Effect of Storage Conditions and Plastic Packaging on Postharvest Quality of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco.) in Dhankuta, Nepal

International Journal of Horticulture, Agriculture and Food Science (IJHAF)
ISSN: 2456-8635
[Vol-9, Issue-2, Apr-Jun, 2025]
Issue DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijhaf.9.2
Peer-Reviewed Journal
Article DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijhaf.9.2.3 (Int. j. hortic. agric. food sci.)
https://aipublications.com/ijhaf/ Page | 20
Effect of Storage Conditions and Plastic Packaging on
Postharvest Quality of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco.)
in Dhankuta, Nepal
Sagar Bhusal1,*
, Bibek Acharya2,
, Susmita Adhikari1
, Hom Nath Giri3
, Umesh Kumar
Acharya5
, Arjun Kumar Shrestha4
, Dipti Adhikari6
and Shruti Shrestha1
1
Department of Horticulture, Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
2
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
3
Chairman, Department of Horticulture, AFU, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
4
Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, AFU, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal
5
Senior Research Scientist, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC)
6
Technical Officer (T6), Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC)
*Corresponding author
Received: 27 May 2025; Received in revised form: 20 May 2025; Accepted: 25 May 2025; Available online: 02 Jun 2025
©2025 The Author(s). Published by AI Publications. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Abstract— Postharvest deterioration significantly affects the shelf life and marketability of mandarin fruit in
Nepal. The primary causes are inadequate storage and packaging practices. This study aimed to evaluate the
effects of storage conditions and plastic packaging with varying ventilation levels on the postharvest quality of
mandarin fruit during storage. A laboratory experiment was conducted during January to March of 2021 to study
the effect of storage conditions- room storage (15.98± 0.89 °C, 71.15± 5.80% RH), cellar storage (14.72 ± 1.20
°C, 94.28 ± 5.71% RH) and cool chamber with CoolBot (8.12 ± 0.44 °C, 79.43 ± 4.54% RH) and different plastic
packaging of 25 micron: two, four, six and eight holes plastic and control (open tray). The experiment was laid
out in factorial randomized complete block design with three replications. Result revealed that the lowest
physiological loss in weight (9%) was recorded under CoolBot with 8 holes packaging, while the highest
(23.66%) was in control under room storage. The highest total soluble solids (14.19 °brix) and the lowest
titratable acid (0.88%) were observed in the control. Greater vitamin-C content was observed in CoolBot storage
and 8 holes plastic packaging (27.29 mg/100g and 29.11 mg/100g respectively). The longest shelf life (91 days)
was found under CoolBot storage with 8 holes plastic packaging as compared to control in room storage (32
days). Further validation across multiple seasons and commercial production settings is recommended.
Keywords— Mandarin, CoolBot, polyethene packaging, shelf life, postharvest quality, storage conditions,
preliminary study.
I. INTRODUCTION
Citrus fruits (genus Citrus; family Rutaceae) are
specialized form of berry, named hesperidium, characterized
by a juicy pulp made of vesicles within segments (Strano et
al., 2017). Citrus, particularly the mandarin orange is the most
important and highly commercialized fruit crop in the hills of
Nepal. Mandarin is a group name for a class of citrus fruit with
thin and loose peel. Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) is a
most potent fruit crop that stands in first position of the total
fruit industry in Nepal. The mid-hill region (1000 to 1500 m
altitude) has a comparative advantage in the cultivation of

Bhusal et al. International Journal of Horticulture, Agriculture and Food Science (IJHAF)
9(2)-2025
citrus fruits, especially mandarin and sweet orange (Bhattarai
et al., 2013). It shares 0.97 % in AGDP and 0.33 % in GDP
(PMD, 2002). The country exports mandarin to India, China,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan and other countries, is about
600 mt annually (TEPC, 2013).
The postharvest losses of citrus in South Asian
region are estimated as 20% (Ladaniya, 2015). Diseases and
pests, delay harvest, poor roads, cold storage conditions and
glut cause these losses. But the attack of the blue mould
(Penicillium italicum) and green mould (P. digitatum) causes
postharvest decays of citrus fruits in cold storage as well as in
open citrus fruits and pollutes the environment as well.
Different packaging practices and storage helps to reduce
post-harvest diseases and prolongs the shelf life of mandarin.
Storage of citrus is essential in order to prolong their
usability which aims to slow down the respiration,
transpiration, and development of pathological or
physiological disorders so that the commodity could be
preserved for longer in the most usable form. By proper
storage, undesirable processes like rotting, sprouting,
toughening, ripening and greening process are minimized.
According to Shrestha et al. (1993) most important factors for
storage are the commodity itself, the physiochemical
environment, and the microbial environment. The commodity
should be properly matured, healthy, and should be able to
tolerate adverse environmental conditions.
Despite the importance of citrus to Nepalese
horticulture, high postharvest losses remain a critical barrier
to profitability for smallholder growers. Improving shelf life
through better storage and packaging can reduce waste and
increase value, but research in this area remains limited.
Given the lack of low-cost storage trials for mandarin in
Nepal, this study aims to provide insights into how packaging
ventilation and storage conditions affect postharvest quality,
with the goal of identifying promising solutions for reducing
losses.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Research Location
This study was conducted at the laboratory of the
National Citrus Research Program (NCRP), located in
Paripatle, Dhankuta, Nepal. The fruits used in the experiment
were harvested from the orchard of NCRP. Dhankuta is a mid-
hill district situated in Koshi province of Nepal, situated
between 26°53' to 27°19' N latitude and 87°08' to 88°33' E
longitude. The experimental site lies at an elevation ranging
from 1100 to 1400 meters above sea level.
2.2 Experimental design and treatments
The research was laid out in Factorial Randomized
Complete Block Design (RCBD) with 15 treatments
combination and replicated three times. The mandarins were
kept in five different types of packaging materials (P1- Tray
(control), P2- Plastic bag with 2 holes, P3- Plastic bag with 4
holes, P4- Plastic bag with 6 holes and P5- Plastic bag with 8
holes) and kept in three different storage conditions (S1-
Room storage, S2- Cellar storage and S3- CoolBot storage).
The detailed treatment combinations are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Treatment combinations of storage condition and plastic packaging of mandarin
S.N. Treatment Symbol Treatment combination
1 T1 S1P1 Room storage + Control
2 T2 S1P2 Room storage + 2 holes plastic packaging
6 T6 S2P1 Cellar storage + Control
7 T7 S2P2 Cellar storage + 2 holes plastic packaging
11 T11 S3P1 CoolBot storage + Control
12 T12 S3P2 CoolBot storage + 2 holes plastic packaging

9(2)-2025
Each treatment comprised 4 polyethylene bags (25 microns)
containing 10 fruits per bag. One bag per treatment was
designated for non-destructive observations, while the
remaining bags were used for destructive sampling at
scheduled intervals.
2.3 Pre-storage fruit handling
Mature, yellowish mandarin fruits- cultivar Khoku
Local were carefully harvested from the orchard of the
National Citrus Research Program (NCRP) using secateurs to
minimize mechanical damage. The fruits were then brought to
the laboratory, where they were sorted and graded based on
size, uniformity, and absence of visible defects. Following
sorting, the fruits were washed in tap water for two minutes to
remove any adhering dirt or debris and subsequently air-dried
in the shade for 2–3 hours. To strengthen the peel and reduce
postharvest decay, the fruits were dipped in a 4 g/L solution
of Chlorocal (calcium chloride) for four minutes and then
allowed to dry again under shade conditions. A thin, uniform
layer of wax was gently applied to the peel surface by hand to
reduce moisture loss and improve external appearance.
Finally, the waxed fruits were left to dry for an additional two
hours before packaging and storage.
2.4. Packaging and Storage
Plastic bags (25 microns) were punched with holes
(2, 4, 6, and 8) of 5 mm diameter using a punching machine.
Ten fruits were packed per bag, and the bag openings were
sealed using rubber bands. Bags were then placed in their
designated storage structures (Room, Cellar, or CoolBot).
2.5. Data Collection
Both non-destructive and destructive observations
were made throughout the storage period. Non-destructive
data included Physiological loss in weight (PLW) and Decay
loss whereas, destructive data included Total Soluble Solids
(TSS), Titratable Acidity (TA) and Vitamin C content.
2.5.1 Physiological loss in weight (PLW)
Weight loss was recorded at weekly interval over the
storage period. A digital sensitive balance was used to record
the fruit weight. Weight loss was calculated according the
methods described by Joshi et al. (2020).
𝑃𝐿𝑊 (%) = {(W0 – Wt. ) ÷ W0} ∗ 100
Where, PLW is the physiological loss in weight, W0 is the
initial fruit weight and Wt. is the weight of fruits at the
designated time.
2.5.2 Decay loss
The fruits of mandarin were visually evaluated for the
symptoms of decay. Decay loss was recorded at weekly
interval basis.
𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 (%) = (𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡
÷ 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡) ∗ 100
2.5.3 Juice percentage
The juice content was taken from three destructive sample
by squeezing through manual methods at every 15 days
interval. Juice percentage per fruit was obtained from the
following formula adopted by Joshi et al. (2020).
𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 (%)
= (𝐽𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡
÷ 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡) ∗ 100
2.5.4 Total soluble solids (TSS)
TSS was determined by using Pal Brix-Acidity
meter. Two to three drops of clear fruit juice were placed on
the prism of the instrument for TSS determination. It was
measured in ºBrix.
2.5.5 Titratable acidity (TA)
The extracted fruit juice was diluted to the ratio of
1:50 and TA was recorded using Pal Brix-Acidity meter by
placing 1-2 drops of diluted juice on the prism surface. TAwas
measured in terms of percentage.
2.5.6 TSS/TA ratio
𝑇𝑆𝑆
𝑇𝐴
= 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑒 ÷ 𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦
2.5.7 pH of fruit juice
pH of the sample fruit was measured with the help of digital
pH meter.
2.5.8 Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid)
The ascorbic acid of the fruit was measured by volumetric
method as per the reference from Sadasivsm and Manickam
(1991). Following formula was used to calculate the ascorbic
acid content.

9(2)-2025
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑 (
𝑚𝑔
100𝑔
)
=
(0.5 𝑚𝑔 ∗ 𝑉2 ∗ 100 ∗ 100)
(𝑉1 ∗ 5 𝑚𝑙 ∗ 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑗𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒)
Where, V1 = amount of dye consumed during titration, V2 =
Amount of dye consumed when supernatant was titrated with
4% oxalic acid It was determined at the fortnightly interval.
The titration was done using the 2,6-
dichlorophenolindophenol method (Antoniali et al., 2007)
2.5.9 Index of absorbance difference (IAD)
Index of absorbance difference (IAD) was measured
using Delta absorbance (DA) meter. The DAmeter emits LED
light to fruit skin and measures the amount of light reflected
back (Cai & Farcuh, 2021).
2.5.10 Citrus color index (CCI)
Color index of the fruit skin was determined by using
Chroma meter (CR-400). Three values i.e. L, a, and b were
recorded. The value “L” represents lightness, its value ranges
from 0 to 100, more black colors close to zero and more white
colors close to 100. The value “a” represents the redness, and
the value “b” represents the yellowness. On the basis of the
values L, a, and b, citrus color index (CCI) was calculated
according to the formula given by Pandey et al. (2021).
𝐶𝐶𝐼 = {
(1000 ∗ 𝑎)
𝐿 ∗ 𝑏
}
2.5.11 Shelf life
Shelf life was determined by visual observation of non-
destructive sample. The fruit lots will be considered to have
reached the end of shelf life when 50% of fruits showed visual
observation of shrinkage or spoilage due to pathogens.
2.6 Statistical Analysis
The collected data was compiled in MS–excel program and
analysis of variance for all parameters was done by using
Genstat 15 Edition statistical computer package for Factorial
Randomized Complete Block Design. Duncan`s Multiple
Range Test (DMRT) for the mean separations was done from
the reference of Gomez and Gomez (1984). Table and Graph
was constructed by using the MS- word and excel computer
software program.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The following results present the combined effects of storage
conditions and plastic packaging with varying ventilation
level on key quality parameters including physiological
weight loss, vitamin C content, total soluble solids, titratable
acidity, and visual deterioration over time.
3.1 Physiological loss in weight
Physiological loss in weight (PLW) differed significantly (p
< 0.05) among the different storage conditions at 7 days of
storage (DOS), 28 DOS, 35 DOS, 42 DOS, and 49 DOS but it
did not differ significantly at 14 DOS and 21 DOS (Table 2).
Physiological loss in weight (PLW) differed significantly (p <
0.05) among the different plastic packaging in all days interval
(Table 2).
Higher PLW was observed in case of room storage,
intermediate was observed in case of cellar storage and lower
percentage of PLW was observed in case of cool chamber with
CoolBot, which might be due to the reason that the higher
temperature in the room storage leads to greater transpiration
resulting in higher physiological loss in weight.
In Mandarin, it was observed that lower temperatures were
found to reduce weight loss in all treatments (Lambrinou &
Papadopoulou, 1995). Significantly the lower physiological
loss in weight was observed in case of perforated polyethene
(2.38%) compared to control (19.08%) at 24 days of storage
(Paudel et al., 2020; Acharya et al., 2020). The highest PLW
at 45 days of storage of Kagzi Lime was observed in case of
control (33.46%) while fruits stored in MAP showed a
minimum PLW (1.04%) (Hayat et al., 2017).
Table 2. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on physiological loss in weight of mandarin during storage.
Treatments
Physiological loss in weight (%)
7
DOS
14
DOS
21
DOS
28
DOS
35
DOS
42
DOS
49
DOS
Storage conditions (Factor A)
Room storage 2.59a
4.66 7.09 8.60a
10.72a
12.53a
16.93a
Cellar storage 2.41a
4.99 7.10 8.81a
10.27a
10.99b
15.27b
Cool chamber with CoolBot 0.92b
4.14 6.86 7.48b
8.38b
10.13b
12.87c

9(2)-2025
SEm (±) 0.15 0.26 0.48 0.33 0.46 0.49 0.25
F-value *** Ns Ns * ** *** ***
LSD0.05 0.44 - - 0.94 1.33 1.09 0.72
Plastic packaging (Factor B)
Control 2.64a
5.75a
8.97a
12.26a
14.18a
16.54a
21.89a
LDPE plastic with two holes 2.19ab
4.54bc
6.99b
8.08b
11.10b
12.44b
15.67b
LDPE plastic with four holes 1.79bc
4.15bc
6.87b
7.02b
7.80c
9.90c
14.00c
LDPE plastic with six holes 1.84bc
4.86ab
6.74b
7.07b
8.12c
9.00cd
12.67d
LDPE plastic with eight holes 1.41c
3.68c
5.49b
7.07b
7.33c
8.21d
10.89e
SEm (±) 0.20 0.34 0.63 0.42 0.59 0.49 0.32
F-value ** ** * *** *** *** ***
LSD0.05 0.57 0.98 1.8 1.22 1.72 1.41 0.93
CV, % 12.7 19.3 13.5 15.3 14.7 13.1 8.4
Grand mean 1.97 4.60 7.01 8.30 9.79 11.22 15.02
Means with same letter in column are not significantly different at p = 0.05 by DMRT. Ns = Not Significant, ** significant at p <
0.01, ***significant at p < 0.001 and ns: not significantly different at p > 0.05. SEm± = Standard error of mean, LSD = Least
significant difference, CV = Coefficient of variation and DOS = Days of storage
3.2 Decay loss
Decay loss differed significantly (p < 0.05) among
the different storage conditions at 7 days of storage (DOS), 28
DOS, 35 DOS, and 42 DOS but it did not differ significantly
at 14 DOS, 21 DOS, and 49 DOS (Table 3). At 7 DOS,
significantly the highest decay loss of 2.12% was observed in
room condition while no decay loss was observed at all in the
cool chamber with CoolBot. At 49 DOS, the highest decay
loss of 12.51% was observed in the room condition while the
lowest decay loss of 9.22% was observed in the cool chamber
with CoolBot. At 7 DOS, the highest decay loss of 1.55% was
observed in the LDPE plastic packaging with two holes while
the lowest decay loss of 0.69% was found in the LDPE plastic
packaging with eight holes. At 49 DOS, the highest decay loss
of 12.00% was found in the control condition while the lowest
decay loss of 9.02% was found in the LDPE plastic packaging
with eight holes.
Higher decay loss in room storage compared to cellar
and cool chamber with CoolBot might be due to higher
temperature in room storage, as higher temperature accounted
for invasive disease development. The result is in line with
Talukder et al. (2015) who reported the highest fruit decay in
mandarin without polybag and the lowest observed in 0.5%
perforated polybag and kept at 5°C during 90 days of storage
period, which indicates that temperature has greater role in
decay.
Table 3. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on decay loss of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
Decay loss (%)
7 DOS 14 DOS 21 DOS 28 DOS 35 DOS 42 DOS 49 DOS
Room storage 2.12a
2.53 4.49 5.46a
8.33a
9.51a
12.51
Cellar storage 1.27b
2.4 4.27 5.41a
7.01ab
7.82b
10.68
Cool chamber with CoolBot 0.00c
1.8 3.47 3.87b
5.02b
6.23b
9.22
SEm (±) 0.24 0.31 0.38 0.39 0.89 0.55 0.96
F-value *** Ns Ns * * ** Ns

9(2)-2025
LSD0.05 0.71 - - 1.13 2.56 1.58 -
Control 1.22 3.00 4.71 5.62 8.56 9.56 12.00
LDPE plastic with two holes 1.55 2.44 4.44 5.24 7.88 9.10 11.30
LDPE plastic with four holes 1.29 2.11 4.44 5.34 6.40 8.03 10.36
LDPE plastic with six holes 0.88 2.00 4.026 4.69 5.61 7.76 10.15
LDPE plastic with eight holes 0.69 1.67 3.82 4.17 5.49 7.52 9.02
SEm (±) 0.31 0.40 0.50 0.50 1.14 0.71 1.24
F-value Ns Ns Ns Ns Ns Ns Ns
LSD0.05 - - - - - - -
CV, % 18.2 15.4 14.3 19.6 25 17.8 21.4
Grand mean 1.13 2.24 4.21 5.02 6.79 8.56 11.13
3.3 Juice percentage
Juice percentage did not differed significantly (p < 0.05)
among the different storage conditions at all days of data
recording (Table 4). Juice percentage was found to decrease
with the increase in storage duration in all storage conditions.
At 60 DOS, the juice percentage of 31.68% was found to be
the highest in cool chamber with CoolBot. Juice percentage
differed significantly (p < 0.05) among the different plastic
packaging at all days of storage (Table 4). At 45 DOS, the
highest juice percentage of 36.23% was found in LDPE plastic
packaging with eight holes.
The perforated plastic created the modified atmospheric
environment acting as a barrier which reduced the moisture
loss from the fruit attributed by low respiration and
transpiration rate resulting in the higher juice percentage
(Bhattarai & Shah, 2017). Ahamad and Siddiqui (2013)
reported higher juice percentage in case of PE-packed fruits
followed by the fruits with 100% Sta-Fresh 960 which might
be due to less water loss in PE-packaging and waxing
treatments as the combination acts as a barrier to moisture
loss. Maximum juice percentage was observed in case of
GA3+ perforated polyethene (40.30%) compared to control
(32.63%) during 24 DOS of mandarin (Paudel et al., 2020).
Table 4. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on juice percentage of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
Juice Percentage
15 DOS 30 DOS 45 DOS 60 DOS
Room storage 39.47 35.81 33.52 31.17
Cellar storage 40.00 35.96 33.73 31.52
Cool chamber with CoolBot 41.08 36.62 34.20 31.68
SEm (±) 0.51 0.52 0.51 0.49
F-value Ns Ns Ns Ns
LSD0.05 - - - -
Control 36.46c
32.79c
30.72d
28.40c

9(2)-2025
LDPE plastic with two holes 39.67b
35.49b
32.72c
29.95bc
LDPE plastic with four holes 39.88b
36.33b
33.88bc
31.17b
LDPE plastic with six holes 41.45b
37.53ab
35.54ab
33.28a
LDPE plastic with eight holes 43.45a
38.52a
36.23a
34.48a
SEm (±) 0.66 0.68 0.66 0.63
F-value *** *** *** ***
LSD0.05 1.92 1.96 1.92 1.83
CV, % 5.0 5.6 5.9 6.0
Grand mean 40.18 36.13 33.82 31.45
3.4 Total Soluble Solids(TSS)
TSS of fruits differed significantly (p < 0.05) among the
different storage conditions at only 60 DOS but it did not
differ significantly at 15 DOS, 30 DOS, and 45 DOS (Table
5). At 60 DOS, significantly the highest TSS was observed in
the fruits at room condition with 13.67 ⁰Brix whereas
significantly the lowest TSS was found in the fruits at cellar
storage with 13.00 ⁰Brix.
At 60 DOS, the highest TSS of 14.19 ⁰Brix was found in
control whereas the lowest TSS of 12.77 ⁰Brix was observed
in LDPE plastic packaging with four holes. The increase in
TSS with advancement of storage may be accounted to the
moisture loss, hydrolysis of polysaccharides and
concentration of juice as a result of dehydration. Hussain et
al. (2016) also reported that the increase in TSS is attributed
to the enzymatic conversion of higher polysaccharides such as
starches and pectins into simple sugars during ripening.
Table 5. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on TSS content of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
TSS (⁰Brix)
Room storage 12.19 13.00 13.06 13.67a
Cellar storage 12.45 12.80 12.92 13.00b
Cool chamber with CoolBot 12.08 12.87 12.83 13.14b
SEm (±) 0.21 0.11 0.12 0.11
F-value Ns Ns Ns ***
LSD0.05 - - - 0.33
Control 12.63 13.07a
13.73a
14.19a
LDPE plastic with two holes 12.31 12.73ab
13.04b
13.31b
LDPE plastic with four holes 12.19 13.07a
12.80bc
12.77c
LDPE plastic with six holes 12.01 12.47b
12.70bc
13.11bc
LDPE plastic with eight holes 12.06 13.11a
12.41c
12.95bc
SEm (±) 0.27 0.14 0.15 0.15

9(2)-2025
F-value Ns * *** ***
LSD0.05 - 0.42 0.44 0.43
CV, % 6.5 3.3 3.5 3.3
Grand mean 12.24 12.89 12.94 13.27
Means with same letter in column are not significantly different at p = 0.05 by DMRT. NS = Not Significant, ** significant at p <
3.5 Titratable acidity (TA)
Titratable acidity differed significantly (p < 0.05)
among the different storage conditions at 15 DOS and 60 DOS
but it did not differ significantly at 30 DOS and 45 DOS (Table
6). Minimum TA was observed in case of control and
maximum TA was observed in case of LDPE plastic
This might be due to the reason of combined effect
of transpiration and TSS. TA was recorded maximum in case
of LDPE plastic packaging with eight holes as compared to
control which might be due to less oxidation of organic acids
within the plastic package. The present findings are supported
by Santos et al. (2020) and Rokaya et al. (2016).
Table 6. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on TA of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
TA value (%)
Room storage 1.52b
1.32 1.16 0.9b
1.31 1.20 1.09a
Cool chamber with CoolBot 1.82a
1.36 1.20 1.11a
SEm (±) 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.04
F-value *** Ns Ns ***
LSD0.05 0.14 - - 0.11
Control 1.47 1.27 1.14b
0.88c
LDPE plastic with two holes 1.62 1.44 1.20a
1.02bc
LDPE plastic with four holes 1.63 1.33 1.22a
0.99bc
LDPE plastic with six holes 1.62 1.32 1.17ab
1.04b
LDPE plastic with eight holes 1.65 1.30 1.21a
1.22a
SEm (±) 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.05
F-value Ns Ns * **
LSD0.05 - - 0.05 0.14
CV, % 11.8 12.2 4.5 14.2
Grand mean 1.6 1.33 1.19 1.03

9(2)-2025
3.6 TSS/TA ratio
The ratio between TSS and TA differed significantly (p <
0.05) among the different storage conditions at 15 DOS and
60 DOS but did not differ significantly at 30 DOS and 45 DOS
(Table 7). At 60 DOS, significantly the highest TSS/TA of
15.24 was found in the fruits kept at room while significantly
the lowest TSS/TA of 11.43 was observed in the cool chamber
with CoolBot. At 60 DOS, significantly the highest ratio of
15.95 was found in the control whereas the lowest ratio of
11.08 was observed in the fruits kept in LDPE plastic
Table 7. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on TSS/TA ratio of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
TSS/TA ratio
Room storage 8.12a
9.97 11.40 15.24a
9.89 10.92 12.76b
Cool chamber with CoolBot 6.79b
9.56 10.88 11.43c
SEm (±) 0.22 0.32 0.16 0.38
F-value *** Ns Ns ***
LSD0.05 0.65 - - 1.1
Control 8.76a
10.35 12.08a
15.95a
8.92 11.05b
13.26b
10.05 10.58b
12.16bc
9.52 11.10b
13.27b
LDPE plastic with eight holes 7.63b
10.19 10.52b
11.08c
SEm (±) 0.29 0.42 0.21 0.49
F-value * Ns *** ***
LSD0.05 0.87 - 0.61 1.42
CV, % 11.0 12.8 5.7 11.2
Grand mean 7.87 9.81 11.07 13.15
3.7 pH of fruit juice
The pH of juice differed significantly (p < 0.05) among the
different storage conditions at 15 DOS and 30 DOS but it did
not differ significantly at 45 DOS and 60 DOS (Table 8). At
45 DOS, the lowest pH was found in cool chamber with
CoolBot. At 60 DOS, the highest pH was observed in room
condition whereas the lowest was observed in cellar storage.
The pH of juice differed significantly (p < 0.05) among the
different plastic packaging at 15 DOS and 45 DOS but did not
differ significantly at 30 DOS and 60 DOS (Table 8). At 60
DOS, the highest pH of 4.47 was obtained in control.
Higher pH was observed in case of room storage which
was due to higher TSS and lower acidity level. When the
storage period proceeds ahead, the pH of juice was increased
gradually under all the treatments. It may be due to the
utilization of organic acids present in the fruit during
respiration process. The phenomenon of increasing pH during
storage might be due to oxidation of acids in respiration

9(2)-2025
process resulting in higher pH which is supported by Islam et
al. (2013).
Table 8. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on pH of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
pH of fruit juice
Room storage 3.81a
4.29a
4.31 4.47
4.25a
4.28 4.30
4.08b
4.18 4.32
SEm (±) 0.027 0.03 0.05 0.06
F-value ** *** Ns Ns
LSD0.05 0.08 0.09 - -
Control 3.83a
4.28 4.39a
4.47
LDPE plastic with two holes 3.76abc
4.15 4.14bc
4.45
LDPE plastic with four holes 3.80ab
4.22 4.12c
4.43
LDPE plastic with six holes 3.69c
4.13 4.24abc
4.14
LDPE plastic with eight holes 3.71bc
4.24 4.34ab
4.34
SEm (±) 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.08
F-value * Ns * Ns
LSD0.05 0.10 - 0.19 -
CV, % 2.8 3.1 4.8 5.8
Grand mean 3.76 4.21 4.24 4.37
3.8 Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid)
The vitamin C content of juice differed significantly (p <
0.05) among the different storage conditions at 30 DOS and
60 DOS but it did not differ significantly at 15 DOS and 45
DOS (Table 9). The reduction in vitamin C during storage is
due to the reason that vitamin C is highly sensitive to
oxidation (Ajibola et al., 2009). Greater amount of vitamin C
at cool chamber with CoolBot might be due to low
temperature at Cool chamber with CoolBot, retarding the
oxidation of vitamin C. Modified atmospheric packaging
(MAP) is able to maintain a low O2 concentration around the
atmosphere of the fruit during storage, thereby retarding the
oxidation of ascorbic acid (Lee et al., 2015). Reddy et
al.(2008) also observed that the highest level of vitamin C
content of acid lime was maintained at LDPE packaging.
LDPE packaging was found to reduce the rate of decrease in
vitamin C content (Poudel et al., 2021).

9(2)-2025
Table 9. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on vitamin C content of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
Vitamin C content(mg/100 g)
Room storage 31.80 29.64b
27.84 25.30b
Cellar storage 31.93 30.56ab
28.38 25.87b
Cool chamber with CoolBot 32.44 30.87a
29.48 27.29a
SEm (±) 0.24 0.33 0.55 0.40
F-value Ns * Ns **
LSD0.05 - 0.98 - 1.17
Control 30.63c
27.67d
25.00c
22.22d
29.70c
27.52b
24.44c
30.56bc
28.85ab
26.22b
31.52ab
30.50a
28.76a
32.33a
30.96a
29.11a
SEm (±) 0.31 0.43 0.71 0.52
F-value *** *** ** ***
LSD0.05 0.91 1.26 2.05 1.51
CV, % 2.9 4.3 7.5 6.0
Grand mean 32.06 30.36 28.57 26.15
3.9 Index of absorbance difference (IAD)
Index of absorbance difference (IAD) did not differ
significantly among the different storage conditions at all days
of storage (Table 10). IAD differed significantly (p < 0.05)
among the different plastic packaging at 15 DOS, 45 DOS,
and 60 DOS (Table 10). At 45 DOS and 60 DOS, significantly
the highest IAD value of 0.117 and 0.0074 was observed in
the LDPE plastic packaging with six holes. IAD values of
peaches on-tree ripening were correlated with the amount of
ethylene emitted (Spadoni et al., 2016). In our study, IAD
value was observed low in case of room storage compared to
cellar and cool chamber with CoolBot, which might be due to
the reason that room storage allowed rapid degradation of
chlorophyll due to higher temperature as Chlorophyll a is heat
sensitive in nature.
Table 10. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on index of absorbance difference of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
Index of absorbance difference (IAD)
Room storage 0.29 0.12 0.063 0.0024
Cellar storage 0.32 0.13 0.064 0.0033

9(2)-2025
Cool chamber with CoolBot 0.35 0.19 0.062 0.0039
SEm (±) 0.02 0.02 0.014 0.0011
F-value Ns Ns Ns Ns
LSD0.05 - - - -
Control 0.19c
0.11 0.039b
0.0009b
LDPE plastic with two holes 0.36ab
0.15 0.077ab
0.0041ab
LDPE plastic with four holes 0.41a
0.15 0.040b
0.0012b
0.16 0.117a
0.0074a
LDPE plastic with eight holes 0.31b
0.14 0.042b
0.0024b
SEm (±) 0.03 0.026 0.018 0.0014
F-value ** Ns * *
LSD0.05 0.09 - 0.054 0.004
CV, % 11.2 12.2 14.9 13.5
Grand mean 0.32 0.14 0.063 0.0032
3.10 Citrus color index (CCI)
Citrus color index (CCI) of mandarin differed
significantly (p < 0.05) among the different storage conditions
at 15 DOS and 45 DOS but it did not differ significantly at 30
DOS and 60 DOS (Table 11). The color values L, a, b showed
a good correlation with the maturity stage of the tomato (Bui
et al., 2010). In our study, greater value of citrus color index
in LDPE plastic packaging with eight holes showed proper
and uniform color development. It might be due to proper air
circulation from the holes creates freshness of fruit with
glossy appearance.
Table 11. Effect of storage conditions and plastic packaging on citrus color index of mandarin in storage.
Treatments
Citrus color index (CCI)
Storage conditions ( Factor A)
Room storage 10.35b
11.93 12.69ab
11.28
12.00 12.14b
11.10
12.32 13.23a
11.56
SEm (±) 0.08 0.17 0.19 0.17
F-value *** Ns ** Ns
LSD0.05 0.24 - 0.55 -
Control 9.78e
11.49b
11.94c
10.99
LDPE plastic with two holes 10.74d
11.51b
12.55bc
11.23

9(2)-2025
LDPE plastic with four holes 11.34c
12.52a
12.68bc
11.43
12.35a
12.77b
11.37
12.54a
13.51a
11.56
SEm (±) 0.10 0.22 0.24 0.22
F-value *** ** ** Ns
LSD0.05 0.31 0.63 0.71 -
CV, % 2.9 5.4 5.8 5.9
Grand mean 11.11 12.08 12.69 11.31
3.11 Shelf Life
The maximum shelf life was observed in case of
LDPE plastic packaging with eight holes in cool chamber with
CoolBot (91 days) and the minimum shelf life was observed
in case of control in room storage (32 days). In a study on
mandarin, maximum shelf life of 48 days was observed in
case of GA3(100ppm) + perforated polyethene compared to
control under room condition (Paudel et al., 2020).
IV. CONCLUSION
This study showed that the use of eight-hole
polyethylene bags combined with CoolBot storage was
effective in preserving the postharvest quality of mandarin
fruits by minimizing physiological loss and maintaining
nutritional content. The combination extended shelf life
significantly compared to ambient conditions and non-
ventilated packaging. Further research across multiple
seasons and commercial storage settings is recommended to
validate these findings.
ETHICAL STATEMENT
Not applicable as the study does not require any
ethical approval.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to sincerely thank the staff of
the Department of Horticulture, Agriculture, and Forestry
University (AFU) and the National Citrus Research Program
(NCRP) for providing assistance during the research. Special
thanks to Scientist Sabitri Adhikari, NARC, for her guidance.
The author is also grateful to my friends, juniors, and family
for their constant encouragement.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors have no relevant financial and non-
financial interests to disclose. The authors declare that they
have no competing interests.
DATAAVAILABILITY
The data supporting the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
FUNDING
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support
were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] Acharya, B., Joshi, B., Regmi, R., & Poudel, N. (2020). Effect
of plant extracts and packaging materials on prolonging shelf
life and maintaining quality of mandarin (Citrus reticulata
Blanco.). International Journal of Horticulture, Agriculture
and Food Science, 4(2), 29–34.
https://doi.org/10.22161/ijhaf.4.2.3
[2] Adhikari, S. (2004). Postharvest Management of Fruit and
Vegetables in the Asia-Pacific Region. Food and Agriculture
Organization.
[3] Adhikari, S. (2006). In Proceedings of postharvest management
of fruit and vegetables in Asia-Pacific Region (p. 312). India:
Asian Productivity Organization.
[4] Ahmad, F., Zaidi, S., & Arshad, M. (2021). Postharvest quality
assessment of apple during storage at ambient temperature.
Heliyon, 7(8). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.
2021.e07714

9(2)-2025
Fig.1. Shelf life of mandarin under different storage conditions and plastic packaging
32
37
42
56
62
35
43
49
57
61
76
65
72
83
91
Room
+
Control
Room
+
Plastic
with
two
holes
Room
+
Plastic
with
four
holes
Room
+
Plastic
with
six
holes
Room+
Plastic
with
eight
holes
Cellar
+
Control
Cellar
+
Plastic
with
two
holes
Cellar
+
Plastic
with
four
holes
Cellar
+
Plastic
with
six
holes
Cellar
+
Plastic
with
eight
holes
Cool
chamber
with
Coolbot
+
Control
Cool
chamber
with
Coolbot
+
Plastic
with
two
holes
Cool
chamber
with
Coolbot
+
Plastic
with
four
holes
Cool
chamber
with
Coolbot
+
Plastic
with
six
holes
Cool
chamber
with
Coolbot
+
Plastic
with
eight
holes
Shelf
life
(days)
Treatment combination
Shelf life of mandarin

9(2)-2025
[5] Ahmad, S., & Siddiqui, M.W. (2013). Postharvest treatments
for preserving quality of 'kinnow' fruit under different storage
conditions. Advances in Horticultural Science.
[6] Ajibola, V., Babatunde, O., & Suleiman, S. (2009). The Effect
of Storage Method on the Vitamin C Content in Some Tropical
Fruit Juices. Science Alert, 4, 79-84.
doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.17311/tasr.2009.79.84
[7] Antoniali, S., Leal, P.M., Magalhaes, A.M., Fuziki, R.T., &
Sanches, J. (2007). Physico chemical characterization of “Zarco
HS” yellow bell pepper for different ripness stages. Scientia
Agricola. (64): 19-22.
[8] Badal, S. (2015, November). Effect of chemical and physical
treatments and use of cushioning material on postharvest quality
of mango(Mangifera indica L. cv Dashehari) M.Sc Thesis.
Agriculture And Forestry University, Rampur ,Chitwan,Nepal.
[9] Bangerth, F. (1979, September). Calcium-related physiological
disorders of plants. Annual Review of Phytopathology, pp. 97-
122.
[10] Baswal, A.K., Dhaliwal, H., Singh, Z., & Mahajan, B. (2020).
Influence of Types of Modified Atmospheric Packaging (MAP)
Films on Cold-Storage Life and Fruit Quality of ‘Kinnow’
Mandarin (Citrus nobilis Lour X Citrus deliciosa Tenora).
International Journal of Fruit Science, 20(S3).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1553 8362.2020.1818163
[11] Bhattarai , B., & Shah, R. (2017). Effect of different packaging
materials on postharvest status of mandarin (Citrus reticulata
Blanco.). Journal of Horticulture, 4(4). doi:10.4172/2376-
0354.1000218
[12] Bhattarai, R.R., Rijal, R.K., & Mishra, P. (2013). Postharvest
losses in mandarin orange: A case study of Dhankuta district,
Nepal. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(9), 763-767.
[13] Cai, Y., & Farcuh, M. (2021). Determining Peach Fruit
Maturity. University of Maryland Extension.
[14] Castellanos, D.A., & Herrera, A.O. (2017). Modified
atmosphere packaging: Design and optimization strategies for
fresh produce. In I. Kahramanoglu, Postharvest Handling.
[15] Chu, W., Gao, H., Chen, H., Fang, X., & Zheng, Y. (2017).
Effects of cuticular wax on the postharvest quality of blueberry
fruit. Food Chemistry.
[16] Costa, G., Rocchi, L., Farneti, B., Busatto, N., Spinelli, F., &
Vidoni, S. (2017). Use of nondestructive devices to support pre-
and postharvest fruit management. horticulturae, 3(12).
doi:10.3390/horticulturae3010012
[17] Gautam, D., Bhattarai, D., & Acharya, U. (2019). Postharvest
Management of Horticultural Crops in Nepal. Proceedings of
the 10th National Horticulture Seminar 2019, 149-154.
[18] Hassan, Z., Lesmayati, S., Qomariah, R., & Hasbianto, A.
(2014). Effects of wax coating application and storage
temperatures on the on the quality of tangerine citrus(Citrus
reticulata)var.Siam Banjar . International Food Research
Journal, 641-648.
[19] Hayat, F., Khan, M.N., Zafar, S.A., Balal, R.M., Nawaz, M.A.,
Malik, A.U., & Salem, B.A. (2017). Surface coating and
modified atmosphere packaging enhances storage life and
quality of ‘kaghzi lime’. Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology, 19(4), 1151-1160.
[20] Hussein, J.B., Sanusi, M.S., & Filli, K.B. (2016). Evaluation of
drying methods on the content of some bio-actives (lycopene,
β-carotene and ascorbic acid) of tomato slices. African. J. Food
Sci., 10 (12) (2016), pp. 359-367, 10.5897/AJFS2016.1470
[21] Ibrahim, k. (n.d.). Postharvest Physiology and Technology of
Horticultural Crops. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69466
[22] Islam, M.K. & Khan, Md. Zaved & Sarkar, M.A.R & Yeasmin,
Sadia & Ali, M.K., & Uddin, Md. H. (2013). Postharvest quality
of mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit affected by different levels
of gibberellic acid during storage. Malaysian Journal of
Analytical Sciences. 17. 499-509.
[23] Jawandha, S., Singh , H., Arora, A., & Singh, J. (2014). Effect
of modified atmosphere packaging on storage of Baramasi
Lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm). International Journal of
Agriculture, Environment & Biotechnology, 7, 635-638.
doi:10.5958/ 2230-732X.2014.01369.2
[24] Joshi, P., Ojha, B.R., & Kafle, A. (2020). Effect of different
postharvest treatments on prolonging shelf life of Citrus
reticulata Blanco. Nepalese Horticulture, 14, 1-8.
[25] Kader, A. (2002). Postharvest technology of horticultural
crops.3rd ed. USA: University of California.
[26] Ladaniya, M.S. (2015). Postharvest management of citrus fruit
in South Asian countries . Acta Hort. 1065, 1669-1676.
[27] Lambrinou, M.M., & Papadopoulou, P. (1995). Effect of
storage temperature on encore mandarin quality. Acta
Horticulturae, 475-482. doi:https://doi.org/10.17660/Acta
Hortic.1995.379.59
[28] Lee, J.H., Min, S., & Song, K. (2015). Effects of edible coating
on the quality change in "Hongro" apples during storage.
Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry, 58(1), 61-64.
[29] Mathooko, F. (2003). A comparison of modified atmosphere
packaging under ambient conditions and low temperature
storage on quality of tomato fruit. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutri.
Develop., 2-9.
[30] Mutari, A., & Debbie, R. (2011). The effects of postharvest
handling and storage temperature on the quality and shelf life of
tomato. African Journal of Food Science, 5(7), 446-452.
[31] NCRP. (2019). Annual Report 2075/76(2018/19). Paripatle,
Dhankuta, Nepal: National Citrus Research Programme.
[32] Pandey, K., Rattanpal, H.S., Sidhu, G.S., & Singh, J. (2021).
Impact of different rootstock on morphology, yield efficiency
and fruit quality of Kinnow mandarin. Applied Ecology and
Environmental Research, 20(3), 2077–2093.
https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2003_20772093
[33] Parashar, M. (2010). Post'-harvest profile of mandarin.
http://agmarknet.nic.in/preface-mandarin.pdf.
[34] Paudel, A., Baral, D., Acharya, H., & Dhital, M. (2020). Effect
of postharvest dipping and various packaging materials on
quality traits of mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco.). Acta
Chemica Malaysia, 3(2), 14-20.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/acmy-2019-0007

9(2)-2025
[35] PMD. (2002). Postharvest management and value addition of
fruits in production catchments in Nepal. Shreemahal,
Kathmandu, Nepal: Postharvest Management Directorate,.
[36] Poudel, S., Gautam, I. P., Ghimire, D., Pandey, S., Dhakal, M.,
& Regmi, R. (2021). Modified atmosphere packaging of
capsicum for extending shelf life under coolbot condition.
Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 4(1), 120-129.
doi:https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v4i1.33233
[37] Rahemi, M. (2006). Proceedings of postharvest management of
fruit and vegetables in Asia-Pacific Region. India: Asian
Productivity Organization.
[38] Reddy, V.B., Madhavi, G.B., Reddy, D.V., Reddy, V.C., &
Srinu, B. (2008). Effect of different packing materials on the
shelf life and quality of acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia swingla.)
at room temperature. Journal of Dairying, Foods & Home
Sciences., 27 (3/4), 216 – 220.
[39] Regmi, B.G., Gautam, D., Thapa, R., Gurung, G., & Karki, K.
(1996). Production and marketing constraints to fresh fruits and
vegetables in the western hills of Nepal: A Rapid Marketing
Appraisal. Nepal.
[40] Rokaya, P.R. (2017, December). Effect of altitude and various
pre and postharvest factors on quality and shelflife of
mandarin(Citrus reticulata, Blanco) (Pd.D. thesis). Agriculture
And Forestry University, Rampur,Chitwan,Nepal.
[41] Rokaya, P.R., Baral, D.R., Gautam, D.M., Shrestha, A.K., &
Paudyal, K.P. (2016). Effect of postharvest treatments on
quality and shelf life of mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco).
American Journal of Plant Sciences, 7, 1098-1105.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2016.77105
[42] Sadasivam, S., & Manickam, A. (1991). Biochemical methods.
Chennai: New Age Internatinal Publishers.
[43] Santos, B.M., Quiroz, R., & Borges, T.P.F. (2005). A solar
collector design procedure for crop drying. Brazilian J. Chem.
Eng., 22 (2) (2005), pp. 104-112, 10.1590/S0104-
66322005000200016
[44] Saran , S., Dubey, N., Mishra, V., Dwivedi, S., & Raman, N.
(2013). Evaluation of coolbot cool room as a low cost storage
system for marginal farmers. Progressive Horticulture, 45,115-
121.
[45] Shrestha, G., Shakya, S., Baral, D., & Gautam, D. (1993).
Fundamental Of Horticulture.
[46] Shrestha, P. (2001). Citrus Orchard Establishment and
Management Technology.
[47] Spadoni, A., Cameldi, I., Noferini, M., Bonora, E., Costa, G.,
& Mari, M. (2016). An innovative use of DA-meter for peach
fruit postharvest management. Scientia Horticulturae, 201,
140-144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.01.041.
[48] Strano, M.C., Altieri, G., Admane, N., Genovese, F., & Renzo,
G.C. (2017). Advance in citrus postharvest management:
Diseases, cold Storage and quality evaluation. Intech, 139-159.
[49] Subrahmanyam, K. (1986). Postharvest losses in horticultural
crops: An appraisal. Agricultural Situation India, 339-343.
[50] Talukder, M.A., Rahman, M., Hossain, M., Mian, M., & Khaliq,
Q. (2015). Effects of packaging materials and storage
temperature. Ann Bangladesh Agric., 19, 43-52.
[51] TEPC. (2013). Trade and Export Promotion Center. Lalitpur,
Kathmandu.
[52] Tiwari, R.K. (2010, Nov 11). Post'-harvest profile of mandarin.
Faridabad: Government of India Ministry of Agriculture .
[53] Yang, R., Wang , J., Nie, X., Zhuang, Y., Gu, Z., & Guo, Q.
(2016). Chlorophyll degradation and lignification of fresh-cut
water fennel treated with a complex chemical solution and
subsequent packaging. Food Science and Biotechnology, 25(2),
483-488. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-016-0067-x
Glossary
NCRP : National Citrus Research Program
RCBD : Randomized Complete Block
Design
RH : Relative Humidity
% : Percentage
0
C : Degree celsius
TSS : Total Soluble Solid
TA : Titratable Acidity
pH : Potential of hydrogen
DA meter : Delta absorbance meter
DOS : Days of Storage
GDP : Gross Domestic Product
AGDP : Agriculture Gross Domestic Product
PMD : Project Management Directorate
TEPC : Trade and Export Promotion Centre
APP : Agriculture Perspective Plan
MAP : Modified atmosphere packaging
U.S. : United States
MoALD : Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
Development
g : gram
mg : milligram
m : metre
cm : centimetre
mm : millimetre
ml : millilitre
mt : metric ton
LDPE : Low density polyethylene

Effect of Storage Conditions and Plastic Packaging on Postharvest Quality of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco.) in Dhankuta, Nepal

More Related Content

Similar to Effect of Storage Conditions and Plastic Packaging on Postharvest Quality of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco.) in Dhankuta, Nepal

More from AI Publications

Recently uploaded

Effect of Storage Conditions and Plastic Packaging on Postharvest Quality of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco.) in Dhankuta, Nepal