152 1. Introduction ‘Kinnow’ mandarin occupies a prime position amongst the citrus fruits grown in India. It can be used for process- ing into a variety of beverages, as well as industrial and me- dicinal uses due to its attractive colour, distinctive flavour and rich source of vitamin ‘C’, vitamin ‘B’, β-carotene, calcium and phosphorous (Sogi and Singh, 2001). Despite its attributes and commercial importance, ‘Kinnow’ cannot be enjoyed for long periods due to its poor shelf life. The aggregate post-harvest losses from orchards to consumers in ‘Kinnow’ range from 15 to 22% (Gangwar et al., 2007). Storage at low temperature is one of the potential options to extend the avaibility of many fruits and vegetables (Lei et al., 2012). However refrigeration facilities are not gener- ally within the reach of a majority of growers and patho- logical disease occurrence in ‘Kinnow’ is very high in cold storage (Singh and Jain, 2004). Edible coatings are prom- ising postharvest treatments to extend the self-life of many fruits as reported in mango (Abbasi et al., 2011; Singh et al., 2012), strawberry (Del Valle et al., 2005), custards apple (El-Monem and El-Mayeed, 2003) and sweet orange (Sha- hid and Abbasi, 2011). Both Semperfresh TM and Sta-Fresh 960 are commercial edible coating materials, the former is a sucrose-fatty acid ester-based wax while the later is a paraf- fin polyethylene-based wax. Another important technology used for extending shelf-life of fresh fruits and vegetables is Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) (Ladaniya, 2001; Wasker and Gaikward, 2005; Sharma et al., 2012). Also in ‘kinnow’ various postharvest treatments such as waxing (Ahmad et al., 2005), MAP packaging (Ahmad et al., 2005; Jawandha et al., 2012), Bavistin dip (Sonkar et al., 2008) and a combination of these treatments are reported to extend the shelf-life during storage and transportation. However, there are few works on edible coating, MAP packaging and low cost storage systems such as Zero Energy Cool Chamber (ZECC) for ‘kinnow’ fruits and the subject calls for further investigation. Other workers have reported that ZECC may be an alternative low cost storage system (Roy and Khurdiya, 1986; Pal et al., 1997) however the treatments must be haz- ard free and eco-friendly (Siddiqui and Dhua, 2010). Consid- ering these factors, in the present study ‘kinnow’ fruits were treated with different coating materials to evaluate their per- formance under ambient, ZECC and cold storage conditions. 2. Materials and Methods Raw material and treatments Mature ‘kinnow’ fruits were procured from the Re- gional Horticulture Research Station, Dhaulakuan (HP) and brought to the Postharvest Technology Laboratory, UHF, Nauni, Solan immediately after harvest. Sound and unblemished fruits were treated with different waxing Postharvest treatments for preserving quality of ‘Kinnow’ fruit under different storage conditions M.S. Ahmad*(1), K.S. Thakur**, M.W. Siddiqui* * Department of Food Science and Technology, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur (Bihar), India. ** Department of Food Science and Technology, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and For- estry, Nauni, Solan (HP), India. Key words: edible coating, Kinnow, quality, shelf-life, zero energy cool chamber. Abstract: ‘Kinnow’ mandarin is an attractive and nutritious fruit available only for a short period due to its poor shelf life. The effect of different postharvest treatments and storage conditions on the postharvest quality of ‘Kinnow’ up to 60 days was examined. With progression of the storage period, TSS and total sugars tended to increase whereas acidity, ascorbic acid, juice content, and overall acceptability decreased. Fruits stored at low temperature (4±1°C, RH 85-95%) and Zero Energy Cool Chamber (ZECC) (12-22°C, RH 85-95%) showed a slower rate of physico-chemical changes com- pared to ambient conditions (18-32°C, RH 45-65%). Both waxing and PE-packaging maintained the external appearance of fruits irrespective of storage systems. However, off-flavour development was noticed in PE-packed fruits after 15 days at room temperature and 40 days in cold storage and ZECC. Waxing of ‘Kinnow’ mandarin with undiluted Sta-fresh 960 along with low temperature and low cost storage (ZECC) may be recommended to extend the availability of fruits. Adv. Hort. Sci., 2013 27(4): 152-158 1 Corresponding author: shamsher73@gmail.com Received for publication 15 August 2013 Accepted for publication 25 November 2013 153 materials as follows: T 1 = Semperfresh (0.5%), T 2 = Sem- perfresh (1.0%), T 3 = Semperfresh (1.5%), T 4 = Sta Fresh 960 (100%), T 5 = Sta Fresh 960 (50%), T 6 = Rice Starch (3%)+Bavistin (0.05%), T 7 = Rice Starch (6%)+Bavistin (0.05%), T 8 = Rice Starch (3%)+Bavistin (0.05%)+Guar gum (2%), T 9 = Rice Starch (6%)+Bavistin (0.05%)+Guar gum (2%), T 10 = Bavistin (0.05%)+ packing of four fruits in a 150 gauze Polyethylene film, T 11 = Control. Storage conditions Treated and air-dried fruits from all treatments with their replications were divided into three lots and stored in plastic crates with paper moulded trays under ambient (18-32°C, RH 45-65%), Zero Energy Cool Chamber (12-22°C, 80-95% RH) and Cold store (CS, 4±1°C, 80-90% RH) conditions. Chemical analysis Different biochemical parameters of the juice were ana- lyzed at fortnightly intervals. Total soluble solids (TSS) were estimated by hand refractometer (0-32°B). The read- ings obtained were calibrated against a standard tempera- ture at 20°C as per the International Temperature Correc- tion Table and expressed as °Brix. Acidity and ascorbic acid were determined by standard method (AOAC, 1990) and results were expressed as percentage citric acid and mg/100 ml of juice respectively. Total sugars were estimated by the Lane and Eynon volumetric methods (AOAC, 1990). Physical analysis The juice was extracted with the help of an electri- cally operated citrus juice extractor. The fruits were first weighed and then cut into halves and the cut portion of each half was placed on the revolving ridge knob of the extractor till only the skin part remained and all the seg- ments were crushed and pressed; the juice was collected in the bottom of the juice extractor. Sensory evaluation Sensory evaluation of samples was conducted by a panel of judges (consisting of teachers, students, and staff) at periodic intervals of storage. The judges were given coded samples consisting of whole and cut fruits for evaluation regarding overall acceptability of the fruits on the basis of appearance, color, taste and defects if any. The evaluation consisted of a 9-point hedonic scale for each attribute (Wills et al., 1980). Statistical analysis Interactions among treatments, storage conditions and biochemical attributes were assessed by Completely Ran- domized Design whereas, sensory attributes were assessed by the Randomized Block Designed using the STATISTI- CA v. 8.0 (Stat Soft, Tulsa, OK, USA) package. 3. Results and Discussion Total soluble solids (TSS) It was observed that TSS in general increased as the storage period progressed under all treatments and storage conditions (Table 1). Among the fruits kept at ambient tem- perature, the highest mean TSS contents (14.04°B) were re- corded in T 11 (control), whereas the lowest mean TSS con- tents (12.84°B) were found in treatment T 4 (100% Sta-Fresh 960), which was closely followed by T 10 and T 5 , respective- ly. The control fruits also exhibited the maximum increase of TSS under ZECC and cold storage conditions, whereas it was usually minimum in response to T 4 followed by T 10 . Table 1 - Effect of postharvest treatments on Total soluble solids* (B) of ‘Kinnow’ fruits under different storage systems during 60 days of storage Storage systems (S) Treatments (T) Storage intervals (days) 15 30 45 60 Mean Room temperature (18-32°C, RH 45-65%) T 1 11.90 12.59 13.82 14.69 13.25 T 2 11.84 12.59 13.57 14.10 13.02 T 3 11.84 12.36 13.41 14.45 13.01 T 4 11.76 12.31 13.22 14.09 12.84 T 5 11.78 12.35 13.29 14.49 12.98 T 6 12.04 12.87 14.18 15.81 13.72 T 7 12.02 12.84 14.09 15.37 13.58 T 8 12.00 12.79 14.05 15.50 13.58 T 9 11.98 12.73 14.92 15.33 13.49 T 10 11.77 12.31 13.16 14.15 12.85 T 11 11.12 13.46 14.45 16.15 14.04 Mean 11.91 12.65 13.74 14.92 13.03 Zero energy cool chamber (12-22°C, RH 80-95%) T 1 11.53 11.82 12.12 12.43 11.98 T 2 11.50 11.80 13.23 13.24 12.44 T 3 11.49 11.84 12.62 13.25 12.30 T 4 11.45 11.65 12.06 12.88 12.01 T 5 11.48 11.87 12.61 13.15 12.28 T 6 11.57 12.10 12.95 13.40 12.50 T 7 11.56 11.88 12.20 12.53 12.04 T 8 11.55 11.86 12.18 12.92 12.13 T 9 11.54 11.95 12.13 12.83 12.20 T 10 11.46 11.68 11.91 12.84 11.97 T 11 11.59 12.94 13.30 14.68 13.12 Mean 11.52 11.98 12.48 13.10 12.31 Cold storage (4±1°C, RH 85-95%) T 1 11.49 11.73 12.00 12.30 11.88 T 2 11.48 11.72 12.23 12.23 11.82 T 3 11.46 11.67 12.15 12.15 11.80 T 4 11.40 11.56 11.91 11.91 11.65 T 5 11.47 11.67 11.94 11.94 12.04 T 6 11.54 11.89 12.47 12.47 12.01 T 7 11.53 11.80 12.41 12.41 11.96 T 8 11.51 11.78 12.35 12.35 11.92 T 9 11.51 11.77 12.32 12.32 11.91 T 10 11.42 11.58 11.93 11.93 11.67 T 11 11.65 11.96 12.62 12.62 12.13 Mean 11.50 11.73 11.98 12.23 CD 0.05 Storage systems (S)- 0.10, SxT- 0.33, SxI- 0.19, SxTxI- 0.66. *Initial Total Soluble Solids (TSS) of ‘Kinnow’ = 11.35°B. 154 The TSS content increased due to hydrolysis of in- soluble polysaccharides into sugars at a faster rate at high temperature (ambient) and at a slower rate at lower tem- peratures, i.e. in cold storage and in ZECC (Siddiqui, 2008; Siddiqui et al., 2011; Jawandha et al., 2012). The higher value of TSS in control fruit might be due to a higher con- centration of sugars because of higher transpiration losses as these fruits were not covered, which could impede the movement of water out of the fruits. On the other hand, waxing and PE-packing might have reduced moisture loss- es to a maximum extent as the combination offers excellent moisture barrier properties (Ben-Yehoshua, 1985). Waxing treatments can act as an additional barrier to moisture loss but are less effective because waxes are more permeable to moisture and gases. However, it is a well established fact that wax materials are capable of delaying ripening process by maintaining slow degradation of polysaccharides as ob- served in mango (Abbasi et al., 2011) and Kinnow man- darin (Chaudhary et al., 2004). Shahid and Abbasi (2011) also reported less change compared to control in TSS in stored sweet orange fruits treated with bee’s wax and paraf- fin wax coatings throughout the storage period. Manzano and Diaz (2001) and Hayat et al. (2005) found the similar results in apple after PE-packing and waxing treatments. Titratable acidity A gradual decline in titratable acidity contents (Table 2) was observed with an increase in storage duration un- der all three storage conditions during the entire 60-day storage period. 100% Sta-Fresh 960 (T 4 ) retained the high- est mean TA (0.93%) under ambient conditions whereas T 4 and T 3 presented the maximum values under ZECC (1.02%) and CS followed by T 10 . At the same time, the control treatment (T 11 ) had the lowest mean titratable acid- ity (0.64, 0.91, and 0.93%) under ambient, ZECC and CS conditions, respectively. The faster rate of decline in acidity at room temperature could be due to faster metabolic reactions leading to earlier se- nescence at higher temperature. Among metabolic reactions in fruits, respiration is an important process which may utilize organic acids as substrate for the production of energy result- ing in a decrease in acidity during prolonged storage (Sharma et al., 2012). The organic acids involved in the respiratory process are not oxidized at a faster rate at lower temperature, and therefore their levels remained high. Furthermore, poly- ethylene and wax materials slow down the metabolism of fruits and vegetables as these have been reported to maintain higher Co 2 and lower O 2 inside the coated/PE-packed fruits (Kader et al., 1989): this might explain the higher acid lev- els in waxed and PE-packed fruits. These findings are further supported by the findings of Bisen and Pandey (2008) and Siddiqui (2008) in guava and mango, respectively. Total sugars Total sugar increased significantly (Table 3) throughout the storage period with the increase being faster under am- bient storage and slower under cold storage. Under ambient conditions, T 4 (100% Sta-Fresh 960) proved to be the most effective in delaying the increase in total sugars up to 60 days, whereas, under the other two storage conditions T 10 proved to be the best during the same period. At the end of the study period, the mean maximum total sugar contents (7.74%) was found in treatment T 11 (control) whereas the minimum average sugar contents were recorded for treat- ments T 4 and T 10 (6.93% and 6.96%, respectively). Table 2 - Effect of postharvest treatments on titratable acidity* (as % citric acid) of ‘Kinnow’ fruits under different storage systems during 60 days of storage Storage systems (S) Treatments (T) Storage intervals (days) 15 30 45 60 Mean Room temperature (18-32°C, RH 45-65%) T 1 1.00 0.86 0.79 0.63 0.82 T 2 1.00 0.96 0.84 0.68 0.84 T 3 1.01 0.95 0.88 0.67 0.88 T 4 1.03 0.98 0.93 0.76 0.93 T 5 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.70 0.89 T 6 0.96 0.87 0.74 0.74 0.83 T 7 0.98 0.88 0.53 0.53 0.78 T 8 1.00 0.87 0.54 0.54 0.79 T 9 1.00 0.89 0.54 0.54 0.81 T 10 1.01 0.96 0.72 0.72 0.89 T 11 0.80 0.64 0.60 0.52 0.64 Mean 0.98 0.89 0.80 0.64 0.82 Zero energy cool chamber (12-22°C, RH 80-95%) T 1 1.04 1.02 0.99 0.96 1.01 T 2 1.04 1.02 1.00 0.97 1.01 T 3 1.04 1.03 1.01 0.98 1.02 T 4 1.04 1.03 1.01 0.96 1.02 T 5 1.02 1.02 1.01 0.98 1.00 T 6 1.02 0.96 0.91 0.85 0.94 T 7 1.02 0.99 0.95 0.90 0.92 T 8 1.03 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.98 T 9 1.03 1.00 0.98 0.94 0.98 T 10 1.04 1.02 1.01 0.98 1.01 T 11 1.00 0.94 0.87 0.82 0.91 Mean 1.03 1.00 0.95 0.93 0.98 Cold storage (4±1°C, RH 85-95%) T1 1.04 1.02 1.00 0.97 1.01 T2 1.04 1.02 1.01 0.99 1.02 T3 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.00 1.03 T4 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.03 T5 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.00 1.02 T6 1.02 0.98 0.95 0.91 0.97 T7 1.02 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.98 T8 1.03 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.99 T9 1.04 1.02 1.00 0.97 1.00 T10 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.02 T11 1.01 0.96 0.91 0.85 0.93 Mean 1.03 1.01 0.99 0.96 1.00 CD 0.05 , Storage systems (S) 0.007, SxT- 0.02, SxI- 0.01, SxTxI- 0.05. *Initial Titratable acidity (%) of ‘Kinnow’ = 1.05%. 155 The greater increase in sugar contents under ambient conditions may be due to rapid hydrolysis of insoluble poly- saccharides into sugars (Siddiqui et al., 2011; Jawandha et al., 2012). The great content of sugars in control fruit might be due to greater transpiration losses. PE-packing and wax- ing have been reported as excellent moisture barriers which reduced moisture losses in fruits. Moreover, both PE-pack- ing and waxing can produce modified atmosphere by in- creasing CO 2 and decreasing O 2 concentration. Ascorbic acid The ascorbic acid content showed a general declining trend in all treatments and storage conditions. However, the decrease was more pronounced under ambient condi- tions as compared to the other two storage systems (Table 4). The slow degradation rate and consequently higher retention of ascorbic acid under cold storage condition Table 3 - Effect of postharvest treatments on Total sugar* (%) of ‘Kinnow’ fruits under different storage systems during 60 days of storage Storage systems (S) Treatments (T) Storage intervals (days) 15 30 45 60 Mean Room temperature (18-32°C, RH 45-65%) T 1 6.81 7.37 8.27 9.87 8.08 T 2 7.10 7.25 7.95 9.25 7.88 T 3 6.71 7.11 7.71 8.70 7.55 T 4 6.76 7.07 7.49 8.19 7.37 T 5 6.69 7.17 7.84 8.85 7.63 T 6 6.90 7.81 9.07 10.65 8.60 T 7 6.87 7.80 8.91 10.35 8.48 T 8 6.84 7.75 8.75 10.35 8.42 T 9 6.81 7.71 8.75 10.45 8.43 T 10 6.72 7.17 7.67 8.40 7.49 T 11 7.00 8.30 10.49 11.60 9.34 Mean 6.83 7.50 8.44 9.69 8.11 Zero energy Cool Chamber (12-22°C, RH 80-95%) T 1 6.68 6.75 6.82 6.97 6.80 T 2 6.67 6.72 6.80 6.93 6.78 T 3 6.66 6.71 6.78 6.86 6.75 T 4 6.66 6.72 6.75 6.82 6.73 T 5 6.65 6.68 6.76 6.84 6.73 T 6 6.69 6.85 6.95 7.09 6.89 T 7 6.71 6.81 6.93 7.06 6.87 T 8 6.70 6.80 6.92 7.04 6.86 T 9 6.68 6.76 6.90 7.02 6.84 T 10 6.64 6.68 6.74 6.81 6.71 T 11 6.73 6.86 7.03 7.21 6.95 Mean 6.67 6.76 6.81 6.90 6.77 Cold storage (4±1°C, RH 85-95%) T 1 6.66 6.73 6.80 6.90 6.77 T 2 6.64 6.70 6.78 6.86 6.74 T 3 6.65 6.69 6.74 6.80 6.72 T 4 6.64 6.67 6.71 6.75 6.69 T 5 6.64 6.68 6.74 6.80 6.71 T 6 6.70 6.80 6.91 7.03 6.86 T 7 6.70 6.79 6.85 7.00 6.83 T 8 6.46 6.68 6.88 6.98 6.75 T 9 6.68 6.76 6.86 6.96 6.81 T 10 6.63 6.66 6.70 6.75 6.68 T 11 6.72 6.84 6.99 7.15 6.92 Mean 6.64 6.72 6.81 6.90 6.77 CD 0.05 , Storage systems (S)- 0.01, SxT- 0.06, SxI- 0.03, SxTxI- 0.12. *initial Total sugar content of the fruit = 6.51%. Table 4 - Effect of postharvest treatments on Ascorbic acid contents (mg/100 ml juice) of ‘Kinnow’ fruits under different storage systems during 60 days of storage Storage systems (S) Treatments (T) Storage Intervals (days) 15 30 45 60 Mean Room temperature (18-320C, RH 45-65%) T 1 24.78 24.31 23.84 23.35 24.07 T 2 24.79 24.33 23.84 23.35 24.08 T 3 24.81 24.37 23.93 23.49 24.15 T 4 24.84 24.43 24.02 23.61 24.23 T 5 24.80 24.35 23.90 23.45 24.12 T 6 24.65 24.05 23.45 22.82 23.74 T 7 24.69 24.13 23.57 23.04 23.86 T 8 24.66 24.07 23.48 22.88 23.77 T 9 24.65 24.05 23.45 22.85 23.75 T 10 24.85 24.45 23.72 23.65 24.17 T 11 24.64 24.03 23.42 22.78 23.72 Mean 24.74 24.23 23.69 23.21 23.96 Zero energy cool chamber (12-22°C, RH 80-95%) T 1 25.08 24.78 24.53 24.27 24.66 T 2 25.10 24.79 24.55 24.30 24.68 T 3 25.10 24.82 24.59 24.35 24.71 T 4 25.15 24.91 24.74 24.55 24.84 T 5 25.11 24.84 24.62 24.39 24.74 T 6 25.01 24.66 24.35 24.03 24.51 T 7 25.05 24.72 24.44 24.15 24.59 T 8 25.03 24.71 24.38 24.07 24.55 T 9 25.03 24.69 24.40 24.11 24.56 T 10 25.16 24.94 24.76 24.56 24.85 T 11 25.02 24.64 24.29 24.94 24.47 Mean 25.08 24.77 24.51 24.25 24.52 Cold storage (4±1°C, RH 85-95%) T 1 25.12 24.86 24.65 24.43 24.76 T 2 25.12 24.90 24.71 24.51 24.81 T 3 25.14 24.94 24.77 24.54 24.86 T 4 25.16 24.98 24.83 24.67 24.91 T 5 25.18 24.90 24.71 24.51 24.82 T 6 25.16 24.82 24.59 24.35 24.71 T 7 25.10 24.86 24.65 24.43 24.76 T 8 25.12 24.84 24.62 24.39 24.74 T 9 25.11 24.80 24.56 24.31 24.69 T 10 25.09 25.00 24.86 24.71 24.94 T 11 25.19 24.76 24.49 24.21 24.63 Mean 25.07 24.88 24.68 24.46 24.78 CD 0.05 , Storage systems (S)- 0.01, SxT- 0.06, SxI- 0.03, SxTxI- 0.12. *initial Ascorbic acid content of the fruit = 25.25 mg/100 ml. 156 and in cool chamber might be due to a reduced metabolic rate at lower temperature. Greater ascorbic acid content under low temperature might be due to a reduced rate of fruit metabolic activities, mainly respiration. These results are in accordance with the findings of Wills et al. (2007) and Worawaran et al. (2013). Among the treatments, PE- packed fruits (T 10 ) and undiluted Sta-Fresh 960 (T 4 ) had the highest average ascorbic acid during the 60-day stor- age. The better retention of ascorbic acid in fruits of both the treatments might be due to modifications in the atmo- sphere immediately surrounding the fruits. PE packing and waxing have been reported to retain higher ascorbic acid (Bayindirli et al., 1995; Kaushal and Thakur, 1996). Juice content The juice content of ‘Kinnow’ fruit was highest in ZECC (Table 5) followed by CS; the lowest juice content was found in fruits kept under ambient conditions. In the present study it was also observed that the juice content (initially 40.18%) increased under all treatments and stor- age conditions at the early sampling dates and then de- clined as the storage period progressed. Maximum juice contents (43.51%) were recorded in treatment T 10 followed by T 5 and T 4 , in comparison to the control fruits which yielded only 40.05 percent at 60 days storage. These findings might be due to a greater moisture loss at higher temperature coupled with the lower humidity conditions under ambient conditions than ZECC and CS. Among the treatments, higher juice recovery was recorded in PE-packed fruits (T 10 ) followed by the fruits with 100% Sta-Fresh 960 (T 4 ). This might be due to less water loss in PE-packaging and waxing treatments as the combination acts as a barrier to moisture loss. Similar results were also obtained by Chaudhary et al. (2004) in Kinnow mandarin and Bisen and Pandey (2008) in Kagzi lime. Sensory quality A perusal of data in Table 6 indicates that the storage temperature had a profound influence on the overall accept- ability of the fruits. Cold-stored fruits were the most accept- able after 60 days storage, followed by fruits from ZECC while those stored at ambient conditions were the least ac- ceptable. Up to 60 days storage, fruits from T 4 outscored all other treatments under all three storage conditions, fol- lowed by 50% Sta-Fresh 960 (T 5 ) fruits. At the end of the storage period (60-days), the maximum acceptability (8.01, 7.90 and 6.70) was observed in response to T 4 followed by T 5 (7.85, 7.65 and 6.50), T 3 (7.85, 7.65 and 6.05), T 2 (7.70, 7.45 and 5.90 ) and T 10 (7.67, 7.35 and 5.82) in cold store, ZECC and under room temperature respectively. Better acceptability of cold-stored fruits is understand- able as low temperature storage of ‘Kinnow’ fruit helps maintain storage quality, thereby increasing acceptabil- ity. PE packing and waxing creates beneficial effects and these conditions are more effective in retaining fruit qual- ity at higher temperature (Kader et al., 1989; Ladaniya and Sonkar, 1997; Ladaniya, 2007). The fruits treated with Sta-Fresh 960 (T 4 ) registered overall good acceptability at the end of 60 days. The present results show similarity with the findings of Ladaniya (2001) who demonstrated that taste scores were highest in ‘Musambi’ sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) fruits treated with Sta-fresh 451 wax, and Wang et al. (2004) who revealed that due to the wax- ing, eating quality was good without an unpleasant taste in fruits of Jincheng orange variety. Similar results were also reported by Mahajan et al. (2005) in ‘Kinnow’ fruits. Table 5 - Effect of postharvest treatments on juice content* (%) of ‘Kin- now’ fruits under different storage systems during 60 days of storage Storage systems (S) Treatments (T) Storage intervals (days) 15 30 45 60 Mean Room temperature (18-32°C, RH 45-65%) T 1 44.68 46.02 39.54 35.59 41.47 T 2 43.01 43.01 40.17 36.17 40.59 T 3 43.78 41.76 40.11 36.11 40.44 T 4 40.44 44.20 44.30 43.01 42.98 T 5 42.88 44.47 42.82 38.82 42.24 T 6 44.45 45.24 37.12 33.12 39.98 T 7 42.95 42.17 39.75 35.72 40.14 T 8 40.41 45.43 36.77 32.94 38.89 T 9 43.24 43.17 35.78 32.94 38.78 T 10 40.92 42.16 46.70 42.70 43.12 T 11 40.73 39.16 35.43 29.76 36.27 Mean 42.68 43.34 38.96 36.08 40.44 Zero energy cool chamber (12-22°C, RH 80-95%) T 1 41.45 43.76 44.02 44.79 43.50 T 2 41.38 41.78 43.69 44.14 42.74 T 3 40.98 40.07 44.07 48.11 43.31 T 4 40.35 42.00 44.50 44.45 42.85 T 5 40.75 43.20 45.00 48.82 44.44 T 6 42.08 47.12 46.05 43.12 44.59 T 7 40.18 42.15 42.17 43.75 42.06 T 8 42.90 41.75 43.75 40.94 42.33 T 9 40.05 43.75 45.55 41.76 42.78 T 10 40.28 43.15 45.15 46.68 43.82 T 11 40.30 44.75 42.15 40.76 41.99 Mean 40.97 43.04 43.39 44.30 43.08 Cold storage (4±1°C, RH 85-95%) T 1 41.75 43.22 40.75 44.75 42.62 T 2 42.48 41.78 41.78 49.70 43.93 T 3 40.35 41.20 40.80 49.43 42.94 T 4 41.78 41.83 42.65 44.45 42.68 T 5 41.08 41.35 43.33 48.30 43.52 T 6 40.47 42.35 41.25 44.10 42.04 T 7 40.70 40.80 42.80 44.80 42.27 T 8 41.25 42.15 43.25 48.55 43.80 T 9 40.25 41.19 42.25 45.50 42.45 T 10 41.20 42.45 44.35 46.48 43.63 T 11 40.75 40.35 42.25 44.25 41.90 Mean 41.09 41.69 42.12 46.14 42.88 CD 0.05 , Storage systems (S)- 0.37, SxT-1.23, SxI- 0.74, SxTxI- 2.47. * Initial juice content of fruit = 40.18%. 157 4. Conclusions The result of this investigation showed that using eco- friendly edible coating along with Zero Energy Cool Chamber, the shelf life of ‘Kinnow’ fruits can be increased substantially. Among the treatments, waxing with undilut- ed Sta-fresh 960 along with low temperature storage and ZECC has been found the best and may be recommended to extend the availability of fruits. References ABBASI K.S., ANJUM N., SAMIM S., MASUD T., ALI S., 2011 - Effect of coatings and packaging material on the keeping quality of mangoes (Mangifera indica L.) stored at low temperature. - Pak. J. Nutri., 10: 129-138. AHMAD M.S., THAKUR K.S., KAUSHAL B.B.L., 2005 - Post-harvest treatments to retain ‘Kinnow’ storage quality. - Indian J. Hort., 62: 63-67. AOAC, 1990 - Official methods of analysis. - 13th ed. Associa- tion of Official Analytical Chemist Benjamin Franklin Sta- tion, Washington D.C., USA. BAYINDIRLI L., SUMNU G., KAMADAN K., 1995 - Effect of Semperfresh and Jonafresh fruit coatings on postharvest quality of Satsuma mandarins. - J. Food Process. Preser., 19: 339-407. BEN-YEHOSHUA S., 1985 - Individual seal packaging of fruit and vegetable in plastic films - a New postharvest technique. - HortScience, 20: 32-37. BISEN A., PANDEY S.K., 2008 - Effect of post harvest treat- ment on biochemical composition and organoleptic quality in Kagzi lime fruit during storage. - J. Hort. Sci., 3: 53-56. CHAUDHARY M.R., DHAKA R.S., FAGERIA M.S., 2004 - Effect of wax emulsion and gibberellic acid on shelf life and quality of ‘Kinnow’ mandarin fruit during storage. - J. Udya- nika Hort. Sci., 10: 6-9. DEL-VALLE V., HERNÁNDEZ-MUÑOZ P., GUARDA A., GALOTTO M.J., 2005 - Development of a cactus-mucilage edible coating (Opuntia ficus indica) and its application to extend strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) shelf-life. - Food Chem., 91: 751-756. EL-MONEM A.M., EL-MAJEED M.A., 2003 - Effect of some post harvest treatments on the Storage quality of annona on its volatile components. - Annals Agric. Sci., 48: 757-775. GANGWAR L.S., SINGH D., SINGH D.B., 2007 - Estimation of post-harvest losses in ‘Kinnow’ mandarin in Punjab using a modified formula. - Agric. Eco. Res. Rev., 20: 315-331. HAYAT I., MASUD T., RATHORE H.A., 2005 - Effect of coat- ing and wrapping materials on the shelf Life of apple (Malus domestica cv. Borkh). - Int. J. Food Safety, 5: 24-34. JAWANDHA S.K., TIWANA P.S., RANDHAWA J.S., 2012 - Effect of low density polyethylene packaging and chemicals on ambient storage of Kinnow. - Asian J. Food Agric. Indus., 5: 112-118. KADER A.A., ZAGORY D., KERBEL E.L., 1989 - Modified atmosphere packaging of fruits and Vegetables. - Critical Re- views in Food Sci. Nutr., 28: 1-30. KAUSHAL B.B.L., THAKUR K.S., 1996 - Influence of ambient and evaporative cool chamber conditions on the quality of polyethylene packed Kinnow fruit. - Adv. Hort. Sci., 10(4): 179-184. LADANIYA M.S., 2001 - Response of ‘Musambi’ sweet orange (Citrus sinensis L.) to degreening, mechanical waxing, pack- aging and ambient storage conditions. - Indian J. Agric. Sci., 71: 234-239. LADANIYA M.S., SONKAR R.K., 1997 - Effect of curing, wax Table 6 - Effect of postharvest treatments on overall acceptability* of ‘Kinnow’ fruits under different storage systems during 60 days of storage Storage systems (S) Treatments (T) Storage intervals (days) 15 30 45 60 Mean Room temperature (18-32°C, RH 45-65%) T 1 6.80 5.80 5.40 3.80 5.45 T 2 7.20 6.20 5.60 4.60 5.90 T 3 7.20 6.40 6.00 4.60 6.05 T 4 7.60 7.20 6.80 5.20 6.70 T 5 7.40 6.80 6.40 5.40 6.50 T 6 7.80 5.00 3.80 2.80 4.60 T 7 7.20 5.60 4.60 4.00 5.35 T 8 7.00 5.40 4.20 3.40 5.00 T 9 6.80 5.00 3.80 2.40 4.50 T 10 8.00 6.40 5.70 3.20 5.82 T 11 6.00 4.80 3.00 1.80 3.90 Mean 7.18 5.87 5.03 3.75 5.43 Zero energy cool chamber (12-22°C, RH 80-95%) T 1 8.20 7.60 7.20 6.60 7.40 T 2 7.80 7.80 7.40 6.80 7.45 T 3 8.00 7.80 7.60 7.20 7.65 T 4 8.20 8.00 7.80 7.60 7.90 T 5 8.00 7.80 7.60 7.20 7.65 T 6 7.80 7.60 7.00 6.40 7.20 T 7 7.80 7.80 7.20 6.60 7.35 T 8 7.80 7.60 7.00 6.60 7.25 T 9 7.60 7.00 5.80 5.60 6.50 T 10 8.60 8.40 6.80 5.60 7.35 T 11 7.60 6.40 5.80 5.40 6.30 Mean 7.95 7.62 7.02 6.51 7.27 Cold storage (4±1°C, RH 85-95%) T 1 8.20 8.00 7.80 7.20 7.80 T 2 8.20 7.80 7.60 7.20 7.70 T 3 8.20 8.00 7.80 7.40 7.85 T 4 8.40 8.20 8.00 7.80 8.10 T 5 8.20 8.00 7.80 7.40 7.85 T 6 8.00 8.00 7.60 7.00 7.65 T 7 8.00 7.80 7.40 6.80 7.50 T 8 7.80 7.80 7.20 7.00 7.45 T 9 7.80 7.40 6.80 6.40 7.10 T 10 8.80 8.60 7.10 6.20 7.67 T 11 7.80 7.40 7.00 6.40 7.15 Mean 8.12 7.90 7.46 6.98 7.62 CD 0.05 , Storage systems (S)- 0.09, SxT- 0.31, SxI- 0.18, SxTxI- 0.62. *Initial score for overall acceptability = 8.60. 158 application and packaging on quality of stored Nagpur man- darins. - Indian J. Agric. Sci., 67: 500-503. LADANIYA M.S., 2007 - Quality and Carbendazim residues of Nagpur mandarin fruit in modified atmosphere package. - J. Food Sci. Technol., 44: 85-89. LEI J., PANG J., LI S., XIONG B., CAI L.G., 2012 - Applica- tion of new physical storage technology in Fruit and veg- etable industry. - Afr. J. Biotechnol., 11: 6718-6722. MANZANO J.E., DIAZ A., 2001 - Effect of storage time, tem- perature and wax coating on the quality of fruits of ‘Valen- cia’ orange (Citrus sinensis L.). - Proceedings International Society for Tropical Horticulture, 44: 24-29. MAHAJAN B.Y.C., DHATT A.S., SANDHU K.S., 2005 - Ef- fect of different post harvest treatments on the storage life of ‘Kinnow’. - J. Food Sci. Technol., 42: 296-299. PAL R.K., ROY S.K., SRIVASTAVA S., 1997 - Storage perfor- mance of ‘Kinnow’ mandarin in evaporative cool chamber and ambient condition. - J. Food Sci. Technol., 34: 200-203. ROY S.K., KHURDIYA D.S., 1986 - Studies on evaporative cooled zero-energy input cool chamber for the storage of horticultural produce. - Indian Food Packer, 40: 26-31. SHAHID M.N., ABBASI N.A., 2011 - Effect of bee wax coating on physiological changes in fruits of Sweet orange cv. Blood red. - Sarhad J. Agric., 27(3): 385-394. SHARMA R.R., PAL R.K., RANA V., 2012 - Effect of heat shrinkable films on storability of ‘Kinnow’ fruits under am- bient condition. - Indian J. Hort., 69: 404-408. SIDDIQUI M.W., 2008 - Studies on some aspects of mango rip- ening. - M.Sc. Thesis, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidya- laya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal, India. SIDDIQUI M.W., BHATTACHARJYA A., CHAKRABORTY I., DHUA R.S., 2011 - 6-benzylaminopurine improves shelf life, organoleptic quality, and health-promoting compounds of fresh-cut broccoli florets. - J. Sci. Indus. Res., 70: 461-465. SIDDIQUI M.W., DHUA R.S., 2010 - Eating artificially rip- ened fruits is harmful. - Curr. Sci., 99: 1664-1668. SINGH D., JAIN R.K., 2004 - Post harvest losses in distance marketing of Kinnow. - Plant Dis. Res., 19: 36-39. SINGH A.K., SINGH C.P., KUSHWAHA P.S., CHAKRABORTY B., 2012 - Effect of postharvest treat- ments on Fruit marketability and physico-chemical charac- teristics of Dashehri mango. - Prog. Hort., 44: 215-219. SOGI D.S., SINGH S., 2001 - Studies on bitterness development in Kinnow juice ready-to-serve beverage, squash, jam and candy. - J. Food Sci. Technol., 38: 433-438. SONKAR R.K., SARNAIK D.A., DIKSHIT S.N., SAXENA R.R., SINGH V.K., 2008 - Wrapping of Kinnow mandarin with LDPE film under ambient storage. - 11th International Citrus Congress (ISC Congress) Wuhan China, pp. 333. WANG R.K., SHAO P.F., ZHOU L., ZHU R.G., 2004 - Effect of fruit waxing Agent A on the commodity quality of Jincheng orange variety. - South China Fruits, 29: 13-15. WASKAR D.P., GAIKWARD R.S., 2005 - Effect of various postharvest treatments on extension of shelf-life of Kesar mango fruits. - Indian J. Agric. Res., 39: 95-102. WORAWARAN R., NITHIYA R., NOPPOL L., DANAI B., 2013 - Influence of storage conditions on physico-chemical and biochemical of two tangerine cultivars. - J. Agric. Sci., 5: 70-84. WILLS R., MCGLASSON B., GRAHAM D., JOYCE D., 2007 - Postharvest: An Introduction to the physiology and han- dling of fruit, vegetables and ornamentals. - Second edition, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, Australia. WILLS R.B.H., BAM B.P.A., SCOTT K.J., 1980 - Use of flesh firmness and their objective tests to determine consumer acceptability of Delicious apple. - Austral. J. Expt. Agric. Anim. Husb., 20: 252-256.