Plant Foods for Human Nutrition

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 67–72 | Cite as

Influence of Storage Environment, Surface Coating, and Individual Shrink Wrapping on Quality Assurance of Guava (Psidium guajava) Fruits

  • R.K. PAL
  • M.S. AHMAD
  • S.K. ROY


Guava (Psidium guajava) fruits of cv. L-49 with individual shrink wrapping using 9 μ LLDPE film could be successfully stored up to 12 days at ambient and 18 days in evaporative cool chamber with negligible loss in vitamin C content. The untreated fruits lose 25–30% of ascorbic acid within 1week after harvest. Delay in senescence and metabolic activities as supported by less changes in soluble solids, sugars, acidity, respiration, and ethylene evaluation rate was also observed in individual shrink wrapped fruits in cool chamber. The spoilage of fruits by Fusarium rots was significantly less in cool chamber in individually shrink wrapped fruits followed by Sta-fresh treatment. Sta-fresh was more effective in cool chamber than ambient. Individually stored wrapped fruits scored a better value of sensory score than Sta-fresh under both the storage condition.

Cool chamber Guava Individual shrink wrapping Sta-fresh Surface coating Vitamin-C 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dinamarca EA, Mitchell FG, Kader AA (1987) Use of sucrose esters as retardants of ripening of pears and plums. Rev Fruticola 19(3): 116–121.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pekmezei M, Erkan M, Demirkol A (1995) The effect of harvest time and different postharvest applications on the storage of valencia oranges. Acta Horticult 398: 276–284.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ben-Yehoshua S (1985) Individual seal packing of fruits and vegetables in plastic film—A new postharvest technique. Horticult Sci 20: 32–37.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roy SK, Pal RK (1993) A low-cost cool chamber: An innovative technology for developing countries. In: Champ BR, Highley E, Johnson GI (eds), AICAR Proceedings on Postharvest Handling of Tropical Fruits, Australia, no. 50, pp 393–395.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    AOAC (1970) Official Methods of Analysis, 11th edn. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaillard T, Grey C (1969) A rapid method for determination of ethylene in presence of other volatile natural products. J Chromatogr 41: 442–452.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amerine MA, Pangborn RM, Roessler EB (1965) Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. New York: AcademicPress.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1967) Statistical Methods. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, 593 pp.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Negi PS, Roy SK (2000) Effect of low cost storage and packaging on quality and nutritive value of fresh and dehydrated carrots. J Sci Food Agric 80: 2169–2175.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greison W, Wardowski WF (1975) Humidity in horticulture. Horticult Sci 10: 356–360.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jagdish SL, Rokhade AK, Lingarajan S (2001) Influence of post harvest treatments on storage behaviour of guava fruits cv. Sardar. J Maharashtra Agric Univ 26(3): 297–300.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGuire RG, Hallman GJ (1995) Coating guavas with cellulose or carnuba based emulsions interferes with post harvest ripening. Horticult Sci 30(2): 294–295.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Post Harvest Technology (Horticulture Building)Indian Agricultural Research InstituteIndia

Personalised recommendations