Chilling Prevention on Banana ‘Nanica’ in the Field with Bagging


  •  Juliana Lima    
  •  Danilo Rozane    
  •  Eduardo Gomes    
  •  Silvia Silva    
  •  Wilson Moraes    
  •  Ricardo Kluge    

Abstract

Low temperature in the field causes chilling injury (CI) in banana and peel browning. The aim of this paper was to investigate the influence of different bagging materials and combinations on bunch development of banana (Musa AAA cv. Nanica) and the occurrence of CI. The study was carried in Jacupiranga, São Paulo, Brazil, in a completely randomized design in 2 × 9 factorial, two years of formation (2013 and 2014) and nine bagging materials, with eight replicates. Materials consisted in blue transparent polyethylene, white non-woven fabric, white opaque polyethylene, bubble wrap, white laminated non-woven fabric, double paper, blue transparent polyethylene plus kraft paper, blue transparent polyethylene plus white non-woven fabric and control (non-bagged). Fruits formed in both years showed low L* and C* values related to the CI index. On the coldest days of 2013 and 2014, bagging raised the temperature by only 1.91 and 3.17 °C, respectively. Depending on the year of bunch formation, the bagging materials influenced the period between flowering and harvest, but not the bunch mass. In the green fruit, the content of chlorophylls was lower in double paper, while L* was higher, but there were no differences in the content of phenols for the different materials. In mature fruits, CI index, L* and a* were not affected by the bagging materials, unlike coordinates b*, h° and C*, which were lower for double paper, with no difference between other materials and non-bagged fruits. Bagging materials did not prevent CI and did not reduce the peel browning intensity.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact