EFFECT OF DIFFERENT COATINGS AND PACKAGING FILMS ON THE SHELF LIFE AND QUALITY OF PEAR cv. PATHARNAKH Thesis Submitted to the Punjab Agricultural University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in POMOLOGY (Minor Subject: Botany) By Jaspreet Singh (L-2008-A-53-M)
142
Embed
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT COATINGS AND PACKAGING FILMS ON THE SHELF LIFE AND QUALITY OF PEAR cv. PATHARNAKH
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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.
________________________ ______________________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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.