Submit manuscript...
eISSN: 2576-4462

Horticulture International Journal

Research Article Volume 8 Issue 4

Effect of different organic treatment on the shelf life of Mango (Mangifera indica cv. Langra)

Rasmi Neupane,1 Pratima Poudel,2 Prashant Jung Karki,3 Shreeti Shrestha,3 Saru Mahat,3 Bishnu Prashad Bhattrai4

1B.Sc. (Hons) Ag, Himalayan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (HICAST), Nepal
2Graduate Research Assistant, Mississippi State University, USA
3B. Sc. (Hons) Ag, Himalayan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (HICAST), Kathmandu, Nepa
4Agriculture Program Head, Himalayan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (HICAST), Nepal

Correspondence: Rasmi Neupane B.Sc. (Hons)Ag, Himalayan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (HICAST), Kathmandu, Nepal, Tel +9779862267614

Received: August 28, 2024 | Published: November 26, 2024

Citation: Neupane R, Poudel P, Karki PJ, et al. Effect of different organic treatment on the shelf life of Mango (Mangifera indica cv. Langra). Horticult Int J. 2024;8(4):95-101. DOI: 10.15406/hij.2024.08.00310

Download PDF

Abstract

To increase the shelf life and quality of mango at the mature stage, the goal of this study was to choose an appropriate locally accessible plant extract. Six treatments and four replications in a completely randomized design were used in the experiment. Control, Aloevera extract, Neem extract, Onion extract, Garlic extract, and Ginger extract were the treatments. Thirty-six mangoes were picked for each treatment and stored at room temperature (69.8°F/21°C, day, 64.4°F/18°C night). The findings of this study revealed that alovera extract treatments could increase the shelf-life of mango for 12 days and could be used as an effective farm-based post-harvest treatment to increase the shelf-life, while maintaining the physical and chemical characteristics of mango throughout storing at normal room temperature.

Keywords: plant extract, shelf life, langra variety, organic treatment

Introduction

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) has become a major fruit crop of the tropics and subtropics, particularly in Asia, where the mango has always been the most important fruit crop and where it has been considered the ‘king of fruits’.1 Mango has rich intra specific diversity and there are about 1600 cultivars in the world,2 of which about 350 cultivars are in commercial production and the rest are limited to mixed orchards or home gardens.

Shelf life of fruits could be extended by precooling, chemical treatments, low temperature different botanicals extracts and so on. For the prevention of post-harvest illnesses of mango, Macias et al.3 found that natural plant extracts from higher plants that are not harmful to both human health and the environment are preferable to pesticides. Because of their effectiveness against germs and fungi, botanical extracts have gained popularity and the attention of scientists.4 Extracts of neem, aloe-vera, and garlic have an impact on the shelf life and quality preservation of mangoes. Neem, garlic, onion, potato, mahogani, allamanda, datura, coating with sesame oil, are among the plant extracts that have been found to have some fungicidal activities against a variety of postharvest diseases of tropical fruits that will postpone ripening and lengthen the shelf life. Unlike chemical pesticides, plant extracts have the capacity to degrade quickly and offer no environmental concerns.5

Mango post-harvest loss that has increased is a serious issue in Nepal. Health risks are associated with post-harvest treatments that use chemicals and artificial waxes to prevent loss. Thus, this investigation was carried out to evaluate how well the botanical coating improved storage life.

Materials and methods

Experimental site and location

This experiment on the shelf life as influenced by different organic coating treatment on mango was conducted at Horticulture laboratory of HICAST. Mangoes were brought from Ghorahi Dang, Nepal, in the normal packing used by farmers to send their product to market. Mature green mangoes were taken for the analysis. The research was conducted from 4 to 15 July, 2022.

Experimental materials

Mango variety: cv. Langra

Botanical coatings

T1 (control, not uncoated), T2 (Aloevera extract), T3 (Neem extract), T4 (Onion extract), T5 (Garlic extract), and T6 (Ginger extract).

Nine fruits for each treatment were randomly chosen and kept in the laboratory at ambient temperature for shelf life and quality assessment. The pulp of botanicals was blended and strained through a clean disinfected cloth, then were submerged in botanical extract for five minutes and finally allowed to air dry for 10 minutes before being placed on the trays for inspection.

Storage conditions

A thermo-hygrometer was used to record the storage room temperature and relative humidity ranges daily; the values maintained during the storage period were respectively 69.8°F/21°C, day and 64.4°F/18°C night and 30 % to 40%.

Measured parameters

The following parameters were measured.

  1. Physical parameters
  • Firmness, evaluated using a penetrometer.
  • Weight lost over time (grams), measured using a digital weighing balance at three days interval
  1. Chemical parameters
  • Total soluble solids (TSS), measured using a refractometer.
  • Titratable acidity (TA), measured using titration method
  • pH, measured using a pH meter
  • TSS: TA ratio
  • vitamin C content, measured by using titration method (Guerrant et al., 1935)
  1. Shelf life
  • Shelf life of mangoes was calculated by counting the number of days required to fully ripen with optimal eating and commercial quality, which was assessed by a pomologist who judged the acceptability of the mangoes.

Experimental treatment and design

The experiment was laid out in completely randomized design with 4 replications. The effects of the treatments were determined by ANOVA test and the mean separation was done by LSD.

Data collection and statistical analysis

Data was collected and recorded at three days intervals. The collected raw data of the various parameters were entered on MS-Excel for statistical analysis. The means for all the treatments were calculated and analysis of variances (ANOVA) for all the parameters were performed using the R-studio reverse version, a computer-based software. Coefficient of variation and the significance of difference between the pairs of mean was compared by LSD test (p < 0.05).

Result and discussion

Physiological weight loss

The results showed the statistical differences between various postharvest treatments. Aloe vera-coated mangos at 9 Days. After Storage (DAS) had the lowest physiological weight lost over time, followed by, ginger-coated mangos, neem-coated mangos and control treatment. Onion, on the other hand, had the highest physiological weight loss at 9th day, followed by garlic-coated mangos (Table 1). This outcome is consistent with the observation of Singh et al.6 who investigated the effects of GA3, plant extracts, castor oil, and neem oil on mango storage behavior. Primary mechanism responsible for weight loss in most of the fresh produce is transpiration with respiration and other biochemical processes being added.

Treatments

Initial weight

Day 3

Day 6

Day 9

Day 12

T1 (Control)

126.07

15.096 a

29.25 a

5.76 bc

 

T2 (Aloevera)

116.76

5.4 b

11.32 c

4.14 d

2.86

T3 (Neem)

125.88

13.18 a

17.84 b

5.67 bc

2.73

T4 (Onion)

125.63

6.63 b

13.96 bc

7.80 a

 

T5 (Garlic)

127.06

7.64 b

12.65 c

7.09 ab

2.92

T6(Ginger)

116.25

7.64 b

14.48 bc

5.58 cd

2.86

Mean

122.94

9.26

16.59

6.01

2.847

F-Test

 

***

***

**

NS

CV (%)

 

21.8

19.23

16.27

 

LSD (0.05)

 

3.05

4.8

1.47

 

SEM±

 

1.64

2.74

0.600

 

Table 1 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on physiological weight loss of mango
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P< 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS= Non-Significant CV= Coefficient of Variance, LSD= Least Significant Difference, SEM= Standard Error of the Mean

Change in Firmness

There was no significant difference in firmness change among the treatments. However, Fruit left uncoated (control) showed a tendency to reach the overripen stage quicker followed by the onion coated mangoes and the garlic coated mangoes. More gradual changes were observed in aloevera treated mangoes and neem coated mangoes. Softening of fruits during ripening is characterized by enzyme-mediated alteration in the structure and composition of cell wall, partial or complete solubilization of cell wall polysaccharides (pectin, celluloses and hemicellulose), and hydrolysis of starch and other polysaccharides7,8 have reported better firmness in Aloe vera coated fruits. Gill et al.9 also reported softening of fruit pulp with progression of ripening period regardless of ripening temperatures

Total soluble solid

The study revealed that there was significant effect of the various postharvest treatments on total soluble solid of mango during the ripening and storage process especially on day nine of storage. On this day mangoes coated in neem had the greatest total soluble solids content, followed by control, ginger, garlic and onion, however, Aloe Vera, on the other hand, had experienced the lowest total soluble solids concentration. (Table 3)

Treatments

Day1

Day 3

Day 6

Day 9

Day 12

T1 (Control)

1.10

1.87

2.51

3.04

 

T2 (Aloe Vera)

1.25

2.41

2.69

2.76

3.08

T3 (Neem)

1.55

2.64

2.68

2.55

2.99

T4 (Onion)

1.15

2.08

2.77

3.02

 

T5 (Garlic)

1.15

2.37

2.59

2.67

3.4

T6(Ginger)

1.25

1.99

2.34

2.72

3.06

Mean

1.24

2.22

2.598

2.79

3.13

F-Test

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

CV (%)

 

18.78

11.79

10.66

7.29

SEM±

 

0.183

0.0.129

0.137

0.36

Table 2 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on change in firmness of mango
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P < 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS, non-significant; CV, coefficient of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SEM, standard error of the mean

Treatments

Day 1

Day 3

Day 6

Day 9

Day 12

T1 (Control)

5.20

7.20 a

8.17 a

10.68 b

 

T2 (Aloe Vera)

4.30

5.37b

6.53 b

7.87 d

10.31 b

T3 (Neem)

5.20

6.80a

8.40 a

12.86 a

11.67 a

T4 (Onion)

5.10

6.45a

7.53 a

8.20 cd

 

T5 (Garlic)

5.20

6.16b

7.54 a

8.50 cd

11.43 a

T6(Ginger)

5.29

6.81a

7.46

9.73 bc

11.76 a

Mean

5.04

6.46

7.58

9.64

11.29

F-Test

NS

NS

*

***

**

CV (%)

 

5.61

9.42

10.66

4.18

LSD (0.05)

   

0.59

1.55

0.75

SEM±

 

0.276

0.42

0.80

 

Table 3 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on TSS of mango
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P< 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS, non-significant; CV, coefficient of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SEM, standard error of the mean

An increase in TSS content form maturity to ripening may probably be due to accumulation of more sugars in the fruits due to hydrolysis of starch from increased amylase activity during ripening.7 Increase of TSS content observed in the present investigation agrees with the report by Abdullah et al.10 and Sarker et al.11 Increase in activity of enzymes responsible for starch hydrolysis might be cause of increase in TSS value during fruit ripening.12

pH value

There were significant differences among the various postharvest treatments on pH of mango during ripening and storage process on day 9, the lowest pH was observed in Aloe-vera, garlic and onion-coated mangoes. While the highest pH value was found in fruits of the controlled treatment, followed by neem- coated mangoes and ginger- coated mangoes. (Table 4)

Treatments

Day 1

Day 3

Day 6

Day 9

Day 12

T1 (Control)

2.59

3.065b

3.40 a

3.91 a

 

T2 (Aloe Vera)

2.59

2.89a

2.94 c

3.18 c

3.31 c

T3 (Neem)

2.59

3.03a

3.20 b

3.72 ab

3.91 a

T4 (Onion)

2.60

2.92a

3.16 b

3.31 c

 

T5 (Garlic)

2.61

2.9a

3.11 bc

3.28 c

3.58 b

T6(Ginger)

2.59

2.97a

3.30 ab

3.58 b

3.75 a

Mean

2.59

2.96

3.18

3.49

3.64

F-Test

NS

*

**

***

 

***

CV (%)

 

2.38

3.87

4.2

3.03

LSD (0.05)

 

0.1

0.18

0.22

0.17

SEM±

 

0.03

0.076

0.119

 

Table 4 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on pH value of mango
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P< 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS, non-significant; CV, coefficient of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SEM, standard error of the mean

The pH of the treated fruits was found to be lower than that of the control set fruits. These results could be attributed to acid oxidation, which is known as a factor leading in greater pH.13

Titratable acidity

The study found that the various post-harvest treatments had a substantial impact on the titratable acidity of mangoes during ripening and storage. The control treatment had the highest TA, followed by the mangoes coated in neem and onion at 6 DAS respectively, whereas Aloe-vera coated mangoes had the lowest TA, followed by garlic-coated mangoes and ginger-coated ginger (Table 5). Decrease in acidity with maturity may be due to breakdown of starch into more sugars thereby lowering down the percentage of acidity of the fruits.14 Moreover, Nordey et al.15 hypothesized that, climacteric respiration may involve in decline of TA of mango fruit during ripening, since organic acid are substrate for climacteric respiration.

Treatments

Day 1

Day 3

Day 6

Day 9

Day 12

T1 (Control)

0.35

0.19 ab

0.16 a

0.11

 

T2 (Aloevera)

    0.33

0.13 c

0.118 b

0.094

0.088

T3 (Neem)

0.33

0.17 ab

0.136 b

0.10

0.093

T4 (Onion)

0.32

0.164 bc

0.136 b

0.10

 

T5 (Garlic)

0.35

0.17 ab

0.131 b

0.096

0.092

T6(Ginger)

0.32

0.20 a

0.125 b

0.105

0.096

Mean

0.33

0.17

0.135

0.103

0.092

F-Test

NS

**

*

NS

NS

CV (%)

 

13.8

12.2

9.001

6.14

LSD (0.05)

 

0.034

0.024

   

SEM±

 

0.012

0.0087

0.0043

 

Table 5 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on Titratable acidity of mango
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P< 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS, non-significant; CV, coefficient of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SEM, standard error of the mean

 TSS: TA ratio

The study revealed that there were significant differences between the various postharvest treatments on TSS:TA ratio of mango during ripening and storage process. At 9th day, the Neem extract treatment had the highest TSS: TA ratio, followed by the ginger coated treatment, the garlic coated treatment, and the onion coated treatment respectively. The controls group had the lowest TSS: TA ratio, followed by the aloe vera coated treatment. (Table 6)

Treatments

Day 3

Day 6

Day 9

Day 12

T1 (Control)

37.75

45.93 b

49.79 c

 

T2 (Aloevera)

41.26

48.18 b

79.73 b

116.34

 

T3 (Neem)

39.64

64.50 a

100.067a

128.07

T4 (Onion)

39.45

63.20 a

80.06 b

 

T5 (Garlic)

36.24

57.54 ab

87.78 ab

128.07

T6(Ginger)

33.40

62.55 a

93.63 ab

 

Mean

37.95

56.98

81.84

124.16

F-Test

NS

*

***

NS

CV (%)

13.14

14.57

11.64

5.64

LSD (0.05)

 

12.52

14.36

 

SEM±

1.94

4.27

7.49

 

Table 6 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on TSS: TA Ratios
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P< 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS, non-significant; CV, coefficient of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SEM, standard error of the mean

Shelf life

According to these findings, the study revealed that there were highly significant differences between the various postharvest treatments on shelf life of mango. Aloe-vera extract induced the greatest shelf life, followed by garlic, neem and onion. The ginger treatment induced the lowest shelf life, while mangoes with no treatment had the shortest shelf life (6.0 days) (Table 7). It is likely that by slowing down the breakdown of pectin and starch, the treatment can postpone the fruit ripening.

Treatments

Shelf life (days)

Control

6.000c

Aloe Vera

12.00a

Neem

10.650b

Onion

9.100b

Garlic

11.000b

Ginger

10.000d

Grand Mean

F- Test

9.792

***                  

LSD

0.6321

SEM (+-)

0.2125

Table 7 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on shelf life of mango
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P< 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS, non-significant; CV, coefficient of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SEM, standard error of the mean

Treatments

Day 1

Day 3

Day 6

Day 9

Day 12

T1 (Control)

2.63

2.53 a

1.41 ab

0.84

 

T2 (Aloevera)

1.95

1.52 e

1.29 b

1.55

0.625

T3 (Neem)

2.23

2.2b

1.64 a

1.06

 

T4 (Onion)

2.09

1.93c

1.28 b

1.06

0.84

T5 (Garlic)

1.95

1.7 de

1.23 b

1.002

0.6

T6(Ginger)

1.95

1.86 cd

1.33 b

1.01

0.77

Mean

2.13

1.95

1.36

1.02

0.71

F-Test

NS

***

*

NS

NS

CV (%)

 

6.52

11.72

12.13

23.74

LSD (0.05)

 

0.192

0.24

 

 

SEM±

 

0.14

0.08

0.059

 

Table 8 Effect of different post-harvest treatments on vitamin C content of mango
*, **, and *** denote significantly difference at p≤0.05, P< 0.01, and p< 0.001 respectively; within the column, values followed by the same letter are non-significantly different at 5 % level.
NS, non-significant; CV, coefficient of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SEM, standard error of the mean

The experiment performed by Bhatnagar et al.16 proved that the ability of different formulations of aloevera in extending the shelf life of climacteric fruit.

Vitamin C content

The findings revealed a significant change in the Vitamin C content of the mangoes during storage and ripening for various postharvest treatment especially at the 3rd day, but, at the 9th day, the differences were not significant. Vitamin C content of mango is maximum in early stages of growth and decrease during ripening17 and the amount of loss vary by species. Fluctuating amount of vitamin C at different maturity stages may be due to physical damage during harvesting and transportation because this component is used up by the fruit for combating external stresses.19

Conclusion

Mangoes hold significant economic importance in Nepal, with high consumer demand. The shelf life of mangoes is influenced by factors such as physiological weight loss, ripening, and susceptibility to fungal diseases, which reduce quality and marketability of fruits, leading to post-harvest losses. Traditionally, chemical treatments have been used to address these issues, but concerns about their effects on human health, environment and consumer preference for chemical-free products have prompted interest in alternative, eco-friendly and healthy solutions. Plant-based treatments, such as extracts from neem, garlic, ginger, onion, and aloe vera, have been identified as effective alternatives to delay ripening, control fungal growth, and preserve fruit quality. We also conducted experiment on above mentioned botanical extracts and according to the findings of this study, aloe vera extract stands out as a promising natural solution for extending the shelf life of mangoes. Its ability to reduce weight loss, enhance sweetness and flavor, and preserve vitamin C content positions it as an effective botanical for both improving the quality of mangoes and reducing post-harvest losses. By adopting such organic treatments, farmers and distributors in Nepal can better meet market demands, while also contributing to more sustainable agricultural practices

Acknowledgments

I deliver my deep sense of admire and honest gratitude to my advisor, Miss Pratima Poudel for her invaluable guidance, continuous support, precious recommendation, notion and encouragement throughout the period and education of my research. I am very grateful to HICAST and their authorities, I additionally wish to specific my honest thanks to Mr. Chakra Devkota for continuous support and encouragement offering the research idea and scientific writing to accomplish this study.

I am deeply grateful to my parents for their never-ending prayers, love, sacrifice, inspiration support, appreciation, and encouragement which have always given me courage in every step of my life.

Conflicts of interest

Not any Conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Purseglove JW. Monocotyledons (tropical crops S.). Monocotyledons (Tropical Crops S). 1972.
  2. Pandey SN. Mango cultivars. In: RP Srivastava (editor). Mango Cultivation. International Book Distributing Com International Book Distributing Company, Lucknow, India.1998;39–99.
  3. Macias FA, Castellano D, Oliva RM, et al. Potential use of allelopathic agents as natural agrochemicals. Proceedings of Brighton Crop Protection Conference Weeds. Brighton, UK. 1997;33–38.
  4. Lee SH, Chang KS, Su MS, et al. Effects of some Chinese medicinal plant extracts on five different fungi. Food Control. 2007;18(12):1547–1554.
  5. Fokialakis N, Cantrell CL, Duke SO, et al. Antifungal activity of thiophenes from Echinopsritro. J Agric Food Chem. 2006;54(5):1651–1655.
  6. Singh D, Thakur RK, Singh D. Effect of pre–harvest sprays of fungicides and calcium nitrate on postharvest of Kinnow in low temperature storage. Plant disease Res. 2003;18(1):9–11.
  7. Fuchs Y, Pesis E, Zauberman G. Changes in amylase activity, starch and sugar contents in mango fruit pulp. Sci Hort. 1980;13(2):155–160.
  8. Ahmed MJ, Singh Z, Khan AS. Postharvest Aloe vera gel‐coating modulates fruit ripening and quality of ‘Arctic Snow’ nectarine kept in ambient and cold storage. International journal of food science & technology. 2009;44(5):1024–1033.
  9. Gill PPS, Jawandha SK, Kaur N, et al. Physicochemical changes during progressive ripening of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Dashehari under different temperature regimes. J Food Sci Tech. 2017;54(7):1–7.
  10. Abdullah H, Rohaya MA, Jaafar MY. Effects of precooling ethylene absorbent and partial evocation of air on storage of banana under modified atmosphere. MARDI Res J. 1993;21(2):171–176.
  11. Sarker HN, Hasan MA. Chattopadhya PK. Influence on polythene packing of the postharvest storage behavior of banana fruit. Hort. J. 1997;10(1):31–39.
  12. Qiuping Z, Wenshui, X, Jiang Y. Effects of 1–methylcyclopropene treatments on ripening and quality of harvested sapodilla fruit. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2006;44(4):535–539.
  13. Islam K Md, Khan MZH, Sarkar MAR, et al. Changes in acidity, TSS, and sugar content at different storage periods of the postharvest mango (Mangifera indica L.) influenced by bavistin DF. Int J Food Sci. 2013;2013:939385.
  14. Tandon DK, Kalra SK, Lohani H.C. Changes in some carbohydrates in developing mango fruits cv. Langra and Mallika. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 1985;42(3 and 4):223–228.
  15. Nordey TM, Lechaudel M, Genard M, et al. Factors affecting ethylene and carbon dioxide concentrations during ripening: Incidence on final dry matter, total soluble solids content and acidity of mango fruit. J Plant Physiol. 2016;196:70–80.
  16. Bhattnagar T, Jaiswal AK, Kumar S. Studies to enhance the shelf life of tomato using aloevera and neem based herbal coating. Journal of Post–harvest Technology. 2018;6(2):21–28.
  17. Robles–Sanchez RM, Islas–Osuna MA, Astiazaran–Garcia H, et al. Quality index, consumer acceptability, bioactive compounds, and antioxidant activity of freshcut “Ataulfo” mangoes (Mangifera indica L.) as affected by low–temperature. J Food Sci. 2009; 74(3):S126–S134.
  18. Hu J, Emile-Geay J, Nusbaumer J, et al. Impact of convective activity on precipitation δ18O in isotope-enabled general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 123, no. 23, 13595-13610, doi:10.1029/2018JD029187.
  19. Pacheco ALV, Borges KS, Vieira G, et al. Physical–chemical quality of mango ‘Ubá’ (Mangifera indica L.) fruits submitted to impact mechanical damage at harvest. Rev Bras Frutic. 2017;39:939.
Creative Commons Attribution License

©2024 Neupane, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.