EFFECT OF DIFFERENT TREATMENTS ON SHELF LIFE OF TANGERINE CV. DAISY DURING AMBIENT STORAGE

GURLEEN 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 : 05-12-2022     Accepted : 28-12-2022     Published : 30-12-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 12       Pages : 12010 - 12013
Int J Agr Sci 14.12 (2022):12010-12013

Keywords : Ambient conditions, Daisy tangerine, Quality Attributes, Storage, Shelf Life
Academic Editor : Dr R. S. Umakanth
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 research trial was conducted at the laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College, Amritsar during 2021-2022. The entire experiment was carried out with twelve treatments T1 (LDPE- 100 guage), T2 (LDPE-200 guage), T3 (HDPE -10µm), T4 (HDPE-20 µm), T5 (butter paper wrapping), T6 (shredding paper), T7 (newspaper wrapping), T8 (citrashine wax), T9 (box wrapping with LDPE-100 guage), T10 (coconut oil), T11 (mustard oil) and T12 (control) had Completely Randomized Design (CRD) replicated thrice. After applying various treatments, the fruits were stored under ambient conditions (23 ± 2 °C; 80% RH). The fruits were analyzed periodically for various quality attributes. Results of the study revealed that the citrashine wax (T8) coated fruits had an immense effect on the reduction of physiological loss in weight (1.59 %), spoilage loss (2.94 %), better organoleptic rating (6.81 score), TSS (10.30°Brix), titratable acidity (0.73 %), total sugars (6.06 %) and ascorbic acid (22.12 mg/ 100ml juice) up to 21 days of storage. Treatments T10 (coconut oil) was found to be the second best treatment with regard to maintain the shelf life of Daisy tangerine fruits. Therefore, citrashine wax coated fruits proved to be quite effective in prolonging the shelf-life and maintaining the quality of Daisy tangerine fruits

1. Turner T., Burri B.J. (2013) Agriculture, 3(1), 170-187.
2. Abobatta W.F. (2019) American Journal of Biomedical Science and Research, 3(4), 303-306.
3. Kader A.A. (2005) In: Proceedings of the 5th International Post-harvest Symposium Verona. 6(11), 2169-2175.
4. Kamboj P., Kaur A. (2018) International journal of pure and applied bioscience, 6(3), 650-657.
5. Amerine M.A., Pangborn R.M., Roessler E.B. (1965) Principles of sensory evaluation of food. Academia Press New York: 602.
6. Wills R., McGlasson B., Graham, Joyce D. (2007) Postharvest: An introduction to the physiology and handling of fruit, vegetables and ornamentals (5th Ed). Oxfordshire: CABI, 227.
7. Hagenmaier R.D., Baker R.A. (1993) Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 41, 283-287.
8. Gupta M., Rattanpal H.S. (2017) Journal of Krishivigyan, 6(1), 58-60.
9. Mohan A.S.S, Singh J., Chhabra V. (2021) Pharma Innovation Journal, 10(5), 29-34.
10. Yamashita F., Benassi M.T. (2000) Cienciae Technologia de Alimentos, 20(1), 27-31.
11. Mahajan B.V.C., Bhatt A.S., Sandhu K.S. (2005) Journal of Food Sciene and Technology, 42, 296-299.
12. Bisen A., Pandey S.K., Patel N. (2012) Journal of Food Science and Technoloy, 49, 753-759.
13. Rokaya P.R., Baral D.R., Gautam D.M., Shrestha, Paudyal K.P. (2016) American Journal of Plant Science, 7, 1098-1105.
14. Jholgiker P., Reddy B.R. (2007) Indian Journal of Horticulture, 64(1), 41-44.
15. Mahajan B.V.C., Datta A.S., Dhillon W.S (2004) Indian Journal of Horticulture, 61, 342-344.
16. Deka B.C., Sharma S., Borah S.C. (2006) Indian Journal of Horticulture, 63, 251-255.
17. El-Anany A.M, Hassan G.F.A., Rehab Ali F.M. (2009) Journal of Food and Technology, 7(1), 5-11.
18. Patriaca S., Palmu T., Grosso C.R.F. (2005) Postharvest Biology and Technology, 36, 199-208.
19. Hussain S.B., Shi C.Y., Xia L.X., Kamran H.F., Sadka A., Liu Y.Z. (2017) Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 36(4), 241-256.
20. Pandey S.K., Joushwa J.E., Bisen A. (2010) Journal of Food Science and Technology, 47, 124-127.
21. Nasrin T.A.A., Islam M.N., Rahman M.A., Arfin M.S., Ullah M.A. (2018) International Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology, 8(1), 18-25.