J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2014: Vol.

28 (2): 175-181 ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

EFFECT OF CHEMICALS AND MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PACKAGING ON STORAGE

BEHAVIOUR OF BARAMASI LEMON FRUITS UNDER AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Simranbir Kaur and S.K. Jawandha
Department of Fruit Science, College of Agriculture
P.A.U. Ludhiana-141004 (Punjab), India.
email: skjawandha@pau.edu

Received: 23-08-2014 Accepted: 20-09-2014

The effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere packaging on storage behaviour of Baramasi lemon fruits at ambient
conditions was studied in Post-harvest Laboratory, Department of fruit Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The
mature green winter Baramasi lemon fruits of uniform size and colour were harvested and treated with gibberellic acid (25, 50 &
75 ppm), boric acid (1, 2 & 3 %), sodium benzoate (2, 3 & 4%) and then packed in low density polyethylene (LDPE) film. After
packaging, fruits were kept at ambient conditions for 60 days and analyzed for various physical and chemical parameters like fruit
colour, peel thickness, juice pH, reducing sugars and non-reducing sugars after 15, 30, 45 and 60 days of storage. Results
indicated that fruits treated with gibberellic acid @ 75 & 50 ppm and boric acid @ 3 & 2% were found to be moderately to very much
desirable after 60 days of storage. The gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm + LDPE packaging proved to highly effective in extending the
storage life and quality of baramasi lemon fruits under ambient conditions.

India is the major producer of limes and lemons and it is
considered the probable origin place of lemons1. Lime and
Lemon are grown on an area of 279.3 (000) ha with an annual
production of 2476.0 (000) MT 2. In Punjab lime and lemon are
grown over an area of 632.0 ha with annual production 4830.0
MT3. Lemon is an attractive fruit for its unique flavor and acidity.
Baramasi lemon (Citrus limon L. Burm) is well adapted to agro-
climatic conditions of Punjab and it bears twice a year i.e.
July-August and January-February with a sparse flowering and
fruiting throughout the year. Harvesting period of winter crop of
Baramasi lemon coincides with the cooler part of the year,
which leads to the glut in the market. Baramasi lemons are
sensitive to chilling injury. So, there is a need to enhance the
shelf-life of Baramasi lemon fruit at ambient conditions. Lemons
undergo various physiological changes during storage and the
main factors governing storage life of fruits are fruit quality,
weight loss and decay. Internationally, several postharvest
technologies have been introduced to control fruit disorders,
maintain optimum fruit quality, freshness and minimize the
losses 4,5,6 .The most common used technologies are
polyethylene packaging, use of fungicides and growth
regulators, emulsion coatings and chlorination7,8. Modified
atmosphere packaging is very effective in lowering the degree
of gaseous exchange resulting reduced rate of respiration,
transpiration and other metabolic processes of the fruits9. The
modified atmospheric conditions within the film packages can
significantly reduce the rate of ripening and senescence by
reducing the synthesis of ethylene10,11. Gibberellins (GA) are
the group of growth substances, which are known to prolong
the post harvest life of many fruits12. GA3 treated and LDPE
wrapped sweet orange fruits had highest score for overall
acceptability during storage13. Boric acid inhibited the ethylene
production, ripening and disease incident14. Sodium benzoate,
a food preservative has been reported to improve the shelf-life
of many fruits due to its antifungal activity15,16.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The studies were conducted during 2014 in Department of
Fruit Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana to
evaluate the effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere
packaging on storage behaviour of baramasi lemon fruits at
ambient conditions. The mature green Baramasi lemon fruits
of uniform size and colour were harvested in the month of
January. They were transported to the experimental laboratory
and surface sterilized in chlorinated water so as to reduce the
microbial infection. Washed and selected fruits were subjected
to various post-harvest treatments viz. T1 (GA3 @ 25 ppm +
LDPE bags), T2 (GA3 @ 50 ppm + LDPE bags), T3 (GA3 @ 75
ppm + LDPE bags), T4 (Boric acid @ 1% LDPE bags), T5
(Boric acid @ 2% + LDPE bags), T6 (Boric acid @ 3% +
 Effect of Chemicals and Modified Atmosphere
LDPE bags), T7 (Sodium benzoate @ 2% + LDPE bags), T8
(Sodium benzoate @ 3% + LDPE bags), T9 (Sodium benzoate
@ 4% + LDPE bags), T10 [Control (water dip + LDPE bags)]
and T11 [Control (water dip and unpacked)] for five minutes in
the aqueous solutions. For storage studies 1.0 kg fruit from
each replication of each treatment were packed in low density
polyethylene packaging (LDPE) bags. The bags were sealed
with electric sealer and kept at ambient conditions for 60
days. Fruit samples were analyzed after 15, 30, 45 and 60
days of storage for following physico-chemical
characteristics:
Fruit colour: The colour of fruits was measured with colour
flex® (Hunter lab) and expressed as 'b' hunter values 17.
Peel thickness: Peel thickness was measured with help of
digital Vernier's caliper 18.
Juice pH: The pH of the juice was determined by using a
combination of electrode and pH meter. Juice samples were
collected by wrapping fruit halves with cheesecloth and
squeezing with a hand press. Juice was then filtered through
cheesecloth to make a clear juice for measurement.
Reducing sugars: Total sugars of the fruits were estimated
according to the method as per standard methods19. The
reducing sugars were calculated and expressed in percentage
by using following formula:
Reducing sugars (% )=
Non-Reducing sugars: The Non-Reducing sugars were
calculated by subtracting reducing sugars from total sugars
and multiplied by 0.93.
Statistical Analysis: The data were analyzed statistically
by Completely Randomized Block design (CRD) method 20.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results regarding physico-chemical parameters are
presented as follows:
Fruit colour: The data pertaining to effect of chemicals and
modified atmosphere packaging on color change of Baramasi
lemon fruits are presented in Table-1. Data shows that
application of gibberellic acid @ 75ppm + LDPE packaging
delayed the loss of green colour in Baramasi lemon fruits.
The fruits treated with gibberellic acid @ 75ppm along with
(176)
LDPE bags showed minimum "b" (44.63) value, while the
maximum (67.62) was recorded in control fruits. The color
development was increased with advancement of storage period.
All treatments showed a continuous increase in "b" with increase
in storage period and attained the maximum value (58.68) at
end of storage period. After 15 days of storage, the maximum
value for "b" (64.88) was noted in control (water dip, unpacked)
fruits and minimum "b" (42.22) was recorded in fruits treated
with gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm along with LDPE packs followed
by gibberellic acid @ 50 ppm treatment. A similar trend was
followed after 45, 30 and 60 days of storage.
Peel thickness: Data related to the effect of treatments on peel
thickness of Baramasi lemon during storage studies are
presented in Table-2. Data revealed that peel thickness
decreased as the storage interval increased. The mean maximum
peel thickness (4.25mm) was noticed in fruits treated with
gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm, followed by gibberellic acid @ 50
ppm (4.18 mm) treatment along with LDPE bags, whereas mean
minimum peel thickness (2.94mm) was noticed in untreated
and unpacked control fruits. During the entire storage period,
gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm treated fruits retained the maximum
(4.46-4.04mm) peel thickness and the minimum peel thickness
(3.76-1.90 mm) was recorded in control (water dip and unpacked)
fruits.
Juice pH: Data presented in Table-3, shows the effect of
chemicals and modified atmosphere packaging on juice pH of
Baramasi lemon fruits at ambient conditions. The examination
of data showed that average juice pH of fruits decreased up to
30 days followed by increase at the end of 60 days storage. The
mean minimum value of pH (2.36) was recorded after 30 days,
and mean maximum pH value (2.41) of the juice was recorded
after 60 days of storage. After 15 days, the maximum value of
pH (2.46) was noticed in fruits treated with gibberellic acid @ 75
ppm, while minimum value of pH (2.29) was recorded in control
(water dipped unpacked) fruits. On 30th day of storage, maximum
pH (2.52) of juice was recorded in untreated and unpacked control
fruits, whereas gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm treated fruits recorded
minimum pH (2.25) of juice. Similar trend was observed on 3rd
and 4th interval of 60 days storage. The mean minimum juice
pH (2.24) was recorded in fruits treated with gibberellic acid @
75 ppm and packed in LDPE bags, followed by gibberellic acid
@ 50 ppm+ LDPE packaging treatment (2.26), whereas control
(water dip, unpacked) fruits recorded maximum pH (2.59) by
the end of 60 days.
(177) Kaur and Jawandha

Table -1. Effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere packaging on fruit colour of Baramasi lemon fruits
at ambient conditions

Tr ea tm e nt Fr uit c olour ( Co lo ur fle x b* v alue )

S t ora ge int er va l ( Da ys )
15 30 45 60 M ea n
T1
5 1.8 2 4 8 .9 5 5 0 .5 0 52 .90 5 1.0 4
T2 4 5.8 6 4 4 .3 0 4 6 .4 0 48 .22 4 6.1 9
T3 4 2.2 2 4 3 .2 0 4 5 .6 2 47 .50 4 4.6 3
T4 5 6.2 0 6 1 .2 4 6 3 .0 8 65 .53 6 1.5 1
T5 5 0.4 6 4 7 .3 8 5 0 .0 4 52 .92 5 0.2 0
T6
4 9.2 8 4 4 .5 3 4 6 .0 6 48 .92 4 7.1 9
T7 5 9.3 6 6 2 .4 6 6 4 .4 7 66 .94 6 3.3 0
T8 5 5.7 0 5 7 .5 8 5 9 .4 4 61 .65 5 8.5 9
T9 5 3.1 5 5 5 .8 9 5 8 .2 4 61 .27 5 7.1 3
T10 6 2.7 6 6 3 .0 3 6 5 .6 6 68 .30 6 4.9 3
T11 6 4.8 8 6 6 .0 1 6 8 .2 7 71 .34 6 7.6 2
M ea n 5 3.7 9 5 4 .0 5 5 6 .1 6 58 .68

[CD Value at 5% level , Base Value:.40.39 ;Treatment: 27; Storage: 0.17; Storage × Treatment: NS; b* Yellowness value]

Table-2. : Effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere packaging on peel thickness of Baramasi lemon
fruits at ambient conditions

[CD Value at 5% level; Base Value: 4.52mm; Treatment: 0.13; Storage: 0.82 ; Storage × Treatment: 0.20]
 Effect of Chemicals and Modified Atmosphere (178)

Table-3. : Effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere packaging on juice pH of Baramasi lemon fruits at
ambient conditions
Juice pH
Treatment Storage interval (Days)
15 30 45 60 M ean
T1 2.40 2.32 2.35 2.41 2.37
T2 2.44 2.26 2.21 2.13 2.26
T3 2.46 2.25 2.18 2.10 2.24
T4 2.34 2.36 2.40 2.43 2.38
T5 2.41 2.33 2.36 2.39 2.37
T6 2.43 2.29 2.24 2.27 2.31
T7 2.33 2.46 2.49 2.51 2.44
T8 2.36 2.36 2.39 2.43 2.38
T9 2.37 2.34 2.33 2.38 2.35
T10 2.32 2.47 2.50 2.53 2.45
T11 2.29 2.52 2.57 3.01 2.59

Mean 2.37 2.36 2.39 2.41

CD Value at 5% level; Base Value: 4.52mm, Treatment: 0.13,Storage: 0.82 ,Storage × Treatment: 0.20
Table-4. Effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere packaging on reducing sugars of Baramasi lemon fruits
at ambient conditions
Reducing sugars (%)
Storage interval (Days)
Treatment
15 30 45 60 Mean

T1 1.16 1.27 1.43 1.50 1.34

T2 1.09 1.20 1.28 1.39 1.24
T3 1.07 1.16 1.26 1.34 1.20
T4 1.24 1.36 1.51 1.74 1.46
T5 1.15 1.26 1.39 1.44 1.31
T6 1.11 1.25 1.37 1.41 1.28
T7 1.29 1.44 1.56 1.81 1.52
T8 1.23 1.36 1.49 1.65 1.43
T9 1.18 1.32 1.46 1.56 1.38
T 10 1.32 1.49 1.62 1.83 1.56
T 11 1.43 1.67 2.04 2.33 1.86
Mean 1.20 1.34 1.49 1.63

CD Value at 5% level ; Base Value: 1.04% ; Treatment: 0.20 Storage: 0.12 ; Storage × Treatment: 0.40
(179) Kaur and Jawandha

Table-5. Effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere packaging on reducing sugars of Baramasi lemon
fruits at ambient conditions
N on -R ed ucing s uga rs (% )
T re atm en t S tora ge in ter va l (Da ys )

15 30 45 60 M ea n
T1 1 .0 9 1.1 1 1 .14 1.1 6 1.1 2
T2 1 .0 5 1.0 7 1 .09 1.1 2 1.0 8
T3 1 .04 1.0 6 1 .08 1.1 1 1.0 7
T4 1 .14 1.1 8 1 .20 1.2 3 1.1 8
T5 1 .0 8 1.1 0 1 .13 1.1 5 1.1 5
T6 1 .0 7 1.0 9 1 .11 1.1 3 1.1 0
T7 1 .1 7 1.2 2 1 .24 1.2 8 1.2 2
T8 1 .1 3 1.1 5 1 .17 1.1 9 1.1 6
T9 1 .1 1 1.1 4 1 .16 1.1 8 1.1 4
T10 1 .2 1 1.2 3 1 .28 1.3 0 1.2 5
T11 1 .2 5 1.3 2 1 .43 1.5 1 1.3 7
M e an 1 .1 2 1.1 5 1 .18 1.2 1

CD Value at 5% level Base Value: 1.02% ; Treatment: 0.27 ; Storage: 0.16; Storage × Treatment: NS

Reducing sugars: The data on the effect of chemicals and
modified atmosphere packaging on reducing sugars of
Baramasi lemon fruits are presented in the Table-4. A perusal
of data indicates an increase in reducing sugars content of
Baramasi lemon fruits with advancement of storage period.
The mean minimum reducing sugars (1.20%) were recorded
after 15 days of storage and mean maximum sugars (1.63%)
were recorded after 60 days of storage. On the 15th day of
storage, minimum reducing sugars (1.07%) were found in
gibberellic acid @ 75ppm+ LDPE packaging treatment, followed
by gibberellic acid 50 ppm + LDPE packaging treatment
(1.09%). The maximum reducing sugars (1.43%) were recorded
in untreated and unpacked control fruits. Similar trend was
followed after 30, 45 and 60 days of storage i.e. minimum
sugar content was recorded in gibberellic acid (75 and 50 ppm)
treated fruits followed by boric acid (3 and 2%) in LDPE packs.
However, in all the treatments a steady and gradual increase
of reducing sugars was recorded except in water dipped
unpacked lemon fruits in which a sharp increase in reducing
sugars content was found throughout the storage period.
Non reducing sugars: Data in Table-5, revealed that non-
reducing sugars increased as storage interval increased. The
mean minimum non-reducing sugars (1.12%) were recorded
after 15 days of storage and mean maximum non-reducing
sugars (1.21%) were recorded after 60 days. After 15 days of
ambient storage the maximum non-reducing sugars (1.25%)
were found in untreated and unpacked control fruits, while
gibberellic acid @ 75 and 50 ppm treatments recorded minimum
(1.04% and 1.05% respectively) content of non-reducing
sugars, followed by boric acid and sodium benzoate treatments
along with LDPE bags. Similar trend was recorded on 30th,
45th and 60th day of storage. The mean minimum non-reducing
sugars (1.07%) were recorded in fruits treated with gibberellic
acid @ 75 ppm in LDPE bags and average maximum non-
reducing sugars (1.38%) were recorded in untreated and
unpacked control fruits. During entire storage period, the
gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm treated fruits retained the minimum
non-reducing sugars ranging between 1.04-1.11%, while
untreated and unpacked control fruits recorded maximum range
1.25%-1.51% of non-reducing sugars.
Physiochemical parameters viz. fruit colour, peel thickness,
juice pH, reducing sugars and non-reducing sugars, were used
to evaluate the effect of chemicals and modified atmosphere
packaging on storage behaviour of Baramasi lemon at ambient
 Effect of Chemicals and Modified Atmosphere (180)

conditions. Gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm + LDPE packaging
delayed the fruit colour development, maintained higher peel
thickness and lower values of juice pH & sugars during entire
storage period of 60 days. The fruits treated with gibberellic
acid @ 75 ppm and packed in LDPE bags recorded lower "b"
value Table-1 on 60th day of ambient storage. Loss in green
pigment of peel might be due to degradation of chlorophyll
pigments of the fruits and increased synthesis of carotenoids21, 22.
The results are similar with earlier findings 23, 24, where it has
been demonstrated that GA3 delays the loss of green rind
pigment in lime and lemons. Gibberellic acid has been reported
to delay peel color development significantly approximately
Baramasi lemon fruits treated with gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm
in LDPE bags and average maximum non-reducing sugars
were recorded in untreated and unpacked control fruits. Earlier
studies have also reported that the sugars percentage of
"Samani" date palm was significantly affected by different
treatments with GA3, in contrast the fruits of control set gave
higher yield of non-reducing sugars32,33.
REFERENCES
1. Tanaka, T. (1958). Ind. J. Hort., 15: 101.
2. Anonymous, (2014a). Area and production of different

two months beyond normal harvesting time of Navel Oranges25. fruit in India. www.faostat.fao.org

Postharvest application of gibberellic acid was very effective 3. Anonymous (2014b). In: Package of Practices for
to prevent the chlorophyll degradation of peel of 'Fallglo' Cultivation of Fruits, Punjab Agriculture University,
grapefruit up to 21 days days of storage 26. Ludhiana.

Postharvest treatment of gibberellic acid @ 75ppm + LDPE 4.
packaging recorded the maximum value of peel thickness
during entire storage period. The results are in confirmation 5.
with the earlier findings27 where the effect of polyethylene film
and some other lining materials on the shelf life extension of 6.
citrus fruits have been studied and reported significant weight
loss reduction and maintenance of external appearance 7.
(shriveling). The LDPE bags decreased the water loss from
fruits and due to reduction in water vapor transmission rate,
9.
the least shriveling might have been resulted in such treatments.
10.
The anti-senescence property of GA3 and bavistin also might
have shared to reduce shriveling of fruits. Baramasi lemon 11.
fruits treated with gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm + LDPE packaging
recorded the minimum value of pH on 60th day of storage. The
lower pH value of juice in this treatment was probably due to 12.
slower hydrolysis of polysaccharides as has also been recorded 13.
earlier28 in kinnow mandarin.
The maximum reducing sugars (1.43%) were recorded in 14.
untreated and unpacked control fruits, while the fruits treated 15.
with gibberellic acid @ 75 ppm and packed in LDPE bags
recorded lower values of reducing sugars. Similar results have
16.
also been reported in blood red sweet orange, baramasi lemon
and in tomato, in Kinnown mandarin 26, 29, 30, 32. Total sugars
17.
percentage in tomato fruit was significantly affected by different
treatments of GA3, in contrast the fruits of control fruits gave
higher yield of reducing sugars 31. 18.
The mean minimum non-reducing sugars were recorded in
Krochta, J.M. (1997). In: B Blakiston, Ed 1996. Packaging
Year Book. Washington DC. Pp 38.
Hagenmaier, R.D. (2002). Post-harvest Biol. Technol.,
24: 79.
Bajwa, B.E. and Arjun, F.M. (2007). Int. J. Food Sci.
Technol., 41:182.
Perez, M.B., Rojas, C. and Del-Rio, M.A. (2002). J. Food
Sci., 67: 2903.
Zagory, D. and Kadar, A.A. (1988) Food Techno., 42: 70.
Burg, S.P. and Burg, E.A. (1967). Plant Physiol., 42: 114.
Abeles, F.B., Morgan, P.W. and Saltveit, M.E. (1992). In:
Ethylene in Plant Biology. 2nd ed. Acad Press, San Diego
C A. Proc 6th intel citrus conger 3: 1555.
Khader, S.E.S.A. (1992). J. Hort. Sci., 67: 855.
Sakhale, B.K. and Kapse, B.M. (2012). Intl. Food Res. J.,
19: 779.
Wang, S. and Morris, S.C. (1971). Acta Hort., 343: 331.
Al-Zaemey, A.B., Magan, N. and Thompson, A.K. (1993).
Mycol. Res., 97: 1463.
Olivier, C., Macneil, C.R. and Loria, J. (1999). Plant Dis.,
83: 814.
Hunter S (1975) In: The measurements of Appearance.
Pp 304. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
Nawaz, M.A., Ahmad, S., Ahmad S and Khan, M.M. (2008).
Pak. J. Bot., 40: 1971.
(181) Kaur and Jawandha

19. Singh, S., Bansal, M.L., Singh, T.P. and Kumar, R. (1998). 27. Ritenour, M.A., Burton, M.S. and Mccollum, T.G. (2005).
In: Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Klayani Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc., 118: 385.
Publishers, New Delhi. 28. Farooqi, W.A., Ahmad, M., Hussain, A.M. and Qureshi,
21. Wankier, B.N., Salunkhe, D.K. and Campbell, W.F. (1970). M.J. (1979). The Nucleus., 12:25.
J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 65: 604 29. Neeraj, Joon, M.S. and Bhatia, S.K. (2002). Haryana J.
22. Wang, S.S., Haard, N.F. and Di-Macro, G.R. (1971). J. Hort. Sci., 32:1.
Food Sci., 36:657. 30. Singh, K., Maan, S.S. and Chander, M. (1988). Haryana J.
23. Abdallah, E.H. (2008). In: M.Sc. (Horticulture) Thesis. at Hort. Sci., 17: 14.
University of Khartoum, Sudan. "Effect of Gibberellic Acid 31. Kaur, S .and Singh, S. (2012). Progressive Agric., 12:
and Waxing on Quality and Storability of Lime Fruits". 277.
24. Camargo, E. and Castro, P.R. (2001). 22: 367. 32. Nirupama, P., Neeta, B.G. and Ramana, T.R. (2010). Amer.
25. Singh, S. and Singhrot, R.S. (1994) Harayana J. Hort. J. Agric. Env. Sci., 9: 470.
Sci., 23: 97. 33. Asrey, R. and Jain, R.K. (2000). Acta Hort., 692: 2.
26. Ismail, M.A. and Wilhite, D.L. (1992). Proc. Fla. State. Hort. 34. Abo-El-Ez, A.T., Behairy, Z.H. and Ahmed, A.M. (2002). J.
Soc., 105:168. Agric. Sci., 27: 517.