqI geI [ p`QrnwK nwSpwqI dy Pl p`kx qoN bwAd qoV ley gey Aqy A`goN vrqoN leI ku`J ih`isAW iv`c vMf id`qy gey [ pihly ih`sy iv`c r`Ky &lW nUM istrwSweIn, kwrnObw, stw-PrY~S Aqy trpInwiefl ElIgomr dI prq cVHweI geI Aqy dUjy ih`sy iv`c r`Ky hr &l nUM AY~l.fI.pI.eI., AY~c.fI.pI.eI., SirMk Aqy kilMg ilPwiPAW iv`c ilPwPwbMd kIqw igAw [ qIjy ih`sy iv`c r`Ky &lW nUM ibnHW mom-prq Aqy ilPwPwbMd kIqy r`iKAw igAw[ aus qoN bwAd iehnW &lW nUM v`KrIAW hwlqW ijvyN ik Kws ivkrI hwlqW (supr mwrkIt hwlqW, 20-22°C & 80-85% nmI) Aqy Awm ivkrI hwlqW (swDwrn mwrkIt hwlqW, 30-32°C & 60-65% nmI) iv`c r`iKAw igAw [ &lW dy v`K-v`K BOiqk-rswieixk guxW dw v`K-v`K smW AMqrwlW qoN bwAd inrIKx kIqw igAw [ AMkiVAW qoN ;gZ;aN huMdw hY ik Kws ivkrI hwlqW j/m, ibnHW iksy mom-prq Aqy ilPwPwbMdI kIqy &l 12 idnW dy GzvkoheoB q`k TIk hwlq iv`c ;B id]A fe, istrwSweIn, trpInwiefl ElogImr Aqy SwirMk, kilMg ilPwPwbMd &l eqwtko 21 Aqy 18 idnW q`k svIkwrn Xog hwlq iv`c sn [dUjy pwsy, Awm ivkrI hwlqW pRwpq, istrwSweIn Aqy trpInwiefl ElIgomr prq vwly &l 10 idnW q`k svIkwr krn Xog sn, jd ik ibnHW iksy prq Aqy ilPwPwbMdI vwly &l 6 idnW q`k cMgI hwlq iv`c sn, pr nwl hI SirMk Aqy kilMg ilPwPwbMdI vwly &l isrP 4 idnW dI storyj AvDI q`k hI vDIAw hwlq iv`c sn [ies qrHW ^ws ivkrI hwlqW hyT (20-22°C) istrwSweIn, trpInwiefl ElIgomr prqW Aqy SirMk Aqy kilMg ilPwPwbMdI nwSpwqI dy &l tZX ;w/ sZe ivkrI leI vcnb`D hn, jd ik nwSpwqI &lW dI ilPwPwbMdI Awm ivkrI hwlqW (30-32°C) hyT auhnW dI guxv`qw qy p[ok pRBwv pwauNdI hY
mu`K Sbd : storyj, guxv`qw, nwSpwqI, mom-prqW, ilPwPwbMdI, qwpmwn [
5
__________________ ________________
mu`K slwhkwr dy hsqwKr ividAwrQI dy hsqwKr
Title of the Thesis : “Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh”
Name of the Student : Jaspreet Singhand Admission No. L-2008-A-53-M
Major Subject : Pomology
Minor Subject : Botany
Name and Designation : Dr. B.V.C. Mahajanof Major Advisor Senior Horticulturist Department of Horticulture
Degree to be Awarded : M.Sc.
Year of award of Degree : 2010
Total Pages in Thesis : 79 +Vita
Name of University : Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana – 141004, Punjab, India
ABSTRACT
The present investigations entitled “Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh” were conducted in the Department of Horticulture and Punjab Horticultural Post Harvest Technology Centre, PAU Campus, Ludhiana during the year 2009-10. Fruits of pear cv. Patharnakh were harvested at physiological maturity and divided into requisite lots for further handling. First lot of fruits was coated with different coatings viz. citrashine, carnauba, sta-fresh and terpenoidal oligomer and in the second lot the fruits were individually seal packed in commercially available packaging films viz. LDPE, HDPE shrink and cling films. The control fruits were kept uncoated and unpacked. The fruits were stored under two different conditions viz. at super market conditions (20-22°C and 80-85% RH) and at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH). The observations on various physico-chemical quality attributes of fruits were recorded at different storage intervals. The data revealed that under super market conditions, the pear fruits coated with citrashine or terpenoidal-oligomer coatings and those packed in shrink or cling film can be stored for 21and 18 days respectively with acceptable quality as compared to control fruits which maintained storage life of 12 days. However, under ordinary market conditions, citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits can be stored for 10 days as compared to 6 days storage life of control, while the shrink and cling film packed fruits maintained shelf life only upto 4 days. The use of citrashine, terpenoidal oligomer coatings and shrink film, cling film seems to hold promise in extending the marketability of pear fruits under supermarket retail conditions at 20-22°C. On the other hand, packaging films have adverse effect during retail marketing of pear fruit under ordinary conditions.
Keywords: Coating, packaging films, pear, storage, temperature, quality
6
________________________ ______________________Signature of Major Advisor Signature of the Student
7
CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.
I INTRODUCTION 1-3
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4-19
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 20-24
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 25-66
V SUMMARY 67-69
REFERENCES 70-79
VITA
8
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE PAGE NO.
1. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
26
2. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
27
3. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on firmness (lb force) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
30
4. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on firmness (lbflorce) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
31
5. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
35
6. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
36
7. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
39
8. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
40
9. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on TSS (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
43
10. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on TSS (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
44
11. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
47
12. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
48
9
13. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
51
14. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
52
15 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
55
16 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
56
17 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
59
18 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
60
19 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
63
20 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
64
10
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE PAGE NO.
1. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
28
2. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
28
3. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on firmness (lb force) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
32
4. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on firmness (lbflorce) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
32
5. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
37
6. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
37
7. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
41
8. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
41
9. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on TSS (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
45
10. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on TSS (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
45
11. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
49
12. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total sugars (%) in 49
11
pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
13. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
53
14. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
53
15 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
57
16 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
57
17 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
61
18 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
61
19 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) in pear cv. Patharnakh under supermarket conditions (20-220C & 80-85% RH).
65
20 Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) in pear cv. Patharnakh under ordinary market conditions (30-320C & 60-65% RH).
65
12
13
VITA
Name of the Student : Jaspreet Singh
Father`s name : Sukhdev Singh
Mother`s name : Sukhbir kaur
Nationality : Indian
Date of Birth : 16-08-1986
Permanent home address : Basti Puran Singh wali, Zira, Ferozepur.
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
Bachelor degree : B. Sc. Agriculture
University and year of award : Punjabi university Patiala, Patiala, 2008
OCPA/% : 73.36%
Master`s Degree : M.Sc. (Pomology)
University and Year of award : Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana
2010
OCPA : 7.72/10
Title of Master's Thesis : “Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh.”
14
Chapter-I
INTRODUCTION
Pear is one of the most important temperate fruits of the world. It occupies a position
next to apple in importance, area, production and varietal diversity (Rathore, 1991). All pear
cultivars belongs to genus Pyrus, which is a member of family Rosaceae and order Rosales.
The cultivated pear cultivars are mainly derived from Pyrus communis L. and P. pyrifolia
(Burm.) Nakai, synonymous P. serotina Rehd. and lesser extent their hybrids.
The pear [P. pyrifolia (Burm.) Nakai ] originated in China where its cultivation dates
back to 2500 to 3000 years ( Shen, 1980). It may have been introduced into India during the
time of Lord Kanishka (120-170 A.D.) who settled some Chinese hostages around village
Harsa Chhina in Amritsar district (Cheema and Dhillon, 1991). Its cultivation appears to have
spread to other parts of northern India from this place.
Pear can tolerate temperature ranging from -26°C during dormancy to 45°C during
growing season. Generally, Patharnakh requires approximately 250 chilling hours below 7°C
to adequately break dormancy of flower buds but the chilling hours range may vary for
different varieties of Asian and European pear.
As per composition, 200 g pulp contains 122 cal of energy, 26 mg of potassium, 16
mg of calcium, 4 mg of sodium and 30.8 mg of carbohydrates (Ensminger, 1983). A variety
of products like jam, jelly, murabba, nectar and squash can be prepared from pear. There is a
great scope for increasing area under this fruit due to high productivity, good eating and
keeping quality, high nutritional value and high degree of adaptability under different agro-
climatic conditions.
Pears are grown in all continents of the world. China is the major producer of pear
in world along with Italy, USA, Russia, Germany, Japan, Spain, France, Turkey and
Argentina (FAO, 2005). In India, it occupies an area of 38,600 hectares with an annual
production of 1.76 lakh MT (Anon. 2006a). It is commercially grown in states of Jammu &
Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Haryana and some parts of Nilgiri Hills
and Assam. In Punjab, it occupies an area of about 2,678 ha with 58184 MT production
(Anon. 2008 b). This fruit is doing very well in the districts of Jalandhar, Gurdaspur,
Amritsar, Hoshiarpur and Ropar. The important pear cultivars grown here are Patharnakh,
Punjab Gold, Punjab Nectar, Punjab Beauty, Baggugosha, LeConte, etc but Patharnakh is
the leading cultivar due to its hardy nature and wider adaptability to different climatic and
soil conditions. The orchards of ‘Patharnakh’ pear are springing up in very hot and arid
tracts of South-West Punjab. ‘Patharnakh’ pear occupies more than 70% of area under pear
cultivation. The fruits of this cultivar are liked very much by the consumers due to its juicy
pulp and crisp texture.
15
The harvesting of Patharnakh pear starts in the third week of July and continues up to
the end of August. Generally, this period coincides with high rainfall and high temperature,
which interferes with post harvest quality and marketability of fruits. Therefore, the farmers
are forced to sell their produce during this period at a throw away prices due to lack of
knowledge about postharvest handling and non- availability of adequate post harvest
infrastructure and this leads to glut in the market, resulting in huge post harvest losses.
Following harvest, the produce deteriorate gradually and irreversibly, so the actors on the
food chain viz., producers, handlers, distributors and retailers should be aware of the
importance of maintaining product quality to the highest level in all steps thereof.
The fruits have a natural wax coating, which develops during the maturation and
ripening processes. However, during rough handling of fruits this natural shield get destroyed
and therefore bruising occurs during packing and transport operation. So, the application of
commercial food grade waxes is important to replace this loss during post-harvest period.
Coating or waxing reduce respiration rate, shrivelling and wilting of fruits and enhances the
gloss and cosmetic appearance of fruits. Mishra et al (2006) demonstrated that edible coatings
and packaging films can extend the shelf life and improve quality of fruits and vegetables by
creating a modified atmosphere inside the fruit due to barrier properties to gases and moisture.
The use of food grade wax coating on fruits is safe, and approved by Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare (PFA, 2008). Meheriuk and Lau (1998) observed that pear fruits coated with
different coatings were firmer, higher in titratable acidity, greener in colour and registered in
lower incidence of core breakdown at 0°C.
Packaging of fresh fruits is essential in the whole distribution cycle, starting from
producer to the final user. Packaging is an important component of post-harvest handling of
produce which not only prolong the shelf life but also maintain quality and add value to the
produce during marketing. The basic principal of packaging technology is that once produce
is placed in a package and hermetically sealed, an environment different from ambient
conditions will be established inside the package such as high CO2 and low oxygen which
helps in maintaining the quality and increase the shelf life (Hardenburg, 1971). Modified
atmospheric packaging has been a proven technology to meet the consumer’s demand for
more natural and fresh foods, which is increasing day by day.
Individual seal packaging represents a rediscovery of an old technique that has
application in prevention of shrinkage and altering of ripening parameters. The modified
atmosphere conditions within film packages significantly reduce the rates of ripening and
senescence by reducing the synthesis and perception of ethylene (Burg and Burg, 1967;
Abeles et al, 1992).
The concept of super market is coming up in our country and many corporate sectors
like Wallmart, Delmonte, Namdhari Fresh, Reliance etc have opened their outlets in various
16
cities, where various types of fruits and vegetables are displayed after coatings and packaging
and this can have an added advantage of maintaining freshness
Pear is an important fruit of Punjab but facing lot of problems especially during
marketing. The fruits of Patharnakh pear after harvesting are mostly bulk packed in jute bags
or plastic netted sacks and transported to whole sale markets for further distribution. These
fruits are also displayed in heaps or open baskets on the road-side by the farmers or the
traders under very harsh environmental conditions resulting in post-harvest losses in terms of
quantity as well as quality of fruits. Hence there is need to devise methods for maintaining
quality and shelf life of pear fruits during marketing. Therefore, the present study was
planned with the following objectives:
1. To study the effect of coating and seal packaging on the shelf life and quality of pear
fruits under super-market condition i.e. at 20-22°C and 80-85% RH.
2. To study the effect of coating and seal packaging on the shelf life and quality of pear
fruits under ordinary market condition i.e. at 30-32°C and 60-65% RH.
17
Chapter-II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature pertaining to the "Effect of different coatings and packaging films on
the shelf life and quality of pear fruits" has been reviewed under the following heads.
2.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERS
2.1.1 Physiological loss in weight (PLW)
2.1.2 Fruit firmness
2.1.3 Spoilage
2.1.4 Sensory quality (Hedonic scale 1-9)
2.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERS
2.2.1 Total soluble solids
2.2.2 Sugars
2.2.3 Titratable acidity
2.2.4 Total phenols
2.1.1 Physiological loss in weight (PLW)
The mature climacteric fruits when detached from tree, can maintain an independent
existence for days or even weeks. During this period, the fruit undergoes a series of metabolic
processes, which eventually lead the fruit towards ripening. During these metabolic processes,
the tissues continue to respire and transpire and loses a significant quantity of moisture and
other chemical ingredients, which ultimately results in loss of weight (Wills et al, 1998).
Dhillon et al (1981) reported minimum PLW (5.33%) in wax coated ‘Le Conte’ pear
fruits stored at room temperature (30°C) for 25 days as compared to control fruits. Lin et al
(2008) noticed that chitosan coating (1.5%) in combination with ascorbic acid (10 mmol/L)
resulted in delayed weight loss of ‘Yali’ pear fruits than control. Sidhu et al (2009) observed
minimum physiological loss in weight in citrashine coated soft pear fruits under cold storage.
Mahajan et al (2005) observed that Kinnow fruits coated with citrashine registered
lower weight loss during storage. Ratanachinakorn et al (2005) noticed that treatment of
chitosan resulted in reduced weigh loss of pummelos by 20-50% during storage at 10°C with
85-95% RH. Singh and Sharma (2007) observed that wax coating reduced the rate of weight
loss of kinnow fruits significantly (8.8%) as compared to control after 60 days of storage.
Postharvest quality of ‘Sai Nam Peung’ mandarin orange in relation to Teva wax (18% food
grade shellac, polyethylene) coating was studied and resulted that teva wax coating is
significantly different from control in maintaining weight loss, shelf life and glossiness of the
fruit during one month of storage (Shein et al, 2008).
Ketsa and Prabhasavat (1992) reported that coating of ‘ Nang Klangwan’ mango
fruits resulted in reduced weight loss at ambient temperature (32°C & 74% RH). Mango fruit
18
cv. ‘Tommy Atkins’ coated with Bee Coat showed decreased rate of weight loss at 12°C
following 10 days at 20°C (Feygenberg et al, 2005).
Moldao-Martins et al (2003) reported that alginate and gelatin coatings resulted in
reduced weight loss and imparted the natural looking sheen to apple fruit. Coated ‘Anna’
apple showed that treated fruits registered a significant delay in weight loss as compared to
untreated fruits during storage at 0°C and 90-95% RH (El-Anany et al, 2009). Wijewardane
and Guleria (2009) suggested that apple cv. `Royal Delicious` coated with 2% potato starch
+2% apricot kernel oil followed by 2% corn starch +2% apricot kernel oil caused significant
decrease in physiological loss in weight and fruits stored at 2±1°C and 85-90% RH exhibited
better retention of storage life for 150 days. Singh et al (1993) observed minimum PLW of
guava fruit cv. ‘Allahabad Safeda’ coated with wax emulsion followed by packaging in
perforated polythene bags throughout the entire period of storage.
Paull and Chen (1989) revealed that waxing of papaya fruit reduced weight loss by
14-40%, while plastic shrink wraps by ≈ 90%. Dikki et al (2010) observed that wax coating
(6%) along with NAA (250 ppm) resulted in reduced weight loss (19.98%) of papaya (Carica
papaya L.) fruit and extended the shelf life upto 15 days at room temperature as against the 7
days of shelf life of untreated fruits.
The application of chitosan coating at different concentrations (0.5, 1.0 & 2.0%)
inhibited the weight loss of fruits during storage at 2°C and 90% RH and thus, enhance the
post-harvest life and quality of the longan fruit ( Jiang and Lin, 2001). Apai et al (2009)
evaluated the chitosan in combination with citric acid and potassium sorbate on quality
retention in longan fruit and found that fruits dipped in chitosan, citric acid and potassium
sorbate at a pH of 3.3 exhibited decreased weight loss during cold storage. The combination
of irradiation and chitosan coating was proved better for reducing weight loss of mangosteen
fruit (Sritananan et al, 2005). Jholgiker and Reddy (2007) noticed that Annona squamosa
fruits treated with coating material of sago, arrowroot and waxol at higher concentrations
regitered lower PLW of 19.18, 21.69 and 21.61 % respectively even on ninth day of storage
as compared to control having PLW of 27.03% in zero energy cool chamber.
Park et al (1970) reported that pear fruits packed in polyethylene film markedly
delayed ripening, preserved freshness and reduced weight loss, spoilage, core browning and
biochemical components of fruits during storage. Minimum loss in weight in fruits of
Patharnakh pear was recorded with polythene wrappings (Randhawa et al 1982). Baccaunaud
(1989) suggested that packaging of fruits of apples and pears in polythene film reduced
weight loss and maintained their quality in fresh conditions. Masoodi and Mir (1995) noted
minimum weight loss and firmness breakdown of William pear in HDPE bags after treating
with calcium chloride. Sandhu and Singh (2000) noticed that individual seal packaging of
pear cv. ‘Le Conte’ in HDPE film resulted in lowered weight loss than LDPE film. Mohla et
19
al (2005) studied the effect of high density polyethylene, low density polyethylene,
newspaper, tissue paper and paddy straw on shelf-life and quality attributes of pear during
storage under ambient conditions and reported lower physiological loss in weight in HDPE
(20µm) wrapped fruits
Gilfilian (1985) compared unwaxed Valencia oranges wrapped in high density
polyethylene (HDPE) film or low density polyethylene (LDPE) with those of conventionally
waxed and tissue paper wrapped fruits, and observed that weight loss of film wrapped fruits
was minimum compared with conventionally waxed fruits. Dhatt et al (1991) observed that
seal packaging of kinnow fruits individually in 0.1 mm thick high density polyethylene film
recorded minimum loss in weight and maintained acceptable quality up to 8 weeks of storage.
Sonkar and Ladaniya (1998) reported that PLW was significantly reduced by wrapping the
Nagpur mandarin fruits in trays with heat shrinkable and stretch cling polythene films.
Mootoo (1992) reported a decrease in weight loss and spoilage of orange cv. Jaffa after
individually wrapping the fruits in polyethylene films at 15°C and under ambient temperature
conditions. Perez-Guzman (1999) reported that individual seal packaging of ‘Dancy’
mandarin (Citrus reticulata) with polyolefin (0.019 mm) and PVC (0.025 mm) reduced weight
loss and deformation under refrigeration. Raghav and Gupta (2000) found that individual
shrink wrapped kinnow fruits maintained better appearance and showed lesser PLW (1.24-
2.98%) than the unwrapped fruits (>20%) stored at ambient conditions. Individual wrapping
of ‘Mosambi’ fruits with ‘Cryovac’ non-perforated films viz.BDF 2002 and D-955 (15 µm)
resulted in 3.32 and 2.96% weight loss, respectively as compared with that of non-wrapped
fruits (25.51%) with least PLW ( 1.60%) in LDPE (50 µm) heat-shrinkable film after 40 days
of storage (Ladaniya, 2003). Packing of acid lime in high density polyethylene (HDPE) bags
of thickness 30µm with microperforations followed by storage at 20°C and 10°C respectively
resulted in reduced weight loss of ‘Key’ acid lime fruits (Ramin and Khoshbakhat, 2008).
Kinnow fruits curing alongwith different coatings and packaging individually in stretch cling
film resulted in better performance in respect of PLW under ambient conditions (Sonkar et al,
2009).
Fruits of mango cv. ‘Tommy Atkins’ individually seal packed in heat shrinkable
plastic film recorded lower weight loss for 2 weeks at 12°C as compared to that of unsealed
fruits (Miller et al 1983). Bhullar et al (1984) reported that wrapping of Langra and Dusheri
mango fruits with various wrappers increased the shelf life, up to 10 days under ambient
storage conditions. It was noticed that the loss in weight was the minimum in case of
perforated polythene bags alone and in combination with fungicidal wax. Goznalez et al
(1990) studied the effect of modified atmosphere on shelf life of mango and avocado fruit and
observed that individual seal packaging of mango fruit cv. ‘Keitt’ and avocado in HDPE and
LDPE resulted in reduced weight loss kept at 20°C and 67% RH for 4 weeks. Batagurki et al
20
(1995) investigated the effect of individual packaging of mangoes in two polymeric films for
short-term storage at ambient temperature of 21-24ºC and reported that mangoes packed in
perforated Cryovac bags were found to have lower weight loss and better quality than those in
E50 bags. ‘Dusheri’ mango fruits wrapped in cling film showed lowered weight loss during
storage and extended the shelf life of fruits (Nain et al, 2002).
Kumar et al (1998) reported that guava fruits packed individually in polyethylene
film showed minimum physiological loss in weight as compared to non-packed fruits. Kumar
et al (2003) confirmed that polythene films were effective in checking the PLW and
maintaining the quality of Sardar guava during ambient storage.
Joyce et al (1995) reported that loss in weight of avocado fruit was reduced more by
wrapping. Nanda et al (2001) conducting experiment on pomegranate cv. Ganesh and
observed that the shelf life of fruits can be extended up to 12 weeks with a minimum loss in
weight when fruits are wrapped in shrink films.
Neeraj et al (2002) reported that aonla fruit cv. Chakaiya were packed in three
different types of plastic bags with two thickness each viz. HDPE (150, 200 gauge), LDPE
(100, 200 gauge) and polyvinyl chloride (100, 125 gauge), out of which fruits packed in
HDPE bags recorded the least physiological loss in weight (2.80%) after 30 days of storage.
Nath et al (2004) noticed minimum physiological loss in weight (3.7%) upto nine
days of storage when peach fruit cv. TA-170 was wrapped in low density polyethylene. Alam
and Yasmin (2008) reported that tomato fruit treated with chlorine and packed in perforated
(0.25%) polyethylene bags and kept at ambient condition (20-25°C & 70-90 % RH) resulted
in substantial reduction in weight loss and extended the storage life of fruits upto 17 days.
2.1.2 Fruit firmness
Fruit firmness is major quality attribute in determining the shelf life of both
climacteric and non-climacteric fruits. During the storage of fruits, there is softening of
tissues, which is mainly brought about by the activity of enzyme endopolygalacturonase. The
loss in fruit firmness might be attributed to change in the turgor pressure of cells and and
change in the composition of the cell wall pectin and lipo protein membrane bordering the
cells. Excessive loss of moisture also affect the texture of fruits (Solomos and Laties, 1973).
Randhawa (1982) reported that coating of pear fruits with wax emulsion (6%) proved
superior than control for maintaining the flesh firmness upto 100 days during cold storage.
Zyl and Wanger (1986) reported that ‘Bon Cheretein’ pear fruits treated with semperfresh
retained their firmness as compared to control even after 2 months of cold storage. ‘Bartlett’
and ‘d Anjou’ pear fruits coated with Pro-long or Nutri-Save showed greater firmness as
compared to control ones at 0°C (Meheriuk and Lau, 1988).
Sornsrivichai et al (1990) observed that semperfresh applied at rate of 1 and 2%
delayed the firmness loss of ‘Xiang Sui’ and ‘Pien Pu’ pear fruits at storage temperature of
21
3°C for 60 days. Koksal et al (1994) noticed consistent decline in flesh firmness during
storage and recorded high values (6.41 and 6.21 lb/inch square) in ‘William’ pear fruits
waxed with 1.5 and 1.0% semperfresh, respectively, than control. Du et al (1997) reported
that Chitosan coated peach and ‘Shinko’ pear fruits were markedly firmer and less mature at
end of storage. Sidhu et al (2009) observed that citrashine coated soft pear fruits were more
firmer as compared to control under cold storage. Lin et al (2008) noticed that chitosan
coating in combination with ascorbic acid resulted in retention of better firmness of ‘Yali’
pear fruits than control.
Ladaniya et al (2005) revealed that firmness was higher in wax coated (Sta-Fresh
921) citrus fruits at 3-4°C as compared to control ones. Ketsa and Prabhasavat (1992)
reported that semperfesh coating of ‘Nang Klangwan’ mango fruits resulted in greater
firmness of fruits at ambient temperature (32°C & 74% RH). Thai et al (2002) observed that
carnuaba wax retarded the loss of firmness and extended the shelf life of coated mango fruits.
In mango cv. ‘Tommy Atkins’, coating with the beeswax-based organic wax ‘Bee Coat’
decreased the rates of fruit softening, thus ensuring a longer shelf life (Feygenberg, et al,
2005).
‘Starking Delicious’ apple coated with semperfresh at 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 % followed
by storage at 1°C and 85-90% RH for 6 months showed greater firmness than untreated fruits
(Ozdemir et al, 1994). Moldao-Martins et al (2003) observed that alginate and gelatin
coatings maintained fruit firmness, improved the appearance and imparted the natural looking
sheen to apple fruit. Coated ‘Anna’ apple showed a significant delay in firmness loss as
compared to untreated fruits at 0°C and 90-95% RH (El-Anany et al, 2009). Wijewardane and
Guleria (2009) suggested that apple cv. `Royal Delicious` coated with 2% potato starch +2%
apricot kernel oil followed by 2% corn starch +2% apricot kernel oil maintained better fruit
firmness as compared to untreated fruits and exhibited storage life for 150 days 2±1°C and
85-90% RH
Durand et al (1984) noticed that waxing caused a delay in fruit softening and
maintained quality of avocado fruits under extended cold storage conditions. The use of
‘Natural Seal’ a polysaccharide based edible film with cellulose as main component
maintained flesh firmness in avocado fruit ( Nisperos-Carriedo et al, 1990). Baskaran et al
(2005) studied the effect of modified atmospere packaging coupled with wax emulsion
treatment on the extension of storage life of avocado fruit under different storage
temperatures. They found that the fruits given wax emulsion (6%) dip treatment and packed
in LDPE bags (250 gauge) remained firmer and in good condition for about 4-5 weeks at
8±2°C without developing chilling injury. The combination of irradiation and chitosan
coating was proved better for maintaining firmness of mangosteen fruit (Sritananan et al,
2005). Dikki et al (2010) observed that wax coating (6%) along with NAA (250) ppm
22
resulted in better retention of firmness of papaya (Carica papaya L.) fruit and extended the
shelf life upto 15 days at room temperature as against the 7 days of shelf life of untreated
fruits.
Masoodi and Mir (1995) noted minimum firmness breakdown of William pear in
HDPE bags after treating with calcium chloride. Passam (1982) reported that mango cultivars
packed individually in polythene bags, resulted in higher fruit firmness, texture and extended
the storage life by 8-10 days under ambient conditions.
Ben-Yehoshua et al (1979) reported that ‘Shamouti’ and grapefruit remained firm
markedly in high density polyethylene (HDPE) at 20°C. Ben-Yehoshua et al (1981) claimed
that seal packaging of various citrus fruit at 20°C and 85% RH had better appearance and
were firmer than non-sealed fruit at their lowest possible temperature without chilling injury.
Dhatt et al (1991) observed that seal packaging of kinnow fruits individually in 0.1 mm thick
high density polyethylene film maintained acceptable firmness up to 8 weeks of storage.
Raghav and Gupta (2000) found that individual shrink wrapped kinnow fruits maintained
gradual loss of firmness upto 8 weeks than the unwrapped fruits stored at ambient conditions.
Passam (1982) reported that mango fruits packed individually in polythene bags,
resulted in higher fruit firmness, texture and extended the storage life by 8-10 days under
ambient conditions. Smith et al (1987) discussed the effects of low density polyethylene bags
(LDPE) on quality attributes of ‘Discovery’ apples held at 20°C and reported marked
reduction in softening of fruits. Banana packed in sealed polyethylene bags remain in hard
green conditions whereas the non packed fruits were found soft and ripened (Scott et al,
1971).
Delay in firmness loss was noticed in papaya fruits when packed in heat shrinkable
film followed by storage at 15°C (Lazan et al, 1993). Individually shrink wrapped papaya cv.
‘Solo’ fruits could be stored for 10 days at ambient temperature with firmer texture ( Singh
and Sudhakar, 2005). An et al (2006) studied the quality of ‘Chaoyang’ honey peach fruit
stored at 2°C in different thickness of LDPE bags and found decrease in softness and
maintenance of the best quality at the end of the storage. Nanda et al (2001) while working
on pomegranate fruits cv. Ganesh reported that the fruits wrapped in shrink film retain their
freshness and firmness to a greater extent than the fruits coated with sucrose polyester as well
as unwrapped fruits.
2.1.3 Sensory quality
Sornsrivichai et al (1990) observed that ‘Xiang Sui’ and ‘Pien Pu’ pear fruits coated
with semperfresh at rate of 1& 2% retained maximum palatability rating, fresh and glossy
appearance and maintained crispy texture at storage temperature of 3°C for 60 days. Ladaniya
(2001) noticed that coating with Sta-Fresh maintained excellent appearance and flavour of
mosambi fruits after 30 days of storage. Ratanachinakorn et al (2005) reported that chitosan
23
coating resulted in better eating quality of pummelos during 5 weeks of storage at 10°C with
85-95% RH.
Mango fruits coated with carnauba wax were more sour and with increased
concentration of flavour volatiles (Baldwin et al, 1998). Mango fruit cv. ‘Tommy Atkins’
coated with Bee Coat did not develop anaerobic metabolites or even off-flavors after 3 wks at
12°C and maintained acceptable quality (Feygenberg et al, 2005). Abbasi et al (2009)
reported that irradiation (200kGy) in combination with chitosan resulted in extending shelf
life of mango fruits in terms of maintained eating quality upto 4 weeks of storage as
compared to control.
Jholgiker and Reddy (2007) evaluated that Custard apple fruits treated with fine
coating of Sago (10%) resulted in increased shelf life of fruits with gradual ripening and
retained excellent edibility upto ninth day of storage in zero energy cool chamber. The
highest organoleptic qualities were observed in custard apple fruits by the treatment of waxol
+ NAA (30 ppm) followed by packaging in individual wrapping polyfilm (75 gauge) and
extended shelf life upto 7 days at ambient storage conditions as against 4 days in untreated
and unpacked fruits. (Masalkar and Garande, 2005). Sensory evaluation of coated ‘Anna’
apple showed that fruits maintained visual quality as compared to untreated fruits during
storage at 0°C and 90-95% RH (El-Anany et al, 2009).
Kahlon and Bajwa (1991) reported that treatment to litchi fruit with bavistin and
waxing followed by wrapping in perforated polybags resulted in highest palatability rating
after 40 days of storage. Jiang et al (2005) reported that litchi fruit coated with chitosan
coating maintained excellent organoleptic rating. Apai et al (2009) evaluated the chitosan
coating in combination with citric acid and potassium sorbate on quality retention in longan
fruit and found that fruits dipped in chitosan, citric acid and potassium sorbate at a pH of 3.3
exhibited excellent eating quality during cold storage.
Ben- Yehoshua (1978) reported that seal packaging significantly delays the off flavor
of the fruits. He observed that after two months of storage at 17°C and 90% RH non sealed
Valencia oranges had developed off flavor and poor organoleptic properties, while sealed
fruits retained its normal flavor and eating quality for much longer duration. Ben-Yehoshua et
al (1979) noticed that individual seal packaging of citrus fruits in high density polyethylene
(HDPE) delayed their deformation and loss of flavor. Dhatt et al (1991) found that
individually wrapped Kinnow fruits in high density polyethylene film were judged tasty after
8 weeks of storage as compared to non- sealed that became inedible due to off flavor. Sonkar
and Ladaniya (1998) reported that Nagpur mandarin fruits packed in stretch cling film had
significantly higher flavour score and better acceptability and freshness than non wrapped
fruits after 60 days of storage. Perez-Guzman (1999) reported that individual seal packaging
of ‘Dancy’ mandarin (Citrus reticulata) with polyolefin (0.019 mm) and PVC (0.025 mm)
24
maintained the freshness of flavor of juice at the end of storage. Raghav and Gupta (2000)
found that individual shrink wrapped kinnow fruits maintained better appearance, flavor and
overall eating quality upto 8 weeks than the unwrapped fruits stored at ambient conditions.
Hussain et al (2004) studied the effects of individual seal packaging on quality of citrus fruits
in polyethylene bags of 0.0254 and 0.0508 mm thickness and reported that seal packaging
maintained the external appearance, taste and texture of citrus fruits. ‘Red Blush’ (Citrus
paradise) fruits sealed in HDPE film after treatment with 1000 ppm imazalil, maintained
palatability rating during storage period (Kumar et al, 2004). Kumar et al (2008) reported that
packaging of kinnow fruits in bio-fresh films maintained texture and flavor and enhance the
storage life of fruits under ambient conditions.Kinnow fruits in combination of curing and
coating with neem oil, til oil, mustard oil, wax, carbendizum and wrapped in stretch cling film
retained better sensory qualities under ambient conditions (Sonkar et al, 2009).
Yuen et al (1993) reported that wrapping of mango fruits of cv. ‘Kensington pride’ in
sealed polybags or in cling or shrink wraps significantly maintained attractive appearance
with eating quality upto 10th day of storage. Tsuda et al (1999) conducted investigation on the
effects of packaging on ‘Carabao’ mangoes, imported from Philippines to Japan. These
workers observed that shriveling did not occur and fruits maintained attractive appearance
when these were packed in perforated polythene bags and stored at 20°C.
Heaton et al (1990) reported that the apple fruits cv. Starcrimson packed in shrink
wrap packaging followed by storage at 26°C, 40-42% RH showed acceptable qualities for a
period of 38 weeks. ‘Conference’ pear fruits packed in low density polyethylene (LDPE)
films registered retarded rate of flesh softening but normal sweetness, aromatic flavor and
succulent juicy texture maintained after 4 days (Geeson et al, 1991). Singh (1997) recorded
the highest organoleptic rating of ‘Baggugosha’ pear treated with 6% calcium chloride and
uni-packed in HDPE. Singh and Rao (2005) studied that individually shrink wrapped papaya
fruits could be stored for longer period, ripened normally and retained good flavor and
acceptable texture than non-wrapped fruits.
2.1.4 Spoilage
Dhillon et al (1982) observed that the spoilage percentage of ‘LeConte’ pear fruit was
drastically reduced with wax emulsion (4 and 8%) as compared to control fruits, respectively.
Zyl and Wanger (1986) reported that Bon ‘Cheretein’ pear fruits treated with semperfresh
recorded no senescence breakdown even after 12 days at room temperature as compared to
control. ‘Bartlett’ and ‘d Anjou’ pear fruits coated with Pro-long or Nutri-Save registered
lower incidence of core breakdown as compared to control ones at 0°C (Meheriuk and Lau,
1988). Du et al (1997) noticed that Chitosan coating of pear cv. ‘Housui’, peach and kiwi fruit
significantly inhibited the growth of Botrytis cinerea and resulted in decreased post-harvest
spoilage of fruits. Dhillon et al (2005) revealed that waxing prevent secondary infection and
25
aging of pear fruits by reducing the rate of respiration, senescence, susceptibility to chilling
injury and various post-harvest physiological disorders.
Alam and Paull (2001) reported that there was lower decay in carboxy methyl cellulose
(0.5%) coated kinnow fruits packed in HDPE bags and thus treatment extended the shelf life
of fruits upto 40 days without adversely effecting the quality. Ladaniya et al (2005) noticed
that there was no chiiling injury in ‘Nagpur mandarin’ (Citrus reticulata. Blanco) fruits
coated with Sta-Fresh upto 75 days of storage. The deterioration index of hydroxypropyl
methylcellulose (HPMC)-beeswax (BW) composite coated ‘Angeleno’ plums stored 4 or 6
weeks at 1°C decreased compared with uncoated plums (Navarro et al, 2005). Singh and
Sharma (2007) observed that wax coating reduced the spoilage of kinnow fruits significantly
(8%) after 60 days of storage. Postharvest quality of ‘Sai Nam Peung’ mandarin orange in
relation to Teva wax ( 18% food grade shellac, polyethylene) coating was studied and it was
noticed that there was no chilling injury of fruits during one month of storage (Shein et al,
2008). Meng et al (2008) noticed that pre-harvest chitosan spray or post-harvest chitosan
coating treatment on table grape fruit showed the best control on decay.
Beeswax and carnauba wax coated avocado and mango fruits showed reduced
chilling injury symptoms and decay development during storage (Feygenberg et al, 2005).
Abbasi et al (2009) reported that irradiation (200kGy) in combination with chitosan coating
resulted in extending shelf life of mango fruits in terms of controlled disease incidence (only
6%) as compared to control with higher incidence (25%) during storage for 4 weeks.
A combined treatment of diphenylamine (1500 ppm) and frutox (6%) proved to be
the most effective treatment in reducing rot percentage of ‘Red Delicious’ apple and fruits
were marketable even after 210 days of storage in contrast to 150 days for control fruits
(Mahajan and Chopra, 1995). Wijewardane and Guleria (2009) suggested that apple cv.
`Royal Delicious` coated with 2% potato starch +2% apricot kernel oil followed by 2% corn
starch +2% apricot kernel oil and stored at 2±1°C and 85-90% RH exhibited better retention
of storage life for 150 days by lowering the spoilage and better retention of consumer
preference compared to ambient storage. ‘Anna’ apple coated with 2% neem oil exhibited a
significant delay in decay of fruits as compared to untreated fruits during storage at 0 °C and
90-95% RH (El-Anany et al, 2009).
Jiang et al (2005) reported that treatment with chitosan coating partially inhibited the
decay of litchi fruit and exhibited a potential for shelf life extension at ambient temperature
when fruit removed from cold storage. The application of chitosan coating at different
concentrations ( 0.5, 1.0 & 2.0%) inhibited the decay of fruits during storage at 2°C and 90%
RH and thus, enhance the post-harvest life and quality of the longan fruit ( Jiang and Lin,
2001). Apai et al (2009) evaluated the chitosan in combination with citric acid and potassium
sorbate on quality retention in longan fruit and found that fruits dipped in chitosan, citric acid
26
and potassium sorbate at a pH of 3.3 exhibited decreased decay during cold storage.
Yaman and Beyindirh (2001) noticed that semperfresh coating, imazalil fungicidal treatment
and cold storage collectively reduced the microbial spoilage of cherries.
Pear fruits packed in polythene film registered reduced spoilage and core browning
during storage (Park et al, 1970). Sandhu and Singh (2000) noticed that individual seal
packaging of pear cv. ‘Le Conte’ in HDPE film resulted in lower weight loss than LDPE film.
Ben Yehoshua (1978) made an attempt to seal the citrus fruits in plastic film of high
density polyethylene (HDPE) and showed that transpiration was reduced 5 to 20 times.
Unlike waxing the film formed a barrier increasing markedly the resistance to water vapour,
thus, less chances of spoilage. He further observed that individual seal packaging of fruits of
orange cvs. Shamouti and Valencia, Marsh grapefruit and lemon Eureka with a film of HDPE
(0.1mm), markedly delayed deterioration as measured by peel shrinkage and softening. Ben-
Yehoshua et al (1982) noticed that seal packaging of lemons in 10µm thick film of HDPE
markedly inhibited the development of blemishes and delayed deterioration of fruit for a
period longer than 6 months. Seal packaging reduced the decay of Marsh grapefruit but
slightly enhanced the decay of Valencia oranges compared with conventionally handled
fruits. Wrapping of individual fruit resulted in less decay than sealing a whole carton of fruit
together. (Ben- Yehoshua et al, 1983).
Gilfilian (1985) reported that fruits of Navel oranges, Marsh grapefruit and Valencia
oranges stored for 4 to 8 weeks in polyethylene bags delayed the attack of Diplodia natalensis
and Alternaria citrii than the unwrapped fruits. Singh et al (1988) treated kinnow fruits with
fungicides and wax emulsion and stored them at 12-14°C after packing in ventilated
polyethylene bags. It was observed that rotting was more in untreated fruits than those treated
with different concentration of fungicides or wax emulsion. Individually seal packed kinnow
fruits in 0.010 mm thickness film showed minimum average decay even after 4 weeks of
storage (upto 6.3%) and wastage was not much even after 8 weeks of storage in wrapped
fruits (Dhatt et al, 1991). Ladaniya et al (1997) noticed that individually wrapped ‘Nagpur
mandarin’ (Citrus reticulata. Blanco) fruits in polyethylene and cryovac heat shrinkable films
had less decay as compared to tray-wrapped at ambient temperature (30-35°C & 25-30 %
RH) or refrigeration (6-7°C & 90-95% RH). The ‘Red Blush’ (Citrus paradisi) citrus fruits
sealed in HDPE film after treatment with imazalil (1000 ppm) had minimum rotting
percentage during storage period (Kumar et al, 2004).
High density polyethylene (HDPE) bags of thickness 30µm with, microperforations
reduced decay of ‘Key’ acid lime fruits stored at room temperature (20°C) and 10°C (Ramin
and Khoshbakhat, 2008). Raghav and Gupta (2000) found that individual shrink wrapped
kinnow fruits maintained better appearance and prevent decay of wrapped fruits upto 8 weeks
than the unwrapped fruits stored at ambient conditions. Kinnow fruits curing alongwith
27
different coatings and packaging in stretch cling film resulted in better performance in respect
of least rotting percentage under ambient conditions (Sonkar et al, 2009).
The least rotting (3.33%) and best appearance at the end of storage were recorded
from the mango fruits packed in perforated polythene bags (Bhullar et al, 1984).
Sornsrivichai et al (1986) reported that individually sealed mango cv. ‘Kwaw Sawoey’
fruits in PVC film followed by storage at 13°C showed extension in shelf life and delay in
fungal spoilage upto 5 weeks. McCollum et al (1992) evaluated the effects of individual
shrink film wrapping (60 gauge) on shelf-life and quality of mangoes, and observed that
wrapped fruits showed more decay than non-wrapped one under ambient conditions.
Severity of post-harvest fungal rot was significantly reduced by wrapping the mango fruits
in plastic film than control on 5 th day of inoculation. The results of the investigation
suggested that plastic film wrapping effectively reduced the development of various rots
(Chandra and Pathak 1992). Yuen et al (1993) reported that wrapping of mango fruits of cv.
‘Kensington Pride’ in sealed polybags or in cling or shrink-wraps significantly delayed the
ripening without much spoilage and maintained attractive appearance. ‘Dusheri’ mango
fruits wrapped in cling film showed lower spoilage during storage and extended the shelf
life of fruits (Nain et al, 2002).
Pal et al (2004) noticed that spoilage in individually wrapped guava fruits followed by
sta-Fresh treatment by Fusarium rot was significantly less in evaporative cool chamber. Alam
and Yasmin (2008) reported that tomato fruit treated with chlorine and packed in perforated
(0.25%) polyethylene bags and kept at ambient condition (20-25°C & 70-90 % RH) resulted
in substantial reduction in losses caused by decay and extended the storage life of fruits upto
17 days.
2.2 CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
2.2.1 TSS
Koksal et al (1994) reported that total soluble solid content of ‘ William’ pear treated
with 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5% semperfresh was better than control fruits after 120 days in cold
storage . ‘Starking Delicious’ apple coated with semperfresh at 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 % and stored
at 1°C and 85-90% RH for 6 months showed higher TSS content than untreated fruits
(Ozdemir et al, 1994). Lin et al (2008) noticed that chitosan coating in combination with
ascorbic acid resulted in retention of higher TSS content in ‘Yali’ pear fruits than control.
Sidhu et al (2009) observed an increase in TSS of citrashine coated soft pear fruits with the
prolongation of storage period.
Ratanachinakorn et al (2005) showed that the changes in soluble solids of the
pummelo were not significantly different in chitosan (1-2%) or 70% sta-fresh 360 or control
fruit without coating. Jiang et al (2005) reported that treatment with chitosan coating
exhibited higher TSS and better shelf life of litchi fruits at ambient temperature . Jholgiker
28
and Reddy (2007) evaluated that Custard apple fruits treated with fine coating of Sago (10%)
resulted in increased shelf life of fruits with high TSS stored in zero energy cool chamber.
Dikki et al (2010) observed that wax coating (6%) along with NAA (250 ppm) resulted in
better retention of TSS (11.8%) of papaya fruit and extended the shelf life upto 15 days at
room temperature as against the 7 days of shelf life of untreated fruits.
Singh (1993) observed more TSS in low density polyethylene (LDPE) and high
density polyethylene (HDPE) packed ‘Patharnakh’ and ‘LeConte’ pear fruits during 30-90
days of storage. Mohla et al (2005) observed that ‘Patharnakh’ pear fruits wrapped
individually in low density polyethylene (LDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE) showed
increase in TSS content with the advancement of storage interval.
Dhillon et al (1977) treated the kinnow fruits with wax and wax+ Benlate and kept
the fruits in cold store after packing in perforated and non perforated polythene bags. They
observed significantly higher percentage of total soluble solids in untreated fruits and
minimum TSS in the treated fruits. They further observed that the fruits packed in perforated
polythene bags showed more TSS than those packed in non perforated ones. Dhatt et al
(1991) while working on seal packing of kinnow in high density polyethylene film reported
slight reduction in total soluble solids during storage under different sealing methods. They
observed that after 4 weeks of storage soluble solids increased in non sealed fruits, but this
trend was reversed after 8 weeks of storage when higher soluble solids were observed in all
types of wrapped fruits, whereas non sealed fruits completely shriveled and had dried peel.
After 12 weeks storage not much difference in TSS was observed under different sealing
methods.
Bhullar (1966) reported that wrapping of ‘Dusehri’ mango fruits with various
wrappers significantly increased the shelf- life under ambient storage conditions. The use of
perforated polythene in combination with wax coating resulted in significantly less total
soluble solids, thus found helpful in prolonging the storage life. Singh et al (1967) reported
that fruits of ‘Dusehri’ mango were in good condition after 14 days of storage when these
were packed in perforated polythene. The polythene packing treatment resulted in low total
soluble solids content over the control fruits.
Neeraj et al (2002) reported that guava fruits packed in polyethylene bags retained
maximum TSS as compared to control after 9 days of storage. Neeraj et al (2002) reported
that aonla fruit cv. ‘Chakaiya’ packed in three different types of plastic bags with two
thickness each viz. HDPE (150 & 200 gauge), LDPE (100 & 200 gauge) and polyvinyl
chloride (100& 125 gauge), out of which fruits packed in HDPE bags recorded the maximum
TSS content after 30 days of storage. Nath et al (2004) revealed that peach fruits packed in
LDPE bags alongwith KMnO4 recorded higher TSS (9.4%) and increased the shelf life of
peach fruits than unpacked fruits. Alam and Yasmin (2008) reported that tomato fruit treated
29
with chlorine and packed in perforated polyethylene bags (0.25%) and kept at ambient
condition (20-25°C & 70-90 % RH) considerably delayed compositional changes in TSS and
extended the storage life of fruits upto 17 days.
2.2.2 Sugars
In climacteric fruits carbohydrates are accumulated during maturation in the form of
starch and during ripening these are broken down to sugars. In non- climacteric fruits sugars
tend to be accumulated during maturation. The main sugars present in the fruits are sucrose,
glucose and fructose, with the predominant sugars varying with the fruit crop. Carbohydrates
are transported to developing pome fruits as sorbitol and converted mainly to fructose and
starch and some glucose and sucrose.
Dhillon et al (1981) observed maximum sugars in wax coated fruits of ‘LeConte’
pear fruits during storage than non-treated fruits. The sugars content in ‘Patharnakh’ pear
coated with wax emulsion tend to increase during storage (Randhawa 1982). Sidhu et al
(2009) noticed an increase in total, reducing and non-reducing sugars with prolongation of
storage period in soft pear fruits under cold storage.
Angadi and Krishnamurthy, (1992) treated freshly harvested kinnow fruits with 3%
waxol, packed in ventilated polythene bags and were stored at room temperature (25°C) or at
low temperature (10°C). They observed the highest total sugars after 19 days of storage at
room temperature as compared to untreated fruits. Jholgiker and Reddy (2007) evaluated that
Custard apple fruits treated with fine coating of Sago (10%) resulted in increased shelf life of
fruits with high sugar content stored in zero energy cool chamber. Dikki et al (2010) observed
that wax coating (6%) along with NAA (250 ppm) resulted in better retention of total sugars
(8.23%), reducing sugars (6.29%) and non-reducing sugars (1.94%) of papaya (Carica papaya
L.) fruit and extended the shelf life of papaya fruit upto 15 days at room temperature as
against the 7 days of shelf life of untreated fruits.
Mohla et al (2005) reported an increase in total and reducing sugars with the
advancement of storage interval in sand pear as a result of different packing materials like
high density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, newspaper, tissue paper and paddy
straw. Kaur et al (2005) while working on pear cv. ‘Baggugosha’ by using different
concentration of calcium chloride (4, 6 and 8%) and thereafter, individually wrapping in
different wrappers, viz. newspaper, polyethylene and butter paper and reported an increase in
total and reducing sugars in fruits at ambient temperature.
Sagar and Khurdiya (1996) reported that fully matured and unripe ‘Dusehri’
mangoes wrapped with newspaper and polythene film, followed by storage at ambient
temperature (33-35.5ºC) maintained slower increase in reducing and total sugars than control
fruits. Tefera et al (2008) evaluated the combined effect of packaging and evaporatively
cooled storage on sugar content of mango fruit and revealed that packaging generally
30
maintained higher levels of reducing, non-reducing and total sugar content of fruits.
Alam and Yasmin (2008) reported that tomato fruit treated with chlorine and packed
in perforated (0.25%) polyethylene bags resulted in delayed compositional changes in total
sugar and reducing sugar kept at ambient condition (20-25°C & 70-90 % RH).
2.2.3 Acidity
The development of sweetness is important but the overall flavor is also influenced
by the organic acids. Loss of acidity with the advancement in storage could be attributed to
use of organic acids in the respiratory process.
‘Bartlett’ and ‘d Anjou’ pear fruits coated with Pro-long or Nutri-Save were greater
in titratable acidity as compared to control fruits at 0°C (Meheriuk and Lau, 1988).
Sornsrivichai et al (1990) recorded a decrease in maleic acid content in fruits waxed with
semperfresh coating (1 or 2%) during storage of pear fruits. Koksal et al (1994) reported that
‘William’ pear coated with semperfresh (1.0 & 1.5% ) had the highest titratable acidity value
after 120 days of cold storage as compared to uncoated fruits. Lin et al (2008) noticed that
chitosan coating (1.5%) in combination with ascorbic acid (10 mmol/L) resulted in retaining
higher acidity of ‘Yali’ pear fruits than control.
Ketsa and Prabhasavat (1992) reported that semperfesh coating of ‘ Nang Klangwan’
mango fruits resulted in higher acidity of fruits at ambient condition (32°C & 74% RH). In
mango cv. ‘Tommy Atkins’, coated with the beeswax-based organic wax, ‘Bee Coat’ showed
decrease in the rate of acid breakdown (Feygenberg et al, 2005). Jain et al (2001) studied that
post-harvest application of wax emulsion (8%) and calcium nitrate (1%) in combination with
cool chamber markedly reduced the rate of ripening and helped to retain higher acidity of
mango fruit cv. ‘Langra’ during the storage as compared to control.
A significant delay in change in titratable acidity in coated ‘Anna’ apple was noticed
during storage at 0°C and 90-95% RH (El-Anany et al, 2009). Wijewardane and Guleria
(2009) suggested that apple cv. `Royal Delicious` coated with 2% potato starch +2% apricot
kernel oil followed by 2% corn starch +2% apricot kernel oil caused significant delay in
titratable acidity content decline stored at 2±1°C and 85-90% RH.
Application of wax emulsion maintained higher acidity of guava fruits during storage
(Singh et al, 1993). Jiang et al (2005) reported that litchi fruits treated with chitosan coating
registered higher titratable acidity during storage. Jholgiker and Reddy (2007) evaluated that
Custard apple fruits treated with fine coating of Sago (10%) resulted in increased shelf life of
fruits with gradual ripening and retained higher acidity even upto ninth day of storage in zero
energy cool chamber.
Sandhu and Singh (2000) recorded a delay in decrease in acidity content of ‘LeConte’
pear fruits packed in HDPE and LDPE bags of different thicknesses as compared to non-
packed fruits. Kaur et al (2005) reported a slower decrease in acidity after treating pear fruits
31
with calcium chloride and then individually wrapped the fruits in polyethylene film. Mohla et
al (2005) observed a decrease in titratable acidity in HDPE and LDPE packed pear fruits and
reported that fruits can be stored up to 45 days.
Kinnow fruits individually seal packed in high density polyethylene film and tightly
sealed with manual electric sealer showed maximum acidity percentage after 4 weeks of
storage but it decreased considerably between 8-12 weeks of storage interval (Dhatt et al,
1991).
There was better retention of acidity and vitamin C in perforated polythene
packed ‘Dusehari’ mango fruits. Packing resulted in decreased respiration and prolonged
shelf-life over control (Garg et al 1971). Rameshwar et al (1979) reported that film wrapped
mango fruits showed the slower loss of acidity during storage over control. McCollum et al
(1992) studied the effects of individual shrink wrapping (60 gauge) on shelf-life and quality
of mangoes and observed that the wrapped fruits were significantly more acidic than non-
wrapped fruits, as indicated by lower pH value. Sagar and Khurdiya (1996) reported that fully
matured and unripe ‘Dusehri’ mangoes wrapped with newspaper and polythene film showed
slower decrease in acidity and specific gravity at ambient temperature at each successive
stage of storage interval as compared to non- wrapped fruits. Nain et al (2002) reported that
‘Dashehari’ mango fruit wrapped in cling film maintained the higher acidity content during
storage.
2.2.4 Total phenols
Astringency in fruit is determined to a certain extent by the phenolic compounds
present in it. Several type of phenolic compounds have been isolated from fruits. The levels of
phenolics in fruits vary widely between species, varieties, seasons and locations (Van Buren,
1970).The concenteration of phenolics decreases as fruit matures (Williams, 1959). As fruit
ripens its astringency becomes lower, which seems to be associated with a change in the
structure of polyphenols rather than a reduction in their levels. Phenolics are common in
many fruits and are responsible for the oxidative browening reaction when the pulp
(especially of immature fruit ) is out. The enzyme polyphenoloxidase is responsible for this
reaction.
Yasunori and Iki (2002) studied the polyphenol content of Bartlett pear (Pyrus
communis L.) fruit stored under various conditions and determined that fruits sealed with
30µm thickness polyethylene bags showed temporarily increase in polyphenolic compounds
during storage. Chaiprasart et al (2006) observed that treatment of chitosan coating and
calcium chloride on strawberry fruit showed increase in phenolic compounds during storage
time at a higher rate than in untreated control. Liu et al (2007) revealed that chitosan coating
treatment induced a significant increase in the activity of polyphenol oxidase (PPO),
peroxidase (POD) and enhance the phenolic compounds in tomato fruit. Meng et al (2008)
32
noticed that pre-harvest chitosan spray and/or postharvest chitosan coating treatment on table
grape fruit affected the total phenolic compounds in the fruits. Apai et al (2009) evaluated the
chitosan in combination with citric acid and potassium sorbate on quality retention in longan
fruit and found that fruits dipped in chitosan, citric acid and potassium sorbate at a pH of 3.3
exhibited decreased total phenol loss during cold storage.
33
Chapter-III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present investigations entitled, “Effect of different coatings and packaging films
on the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh” were conducted in the Department of
Horticulture and Punjab Horticultural Postharvest Technology Centre, Punjab Agricultural
University, Ludhiana during the year 2009.
The experiment was conducted on 15 year old plants of pear cv. ‘Patharnakh’
growing in the new orchard of department of Horticulture, P.A.U., Ludhiana. The
experimental trees of uniform size and spread were selected and were given
recommended cultural practices as mentioned in package of practices for cultivation of
fruits published by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
3.1 Preparation of fruit samples
The pear fruits of uniform size, disease and bruise free were picked randomly from all
the four directions of the plants with the help of secateur at physiological mature stage. The
fruits were collected in plastic crates and shifted to Punjab Horticultural Postharvest
Technology Centre. In the laboratory, the fruits were sorted and graded, washed with chlorine
solution (100 ppm). Thereafter fruits were divided into requisite lot for further handling.
3.2 Edible coatings
In the present studies, 4 types of edible coatings viz. citrashine (UPL, Mumbai),
carnauba (UPL, Mumbai), sta-fresh (Stay-fresh, Mumbai) and terpenoidal-oligomer (IIT,
New Delhi) were used for application on pear fruits.
3.3 Packaging films
In the present studies, 4 types of packaging films commercially available in the
market were tried for packaging of individual pear fruits. These were Low Density
Polyethylene (25µm), High Density Polyethylene (20µm), Shrink film (10µm) and Cling film
(20µm).
3.4 Experimental details
3.4.1 Experiment 1. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the shelf life and
quality of pear fruits under super-market conditions i.e. at 20-22°C and 80-85% RH.
Serial No. Treatments
T1 Citrashine coating
T2 Carnauba coating
T3 Sta-fresh coating
T4 Terpinoidal oligomer coating
T5 Individual seal packaging in HDPE film
T6 Individual seal packaging in LDPE film
34
T7 Individual seal packaging in Shrink film
T8 Individual seal packaging in Cling film
T9 Control
Treatments 9
Replications 3 (6 fruits in each replication)
Storage Intervals 8 (3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 days interval)
Storage conditions 20-22°C and 80-85% RH.
3.4.2 Experiment 2. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the shelf life and
quality of pear fruits under ordinary market conditions i.e. at 30-32°C and 60-65% RH.
Serial No. Treatments
T1 Citrashine coating
T2 Carnauba coating
T3 Sta-fresh coating
T4 Terpinoidal oligomer coating
T5 Individual seal packaging in HDPE film
T6 Individual seal packaging in LDPE film
T7 Individual seal packaging in Shrink film
T8 Individual seal packaging in Cling film
T9 Control
Treatments 9
Replications 3 (6 fruits in each replication)
Storage Intervals 6 (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 days interval)
Storage conditions 30-32°C and 60-65% RH.
3.5 Method of coating and packaging
First lot of fruits was coated with different coatings. For the application of coatings
on the fruits, a piece of foam pad was drenched with particular coating material and coating
was applied gently on the surface of fruits. Thereafter fruits were air dried, packed in
corrugated boxes of two Kg capacity. In second lot the fruits were individually seal packed in
different packaging films. In case of shrink film wrapped packs, the pear fruits were passed
through a shrink wrapping machine (Model BS-450 shrink packing machine, Samrath
Engineers, India) at 165 ºC for 10 seconds. The cling film wrapping of fruits was done with
the help of cling wrapping machiner (Model TA-450-E, Sol Pack System). The individually
seal packed fruits were further packed in corrugated boxes of two Kg capacity.
3.6 Storage of fruits
The coated, film wrapped and control fruits were stored under two different
35
conditions i.e. under super-market conditions (20-22°C and 80-85%) RH and under ordinary
market conditions (30-32°C and 60-65% RH).
3.7 Observations recorded:
The following physical and chemical changes were observed during ambient and cold
storage studies.
3.7.1 Physical parameters
3.7.1.1 Physiological loss in weight (PLW)
The PLW of fruits was calculated on initial weight basis. The per cent loss in weight
after each storage interval was calculated by subtracting final weight from the initial weight
of the fruits and then converted into percentage value. The cumulative loss in weight was
calculated on fresh weight basis.
Initial fruit wt. - final fruit wt. Physiological loss in weight (PLW %) = ×100 Initial fruit wt.
3.7.1.2 Fruit firmness
Firmness of randomly selected fruits (three from each replication) was measured with the
help of a ‘Penetrometer’ (Model FT- 327, USA) using 8 mm stainless steel probe. About 1 square
centimeter of the skin in each fruit from the shoulder end on both sides were removed with the
help of peeler and firmness of pulp was recorded and expressed in terms of pressure (lb force).
3.7.1.3 Percent spoilage
Per cent fruit rot was calculated by counting the total number of fruits that had rotten
at each storage interval.
Number of rotten fruits
Per cent fruit rot = ×100 Total number of fruits
3.7.1.4 Sensory quality
The fruits were rated for this character by a panel of ten judges on the basis of
external appearance of fruits, texture, taste, and flavour. A nine point ‘Hedonic Scale’
described by Amerine et al (1965) was used for its inference, as given below:
Score Acceptability
9 Extremely desirable
8 Very much desirable
7 Moderately desirable
6 Slightly desirable
5 Neither desirable nor undesirable
36
4 Slightly undesirable
3 Moderately undesirable
2 Very much undesirable
1 Extremely undesirable
3.7.2 Chemical parameters
3.7.2.1 Total soluble solids (%)
Total soluble solids (TSS) were determined from the juice at room temperature with the
help of hand refractometer (Model Erma, Japan) and expressed in percent. These readings were
corrected with the help of temperature correction chart at 20°C temperature (AOAC, 1990).
3.7.2.2 Titratable acidity (%)
For recording the acid content, 2 ml of juice was diluted to 10 ml with distilled water
and titrated against 0.1 N sodium hydroxide solution using phenolphthalein as an indicator.
The acid content was expressed as % of maleic acid by using the following formula.
Volume of 0.1 N NaOH used Acidity (%) = 0.0067 ×100 Volume of juice taken
3.7.2.3 Sugars
The sugar content of the fruit was estimated according the method described by
A.O.A.C. (1990). A sample of 10 ml fruit juice was taken and diluted with distilled water.
Extraneous material was precipitated with the help of lead acetate. Excess of lead acetate was
removed with potassium oxalate. Thereafter, solution was filtered and volume was made 100
ml with distilled water. This filtrate (aliquot) was kept for the estimation of total and reducing
sugars.
a) Total sugars
Total sugars were estimated by taking 25 ml of above aliquot in 100 ml volumetric
flask. To this solution 5 ml 60 per cent HCl and 25 ml distilled water was added. It was
allowed to stand overnight for hydrolysis. The excess HCl was neutralized with saturated
NaOH solution and volume was made 100 ml with distilled water. Total sugars were then
estimated by titrating the boiling mixture containing 5 ml of each of Fehling’s solution A and
B against hydrolyzed aliquot, using methylene blue as an indicator. The unloading of titre was
stopped on the appearance of brick red colour. The values were expressed in per cent on fresh
juice basis (AOAC 1990).
37
b) Reducing sugars
To determine the reducing sugars, the aliquot was titrated against boiling solution
mixture containing 5 ml each of Fehling’s solution A and B using methylene blue as
indicator. Titration was continued till brick red colour appeared. The results were expressed
as per cent (AOAC 1990).
c) Non- reducing sugars
The non- reducing sugars was calculated by subtracting total sugars from reducing
sugars and multiplied by 0.95.
3.7.2.4 Total phenols (mg/100g)
Total phenols were estimated by extracting the fruit samples in 80 per cent ethanol.
The colour was developed with Folin-Denis reagent and determined with a Spectronic-20 at
650nm. Results were obtained with a standard curve with tannic acid as a reference
( Mahadevevan and Shridhar, 1982). The results were expressed as mg /100g fresh fruit
weight.
3.8 Statistical design
The data are analyzed statistically according to completely randomized design (Panse
and Sukhatame, 1976).
38
Chapter-IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present investigations on the “Effect of different coatings and packaging films on
the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh” were undertaken in the Department of
Horticulture and Punjab Horticultural Postharvest Technology Center, Punjab Agricultural
University, Ludhiana. The results obtained from the laboratory studies are presented and
discussed in the light of available literature in this chapter.
4.1 Physiological loss in weight (PLW)
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on PLW of pear fruits
stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 1 and figure 1. The
treatments showed a significant difference among themselves with regard to PLW. The percent
PLW, in general, increased with the advancement of storage period rather slowly in the
beginning but at a faster pace as the storage period advanced. It was noticed that citrashine
coated fruits registered the least average PLW (2.82%) followed by terpenoidal oligomer coated
fruits (3.12%). In case of individually packaging of fruits, shrink film packed fruits recorded the
lowest mean PLW (3.70%), followed by cling film (4.02%) packed fruits. The control fruits
showed the highest PLW (6.71%). The PLW in citrashine, terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits,
shrink and cling film packed fruits ranged between 0.45 to 7.10, 0.58 to 7.93, 0.49 to 8.57, and
0.54 to 9.53 percent from 3 to 24 days of storage as compared to control where PLW was found
to be the highest and ranged between 1.69 to 13.70 percent from 3 to 24 days of storage. The
interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found to be significant.
The data on effect of various coatings and packaging films on PLW of pear fruits at
ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. The lowest mean
PLW (4.38%) was observed in fruits coated with citrashine which was found to be
statistically significant as compared to other treatments and it was closely followed by
terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (4.70%). Among different packaging films, shrink film
packed fruits recorded the lower mean PLW (6.00%) followed by cling film packed fruits
(6.60%). On the other hand, the highest mean PLW (8.38%) was observed in control fruits.
The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found to be significant. During
different storage intervals, the PLW in citrashine and terpenoidal-oligomer coated fruits
ranged between 1.38 to 8.75 percent and 1.49 to 9.38 percent wehereas in shrink and cling
film the PLW ranged between 1.50 to 10.65 percent and 1.79 to 11.81 percent from 2 to 12
days respectively as compared to control where PLW ranged from 2.53 to 16.37 percent
during same storage intervals.
39
Table 1. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on physiological loss in weight in pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22°C & 80-85% RH)
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 0.00 0.45 0.83 1.33 2.01 2.62 3.34 4.86 7.10 2.82
Carnauba coating 0.00 0.77 1.13 2.23 3.33 5.57 7.20 8.52 10.67 4.93
Sta-fresh coating 0.00 0.96 1.75 2.89 3.58 5.90 7.86 9.50 11.39 5.48
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 0.00 0.58 0.95 1.65 2.26 2.89 3.71 5.01 7.93 3.12
HDPE film 0.00 0.69 1.20 2.12 3.29 5.61 6.94 8.67 11.87 5.05
LDPE film 0.00 0.87 1.65 2.85 3.75 5.86 7.52 9.13 13.49 5.64
Shrink film 0.00 0.49 0.98 1.80 2.55 3.90 4.52 6.79 8.57 3.70
Cling film 0.00 0.54 1.05 2.00 2.83 4.15 4.96 7.09 9.53 4.02
Control 0.00 1.69 2.50 3.93 4.59 7.56 8.97 10.75 13.70 6.71
Mean 0.00 0.78 1.34 2.31 3.13 4.90 6.11 7.81 10.47
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.17Storage interval = 0.16Treatment x Storage interval = 0.48
26
40
Table 2. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on physiological loss in weight in pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH)
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 0.00 1.38 2.29 3.37 4.87 5.64 8.75 4.38
Carnauba coating 0.00 1.62 2.60 4.20 5.53 7.90 11.80 5.61
Sta-fresh coating 0.00 1.70 2.76 4.52 6.21 8.32 12.23 5.96
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 0.00 1.49 2.47 3.68 5.08 6.10 9.38 4.70
HDPE film 0.00 2.85 4.87 6.93 7.45 8.96 12.70 7.29
LDPE film 0.00 3.91 5.00 7.85 8.79 10.15 13.39 8.18
Shrink film 0.00 1.50 3.52 6.10 6.98 7.23 10.65 6.00
Cling film 0.00 1.79 4.03 6.48 7.15 8.36 11.81 6.60
Control 0.00 2.50 3.60 5.78 9.79 12.22 16.37 8.38
Mean 0.00 2.08 3.46 5.43 6.87 8.32 11.90
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.50Storage interval = 0.40 Treatment x Storage interval = 1.20
27
41
42
Figure 1: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the physiological loss in weight of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 2: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the physiological loss in weight of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
43
The effect of temperature on the physiological loss in weight can be clearly
understood by comparing the data recorded in different temperature regimes as shown in table
1 and 2. A significantly higher physiological loss in weight in fruits stored at 30-32°C was
noticed as compared to those stored at 20-22°C. This increase in PLW might be due to the
detrimental effect of higher temperature leading to increased respiration rate and moisture
loss (Salisbury and Ross, 1992). In pear fruits permissible limit of weight loss is 6% to
maintain the market acceptability (Singh K, 2007). Keeping in view the acceptable level of
PLW, it can be visualized from the data that under supermarket conditions (20-22°C), the
citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits can be stored for 21 days, while shrink and
cling film packed fruits can be kept for 18 days. On the other hand under ordinary market
conditions (30-32°C), the desirable weight loss was noticed upto 10 days in citrashine and
terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits and only upto 4 days in case of shrink and cling film
wrapped fruits. The untreated control fruits maintained desirable weight loss for market
acceptability only upto 12 days and 6 days under super market and ordinary market
conditions respectively.
The control fruits under both the temperature conditions exhibited the highest physiological
loss in weight as compared to both coated and film packed fruits, which might be due to
exposure of fruit surface to the open atmosphere resulting in higher rate of transpiration and
respiration thereby leading to higher physiological loss in weight (Robertson et al, 1990). The
citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated and shrink films and cling films has been reported
to play an important role in lowering the weight loss of kinnow (Mahajan et al, 2002 and
2005), sweet lime (Bishnoi et al, 2008 and 2009), mango (Miller et al, 1983) and
pomegranate (Nanda et al, 2001).
4.2 Firmness
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on fruit firmness of
pear fruits stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 3 and Figure 3.
The data revealed that firmness of Patharnakh pear fruits during storage was significantly
affected by different coatings and packaging films. It is evident from the data that the
fruit firmness, in general, followed a declining trend commensurate with advancement in
storage period. The fruits coated with citrashine maintained the highest average firmness
(13.84 lb force) followed by terpenoidal oligomer (13.11 lb force). Among packaging
films, the fruits packed in shrink film maintained the highest average firmness (12.64 lb
force) closely followed by cling film (12.32 lb force). The control fruits registered the
lowest mean firmness (10.02 lb force). The firmness of fruits coated with citrashine and
terpenoidal oligomer ranged between 16.30 to 10.84 lb force and 15.91 to 8.98 lb force
respectively from 3 to 24 days of storage interval. On the other hand the firmness value in
44
Table 3. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on firmness (lb force) in pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22 °C & 80-85% RH)
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 16.8016.30 15.55 14.83 14.28 13.34 13.05
12.49 10.84 13.84
Carnauba coating 16.80 15.45 14.27 13.35 12.56 12.15 9.49 8.68 6.89 11.61
Sta-fresh coating 16.80 14.23 13.50 12.69 12.18 11.67 9.08 7.28 6.10 10.84
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 16.8015.91 14.86 14.37 13.48 12.93 12.44
11.93 8.98 13.11
HDPE film 16.80 15.10 14.29 13.15 12.55 10.07 9.00 8.51 7.42 11.26
LDPE film 16.80 14.67 13.81 12.90 12.10 9.43 8.24 7.14 6.00 10.54
Shrink film 16.8015.78 14.58 13.71 13.18 12.66 11.84
10.75 8.59 12.64
Cling film 16.8015.26 14.40 13.41 12.86 12.39 11.57
10.36 8.28 12.32
Control 16.80 14.00 12.88 12.50 12.00 8.92 7.85 6.70 5.29 10.02
Mean 16.80 15.19 14.24 13.43 12.80 11.51 10.28 9.32 7.60
CD at 5% level
45
Treatment = 0.27Storage interval = 0.26Treatment x Storage interval = 0.78
Table 4. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on firmness (lb force) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH)
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 16.80 15.92 15.21 14.28 13.46 12.89 9.45 13.54
Carnauba coating 16.80 14.79 14.28 12.80 12.31 10.91 8.29 12.23
Sta-fresh coating 16.80 14.26 13.66 12.33 11.70 10.27 7.45 11.61
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 16.80 15.37 14.79 13.29 12.95 11.98 9.09 12.91
HDPE film 16.80 14.92 11.47 9.36 8.25 7.27 6.85 9.69
LDPE film 16.80 14.53 10.81 8.62 7.84 6.80 6.16 9.13
Shrink film 16.80 15.58 12.27 10.35 9.26 8.68 7.52 10.61
Cling film 16.80 15.19 11.88 10.00 8.86 7.59 7.01 10.09
Control 16.80 14.20 12.36 11.30 8.00 6.90 4.95 9.62
Mean 16.80 14.97 12.97 11.37 10.29 9.25 7.42
3031
46
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.39Storage interval = 0.31Treatment x Storage interval =0.95
47
Figure 3: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on firmness of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 4: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the firmness of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
48
shrink film and cling film ranged between 15.78 to 8.59 lb force and 15.26 to 8.28 lb
force, whereas in case of control fruits, the decline was found to be abrupt and sharp and
ranged between 14.00 to 5.29 lb force, thereby leading to excessive softening and
shriveling of fruits. The interaction between treatment and storage intervals was found to
be significant.
The data on effect of different coating and packaging films on firmness of pear fruits
stored at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) are presented in Table 4 Figure 4. The
citrashine coated fruits recorded higher average firmness (13.54 lb force) and ranged between
15.92 to 9.45 lb force from 2 to 12 days of ambient storage followed by terpenoidal oligomer
coated fruits (12.91 lb force) which ranged between 15.37 to 9.09 lb force. The fruits packed
in shrink film maintained higher mean fruit firmness (10.61 lb force) and ranged between
15.58 to 7.52 lb force ranged from 2 to 12 days followed by cling film (10.09 lb force) which
ranged between 15.19 to 7.01. In case of control, mean fruit firmness was 9.62 lb force and
fruits experienced a faster loss of firmness during storage and ranged between 14.20 to 4.95 lb
force.
The pear fruits impart best eating quality at 12 lb force firmness (Singh K, 2007).
Considering this value as cut of limit for firmness, it was observed that citrashine and
terpeoidal oligomer coated fruits, and shrink and cling film packed fruits can be stored for21
and 18 days respectively at 20-22 °C while control fruits maintained acceptable firmness upto
12 days of storage.
Softening of fruits is caused either by breakdown of insoluble protopectins into
soluble pectin or by hydrolysis of starch (Mattoo et al 1975). The loss of pectic substances in
the middle lamella of the cell wall is perhaps the key steps in the ripening process that leads
to the loss of cell wall integrity thus cause loss of firmness and softening (Solomos and
Laties, 1973). The coating of fruits with Citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer or shrink or
cling films resulted in higher fruit firmness, under both the storage conditions, which
might be due to reduction in moisture loss and respiratory activity and thus maintained
the turgidity of the cells. This is evident in soft pear (Sidhu et al, 2009) kinnow (Mahajan
et al, 2002 ), citrus fruits (Ladaniya et al ,2005 ; Ben-Yehoshua et al, 1981), Bishnoi et al
(2008 and 2009) noticed that terpenoidal oligomer (P-104) maintained significantly
higher fruit firmness of apple and sweet lime fruits and extended the shelf life as
compared to control.
49
4.3 Spoilage
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on spoilage of pear
fruits stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 5 and Figure 5.
The treatments showed a significant difference among themselves with regard to
spoilage. The percent spoilage, in general, increased with the advancement of storage
period rather slowly in the beginning but at a faster pace as the storage period
advanced. It was noticed that citrashine coated fruits showed the least spoilage (3.22%)
followed by terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (3.55%). In case of individually
packaging of fruits, shrink film packed fruits recorded the lowest mean spoilage
(5.97%), followed by cling film (6.50%) packed fruits. The control fruits showed the
highest average PLW (9.12%). The spoilage in citrashine, terpenoidal oligomer coated
fruits, shrink and cling film packed fruits ranged between 0.00 to 9.36, 9.89, 12.25, and
12.89 percent respectively from 3 to 24 days of storage as compared to control where
spoilage was found to be the highest and ranged between 0.00 to 17.80 percent from 3
to 24 days of storage. The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was
found to be significant.
The data on effect of various coatings and packaging films on spoilage of pear
fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) temperature are presented in Table 6 and
Figure 6. The lowest mean spoilage (5.13%) was observed in fruits coated with citrashine
which was found to be statistically significant as compared to other treatments and it was
closely followed by terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (5.43%). However, packaging film
packed fruits recorded higher spoilage percentage and the level of spoilage at every
interval was found to be higher as compared to control. The highest average spoilage was
observed in case of LDPE film (11.94%) followed by HDPE 10.87%. The shrink and
cling films packed fruits also registered more spoilage viz 9.58 and 10.04 percent as
compared to control (8.36%). The interaction between treatments and storage intervals
was found to be significant.
The beneficial and detrimental effects of packaging fresh produce in polymeric
films have been evaluated for more than 25 years (Hardenburg, 1971 and Hardenburg,
1974). The positive effect of coatings and film packaging is the maintenance of high
relative humidity and reduction of water loss of produce at optimum temperature and
these conditions are responsible for lowering the spoilage of fruits. However, the
potential disadvantage of film wrapping at ambient temperature is the possible water
condensation and high temperature within the package, which may encourage fungal
50
Table 5. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the spoilage (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22°C & 80-85% RH)
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38 3.03 4.43 6.67 9.36 3.23
Carnauba coating 0.00 0.00 2.67 3.42 5.26 7.62 9.21 11.16 12.05 6.42
Sta-fresh coating 0.00 0.00 2.95 3.92 5.89 7.92 9.54 12.03 12.96 6.90
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.46 3.14 5.65 7.29 9.893.55
HDPE film 0.00 0.00 2.81 4.27 6.67 9.48 11.87 13.25 14.24 7.82
LDPE film 0.00 0.00 3.56 5.62 7.39 9.87 12.38 13.78 15.64 8.53
Shrink film 0.00 0.00 2.10 3.47 5.17 5.86 7.28 11.59 12.25 5.97
Cling film 0.00 0.00 2.43 3.96 5.92 6.25 8.53 12.05 12.89 6.50
Control 0.00 0.00 3.40 5.78 7.94 10.62 12.85 14.56 17.80 9.12
Mean 0.00 0.00 2.21 3.38 5.45 7.09 9.08 11.38 13.01
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.16Storage interval = 0.15Treatment x Storage interval= 0.47
35
51
Table 6. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the spoilage (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH)
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 0.00 0.00 2.52 3.54 5.46 7.78 11.50 5.13
Carnauba coating 0.00 0.00 3.20 6.18 8.07 10.26 12.41 6.69
Sta-fresh coating 0.00 0.00 3.48 6.69 8.56 10.95 13.68 7.23
Terpenoidal-oligomer coating 0.00 0.00 2.82 3.78 5.77 8.38 11.85 5.43
HDPE film 0.00 0.00 6.70 11.29 13.48 15.20 18.57 10.87
LDPE film 0.00 0.00 7.10 12.46 15.54 17.27 19.28 11.94
Shrink film 0.00 0.00 5.65 10.15 12.27 13.67 15.75 9.58
Cling film 0.00 0.00 5.79 10.68 12.96 14.05 16.76 10.04
Control 0.00 0.00 4.01 7.45 10.75 12.96 15.01 8.36
Mean 0.00 0.00 4.59 8.02 10.32 12.28 14.98
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.20Storage interval = 0.17Treatment x Storage interval = 0.50
3536
52
Figure 5: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on spoilage of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 6: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the spoilage of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
53
growth and decay problem (Kader et al, 1989). In the present study, it has been observed
that under ambient conditions the level of spoilage in packaging films was maximum
which may be due to accumulation of water vapours due to high temperature within the
package which favours the fungal infection and this supports the findings of Chaplin et al
(1982) who reported that packaging of mango fruits in polyethylene bags followed by
storage at ambient temperature resulted in development of off flavour and decay. On the
other hand, control fruits recorded lower spoilage which is obvious due to dry atmosphere
around the fruit surface.
However, under super market conditions (20-22°C), it has been noticed that
coating and film wrapping have favourable effect in reducing the spoilage of pear fruits
which may be due to positive impact of temperature in checking the growth of fungal
infection. The present study confirm the results of Bishnoi et al (2008 and 2009) who
noticed that terpenoidal oligomer (P-104) retarded the growth of microorganisms in case
of stored apple and sweet lime fruits. Dhillon et al (2005) claimed that citrshine waxing
prevent secondary infection and ageing of pear fruits by reducing the rate of respiration
and senescence. Yuen et al, (1993) and McCollum et al (1992) also observed least rotting
and best appearance of mango fruits packed in perforated polythene bags or cling or
shrink wraps followed by storage at optimum temperature.
4.4 Sensory quality
The data on sensory quality of pear fruits influenced by different coatings and
packaging films stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 7 and
Figure 7. The mean maximum sensory score was shown by fruits coated with citrashine
(7.62) followed by terpenoidal oligomer (7.48) coated fruits. In case of individually seal
packed fruits shrink film registered maximum average score (6.86) followed by cling film
packed fruits (6.69). However, control fruits registered the minimum sensory score (5.69).
The sensory score of coated fruits increased gradually up to 21 days in case of citrashine and
terpenoidal oligomer (8.17 and 8.02) and upto 18 days in case of shrink film and cling film
(7.70 and 7.55) and thereafter declined, whereas, in control fruits, the sensory score increased
up to 12 days of storage i.e. 7.85 and thereafter declined at faster pace. The interaction
between treatment and storage was found to be significant.
The data on sensory quality of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C)
are presented in Table 8 and Figure 8. The data revealed that the mean sensory score was the
highest (7.21) in citrashine coated fruits followed by terpenoidal oligomer (7.06), and in case
of all film packed fruits i.e. HDPE, LDPE, shrink and cling film the mean sensory score was
lesser than control fruits (6.52).
54
55
Table 7. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the sensory quality ( 0-9) of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22 °C & 80-85% RH)
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 7.00 7.16 7.35 7.50 7.69 7.83 8.05 8.17 7.20 7.62
Carnauba coating 7.00 7.09 7.18 7.26 7.40 7.51 6.68 5.83 5.15 6.76
Sta-fresh coating 7.00 7.06 7.14 7.18 7.32 7.36 6.12 4.72 3.50 6.30
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 7.00 7.13 7.25 7.38 7.51 7.69 7.85 8.02 6.98 7.48
HDPE film 7.00 7.08 7.13 7.25 7.33 5.95 5.13 4.12 3.90 5.99
LDPE film 7.00 7.05 7.10 7.19 7.26 5.47 4.32 3.95 3.46 5.73
Shrink film 7.00 7.12 7.21 7.31 7.45 7.58 7.70 5.71 4.76 6.86
Cling film 7.00 7.09 7.17 7.28 7.39 7.47 7.55 5.30 4.29 6.69
Control 7.00 7.25 7.43 7.60 7.85 5.44 3.80 3.47 2.70 5.69
Mean 7.00 7.11 7.22 7.33 7.47 6.92 6.36 5.48 4.66
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.01Storage interval = 0.01Treatment x Storage interval = 0.04
39
56
Table 8. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the sensory quality of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32 °C & 60-65% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 7.00 7.11 7.23 7.38 7.60 7.78 6.17 7.21
Carnauba coating 7.00 7.07 7.16 7.25 7.28 5.95 5.49 6.70
Sta-fresh coating 7.00 7.05 7.12 7.20 7.19 5.68 5.15 6.57
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 7.00 7.09 7.20 7.31 7.42 7.55 5.80 7.06
HDPE film 7.00 7.16 7.25 6.38 5.81 4.64 3.30 5.76
LDPE film 7.00 7.12 7.22 6.05 5.60 4.26 3.09 5.56
Shrink film 7.00 7.26 7.38 6.60 6.22 5.43 4.39 6.21
Cling film 7.00 7.18 7.32 6.49 6.00 5.22 3.89 6.02
Control 7.00 7.30 7.45 7.51 6.55 5.56 4.75 6.52
Mean 7.00 7.15 7.26 6.91 6.63 5.79 4.67
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.02Storage interval = 0.01Treatment x Storage interval = 0.05
3940
57
Figure 7: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on sensory quality of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 8: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on sensory quality of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
58
The sensory quality gradually increased in citrashine coated fruits upto 10 days
(7.78%) and then declined followed by terpenoidal oligomer (7.55) while in case of polymeric
film packed fruits sensory score increased upto 4 days during storage, thereafter, a fast
decline in organoleptic score was noticed in the fruits packed in packaging films. However,
the control fruits recorded the highest sensory score of 7.51 after 6 days of storage and fruits
were rated as very much desirable but thereafter a sudden decline in sensory quality was
noticed and fruits registered a score of 4.75 after 12 days of storage.
It has been reported that ethylene biosynthetic pathway functions better at 20-25°C
(Yang, 1985) which may result in synthesis or formation of flavoring compounds. In the
present investigation it was noticed that pear fruits coated with citrashine and terpenoidal
oligomer coatings or individually packed in shrink or cling film followed by storage at 20-
22°C developed better sensory quality, which may be due the role of coatings and packaging
films in partial modifications of internal atmosphere of fruits resulting in developing of the
acceptable flavor. Wrapping of mango fruits of cv. ‘Kensington pride’ in sealed cling or
shrink wraps has been reported to maintain attractive appearance with eating quality up to 10 th
day of storage (Yuen et al, 1993). Sonkar and Ladaniya (1998) reported that Nagpur
mandarin fruits packed in stretch cling film had significantly higher flavour score and better
acceptability and freshness than non wrapped fruits after 60 days of storage. Mahajan et al
(2005) noticed that citrashine coating was most effective in improving the overall quality and
organoleptic quality of kinnow fruits without development of off-flavour.
However, under ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) the unwrapped control fruits
recorded better sensory score than wrapped fruits which is obvious due to build up of adverse
concentrations of CO2 and very low concentration of O2 as a result of high temperature. These
conditions are often responsible for fermentation and development of off flavours (Geeson et
al, 1991). Kader et al (1989) envisaged that a film resulting in a favourable atmosphere at low
temperature may result in harmful atmosphere at higher temperature, thus make the quality of
fruit acceptable in former case and unacceptable in latter case.
4.5 Total Soluble Solids
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on TSS content of fruits
stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 9 and Figure 9. The fruits
coated with citrashine registered maximum average TSS content (12.37%) followed by
terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (12.14%) and among the individually packed fruits shrink film
recorded maximum TSS (11.62%) followed by cling film (11.42%). The control fruits recorded
the lowest average TSS content (10.71%). It was further observed that in citrashine and
terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits the TSS content increased slowly and steadily up to 21 days
(13.46 and 13.14%) and thereafter declined after 24 days storage i.e., 11.05 and 10.71%
59
Table 9. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the total soluble solids of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22°C & 80-85% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 11.20 11.48 11.86 12.30 12.58 12.89 13.30 13.46 11.05 12.37
Carnauba coating 11.20 11.32 11.49 11.69 11.95 12.22 11.45 10.14 9.50 11.22
Sta-fresh coating 11.20 11.28 11.43 11.60 11.79 12.00 11.05 9.71 9.32 11.02
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
11.20 11.39 11.73 12.07 12.32 12.64 13.08 13.14 10.7112.14
HDPE film 11.20 11.28 11.40 11.55 11.90 10.80 10.35 9.95 9.75 10.87
LDPE film 11.20 11.25 11.30 11.42 11.72 10.65 10.19 9.80 9.52 10.73
Shrink film 11.20 11.42 11.68 11.92 12.20 12.46 12.70 10.63 9.92 11.62
Cling film 11.20 11.33 11.52 11.78 12.00 12.27 12.45 10.30 9.74 11.42
Control 11.20 11.55 11.95 12.41 12.70 9.61 9.30 9.14 9.00 10.71
Mean 11.20 11.37 11.60 11.86 12.13 11.73 11.54 10.70 9.83
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.02Storage interval = 0.02Treatment x Storage interval = 0.06
43
60
Table 10. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the total soluble solids of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 11.20 11.46 11.76 12.18 12.49 12.66 10.58 11.76
Carnauba coating 11.20 11.28 11.48 11.67 11.82 10.05 9.74 11.03
Sta-fresh coating 11.20 11.24 11.39 11.52 11.64 9.74 9.46 10.88
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 11.20 11.39 11.60 11.92 12.20 12.37 10.20 11.55
HDPE film 11.20 11.35 11.45 10.50 10.25 9.96 9.63 10.62
LDPE film 11.20 11.32 11.40 10.31 10.10 9.72 9.51 10.51
Shrink film 11.20 11.57 11.72 10.91 10.49 10.20 10.01 10.87
Cling film 11.20 11.42 11.60 10.71 10.33 10.05 9.85 10.74
Control 11.20 11.66 11.88 12.00 10.86 10.55 10.30 11.21
Mean 11.20 11.41 11.59 11.29 11.13 10.59 9.92
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.02Storage interval = 0.02Treatment x Storage interval = 0.07
44
61
Figure 9: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total soluble solids (%) of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 10: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total soluble solids (%) of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
62
respectively. The similar trend was also noticed in case of packaging films. In shrink and cling
film packed fruits the TSS content increased up to 18 days (12.70%, 12.45%) thereafter gradually
declined after 21 days storage i.e., 10.63% in shrink film and 10.30% in cling film packed fruits.
On the other hand, control fruits recorded a rise in TSS content up to 12 days (12.70%) and
thereafter declined at a faster rate and recorded 9.00% TSS at the end of 24 days of storage.
The data on TSS content of pear fruits as influenced by various coatings and
packaging films at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) are presented in Table 10 and Figure
10. Citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits registered increase in TSS content upto
10 days i.e. 12.66% and 12.37% and carnuba and sta-fresh coated fruits upto 8 days i.e.,
10.05% and 9.74% respectively. In control fruits, the TSS content increased up to 6 days
(12.00%) and thereafter a decline was noticed and further maintained TSS of 10.30% after 12
days of storage. However, the film packed fruits recorded a rise in TSS content up to 4 days
and thereafter declined.
The increase in TSS during storage may possibly be due to breakdown of complex
organic metabolites into simple molecules or due to hydrolysis of starch into sugars (Wills et
al 1980 and Wani, 1997). The delayed increase in TSS over a longer period of time in coated
and film wrapped pear fruits at 20-22°C might be attributed that coating and films retard
ripening and senescence processes and simultaneously delayed the conversion of starch into
sugars. Similar findings of increase in TSS of peach fruits during storage have also been
reported by Ochel et al (1993) and Salunkhe et al (1968).
The results on TSS in the present study are in agreement with the findings of Sidhu
et al (2009) who observed increase in total soluble content with prolongation of storage
period in citrashine coated soft pear fruits and Bishnoi et al (2008) who noticed that
terpenoidal oligomer (P-104) maintained significantly higher TSS of apple fruits upto 30 days
of storage at room temperature. Singh et al (1967) also reported that fruits of ‘Dusehri’
mango packed in perforated polythene recorded delayed increase in total soluble solids
content.
4.6 Total Sugars
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on total sugars content
of fruits stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 11 and Figure 11.
The fruits coated with citrashine registered maximum average total sugars content (8.90%)
followed by terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (8.68%) and among the individually packed
fruits, shrink film recorded maximum total sugars content (8.36%) followed by cling film
(8.16%). The control fruits recorded the lowest average total sugars content (7.46%). It was
further observed that in citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits the total sugars
content increased slowly and steadily up to 21 days i.e. 9.78 and 9.52% respectively and
63
Table 11. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the total sugar (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22°C & 80-85% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 7.70 8.05 8.35 8.73 9.05 9.35 9.62 9.78 8.29 8.90
Carnauba coating 7.70 7.78 7.97 8.28 8.66 8.80 7.57 7.19 6.85 7.89
Sta-fresh coating 7.70 7.75 7.90 8.12 8.39 8.58 7.34 6.92 6.63 7.70
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
7.70 7.92 8.18 8.53 8.82 9.10 9.35 9.52 8.008.68
HDPE film 7.70 7.80 8.10 8.40 8.55 7.80 7.13 6.80 6.45 7.63
LDPE film 7.70 7.74 7.92 8.23 8.42 7.64 7.00 6.66 6.36 7.50
Shrink film 7.70 8.10 8.39 8.69 8.93 9.15 9.25 7.36 6.99 8.36
Cling film 7.70 7.95 8.20 8.48 8.72 8.97 9.10 7.11 6.76 8.16
Control 7.70 7.90 8.50 8.95 9.16 6.85 6.42 6.20 5.85 7.48
Mean 7.70 7.89 8.17 8.49 8.74 8.47 8.09 7.50 6.91
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.03Storage interval = 0.02Treatment x Storage interval = 0.08
47
64
Table 12 . Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the total sugar (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 7.70 8.10 8.39 8.75 9.05 9.25 8.00 8.59
Carnauba coating 7.70 7.91 8.10 8.39 8.54 7.25 7.02 7.87
Sta-fresh coating 7.70 7.82 8.01 8.21 8.35 7.05 6.65 7.68
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
7.70 8.02 8.22 8.49 8.82 9.02 7.718.38
HDPE film 7.70 8.14 8.30 7.76 7.25 6.57 6.29 7.39
LDPE film 7.70 7.98 8.15 7.51 7.11 6.39 6.10 7.21
Shrink film 7.70 8.33 8.64 8.08 7.52 6.85 6.52 7.66
Cling film 7.70 8.23 8.48 7.90 7.35 6.69 6.38 7.51
Control 7.70 8.36 8.78 8.90 7.86 7.59 6.77 8.04
Mean 7.70 8.10 8.34 8.22 7.98 7.41 6.83
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.03Storage interval = 0.03Treatment x Storage interval = 0.09
48
65
66
Figure 11: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total sugars (%) of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 12: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total sugars (%) of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
67
thereafter declined after 24 days storage i.e., 8.29 and 8.00% respectively. The similar trend
was also noticed in case of packaging films. In shrink and cling film packed fruits the total
sugars content increased up to 18 days (9.25% and 9.10%) thereafter declined after 21 days
storage. On the other hand, control fruits recorded a rise in total sugars content up to 12 days
(9.16%) and thereafter declined at a faster rate and recorded 5.85% total sugars content at the
end of 24 days of storage. The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found
to be significant.
The data on total sugars of pear fruits as influenced by various coatings and
packaging films at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) are presented in Table 12 and Figure
12. Citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits registered increase in total sugars
content upto 10 days i.e., 9.25 and 9.02% and thereafter declined. In control fruits, the total
sugars content increased up to 6 days (8.90%) and thereafter a decline was noticed and further
maintained total sugars content of 6.77% after 12 days of storage. However, in case of
polymeric film packed fruit recorded a rise in total sugar content up to 4 days and the level of
total sugar content at every interval was found to be lower as compared to control. The
interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found to be significant.
4.7 Reducing Sugars
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on reducing sugars of pear
fruits stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 13 and Figure 13. The
fruits coated with citrashine registered maximum average reducing sugars (6.43%) followed by
terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (6.26%) and among the individually packed fruits, shrink
film recorded maximum reducing sugars (6.15%) followed by cling film (5.99%). The control
fruits recorded the lowest average reducing sugars (5.44%). It was further observed that in
citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits the reducing sugars increased slowly and
steadily up to 21 days, i.e., 7.00 and 6.82% respectively and thereafter declined after 24 days
storage i.e., 6.26 and 6.05% respectively. The similar trend was also noticed in case of
packaging films. The reducing sugars increased up to 18 days in shrink film (6.75%) and
cling film (6.63%) thereafter declined. On the other hand, control fruits recorded a rise in
reducing sugars up to 12 days (6.60%) and thereafter declined at a faster rate and recorded
4.19% reducing sugars at the end of 24 days of storage. The interaction between treatments
and storage intervals was found to be significant.
The data on reducing sugars of pear fruits as influenced by various coatings and
packaging films at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) are presented in Table 14 and Figure
14. Citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits registered increase in reducing sugars
68
Table 13. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the reducing sugars (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22°C & 80-85% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 5.50 5.72 5.98 6.28 6.51 6.74 6.92 7.00 6.26 6.43
Carnauba coating 5.50 5.59 5.74 5.98 6.29 6.41 5.76 5.48 5.19 5.81
Sta-fresh coating 5.50 5.53 5.63 5.85 6.06 6.23 5.59 5.30 5.07 5.66
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
5.50 5.65 5.85 6.12 6.34 6.55 6.70 6.82 6.056.26
HDPE film 5.50 5.61 5.89 6.15 6.27 5.96 5.34 5.10 4.82 5.64
LDPE film 5.50 5.56 5.72 6.05 6.15 5.82 5.28 4.97 4.66 5.53
Shrink film 5.50 5.79 6.10 6.35 6.57 6.69 6.75 5.65 5.26 6.15
Cling film 5.50 5.71 5.95 6.20 6.42 6.56 6.63 5.35 5.10 5.99
Control 5.50 5.95 6.15 6.46 6.60 5.15 4.65 4.40 4.19 5.44
Mean 5.50 5.68 5.89 6.16 6.36 6.23 5.96 5.56 5.18
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.03Storage interval = 0.02Treatment x Storage interval = 0.08
51
69
Table 14. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the reducing sugars (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 5.50 5.58 5.76 6.02 6.29 6.46 5.82 5.99
Carnauba coating 5.50 5.54 5.62 5.88 6.00 5.71 5.39 5.69
Sta-fresh coating 5.50 5.52 5.58 5.75 5.90 5.40 5.26 5.57
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
5.50 5.57 5.69 5.92 6.14 6.31 5.635.88
HDPE film 5.50 5.79 5.87 5.45 5.25 4.99 4.75 5.35
LDPE film 5.50 5.70 5.77 5.25 5.14 4.90 4.65 5.24
Shrink film 5.50 5.95 6.12 5.67 5.45 5.22 4.94 5.56
Cling film 5.50 5.87 6.02 5.58 5.32 5.10 4.82 5.45
Control 5.50 6.03 6.30 6.45 5.66 5.32 5.05 5.80
Mean 5.50 5.73 5.86 5.77 5.68 5.49 5.15
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.03Storage interval = 0.02Treatment x Storage interval = 0.07
5352
70
Figure 13: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on reducing sugars (%) of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 14: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on reducing sugars (%) of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
71
upto 10 days i.e., 6.46% and 6.31% and carnauba and sta-fresh coated fruits upto 8 days i.e.,
6.00 and 5.90% respectively. In control fruits, the reducing sugars increased up to 6 days
(6.45%) and thereafter a decline was noticed and further maintained reducing sugars of 5.05%
after 12 days of storage. However, in case of polymeric film packed fruit recorded a rise in
reducing sugars up to 4 days and declined thereafter.
4.8 Non-reducing Sugars
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on non-reducing sugars
of pear fruits stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 15 and
Figure 15. The fruits coated with citrashine registered maximum average non-redcing sugars
(2.35 %) followed by terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (2.30%) and among the individually
packed fruits, shrink film recorded maximum non-reducing sugars (2.10%) followed by cling
film (2.07%). The control fruits recorded average non-reducing sugars (1.93%). It was further
observed that in citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits the non-reducing sugars
increased slowly and steadily up to 21 days, 2.64 and 2.57% respectively and thereafter
declined after 24 days storage i.e., 1.93 and 1.85% respectively. The similar trend was also
noticed in case of packaging films. In shrink film packed fruits the non-reducing sugars
increased up to 18 days (2.38%) and cling film (2.35%) thereafter gradually declined after 21
days storage i.e., 1.71% in shrink film and 1.67% in cling film packed fruits. On the other
hand, control fruits recorded a rise in non-reducing sugars up to 12 days (2.43%) and
thereafter declined at a faster rate and recorded 1.58% non-reducing sugars at the end of 24
days of storage. The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found to be
significant.
The data on non-reducing sugars of pear fruits as influenced by various coatings and
packaging films at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) are presented in Table 16 and Figure
16. Citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits registered increase in non-reducing
sugars upto 10 days i.e. 2.65% and 2.57% and thereafter declined. In control fruits, the non-
reducing sugars increased up to 6 days (2.33%) and thereafter a decline was noticedand
further maintained non-reducing sugars of 1.63% after 12 days of storage. However, in case
of polymeric all packaging films viz. HDPE, LDPE, shrink and cling film packed fruits
recorded a rise in non-reducing sugars up to 4 days and declined thereafter. The interaction
between treatments and storage intervals was found to be significant.
The increase in sugars (total, reducing and non-reducing) during storage may possibly
due to breakdown of starch into sugars, as on complete hydrolysis of starch no further increase
in sugars occurs and subsequently a decline in these parameters is predictable as they along with
other organic acids are primary substrate for respiration (Wills et al 1980). The delayed
decrease in the sugar content in fruits coated and packed in different packaging films may be
72
Table 15. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the non-reducing sugars (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22°C & 80-85% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 2.09 2.21 2.25 2.33 2.41 2.48 2.57 2.64 1.93 2.35
Carnauba coating 2.09 2.08 2.12 2.19 2.25 2.27 1.72 1.62 1.58 1.98
Sta-fresh coating 2.09 2.11 2.16 2.19 2.21 2.23 1.66 1.54 1.48 1.95
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
2.092.16 2.21 2.29 2.36 2.42 2.52 2.57 1.85 2.30
HDPE film 2.09 2.08 2.10 2.14 2.17 1.75 1.70 1.62 1.55 1.89
LDPE film 2.09 2.07 2.09 2.07 2.18 1.69 1.63 1.58 1.55 1.86
Shrink film 2.09 2.15 2.18 2.22 2.24 2.34 2.38 1.71 1.60 2.10
Cling film 2.09 2.13 2.14 2.17 2.19 2.29 2.35 1.67 1.58 2.07
Control 2.09 1.85 2.23 2.37 2.43 1.62 1.68 1.71 1.58 1.93
Mean 2.09 2.10 2.16 2.22 2.27 2.12 2.02 1.85 1.63
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.02Storage interval = 0.02Treatment x Storage interval = 0.05
55
73
Table 16. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the non-reducing sugars (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 2.09 2.40 2.50 2.59 2.62 2.65 2.17 2.49
Carnauba coating 2.09 2.25 2.36 2.38 2.51 1.61 1.53 2.11
Sta-fresh coating 2.09 2.18 2.31 2.34 2.40 1.57 1.09 1.98
Terpenoidal oligomer coating
2.092.33 2.40 2.44 2.55 2.57 2.06 2.39
HDPE film 2.09 2.23 2.31 2.19 1.90 1.50 1.46 1.93
LDPE film 2.09 2.17 2.26 2.18 1.87 1.46 1.43 1.90
Shrink film 2.09 2.26 2.39 2.22 1.97 1.53 1.49 1.98
Cling film 2.09 2.24 2.34 2.20 1.93 1.51 1.48 1.95
Control 2.09 2.21 2.36 2.33 2.09 2.16 1.63 2.13
Mean 2.09 2.25 2.36 2.32 2.20 1.84 1.59
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.02Storage interval = 0.01Treatment x Storage interval = 0.04
56
74
Figure 15: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on non-reducing sugars (%) of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 16: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on non-reducing sugars (%) of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
75
attributed to the inherent property of coatings and packaging films in delaying the metabolic
activities of fruits during storage due to delay in ethylene production and respiration rate.
Singh et al (1967) reported that fruits of ‘Dusehri’ mango were in good condition
after 14 days of storage when these were packed in perforated polythene in cold storage
conditions. The citrashine and terpenoidal-oligomer coatings have been reported to maintain
higher sugars in sand pear (Mohla et al, 2005). Sidhu et al (2009) observed an increase in
total , reducing and non-reducing sugars content with prolongation of storage period in
citrashine coated pear fruits. The mango and peach fruits wrapped in shrink or cling film
registered higher sugars (Dhillon et al, 1977).
4.9 Acidity
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on acidity of pear fruits
when stored at super market condition (20-22°C) are presented in Table 17 and Figure 17.
The data revealed that acidity of pear fruits experienced a linear decline as the storage period
advanced. It was observed that in all the treatments, acidity was higher than the control. It was
further noticed that citrashine coated fruits showed significantly higher acidity over the other
treatments throughout the storage period and recorded mean acidity (0.34%) followed by
terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (0.31%). In case of individually packaging of fruits, shrink
film packed fruits recorded the highest mean acidity (0.28%), followed by cling film (0.26%)
packed fruits. The control fruits showed the lowest mean acidity (0.18 %). The acidity content
in citrashine, terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits, shrink and cling film packed fruits ranged
between 0.44 to 0.22, 0.42 to 0.20, 0.40 to 0.17, and 0.37 to 0.16 percent respectively from 3
to 24 days of storage as compared to control where acidity was found to be the lowest and
ranged between 0.34 to 0.10 percent from 3 to 24 days of storage. The interaction between
treatments and storage intervals was found to be non-significant.
The data on effect of various coatings and packaging films on acidity content of pear
fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) are presented in Table 18 and Figure 18. The
data revealed that under ordinary market conditions, a decline in acidity was noticed. The
highest mean acidity content (0.36%) was observed in fruits coated with citrashine which was
found to be statistically significant as compared to other treatments and it was closely followed by
terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (0.33%). On the other hand, the lowest mean acidity (0.19%)
was observed in control fruits. Among different packaging films, shrink film packed fruits
recorded the highest mean acidity content (0.30%) followed by cling film packed fruits (0.27 %).
The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found to be non-significant. During
different storage intervals, citrashine coated fruits registered the highest acidity content ranged
between 0.44 to 0.28 percent from 2 to 12 days of ambient storage, respectively as compared to
control where acidity ranged from 0.30 to 0.10 percent during same storage intervals.
The decrease in titratable acids during storage may be attributed to utilization of
76
Table 17. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the titratable acidity (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22°C & 80-85% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.34
Carnauba coating 0.43 0.38 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.25
Sta-fresh coating 0.43 0.35 0.31 0.27 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.22
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.33 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.31
HDPE film 0.43 0.33 0.30 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.21
LDPE film 0.43 0.31 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.19
Shrink film 0.43 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.28
Cling film 0.43 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.26
Control 0.43 0.34 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.18
Mean 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.15
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.01Storage interval = 0.01Treatment x Storage interval = NS
59
77
Table 18. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on the titratable acidity (%) of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 0.48 0.44 0.41 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.36
Carnauba coating 0.48 0.35 0.31 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.26
Sta-fresh coating 0.48 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.23
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 0.48 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.33
HDPE film 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.23 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.22
LDPE film 0.48 0.32 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.20
Shrink film 0.48 0.42 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.30
Cling film 0.48 0.38 0.33 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.27
Control 0.48 0.30 0.24 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.19
Mean 0.48 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.23 0.20 0.17
CD at 5% level
Treatment = 0.02Storage interval = 0.01Treatment x Storage interval = NS
60
78
79
Figure 17: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on titratable acidity (%) of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 18: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on titratable acidity (%) of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
80
organic acid in pyruvate decarboxylation reaction occuring during the ripening process of
fruits (Rhodes et al 1968 and Pool et al 1972). When the fruits were coated and wrapped in
films, the lowering of acidity was delayed, which might be due to the effect of coatings and
packaging films in delaying the respiratory and ripening process. Similar results have been
reported in coated ‘Anna’ apple by El-Anany et al (2009). McCollum et al (1992) observed
higher acidity content in individual shrink wrapped mangoes. Bratley, (1939) reported that the
higher loss in titratable acidity in tangerines fruits during ambient storage which may be due
to higher rate of metabolism as compared to cold storage.
4.10 Total phenols
The data on effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols of pear
fruits stored at super market conditions (20-22°C) are presented in Table 19 and Figure 19. The
data revealed that total phenols of pear fruits declined as the storage period advanced. It was
observed that in all the treatments, total phenols content was higher than the control. It was also
noticed that citrashine coated fruits showed significantly higher mean total phenols (37.34
mg/100g) over the other treatments throughout the storage period followed by terpenoidal
oligomer coated fruits (37.08 mg/100g). In case of individually packaging of fruits, shrink film
packed fruits recorded the highest mean total phenols (36.80 mg/100g) followed by cling film
packed fruits (36.60 mg/100g). The control fruits showed the lowest mean total phenols content
(34.43 mg/100g). The total phenols content content in citrashine, terpenoidal oligomer coated
fruits, shrink and cling film packed fruits ranged between 42.89 to 32.79, 42.62 to 32.52, 42.20
to 32.20, and 42.08 to 31.90 mg/100g respectively from 3 to 24 days of storage as compared to
control where total phenols content was found to be the lowest and ranged between 40.36 to
28.10 mg/100g from 3 to 24 days of storage. The other treatments also showed significant
higher total phenols content as compared to control. The interaction between treatments and
storage intervals was found to be significant.
The data on total phenols of pear fruits as influenced by various coatings and
packaging films at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C) temperature are presented in Table
20 and Figure 20. The highest mean total phenols content (37.36 mg/100g) was observed in
fruits coated with citrashine which was found to be statistically significant as compared to
other treatments and it was closely followed by terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits (37.20
mg/100g). On the other hand, the lowest mean total phenols content (32.09 mg/100g) was
observed in control fruits. Among different packaging films shrink film packed fruits
recorded the highest mean total phenols content (33.86 mg/100g) followed by cling film
packed fruits (33.66 mg/100g). The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was
found to be significant. During different storage intervals, citrashine coated fruits registered
the highest total phenols content ranged between 41.57 to 31.00 mg/100g from 2 to 12 days
of ambient storage, respectively as compared to control where phenols content ranged
81
Table 19. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) of pear cv. Patharnakh at super market conditions (20-22 °C & 80-85% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 Mean
Citrashine coating 43.35 42.89 40.50 39.10 37.45 36.81 35.24 33.95 32.79 37.34
Carnauba coating 43.35 41.56 39.70 38.45 36.70 35.80 33.21 31.88 31.05 36.04
Sta-fresh coating 43.35 41.27 39.53 38.26 36.43 35.58 33.02 31.62 30.88 35.82
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 43.35 42.62 40.10 38.87 37.31 36.59 35.05 33.60 32.52 37.08
HDPE film 43.35 41.48 39.40 38.06 36.15 35.31 32.50 31.10 30.25 35.53
LDPE film 43.35 41.15 39.19 37.90 36.00 35.08 35.27 30.76 29.98 35.67
Shrink film 43.35 42.20 40.00 38.75 37.10 36.29 34.76 33.10 32.20 36.80
Cling film 43.35 42.08 39.89 38.53 36.91 36.07 34.53 32.86 31.90 36.60
Control 43.35 40.36 38.75 37.15 35.56 34.36 31.68 29.45 28.10 34.43
Mean 43.35 41.73 39.67 38.34 36.62 35.77 33.92 32.04 31.07
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.02Storage interval = 0.02Treatment x Storage interval = 0.07
63
82
Table 20. Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) of pear cv. Patharnakh at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C & 60-65% RH).
Treatments Days after Storage
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Mean
Citrashine coating 43.35 41.57 39.90 37.35 35.27 33.10 31.00 37.36
Carnauba coating 43.35 40.95 39.12 36.83 34.90 32.00 29.33 36.64
Sta-fresh coating 43.35 40.78 38.74 36.30 34.40 31.63 28.88 36.30
Terpenoidal oligomer coating 43.35 41.35 39.67 37.05 35.42 32.80 30.76 37.20
HDPE film 43.35 41.20 37.85 32.60 28.55 26.64 23.69 33.41
LDPE film 43.35 41.09 37.15 31.25 26.49 25.33 22.06 32.39
Shrink film 43.35 41.85 38.23 33.18 29.10 27.00 24.32 33.86
Cling film 43.35 41.66 38.02 32.89 28.76 26.86 24.05 33.66
Control 43.35 41.00 38.50 33.09 25.15 22.75 20.78 32.09
Mean 43.35 41.27 38.58 34.50 30.89 28.68 26.10
CD at 5% levelTreatment = 0.09Storage interval = 0.08Treatment x Storage interval = 0.23
5464
83
Figure 19: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) of pear fruits at super market conditions (20-220C and 80-85% RH).
Figure 20: Effect of different coatings and packaging films on total phenols (mg/100g) of pear fruits at ordinary market conditions (30-320C and 60-65% RH).
84
between 41.00 to 20.78 mg/100g during same storage intervals.
Mahajan (1994) observed that the total phenolics in Red Delicious apples declined in
linear manner during seven months of cold storage. This decline in phenolics with
advancement of storage interval may be attributed to the activity of polyphenol oxidase
(PPO). These results are in conformity with the findings of Randhawa (1982) in Patharnakh
pear. The slower rate of degradation of phenolics on coated and polythene wrapped pear fruits
apparently indicates that these play an important role in delaying the activity of polyphenol
oxidase enzyme due to delay in respiratory activity of the fruits
85
Chapter V
SUMMARY
The present investigations entitled, “Effect of different coatings and packaging
films on the shelf life and quality of pear cv. Patharnakh” were conducted in the
Department of Horticulture and Punjab Horticultural Post-harvest Technology Centre,
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana during the year 2009-10. Patharnakh pear fruits
were harvested in the third week of July at physiological mature stage. The fruits of
uniform size, apparently free from diseases and bruises were sorted, washed with chlorine
solution (100 ppm). Thereafter, the fruits were divided into requisite lots for further
handling. The first lot of fruits was coated with different coatings i.e. citrashine, carnauba,
sta-fresh, terpenoidal oligomer. In the second lot the fruits were individually seal wrapped
with different packaging films commercially available in the market i.e. shrink film, cling
film, low density polyethylene film (LDPE), high density polyethylene film (HDPE). The
control fruits were kept uncoated and un-packed. The fruits were stored under two different
conditions viz. at super-market conditions (20-22°C and 80-85% RH) for experiment- 1 and
at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C and 60-65% RH) for experiment-2. The fruits were
analyzed for various physico-chemical parameters i.e. at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 days
interval for first experiment while in second experiment the fruits were analyzed after 2, 4,
6, 8, 10, 12 days interval after storage.
The results of present study are summarized below:
The physiological loss in weight of pear fruits increased during storage irrespective of
different treatments. However, fruits coated with citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer
or fruits individually wrapped with shrink and cling film registered lower weight loss
under both the storage conditions i.e. supermarket conditions (2.82, 3.12, 3.70 &
4.02%) and ordinary market conditions (4.38, 4.70, 6.00, 6.60%) as compared to
control (6.71 and 8.38%)
Fruit firmness decreased with the prolongation of storage period. However
application of citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coating or wrapping of fruits in
shrink and cling film maintained higher firmness under super-market conditions
(13.84, 13.11, 12.64 and 12.32 lb force) as well as under ordinary market conditions
(13.54, 12.91, 10.61, 10.09 lb force) as compared to control (10.02 and 9.62 lb force).
Spoilage of fruits increased during storage. In case of super market conditions (20-
22°C), citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits recorded the lower spoilage
( 3.23 and 3.55 per cent) and among packed fruits, shrink film and cling film
86
maintained lower spoilage (5.97 and 6.50 percent) as compared to control (9.12
percent). However, in case of ordinary market conditions (30-32°C), citrashine coated
fruits showed the lowest spoilage (5.13 percent) followed by terpenoidal oligomer
(5.43%). However the fruits packed with different films recorded higher spoilage as
compared to control.
Citrashine or terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits maintained acceptable palatability for
21 days under super-market conditions and 10 days under ordinary market conditions.
However shrink and cling film packed fruits maintained desirable palatability rating
upto 18 days under super-market conditions but these packaging resulted in poor
palatability under ordinary market conditions.
The TSS, total sugars, reducing sugars and non- reducing sugars increased in
citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits upto 21 days under super-market
conditions as compared to 12 days in case of control. Under ordinary market
conditions citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coatings increased these
constituents upto 10 days as compared to 6 days in control. In case of shrink and
cling film these constituents increased upto 18 days under super-market conditions
and only for 4 days under ordinary market conditions.
Acidity in fruits decreased with the increase of storage period. Under both the
storage conditions citrashine, terpenoidal oligomer coatings and shrink and cling
film maintained the higher acidity as compared to control.
The total phenolics content of the pear fruits showed a decreasing trend with the
advancement of the storage period. However, the coating and packaging films
resulted in slower reduction in the total phenols as compared to control. Under
both storage conditions, citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits
recorded the highest mean total phenols. Among packaging films, shrink and cling
film packed fruits showed the highest mean total phenols, while the lowest mean
total phenols was recorded in case of control.
From the present studies, it can be concluded that at supermarket conditions (20-22°C
and 80-85% RH) the Patharnakh pear fruits coated with citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer
coatings can be stored for 21 days while those packed with shrink film or cling film can be
stored for 18 days with minimum weight loss, spoilage, desirable firmness and acceptable
sensory quality. The control fruits were found acceptable only upto 12 days.
On the other hand at ordinary market conditions (30-32°C and 60-65% RH)
citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coated fruits can be stored for 10 days while, the un-
87
wrapped (control) fruits maintained better quality for 6 days. It was noticed that under
ordinary market conditions the packaging films interfere with overall quality of pear fruit
due to build up of high condensation and abnormal gaseous atmosphere in the package due
to high temperature.
The application of citrashine and terpenoidal oligomer coatings or shrink, cling film
seems to hold promise in extending the marketability of pear fruits under supermarket retail
conditions at 20-22°C. On the other hand, packaging films have adverse effect during retail
marketing of pear fruit under ordinary market conditions.
88
REFERENCES
Abbasi N A, Iqbal Z, Maqbool M and Hafiz I A (2009) Post-harvest quality of mango (Mangifera indica. L.) fruit as affected by chitosan coating. Pak J Bot 41(1) : 343-357.
Abeles F B, Morgan P W and Saltveit M E (1992) Ethylene in Plant Biology. 2 nd ed. Acad Press, San DiegoCA.
Alam M S and Yasmin L (2008) Effect of post-harvest treatments on shelf life and quality of tomato. Bangladesh J Agri 33(3) : 579-585.
Alam M S and Paul S (2001) Effect of cellulose based coating on the shelf life of kinnows. J Res Punjab Agric Uni 38 : 76-81.
An J, Zhang M and Zhang Z (2006) Effect of packaging on the quality of ‘Chaoyang’ honey peach fruit in modified atmosphere packages. Packaging Technol Sci 20(1) : 71-76.
Angadi G S and Krishnamurthy S (1992) Studies on storage of Coorg mandarins (Citrus reticulata Bianco). South Indian Horticulture 40 (5): 289-292. [En] Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hassaraghatta, Banglore.
Anonymous (2006a) Area and production of different fruit crops in India. www.faostat.org
Anonymous (2008 b) Area and production of different fruits in Punjab state. Directorate of Horticulture, Punjab, Chandigarh.
AOAC (1990) Official and Tentative Methods of Analytical Chemists, Washington DC, USA 14th edition.
Apai W, Sardsud V, Boonprasom P and Sardsud U (2009) Effect of chitosan coating with citric acid and potassium sorbate on post-harvest decay and browning of longan fruit during cold storage. Acta Hort 837 : 181-88.
Baccaunaud M (1989) Plastic films, their importance in maintaining the quality of fruit during distribution. Legumes France 50: 33-36 (C F Hort. Abst. 59: 8033).
Baldwin E A, Burns J K, Kazokas W and Brecht J K (1998) Effect of coating on mango (Mangifera indica. L.) flavor. Proc Fla State Hort Soc 111 : 247-250.
Baskaran R, Puyed S and Habibunnisa (2002) Effect of modified atmospere packaging and waxing on the storage behaviour of avocado fruis (Persea americana Mill) J Food Sci Technol 39(3) :284-87.
Batagurki S B, Raghavan G S V, Smith J P and Orsat V (1995) Plastic film packaging of apples and mangoes. Phala Samskarana: 172-77.
Ben Yehoshua S, Apelbaum A and Cohen E (1983) Decay control and fungicide residue in citrus fruits seal packed in HDPE films. Alon Hontea 37 (10): 713-716 and 49- 50 (C F Hort. Abst. 54: 4108).
89
Ben Yehoshua S, Kobilier I and Shapiro B (1979) New method of degreening lemons by a combined treatment of ethylene-releasing agents and seal packaging in high-density polyethylene film. J Amer Soc Hort Sci. 107(3) : 365-68.
Ben Yehoshua S, Kobilier I and Shapiro B (1979) Some physiological effect of delaying of deterioration of citrus fruits by individual seal packaging in HDPE film. J Am Soc Hort Sci. 6: 862-72.
Ben Yehoshua S, Kobilier I and Shapiro B (1981) Effect of cooling verses seal packaging with high density polyethylene on keeping qualities of various citrus cultivars. J Amer Soc Hort Sci. 106 : 536-540.
Ben-Yehushua S (1978) Delaying deterioration of individual citrus fruits by seal packaging if in film of high density polyethylene. 1. General effects. Proc Int Soc Citriculture, Sydney, Australia, pp 110-115.
Bhullar G S (1966) Role of wrappers in the storage behaviour of Dusehri mango. M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
Bhullar J S, Dhillon B S and Randhawa J S (1984) Ambient storage of langra and dusehari mangoes. J Res Punjab Agric Univ. 21 (1): 33-38.
Bishnoi A, Chawla H M, Rani G and Saxena R (2009) Effect of formulation derived from terpenoidal oligomer from lac on quality retention of sweet lime. J Food Sci Tech 46(6) :588-590.
Bishnoi A, Chawla H M, Rani G, Saxena R and Sreenivas V (2008) Effect of formulation derived from terpenoidal oligomer on shelf-life of apples without refrigeration. J Food Sci Tech 45 (5): 412-15.
Bratley C D (1939) Loss of ascorbic acid (vit. C) from tangerines during storage on the market. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 37: 526-28.
Burg S P and Burg E A (1967) Molecular requirements for the biological activity of ethylene. Plant Physiol 42 :114-152.
Chaiprasart P, Hansawardi C and Pipattanawong N (2006) The effect of chitosan coating and Cacl2 treatment on post-harvest qualities of strawberry fruit ( Fragaria × Ananassa). Acta Hort 708 :337-342.
Chandra J and Pathak V N (1992) Effect of plastic film wrapping on post-harvest fungal rot of mango fruits. Indian Phytopath 45: 126-27.
Chaplin G R, Scott K J and Brown B I (1982) Effects of storing mangoes in polyethylene bags at ambient temperature. Singapore J Pri Ind. 10 (2): 84.
Cheema S S and Dhillon W S (1991) Punjab-di-Shan, ‘Nashpati’, Changi Kheti, January, pp 20-23.
Cohen E, Lurie S, Shapiro B, Ben Yehoshua S, Shalom Y and Rosenberger I (1990) Prolonged storage of lemons using individual seal packaging. J Amer Soc Hort Sci. 115: 251-255.
90
Cohen E, Shuali M and Shalom Y (1983) Effect of intermittent warming on the reduction of chilling injury of Villa Franks lemon fruits stored at cold temperature. J Hort Sci. 58 (4): 593-598.
Dhatt A S, Randhawa J S and Singh S N (1991) Effect of individual seal packaging in high density polyethylene (HDPE) film on storage life and quality of kinnow. Jour Plant Sci Res 7: 84-85.
Dhillon B S, Singh S and Randhawa J S (1981) Storage behaviour of treated ‘Le Conte’ pear. Ind Fd Packer 35 (6): 34-36.
Dhillon W S, Sidhu G S and Mahajan B V C (2005) Storage and shelf life of pear fruit influenced by waxes and packaging. J Pl Sci Res 21: 11-17.
Dikki K, Singh D B, Yadav M, Roshan R K and Pebam N (2010) Effect of wax coating and NAA on storage behavior of papaya ( Carica papaya L.) Acta Hort 851 : 533-36.
Du J, Gemma H and Iwahori S (1997) Effect of chitosan coating on storage of peach, Japanese pear and kiwifruit. J Japanese Soc Hort Sci 66(1): 15-22.
Durand B J, Orcan U, Zauberman and Fuchs Y (1984) Effects of waxing on moisture loss and ripening of ‘Fuerte’ avocado fruit. Hort Sci 19 : 421-24.
El-Anany A M, Hassan G F A and Ali F M R (2009) Effect of edible coatings on the shelf life and quality of ‘Anna’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh) during cold storage. J Food Tech 7: 5-11.
Ensminger A H (1983) Food and Nutrition. Encyclopedia. Vol- 1, pp: 885-89.
FAO (2005) Major food and agricultural commodities and producers. Website http://www.fao/org/es/ess/commodity.
Feygenberg O, Hershkovitz V, Ben-arie R, Jacob S, Peris E and Nikitenko T (2005) Post-harvest use of organic coating for maintaining bio-organic avocado and mango quality. Acta Hort 682 : 507-512.
Geeson J D, Genge P M, Smith S M and Sharples R O (1991) The response of unripe Conference pear to modified retail packaging. Ind J Fd Sci Tech. 26 (2): 225-231.
Gilfilian I M (1985) Preliminary trials on polyethylene film wrap for South African Citrus Export. Fruit citrus and subtropical fruit Journal. 614 (C.F Hort. Abst. 56: 1429).
Gonzalez G, Yahia E M and Higuera I (1990) Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) of mango and avocado fruit. Acta Hort 269:335-44.
Hardenburg R E (1971) Effect of in-package environment on keeping quality of fruits and vegetables. Hort Sci. 6: 178.
Hardenburg R E (1974) Use of plastic films in maintaining quality of fresh fruits and vegetables during storage and marketing. ASHRAE Symp. Ch 73-7. P. 19.
91
Heaton E K, Dobson J W, Lane R P and Beuchat L R (1990) Evaluation of shrink wrap packaging for maintaining quality of apples. J. Fd Protection 53 (7): 598-599.
Hussain I, Asif M, Ahmed M, Khan M and Shakir I (2004) Effect of Uni- Packaging on the post harvest behavior of citrus fruits in N.W.F.P. Pakistan J Nutri 3 (6): 336-39.
Jain S K, Mukherjee S and Gupta N K (2001) Effect of post-harvest treatments and storage conditions on the quality of mango during storage. Haryana J Hort Sci.30 (3&4): 183-87.
Jholgiker P and Reddy B S (2007) Effect of different coating material on post-harvest physiology of Annona squamosa fruits under ambient and zero energy cool chamber storage. Indian J Hort 64 : 41-44.
Jiang Y and Lin Y (2001) Effect of chitosan coating on post-harvest life and quality of longan fruit. Food Chemistry 73(2):139-143.
Jiang Y, Li J and Jiang W (2005) Effects of chitosan coating and shelf life of cold stored litchi fruit at ambient temperature. Food Sci Technol 38(7): 757-761.
Joyce D C, Shorter A J and Jones P N (1995) Effect of delayed film wrapping and waxing on the shelf life of avocado fruit. Australian J Experimental Agric 35 (5): 657-59.
Kader A A, Zagory and Kerbel E L (1989) Modified atmosphere packaging of fruits and vegetables. Fd Sci and Nut. 28 (1): 1-30.
Kahlon P S and Bajwa K S (1991) Effect of Bavistin, Wax emulsion and Wrappers on the storage life of litchi cv. Calcuttia. Indian Fd Packer 45 (1): 55-59.
Kaur N, Rambani J L, Bal J S and Navjot (2005) Storage behavior of pear cv. Baggugosha as influenced by calcium chloride and wrappers. Haryana J Hort Sci.34 (1-2): 58-61.
Ketsa S and Prabhasavat T (1992) Effect of skin coating on shelf life and quality of ‘Nang Klangwan’ mangoes. Acta Hort 321 : 764-770.
Koksal A I, Dumanoglu H and Tuna N (1994) The effect of semperfresh on the storage of ‘Williams’ pear and ‘Starkspur Golden Delicious’ apple cultuivars. Acta Hort 368 : 793-801.
Kumar A, Rattanpal H S, and Randhawa J S ( 2004) Effect of individual seal packaging on stability of Red Blush grapefruit under ambient conditions. J Res Punjab Agric Univ 41 : 214-222.
Kumar J, Sharma R K, Singh Ran and Goyal R K (2003) Effect of different types of polyethylene on shelf life of summer guava. Haryana J Hort Sci. 32 (3&4): 201-202.
Kumar J, Singh Ran, Sharma R K and Godara A K (1998) A short note on the effect of packaging material on shelf life of guava cv. Banarasi Surkha. Haryana J Hort Sci. 27 (4): 260-261.
Kumar S, Mahajan B V C, Dhatt A C and Kaur R (2008) Effect of polymeric films on the quality and storage behavior of kinnow mandarin. Indian J Citriculture 3:77-82.
92
Ladaniya M S (2001) Response of Mosambi sweet orange to degreening, mechanical waxing, packaging and ambient storage conditions. Indian J Agri sci 71: 234-39.
Ladaniya M S (2003) Shelf life of seal-packed ‘Mosambi’ sweet orange fruits in heat-shrinkable and stretchable films. Haryana J Hort Sci 32 (1&2): 50-53.
Ladaniya M S, Singh S and Mahalle B (2005) Sub-optimum low temperature storage of ‘Bagpur’ mandarin as influenced by wax coating and intermittent warming. Indian J Hort 62 (1) :1-7.
Ladaniya M S, Sonkar R K and Dass H C (1997) Evaluation of heat-shrinkable film-wrapping of ‘Nagpur mandarin’ (Citrus reticulata. Blanco) J Food Sci Technol 34(4) : 324-27.
Lazan H, Ali Z M and Selamat M (1993) The underlying biochemistry of the effect of Modified Atmosphere and storage temperature on firmness decrease in Papaya. Acta Hortic. 343: 141-147.
Lin L, Wang B, Wang M, Cao J, Zhang J, Wu Y and Jiang W (2008) Effects of chitosan based coating with ascorbic acid on post-harvest quality and core browning of ‘Yali’ pears ( Pyrus bertschneideri Rehd.). J Sci Food Agri 88(5) :877-884.
Liu J, Tian S, Meng X and Xu Y (2007) Effect of chitosan on control of post-harvest diseases and physiological responses of tomato fruits. Postharvest Biol Technol 44 : 300-306.
Mahajan B V C and Chopra S K (1995) Effect of post-harvest treatments on the quality and storage behavior of ‘Red Delicious’ apple. Harayana J Hort Sci 24 : 85-93.
Mahajan B V C, Dhatt A S and Rattan G S (2002) Evaluation of various wax formulations on the post-harvest characterstics of kinnow. Indian J Citri 1(2) : 185-88.
Mahajan B V C, Dhatt A S and Sandhu K S (2005) Effect of different post-harvest treatments on storage life of kinnow. J Food Sci & Tech. 42(4):296-99.
Masalkar S D and Garande V K (2005) Effect of post-harvest treatments and packaging on shelf life and quality of custard apple fruits. Acta Hort 682 : 1037-1040.
Masoodi F A and Mir M A (1995) Studies on storage of William pear. Indian J Hort. 52 (3): 182-185.
Mattoo A K, Murata T, Pantastico E B, Chachiss K, Ogata K and Phan C T (1975) Chemical changes during ripening and senescence. Pp 103- 27. In: Pantastico E B (ed.) Post-harvest Physiology, Handling and Utilization of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits and Vegetables. The A VI Pub. Co. Inc.
McCollum T G, Aquino S, Miller W R and McDonald R F (1992) Individual shrink film wrapping of mangoes. Proc Fla State Hort. Soc. 105 :103-05.
Meheriuk M and Lau O L (1998) Effect of two polymeric coatings on fruits quality of ‘Bartlett’ and ‘d’ Anjou’ pears. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 113 (2) : 222-26.
Meng X, Li B, Liu J and Tian S (2008) Physiological responses and quality attributes of table grape fruit to chitosan post-harvest spray and post-harvest coating during storage .
93
Food Chemistry 106(2) :501-08.
Miller W R, Hale P W, Spalding D H and Davis P (1983) Quality and decay of mango fruits wrapped in heat shrinkable film. Hort Science 18:957-58.
Mishra B, Khatkar B S and Siddiqui S (2006) Edible coating for post-harvest preservation of fresh fruits and vegetables. Advances in Postharvest Technologies for Horticultural Crops pp 131-72.
Mohla R, Singh S and Singh S (2005) Shelf life of sub-tropical Sand pear as influenced by picking dates and packing materials under ambient conditions. Acta Hort 696: 493-495.
Moldao-Martinse M, Beorao-da-Costa S M and Beorao-da-Costa M L (2003) The effects of edible coatings on post-harvest quality of the “Bravo de Esmolfe” apple. Euro Food Res Technol 217 : 325-28.
Nain A S, Singhrot R S and Kumar J (2002) Studies on the effect of cling films on the shelf life of mango (Mangifera indica L.). Haryana J Hort Sci 31(1-2): 25-29.
Nanda S, Sudhakar Rao D V and Krishnamurthy Shantha (2001) Effects of Shrink film wrapping and storage temperature on the shelf life and quality of pomegranate fruit cv. Ganesh. Postharvest Biol Technol 22 (1): 61-69.
Nath A, Dubey A K and Yadav D S (2004) A note on the shelf life of peach fruit cv, TA-170 under ambient conditions. Progressive Horticulture 36(1) : 16-18.
Navarro M L L, Perez-Gago M B and del Rio M A (2005) Effect of hydrxyl propyl methylcellulose Beeswax edible composite coatings on Angeleno plum quality during storage. Acta Hort 682: 1089-1096.
Neeraj, Joon M S and Bhatia S K (2002) Effect of plastic packaging on bio-chemical parameters of fruits during storage : A review. Haryana J Hort Sci 31(1-2): 1-7.
Neeraj, Kumar S and Kumar J (2002) Effect of HDPE, LDPP and PVC packaging on the ascorbic acid content and decay loss during storage of aonla fruits cv. Chakaiya. Haryana J Hort Sci 33(3-4): 213-15.
Nisperos-Carriedo M D, Shaw P E, and Baldwin E A (1990) Changes in volatile flavour compounds of pineapple orange juice as influenced by the application of lipid and composite films. J Agric Food Chem 38 : 1382-87.
Ochel C O, Basionny F M, and Woods F M (1993) Calcium Mediated post harvest change in storage ability and fruit quality of peaches. Proc Fla State Hort Soc 106: 266-69.
Ozdemir A K, Kaska N, Agar I T and Dundar O (1994) Effect of semperfresh treatment on post-harvest physilogy of cold stored apples. Turkish J Agri and Forestry 18 (6) :473-78. (original not seen. Abstr in Horticulture Abstr (1995) 65 (7): 6548).
Pal R K, Ahmad M S, Roy S K and Singh M (2004) Influence of storage environment, surface coating and individual shrink wrapping on quality assurance of guava fruits. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 59 : 67-72.
94
Panse V G and Sukhatame P V (1976) Statistical method for agricultural workers ICAR, New Delhi.
Park N P, Choi E H and Lee O H (1970) Studies on pear storage- II. Effect of polyethylene packaging and CO2 shock on storage of pears cvs Changsyprang. Kor J Hort Sci 7: 63-65.
Passam H C (1982) Storage of some local and introduced mango cultivars grown in Trinidad. Sci Hort 16: 171-77.
Paull R E and Chen J N (1989) Waxing and plastic wraps influence water loss from papaya fruit during storage and ripening. J Amer Soc Hort Sci. 114 (6): 937-942.
Perez-Guzman A E, Saucedo-Veloz C and Arana-Errasquin (1999) Effect of individual seal packaging in plastic films on quality of Dancy mandarin stored under refrigeration. Food Sci Tech International 5(3) :215-222.
PFA (2008) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 19th edi. International Law Book Co. Delhi.
Pool K M, Weaver R J and Kliewer K M (1972) The effect of growth regulators on the changes in fruit fruits of Thompson seedless during cold storage. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 97: 67-70.
Raghav P K and Gupta A K (2000) Quality and shelf life of individually shrink wrapped kinnow fruits. J Food Sci Tech 37 : 613-16.
Rameshwar A, Rao M N and Kulkarni V (1979) Modifed atmosphere storage and use of ethylene absorbent to prolong the storage life. Research report on mango. Tech DOC.13. Mango workers meeting, Panji, Goa, 2-5 May, 1979. All India Coordinated Fruit Improvement project. pp.313-15.
Ramin A A and Khoshbakhat D (2008) Effects of microperforated polyethylene bags and temperatures on the storage quality of acid lime fruits. American-Eurasian J Agric & Environ Sci 3 (4): 590-94.
Randhawa J S (1982) Ripening and storage behaviour of ‘Patharnakh’ pear [Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm) Nakai ]. Ph. D. Dissertation, PAU, Ludhiana, India.
Ratanachinakorn B, Kumsisi W, Buchsapawanich Y and Singto J (2005) Effect of chitosan on the keeping quality of pummelos. Acta Hort 682 : 1769-1772.
Rathore D S (1991) Pears. In: Mitra S K, Bose T K and Rathore D S (ed) Temperate Fruits. Pp-123-178. Horticultural and Allied Publishers 27/3, Chakraberia Lane, Calcutta, India.
Rhodes M J C, Woodtorton L S C, Gallard and Hulme A C (1968) Metabolic changes in excised fruit tissue I. Factor affecting the development of a malate decarboxylation system during the aging of disc of pre-climacteric apples. Phytochemistry 7: 439.
Sagar V R and Khurdiya D S (1996) Effect of ripening on physico-chemical characteristics of Dashehari mango. Indian Fd Packer 5: 16-21.
95
Salunkhe D K, Deshpade P B, and Do J R (1968) Effects of maturity and storage on the physical and biochemical changes in peach and apricot fruits. J Hort Sci 43: 235-42.
Sandhu S S and Singh A P (2000) Effect of harvesting dates and individual seal packaging on the pear fruit cv. LeConte during cold storage. Haryana J Hort Sci. 29 (3 & 4): 48-52.
Scott K J, Blake J R, Starchan G, Tugwell B L and Meglasson W B (1971) Transport of banana at ambient temperature using polyethylene bags. Trop Agri. 48 (3): 245-54.
Shein N N, Jaroenkit T, Ussahatanonta S and Jarassamrit N (2008) Effect of wax coating on the post-harvest quality of ‘Sai Nam Peung’ mandarin orange ( Citrus reticulata. Blanco). Agric Sci Jour 39(3) : 13-16.
Sidhu G S, Dhillon W S and Mahajan B V C (2009) Effect of waxing and packaging on storage of pear cv. Punjab Beauty. Indian J Hort 66(2) : 239-244.
Singh A (1993) Studies on individual seal packaging of pear fruits cvs. ‘Patharnakh’ and ‘Le Conte’. M.Sc. Thesis, PAU, Ludhiana, India.
Singh D and Sharma R R (2007) Post-harvest wax coating of kinnow fruits to retain quality during storage. Agric Engg Today 31(2). 67-71.
Singh K (2007) Effect of pre-storage treatments on storage behaviour of pear [Pyrus pyri folia (Burm) Nakai] cv. Patharnakh. M.Sc. Thesis Punjab Agric Uni Ludhiana-141004.
Singh K K, Nijjar G S and Singh G (1967) Cold storage studies on Dusehri mango. J Res PAU 4: 516-522.
Singh K, Mann S S and Chander M (1988) Effects of fungicide and wax emulsion on storage of Kinnow fruits at ambient storage conditions. Haryana J Hort Sci. 17 (1-2): 14-19.
Singh M (1997) Effect of post-harvest treatments of GA3 and Cacl2 on cold storage life of HDPE unipacked ‘Baggugosha’ pear fruits. M.Sc. Thesis, PAU, Ludhiana, India.
Singh R V, Tewari J D and Chauhan B B S (1993) Effect of wax coating and pre-packaging in polythene bags on the storage behaviour of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda. Haryana J Hort Sci. 22 (2): 126-130.
Singh S P and Rao Sudhakar D V (2005) Quality assurance of papaya by shrink film wrapping during storage and ripening. J Fd Sci Technol 42(6): 523-25.
Smith W L Jr and Hrusekha H W (1978) Marketing Res Rep Agri Res Ser USDA. 1088 Pp. 14.
Smith S M, Geeson J D, Browne K M, Genge P M and Everson H P (1987) Modified-atmosphere retail packaging of Discovery apples. J Sci Fd Agric 40: 165-78.
Solomos T and Laties G G (1973) Cellular organization and fruit ripening. Nature 245: 390-391.
Sonkar R K and Ladaniya M S (1998) Effect of tray over wrapping by heat shrinkable and
96
stretchable films on Nagpur mandarin fruits. Indian Food Packer. 52 (5): 22-26.
Sonkar R K, Sarnaik D A, Dikhshit S N and Saxena R R (2009) Individually stretch cling film wrapped kinnow mandarin under ambient storage. Indian J Hort 66 : 22-27.
Sornsrivichai J, Uthaibuthra J and Thongaram A (1990) Effect of wax coating on storage life and fruit quality of five Asian pears (Pyrus pyrifolia) cultivars. Acta Hort 279: 511-528.
Sornsrivichai J, Uthaibutra J, Asawapati O W (1986) Storage life and qualities of Kwaw sawoey mango packed under polymeric films. Srinakharinwirot University Prasarnmit Campus, Bangkok (Thailand). p. 542-543.
Sritananan S, Uthairatanakij A, Jitareerat P, Photchanachai S and Vongcheeree S (2005) International Symposium “ new Frontierof Irradiated Food and Non-food Products.” 22-23 Sept, 2005, KMUUT, Bangkok, Thailand.
Tefera A, Seyoum T and Woldetsadik K (2008) Effect of disinfection, packaging and evaporatively cooled storage on sugar content of mango. African J Biotechnol 7(1) : 65-72.
Thai T H, Ducamp M N, Leburn M and Baldwin E A (2002) Effect of different coating treatment on the quality of mango fruit. J Food Quality 25 : 471-86.
Tsuda T, Chachin K and Ueda Y (1999) Studies in keeping quality of imported ‘Carabao’ mango fruits from Philippines. Japan Soc Hort Sci 68: 689-74.
Van Buren J (1970) Fruit Phenolics, pp.269-304. In: A C Hulme (ed.). The Biochemistry of Fruits and their Products. Vol. 1. Academic Press, London and New York.
Wani M S (1997) Effect of calcium application on fruit quality and post-harvest storage of peach. Ph.D. Dissertation, P.A.U., Ludhiana.
Wijewardane R M N A and Guleria S P S (2009) Effect of post-harvest coating treatments on apple storage and quality. J Plant Sci Tech 46(6) : 549-553.
Williams H A (1959) Symposium Fruchtsaft Konzentrate, Bristol. pp. 259-263.
Wills R B H, Cambridge P A and Scott K J (1980) Use of flesh firmness and other objective tests to determine consumer acceptability of delicious apples. Australian J Exp Agri Anim Husb. 20: 252-56.
Wills R B H, McGlasson W B, Graham D and Joyce D C (1998) Water Loss and Humidity, pp. 77. In: Postharvest- An Introduction to the Physiology of Fruits, Vegetables and Ornamentals (4th Ed.). UNSW Press.
Yaman O and Beyindirh (2001) Effect of edible coating, fungicide and cold storage on microbial spoilage of cherries. Eur Food Res Technol 213 : 53-55.
Yang S F (1985) Biosynthesis and action of ethylene. Hort Sci. 20: 41.
Yasunori H and Iki S (2002) Changes in polyphenolic compounds and anti-oxidant functions
97
in Bartlett’ pear fruit during storage and post-harvest ripening. Food Preservation 28(1) : 25-32.
Yuen C M C, Tan S C, Joyce D and Chettri P (1993) Effect of post-harvest calcium and polymeric films on ripening and peel injury in ‘Kensington Pride’ mango. ASEAN Fd J 8: 110-13 (Original not seen. Abstr. in CAB Abstracts AN 940301000,1994).
Zyl H J V and Wagner J W (1986) Keeping quality and shelf life of ‘Bon Chretein’ pears as affected by calcium, Alar and Semperfresh. Acta Hort 194: 223-28.
98
99