Evaluation of Packaging Materials for Transportation of Apple Fruits in CFB Boxes
G.B. K C
1 Horticulture Research Division, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Lalitpur, Nepal
2 Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur , Katmandú, Nepal
International Journal of Horticulture, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 8 doi: 10.5376/ijh.2017.07.0008
Received: 28 Dec., 2016 Accepted: 16 Mar., 2017 Published: 15 Apr., 2017
© 2017 BioPublisher Publishing Platform
This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Preferred citation for this article:
Subedi G.D., Gautam D.M., Baral D.R., K C G.B., and Paudyal K.P., 2017, Evaluation of packaging materials for transportation of apple fruits in CFB boxes, International Journal of Horticulture, 7(8): 54-63 (doi: 10.5376/ijh.2017.07.0008)
Studies were carried out for two consecutive years (2013-2014) to identify appropriate packaging materials for transportation of apples. Fruits of Red Delicious cultivar harvested on 3rd week of September were packed in different types of corrugated fiber board (CFB) boxes and transported from HRS, Rajikot, Jumla, Nepal (2390 m a.s.l., 29°17’ N, 82°13’ E) to Kohalpur, Banke, Nepal (215 km mountainous gravel road, 48 hours) by truck. The treatments were 10 kg capacity 5 ply and 7 ply CFB boxes having 140 psi, 160 psi and 180 psi bursting strength. To compare with conventional and government recommended practices, the fruits were also packed in 3 ply Beer cartons (conventional practice) and 7 ply 20 kg capacity CFB boxes (Government recommendation). The experiment was designed as eight treatments randomized completely with three replications. After transportation, fruits were stored as such condition in cold store at 5±1°C and 95% RH for one month. After storage, observations were made on physiological loss in weight (PLW), damage fruits, fruit quality and economic analysis. There was more than 50% reduction in PLW in all packaging treatments as compared to conventional one (3.8%). Similarly, total damaged fruits were highest (21.6%) in conventional practice which was reduced to 6.0 to 12.0% in other treatments. Among the treatments, 7 ply 180 psi bursting strength CFB box was the best to retain fruit quality. Besides reduction in postharvest loss and better quality fruits, higher gross return, higher benefit cost ratio was received from the improved technology. The use of 7 ply 180 psi CFB boxes has an additional benefit of NRs. 70625 (US $ 666) per 5000 kg fruits (1 truckload load). Higher cost of CFB boxes could be an important obstacle in adoption of improved technology; hence provision should be made from the government to subsidize for packaging materials to encourage adoption of improved technology.
Brushing; Bursting strength; CFB boxes; Hedonic rating; Potential added benefit