EFFECT OF DIFFERENT TREATMENTS ON SHELF LIFE OF MANDARIN CV. W. MURCOTT DURING AMBIENT STORAGE

SIMRAN KAUR¹, SUKHDEV SINGH², VEERPARTAP SINGH³*, MANINDERJIT SINGH^4
1P.G. Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College Amritsar, 143002, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 143005, Punjab, India
²P.G. Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College Amritsar, 143002, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 143005, Punjab, India
³P.G. Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College Amritsar, 143002, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 143005, Punjab, India
⁴P.G. Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College Amritsar, 143002, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 143005, Punjab, India
* Corresponding Author : veerpartapsingh@khalsacollege.edu.in

Received : 18-10-2022     Accepted : 27-12-2022     Published : 30-12-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 12       Pages : 12002 - 12005
Int J Agr Sci 14.12 (2022):12002-12005

Keywords : W. Murcott, Surface coatings, Shelf life, Quality attributes, Storage
Academic Editor : Marchand P. A.
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to P.G. Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College Amritsar, 143002, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, 143005, Punjab, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present investigation entitled was conducted in Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College, Amritsar during 2021-2022. Mandarin fruits cv. W. Murcott were harvested and treated with T1 (Rice bran oil), T2 (Sesame oil), T3 (Mustard oil), T4 (Citrashine wax), T5 (Sta fresh), T6 (Coconut oil), T7 (Butter paper wrapping), T8 (CaCl2 1%), T9 (CaCl2 2%) and T10 (Control). All the treated and control fruits packed in corrugated fiber board (CFB) boxes for 50 days under ambient storage conditions. The experiment was laid out in Completely Randomized Design (CRD) replicated thrice. The fruits from each treatment were analyzed for physico-biochemical characteristics at an interval of ten days. Physiological loss in weight, spoilage loss of fruits increased with storage intervals whereas titratable acidity and juice content showed declining trend with the advancement of storage period. Other parameters like TSS, total sugars showed an increasing trend at earlier stages of storage and later on start declining. Citrashine wax (T4) coated fruits showed a significant reduction in weight loss, spoilage loss while maintained TSS, titratable acidity and sugars as compared to other treatments as well as untreated fruits. Sta fresh (T5) stood runners up by following the T4 treatment in maintaining all characters. The fruits treated with citrashine wax maintain their shelf life from 30-40 days. Hence, citrashine wax coated fruits proved to be effective in prolonging the shelf life and maintaining the quality of W. Murcott mandarin fruits

1. Zahani F.H., Khaledi, N. (2018) International Journal of New Technology and Research, 4, 129-139.
2. Piper J.M. (1989) Fruits of South-East Asia: Facts and Falkore Singapore Oxford University Press, 43.
3. Turner T., Burri B.J. (2013) Potential nutritional benefits of current citrus consumption Agriculture, 3(1), 170-187.
4. Pragasam S.J., Rasool M. (2013) Inflammation Research, 62(5), 489-498.
5. Abobatta W.F. (2019) American Journal of Biomedical Science and Research, 3(4).
6. Sahu B. (2016) Effect of different postharvest treatments on prolonging shelf life of sugar apple. Biology.
7. Riva S.C., Opara U.O., Fawole O.A. (2020) Scientia Horticulturae 262.
8. AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C. USA.
9. Mahajan B.V.C., Dhatt A.S., Sandhu K.S. (2005) Journal of Food Science and Technology, 42(4), 296-299.
10. Gupta M., Rattanpal H.S. (2017) Journal of Krishi Vigyan, 6(1), 58-60.
11. Jhalegar M.J., Sharma R.R., Singh S.K. (2015) Indian Journal of Horticulture, 72(2), 267-272.
12. Yadav M., Kumar N., Singh D.B. Singh G.K. (2010) Indian Journal of Horticulture, 67(2), 243-248.
13. Gupta M., Rattanpal H.S., Singh G., Arora A. (2021) Agricultural Research Journal, 58(6), 1093.
14. Youssef K., Ligorio A., Nigro F., Ippolito A. (2012) Postharvest Biology and Technology, 65, 39-43.
15. Rokaya P.R. (2017) Effect of altitude and various pre and post factors on quality and shelf life of mandarin.
16. Mahajan B.V.C., Dhillon W.S., Kumar M. (2013) Journal of Postharvest Technology, 1(1), 8-15.
17. Bisen A., Pandey S., Patel N. (2012) Journal of Food Science and Technology, 49(6), 753-759.
18. Wills R.B.H., Cambridge P.A., Scott K.J. (1980) Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, 20, 252-256.
19. Joshi P., Ojha B.R., Kafle A. (2019) Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 5, 139-144.
20. Ahmad M.S., Thakur K.S., Siddiqui M.W. (2013) Advances in Horticultural Science, 27(4), 1-7.
21. Hassan Z., Lesmayati S., Qomariah R., Hasbianto A. (2014) International Food Research Journal, 21(2), 641-648.