







































 
 

182 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Agriculture and Food Sciences Research 
Vol. 6, No. 2, 182-197, 2019 

ISSN(E) 2411-6653/ ISSN(P) 2518-0193 
DOI: 10.20448/journal.512.2019.62.182.197 

© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

    
 

 
 
 
Quality of Peach (Prunus persica L.) Genotypes Packed in LDPE Plastic Packaging 
under Different Storage Conditions 

 
Tajebe Mosie1    
Kebede Woldetsadik2 
Mulualem Azene3 

 

 
( Corresponding Author) 

 
1Holeta Agricultural Research Center; Temperate and Indigenous Fruits Research Program, Holeta, Ethiopia. 

 
2Haramaya University, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, School of Plant Sciences, Dire Dawa, 
Ethiopia. 

 
3Ambo University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, Department of Horticulture, Ambo, Ethiopia. 

 

 
Abstract 

Peach Marketing in Ethiopia is complicated by postharvest losses like other horticulture produce. 
Although peach varieties have been introduced and studied for their productivity, their 
postharvest quality has not been evaluated at Holeta. Therefore, the experiment was done to 
assess influence of polyethylene plastic packaging and storage conditions on postharvest quality 
and storage life stability of peach genotypes. It was conducted at Holeta agricultural research 
center from January to February, 2018. Peach genotypes ‘Bonnigold, Early Grande, 90-19H and 
Topic Beauty’ packed in perforated and non-perforated low density polyethylene plastic (LDPE) 
and stored under two storage conditions i.e. ambient (6.4°C to 20.2 °C; 40%–71 % RH) and cold 
storage (-1°C to1 °C; 85–99 % RH). Genotypes had different response to packaging materials and 
storage conditions. Perforated bag packaging with cold storage was found more effective as 
compared to non-perforated and the control fruits in maintaining firmness. Non-perforated bag 
packaging’s combined with cold storage extended shelf life of peach fruits 10 – 20 days compared 
to other treatment combinations. The non-perforated plastic packaged fruits stored in the cold 
storage also maintained more TSS, AA, TA, TSS/TA, pH, marketability and specific gravity 
content and lowered weight loss and decay. Therefore, non-perforated plastic packaging with cold 
storage condition can be considered in maintaining its quality and extending the shelf life of 
peaches mainly for commercial producers, traders as well as research stations. 

 
Keywords: Packaging films, Peach, Quality, Storage condition, Genotypes, Perforated plastic, Shelf life. 

 
Citation | Tajebe Mosie; Kebede Woldetsadik; Mulualem Azene 
(2019). Quality of Peach (Prunus persica L.) Genotypes Packed in 
LDPE Plastic Packaging under Different Storage Conditions. 
Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 6(2): 182-197. 
History:  
Received: 5 April 2019 
Revised: 15 May 2019 
Accepted: 25 June 2019 
Published: 20 August 2019 
Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 3.0 License  
Publisher:  Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Acknowledgement: The authors express their heartfelt gratitude for Holeta 
agricultural research center staff members particularly horticulture case team 
for their valuable contribution for the accomplishment of this research. 
Funding: This study is funded by Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural 
Research. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of 
interests. 
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, 
accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital 
features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the 
study as planned have been explained. 
Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing.   

 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 183 
2. Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................................................................. 183 
3. Statistical Data Analysis............................................................................................................................................................... 185 
4. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................. 185 
5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 192 
References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 195 
 

 
 

 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.512.2019.62.182.197&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.512.2019.62.182.197&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AESR/article/view/929
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7985-7928


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

183 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Contribution of this paper to the literature 
This study contributes to literature by evaluating the quality and shelf life stability of peach (prunus 
persica) genotypes packed in LDPE plastic packaging. 

 
1. Introduction 

Peach (prunus persica (L.) Batsch) is mainly grown in temperate regions and is the most important among the 
stone fruits [1]. It is a versatile fruit with good source of antioxidants Byrne [2] and Cantin, et al. [3]. Peaches 
consumption has increased due to high sources of sugars, organic acids, minerals and vitamins.  

Ethiopian highlands are endowed with a mosaic of soils and climate which are suitable for the production of 
many temperate fruits and nut crops. The country is characterized by having diverse topography and agro-
ecological zones, of which over 50% of the total area is highland with elevation between 2000 – 4500 masl with 
adequate water resources and low temperature during winter that can favor many temperate fruit crops to grow 
[4]. Ethiopia’s share of peach and nectarine production in the world is negligible (172 tons and area coverage of 31 
hectare). However, equations show increasing in area as well as production compared to previous years [5]. 

Peach is a climacteric fruit that have short shelf life under room temperature due to their high respiratory rate 
and fast ripening process. The ripening of peaches is complex that cannot be measured by a single factor. 
Moreover, its marketing in Ethiopia is complicated by high postharvest losses like other fresh produces. A 
postharvest loss of about 30% is reported for fresh produce in Ethiopia [6]. This postharvest loss is due to poor 
storage facilities coupled with improper packaging and transportation [7]. 

Peaches are highly perishable that do not able to prolonged storage. Generally, peach varieties have a very 
short storage potential due to fast ripening process; which results in a limited time for commercialization. High 
temperature combined with low relative humidity during harvesting and marketing are the major factors which 
reduce the post-harvest life of peaches. Under ambient storage conditions the life of peach does not exceed 3-5 days 
[8]. 

Refrigerator storage is chosen for extending the commercial life of peach fruits [9]. Sound, well matured peach 
fruits can be stored for 14 - 42 days under -0.6 - 0 oC temperature range [10]. On the other hand, if stored too long 
at or near 0 oC, they are subjected to chilling injury. The start of such symptoms determines the postharvest 
storage capacity since chilling injury can reduce consumer acceptance [11]. Storage at low temperatures, mainly 
with the range of 2.2-5 oC, is prone to physiological disorder known as internal breakdown [12] which is a 
symptom associated with chilling injury [12]. Many activities have been studied to reduce the incidence of 
physiological disorder in peach cultivars [12] including cold room with controlled atmosphere (CA) storage. CA 
storage has shown the reduction of mealiness in peach and nectarine cultivars, mainly with high CO2 and reduced 
O2 levels [13]. 

Packages during harvesting and postharvest handling of fresh produce are used to reduce damage and 
postharvest loss [14]. Packing of fruits in polymeric films creates modified atmospheric conditions (MAP) inside 
the package which results in reduced rate of respiration, transpiration, delaying ripening and other metabolic 
processes of fruits [15]. This packaging technique is accepted now as the technology of future. Changes that result 
in loss in quality occur during postharvest storage of fresh produce as a result of internal and external factors. 
Therefore, use of environmentally friendly technologies such as cold storage, waxing, calcium dipping, packaging 
and use of plant extracts can be used to delay the adverse effects [16]. 

Postharvest factors responsible for development of browning are the picking date, the duration of the cooling 
period, the CO2 and O2 partial pressure, the storage temperature and condition [17]. Although peach varieties have 
been introduced and evaluated for their productivity, their postharvest quality was not evaluated in our country. 
Besides, efforts have not been done to evaluate the influence of postharvest handling practices to maintain peach 
fruit quality and shelf life at Holeta agricultural research center; local producers store the fruits in pure water till 
transported to market. Thus the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of peach genotypes packed in 
plastic packaging under different storage conditions at Holeta, Central Ethiopia. 
 

2. Materials and Methods 
2.1. Experimental Sites 

This study was conducted at Holeta Agricultural Research Center (HARC) which is situated at an altitude of 
2400 masl 09`N latitude and 38`29E longitude. The area is characterized by mean annual rainfall of 1041.4 mm and 
relative humidity of 58.7%. The main rainy season is June to September, which accounts for 70% of the rainfall 
while the remaining 30% is from February to April. The average annual maximum and minimum temperature is 
21.7 °C and 6.7 °C, respectively [18].  
 

2.2. Treatments and Experimental Design 
The treatments consisted of 4x3x2 factorial combinations of peach genotypes (Tropic Beauty, 90-19H, 

Bonnigold and Early Grande), LDPE plastic packaging (perforated plastic, non-perforated plastic and non-
packaged) and storage conditions (cold and ambient). Completely randomized design (CRD) with factorial 
arrangement with three replications was used. The experiment was conducted between January and February 2018 
at Holeta Agricultural Research center horticulture laboratory. 

 
2.3. Experimental Procedure 

Peach fruits were obtained from orchard of Holeta Agricultural Research Center. Fruits were harvested from 
13 years old trees that received all the necessary management practices (pruning, training, fertilization and 
irrigation) uniformly. Fruits were harvested when surface color changed from green to yellow and shape with 
fullness of shoulder and suture [19].  

 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

184 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

2.4. Data Collection 
Three fruits of sample per treatment were taken to laboratory for chemical analysis at five days interval. Ten 

fruits were kept for non-destructive evaluation per treatment. 

 
2.4.1. Physiological Loss in Weight (PLW) 

Physiological loss in weight was determined using the methods described by Mohammed, et al. [20]. Weight 
loss was calculated using the formula: 

𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 (%) =
𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡−𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡

𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑥100               (1) 

 
2.4.2. Total Soluble Solid 

It was determined in the laboratory by extracting the juice of three peach fruits flesh using juice extractor. The 
reading of TSS was taken from hand held refract- meter with a reading of 0-32 oBrix.  

 
2.4.3. pHand Titratable Acidity (TA) 

The pH was measured  with pH meter and TA was obtained by using the method of Garner, et al. [21]. The 
acidity was calculated with the following formula: 

             %𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
[𝑚𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻]𝑥[0.1𝑁 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻][𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟][100]

𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒
           (2) 

Where, a stone fruit predominant acid is malic acid and its milli equivalent factor is 0.067. 

 
2.4.4. TSS/Acid Ratio (Ripening Index): 

It was determined by dividing total soluble solid taken from refractometer reading (oBrix) by percent acidity 
obtained in titratable acidity. 
 

2.4.5. Ascorbic Acid (AA) 
It was measured by using a modified method of Bessey and King [22]. Concentration of vitamin C in peach 

flesh juice was determined by the following equation: 

Conc. of vitamin C in juice (
mg

ml
) =

𝐷𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑃 (𝑚𝑙)𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑗𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒

𝐷𝐶𝑃𝐼𝑃 (𝑚𝑙)𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑
𝑥1𝑚𝑔/𝑚𝑙     (3) 

Ascorbic acid content was expressed on a fresh weight basis as mg 100 g-1 of juice. 

 
2.4.6. Firmness 

Firmness of peach fruit was assessed using the subjective method by pressing the fruit with the thumb and 
forefinger [23]. The firmness of fruit was measured based on the resistance of finger pressure and scored by 
partially trained panelists, using a 1 to 5 scale which represents five firmness classes. The firmness classes was 
represented as 1 = extra soft, 2 = soft, 3 = firm, 4 = hard, and 5 = extra hard. 

 
2.4.7. Fruit Marketability 

Was assessed subjectively using the procedure described by Mohammed, et al. [20]. The descriptive quality 
attributes were determined by observing the level of decay, color, surface defects and shriveling. A 1-9 ratings, 
with 1=unusable, 3=unmarketable, 5=fair, 7=good and 9=excellent, was used to evaluate the fruit quality. Fruits 
receiving a rating of five and above were considered as marketable, while those rated less than five were 
unmarketable. The number of marketable fruits was used as a measure to calculate the percentage of marketable 
fruits during storage. 

Percentage marketability =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑠

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑠
𝑥100           (4) 

 
2.4.8. Percentage Decay 

Percentage decay is the number of decayed fruits due to micro-organisms infection which was recorded and 
calculated as a percentage of the total number of fruits using the following equation. Fruit was considered as rotten 
when more than 5% of surface area was decayed, blackened or rotten [24]. 

Percentage decay =
𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡
𝑥100                               (5) 

 
2.4.9. Specific Gravity (SG) 

Was determined by converting total soluble solid reading expressed with oBrix using the following simple 
equation [25]: 

               SG = 1 + (0.004 x oBrix)                                                            (6) 
Where, oBrix= TSS reading, SG= specific gravity and 0.004 gravity point (constant). 

 
2.4.10. Flesh Color Browning 

Fruits were visually evaluated for flesh color browning and scored by sensory panelists, using a 1-6 scale which 
presents six flesh browning stages of peach. The six browning stages was represented as 1=none, 2=very slight 
browning in the pit cavity, 3=slight browning in the pit cavity and surrounding tissue, 4=moderate browning on 
less than 50% of the flesh, 5=severe browning on 50-75% of the flesh, and 6=extreme browning covering most of 
the flesh [26]. 
 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

185 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

3. Statistical Data Analysis 
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the parameters was done using SAS statistical software and comparison of 

treatment means was made by Least Significance difference Test at 5% probability level. 
 

4. Results and Discussion 
4.1. The Storage Conditions 

Temperature (T0) and relative humidity (RH) of both ambient and cold storage conditions were recorded 
during the storage period. Under ambient condition temperature were varied between 6.4 °C and 20.2 °C with the 
average of 13.3 °C while the cold storage temperature was maintained between -1 and 1 °C. The relative humidity 
of the storage environment ranged between 40% and 71% under the ambient conditions, with average 55.5% while 
it ranged between 85% and 99% in cold store with the average being 92%.  
 
4.2. Physiological Loss in Weight 

There was highly significant (P≤0.001) difference in physiological loss in weight (PLW) due to the combined 
effect of packaging and storage condition on peach fruit genotypes throughout the storage period Table 1. The 
weight loss values varied between 0.01 to 6.3% on day 5 and from 0.30% to total loss on day 10. 

Generally, Weight loss of peach fruits was increased during the storage period both under cold and ambient 
conditions. On day 5, weight loss of non-packaged fruits of Early Grande variety stored at ambient condition was 
6.30 % which was significantly (P≤0.001) higher than weight loss of peach fruits subjected to all other treatments 
on the same date. Fruits packaged with perforated plastic and stored at ambient conditions had a relatively higher 
weight loss next to non-packaged ones. The highest weight loss was recorded from the control fruits of Early 
Grande variety stored at cold storage, whereas the lowest was for fruits of 90-19H without packaging and stored in 
the cold storage on day 10. From day 10 onwards, fruits of all cultivars kept ambient condition without packaging 
were unmarketable whereas all cultivars kept in cold store were in good condition up to the last storage period (30 
days) with PWL ranging from 0.3% (Tropic Beauty packaged in perforated plastic) to 3.37% in cultivar 90-19H 
packaged in perforated plastic. Non-perforated plastic in cold store kept fruit PWL less than 1% while in the 
perforated plastic combined with cold store it reached 2.14% (Tropic Beauty) to 3.37% (90-19H) on day 30 of 
storage. In general, peach fruits packed with non-perforated plastic bags showed lower weight loss both under 
ambient and cold storage compared to perforated plastic and control in respective storage conditions. This could be 
due to less availability of O2 inside non-perforated packed fruits for respiration. Therefore, reduction in the rate of 
respiration which ultimately caused decrease and increase in O2 and CO2 levels, respectively, as storage time 
advances. The balanced levels of CO2 and O2 inside the package after initial storage could cause marked changes in 
the activities of specific enzymes [27]. After day 5, nearly all non-packed fruits stored under ambient conditions 
were unmarketable while those fruits in cold storage kept well for over 10 days.  

Generally, weight loss of fruits was higher under ambient condition than in the cold storage which is varied 
with genotypes. Lower weight loss in non-perforated polyethylene packed fruits might be due to less availability of 
oxygen for respiration. The present results are in agreement with the findings of Calvo, et al. [28] and Tijskens 
and Vollebregt [29]. Weight loss differences among the treatments also appear to be due to differences in 
temperature and relative humidity among the storage conditions. Hence reduced rate of respiration and 
transpiration at lower temperature and higher relative humidity (RH) could be the reason for such reduced rate of 
weight loss of fruits in the cold storage [30]. About 10.0% physiological loss in weight is considered as an index of 
termination of shelf life of commodities[31]. 

High storage temperature leads to accelerated water loss and subsequently to shriveling and softening of the 
fruit [32]. High temperature contributed to high water loss of peach in ambient condition which is associated with 
faster metabolism; increased cell wall degradation and higher membrane permeability leading to easy evaporation 
[33].  

Furthermore, lower weight loss of fruits in the package could be due to slow rate of ripening and prevention of 
excessive moisture loss. Similar results were also presented by Tilahunsiyum and Kebede [34] and Nath, et al. 
[35]. Relatively lower water vapor transmission rate of non-perforated plastic may also contribute for the 
development of relative higher humidity inside the package Mathooko [36]. According to Ben-Yehoshua [37] the 
main function of packaging is to reduce respiration rate and water loss by transpiration which could affect the fruits 
metabolism. This might have led to the extension of shelf life of peach fruits in non-perforated plastic as compared 
to control and perforated packed fruits. The present findings are in agreement with the previous findings of 
Ribeiro, et al. [38] and Drake, et al. [39]. 
 

4.3. Total Soluble Solids 
The values in total soluble solids (TSS) of peach fruits during the storage periods are displayed in Table 2. 

There was significant (P≤0.05) interaction effect of storage condition, genotype and packaging on the TSS values 
of fruits which varied between 8.3–13.33 °Brix in the cold storage and from 8.33–12.4 °Brix under ambient 
conditions. There is high consumer acceptance of peaches with high soluble solids; for mid-season peach cultivars a 
minimum of 11.0% TSS is considered optimum [40]. TSS value showed increment with storage duration in 
respective treatments. Acceptable TSS values were attained in Bonnigold and Early Grande on day five while the 
remaining cultivars required 10 to 15 days to reach similar levels. In general, non-packaged fruits had relatively 
higher TSS while lower values were recorded in non-perforated plastic packed fruits. In cold storage, Bonnigold 
variety with perforated plastic packs had the highest TSS content (13.33) while least value was recorded in 90-19H 
(11.07) at the end of storage. Increase in TSS during storage might be associated with starch hydrolysis of fruits 
[41].  
 
 
 

 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

186 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Table-1. Influence of plastic packaging and storage condition on PLW of peach genotypes during the storage period. 

Treatments  Storage period(days) 

Genotypes Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 0.00 0.44ij 1.01i 1.17h 1.83d 2.07d 2.14d 
Ambient 0.00 0.53i 1.23h 1.78f - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 0.00 0.01m 0.30m 0.31l 0.50i 0.59h 0.62h 
Ambient 0.00 0.17klm 0.41l 0.47k 0.72g - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 0.00 2.38e 10.54b - - - - 
Ambient 0.00 4.08c - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 0.00 0.29jk 2.46e 2.60c 3.29a 3.35a 3.37a 
Ambient 0.00 0.77h 3.47d 3.95a - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 0.00 0.02lm 0.60k 0.68j 0.74g 0.78f 0.80f 
Ambient 0.00 0.12klm 0.81j 1.25h 1.44e - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 0.00 3.53d 10.35c - - - - 
Ambient 0.00 5.66b - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 0.00 0.81h 1.19h 2.53c 2.90b 2.94b 2.96b 
Ambient 0.00 0.12klm 1.83f 2.27d - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 0.00 0.01m 0.49l 0.55k 0.90f 0.94e 0.96e 
Ambient 0.00 0.13klm 0.85j 1.63g 1.82d - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 0.00 1.29g 10.42c - - - - 
Ambient 0.00 5.60b - - - - - 

Early Grande Perforated Cold 0.00 0.23jkl 1.58g 2.00e 2.11c 2.18c 2.20c 
Ambient 0.00 0.60hi 2.48e 2.98b - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 0.00 0.02lm 0.47l 0.56k 0.59h 0.67g 0.69g 
Ambient 0.00 0.19klm 0.84j 0.91i 0.95f - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 0.00 1.63f 10.95a - - - - 
Ambient 0.00 6.30a - - - - - 

SE± - 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 
CV (%) - 9.10 1.88 3.54 2.57 1.97 1.53 

                Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 
On day 5 the control fruits of Bonnigold stored at ambient conditions had the highest TSS value (11.33 °Brix) 

while Tropic Beauty had the lowest TSS value (9.27). Likewise, on day 10, control fruits of Bonnigold stored in the 
cold storage attained the highest TSS content (13.33 °Brix) while Tropic Beauty under similar condition had the 
lowest TSS content (9.53).This could be due to accelerated ripening because of higher temperature at ambient 
conditions and free access of the non-packed fruits to O2which increase respiration rates, resulting in faster 
conversion of starch to soluble sugars [30]. The variations of values among the cultivars show differences in their 
genetic makeup and response to storage conditions.  

Perforated LDPE bag packaged fruits followed by non-perforated LDPE packed ones maintain their TSS value 
better than the control under cold storage condition whereas non-perforated LDPE packed fruits followed by 
perforated LDPE packed ones maintained their TSS value better than control under ambient condition. TSS of 
fruits kept in perforated and non-perforated packages and stored in the cold storage increased slowly and reached 
their maximum on 30th day of storage. Slow increment in TSS of fruits in non-perforated plastic package during 
storage could be due to production of higher levels of CO2, which may lead to less physiological processes and slow 
ripening of fruits. 

Those fruits packaged using perforated plastic and stored under ambient conditions attain their maximum TSS 
on day 15. On the other hand, non-perforated packaged fruits stored at ambient conditions reached their maximum 
TSS on day 20. Slight rises in the TSS levels were observed under both cold and ambient storage conditions 
regardless of the packaging types. However, the TSS of peach fruits was maintained at lower level in the cold 
storage than under ambient condition. High temperature enhances climacteric respiration, which leads to shorter 
shelf life of fruits [42]. Slow changes in TSS of fruits stored in the cold storage is in agreement with the findings of 
Aliye, et al. [43]for mango and Hirut, et al. [44] for tomato. This may be partly attributed to lower temperature 
and higher relative humidity maintained in the cold storage that could have resulted in slow conversion of starch in 
to water soluble sugars [42].  

In general, packing of peach fruits in plastic bags combined with cold storage showed better maintenance of the 
TSS towards the end of storage time. In agreement with this result, increases occurred in TSS values with the 
prolonging storage period with MAP storage of peach and nectarine cultivars [45]. The changes reputed in TSS 
determined during the storage of fruits in a study on MAP of different peach and nectarine cultivars carried out by 
Agar, et al. [46] and Fernandez and Artes [47] support the results obtained from this study. The possible 
atmospheric modification, that is, reduced O2 and increased CO2 created in the package, combined with lower 
temperature in the cold storage might have delayed ripening of the fruits as a result of reduced respiration rate 
[36]. Hence, packed fruits do not rapidly deplete their soluble solids as those of the control fruits as observed in 
this study. 

 

4.4. pH 
The pH values of peach fruit genotypes subjected to different packaging and storage treatments for 30 days 

displayed in Table 3. Its values varied from 3.72–3.97 when stored in the cold storage and from 3.74–3.96 when 
stored under ambient conditions. Under both storage conditions, packed fruits had higher pH values compared to 
their respective control treatments. On day 5, cultivar 90-19H packed in non-perforated plastic and stored at 
ambient had the highest pH value (3.91).  

 
 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

187 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Table-2. Influence of plastic packing and storage condition on TSS of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period(days) 

Variety Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 8.46a 9.07f-j 9.40hi 10.00fg 10.87e 11.00d 11.13d 
Ambient 8.23a 8.67ij 9.07i 10.27fg - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 8.26a 8.47ij 8.73i 9.73g 10.13f 10.60e 10.73e 
Ambient 8.40a 8.33j 9.47hi 9.80g 10.40ef - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 8.60a 9.20f-j 9.53hi - - - - 
Ambient 8.80a 9.27f-i - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 8.46a 8.30j 9.27i 10.40fg 10.80e 10.93de 11.07de 
Ambient 8.33a 8.73hij 10.10gh 10.40fg - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 8.46a 8.80hij 9.27i 10.07fg 10.80e 10.87de 11.00de 
Ambient 8.66a 8.93g-j 9.27i 10.53f 10.87e - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 8.46a 9.97def 10.53fg - - - - 
Ambient 8.66a 9.33f-i - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 8.66a 9.80d-g 11.17c-f 12.87a 12.93a 13.13a 13.33a 
Ambient 8.40a 10.53cd 11.20c-f 11.53cde - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 8.46a 10.33de 10.80d-g 12.33ab 12.47ab 12.67b 12.87b 
Ambient 8.73a 9.37fg 11.53dc 12.00bcd 12.20bc - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 8.50a 11.30bc 13.33a - - - - 
Ambient 8.40a 11.33bc - - - - - 

Early Grande Perforated Cold 8.33a 10.67cd 11.40cde 12.13bc 12.40ab 12.53b 12.67b 
Ambient 8.86a 11.70ab 11.97bc 12.40ab - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 8.36a 10.33de 10.67efg 11.27e 11.47d 11.67c 11.93c 
Ambient 8.40a 9.60e-h 10.80d-g 11.33de 11.67cd - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 8.53a 12.27a 12.73ab - - - - 
Ambient 8.40a 10.60cd - - - - - 

SE± 0.27 0.33 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.13 0.12 
CV (%) 5.62 5.75 4.63 3.90 3.09 1.92 1.82 

         Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 
Table-3. Influence of plastic packing and storage condition on pH of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period(days) 

Variety Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 3.72a 3.81de 3.84f-i 3.85d 3.89bc 3.91bc 3.95b 
Ambient 3.71a 3.81de 3.82hi 3.84de - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 3.72a 3.85b 3.89c 3.90b 3.90b 3.92ab 3.95b 
Ambient 3.71a 3.91a 3.92a 3.94a 3.95a - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 3.71a 3.84b 3.86def - - - - 
Ambient 3.71a 3.82cde - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 3.71a 3.73ij 3.77j 3.85d 3.87cd 3.92ab 3.95b 
Ambient 3.71a 3.85b 3.83ghi 3.93a - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 3.72a 3.86b 3.89bc 3.90b 3.91b 3.94a 3.97a 
Ambient 3.71a 3.91a 3.91ab 3.94a 3.96a - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 3.72a 3.84bc 3.85efg - - - - 
Ambient 3.71a 3.79fg - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 3.71a 3.81de 3.84f-i 3.86cd 3.89bc 3.90bc 3.93c 
Ambient 3.72a 3.74hi 3.82hi 3.83e - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 3.71a 3.72j 3.77j 3.84de 3.86d 3.89c 3.93c 
Ambient 3.71a 3.81de 3.85e-h 3.88bc 3.91b - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 3.71a 3.75hi 3.78j - - - - 
Ambient 3.71a 3.81de - - - - - 

Early Grande Perforated Cold 3.70a 3.81de 3.83ghi 3.88bc 3.89bc 3.91bc 3.93c 
Ambient 3.71a 3.76h 3.82hi 3.89b - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 3.71a 3.83bcd 3.88cd 3.89bc 3.90bc 3.91bc 3.93c 
Ambient 3.71a 3.76gh 3.93a 3.95a 3.96a - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 3.71a 3.77gh 3.87cde - - - - 
Ambient 3.70a 3.81de - - - - - 

SE± 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 
CV (%) 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.24 

           Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 
On day 10 of storage time, Early Grande packed in non-perforated plastic and kept at ambient had the highest 

pH (3.93). On day 30, genotype 90-19H packaged in non-perforated plastic and stored in cold storage had the 
highest pH value (3.97) while the least value (3.93) was recorded with Bonnigold and Early Grande that were 
packed in both perforated and non-perforated plastic.  

The higher pH of fruits under ambient storage conditions at initial stage could be associated with the 
breakdown of acids and sugar in respiration process at faster rate under ambient than in the cold condition [48]. 
Hence, lowering the storage temperature can reduce respiration rate and delay senescence of peach fruits. 
Relatively lower pH values of packed fruits could be explained by reduced respiration rate in the package. Reduced 
O2 and increased CO2 which could be created as a result of respiration could delay the rate of respiration in the 
package and keep pH values low [36]. The rate of use of acids as respiratory substrates may increase at higher 
temperature and result in depletion of acid content of fruits stored at ambient condition [48]. pH values of peach 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

188 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

fruits, generally, increased with ripening of the fruits and this could be attributed to the fact that fruits with 
ripening process diminish its predominant malic acid [49]. The increase in pH value of peach with advance in 
storage time is in agreement with the findings of Agozzino, et al. [50]. 
 
4.5. Titratable Acidity 

The interaction between packing materials, genotypes and storage conditions had highly significant (p≤0.001) 
effect on the titratable acidity of peach fruits Table 4. Titratable acidity of the sample fruits, irrespective of the 
treatments, decreased linearly throughout the storage period, as opposed to pH value which showed increasing 
trend. The TA value varied from 0.82% in 90-19H genotype packed in plastic and stored in cold storage on day 30 
to 1.21% in Early Grande cultivar packed in perforated plastic and stored under ambient condition on day 5. This 
trend is in agreement with the findings of Pongener, et al. [51] that the titratable acidity of peach fruits packed 
under polythene films showed a linear declining trend with the advancement of storage period which could be due 
to its use by the cells as a respiration substrate [49]. On day 5 and 10 of storage, the TA of Early Grande variety 
under perforated plastic package and stored at ambient condition was significantly higher than TA values in all 
other treatments.  
 

Table-4. Influence of plastic packaging and storage condition on TA of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period(days) 

Variety Plastic Packaging Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 0.72a 1.09cde 1.06cd 1.02cd 0.98ab 0.93ab 0.88bc 

Ambient 0.73a 1.11cd 1.05cd 0.99cd - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 0.72a 1.06def 1.02cd 0.99cd 0.96b 0.94ab 0.89bc 

Ambient 0.73a 1.04ef 1.01d 0.96def 0.89c - - 
Non-packaged Cold 0.73a 1.10cde 1.07cd - - - - 

Ambient 0.73a 0.82j - - - - - 
90-19H Perforated Cold 0.73a 1.03fg 1.00d 0.93efg 0.87c 0.84c 0.82d 

Ambient 0.72a 0.96h 0.89e 0.89g - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 0.73a 0.95h 0.87e 0.88g 0.86c 0.84c 0.82d 

Ambient 0.72a 0.96h 0.90e 0.89g 0.86c - - 
Non-packaged Cold 0.72a 1.09cde 1.05cd - - - - 

Ambient 0.72a 0.95h - - - - - 
Bonnigold Perforated Cold 0.72a 1.17ab 1.16ab 1.12a 1.02a 0.96a 0.93a 

Ambient 0.72a 1.07c-f 1.05cd 1.05bc - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 0.73a 1.06def 1.04cd 1.01cd 0.99ab 0.95a 0.92ab 

Ambient 0.73a 1.12bc 1.09bc 1.05bc 1.01a - - 
Non-packaged Cold 0.72a 1.04ef 1.02cd - - - - 

Ambient 0.72a 1.03fg - - - - - 
Early Grande Perforated Cold 0.72a 1.07c-f 1.04cd 1.04bc 0.99ab 0.92ab 0.88bc 

Ambient 0.73a 1.21a 1.21a 1.10ab - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 0.72a 0.96h 0.91e 0.99cd 0.96b 0.90b 0.84cd 

Ambient 0.72a 0.97gh 0.91e 0.92fg 0.90c - - 
Non-packaged Cold 0.73a 1.12bcd 1.09bc - - - - 

Ambient 0.73a 0.88i - - - - - 
SE± 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 

CV (%) 1.59 3.50 4.55 3.99 2.57 3.36 3.02 
        Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 
Perforated plastic packaged fruits of Bonnigold variety in the cold storage had higher TA values starting from 

day 15 to 30, indicating varietal difference and effect of storage condition on this parameter. Likewise, non- 
perforated plastic packaging tended to have TA values relatively lower than perforated packaged fruits and the 
control under their respective storage conditions and varieties.  

Previous report also shows that LDPE non-perforated packed fruits could maintain a higher level of acidity 
[35]. It might be due to reduced respiration rate in the later stage of storage as affected by film permeability to 
atmospheric gas. The titratable acidity of fruits was an indicator of potential storage quality and declined gradually 
over the storage period [52]. 

The lower TA value of polyethylene bag packed fruits in the cold storage could be explained by the reduced 
rate respiration which results in slow use of organic acids as a substrate of respiration. The higher loss of TA in 
control fruits could be due to depletion of organic acids as a result of relatively faster respiration and ripening rate 
of fruits at ambient storage Zerbini [53]. Kader [54] the atmospheric modification created when fruits are packed 
with bags may delay respiration and consumption of respiration substrates such as organic acids and sugars are 
reduced. Consequently, as the fruit respires, the O2 level decreases and the CO2 level increases in the bags [54]. 
Under these atmospheric conditions, the respiration rate of the fruit decrease which is helpful since high acidity in 
fruit has been suggested to contribute in part to the flavor retention of ripened fruit [55]. Generally, TA content of 
peach fruit had been maintained higher in the cold storage compared with ambient condition.  
 
4.6. TSS/TA (Ripening Index) 

The interaction effect between packing materials and storage conditions had significant (p≤0.05) effect on the 
ripening index of peach genotypes Table 5. The TSS/TA values of peach fruits showed an increase with storage 
time, which also varied with genotype and storage condition. TSS/TA ratio has important roles to play as 
parameters that can be used to tell maturity of peach fruit, especially for small-scale growers [56]. The ripening 
index is important for fruit flavor with lower values makes fruits more favorable [57].  

On day 5, Early Grande fruits without package and stored at ambient had the highest TSS/TA ratio (12.09). 
Compared to rest of the cultivars, Tropic Beauty recorded relatively lower TSS/TA values except in non-packaged 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

189 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

ones kept at ambient storage. On the 10th day of storage, non-packaged fruits of Bonnigold kept in cold storage 
resulted in the highest TSS/TA value (13.03). 

 
Table-5. Influence of plastic packaging and storage condition on TSS/TA of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period(days) 

Variety Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic 
Beauty 

Perforated Cold 10.9b 8.30gh 8.84hi 9.84f 11.13ef 11.79b 12.65c 
Ambient 11.4ab 7.82h 8.66i 10.33def - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 12.0ab 8.01h 8.62i 9.83f 10.53f 11.30b 12.12c 
Ambient 11.6ab 7.99h 9.41ghi 10.22ef 11.73de - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 11.9ab 8.37gh 8.95hi - - - - 
Ambient 12.0ab 11.37ab - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 11.5ab 8.10h 9.27ghi 11.25bcd 12.47abc 12.98a 13.51b 
Ambient 11.4ab 9.11fg 11.32bc 11.69abc - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 11.5ab 9.31fg 10.70cde 11.44bc 12.52abc 12.94a 13.47b 
Ambient 11.9ab 9.32fg 10.34def 11.88abc 12.59abc - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 11.6ab 9.14fg 10.09defg - - - - 
Ambient 11.9ab 9.80ef - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 11.8ab 8.38gh 9.61fgh 11.49abc 12.72ab 13.54a 14.29a 
Ambient 12.2a 9.84def 10.73cde 11.05cde - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 11.7ab 9.72f 10.42def 12.17ab 12.56abc 13.29a 13.99ab 

Ambient 11.9ab 8.34gh 10.60cde 11.45bc 12.08bcd - - 
Non-

packaged 
Cold 11.6ab 10.83bcd 13.03a - - - - 

Ambient 11.6ab 11.01bc - - - - - 
Early 

Grande 
Perforated Cold 11.5ab 10.01c-f 10.93bcd 11.71abc 12.48abc 13.58a 14.34a 

Ambient 12.3a 9.64f 9.93efg 11.31bc - - - 
Non-

perforated 
Cold 11.6ab 10.77b-e 11.73b 11.34bc 11.90cd 13.01a 14.16ab 

Ambient 11.5ab 9.87def 11.82b 12.40a 12.99a - - 
Non-

packaged 
Cold 11.7ab 10.98bc 11.64b - - - - 

Ambient 11.5ab 12.09a - - - - - 
SE± 0.39 0.36 0.39 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.24 

CV (%) 5.85 6.57 5.85 4.95 3.39 3.21 3.03 
              Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 
Towards the end of storage, Bonnigold and Early Grande cultivars either in perforated or non-perforated 

plastics had higher TSS/TA values (13.99 ― 14.34) while the lowest was recorded in Tropic Beauty under similar 
storage condition. Generally, there were increasing trend of TSS/TA towards the end of storage time due to 
increased TSS and decreased TA for respective treatment under both storage conditions which was similar with 
the findings of Mkhathini, et al. [56]. Similarly, the decrease in O2 and elevated CO2 due to packaging delay the 
ripening [58] and resulted in lower TSS/Acid ratio [59]. The negative correlation between firmness and TSS/TA 
reflect an increase in TSS and decrease in TA with decreasing firmness upon ripening [59]. 
 
4.7. Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) 

The interaction of packaging materials, genotypes and storage condition showed highly significant effect 
(P≤0.001) on the ascorbic acid (AA) content of peach fruit Table 6. Vit. C content of peach fruits varied from 11.44-

6.44 mg100−1 g which is in agreement with the range of 10.2–6.2 mg 100−1g AA reported by Mahajan, et al. [60]. 
Ascorbic acid content of the fruit generally showed linear decline during storage. Similar findings were also 
reported by Soliva-Fortuny and Martín-Belloso [52] in pear. On day 5 and 10 Bonnigold cultivar packaged in 
perforated plastic and kept at ambient had higher ascorbic acid content, which was at par with values of fruits of 
Early Grande cultivar kept in perforated plastic and stored in cold storage; After 15 days of storage, Bonnigold 
fruits with perforated plastic packages stored in cold store recorded higher ascorbic acid values, with the values 
from Early Grande being at par on day 15 and 20 and Bonnigold fruits in non-perforated fruits stored in cold store.  

All treatments showed decreasing trend towards the end of the storage time both at cold and ambient 
conditions. Activities of oxidizing enzymes might reduce in packed fruits and stored in cold result in higher 
vitamin C retention up to last day of storage. Variation in vitamin C retention in different treatments might be due 
to genetic differences and levels of oxidation as affected by temperature and plastic permeability to environmental 
oxygen. Lower loss of ascorbic acid content might be due to low O2 permeability, which reduces respiration rate. 
During storage, higher temperature and oxygen favor activities of oxidizing enzymes like ascorbic acid oxidase, 
peroxidase, catalase and polyphenol oxidase to act on substrates of respiration, including acids, and hasten loss of 
ascorbic acid of the fruits [61]. 

The vitamin C content decreased rapidly which was higher under ambient than in the cold storage. As the 
storage time increased, the trend was changed. Peaches stored in the cold storage showed more vitamin C content 
than those stored under ambient conditions. Packed fruits maintain and showed higher Vitamin C content than the 
control. This might be due to reduced rate of respiration at lower temperature and inside the package that retards 
respiration and depletion of acids. Furthermore, the reduction in internal O2 and ethylene concentration might 
explain the maintenance of higher value of AA in packed fruits although there is delay in respiration and ripening 
[54]. 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

190 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Table -6. Influence of plastic packing and storage condition on vitamin C content of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period (days) 

Variety Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 9.44a 9.11ghi 9.11cde 8.78ef 8.44b 7.89de 7.56de 
Ambient 8.99a 8.22ijk 8.00fg 7.33h - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 9.55a 9.22fgh 9.00de 8.78ef 8.44b 7.89de 7.44de 
Ambient 9.11a 9.55d-h 9.11cde 8.56f 7.44cd - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 9.11a 8.67hij 7.67g - - - - 
Ambient 9.11a 8.67hij - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 9.11a 7.66k 7.67g 7.44gh 7.22d 6.67f 6.44f 
Ambient 8.89a 8.22ijk 7.89g 7.44gh - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 8.99a 8.78hij 8.78ef 8.44f 7.89c 7.44e 7.33e 
Ambient 9.00a 9.89c-g 9.33cde 9.33bcd 8.44b - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 8.77a 8.00jk 7.44g - - - - 
Ambient 8.89a 7.44k - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 9.11a 9.7c-g 9.67bcd 9.89a 9.56a 9.33a 8.78a 
Ambient 9.22a 11.44a 10.78a 9.44abc - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 9.11a 10.22b-e 9.89bc 9.67ab 9.33a 9.00ab 8.44ab 
Ambient 9.22a 10.11b-f 9.44b-e 8.89def 7.78c - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 8.99a 10.34bcd 9.22cde - - - - 
Ambient 9.22a 10.44bcd - - - - - 

Early Grande Perforated Cold 9.11a 10.56abc 10.22ab 9.89a 9.44a 8.56bc 8.11bc 
Ambient 9.11a 10.89ab 9.89bc 8.89def - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 9.11a 9.33e-h 9.22cde 9.11cde 8.78b 8.22cd 7.89cd 
Ambient 9.22a 8.78hij 8.11fg 7.89g 7.11d - - 

Non-
packaged 

Cold 9.11a 9.56d-h 9.11cde - - - - 
Ambient 9.22a 8.22ijk - - - - - 

SE± 0.34 0.33 0.28 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.16 
CV (%) 6.51 6.20 5.37 3.73 3.60 3.73 3.52 

Note: N:B: - SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 

4.8. Fruit Firmness 
The interaction of packaging, storage and genotype had high significant (p≤ 0.001) effect on firmness of peach 

fruits during most of the storage time. Firmness of peach fruits varied between 1.17 in Early Grande in perforated 

plastic stored under ambient condition on day 20 to 4.67 kg cm−2 in cultivar 90-19H non-packaged and stored at 
ambient Table 7. In general, firmness decreased with storage time; but, variation among genotypes was observed 
under the different storage conditions. This might be due to activity of enzymes and degradation of pectic 
substances present in the fruits and loss of water. Galvis, et al. [62] and Drake, et al. [39] reported similar 
findings in pear fruits.  
 

Table-7. Influence of plastic packaging and storage condition on firmness of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period(days) 

Variety Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 4.25a 3.67c 3.67fg 3.33cd 3.17b 2.67a 1.92bc 
Ambient 4.50a 4.42ab 3.50g 3.12d - - - 

Non-perforated Cold 4.50a 4.42ab 4.25abc 4.00a 3.58a 2.50ab 1.67cd 
Ambient 4.50a 4.67a 4.25abc 4.17a 3.33ab - - 

Non-packaged Cold 4.33a 3.33cde 2.42j - - - - 
Ambient 4.41a 3.17ef - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 4.41a 4.25b 4.33ab 3.67b 3.17b 2.25bc 1.58cde 
Ambient 4.50a 3.42cde 3.17h 2.92e - - - 

Non-perforated Cold 4.50a 4.67a 4.08bcd 3.67b 2.75cd 2.00c 1.42de 
Ambient 4.41a 4.67a 3.92def 3.33cd 2.75cd - - 

Non-packaged Cold 4.41a 3.58cd 3.17h - - - - 
Ambient 4.41a 3.58cd - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 4.50a 4.58ab 4.33ab 3.50bc 3.17b 2.50ab 2.33a 

Ambient 4.50a 3.25de 3.08h 2.83e - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 4.50a 4.50ab 4.00cde 3.50bc 3.08bc 2.58a 2.17ab 

Ambient 4.58a 4.50ab 3.75efg 3.42c 2.67d - - 
Non-packaged Cold 4.41a 2.67gh 1.33k - - - - 

Ambient 4.41a 3.08ef - - - - - 
Early Grande Perforated Cold 4.50a 4.67a 4.42a 3.67b 2.67d 2.08c 1.50de 

Ambient 4.50a 2.83fg 2.50ij 1.25g - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 4.41a 4.42ab 4.33ab 3.42c 2.67d 2.17c 1.25e 

Ambient 4.41a 4.50ab 2.75i 1.92f 1.17e - - 
Non-packaged Cold 4.41a 2.58gh 1.42k - - - - 

Ambient 4.58a 2.33h - - - - - 
SE± 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.11 0.11 

CV (%) 6.20 6.58 4.70 4.32 7.32 7.85 11.43 
    Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

191 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

The control recorded least firmness than the packed fruits in all varieties on days 5 and 10. Until day 15 
storage time, significant difference was observed in the different packaging materials; Tropic Beauty and 90-19H 
packaged with non-perforated bag were the most firm. Early Grande Fruits packaged with perforated as well as 
non-perforated plastic lost firmness sharply after 20 days while Tropic Beauty, Bonnigold and 90-19H kept in 
perforated and non-perforated bags remained firmer relatively longer. Under ambient storage environment 
varieties packed with non-perforated plastic were relatively firmer than perforated packed and the control.  

In general, softening of fruits was experienced as the storage time advanced which might be due to texture 
modification due to degradation of polysaccharides that take place during ripening [42]. Texture changes in fruits 
are consequences of modifications by component polysaccharides that, in turn, give rise to disassembly of primary 
cell wall and middle lamella structures due to enzyme activity on carbohydrate polymers [63].  

Therefore, the differences in decrease of firmness of peach fruits between treatments might be due to 
differences in rate of respiration that affect depolimerization of pectin’s during ripening [64]. Perforated package 
kept firmness than non-perforated package and control in cold storage up to the end of storage period. However, 
the least fruit firmness in packages with non-perforated indicates high CO2 or low O2 injury that may result in fruit 
softening [65].The non-perforated package also retain firmness fruits than the control whereas at the ambient 
storage condition non-perforated packages maintain firmness better than perforated package and control at all 
days. Such influence of package may contribute to their retardation effects of ripening thorough reduction of 
oxygen concentration around the fruits as well as through reduction of water loss and keeping tissues more turgid 
[63]. 

Better firmness of fruits in cold storage could be due to the presence of higher relative humidity and lower 
temperature which in turn retard its rate of respiration and transpiration. Likewise, lower softening rate in packed 
fruits could be due to the packages in lowering its rate of respiration, ripening process and moisture loss [65].The 
decrease in the fruit firmness with increment of storage could be due to hydrolysis of starch [66].  
 
4.9. Marketability (%) 

Interaction of packages, storage conditions and genotype had highly significant (p≤0.001) effect on 
marketability of peach fruits Table 8. The marketability (%) of peach fruits remained 100% in all genotypes kept in 
non-perforated bags in the cold storage while fruit stored in perforated under cold storage were 100% marketable 
for up to day 25. Non packaged fruits kept under ambient condition had only 86-90% marketability on day 5, which 
were discarded thereafter. However, perforated bags extended 100% fruit marketability up to day 10 under ambient 
storage while non-perforated bags extended by additional five days.  

Under ambient condition and with no packaging, genotype 90-19H and Early Grande had more marketable 
fruits (90%) than the other two which had 86.67% marketable fruits. Bonnigold fruits stored at ambient in non-
perforated bags had 7-10 percent more marketability compared to the rest on day 20 of storage time. The shelf life 
termination of peaches stored at ambient condition was due to shriveling, over ripening, discoloration (decay) and 
mould growth. Shriveling and mould development were dominant in the control fruits and polyethylene packed 
fruits, respectively, with mould being more in perforated packages. Faster transpiration rate at higher temperature 
could result in shriveling of unpackaged fruits. Mainly, high respiration rate at high temperature can lead to 
senescence because of the stored food reserve exhaust [67].  
 

Table-8. Influence of plastic package and storage condition on marketable percentage of peach genotypes during the storage. 

Treatments  Storage period (days) 

Genotypes Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 86.67c 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 86.67b - - - 

Non-perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 76.67c 13.33c - 

Non-packaged Cold 100.00a 100.00a 86.67bc - - - - 
Ambient 100.00a 86.67c - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 86.67c 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 80.00c - - - 

Non-perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 76.67c 10.00c - 

Non-packaged Cold 100.00a 100.00a 83.33c - - - - 
Ambient 100.00a 90.00b - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 93.33b 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 90.00b - - - 

Non-perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 83.33b 26.67b - 

Non-packaged Cold 100.00a 100.00a 90.00b - - - - 
Ambient 100.00a 86.67c - - - - - 

Early Grande Perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 90.00bc 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 86.67b - - - 

Non-perforated Cold 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 
Ambient 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 100.00a 73.33c 13.33c - 

Non-packaged Cold 100.00a 100.00a 83.33c - - - - 
Ambient 100.00a 90.00b - - - - - 

SE± - 0.96 1.83 1.18 1.92 1.67 2.04 
CV (%) - 1.70 3.25 2.12 3.60 4.0 3.74 

Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

192 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Peach fruits in cold storage remain fresh and firm for reasonable period of time. This could contribute to lower 
rate of respiration and transpiration due to relatively lower temperature and higher RH. Since high respiration 
decreases storage life [33] lower temperature storage is known to extending the storage life of perishable produce 
[68]. Generally, marketability of peaches stored in cold storage was better than those stored under ambient 
condition. Similar reports were stated in mango [34] and Aliye, et al. [43] and tomato [44]. 

Packed fruits had more marketability percentage than the control under both storage conditions while non-
perforated packages had more percent marketable fruits than perforated packed ones. These effects could be due to 
modified atmosphere created inside the package as well as reduction in water loss [69]. Lower rates respiration 
and ethylene production, reduced action of ethylene, reduced ripening and senescence, slow growth of decay 
causing pathogens due to modification of gas atmosphere inside the package and low temperature that is not suit 
for microorganisms might be the reason to extend storage life of  the fruits [70]. 
 

4.10. Percent Decay 
The result for decay index is shown in Table 9. In non-packed fruits stored at ambient condition, the decay 

started after 5 days and reached maximum (100%) on 20th day of storage period. Perforated plastic packed fruits 
stored at ambient delayed total decay loss to 25 days. No decay was recorded in fruits packed with non-perforated 
plastic till 30 days of cold storage; this may be due to less chance of microorganism entry and lower rate of 
respiration that results in less moisture inside the packaging. Fruits in non-perforated bags had less decay than 
those in perforated ones. This lower decay might be due to limited permeability of gases (CO2 and O2) and water 
vapour, which can interplay with physiological processes [29, 52]. The index also varied with the varieties where 
Bonnigold variety showed 7-15% more marketable fruits than the remaining ones in non-perforated bags stored at 
ambient after 25 days of storage. Packages can protect from contamination, damage and most importantly, against 
excess moisture loss; hence, maintained cell wall stability and middle lamella of the fruits [71]. Similar findings of 
plum fruits at low temperature were also reported [72]. 

 

4.11. Specific Gravity 
The interaction effect between packaging materials, peach fruit genotypes and storage conditions had 

significant (P≤0.05) effect on the specific gravity Table 10. In this study, the SG value varied from 1.033 to 1.053. 
The highest specific gravity was recorded for non-perforated plastic packed and control (unpacked) treatments of 
Bonnigold variety under cold storage condition in perforated plastic bag on day 30 of storage time, whereas the 
lowest was for fruits of 90-19H with perforated plastic packed and stored in the cold storage and Tropic beauty 
with non-perforated and stored in ambient on day 5.  However, fruits of Tropic Beauty under all treatments and 
90-19H in perforated as well as non-perforated bags had statistically similar low value on 5th day of storage.  

In general, there was an increasing trend with storage time for each treatment, which is directly related with 

increase of total soluble solid of the fruits. There was highly significant (p ˂ 0.001) difference between varieties 
throughout the storage period. At the end of the storage period Bonnigold (1.053), followed by Early Grande 
showed highest specific gravity of fruits packed and stored in cold storage. With increasing of oBrix reading there 
was positive relation of specific gravity; similar result was observed by Ting and Blair [73]. 

 

4.12. Flesh Browning 
Cultivars showed very different flesh browning values Table 11 after day 20 of storage. Genotype 90-19H and 

Early Grande with non-perforated package had the highest values on day 25 and 30. Non-perforated plastic packed 
fruits were highly affected with flesh browning irrespective of variety except Bonnigold which did not show 
browning until the last storage time. This high browning of the fruits might be due to fruits high total phenolic 
content and polyphenol oxidase activities, since both of them are said to be the main factors responsible for 
enzymatic browning [74]. It has been shown that the rate of browning of fruit products depends on the nature, 
concentration and interaction of the phenolic compounds that are co-present in tissues [75]. Bonnigold didn’t 
show any flesh color browning throughout the storage period of cold storage both on packed as well as non-
packed. A certain difference between varieties for these parameters was observed by some authors on peach [75] 
apple [76] and pear [77]. For all cultivars of perforated and non-perforated packed fruits, except Bonnigold 
variety, browning rose after day 20 of cold storage. 

 

5. Conclusions 
Non-perforated packed fruits had reduced weight loss compared to the control under both storage conditions. 

Towards the end of storage, non-perforated plastic packaged fruits in cold storage maintained more TSS, AA, TA, 
TSS/TA, pH and specific gravity content. Non-perforated bag with cold storage were generally more effective 
compared to perforated package and the control in maintaining the quality of the fruit. Except tropic beauty and 
Early Grande, non-perforated packaged fruits had higher TSS than perforated packed fruits at day 15 of ambient 
environment storage.  

As the storage time progressed pH increased irrespective of treatment applied. TSS/TA increased throughout 
the storage period irrespective of treatments due to increased TSS and decreased TA values. Ascorbic acid content 
decreased as the storage time advanced irrespective of treatments in which cold storage maintains better than 
ambient condition. Overall, packaging combined with cold storage maintained the freshness, firmness and 
maintained the shelf life stability of peach fruits.  



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

193 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Table-9. Influence of plastic package and storage condition on percent decay of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage 

Treatments  Storage period (days) 

Genotypes Plastic Packaging Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
Tropic 
Beauty 

Perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.33(21.14b) 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.33(21.14ef) 76.67(61.22b) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.33(28.77ef) 86.67(68.85b) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-packaged Cold 0.00 0.00 13.33(21.14b) 70.00(56.99c) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 
Ambient 0.00 13.33(21.14a) 80.00(63.93a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

90-19H Perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.33(21.14b) 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00(26.56e) 80.00(63.93b) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.33ef 90.00(71.56b) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-packaged Cold 0.00 0.00 16.67(23.36b) 80.00(63.93b) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 
Ambient 0.00 10.00(18.43a) 70.00(56.99a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.67(12.29c) 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00(18.43f) 56.67(48.85d) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67(23.85f) 73.33(59.00c) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-packaged Cold 0.00 0.00 10.00(18.43b) 53.33(46.92d) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 
Ambient 0.00 13.33(12.29a) 70.00(53.07a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

Early 
Grande 

Perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00(18.43b) 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.33(21.14ef) 66.67(54.78c) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-perforated Cold 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Ambient 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.67(30.99e) 86.67(68.85b) 100.00(90.00a) 

Non-packaged Cold 0.00 0.00 16.67(23.85b) 73.33(59.00bc) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 
Ambient 0.00 10.00(18.43a) 73.33(59.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 100.00(90.00a) 

SE± - 3.36 3.62 2.14 1.82 1.11 1.62 
CV (%) - 33.09 15.70 6.59 4.75 2.27 3.71 

        
                                Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant difference at P=0.05. 

  



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

194 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Table-10. Influence of plastic packaging and storage condition on specific gravity of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period(days) 

Variety Plastic 
Packaging 

Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Tropic Beauty Perforated Cold 1.034a 1.036f-i 1.037gh 1.040gh 1.043de 1.044d 1.045d 
Ambient 1.033a 1.035ghi 1.036h 1.041gh - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 1.033a 1.034hi 1.035h 1.039h 1.041e 1.042e 1.043e 
Ambient 1.034a 1.033i 1.038gh 1.039h 1.042e - - 

Non-packaged Cold 1.034a 1.037e-i 1.038gh - - - - 
Ambient 1.035a 1.037e-i - - - - - 

90-19H Perforated Cold 1.034a 1.033i 1.037gh 1.041gh 1.043de 1.043de 1.044de 
Ambient 1.033a 1.035ghi 1.040fg 1.041gh - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 1.034a 1.035ghi 1.037gh 1.040gh 1.043de 1.043de 1.044de 
Ambient 1.035a 1.036f-i 1.037gh 1.042fg 1.043de - - 

Non-packaged Cold 1.034a 1.040cde 1.042ef - - - - 
Ambient 1.035a 1.037e-i - - - - - 

Bonnigold Perforated Cold 1.035a 1.039c-f 1.045b-e 1.051a 1.051a 1.052a 1.053a 
Ambient 1.034a 1.042bc 1.045b-e 1.046cde - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 1.034a 1.041cd 1.043c-f 1.049ab 1.049abc 1.051b 1.051b 
Ambient 1.035a 1.038d-g 1.046bc 1.048bcd 1.047bc - - 

Non-packaged Cold 1.034a 1.045ab 1.053a - - - - 
Ambient 1.034a 1.045ab - - - - - 

Early Grande Perforated Cold 1.033a 1.043bc 1.046bcd 1.048bcd 1.050ab 1.050b 1.051b 
Ambient 1.036a 1.047a 1.048b 1.050ab - - - 

Non-
perforated 

Cold 1.034a 1.041cd 1.043def 1.045ef 1.046cd 1.046c 1.048c 
Ambient 1.034a 1.038d-g 1.043c-f 1.045ef 1.047bc - - 

Non-packaged Cold 1.034a 1.049a 1.051a - - - - 
Ambient 1.034a 1.042bc - - - - - 

SE± 0.034 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0004 
CV (%) 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.08 0.08 

       Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, different letters in a column indicate significant differences at P=0.05. 

 
Table-11. Influence of plastic packaging and storage condition on flesh color browning of peach genotypes during 30 days of storage. 

Treatments  Storage period (days) 

Genotypes Plastic Packaging Storage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
 
 

Tropic Beauty 

Perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17bcd 1.58d 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25bc 2.08b 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 
Non-packaged Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 - - - - - 
 
 

90-19H 

Perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08cd 1.33e 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33ab 1.83c 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 
Non-packaged Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 - - - - - 
 
 

Bonnigold 

Perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00d 1.00f 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00d 1.00f 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 
Non-packaged Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 - - - - - 
 
 

Early Grande 

Perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33ab 1.75cd 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - 
Non-perforated Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50a 2.58a 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - 
Non-packaged Cold 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - - - 

Ambient 1.00 1.00 - - - - - 

SE± - - - - - 0.08 0.07 
CV (%) - - - - - 11.17 6.93 

      Note: SE=Standard error, CV=Coefficient of variation, means with different letters in a column indicate significant differences at p=0.05. 

 
The percentage marketability of peach fruits remained 100% in all genotypes kept in non-perforated bags in 

the cold storage while fruit stored in perforated under cold storage were 100% marketable for up to day 25. All 
genotypes with non-perforated packaging under cold storage did not show any sign of decay while perforated 
packaging exposed fruits to decay. In non-packaged fruits stored under ambient condition severity of decay started 
from day five onwards reaching 100% starting from day 15. Flesh color browning was not experienced only in 
Bonnigold in perforated and non-perforated packaging under cold store.  

Based on the result of the present study, peach genotypes had different response to packaging materials and 
storage environment. Over all, use of non-perforated plastic packaging and cold store extend shelf life by 
maintaining the quality of peach during post-harvest storage compared to perforated packaging and control. 
 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

195 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

References 
[1] J. La Rue, Introduction, In: La Rue, J.H. and Johnson, R.S. (Eds) Peaches, Plums, and Nectarines: Growing and handling for fresh market. 

Publication No. 3331. Oakland, California: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1989. 
[2] D. Byrne, "Peach breeding trends," Acta Hort, vol. 592, pp. 49-59, 2002. 
[3] C. M. Cantin, M. A. Moreno, and Y. Gogorcena, "Evaluation of the antioxidant capacity, phenolic compounds, and vitamin C 

content of different peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] breeding progenies," Journal of Agricultural and Food 
Chemistry, vol. 57, pp. 4586-4592, 2009. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/jf900385a. 

[4] D. Ashebir, T. Deckers, J. Nyssen, W. Bihon, A. Tsegay, H. Tekie, J. Poesen, M. Haile, F. Wondumagegneheu, and D. Raes, 
"Growing apple (Malus domestica) under tropical mountain climate conditions in Northern Ethiopia," Experimental Agriculture, vol. 
46, pp. 53-65, 2010. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479709990470. 

[5] FAOSTAT (Food and Agricultural Organization), "Fact fish peaches and nectarines production quantity for Ethiopia," Newsletter, 
2016. 

[6] EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization), Food science and postharvest technology research strategy. Nazareth, Ethiopia: 
EARO, 2000. 

[7] E. Kebede, "Processing of horticultural produces in Ethiopia," Acta Hort, vol. 270, pp. 270–301, 1991. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1991.270.36. 

[8] G. Tonini and E. Tura, "Influence of storage and shelf-life time on rots of peaches and nectarines," in International Postharvest 
Science Conference Postharvest, 1996, pp. 520-520. 

[9] R. E. Hardenburg, A. E. Watada, and C. Yang, "The commercial storage of fruits, vegetables, and florist and nursery stocks," 
Agriculture Handbook (Washington), vol. 66, pp. 12–62, 1990. 

[10] WFLO (World Food Logistics Organization), "Commodity storage manual peaches," Newsletter, 2008. 
[11] K. R. Day, "Orchard factors affecting postharvest stone fruit quality," Hort Science, vol. 32, pp. 820-823, 1997. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.21273/hortsci.32.5.820. 
[12] S. Lurie and C. H. Crisosto, "Chilling injury in peach and nectarine," Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 37, pp. 195-208, 2005. 

Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2005.04.012. 
[13] C. L. Girardi, A. R. Corrent, L. Lucchetta, M. R. Zanuzo, T. S. da Costa, A. Brackmann, R. M. Twyman, F. R. Nora, L. Nora, and J. 

A. Silva, "Effect of ethylene, intermittent warming and controlled atmosphere on postharvest quality and the occurrence of 
woolliness in peach (Prunus persica cv. Chiripá) during cold storage," Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 38, pp. 25-33, 2005. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2005.05.007. 

[14] L. Kitinoja, "Returnable plastic crate (RPC) systems can reduce postharvest losses and improve earnings for fresh produce 
operations," The Postharvest Education Foundation (PEF), White Paper No. 13-01, 2013. 

[15] M. Erkan and C. Y. Wang, "Modified and controlled atmosphere storage of subtropical crops," Stewart Postharvest Review, vol. 5, 
pp. 1-8, 2006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2212/spr.2006.5.4. 

[16] L. Kitinoja, S. Saran, S. K. Roy, and A. A. Kader, "Postharvest technology for developing countries: Challenges and opportunities in 
research, outreach and advocacy," Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 91, pp. 597-603, 2011. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4295. 

[17] J. Lammertyn, N. Scheerlinck, P. Jancsók, B. Verlinden, and B. Nicolaı, "A respiration–diffusion model for ‘Conference’pears I: 
Model development and validation," Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 30, pp. 29-42, 2003. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5214(03)00061-9. 

[18] EIAR (Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research), Holeta agricultural research center progress report. Holeta, Ethiopia: EIAR, 2017. 
[19] A. Kader, "Fruit maturity, ripening and quality relationships," Acta Hort, vol. 485, pp. 203-208, 1999. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1999.485.27. 
[20] M. Mohammed, L. Wilson, and P. Gomes, "Postharvest sensory and physiochemical attributes of processing and nonprocessing 

tomato cultivars," Journal of Food Quality, vol. 22, pp. 167-182, 1999. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
4557.1999.tb00549.x. 

[21] D. Garner, C. Crisosto, P. Wiley, and G. Crisosto, Measurement of pH and titratable acidity. Quality evaluation methodology. USA: 
Kearney Agricultural Center, 2005. 

[22] O. A. Bessey and C. King, "The distribution of vitamin C in plant and animal tissues, and its determination," Journal of Biological 
Chemistry, vol. 103, pp. 687-698, 1933. 

[23] A. Kader, L. Morris, and P. Chen, "Evaluation of two objective methods and a subjective rating scale for measuring tomato fruit 
firmness," Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, vol. 103, pp. 70-73, 1978. 

[24] Y. Jiang, D. C. Joyce, and A. J. Macnish, "Extension of the shelf life of banana fruit by 1-methylcyclopropene in combination with 
polyethylene bags," Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 16, pp. 187-193, 1999. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-
5214(99)00009-5. 

[25] K. Colin, "Refractometers," Newsletter, 2017. 
[26] T. J. Frett, K. Gasic, J. R. Clark, D. Byrne, T. Gradziel, and C. Crisosto, "Standardized phenotyping for fruit quality in peach 

(Prunus persica (L.) Batsch)," Journal of the American Pomological Society, vol. 66, p. 214, 2012. 
[27] A. Kader, "Biochemical and physiological basis for effects of controlled atmospheres on fruits and vegetables," Food Technol, vol. 40, 

pp. 99–104, 1986. 

[28] G. Calvo, M. Salvador, and E. Sanchez, "Control of superficial scald in ‗Beurred‘Anjou‘ pears with low oxygen levels," Acta Hort, 
vol. 596, pp. 879–882, 2002. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2002.596.153. 

[29] L. Tijskens and H. Vollebregt, "Passive and semi-active modified atmosphere packaging of prickly pear cactus stems (Opuntis 
spp.)," Acta Hort, vol. 604, pp. 665–668, 2003. 

[30] P. Lam, "Respiration rate, ethylene production and skin color change of papaya at different temperatures," Acta Hort, vol. 269, pp. 
257–266, 1990. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1990.269.33. 

[31] R. Pal, S. Roy, and S. Srivastava, "Storage performance of kinnow mandarins in evaporative cool chamber and ambient condition," 
Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 34, pp. 200-203, 1997. 

[32] E. Proulx, M. Cecilia, N. Nunes, J. Emond, and J. K. Brecht, "Quality attributes limiting papaya postharvest life at chilling and non-
chilling temperatures," in Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society. Florida State Horticultural Society, 2005, pp. 389-395. 

[33] L. Lee, J. Arul, R. Lencki, and F. Castaigne, "A review on modified atmosphere packaging and preservation of fresh fruits and 
vegetables: Physiological basis and practical aspects—Part I," Packaging Technology and Science, vol. 8, pp. 315-331, 1995. Available 
at: https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2770080605. 

[34] Tilahunsiyum and W. Kebede, "Forced ventilation evaporative cooling: A case study on banana, papaya, orange, mandarin, and 
lemon," Journal of Tropical Agriculture, vol. 81, pp. 1–6, 2004. 

[35] A. Nath, B. C. Deka, A. Singh, R. Patel, D. Paul, L. Misra, and H. Ojha, "Extension of shelf life of pear fruits using different 
packaging materials," Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 49, pp. 556-563, 2012. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0305-4. 

[36] F. Mathooko, "A comparison of modified atmosphere packaging under ambient conditions and low temperatures storage on quality 
of tomato fruit," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, vol. 3, pp. 20–27, 2003. 

[37] S. Ben-Yehoshua, "Individual seed packaging of fruits and vegetables in plastic film: New postharvest technique," The Journal of 
Horticultural Science, vol. 20, pp. 32-37, 1985. 

[38] C. Ribeiro, P. Nazare, J. Sobreiro, and R. Veltman, "Influence of orchard, harvest date and controlled atmosphere, on storage 

quality of ―Rocha‖pear," Acta Hort, vol. 599, pp. 639–645, 2003. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2003.599.83. 
[39] S. Drake, E. Mielke, and D. Elfving, "Maturity and storage quality of concorde pears," Hort Technology, vol. 14, pp. 250-256, 2004. 
[40] C. Crisosto and A. Kader, "Scientific name and introduction," University of California Davis, CA 95616, 1999. 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

196 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

[41] L. Carrillo, H. A. Cruz, L. F. Guevara, and L. O. Paredes, "Physico-chemical changes during ripening in storage of two varieties of 
prickly pear stored at 18 °C," Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 40, pp. 461–464, 2003. 

[42] S. Irtwange, "Application of modified atmosphere packaging and related technology in postharvest handling of fresh fruits and 
vegetables," International Journal of Agricultural and Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 1–12, 2006. 

[43] T. Aliye, T. Seyoum, and K. Woldetsadik, "Effect of disinfection, packaging, and storage environment on the shelf life of mango," 
Biosystems Engineering, vol. 96, pp. 201-212, 2007. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2006.10.006. 

[44] G. Hirut, T. Seyoum, and K. Woldetsadik, "The effect of cultivar, maturity stage and storage environment on quality of tomatoes," 
Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 87, pp. 467-478, 2008. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.12.031. 

[45] B. Akbudak and A. Eris, "Physical and chemical changes in peaches and nectarines during the modified atmosphere storage," Food 
Control, vol. 15, pp. 307-313, 2004. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0956-7135(03)00082-3. 

[46] I. Agar, L. Son, and N. Kaska, "Postharvest physiology of some nectarine cultivars," Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Cukurova 
University, vol. 9, pp. 1-16, 1994. 

[47] T. Fernandez and F. Artes, "Intermittent warming during cold storage of peaches packed in perforated polypropylene," LWT-Food 
Science and Technology, vol. 31, pp. 38-43, 1998. 

[48] R. Wills, W. Mcglasson, D. Graham, H. Tlee, and E. Hall, Postharvest-An introduction to the physiology and handling of fruit and 
vegetables, 3rd ed. vol. 270. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold, 1989. 

[49] Y. Selvaraj, D. Pal, M. Subramanyam, and C. Iyer, "Changes in the chemical composition of four cultivars of papaya (Carica papaya 
L.) during growth and development," Journal of Horticultural Science, vol. 57, pp. 135-143, 1982. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221589.1982.11515033. 

[50] P. Agozzino, G. Avellone, F. Filizzola, V. Farina, and R. L. Bianco, "Changes in quality parameters and volatile aroma compounds 
in fairtime' peach during fruit development and ripening," Italian Journal of Food Science, vol. 19, pp. 3-13, 2007. 

[51] A. Pongener, B. Mahajan, and H. Singh, "Effect of different packaging films on storage life and quality of peach fruits under cold 
storage conditions," Indian Journal of Horticulture, vol. 68, pp. 240-245, 2011. 

[52] R. C. Soliva-Fortuny and O. Martín-Belloso, "Microbiological and biochemical changes in minimally processed fresh-cut 
Conference pears," European Food Research and Technology, vol. 217, pp. 4-9, 2003. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-
003-0701-8. 

[53] P. Zerbini, "The quality of pear fruit," Acta Hort, vol. 596, pp. 805–810, 2002. 
[54] A. Kader, Postharvest biology and technology: An overview. In Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. In: Kader, A.A, Kasmire, R.F. 

Mitchell, F.G., Reid, M.S., Sommer, W.F. and Thompson, J.F. (Eds) Special Publication. 3311. Davis, CA: University of California, 1985. 
[55] I. U. Bron and A. P. Jacomino, "Ripening and quality of 'golden'papaya fruit harvested at different maturity stages," Brazilian 

Journal of Plant Physiology, vol. 18, pp. 389-396, 2006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-04202006000300005. 
[56] K. Mkhathini, L. Magwaza, T. Workneh, and G. Mwithiga, "Determinations of physical and chemical properties of Kwa Zulu-

Natal’s household white peach ‘landrace’in relation to extension services-a case study of Impendle local municipality," South African 
Journal of Agricultural Extension, vol. 45, pp. 95-109, 2017. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2017/v45n1a439. 

[57] M. Petriccione, F. Mastrobuoni, M. Pasquariello, L. Zampella, E. Nobis, G. Capriolo, and M. Scortichini, "Effect of chitosan coating 
on the postharvest quality and antioxidant enzyme system response of strawberry fruit during cold storage," Foods, vol. 4, pp. 501-
523, 2015. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods4040501. 

[58] A. Zanella, "Control of apple superficial scald and ripening—a comparison between 1-methylcyclopropene and diphenylamine 
postharvest treatments, initial low oxygen stress and ultra low oxygen storage," Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 27, pp. 69-
78, 2003. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5214(02)00187-4. 

[59] D. H. Byrne, A. N. Nikolic, and E. E. Burns, "Variability in sugars, acids, firmness, and color characteristics of 12 peach genotypes," 
Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, vol. 116, pp. 1004-1006, 1991. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.21273/jashs.116.6.1004. 

[60] B. Mahajan, W. Dhillon, K. Mahesh, and S. Bikramjit, "Effect of different packaging films on shelf life and quality of peach under 
super and ordinary market conditions," Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 52, pp. 3756–3762, 2015. 

[61] O. Yoshida, H. Nakagawa, N. Ogura, and T. Sato, "Effect of heat treatment on the development of polygalacturonase activity in 
tomato fruit during ripening," Plant and Cell Physiology, vol. 25, pp. 505-509, 1984. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a076739. 

[62] S. Galvis, AC, S. Fonseca, A. Morais, and F. X. Malcata, "Physicochemical and sensory evaluation of ‘Rocha’pear following 
controlled atmosphere storage," Journal of Food Science, vol. 68, pp. 318-327, 2003. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2621.2003.tb14159.x. 

[63] G. D. Manrique and F. M. Lajolo, "Cell-wall polysaccharide modifications during postharvest ripening of papaya fruit (Carica 
papaya)," Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 33, pp. 11-26, 2004. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.01.007. 

[64] H. Lazan, M. K. Selamat, and Z. M. Ali, "β-Galactosidase, polygalacturonase and pectinesterase in differential softening and cell 
wall modification during papaya fruit ripening," Physiologia Plantarum, vol. 95, pp. 106-112, 1995. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3054.1995.950116.x. 

[65] D. Zagory and A. A. Kader, "Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh produce," Food Technol, vol. 42, pp. 70-77, 1988. 
[66] A. Mattoo, T. Murata, E. Pantastico, K. Chachiss, K. Ogata, and C. Phan, Chemical changes during ripening and senescence In: 

Pantastico, E.B. (Ed) Post-harvest physiology, handling and utilization of tropical and subtropical fruits and vegetables. Westport 
Connecticut: The AVI Pub. Co. Inc, 1975. 

[67] R. Paull, Pineaple and papaya.In: Symour, G.B., Taylor, J.E.and Tucker, G.A. (Eds) Biochemistry of fruit ripening. New York: Chapman 
and Hall, 1993. 

[68] A. Exama, J. Arul, R. Lencki, and Z. Li, "Suitability of various plastic films for modified atmosphere packaging of fruits and 
vegetables: Gas transfer properties and effect of temperature fluctuation," Physiological Basis of Postharvest Technologies, vol. 343, pp. 
175-180, 1992. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1993.343.39. 

[69] G. Gonzalez-Aguilar, J. G. Buta, and C. Wang, "Methyl jasmonate and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) reduce decay and 
maintain postharvest quality of papaya ‘sunrise’," Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 28, pp. 361-370, 2003. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-5214(02)00200-4. 

[70] A. Kader and R. Rolle, "The role of postharvest management in assuring the quality and safety of horticultural produce," FAO 
Agriculture Sup Systems Div, vol. 152, pp. 1010–1365, 2004. 

[71] P. Hernandez-Munoz, E. Almenar, V. Del Valle, D. Velez, and R. Gavara, "Effect of chitosan coating combined with postharvest 
calcium treatment on strawberry (Fragaria× ananassa) quality during refrigerated storage," Food Chemistry, vol. 110, pp. 428-435, 
2008. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.02.020. 

[72] G. Manganaris, A. Vicente, and C. Crisosto, "Effect of pre-harvest and post-harvest conditions and treatments on plum fruit 
quality," CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, vol. 3, pp. 1-9, 2008. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1079/pavsnnr20083009. 

[73] S. Ting and J. Blair, "The relation of specific gravity of whole fruit to the internal quality of qranges," Florida Agriculture Exp. 
Stations Journal Series No. 2217, 1965. 

[74] Q. He and Y. Luo, "Enzymatic browning and its control in fresh-cut produce," Stewart Postharvest Review, vol. 3, pp. 1-7, 2007. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.2212/spr.2007.6:16. 

[75] C. Y. Lee, V. Kagan, A. W. Jaworski, and S. K. Brown, "Enzymic browning in relation to phenolic compounds and 
polyphenoloxidase activity among various peach cultivars," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 38, pp. 99-101, 1990. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00091a019. 

[76] M. Murata, M. Tsurutani, M. Tomita, S. Homma, and K. Kaneko, "Relationship between apple ripening and browning: Changes in 
polyphenol content and polyphenol oxidase," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 43, pp. 1115-1121, 1995. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00053a001. 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2019, 6(2): 182-197 

197 
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

[77] E. Arias, J. González, P. López-Buesa, and R. Oria, "Optimization of processing of fresh-cut pear," Journal of the Science of Food and 
Agriculture, vol. 88, pp. 1755-1763, 2008. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3276. 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 
Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 
 


