Preharvest fruit bagging with different-coloured bags modulates postharvest quality and storage behaviour of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Dashehari

Introduction

Mango (Mangifera indica L.), popularly known as the "King of Fruits," is among the most significant commercial fruit crops. Anacardiaceae family and chromosome no. is (2n = 40) (Tharanathan et al., 2006) [26] . It is best suitable for tropical and subtropical climates and can be grown in all areas of the country, up to an elevation of 600 meters. Required deep, fertile, and well-draining soils, such as sandy loam, loam, and alluvial types. A pH level of 5.5 to 7.5 is predominantly best suited for strong root growth, nutrient absorption, and fruit production (Usha et al., 2015) [27] . And throughout the cultivation period, high humidity and temperatures ranging from 24 to 30 °C are ideal. The most suitable annual precipitation range for mango cultivation is between 890 and 1015 mm (Adak et al., 2016) [2] . Originally native to the Indo-Burma region, a mango cultivation is growing globally, including India, China, Thailand, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, and Egypt being the predominant mango-producing country (Rajan et al., 2019) [19] . In Indian production hubs include Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Bihar, Gujarat, and Maharashtra (Thakor et al., 2019) [25] . Fresh mango pulp is an excellent nutritional source of essential micronutrients, particularly provitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and necessary dietary fibres. It contains optimum quantity of carbohydrates, organic acids, and essential minerals such as potassium, magnesium, and calcium (Zafar et al., 2017) [31] . Mango is used in a variety of value-added processes. Immature green fruits are commonly used in culinary preparations such as traditional pickling, chutneys. Ripe fruits are processed commercially into canned pulp, purees, concentrated juices, nectars, jams, and jellos. (Bhusari et al., 2025) [6] Fruit bagging is a traditional horticulture technique that was especially cultivated in Japan and China for the preservation of quality crops. Subsequently, it disseminated to additional fruit-exporting developing nations, such as India, South Korea, Australia, and countries in Southeast Asia. The approach can be applied to fruits including mango, apple, pear, peach, grape, guava, pomegranate, citrus, persimmon, and loquat. (Ali et al., 2021) [3] . In mango cultivation, bagging covers the fruits against pests, infections, sun exposure, and physical injury, while improving their visual attractiveness and quality (Kumar et al., 2021) [15] . Pre-harvest fruit bagging is an environmentally friendly physical protection practice that can help increase the postharvest shelf life of mangos. Bagging individual fruits during development protects them from insect pests, fungal spores, dust, and extreme environmental conditions. It also alters the microenvironment around the fruit by controlling temperature, humidity, and light penetration, impacting fruit development and ripening. Bagging can help prevent sunburn, cracking, latex staining, and surface flaws, leading in higher-quality fruit after harvest. (Kumar et al., 2021) [15] While storage, bagged fruits may experience reduced moisture loss, slowed softening, and slower ripening and senescence. Maintaining better fruit firmness and physicochemical and biochemical quality can help to postpone quality decline and extend mango fruit marketability. Bagging effectiveness may vary depending on bag color, material, and number of layers, as these factors alter the microclimate around the fruit (Sharma et al., 2016) [23] . Therefore, pre-harvest fruit bagging has the potential to significantly reduce post-harvest losses, preserve fruit quality throughout storage, and increase mango fruit shelf life and commercial value. While extensive studies on various mango bagging materials, nothing is known about the effect of colourful bags on the physiology, biochemical composition, and postharvest quality of the Dashehari variety in North Indian settings. Differences in bag colours can affect light penetration, temperature, and relative humidity inside the bag, influencing fruit development, ripening characteristics, and quality (Ali et al., 2021) [3] . Investigating the effect of colored paper bags on the physicochemical and biochemical properties of mangoes can help in developing appropriate bagging strategies for the growth of premium export-quality fruits (Sharma, 2020) [22] . Thus, the present research was conducted aiming to evaluate the influence of pre-harvest bagging on the physicochemical characteristics and quality of the mango cv. Dashehari.

Materials and methodology Experimental Site

The current study was carried out in the years 2023-24 and 2024-25 in the experimental orchard at ICAR-Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, located in Rehmankhera, Kakori, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. The laboratory of the same institute conducted the physicochemical and enzymatic assessments of the fruits. The experimental location is situated at 26°50′21.4″ N latitude and 80°55′23.27″ E longitude, at an elevation of roughly 123 m above mean sea level. This location experiences a humid subtropical climate characterized by three different seasons: the monsoon period from June to September, winter from November to March, and summer from April to June. The region experiences approximately 940 mm of yearly precipitation, predominantly during the monsoon season, with temperatures frequently soaring to 45 °C in May and June, and declining to 8 °C-25 °C in January; summer humidity is typically moderate but can escalate to 70-80% in July.

Experimental Material and Treatment Details

The experiment was conducted on healthy and uniformly maintained 15-year-old trees of Mango cultivar Dashehari planted at of 5 × 5 m spacing. It was structured using a randomized block design that included five treatments and four replications. The total number of plants was 40, and each replication had two trees. The treatments included [T₁ (No. bag), T₂ (Green bag), T₃ (Red bag), T₄ (Brown bag), and T₅ (White bag)] comprising to different colours of bag with an inner black layer of 44 gsm and an outer coloured layer of 55 gsm. Each bag size (length 33.5 cm × width 20 cm). Fruit bagging was used after the fruit was about the size of a lemon, which was four to six weeks after it was set. A total of 100 fruits from each tree were randomly selected and uniformly bagged in all four directions of the canopy, with 25 fruits bagged for each. The bags were securely tied to ensure the protection of the fruits. Bagging tasks were carried out using ladders, tables, and necessary field support equipment. The enclosed fruits were examined on a regular basis during the experiment and harvested when they reached physiological maturity, which was around 55-60 days after bagging, for the shelf-life study.

Observations Recorded

The observations related to physical parameters were recorded at the time of harvest using standard procedures. Days to maturity were calculated by subtracting the date of bagging from the date of harvest maturity. Fruit weight was measured with the help of a digital weighing balance expressed in gram. Fruit volume was measured by the water displacement method and expressed in cubic centimetres. Fruit firmness was measured with the help of penetrometers and expressed in kg/cm² and specific gravity was measured by fruit weight divided by fruit volume and expressed in centimetres. Physiological loss in weight was calculated by record the initially measured and subsequent weights of the same fruits during storage and expressing the weight loss as a percentage of the initial fruit weight. TSS was measured using an Erma hand refractometer. Acidity was measured by the titration method, and reducing sugar was estimated by Folin and Wu's method as reported in AOAC (1975) [4] . Total sugar was estimated by the anthrone method (Hedge and Hofreiter, 1962) [10] . Data variance analysis was performed using SAS software ver. 9.1.

Results and Discussion

Fruit weight (g) The pooled data revealed that fruit weight decreased progressively with advancement of storage from 0 to 12 days, while bagging treatments significantly influenced fruit weight. At 0 day, the maximum fruit weight was recorded under T₂ (Green Bag) (328.31 g), followed by T₃ (322.90 g), T₄ (314.02 g), T₅ (299.94 g) and T₁ (Control) (291.28 g); the same trend was maintained up to 12 days, when T₂ recorded the maximum fruit weight (276.33 g) and T₁ the minimum (234.19 g) (Fig 1). The reduction in fruit weight during storage may be attributed mainly to moisture loss through transpiration and respiratory metabolism. Better weight retention under green bagging may be associated with modification of the fruit microenvironment and reduced moisture loss. Similar findings have been reported in bagged mango fruits, where bagging improved postharvest performance by reducing weight loss and maintaining firmness and other quality attributes (Hofman et al., 1997and Wu et al., 2013) [11,28] , Comparable enhancement of fruit weight following bagging has been reported for several mango cultivars, including Alphonso (Kireeti et [14,9,20] in Himsagar.

Fruit volume (cc)

The pooled data showed a continuous decline in fruit volume with increasing storage duration, with significant differences among bagging treatments. At 0 day, T₂ (Green Bag) recorded the maximum fruit volume (341.25 [30,3,28] .

Specific gravity showed a slight increasing trend during storage in all treatments, although differences among treatments were non-significant up to 9 days, while a significant difference was observed at 12 days. The values increased from 0.96-0.97 at harvest to 1.02-1.03 at 12 days, with T₁ and T₅ recording the highest value (1.03) and T₂, T₃ and T₄ recording 1.02 (Fig 3). The increase in specific gravity may be associated with changes in the relative proportions of fruit mass and volume during ripening and dehydration. Since the treatment effect was largely nonsignificant, bagging colour appeared to have comparatively little influence on specific gravity during the early storage period (Hofman et [11,30,12] .

Physiological loss in weight increased progressively with storage duration in all treatments, with significant differences among treatments. At 3 days, the lowest weight loss was recorded under T₂ (Green Bag) (3.87%), followed by T₃ (4.39%), T₄ (4.72%), T₅ and T₁ (Control) (5.50%). At 12 days, T₂ recorded the minimum physiological loss in weight (15.79%), whereas the maximum was recorded in T₁ (19.59%) (Fig 4). The lower weight loss under green bagging may be attributed to reduced transpiration and moisture loss caused by modification of the microenvironment around the fruit. Bagging has previously been reported to slow postharvest weight loss and improve fruit quality by reducing water loss and metabolic deterioration (Begum et al., 2023 and Nadeem et al., 2022) [5,16] .

Fruit firmness kg/cm2

Fruit firmness decreased markedly with increasing storage duration in all treatments. At 0 day, the highest firmness was recorded in T₂ (Green Bag) (12.24 kg cm⁻²), followed by T₃ (11.98), T₄ (11.76), T₅ (11.46) and T₁ (11.14 kg cm⁻²). At 12 days, T₂ maintained the highest firmness (1.57 kg cm⁻²), whereas T₁ recorded the lowest (1.10 kg cm⁻²) (Fig 5). The decline in firmness may be associated with ripening-related degradation of cell-wall components and loss of cellular integrity. The comparatively greater firmness retention under bagging, particularly green bagging, indicates delayed softening and physiological deterioration. Similar findings have been reported in bagged mango fruits, where bagging helped maintain higher fruit firmness during storage (Brummell et al., 2004; Zhao et al., 2026 and Negi et al., 2008) [8,32,17] .

Total soluble solids (° Brix)

TSS increased progressively during storage in each treatment, indicated advancement of fruit ripening. At 0 day, TSS ranged from 10.61°Brix in T₂ to 11.08°Brix in T₁, while at 12 days the highest TSS was recorded in T₂ (19.73°Brix), followed by T₃ (19.65), T₄ (19.45), T₅ (19.15) and T₁ (18.88°Brix) (Table 1). The increase in TSS during storage may be attributed to hydrolysis of complex carbohydrates and conversion of starch and other polysaccharides into soluble sugars during ripening. Bagging, particularly green bagging, appeared to support the maintenance of higher TSS at the later storage stage. Similar increases in soluble solids during fruit ripening and improved postharvest quality of bagged mango have been reported previously (Singh et [24,1,18] .

Fruit acidity generally declined during storage in all treatments, indicating progressive ripening and utilization of organic acids during respiration. The highest acidity at 0 day was recorded under T₂ (Green Bag) (1.53%), followed by T₃ (1.48%), T₄ (1.40%), T₅ (1.38%) and T₁ (1.32%). At 12 days, acidity decreased to 0.26% in T₂, while T₁, T₃, T₄ and T₅ recorded 0.32, 0.27, 0.28 and 0.30%, respectively (Table 2). The decline in acidity may be associated with the utilization of organic acids as respiratory substrates during ripening. Similar decreases in titratable acidity during postharvest ripening have been documented in mango and other climacteric fruits. Similar findings have been reported by (Brecht et al., 2009; Khatun et al., 2024 and Runkua, 2016) [7,13,21] . [5,24,3] . [3,29,12,5] .

Reducing sugar content increased progressively with storage duration in all treatments. At 0 day, the values ranged from 1.18% in T₂ to 1.60% in T₁ while at 12 days the maximum reducing sugar was recorded in T₁ (7.93%), followed by T₅ (7.73%), T₄ (7.63%), T₃ (7.11%) and T₂ (6.81%) (Table 5). [30, 13, 28,] .

Conclusion

The present study revealed that pre-harvest fruit bagging positively influenced the postharvest quality and storage behaviour of mango fruits. During storage, fruit weight, volume and firmness decreased, while physiological loss in weight increased. Among the treatments, green bagging (T₂) performed best, maintaining maximum fruit weight, volume, firmness, TSS and total sugars, with the lowest physiological loss in weight at 12 days. Overall, green bagging was the most effective treatment for reducing postharvest deterioration, maintaining fruit quality and improving storage life up to 12 days.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentsThe authors are thankful to the ICAR-Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture (ICAR-CISH), Lucknow (U.P.), India, for providing the necessary field and laboratory facilities to conduct the investigation. The authors are especially grateful to Dr. A.K. Trivedi, ICAR-CISH, Lucknow, for his valuable guidance, technical support and encouragement throughout the experimental work. The authors also sincerely acknowledge Dr. V.K. Tripathi, CSAUA&T, Kanpur (U.P.), India, for his valuable guidance and support during the study.

References

1. Abida A, Tuhin GS, Rukunuzzaman M, Khatun A, Rahman A, Akter N, et al. Enhancing postharvest quality and shelf life of "Haribhanga" mango using ontree bagging and Aloe vera gel. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2026;2026(1):5093310.
2. Adak T, Kumar K, Singh VK. An appraisal of seasonal variations in thermal indices, heat and water use efficiency in mango. In: Climate Change and Its Implications on Crop Production and Food Security. 2016. p. 183-188.
3. Ali MM, Anwar R, Yousef AF, Li B, Luvisi A, De Bellis L, et al. Influence of bagging on the development and quality of fruits. Plants. 2021;10(2):358.
4. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis. 11th ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1975.
5. Begum ML, Ahmed M, Rahman MA, Islam MT. Preharvest bagging and ambient storage influenced fruit quality and post-harvest physiology of mango (cv. Gopalbhog). Plant Physiology Reports. 2023;28(4):607619.
6. Bhusari RM, Patil SD, Gethe AS, Patil SR. A comprehensive review on processing technologies and value-added products of mango. European Journal of Nutrition and Food Safety. 2025;17(9):19-28.
7. Brecht JK, Yahia EM. Postharvest physiology. In: The Mango: Botany, Production and Uses. 2009. p. 484528.
8. Brummell DA, Dal Cin V, Crisosto CH, Labavitch JM. Cell wall metabolism during maturation, ripening and senescence of peach fruit. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55(405):2029-2039.
9. Haldankar PM, Parulekar YR, Kireeti A, Kad MS, Shinde SM, Lawande KE. Studies on influence of bagging of fruits at marble stage on quality of mango cv. Alphonso. Journal of Plant Studies. 2015;4(2):1220.
10. Hedge JE, Hofreiter BT. In: Whistler RL, BeMiller JN, editors. Carbohydrate Chemistry. New York: Academic Press; 1962.
11. Hofman PJ, Smith LG, Joyce DC, Johnson GI, Meiburg GF. Bagging of mango (Mangifera indica cv. Keitt) fruit influences fruit quality and mineral composition. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 1997;12(1):8391.
12. Hussain A, Kausar T, Siddique T, Kabir K, An QU, Rukhsar F, et al. Physiological and biochemical variations of naturally ripened mango (Mangifera indica L.) with synthetic calcium carbide and ethylene. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):2121.
13. Khatun MA, Ahmed M, Uddin MS, Rahman MH, Islam MT. On-tree nutrient spray and bagging influenced the quality and postharvest physiology of mango (cv. Amrapali) at ambient storage. Plant Physiology Reports. 2024;29(2):367-384.
14. Kireeti A, Haldankar PM, Parulekar YR. Studies on effect of types of bags at egg stage on mango fruit (cv. Alphonso). Asian Journal of Horticulture. 2016;11(1):58-62.
15. Kumar M, Singh V, Jat R, Ahamad S, Kumar V. Preharvest fruit bagging for quality improvement in fruit crops: a review. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(7):530-541.
16. Nadeem A, Ahmed ZFR, Hussain SB, Omar AEDK, Amin M, Javed S, et al. On-tree fruit bagging and cold storage maintain the postharvest quality of mango fruit. Horticulturae. 2022;8(9):814.
17. Negi PS, Handa AK. Structural deterioration of the produce: the breakdown of cell wall components. In: Postharvest Biology and Technology of Fruits, Vegetables, and Flowers. 2008. p. 978-0-8138.
18. Rahman A, Rukunuzzaman M, Ali A, Shamsuzzoha M, Ahmed M, Hossain A, et al. Effect of Aloe vera gel enriched with salicylic acid on quality and shelf life of preharvest-bagged "Haribhanga" mango during room temperature storage. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2026;2026(1):390-0178.
19. Rajan S, Hudedamani U. Genetic resources of mango: status, threats, and future prospects. In: Conservation and Utilization of Horticultural Genetic Resources. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 217-249.
20. Ramez N, Subba S, Taheri MN, Alam M, Hasan MA. Studies on the effect of bagging on yield and quality of mango cv. Himsagar. International Journal of Economic Plants. 2024;11(4):521-524.
21. Runkua JM. Mango (Mangifera indica L. cv. Apple) fruit response to pre-harvest bagging and post-harvest treatment with 1-methylcyclopropene. 2016.
22. Sharma SK. High density planting of subtropical fruitsI: litchi. In: An Introduction to Contemporary Orchard Management. Vol. 1. Nitya Publications; 2020.
23. Sharma S, Thakur AK, Maiti R. Post-harvest technology for reducing stress on bioresource: recent advances and future needs. In: Bioresource and Stress Management. 2016. p. 229-256.
24. Singh BP, Singh RA, Singh G, Killadi B. Response of bagging on maturity, ripening and storage behaviour of 'Winter Guava'. In: Proceedings of the I International Guava Symposium; 2005 Dec. p. 597-601.
25. Thakor NJ. Indian mango-production and export scenario. Peach. 2019;18(107):0-12.
26. Tharanathan RN, Yashoda HM, Prabha TN. Mango (Mangifera indica L.), "the king of fruits": an overview. Food Reviews International. 2006;22(2):95-123.
27. Usha K, Thakre M, Goswami AK, Deepak NG. Fundamental of fruit production. New Delhi: Division of Fruits and Horticultural Technology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute; 2015.
28. Wu HX, Wang SB, Ma XW, Ma WH, Zhan RL, Yao QS. Effect of bagging on fruit quality in mango. Acta Horticulturae. 2013;992:587-592.
29. Yashoda HM, Prabha TN, Tharanathan RN. Mango ripening: changes in cell wall constituents in relation to textural softening. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2006;86(5):713-721.
30. Yu J, Tseng Y, Pham K, Liu M, Beckles DM. Starch and sugars as determinants of postharvest shelf life and quality: some new and surprising roles. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2022;78:102844.
31. Zafar TA, Sidhu JS. Composition and nutritional properties of mangoes. In: Handbook of Mango Fruit: Production, Postharvest Science, Processing Technology and Nutrition. 2017. p. 217-236.
32. Zhao C, Cui J, Wu H, Tang X, Wang X, Ma M, et al. Combined application of 1-methylcyclopropene and silicon-window modified atmosphere packaging delays cell wall degradation and softening in cold-stored 'Saiwaihong' apples. 2026:150131.