Effect of Different Polymeric Films On The Storage Life of Tray Packed Pear Fruits

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT POLYMERIC FILMS ON THE STORAGE LIFE OF TRAY PACKED PEAR FRUITS
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 Dinesh Kumar (L-2006/07-A-60-M)
Department of Horticulture College of Agriculture PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY LUDHIANA-141004
2009
23
CONTENTS
Chapter I II III IV V INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY REFERENCES Topic Page 1-3 4-16 17-21 22-52 53-55 56-64
24
Title of the Thesis Name of the Student and Admission No. Major Subject Minor Subject Name and Designation of Major Advisor Degree to be Awarded Year of award of Degree Total Pages in Thesis Name of University
: :
Effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray packed pear fruits Dinesh Kumar L-2006/07-A-60-M : : Pomology Botany
: Dr. B.V.C Mahajan Senior Horticulturist Department of Horticulture : : 2009 : : 64+Vita M.Sc.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, Punjab, India
ABSTRACT
The present investigations entitled Effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray packed pear fruits were conducted in the Department of Horticulture and Punjab Horticultural Post Harvest Technology Centre, PAU Campus, Ludhiana during the year 2007 and 2008. Fruits of pear cv. Patharnakh were harvested at physiological maturity; packed in trays and seal wrapped in commercially available films viz. Shrink, Cling, LDPE and HDPE films. The fruits were stored at 201C and 90-95% RH (Super market conditions) and at ambient conditions (30-320C and 75-80% RH). At 2010C temperature, the fruits packed in different films registered minimum PLW, lower firmness breakdown, negligible spoilage and higher acidity, better colour development and sensory quality as compared to control fruits. On the other hand, the TSS, total sugars, reducing sugars and non reducing sugars increased up to 21 days of storage at 201C in film packed fruits, while in control these constituents increased up to 14 days. Among different films, fruits packed in Shrink films maintained lower PLW, desirable firmness, excellent colour and sensory quality followed by Cling films. Under ambient temperature conditions, control fruits showed better quality as compared to polyethylene film packed fruits. From the present investigations it can be concluded that under super market conditions of 201C and 90-95% RH the pear fruits packed in Shrink film can be stored for 3 weeks as compared to control fruits which maintained storage life of 2 weeks. While under ambient temperature conditions, the packaging of fruits in polyethylene film is not recommended due to build up of high condensation and abnormal gas atmosphere in the package.
Keywords: Pear, Shrink film, Cling film, LDPE film, HDPE film, temperature, storage, quality
25
Chapter-I INTRODUCTION Pear is an edible pome fruit which belongs to the genus Pyrus and is native to coastal and mildly temperate regions of the western Europe and north Africa, right across Asia. They are medium sized trees, reaching 10-17 m tall, often with a tall, narrow crown. The pear fruit in most wild species is 1-4 cm in diameter, but in cultivated, its size is up to 18 cm long and 8 cm broad. The shape varies in most species from oblate to globose, to the classic pyriform pear- shape of the European pear with an elongated basal portion and a bulbous end. It is also grown under sub-tropical conditions because of its wider climatic and soil adaptability. It can tolerate temperature ranging from -260C during dormancy to 450C during growing season. Generally, Patharnakh requires approximately 250 chilling hours below 7 0C to adequately break dormancy of flower buds but the chilling hours range may vary for different varieties of Asian and European pear. As per the composition 200 gm 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. In India, it occupies an area of 38,600 hectares with an annual production of 1.76 lakh MT (Anon 2006 a ). It is commercially grown in states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Punjab, Haryana and some parts of Nilgiri Hills and Assam. In Punjab, it occupies an area of about 2560 ha with 51200 MT production and ranked fifth after citrus, mango, guava, and ber (Anon. 2006 b ). It is mainly grown in districts of Jalandhar, Gurdaspur, Amritsar, Hoshiarpur and Ropar. Pear varieties grown in Punjab are Patharnakh, Punjab Gold, Punjab Nectar, Punjab Beauty, Baggugosha, LeConte, etc but Patharnakh (Pyrus pyrifolia Burm. (Nakai)) is the leading cultivar due to its hardy nature and wider adaptability to different climatic and soil conditions. It 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 after adequate ripening.
26
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 non- availability of adequate post harvest infrastructure, which creates glut in the market, resulting in huge post harvest losses. The bulk of fruits of this cultivar produced in Punjab is either marketed in gunny bags or loose or sometimes in wooden boxes, thus fetches lower prices in the markets. The pear fruit, however can make more profits, if handled properly at retail end. The role of packaging for horticultural produce seems to be still underestimated. Packaging of fresh fruits is essential in the whole distribution cycle, starting from producer to the final user. The use of improper packaging may cause mechanical damage or loss of product freshness. The properly packed product creates demand in the market, because it adds value to the commodity 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 CO 2 and low oxygen which helps in maintaining the quality and increase the shelf life (Hardenburg, 1971). The key to successful use of this technology is to know what type of environment will be most beneficial to the produce inside the package and then determining which packaging materials should be used to create such an environment. Correct application of this technology can significantly extend the shelf life of fresh produce but, if incorrect packaging materials are chosen, atmospheric conditions which are injurious may be generated and this can actually result in shorter shelf life. Therefore, there is a need to improve the packaging systems especially for retail marketing of pear fruits after harvest, so that quality fruit is made available to the consumers in domestic and distant markets. Hence the present investigation is planned with the following objectives:
27
1. To study the effect of polymeric films on the storage life and quality of pear
fruits under super market condition i.e. at 201C temperature.
2. To study the effect of polymeric films on the storage life and quality of pear
fruits under ordinary market condition i.e. at ambient temperature.
28
Chapter-II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Role of packaging film in horticulture crops
Packaging of fruits is to assemble the produce in convenient units to protect it from deterioration during its handling from farm gate to consumers house. Adequate and proper packaging protects the fruits from physical (firmness), physiological (weight) and pathological (decay) deterioration. Out of various packaging materials like natural fiber sacs, gunny bags, corrugated fiber board boxes; use of plastics is very pronounced for packaging of fruits with a purpose to extend their storage life. Storing fruits in plastic films or bags creates modified atmospheric conditions around the produce which allows lower degree control of gases (CO 2 and O2) and can interplay with physiological processes of commodity (Zagory and Kader, 1988). The present review of literature aims to provide concise information about modified atmosphere packaging of fruits. 2.1.1 Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) Modified atmosphere packaging refers to the development of modified atmosphere around the fruits through the use of polymeric films. MAP is important for the fresh produce because of their high respiration rates, enhanced ethylene biosynthesis and susceptibility to water loss and microbial growth (Gorny, 1997). The commercial use of this technology provides us means to slow the process of ripening and senescence by retarding the rate of respiration, transpiration, ethylene evolution; reduced microbial contamination and subsequently resulting in better quality retention during storage, transport and marketing. MAP has been reported to increase the shelf life and maintain the quality of several commercially important fruits viz. apricot (Pretel et al 2000), avocado (Chaplin and Hawson, 1981), litchi (Paull and Chen, 1987) and mango (Neeraj et al, 2003). MA packaging retarded softening in pear fruits (Smith et al, 1991). Zora et al (2000) reported improved quality and prolonged shelf life of mangoes when MAP was combined with post harvest calcium treatments. 2.1.2 Plastic material used for packaging Earliest report on use of plastics is by using cellophane bags and pliofilm respectively, for extending shelf life of apples and also use moisture proof cellulose sheets to prevent shriveling of Golden Delicious apples in cold storage (Neeraj et al, 2003).
29
With advancement in technology different types of plastic bags, wraps, films were reported to be used by various workers to extend the shelf life of different fruits viz. semi moisture proof cellophane bags for grapes, polyolefin film for grape-fruits, polyethylene seal packaging for oranges, pear (Sandhu and Singh, 2000). Individual polyethylene wrapping of kinnow fruits exhibited extended storage life with better quality retention as compared to unpacked control fruits (Kumar et al, 2000). Many other type of plastic material like polylon net and PVC film for mango (Yantarasri et al, 1995), polypropylene box lined CFB boxes and polypropylene box liners for apples (Geeson et al, 1994), paper-pulp trays sealed with plastic film, polypropylene, polyethylene bags and polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC) film for peach (Neeraj et al, 2003) have been reported to maintain the quality. 2.1.3 Packaging in polyethylene bags Many scientists reported that polyethylene bags were more suitable for pre-packaging of fruits than polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene and polystyrene bags (Honda and Ishiguro, 1968). Ben Yehoshua (1979) reported that packaging with high density polyethylene (HDPE) doubles the storage life of citrus fruits. Overall market quality of Eureka lemons was higher in HDPE sealed bags (Cohen et al, 1990). Shelf life of ber could be extended up to 22 days by packaging in polyethylene bags (Baviskar et al, 1995). Narayana et al (1991) reported usefulness of high molecular high density (HMHD) polyethylene for extending storage life of mango fruits. Geeson et al (1991) reported four days extended shelf life of pear fruits packed in LDPE bags. Chamara et al (2000) reported that mature Kolikuttu bananas packed under modified atmosphere conditions using LDPE bags (0.075mm) could be stored for 24 days at 14 C and 94% RH with excellent quality. Use of perforated plastic bags and perforated LDPE bags for mango (Narayana et al, 1991), perforated polyethylene bags for litchi (Kahlon and Bajwa, 1991) effectively increased the shelf life of stored produce. A minimum of two weeks was required by mango fruits packed in perforated PVC film for proper peel color development (Sornsrivichai et al, 2002).Smith et al (1987) studied the effects of LDPE packs on primary quality attributes viz. skin colour, flesh firmness and sensory quality of Discovery apples held at 20C and reported marked reduction in softening and yellowing. Noomhorn and Potey (1993) packed banana cv. Klua Hom Tong in polyethylene films followed by storage at 23 C and reported the extension in the shelf life up to 22 days. Kahlon and Uppal (2005) reported that the shelf life of mango cv. Chausa could be extended up to 15
30
days at a temperature of 28-33 C and 85-90% RH after treating with GA 3 (2000 ppm) followed by packaging in perforated polythene bags. The TSS and reducing sugars increased up to 15 days and decreased thereafter, while acidity level of the fruits decreased throughout the storage period. Hussain et al (2004) conducted a 45 days storage experiment to investigate the effect of Uni-Packaging with polyethylene on citrus fruits and observed significant effect in prolonging the shelf life and maintenance of external appearance, taste, and texture. Deshpande and Shukla (2008) used low-density polyethylene (LDPE) 25 , 50 and 75 and polypropylene (PP) 25 and 38 for packaging of grapes for short-term storage under ambient conditions and reported the acceptability of grapes up to the period of 7 days with no colour change and no mould growth/ fungal attack. Singh and Sudhakar Rao (2005) reported that fresh mature green papaya (Carica papaya L.) cv. Solo fruits individually shrink wrapped with Cryovac D-955 film, could be kept well for 10 days at ambient temperature that ripened in 5 days with firm texture and good flavour after unwrapping. Rao et al (2000) reported maximum extension in the shelf life (24 days) of shrink wrapped cucumbers, in addition to reduction in weight loss and maintenance of firmness during storage. The optimum storage temperature for cucumbers shrink wrapped with PE and polyolefin films was found to be 10C and 15C respectively. Nain et al (2002) conducted an experiment of wrapping Dashehari mangoes in cling films and observed the favourable effect of the film in checking the physiological loss in weight (PLW) and decay loss in fruits. They also reported better retention of acidity and ascorbic acid content in cling film wrapped fruits. Ayhan et al (2008) investigated the effect of modified atmosphere packaging on the quality and shelf life of minimally processed carrots cv. Nantes during cold storage. The carrots packed with high oxygen and passive MAP retained quality properties better compared to low oxygen. The whiteness index did not significantly change during the 21 days of storage in all applications, indicating the good retention of orange color. Neeraj et al (2004) studied the effect of HDPE, LDPP and PVC packaging on the ascorbic acid content and decay loss during storage of aonla fruits cv. Chakaiya. After 30 days of storage at room temperature, maximum retention of ascorbic acid and minimum fruit decay was recorded in fruits packed in HDPE bags whereas minimum ascorbic acid and maximum decay was observed in PVC bags packed fruits. The potential of 30 thickness High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bags with microperforations for maintaining the quality of Kay acid lime fruits during storage at 10 and 20 C was studied by Ramin and Khoshbakhat (2008). The greenest and firmest fruits were found in microperforated polyethylene bags stored at 10C with
31
superior vitamin C and color value. Microperforation in polyethylene bags reduced remarkable weight loss and decay in fruits. 2.1.4 Effect of plastic thickness Apart from appropriate selection of packaging material, thickness of packaging material i.e. thickness of plastic film is also of vital importance. Work was carried out by various research workers to identify the suitable packaging material with appropriate thickness for different fruits under specific temperature and storage conditions viz. 0.03mm polypropylene bags and 0.01mm PVC bags for mango (Sornsrivichai et al, 1992), 0.05 mm shrinkable polyethylene films for papaya (Lazan et al, 1993). Seal packaging of papaya in three layers of LDPE (0.0125mm thick) and stored at 2428 C for 18 days retarded the peel color development and fruit softening (Lazan et al, 1990). Polyethylene bags have been found suitable for extending shelf life of guava (Bhullar and Farmahan, 1980). Storage life of guava was extended up to 7 days over control fruits by packaging in 300 gauge polyethylene bags with no ventilation (Venkatesha and Reddy, 1994). The guava fruits stored in 600 gauge LDPE bags had the highest organoleptic score and good marketability up to 10 days of storage (Adsule and Tandon, 1983). Perforated polyethylene bags (100 gauge) with 1.2% ventilation for sapota and polyethylene bags (200 gauge) with 0.5% ventilation for mango has been used successfully to extend the shelf life. The above presented information about plastics as fruit packaging material clearly indicates its role in post-harvest technology. Its ability to create modified micro-environment (CO2, O2, humidity) around the packed produce gives it a unique place in packaging industry. Plastics like polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, polypropylene bags and films (high density, low density, perforated and non-perforated) has proved to be an effective measure to extend the shelf life of fruits like apple, pear, banana, guava, kinnow, mango, etc (Neeeraj et al, 2003). The literature pertaining to the effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray packed pear fruits has been reviewed under the following heads. 2. 2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERS 2.2.1 Physiological loss in weight (PLW %) 2.2.2 Fruit firmness (Kgf) 2.2.3 Spoilage (%) 2.2.4 Sensory quality (Hedonic scale 1-9) 2.2.5 Fruit colour
0
32
2.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERS 2.3.1 Total soluble solids (%) 2.3.2 Titrable acidity (%) 2.3.3 Sugars (%) 2. 2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERS 2.2.1 Physiological loss in weight (%) 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). Masoodi and Mir (1995) noted minimum weight loss and firmness breakdown of William pear in HDPE bags after treating with calcium chloride. Mohla et al (2005) conducted an experiment in which Patharnakh pear fruits were stored under ambient conditions after wrapping individually in HDPE, LDPE, newspaper, tissue paper and paddy straw and found that PLW and spoilage losses were minimum in HDPE (20 m) wrapped fruits, which were considered of acceptable quality even after 45 days storage. Baccaunaud (1989) suggested that packaging of fruits of apples and pears in polythene film reduced weight loss and maintained their quality in fresh conditions. 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. Gonzalez et al (1990) reported delayed fruit ripening and reduced weight losses up to 4 weeks, after individually packed mango fruit (cv. Keitt) in low and high density polyethylene films (LDPE and HDPE) and kept at 20C and 67% RH. 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 150C and under ambient temperature conditions.
33
Batagurki et al (1995) investigated the effect of individual packaging of mangoes in two polymeric films (with and without perforations) for short-term storage at ambient temperature of 21-24C and reported that mangoes packed in perforated Cryovac bags were found to have better quality than those in E50 bags. The physiological losses in weight in packed mangoes were 1.642.98 per cent as compared to 11.50-17.0 per cent in non-packed fruits up to 10 days of storage. Fruits of mango cv. Tommy Atkins individually seal packed in heat shrinkable plastic film were stored for 2 weeks at 120C and then ripened at 210C. Weight loss of film sealed fruits was significantly less as compared to that of unsealed fruits (Miller et al 1983). Mango fruits cv. Dushehari packed in 200 gauge polythene bags having 0.6% perforation followed by storage at room temperature showed lower weight loss and better retention of Vit. C (Garg et al, 1971). 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. Sornsrivichai et al (1986) conducted an experiment with 3 types of polymeric films namely Polyethylene (PE), Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and Polypropylene (PP) on storage life and qualities of Kwaw Sawoey mango and reported that PE package is the best in preventing fruit weight loss. Siddiqui and Gupta (1997) conducted an experiment on guava cv. Allahabad safeda and reported that throughout the storage period; lowest physiological loss in weight was recorded in polyethylene wrapped fruits. Kumar et al (1998) reported that individually polyethylene packed guava fruits showed minimum physiological loss in weight on all periods of storage. Kumar et al (2003) confirmed that all polythenes were effective in checking the PLW and maintaining the quality of Sardar guava during ambient storage. zkaya and Dndar (2008) reported that packaging in plastic films could be useful for short-term storage of nectarines cv. Maria Aurelia for reducing the weight losses and maintaining the quality parameters for 10 days. 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. 2.2.2 Fruit Firmness 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
34
individually in polythene bags, resulted in higher fruit firmness, texture and extended the storage life by 8-10 days under ambient conditions. Ben- Yehoshua (1967 and 1969) reported that an aqueous suspension of high density polyethylene film called Tag delayed deterioration of fruits better than waxes. Dhatt et al (1991) observed that seal packaging the kinnow fruits individually in 0.1 mm thick high density polyethylene film maintained acceptable firmness up to 8 weeks of storage. Banana packed in sealed polyethylene bags remain in hard green conditions whereas the non packed fruit ripened (Scott et al, 1971). Miller et al (1986) wrapped the mango fruits in 2 types of plastic films and observed no significant difference in weight loss, peel colour, pulp colour, firmness and decay up to 26 days of storage. Heaton et al (1990) observed a loss of crispness which being the primary limiting factor to extend storage life after storing the apple fruits in shrink wrapping packaging. 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. 2.2.3 Spoilage (%) Pear fruits packed in polythene film registered reduced spoilage and core browning during storage (Park et al, 1970). Similarly, Packhams Triumph pears were stored at 300F in all round waxed paper liner or polyethylene bags. The latter method prevented wilting and reduced rots, internal browning and scald (Padfield et al, 1971). Eksteen et al (1977) noticed CO2 injury in Willian Ben Chretan and Burre Hardy pears packed in perforated polyethylene bags and stored at low temperature. Rameshwar et al (1979) reported the use of film wrapping with ethylene absorbent for extending the storage life of mangoes. Fruits were wrapped in 200 gauge polyethylene bags with 0.4% ventilation. It was found that film wrapping without ventilation resulted in more spoilage due to greater incidence of disease. Yantarasri et al (1995) reported that the fruits wrapped in polystyrene trays (3 fruits/pack) with perforation area of 7 percent and stored at 20C resulted in uniform ripening, prevented rotting and off flavour in stored fruits of cv.Nam Dok Mai mangoes. Non-perforated sealed mangoes had over ripening, rotting and resulted in off flavour.
35
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. 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. Severity of post-harvest fungal rot was significantly reduced by wrapping the fruits in plastic film than control on 5th day of inoculation. The results of the investigation suggested that plastic film wrapping effectively reduced the development of various rots (Chandra and Pathak 1992). Modified atmosphere storage using perforated plastic film packagings are used to maintain the quality of Nam Dok Mai mangoes for the overseas shipment. The fruit shipped in perforated packages had an additional one week of shelf- life with better quality and lower percentage of rotting under ambient temperature (Sornsrivichai et al 1998). 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). Ben Yehoshua (1978) made an attempt to seal the fruit in plastic film of high density polyethylene (HDPE) and showed that transpiration was reduced 5 to 20 times by sealing fruits in 10 m. 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, softening with sodium orthophenylphenate. Rameshwar et al (1979) investigated the use of film wrapping with ethylene absorbent for extending the storage life of mangoes and reported that fruits wrapped in 200 gauge polyethylene bags with 0.4 per cent ventilation plus ethylene absorbent resulted in more spoilage due to greater incidence of disease. Stem end rot was found to be major disease in wrapped mangoes and also color development was slower. 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. Seal packaging reduced the decay of cv. Marsh grapefruit but slightly enhanced the decay of Valencia oranges compared with conventionally
36
handled fruits. Wrapping of individual fruit resulted in less decay than sealing a whole carton of fruit together. (Ben- Yehoshua et al, 1983). Kupferman and Sanderson (2001) observed that polymeric film packaging lengthened the postharvest life of cherry fruit by reducing the rate of growth of decay organisms, retarding softening and retaining stem color. Singh et al (1988) treated kinnow fruits with fungicides and wax emulsion and stored them at 12-140C 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. 2.2.4 Sensory quality (Hedonic scale 1-9) Miller et al (1986) reported that off flavour in film wrapped fruits might be related to excessive levels of CO2 and reduce levels of O2. It was found that mangoes shrink-wrapped in HDPE at soft ripe stage had off flavour and elevated CO2 levels after 9 days of storage. 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 200C. Ben- Yehoshua (1978) reported that seal packaging significantly delays the off flavor of the fruits. He observed that after two months of storage at 170C 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. 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. 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. Ben- Yehoshua et al (1979) observed that individual seal packaging of orange cv. Shamouti and Valencia, Grapefruit cv. Marsh and lemon cv. Eureka with high density polyethylene (HDPE) maintained the fresh appearance of fruit more than twice as long as conventionally handled fruits.
37
Conference pear packed in low density polyethylene (LDPE) films retarded the rate of flesh softening but normal sweetness, aromatic flavor and succulent juicy texture maintained after 4 days (Geeson et al, 1991). Heaton et al (1990) reported that the apple fruits cv. Starcrimson showed acceptable qualities for a period of 38 weeks while packed in shrink wrap packaging followed by storage at 260C, 40-42% RH. 2.2.5 Fruit colour Packaging of fruits in different wrappers had a positive effect on their color under ambient and refrigerated conditions. Encouraging results were obtained by the use of polythene liners by several investigators. The effect of high density polyethylene sealing on lemons showed color improvement in mature green picked fruits which were better during 3 months of storage than unsealed one (Cohen et al, 1986). Sweet orange cv. Mosambi wrapped in polythene bags showed better color development as compared to non wrapped fruits (Tarkase et al, 1989). Tugwell et al (1988) observed that fruits of Valencia orange harvested before December and wrapped in plastic films retained a bright orange color and can be stored without refrigeration for marketing up to 3 months. Fruits stored at 100C were brighter in color than wrapped fruits at ambient temperature. Miller et al (1986) concluded that mango fruit cv Tommy Atkins wrapped in plastic film developed less yellow color and pulp at soft ripeness than non wrapped fruits held in storage at 210C. Litchi fruits packed in 0.04 mm polyethylene bags retained their fresh red color during 8 days storage (Zhang et al, 1986). Wavhal and Athale (1988) reported 20 days of storage life in cv. Kesar treated with NAA (200ppm) in perforated polythene bags of 100 gauge thickness. They observed attractive color of both skin and pulp and good appearance of fruits. The shelf-life of fruits was effectively prolonged by about 8 to 10 days. Batu and Thompson (1998) reported that sealed packaging of tomatoes cv. Liberty with polyethylene and polypropylene films, delayed the development of the red colour until 30 days of storage and fruits were also still very firm even after 60 days of storage. Tomatoes sealed within PE and PP films had also the lowest weight loss and the highest soluble solids after 60 days of storage.
38
2.3 CHEMICAL PARAMETERS 2.3.1 Total soluble solids (%) 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. Rameshwar et al (1979) reported the use of film wrapping with ethylene absorbent (potassium permanganate) for extending the storage life of mangoes.. Fruits were wrapped in 200 gauge polyethylene bags with 0.4 per cent ventilation plus ethylene absorbent (potassium permanganate). Film wrapping resulted in increase in TSS at slower rate and had less TSS over control fruits. Narayana et al (1991) investigated the use of HDPE films (10, 15, 25, and 32.5 thickness) on storage of mango fruits. All the wrapped fruits were green and extent of greenness was directly proportional to thickness of the film, while non-wrapped fruits had considerable ripening. The total soluble solids content increased at a slower rate in wrapped fruits than control fruits. 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. Dhillon et al (1977) treated the kinnow fruits 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 fruits treated with wax and wax+ Benlate. They further observed that the fruits packed in perforated polythene bags showed more TSS than those packed in non perforated ones.
39
Cohen et al (1983) reported that individual sealing of lemons in high density polyethylene film intermittently prolonged the shelf life. The juice content percentage during storage and shelf life was influenced by storage period of three months, the shelf life, juice and acid content of fruits stored at 130C increased while at 80C the increase was little. Later on Cohen et al (1990) stored lemons after packing them individually in HDPE. They recorded an increase in juice percent from fruits wrapped in paddy straw after 85 days of storage at 0-3.30C temperature. Neeraj et al (2002) reported that guava fruits packed in polyethylene bags retained maximum TSS as compared to control after 9 days of storage. 2.3.2 Titratable Acidity (%) There was better retention of acidity and vitamin C in perforated polythene packed Dusehari mango fruits. Packing resulted in decreased respiration and prolonged shelflife over control (Garg et al 1971). The acidity decreased faster in film packed fruits and stored at room temperature (Gorini and Testoni, 1988). Rameshwar et al (1979) reported that film wrapped fruits showed the slower loss of acidity during storage over control. McCollum et al (1992) reported 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, firmness and specific gravity at ambient temperature at each successive stage of storage interval as compared to non- wrapped fruits. Kaur et al (2005) reported a slower decrease in acidity after treating fruits with calcium chloride and then individually wrapped the fruits in different wrappers, viz. newspaper, polyethylene and butter paper. Mohla et al (2005)while working on sand pear by using different packing materials observed a decrease in titratable acidity 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).
40
2.3.3 Sugars (%) Dhillon et al (1977) found that the amount of total sugar in the Mango packed in perforated polythene bags was the highest as compared to non perforated ones were used. Angadi and Krishnamurthy, (1992) treated freshly harvested kinnow fruits with 3% waxol, packed in ventilated polythene bags. Fruits were stored at room temperature (25 0C) or at low temperature (100C). They observed the highest total sugars after 19 days of storage at room temperature. Sagar and Khurdiya (1996) reported that fully matured and unripe Dusehri mangoes were wrapped with newspaper and polythene film. The fruits were kept under ambient temperature (33-35.5C). At each successive stage of storage interval the reducing and total sugars were found to increase at lower rate than in control fruits. Singh et al (1998) studied the effect of perforated polythene wrapping and pre-harvest application of calcium compounds on storage life of mango cv. Amrapali. Perforated polythene wrapping, calcium chloride (1.5%) and calcium nitrate (1.5%) were found most effective treatments. These maintained the minimum reducing and total sugars and maintained the storage life of fruits significantly over control. 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 and the fruits can be stored economically at ambient temperature up to 18 days.
41
Chapter-III MATERIALS AND METHODS The present investigations entitled, Effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray packed pear fruits were conducted in the Department of Horticulture and Punjab Horticultural Postharvest Technology Centre, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana during the year 2007 and 2008. The experiment was conducted on 15 year old trees of Patharnakh cultivar growing in the new orchard. The experimental trees were given uniform cultural practices as per PAU recommendations. 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. 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 3.2.1 Packaging material Corrugated tray The corrugated tray measuring 22 cm 13 cm was used for packing of pear fruits 3.2.2 Polymeric films In the present studies, 4 types of polymeric films commercially available in the market were tried for packaging of pear fruits in corrugated trays. These were Low Density Polyethylene (25m), High Density Polyethylene (20m), Shrink film (10m) and Cling film (20m). 3.3 Method of packaging Pear fruits were packed in trays and over-wrapped tightly in pouches of different polymeric films. However, the shrink film wrapped packs were passed through a shrink wrapping machine (Model BS-450 shrink packing machine, Samrath Engineers, India) at 165 C for 10 seconds
42
3.4
Experimental details 3.4.1 Experiment 1. Effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray
packed pear fruits at 201C and 90-95% RH. Serial No. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Treatments Replications Storage Intervals 5 3 (6 fruits in each replication) 4 (7, 14, 21 and 28 days interval) Treatments Tray packing in LDPE film Tray packing in HDPE film Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control
3.4.2 Experiment 2. Effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray packed pear fruits at ambient temperature conditions (30-320C and 75-80% RH). Serial No. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Treatments Replications Storage Intervals 5 3 (6 fruits in each replication) 3 (3, 6 and 9 days interval) Treatments Tray packing in LDPE film Tray packing in HDPE film Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control
In each packed tray, four pin holes were made to provide ventilation for better storage condition. 3.5 Observations recorded: The following physical and chemical changes were observed during ambient and cold storage studies.
43
3.5.1
Physical parameters
3.5.1.1 Physiological loss in weight (%) 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 %) = --------------------------------Initial fruit wt. 100
3.5.1.2 Fruit firmness Firmness of randomly selected fruits (three from each replication) was measured with the help of a pressure tester 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 (Kg force). 3.5.1.3 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 = 3.5.1.4 Sensory quality The fruits were rated for this character by a panel of five 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 9 8 7 Acceptability Extremely desirable Very much desirable Moderately desirable --------------------------------100 Total number of fruits
44
6 5 4 3 2 1 3.5.1.5 Fruit colour
Slightly desirable Neither desirable nor undesirable Slightly undesirable Moderately undesirable Very much undesirable Extremely undesirable
The colour of 10 randomly selected fruits from each treatment was noted with the help of the Royal Horticultural Colour Chart (Wilson 1938). 3.5.2 Chemical parameters
3.5.2.1 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 200C temperature (AOAC, 1990). 3.5.2.2 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 using the following formula. Volume of 0.1 N NaOH used Acidity (%) = 0.0067-------------------------------------------100 Volume of juice taken 3.5.2.3 Sugars The sugar content of the fruit was estimated with 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 reducing and non-reducing sugars. a) Reducing sugars (%) To determine the reducing sugars, the aliquot was titrated against boiling solution mixture containing 5 ml each of Fehlings solution A and B using methylene blue as indicator. Titration was continued till brick red colour appeared. The results were expressed as per cent on
45
juice basis (AOAC 1990). b) 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 than estimated by titrating the boiling mixture containing 5 ml of each of Fehlings 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). c) Non- reducing sugars (%) The non- reducing sugars was calculated by subtracting total sugars from reducing sugars and multiplied by 0.95. 3.6 Statistical design The data are analyzed statistically according to completely randomized design (Sharma, 1998).
46
Chapter-IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The present investigations on the Effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray packed pear fruits 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 PLW of pear fruits packed in polymeric films and stored at 2010C temperature are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1. The various 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 Shrink film packed fruits recorded the lowest mean PLW (3.37%), followed by Cling film (3.72%) packed fruits. The unpacked fruits showed the highest PLW (6.05%). The PLW of fruits packed in Shrink film ranged between 1.15 to 6.02 percent from 7 to 28 days of storage as compared to control where PLW was found to be the highest and ranged between 2.93 to 9.75 percent from 7 to 28 days of storage. The other treatments also showed significant low PLW as compared to control. The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found to be significant. The data on effect of various polymeric films on PLW of pear fruits at ambient storage conditions are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. The lowest mean PLW (2.60%) was observed in fruits packed in Shrink film which was found to be statistically significant as compared to other treatments. On the other hand, the highest mean PLW (4.53%) was observed in control fruits. The interaction between treatments and storage intervals was found to be significant. During different storage intervals, fruits packed in shrink film registered the lowest weight loss ranged between 0.74 to 4.15 percent from 3 to 9 days of ambient storage, respectively as compared to control where PLW ranged from 2.50 to 6.50 percent during same storage intervals.
47
Table 1.
Effect of different polymeric films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Days after Storage Treatments 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7 1.65 1.94 1.15 1.34 2.93 1.80 14 2.85 3.10 2.20 2.55 4.78 3.10 21 4.75 5.04 4.10 4.42 6.72 5.01 28 6.86 7.23 6.02 6.57 9.75 7.29 Mean 4.03 4.33 3.37 3.72 6.05
Tray packing in LDPE Tray packing in HDPE Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control Mean
CD at 5% level Treatment =0.04 Storage interval =0.03 Treatment x Storage interval =0.08
48
Table 2.
Effect of different polymeric films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
Treatments 0 3 1.03 1.25 0.74 0.96 2.50 1.30 Days after Storage 6 3.46 3.73 2.90 4.15 4.60 3.77 9 4.81 5.10 4.15 4.45 6.50 5.00 Mean 3.10 3.36 2.60 3.19 4.53
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
49
The control fruits under both the temperature conditions exhibited the highest physiological loss in weight as compared to 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. On the other hand, the fruits packed in different polymeric films recorded lower weight loss, which is obvious due to role of films in checking rate of transpiration/respiration and maintaining higher humidity inside the wrappers (Ben Yehoshua, 1985). The lower PLW has been reported in heat shrinkable cryovac film in mango fruits (Kumar and Nagpal, 1996), Nagpur mandarin (Sonkar and Ladaniya, 1998), guava (Siddiqui and Gupta, 1997). Bhullar et al, (1984) observed that packaging film reduce the PLW by retarding the rate of respiration and transpiration thus, increase the keeping quality of kinnow.
4.2 Firmness
The data on effect of different polymeric films on fruit firmness at 2010C temperature are presented in Table 3 and graphically shown in Figure 3 revealed that firmness of Patharnakh pear fruits during storage was significantly affected by packing in different polymeric 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 packed in Shrink film maintained the highest average firmness (5.92 kg force) closely followed by Cling film (5.55 kg force) and also at all stages of storage intervals. The control fruits registered the lowest mean firmness (4.64 kg force). In case of Shrink film packed fruits the decline in firmness was gradual followed by Cling film, whereas in case of control fruits, the decline was found to be abrupt and sharp. The firmness of fruits in Shrink film was noticed to fall between 6.80 to 4.99 Kg force, whereas in Cling film it was 6.51 to 4.31 Kg force from 7 to 28 days of storage interval. On the other hand, in case of control, it ranged between 5.93 to 3.45 Kg 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 polymeric films on firmness of pear fruits stored at ambient temperature are presented in Table 4 and Figure 4. The fruits packed in Shrink film maintained higher mean fruit firmness (5.73 kg force) during ambient storage and ranged between 6.74 to 4.80 Kg force from 3 to 9 days as compared to control where mean fruit firmness is 4.83 kg force and fruits experienced a faster loss of firmness during storage and ranged between 5.95 to 3.75 Kg force. The pear fruits packed in Cling film also registered a lower and steadier loss in firmness during storage (6.50 to 4.52 Kg force) during stipulated storage period of 9 days.
50
Table 3. Effect of different polymeric films on firmness (Kgf) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Treatments 0 Tray packing in LDPE Tray packing in HDPE Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control Mean 6.95 6.95 6.95 6.95 6.95 6.95 7 6.22 6.01 6.80 6.51 5.93 6.29 Days after Storage 14 5.85 5.70 6.39 6.13 5.05 5.82 21 4.92 4.75 5.50 5.25 4.14 4.91 28 4.15 3.95 4.99 4.31 3.45 4.17 Mean 5.29 5.10 5.92 5.55 4.64
51
Table 4. Effect of different polymeric films on firmness (Kgf) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
Days after Storage Treatments Tray packing in LDPE Tray packing in HDPE Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control Mean 0 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 3 6.19 6.07 6.74 6.50 5.95 6.29 6 5.04 4.95 5.65 5.35 4.78 5.15 9 4.25 3.52 4.80 4.52 3.75 4.17 Mean 5.16 4.85 5.73 5.46 4.83
52
A perusal of the data shows that after 28 days of storage the fruit firmness values had decreased from the initial value of 6.95 kg force to 4.99, 4.31, 4.15 and 3.95 kg force in the fruits tray packed in Shrink, Cling, LDPE and HDPE films respectively, whereas the corresponding value in case of control fruits was recorded to be 3.45 kg force. This reveals that polymeric film packaging delays the softening process in pear fruits, with shrink films being better than the rest in retaining the desirable fruits firmness. All the treatments performed significantly better irrespective of wrapping with different polymeric film as compared to control. 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 polythene wrapping of fruits resulted in higher fruit firmness, under both the storage conditions, which might be due to high humidity maintained inside wrapped fruits thereby helped in reducing the transpiration loss and respiration activity and thus retained more turgidity of the cells. Further between Shrink and other films, shrink film showed increased efficiency in maintaining better firmness which might be due to better retention of carbon dioxide gas and restriction of external oxygen. Similar results were also observed in pomegranate fruits by Nanda et al (2001); apple (Heaton et al, 1990); banana (Scott et al, 1971).
4.3 Spoilage (%)

The data on spoilage of pear fruits packed in different polymeric film and stored at 2010C temperature are presented in Table 5 and Figure 5. A perusal of data revealed that the rotting percentage increased with the increase in storage period. The different packaging treatments showed wide variation in spoilage during storage. The lowest mean cumulative spoilage (4.46%) in terms of rotting was recorded in fruits packed in Shrink film, which was followed by Cling film packed fruits (4.92%). The control fruits showed the highest mean spoilage of 8.51% and ranged from 3.50% to 15.32% from 7 to 28 days of storage. However, the level of spoilage was considerably low in Shrink film packed fruits (2.15% to 8.35%) and Cling film packed fruits (2.45% to 9.06%) from 7 to 28 days of storage. The LDPE and HDPE film recorded intermediate level of spoilage which ranged between 2.73% to 10.20% and 2.92% to 10.50% respectively. The interaction between treatment and storage intervals was found to be significant. The data on spoilage of pear fruits as influenced by different packaging films during ambient storage are presented in Table 6 and Figure 6. The minimum average rotting (5.78%) was noticed in control fruits. On the other hand, the maximum rotting was observed in HDPE
53
Table 5.
Effect of different polymeric films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Treatments 0 7 2.73 2.92 2.15 2.45 3.50 2.75 Days after Storage 14 3.62 3.95 3.10 3.43 4.95 3.81 21 5.05 5.38 4.25 4.72 10.25 5.93 28 10.20 10.50 8.35 9.06 15.32 10.69 Mean 5.40 5.69 4.46 4.92 8.51
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
54
Table 6.
Effect of different polymeric films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
Treatments 0 Tray packing in LDPE Tray packing in HDPE Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control Mean 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 5.80 5.85 5.59 5.77 3.00 5.20
Days after Storage 6 9.50 10.00 9.80 9.20 6.35 8.97 9 18.25 18.30 14.20 13.35 8.00 14.42 Mean 11.18 11.38 9.86 9.44 5.78
55
film (11.38%) followed by LDPE film packed fruits (11.18%). The Shrink and Cling film also aggravated the rotting of fruits as compared to control fruits. The interaction between treatment and storage was found significant. In control fruits, the spoilage ranged from 3.00% to 8.00% from 3-9 days of storage whereas, in HDPE and LDPE packed fruits the level of spoilage increased from 5.85% to 18.30% and 5.80% to 18.25%. The beneficial and detrimental effects of packaging a fresh produce in polymeric films have been evaluated for more than 25 years (Hardenburg, 1971 and Hardenburg, 1974). The positive effect of 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 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 polymeric films was maximum which may be due to accumulation of water vapours and 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 (without film packaging) recorded lower spoilage which is obvious due to dry atmosphere around the fruit surface. However, under 2010C temperature, it has been noticed that film wrapping has 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 Yuen et al, (1993) who 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 at a temperature of 201 0C are presented in Table 7 and Figure 7. The mean maximum sensory score was shown by fruits packed in Shrink film (7.87) followed by Cling film packed fruits (7.47), on the other hand, control fruits registered the minimum sensory score (6.30). The sensory score of polymeric film packed fruits increased gradually up to 21 days and thereafter declined, whereas, in control fruits, the sensory score increased up to 14 days of storage and thereafter declined at faster pace. The sensory score of fruits at this temperature condition revealed that the Shrink film packed fruits recorded a
56
highest score of 8.25 followed by Cling film (8.02) after 21 days of storage but the control fruits showed maximum value (8.15) after 14 days of storage, thereafter, there was a faster decline in the organoleptic score. The Shrink film and Cling film packed fruits were rated as very much desirable to moderately desirable after 3 and 4 weeks of storage as compared to control which were found acceptable up to 2 weeks of storage. The data on sensory quality of pear fruits at ambient temperature are presented in Table 8 and Figure 8. The data revealed that the mean sensory score was significantly the highest (7.47) in control fruits, which was followed by Shrink film packed fruits (6.82). The HDPE film packed fruits recorded the lowest score (6.45). The sensory quality gradually increased in all the treatments up to 6 days during storage. However, the control fruits recorded the highest sensory score of 8.15 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 6.25 after 9 days of storage, and fruits rated as slightly desirable. The sensory quality was the lowest in HDPE film packed fruits (7.25), followed by LDPE film (7.30) and Shrink film (7.44) after 6 days of ambient storage and fruits were rated as moderately desirable. Thereafter, a fast decline in organoleptic score was noticed in the fruits packed in polyethylene films. It has been reported that ethylene biosynthetic pathway functions better at 20-250C (Yang, 1985) which may result in synthesis or formation of flavoring compounds. In present studies it was noticed that pear fruits packed in Shrink or other films followed by storage at 20 0C developed better sensory score as compared to unwrapped fruits, which could be possibly due to congenial temperature and modification of gases in the polybags favouring development of acceptable flavours. However, under ambient conditions the unwrapped 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.
57
Table 7.
Effect of different polymeric films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Treatments 0 7 7.35 7.20 7.68 7.50 8.00 7.55 Days after Storage 14 7.55 7.35 8.05 7.75 8.15 7.77 21 7.70 7.35 8.25 8.02 5.54 7.37 28 6.32 6.25 7.48 6.60 3.50 5.77 Mean 7.23 7.04 7.87 7.47 6.30
7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
58
Table 8:
Effect of different polymeric films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
59
Wrapping of mango fruits of cv. Kensington pride in sealed polybags or in 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. The apple fruits cv. Starcrimson showed acceptable qualities for a period of 38 weeks while stored in shrink wrap packaging (Heaton et al, 1990). 4.5 Fruit colour The data on effect of different polymeric films on the fruit colour of pear fruits at 201 0C temperature are presented in Table 9. The fruit colour changed from green to yellow in all the treatments with the advancement of storage period but in polymeric films the colour development was slower and better than control. The Shrink film (Y5C) and Cling film (Y4A) showed better yellow colour development and fruit brightness after 21 days of storage. The fruits packed in LDPE and HDPE films also showed the same colour but the colour intensity was less than the Shrink film and Cling film packed fruits. In control fruits, the change in colour was rapid initially which showed yellow colour (GY1B) after 14 days of storage. The data on effect of different polymeric films on fruit colour of pear fruits at ambient temperature are presented in Table 10. Polymeric film packed fruits registered a faster degradation of green colour and development of dull yellow colour than the control fruits. The fruits packed in polymeric films attained light yellow colour after 6 days of storage and then changed to dull yellow after 9 days. However, in control fruits, the colour development was slower and fruits retained light yellow colour (Y4C) after 6 days of storage and remained light yellow (Y5D) even after 9 days of storage. In general, the loss in green colour of the fruits with the advancement of storage period was due to the degradation of chlorophyll pigments and synthesis of carotenoids and anthocyanins pigments (Wankier et al 1970). The increase in coloured pigment compounds during storage ensured the ripening process of fruits. Sweet orange cv. Mosambi wrapped in polythene bags showed better color development as compared to non wrapped fruits (Tarkase et al, 1989). The increase in fruit colour during storage and ripening have also been
60
reported in Baby Gold-7 peaches by Dekazos (1985) and also by Villanueva et al (1999) in Florda Gold peach fruits.
61
Table 9. Effect of different polymeric films on fruit colour in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Treatments 0 Tray packing in LDPE Tray packing in HDPE Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control YG154B YG154B YG154B YG154B YG154B 7 YG154C YG154C YG154D YG154D GY1D
Days after Storage 14 GY1D GY1D Y4C Y3D GY1B 21 GY1B GY1B Y5C Y4A Y3A 28 Y5C Y2A Y6B Y3A Y6A
62
Table 10. Effect of different polymeric films on fruit colour in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
Treatments 0 Tray packing in LDPE Tray packing in HDPE Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control YG154B YG154B YG154B YG154B YG154B 3
Days after Storage 6 GY1D GY1D Y2D GY1D Y4C 9 GY1B GY1B Y2A GY1B Y5D
YG154C YG154C YG154C YG154D YG154D
63
Miller et al (1986) concluded that mango fruit cv Tommy Atkins wrapped in plastic film developed less yellow colour and pulp at soft ripeness than non wrapped fruits held in storage at 210C.
4.6 Total Soluble Solids

The data on effect of different polymeric films on TSS content of fruits stored at a temperature of 2010C are presented in Table 11 and Figure 9. The fruits packed in Shrink film recorded maximum average TSS content (12.11%) followed by Cling film (11.87%). The control fruits recorded the lowest average TSS content (11.23%). It was further observed that in Shrink film packed fruits the TSS content increased slowly and steadily up to 21 days (13.25%) and thereafter gradually declined after 28 days storage (10.95%). The similar trend was also noticed in case of other polymeric films. On the other hand, control fruits recorded a faster rise in TSS content up to 14 days (13.23%) and thereafter declined at a faster rate and recorded 9.15% TSS at the end of 4 weeks of storage. The data on TSS of pear fruits as influenced by various polymeric films at ambient temperature are presented in Table 12 and figure 10. In control fruits, the TSS content increased at a faster pace up to 6 days (13.35%) and thereafter a decline was noticed and further maintained TSS of 11.05% after 9 days of storage. However, in case of polymeric film packed fruit also similar trend was noticed but the level of TSS at every interval was found to be lower as compared to control. The minimum level of mean TSS was observed in case of HDPE films (10.86%) whereas it is maximum in control (12.32%). The delayed increase in TSS over a longer period of time in film wrapped peach fruits might be attributed to the sole reason that films retard ripening and senescence processes and simultaneously reduced the
conversion of starch into sugars. In general, the increase in TSS during the storage period may be due to the numerous anabolic and catabolic processes taking place in the fruits, preparing it for senescence. The reason for the increase in TSS could be attributed to the water loss and hydrolysis of starch and other polysaccharides to soluble form of sugar. Wills et al (1980) have also reported that starch gets hydrolyzed into mono and disaccharides, which in turn may lead to an increase in TSS. 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).
64
65
The increase in TSS and sugars during storage may possibly be due to breakdown of complex organic metabolites into simple molecules or due to hydrolysis of starch into sugars (Wani, 1997).
4.7 Total Sugars

The data on effect of different polymeric films on total sugars content of fruits stored at a temperature of 201 0C are presented in Table 13 and Figure 11. The fruits packed in Shrink film recorded maximum average total sugar content (8.70%) followed by Cling film (8.46%). The control fruits recorded the lowest average total sugar content (7.98%). It was further observed that in Shrink film packed fruits the total sugar content increased slowly and steadily up to 21 days (9.68%) and thereafter gradually declined after 28 days storage (7.66%). The similar trend was also noticed in case of other polymeric films. On the other hand, control fruits recorded a faster rise in total sugar content up to 14 days (9.52%) and thereafter declined at a faster rate and recorded 6.20% total sugar at the end of 4 weeks of storage. The data regarding effect of different polymeric films on the total sugars at ambient temperature are presented in Table 14 and Figure 12. The total sugars in pear fruits increased significantly during the storage period up to 6 days of storage and thereafter a decrease in total sugar content was observed. Initially up to 3 days of storage, control fruits registered 9.04% of total sugars and then increased slowly and steadily up to 6 days and recorded the highest value (9.61%) and thereafter gradually declined, but even then the level of total sugars was higher in control fruits. On the other hand, in the polymeric film wrapped fruits, the total sugar increased up to 6 days and thereafter declined. Among different polymeric films, the HDPE films maintained lowest level of total sugars (7.81%). The mean maximum total sugars (8.87%) were found in control fruits followed by Shrink film packed fruits (8.57%) and Cling film packed fruits(8.27%).
66
Table 11.
Effect of different polymeric films on TSS (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Days after Storage 14 11.76 11.53 12.30 12.05 13.23 12.17 21 12.85 12.50 13.25 13.10 10.23 12.39 28 10.24 9.85 10.95 10.72 9.15 10.18 Mean 11.58 11.28 12.11 11.87 11.23
67
Table 12. Effect of different polymeric films on TSS (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
68
Table 13. Effect of different polymeric films on total sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
69
Table14.
Effect of different polymeric films on total sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79
70
4.8 Reducing Sugars

The data on effect of different polymeric films on reducing sugars of pears at 201 0C temperature conditions are presented in Table 15 and Figure 13. The data showed that maximum average reducing sugars was noticed in Shrink film packed fruits (6.52%) followed by Cling film (6.34%), while control fruits recorded the minimum level of reducing sugars (5.98%). During storage, initially the control fruits recorded the higher reducing sugars upto 2 weeks (7.14%) and then declined. On the other hand, the reducing sugars in polymeric films wrapped fruits increased upto 3 weeks and then declined gradually. However, the Shrink film packed fruits recorded higher reducing sugars at every storage intervals (i.e. 6.45, 6.63, 7.27 and 5.74% from 7 to 28 days of storage) as compared to other polyethylene films. The data regarding the effect of different polymeric films on reducing sugars at ambient temperature are presented in Table 16 and Figure 14. The reducing sugars in pear fruits increased significantly during the ambient storage period up to 6 days in all the treatments, thereafter a decrease in reducing sugar content was observed. The maximum mean reducing sugars (6.65%) were found in control fruits, followed by 6.43% in Shrink film packed fruits and 6.20% and 6.06% in Cling and LDPE film packed fruits respectively. The minimum mean reducing sugars (5.86%) were recorded in HDPE film packed fruits.
4.9 Non-reducing Sugars

Data on non- reducing sugars of pear fruits when stored at 201 0C temperature conditions are presented in Table 17 and Fig. 15. It was observed that in polyethylene film packed fruits the non- reducing sugar content was lower than control after 14 days of storage but later on the trend were different. Non-reducing sugars continued to increase in packed fruits up to 21 days of storage. In Shrink film packed fruits, the highest non- reducing sugars (2.24%) were recorded after 21 days of storage, thereafter declined gradually afterwards. In HDPE and control fruits, the non- reducing sugar content was declined rapidly as compared to Shrink film packed fruits. The data on non- reducing sugars of pear as influenced by packaging treatments at ambient storage are presented in Table 18 and Fig. 16. The data revealed that the non- reducing sugars increased slowly and steadily up to 6 days of storage and thereafter declined gradually irrespective of different treatments. The control fruits showed maximum non-reducing sugars
71
Table 15.
Effect of different polymeric films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Table 16. Effect of different polymeric films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
72
73
Table 17 .Effect of different polymeric films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
74
Table 18. Effect of different polymeric films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
Treatments 0 Tray packing in LDPE Tray packing in HDPE Tray packing in Shrink film Tray packing in Cling film Control Mean 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 3 1.91 1.86 2.02 1.96 2.26 2.00 Days after Storage 6 2.02 1.95 2.16 2.10 2.41 2.13 9 1.70 1.63 1.78 1.71 1.85 1.73 Mean 1.88 1.81 1.99 1.92 2.17
75
(2.17%) followed by Shrink film packed fruits (1.99%) and Cling film packed fruits (1.92%). The HDPE film packed fruits showed the minimum non- reducing sugars (1.81%) content. 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). 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 polythene packing treatment resulted in low TSS and sugars content over the control fruits during early periods of storage but later on it increases than control. The percentage of total sugar in mango juice was increased during storage and was highest in case of treatments in which perforated polythene bags were used than in treatments in which non perforated ones were used (Dhillon et al, 1977). Total and reducing sugars increased 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 (Mohla et al, 2005).
4.10 Acidity
The data on effect of different polymeric films on acidity of pear fruits when stored at 2010C temperature are presented in Table 19 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. In Shrink film packed fruits, acidity was significantly higher over the other treatments throughout the storage period. The Shrink film packed fruits showed an average acidity of 0.30% and ranged from 0.35 to 0.19 per cent, followed by Cling film packed fruits 0.33 to 0.17 per cent and in control fruits, it ranged from 0.30 to 0.12 per cent from 7 to 28 days of storage. The data on effect of different polymeric films on titratable acidity of pear fruits is shown in Table 20 and Figure 18. The loss of acidity during storage was gradual in Shrink film and Cling film wrapped fruits whereas, it declines at a faster pace in case of control and HDPE packed fruits. The highest mean acidity content (0.33%) was observed in Shrink film wrapped fruits, followed by fruits wrapped in Cling film (0.31%), whereas, it was lowest in control (0.20%).
76
Table 19. Effect of different polymeric films on acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
CD at 5% level Treatment =0.01 Storage interval =0.02 Treatment x Storage interval =NS
77
Table 20. Effect of different polymeric films on Acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
CD at 5% level Treatment =0.03 Storage interval =0.02 Treatment x Storage interval =NS
78
A significant difference in the acid content of the fruits was observed among the different storage days. The interaction between treatment and storage was found to be non-significant. The decrease in titratable acids during storage may be attributed to utilization of organic acid in pyruvate decarboxylation reaction occuring during the ripening process of fruits (Rhodes et al 1968 and Pool et al 1972). In general, the acidity of the fruits decreased with increase in storage period. This was possibly due to ripening and respiration activities inside the fruit tissue. However, when the fruits were wrapped in perforated polythene, the lowering of acidity was delayed. This might be due to the effect of polymeric films, which delayed the respiration and ripening process. Similar results have been reported by Kalra et al (1986) in Dusehri mango. Randhawa et al, 1982 reported that acidity decreased during storage LeConte whereas it remained more or less same in Patharnakh cultivar, Mann et al, (1976) also reported the same results for acidity. Venkatesha and Reddy (1987) reported that acidity decreased in guava fruit with increase in storage period, this might be due to the reason that polyethylene packaging arrested the ripening process by checking transpiration and respiration thereby retained higher level of acidity. Bratley, (1939) reported that the higher loss in titratable acidity during ambient storage which may be due to higher rate of metabolism as compared to cold storage.
79
Chapter V SUMMARY The present investigations entitled, Effect of different polymeric films on the storage life of tray packed pear fruits were conducted in the Department of Horticulture and Punjab Horticultural Post-harvest Technology Centre, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana during the year 2007 and 2008. Fruits of cv. Patharnakh were harvested in the third week of July at physiological mature stage for packaging and storage studies. 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 and packed in trays and seal wrapped with different polymeric films commercially available in the market i.e. Shrink film, Cling film, Low Density Polyethylene film, High Density Polyethylene film. The control fruits were kept un-packed. In the present study, two experiments were laid. In first experiment the fruits were stored at 2010C temperature and 90-95% RH (Supermarket conditions) and were analyzed for various physico-chemical parameters at 7, 14, 21, 28 days while in second experiment the fruits were stored at ambient temperature conditions (30-320C and 75-80% RH) and were analyzed after 3, 6, 9 days interval after storage. The results of present study are summarized below:
The physiological loss in weight during storage increased as the storage period advanced, but it was found to be lowest in fruits packed in polymeric film and highest in control during storage under both the temperature conditions. At 2010C the Shrink film and Cling film packed fruits recorded the mean PLW of 3.37 per cent and 3.72 per cent respectively. However, in case of control fruits the mean PLW was found to be 6.05 per cent. Under ambient temperature, the Shrink film and Cling film packed fruits showed mean PLW of 2.60 percent and 3.19 percent respectively as compared to control fruits (4.53%).
Fruit firmness decreased with the prolongation of storage period. The fruits packed with polymeric films maintained higher firmness than unwrapped fruits under both the storage conditions.
Spoilage of fruits increased during storage. The polymeric film packed fruits maintained a lower level of spoilage than unwrapped fruits under 201 0C temperature conditions. In case of 2010C, the Shrink film and Cling film maintained lower
80
spoilage (4.46 and 4.92 percent) as compared to other films and control (8.51 percent). However, in case of ambient storage, the control showed the lowest spoilage (5.78 percent) as compared to polymeric film packed fruits.
At 2010C, the increase in palatability rating was observed in Shrink film packed fruits (8.25) upto 21 days of storage and then declined but in control fruits, initially high palatability rating was observed upto 14 days (8.15) and then declined. At ambient storage conditions the control fruits showed highest palatability rating after 6 days (8.15) of storage and thereafter declined. However, the film wrap fruits were found poor in flavor and quality.
At 2010C, the fruits packed in Shrink film and Cling film showed better distribution and development of colour up to 21 days of storage than the control fruits where the optimum colour development was registered after 14 days. Under ambient storage, the polymeric film packed fruits showed poor colour development due to unfavourably high temperature inside the film wrapped trays, while control fruits showed better colour development and colour retention.
At 2010C, the TSS, total sugars, reducing sugars and non- reducing sugars increased significantly with the increase of storage period upto 21 days in Shrink film (TSS-13.25%, total sugars-9.68%, reducing sugars-7.27%, non-reducing sugars-2.24%) and decreased thereafter. However, these constituents increased upto 14 days in control fruits and therafter a sharp decline was noticed. In case of ambient storage, these constituents increase upto 6 days and were highest in control fruits (TSS-13.35%, total sugars-9.61%, reducing sugars-7.20%, nonreducing sugars-2.41%) and decreased thereafter.
Acidity in fruits decreased with the increase of storage period. Under both the storage conditions film wrapping maintained higher acidity than control during storage. However, among different polymeric films Shrink film maintained the highest acidity.
From the present studies, it can be concluded that at 2010C (Supermarket conditions) the Patharnakh pear fruits packed in corrugated trays, over-wrapped with Shrink film or Cling film can be stored for 21 days with minimum weight loss, spoilage, desirable firmness and acceptable sensory quality.
81
At ambient temperature conditions, i.e. 30-320C and 75-80% RH, the un-wrapped (control) fruits maintained better quality and can be stored for 6 days as compared to polymeric films wrapped fruits. The polyethylene films interfere with overall quality of pear fruit due to build up of high condensation and abnormal gas atmosphere in the package due to high temperature. The use of Shrink and Cling film seems to hold promise in extending the marketability of pear fruits under supermarket retail conditions at 2010C. On the other hand, these films have adverse effect during retail marketing of pear fruit under ambient conditions.
82
References
Adsule P G and Tandon D K (1983) The assessment of LDPE bags for enhancing shelf life of guava. Ind Fd Packer 37 (3): 82.
Amerine M A, Pangborn R M and Roessler E B (1965) Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic Press, London. p 5.
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 (2006 a ) Area and production of different fruit crops in India. www.faostat.org Anonymous (2006 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 14 th edition. Ayhan Z, Estrk O and Tas E (2008) Effect of modified atmosphere packaging on the quality and shelf life of minimally processed carrots. Turk J Agric For 32: 57-64. 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). 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. Batu A and Thompson A K (1998) Effects of modified atmosphere packaging on post harvest qualities of pink tomatoes. Tr J Agric Forestry 22:365-72. Baviskar M R Wasker D P and Kaulgud S N (1995) Effect of various post-harvest treatments on the shelf life and quality of ber fruit. Indian J Hort Sci. 52 (1): 37-45. Ben Yehoshua (1985) Individual seal packaging of fruits and vegetables in plastic films- a new postharvested technique. Hortic Sci. 94: 524-528. Ben Yehoshua S (1967) Some physiological effects of various skin coatings on orange fruit. Israel J Agric Res. 17: 17-27. Ben Yehoshua S (1969) Gas exchange, transpiration and commercial deterioration in storage of orange fruits. J Amer Soc. Hort Sci. 94: 524-529.
83
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. 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). 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. 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 and Farmahan H L (1980) Studies on the ripening and storage behaviour of Safed guava (Psidium guajava L.). Ind Fd Packer 34 (5): 5. 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. 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. Chamara D, Illeperuma K, Theja Galappatty P and Sarananda K H (2000) Modified atmosphere packaging of Kolikuttu bananas at low temperature. J Hort Sci Boitech 75(1): 92-96. 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. Chaplin G R and Hawson M G (1981) Extending the post harvest life of unrefrigerated avocado (Persea americana Mill.) fruits by storing in polyethylene bags. Scientia Hort. 14: 219226. 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. Cohen E, Rosenberger I, Shamlum Y Shapiro B, Lurie S and Ben Yehoshua S (1986) Physiological and chemical behavior of HDPE sealed lemons in long term storage and shelf life. Hasadeh, 66 (4): 716-25 (C F Hort. Abst. 56: 4664).
84
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. Dekazos E O (1985) Effect of post harvest treatments on the ripening and quality of Baby Gold7 peaches. Hort Science 20: 240-242. Deshpande S D and Shukla B D (2008) Modified atmosphere packaging of table grapes in polymeric films under ambient conditions for increased storage. Acta Hort 785:431-34. 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. J Plant Sci Res 7: 84-85. Dhillon B S, Bains P S and Randhawa J S (1977) Studies on the storage of Kinnow mandarins. J Res. 14: 434-438. Eksteen G J, Ginsberg T R and Visagic (1977) Packaging of pear in polyethylene bags. Deciduous Fruit Growers. 27 (2): 56-59 Ensminger A H (1983) Food and Nutrition. Encyclopedia. Vol- 1, pp: 885-89. Garg R C, Shrivastava R K, Ram H B and Verma R A (1971) Role of prepackaging and skincoating on the storage behaviour of mango cv. Dashehari (Mangifera indica L) Prog Hort 3: 49-67. 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. Geeson J D, Genge P M and Sharples R O (1994) The application of polymeric film lining systems for modified atmosphere box packaging of English apples. Postharvest Biol Technol. 4 (1-2): 35-48. 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. Gorini F and Testoni A (1988) A trait on individual packaging of citrus fruit in Italy. In 6 th Intl. Citrus Congr. Middle East, Tel. Aviv, Israel, March 6-11, 1988. (C.F. Hort. Abst. 60: 8416).
85
Gorny J (1997) A summary of CA and MA requirements and recommendations for fresh-cut (minimally processed) fruits and vegetables. CA 97 Proceedings. Vol. 5. Fresh cut fruits and vegetables and MAP. Postharvest Hort. Ser., Univ. Calif. 19. 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. 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. Honda Y and Ishiguro O (1968) Studies on the storage of fruits and vegetables II. J Jap Soc Hort Sci. 37: 261-266. 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. 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. Kahlon P S and Uppal R S (2005) Effect of post-harvest treatments on shelf life of mango cv. Chausa. Haryana J Hort Sci 34(1-2): 51-53. Kalra S K, Tandon D K and Lohani H C (1986) Improving quality of Dushehari mangoes through pre-packaging.. Indian Fd Packer 40: 59- 63. 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. Kumar J, Sharma R K and Singh R (2000) The effect of different methods of packing on the shelf life of kinnow. Haryana J Hort Sci. 29 (3 & 4): 202-203. 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.
86
Kumar R and Nagpal R (1996) Effect of post-harvest treatment on the storage behavior of mango cv.Dusehri. Haryana J Hort Sci 25: 101-108. Kupferman E, Sanderson P (2001) Temperature management and modified atmosphere packing to preserve sweet cherry quality. Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, Washington State University July 2001, pp 1-9. 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. Lazan H, Ali Z M and Sim W C (1990) Retardation of ripening and development of water stress in papaya fruit seal- packaged with polyethylene film. Acta Hortic. 269: 345-358. Mann S S, Dhillon B S and Randhawa J S (1976) Storage behaviour of Patharnakh pear fruits. Punjab Hort J. 16 (1-2): 60-63. Masoodi F A and Mir M A (1995) Studies on storage of William pear. Indian J Hort. 52 (3): 182185. 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. 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. Miller W R, Spalding B H and Hale P W (1986) Film wrapping mangoes at advancing stage of post harvest ripening. Trop Sci. 26 (1): 9-17. (C F Hort. Abst. 60: 5687). 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. Mootoo A (1992) Effect of film wrapping and temperature on the quality and storage life of Citrus sinensis L. var. Jaffa. Fifth Annual Seminar on Agricultural Research, Trinidad and Tobago, 7-8 Nov. 1991 [1992]. p. 63-76. 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.
87
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. Narayana C K, Roy S K and Pal R K (1991) Use of high molecular weight, high density polyethylene (HM film) in transit of mango cv. Baneshan. Acta Hort 291: 489-492. 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, Joon M S and Bhatia S K (2003) Use of plastics in fruit packaging- A review. Haryana J Hort Sci. 32 (1&2): 1-7. Neeraj, Kumar S and Kumar J (2004) 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. Noomhorm A and Potey S D (1993) Modified atmospheric storage of banana. J Haw Pac Agric 4:69-78. 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. zkaya O and Dndar O (2008) Quality evaluation of Maria Aurelia nectarine variety during short-term storage. J Fd Agric Env 6 (3&4): 9-10. Padfield C A S (1971) Peckhams Triumph pears. Storage in polyethylene film bags. NZ J Sci.14: 97-103. 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: 6365. 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 (1987) Effect of storage temperature and wrapping on quality characteristics of litchi fruit. Scientia Hort. 33: 223-226. 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. 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.
88
Pretel M T, Soury M and Romojaro F (2000) Use of passive and active modified atmosphere packaging to prolong the postharvest life of three varieties of apricot (Prunus armenica, L.). European Fd Res Technol. 211 (3): 191-198. 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, Sandhu S S and Dhillon B S (1982) Efficiency of wrappers on the storage life of LeConte and Patharnakh pear. Indian Fd Packer. 36 (6): 63-65. Rao D V S, Rao K P G and Krishnamurthy S (2000) Extension of shelf life of cucumber by modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) and shrink wrapping. Indian Fd Packer 54(5): 65-67. 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. 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. Sharma J R (1998) Statistical and biometrical techniques in plant breeding. New Age International (P) Limited Publishers. pp. 19-30. Siddiqui S and Gupta O P (1997) Effect of individual fruit wrapping by different materials on the shelf life of Guava cv. Allahabad safeda. Haryana J Hort Sci. 26 (1-2): 101-104. Singh K K, Nijjar G S and Singh G (1967) Cold storage studies on Dusehri mango. J Res PAU 4: 516-22.
89
Singh K, Mann S S and Chander M (1988) Effects of fungicide and wax emulsion on storage of Kinnow fruits at ambient storage conditions. Har J Hort Sci. 17 (1-2): 14-19. Singh S, Brahmachari V S and Jha K K (1998) Effect of calcium and polythene wrapping on storage life of mango. Indian J Hort 55: 218-222. Singh S P and Sudhakar Rao D V (2005) Quality assurance of papaya by shrink film wrapping during storage and ripening. J Fd Sci Technol 42(6): 523-25. 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. Smith S M, Geeson J D, Genge P M and Sharples R O (1991) Retardation of fruit ripening during distribution by the use of Modified Atmospheres. Proceedings of 5th international Controlled Atmospheric Research Conference, Wanatchee, Washington, USA., 14-16 June, 1989. Vol. 1. publ. 1991: 315-324. 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 stretchable films on Nagpur mandarin fruits. Indian Fd Packer. 52 (5): 22-26. 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. Sornsrivichai J, Uthaibutra, Yantarsi T, Subhadrabandhu S and Pichakum A (2002) Controlling of peel and flesh colour development of mango by perforation of Modified Atmospheric Package at different temperatures. Acta Hort. 509: 387-394. Sornsrivichai J, Yantarasri T, Uthaibutra D J, Kumpoun W and Ben Y S (1998) Beneficial effect of using perforated plastic package for commercial vapour heat treated mango for overseas shipment and a computerized design for optimum package. 14th Int Cong Plastic Agric pp. 564-572 (Original not seen. Abstr. in CAB Abstracts AN 990300965, 1999). Sornsrivichai S, Gomolmanee S, Boonyakiyat D, Uthaibutra J, Boon-Long P and Gemma H (1992) Seal packaging by plastic film as a technique for limiting fungal decay of mangoes. Acta Hort. 269: 23-32. Tarkase B C and Desai U T (1989) Effect of packaging and chemicals on storage of orange cv. Mosambi. J Maharashtra Agri Univ. 14 (1): 10-13. 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.
90
Tugwell B L (1988) The application of seal packaging for storage and transport of citrus in Australia in 6th International Citrus Congress Middle East, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 6-11, 1988, 3, Rehvoot, Balban Publishers. (C F Hort. Abst. 60: 5688). Venkatesha M and Reddy T V (1994) Extension of storage life of guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits. Indian Fd Packer, 48 (5): 5-10. Villanueva A R, Saucedo V C, Chavez F S, Rodriquez A J, and Mena N G (1999) Cold storage of FlordaGold peach. Agrociencia 33: 407-413. Wani M S (1997) Effect of calcium application on fruit quality and post-harvest storage of peach. Ph.D. Dissertation, P.A.U., Ludhiana. Wankier B N, Salunkhe D K and Campbell W F (1970) Effects of controlled atmosphere storage on biochemical changes in apricot and peach fruits. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 95: 604. Wavhal K N and Athale P W (1988) Studies to prolong shelf-life of mango fruits. Acta Hort. 231: 771-775. 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 Wilson R R (1938) Horticultural Colour Charts. Wilson Colour Ltd, British Colour Council. Yang S F (1985) Biosynthesis and action of ethylene. Hort Sci. 20: 41. Yantarasri T, Yehoshua S B, Rodov V, Kumpllan W, Uthaibuthra J and Sornsrivichai (1995) Development of perforated modified atmosphere package for mango. Acta Hort 398: 81-91. 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). Zagory D and Kader A A (1988) Modified Atmosphere Packaging of fresh produce. Fd Technol. 42 (Sept.): 70-77. Zhang Q C, Huang J W, Tan D F and Ye W (1986) A brief report on the study of fresh litchi preservation. Plant Physiology Communications 1: 35-36. Zora S, Janes J, Tan S C, Subhadrabandhu S and Pichakum A (2002) Effects of different surfactants on calcium uptake and its effects on fruit ripening, quality and postharvest storage of mango under modified atmosphere packaging. Acta Hortic. 509: 113-117.
91
Figure 7: Effect of different polymeric films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 8: Effect of different polymeric films on sensory quality (0-9) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
92
Figure 1: Effect of different polymeric films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 2:
Effect of different polymeric films on physiological loss in weight (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
93
Figure5. Effect of different polymeric films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 6.
Effect of different polymeric films on spoilage (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
94
Figure 9. Effect of different polymeric films on TSS (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 10. Effect of different polymeric films on total soluble solids in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
95
Figure 11. Effect of different polymeric films on total sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 12.
Effect of different polymeric films on total sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
96
Figure 13.
Effect of different polymeric films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 14. Effect of different polymeric films on reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
97
Figure 15. Effect of different polymeric films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 16.
Effect of different polymeric films on non-reducing sugars (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
98
Figure 3. Effect of different polymeric films on firmness (Kgf) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 4.
Effect of different polymeric films on firmness (Kgf) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
99
Figure 17. Effect of different polymeric films on acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at 2010C temperature
Figure 18. Effect of different polymeric films on Acidity (%) in pear cv. Patharnakh at ambient temperature
100

Effect of Different Polymeric Films On The Storage Life of Tray Packed Pear Fruits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Different Polymeric Films On The Storage Life of Tray Packed Pear Fruits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT POLYMERIC FILMS ON THE STORAGE LIFE OF TRAY PACKED PEAR FRUITS

MASTER OF SCIENCE in POMOLOGY (Minor Subject: Botany)

By Dinesh Kumar (L-2006/07-A-60-M)

Department of Horticulture College of Agriculture PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY LUDHIANA-141004

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, Punjab, India

6 5 4 3 2 1 3.5.1.5 Fruit colour

Chapter-IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Spoilage (%)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.4 Sensory quality

7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

YG154C YG154C YG154C YG154D YG154D

4.6 Total Soluble Solids

4.7 Total Sugars

7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79

4.8 Reducing Sugars

4.9 Non-reducing Sugars

You might also like