J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2016: Vol.

30 (1):83-86
(83) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

EFFECT OF GIBBERELLIC ACID AND PUTRESCINE ON STORAGE LIFE

AND FRUIT QUALITY OF PEAR CV. PUNJAB BEAUTY
Sonia*, P. P. S. Gill and S. K. Jawandha
Department of Fruit Science,
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana - 141004 India.
[Correseponding author E-mail: soniaminhas71@gmail.com]

Received: 14-01-2016 Revised: 12-04-2016 Accepted: 11-05-2016

The fruits of pear cv. Punjab Beauty were harvested at colour break stage and treated with aqueous solution of gibberellic acid (@
25, 50 and 75 ppm) and putrescine (@1, 2 and 3 mmolL-1) for 5 minutes. Thereafter, the fruits were packed in CFB boxes and stored
for 0-1°C and 90-95% RH. The control fruits were also kept under same conditions without any treatment. The observations for
various physiological and biochemical constituents were recorded at storage intervals till 75 days. The data revealed that fruits
treated with putrescine @ 1mmolL-1 resulted in minimum spoilage, maintained firmness, total sugars and showed maximum
palatability rating till 75 days.

In pear, the endogenous ethylene remains low until maturity,
then rises dramatically leading to ripening. 'Punjab Beauty' is
a promising cultivar of semi-soft pear cultivated in under
subtropical conditions of India. The fruit matures in third week
of July when the temperature and humidity are very high, as a
result the shelf life of fruits is low under ambient conditions
which result in considerable post harvest losses. So there is
need to enhance storage life of pear fruits to extend market
availability period. Ripening can be delayed by removal of
endogenous ethylene or by inhibiting the production with
chemicals. The best inhibitor would be the one that does not
affect the growth and development of the fruit but simply arrest
the ripening. Ideally its effects should be reversible by treatment
with gibberellic acid and putrescine. Of the many possibilities,
probably one by the most exciting and with commercial
methods would be the inhibition of ethylene biosynthesis and
action by chemical means. For eg. Gibberellins (GA) are a
group of growth substances which are known to retard ripening
and senescence of fruits. Post-harvest treatment of gibberellic
acid retard the total loss in weight, chlorophyll and ascorbic
acid content and reduces amylase and peroxidase activity
during ripening in mango1. The use of gibberellic acid as anti-
senescent regulator have been found to enhance the shelf-life
in many fruits by their antagonistic effect on ethylene
biosynthesis2. Similarly, polyamines have also been found to
be anti-senescence agents, with changes in their levels being
considered as a protective mechanism in plant tissues. Since
the exogenous polyamines, delay the fruit senescence and
NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20
physiological processes leading to fruit development, a higher
endogenous level of putrescine is associated with delayed
fruit ripening3. The control of ripening is the key to control
ripening and focus to enhance the storage life of fruits.
Therefore, the investigation was undertaken to study the effect
of post-harvest application of gibberellic acid and putrescine
on the storage life and fruit quality of pear cv. Punjab Beauty
during cold storage.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The present studies were carried out in Post Harvest Laboratory
of Department of Fruit Science, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana during the year 2013. The physiologically mature,
uniform and healthy fruits of pear cv. Punjab Beauty were hand
harvested from all four directions of the plant fruits in the early
hours from the Fruit Research Farm of Department and
immediately transported in plastic crates to Laboratory. Fruits
were washed and air dried and dipped solutions of gibberellic
acid (@ 25, 50 and 75 ppm) and putrescine (@ 1, 2 and 3
mmolL-1) for 5-minutes in aqueous. Treated fruits were air dried
under shade before packaging. For storage studies, 2.0 kg
fruits from each replication of each treatment were packed in
corrugated fibre board (CFB) boxes (5% perforation) with paper
lining, kept at low temperature conditions (0-10C and 90-95%
RH). The fruits samples were analysed after 45, 60 and 75
days of storage for various physico-chemical characteristics
viz; spoilage, firmness, total sugars and palatability rating.
The spoilage per cent of fruits was calculated on the number
 EFFECT OF GIBBERELLIC ACID AND PUTRESCINE ON STORAGE LIFE (84)

Table-1.Effect of gibberellic acid and putrescine on the spoilage of pear cv. Punjab Beauty.

CD at 5% level Treatment(A): 0.03 Storage Interval(B): 0.01 (A x B): 0.06 Base Value=0.00

Table-2.Effect of gibberellic acid and putrescine on the total sugars of pear cv. Punjab Beauty.

Base Value=5.65, CD at 5% level, Treatment(A): 0.03; Storage Interval(B): 0.01; (A x B) ; : 0.04

Table-3.Effect of gibberellic acid and putrescine on the fruit firmness of pear cv. Punjab Beauty.

CD at 5% level Treatment(A): 0.02 Storage Interval(B): 0.01 (A x B): 0.05 Base Value=13.50
(85) SONIA, GILL AND JAWANDHA

Table-4.Effect of gibberellic acid and putrescine on the palatability rating of pear cv. Punjab Beauty.

CD at 5% level ; Treatment (A) : 0.04; Storage Interval (B) : 0.03 (A x B) : 0.16

basis by counting the spoiled fruits at each storage interval positive role in delaying the process of senescence of fruits by
and expressed in percent. Fruit firmness was recorded with maintaining cell integrity5. These studies corroborates with
help of stand mounted penetrometer (model FT-327, USA) fitted the findings of other workers6.
with 8 mm spherical tip. A small portion of fruit skin was peeled-
Total sugars content of fruit juice was significantly effected by
off and tip was inserted in fruit from both sides to record firmness
various treatments as well with storage. The fruits showed
and expressed in lbf. The total sugars were determined as
increased total sugars content up to 60 days of storage and
standard method4. The fruits were evaluated for Organoleptic
thereafter it declined at 75 days of storage in all the treatments.
rating by a panel of 10 judges on the basis of general
This decline was sharp in control fruits whereas putrescine
appearance, taste and flavor of fruits on Hedonic scale (1-9).
1mmolL-1 treated fruits total sugars showed least decline rate
The experiment was laid out as per Completely Randomized
with storage. The decline in the sugar content at the later
Block Design (CRBD). Data were analyzed for Analysis of
stages of storage may be attributed to the fact that after the
Variance (Proc GLM) using statistical package SAS 9.3 (The
completion of hydrolysis of starch, no further increase in sugars
SAS system for Windows, Version 9.3, SAS Institute, Cary,
occurs and subsequently a decline in sugars is predictable as
NC).
they along with other organic acids are primary substrate for
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION respiration7. However, irrespective of the storage period, mean
total sugars content were higher in the untreated fruits, than
Spoilage of pear fruits increased with advancement of storage
the treated with gibberellic acid or putrescine. Among different
period. The spoilage of fruits was minimum after 45 days of
treatments, fruits that received 1mmolL-1 putrescine showed
storage while maximum spoilage of fruits was noted at the
least mean total sugars content. Reduction in total sugars in
end of study. Various treatments significantly reduced the
1mmolL-1 putrescine treated fruits may be due to slower rate
spoilage during storage as compared to control. However, mean
of ripening and conversion of complex carbohydrates in simple
minimum spoilage of fruits (0.53%) was observed in fruits
sugars.
treated with 1mmolL-1 putrescine and maximum was recorded
in untreated fruits at all storage intervals. After 45 days of In all the treatments fruit firmness in general followed a declining
storage, a spoilage of 1.80 percent was recorded only in control trend commensurate with the advancement in storage period.
fruits, while after 60 days spoilage of fruits was observed in all The fruits treated with different concentrations of putrescine
the treatments except, 1mmolL-1 putrescine treatment. The maintained higher firmness as compared to gibberellic acid
lower spoilage in polyamines treatments may be due to their
 EFFECT OF GIBBERELLIC ACID AND PUTRESCINE ON STORAGE LIFE (86)

and control at all storage intervals. The maximum mean fruit
firmness (7.70 lb force) was observed in fruits treated with
putrescine 1mmolL-1, while the lowest firmness was noticed
in control fruits (6.03 lb force). The fruits treated with putrescine
1mmolL-1 maintained higher firmness throughout the stipulated
storage period of 75 days and ranged between 11.30 to 5.27 lb
force as compared to control fruits which experienced the faster
loss of firmness during storage and ranged between 9.20 to
2.83 lb force, thus leading to excessive softening and shriveling
of fruits. Softening of fruits is caused either by breakdown of
proto-pectins into soluble pectin or by hydrolysis of starch.
The maintenance of higher firmness as a result of putrescine
1mmolL-1 may be due to their ability to prevent the physiological
for a long storage period. It might be due to slow degradation
of the chemical composition of the fruits and prevention of
pathogens under putrescine treatments. Similarly, Putrescine
treated fruits showed significantly higher mean palatability
rating (7.37) as compared to the gibberellic acid or control
fruits. Similar results were reported by earlier workers10. The
study showed the storage life of Punjab Beauty pear can be
enhanced by post harvest dip of in 1mmolL-1 putrescine.
REFERENCES
1. Khader, S.E., S.A., Singh, B.P. and Khan, S.A. (1988). Scientia
Hort. 36: 261.
2. Singh, D. and Arora, A.L. (1997). Prog. Hort. 29: 22.

weight loss during storage and to inhibit/ delay ethylene
production and/ or action in different fruits8.
The data in Table-4 regarding the palatability rating showed
that the consumer acceptability/ appearance of fruits improved
from 45 to 60 days of storage in all the treatments except
control which recorded decrease palatability throughout the
3. Dibble, A.R.G., Davis, P.J. and Mutschler, M.A. (1988). Plant
Physiol. 86: 338.
4. A.O.A.C. (2000). In: Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Edition.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D C,
USA.
5. Mirdehglam, S.H., Rahemi, M., Castillo, S., Romero, M.D., Serrano,
M. and Valero, D. (2007). Postharvest Biol. Tech. 44: 26.

storage period. After 60 days of storage, palatability rating 6.
declined in various treatments up to end of storage. It might
7.
be due to fluctuations in acids, pH and sugar/acid ratio of
fruits under different treatments. The lower palatability rating
8.
in control fruits during storage might be due to the early onset
of senescence of the tissue because of decreased firmness, 9.
more rotting or dull appearance of the fruit skin9. The untreated
fruits attend the maximum palatability rating at 45th day and 10.
putrescine treated fruits retained the consumer acceptability
Mahajan, B.V.C., Singh, K. and Dhillon, W.S. (2010). J. Food Sci.
Tech. 47: 351.
Wills, R.B.H., Termazi, S.I.H. and Scot, K.J. (1982). J. Hort. Sci.
57: 431.
Dong, L., Lurie, S. and Zhou, H. (2002). Postharvest Biol. Tech.
24: 135.
Malundo, T.M.M., Baldwin, E.A., Moshonas, M.G., Baker, R.A.
and Shewfelt, R.L. (1997). J. Agric. Food Chem. 45: 2187.
Jawandha, S.K., Gupta, N. and Randhawa, J.S. (2012). Not.
Sci. Biol. 4: 86.