
Citation: Mohammad Zahirul Islam, Young-Tack Lee, Mahmuda Akter Mele, In-Lee Choi, Ho-Min Kang. Effect of fruit size on fruit quality, shelf life and microbial activity in cherry tomatoes[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 340-348. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.340
[1] | Sana Hayyat, Mehdi Maqbool, Abdul Hamid, Muhammad Shehzad, Raheel Anwar, Sandra Horvitz, Noosheen Zahid, Muhammad Azam Khan . Appropriate harvest maturity for exploitation of wild black raspberry (Rubus sp.) fruits during shelf life period from Rawalakot, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2025, 10(1): 1-16. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025001 |
[2] | Cátia Morgado, José M. Pestana, Manuela M. Guerra, Carlos Brandão . Microbiological quality in convenient ready-to-eat vegetables during shelf life. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(4): 372-383. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.4.372 |
[3] | Md. Shaha Nur Kabir, Kamal Rasool, Wang-Hee Lee, Seong-In Cho, Sun-Ok Chung . Influence of delayed cooling on the quality of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) stored in a controlled chamber. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 272-285. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.272 |
[4] | Nono Carsono, Faza A. Maulana, Iqbal F. Elfakhriano, Ade Ismail, Noladhi Wicaksana, Santika Sari, Hiroshi Ezura . The comparative analysis of agronomic, compositional, and physiological traits of miraculin transgenic tomato in the confined field trial. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 187-197. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023010 |
[5] | Konrad Wojciech Nowak, Paweł Mielnik, Monika Sięda, Izabela Staniszewska, Anna Bieniek . The effect of ultrasound treatment on the extraction of lycopene and β-carotene from cherry silverberry fruits. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 247-254. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021016 |
[6] | Alaika Kassim, Tilahun S. Workneh, Mark D. Laing . A review of the postharvest characteristics and pre-packaging treatments of citrus fruit. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 337-364. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.337 |
[7] | Giorgia Liguori, Giuseppe Sortino, Giuseppe Gianguzzi, Paolo Inglese, Vittorio Farina . Evaluation of quality attributes and consumer preference of fresh or imported mangoes in Italy. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(4): 426-440. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.4.426 |
[8] | Pasquale Roppolo, Ilenia Tinebra, Roberta Passafiume, Alessio Allegra, Giuseppe Sortino, Paolo Inglese, Vittorio Farina . Tray-drying is a new way to valorise white-fleshed peach fruit. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(4): 944-961. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023050 |
[9] | Hayriye Fatma Kibar, Ferhan K. Sabir . Chitosan coating for extending postharvest quality of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) maintained at different storage temperatures. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(2): 97-108. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.2.97 |
[10] | Rosalía García-Vásquez, Araceli Minerva Vera-Guzmán, José Cruz Carrillo-Rodríguez, Mónica Lilian Pérez-Ochoa, Elia Nora Aquino-Bolaños, Jimena Esther Alba-Jiménez, José Luis Chávez-Servia . Bioactive and nutritional compounds in fruits of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) landraces conserved among indigenous communities from Mexico. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(3): 832-850. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023044 |
Tomato is a perishable product that starts to deteriorate after harvest. It is important to maintain quality of tomatoes by selecting the best fruit sizes when exporting them over long distances. Tomato size, which can influence nutritional value, is an important factor for consumer choice. The size of fruits and vegetables is an important indicator of various qualities [1]. Smaller produce is often transferred to local markets or to processing houses, and the produce with the highest quality is packaged and marketed domestically or abroad [2].
There are many factors that can influence the size of tomatoes. First, low ambient-light conditions result in smaller tomatoes and reduced vitamin C content [3]. Second, excessive sodium and/or chloride (due to salinity) can reduce fruit size, and weight, and increase the levels of soluble solids within the fruit [4,5]. Finally, it has also been shown that water stress may decrease fruit size, thereby affecting the levels of soluble solids, acidity, and ascorbic acid within the fruit. Mineral imbalances, salinity and cultivar may influence fruit size [6]. Small fruit may weigh less, be less firm, have a shorter shelf life, and reduced market ability. All of these things result in a loss of market value for tomatoes.
Additionally, fruit size may be reduced due to nutritional and organoleptic traits [7]. This effect is problematic, because low light or salinity can affect intrinsic fruit composition. Variation in fruit size and shape is quantitatively inherited (polygenic) [8]. Progeny from cultivated species and crosses with wild relatives' segregate and the consequences can include small fruit size that is influenced by mutations of genetic loci [9]. The variation of the quantitative nature of fruit size can be inhibited by using Mendelian techniques to characterize and identify the gene mutations that can occur in cultivated fruit [10]. Microbial activity on the fruits usually increases during storage.
After harvest, respiration and ethylene production increase and deterioration begins. The deterioration of the fruit may also be caused by microbial activity that usually increases during fruit storage.
Consumers initially choose tomatoes based on external appearance (size and color), and afterwards by the internal quality of flavor. Grading tomatoes on the basis of size is necessary to maintain their quality, get optimum market value, export them over long distances without a significant reduction in quality, and store them for long periods of time to satisfy the demand from consumer. Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) increase the quality and shelf life by maintaining optimum conditions [6]. There is no research relating fruit size with MAP, a factor that can influence the quality, shelf life and microbial activity of cherry tomatoes. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of fruit size with MAP storage on the quality, shelf life, and microbial activity in cherry tomatoes.
Sixty cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cv. 'Unicorn') plants were supplied with a nutrient solution and were grown using the hydroponic nutrient film technique (NFT) from April to July in 2016, with EC 2.3 dS m−1 and pH 5.8–6.2 [11] in the Republic of Korea. The greenhouse was maintained to 20 ℃/15 ℃ (day/night) and supplemented with quantum dot light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to maintain a light intensity (Photosynthetic Photon Flux Density) of 300 μmol·m−2·s−1. Tomatoes were harvested in the stage of light red maturity, from the 3rd to 7th trusses. Large (31.28 mm), medium (28.52 mm), and small (24.16 mm) size tomatoes were classified according to the available fruits in the trusses. The quality of large, medium, and small tomatoes was measured at harvest time at room temperature (20 ℃).
Tomatoes were washed with 150 ppm sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) for 10 minutes before storage. Commercial-sized cartons (box) (20 fruits of each size, for a total of 60 fruits for the three sizes) were used as the control and 20,000 cc m−2/day atm oxygen transmission rate (OTR) packaging film was used for the different treatments (10 fruits/ pack and five replicates for each size, for a total of 150 fruits for the three sizes). This material was considered to be modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) and tomatoes were kept at 5 ℃ with 85% relative humidity to measure the quality and shelf life of the fruits. On the final day of storage, after removing the seeds, some samples were kept at −24 ℃ to measuring the lycopene and vitamin C concentrations and to measure microbial activity.
A PBI Dansensor (CheckMate 9900, Denmark) was used to measure the carbon dioxide and oxygen emitted by the fruit. Ethylene was measured by a GC-2010 Shimadzu chromatograph (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan) that was equipped with a BP20 (wax) column (30 mm × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm; SGE Analytical Science, Australia). The detector and injector were programmed to operate at 127 ℃ and the ovens were set to 50 ℃. The flow rate of the carrier gas (N2) was 0.67 mL/s [12].
The loss of fresh weight in tomatoes was measured by subtracting the final weight from the previous weight and converted to obtain % weight loss [12]. Visual quality was subjectively assessed on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = very bad, 2 = bad, 3 = good, or marketable, 4 = very good, and 5 = excellent) by five panel members on the final day of storage. Shelf life was measured (≥ 3; good, or marketable) according to visual quality determinants such as mold growth, decay, shriveling, smoothness, shininess, and homogeneity. Fungus-affected tomatoes were counted and the amount of fungal activity was converted to a percentage.
A fruit hardness tester (Lutron FR 5105, Taiwan) with a 3 mm diameter stainless steel probe with a flat end was used to measure the firmness of the fruit. The skin color values of tomato fruits were measured using a chroma meter model CR-400 (Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc., Japan). The reported results include the levels of red (+ a*) and green (− a*), as well as yellow (+ b*) and blue (− b*) seen on the fruit [12]. In this research, the redness of the tomato fruits was measured as the value of a*/b*.
Lycopene content in the fruit was measured according to Islam et al. [13] with a UV spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) at 503 nm. A refractometer (Atago U.S.A. Inc., U.S.A.) was used to measure the soluble solids, and the results are presented as °Brix. The titratable acidity was measured by a fruit acid meter (G-Won Hi-tech, Korea) and the results are reported as % citric acid.
Vitamin C was also analyzed according to Islam et al. [14] using a Waters HPLC (Waters Associates, Milford, MA, USA) with a C18 column (4.6 cm × 250 mm, 5 μm, Agilent, USA) at 265 nm with 100% MeOH:0.1 M KH2PO4 1:9 mobile phase and 1.0 mL·min−1 flow rate.
Bacterial colonies and fungal spores were evaluated according to Islam et al. [15]. Briefly, 3 cm2 from each chilled, segmented tomato was rinsed with 10 ml of 0.1% peptone and shaken. About 0.1 mL of each rinsed solution was surface plated. Nutrient agar (NA) and potato dextrose agar (PDA) were used for bacteria and fungi, respectively. Plates were incubated for 48 h at 35 ℃ (bacteria) or for 5 days at 25 ℃ (fungi). Bacteria and fungi were identified based on colony and spore characterization, and by microscopic methods.
The significant differences of mean values were determined using Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT) of the one-way ANOVA by SPSS V. 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA).
Large tomatoes showed the lowest levels of respiration (Figure 1A) and ethylene (Figure 1B) production at harvest time, and they maintained their freshness better than the other sizes. This result is similar to the data reported by Kays and Paull [16]: Smaller fruits had higher rates of respiration and ethylene production due to their larger surface area to volume ratios compared with larger fruits. On the final day of storage, large tomatoes produced the least amount of carbon dioxide (respiration) and ethylene compared with smaller tomatoes (Figures 1 and 2). Additionally, during storage, large tomatoes produced less carbon dioxide, more oxygen and less ethylene compared with smaller fruits. Similarly, large guava fruits have been shown to have lower rates of respiration and ethylene production compared with smaller ones [17]. The lower ethylene content in large tomatoes can be a benefit, because lower levels of ethylene causes fruit to ripen and decompose at a slower rate.
Tomatoes of different sizes (large, medium, and small) and weights were analyzed to determine their quality and shelf life. The large tomatoes showed the lowest fresh weight loss compared with the small ones (Table 1). Diaz-Perez et al. [18] also suggested that small carrots and peppers have been shown to have a higher amount of fresh weight loss compared with larger ones. Larger tomatoes have lower surface area to volume ratios, which confer relatively less water loss [19]. We saw the longest shelf life in the large tomatoes because they maintained a marketable visual quality (≥ 3) and freshness during the experiments. The large tomatoes had the longest shelf life due to lower rates of respiration and ethylene production. The small fruits had a shorter shelf life due to higher rates of respiration and ethylene production compared with the other fruits sizes on the final day of storage. The surface area to volume ratios affects the shelf life of vegetables and the rates of water loss [19]. The fungal incidence of large tomatoes was the lowest, and that helped in maintaining quality and extending their shelf life. The small tomatoes showed higher rates of fungal incidence compared with large tomatoes. Smaller size may increase sensitivity to fungal incidence, which mainly occurs during cuticle fluidity. The weak resistance of the small fruit is due to a relatively high flow of water and sugar to the fruits, and a lack of resistance [20].
Fruit size (mm) | Fruit weight (g) | Fresh weight loss (%) | Shelf life (days) | Fungal incidence (%) | ||||
Harvest | Harvest | Box | MAP | Box | MAP | Box | MAP | |
Large | 31.28az | 16.56a | 4.32b | 0.17b | 15a | 19a | 30.00b | 37.50b |
Medium | 28.52b | 12.65ab | 4.69ab | 0.19ab | 14ab | 17ab | 40.00ab | 60.00ab |
Small | 24.16c | 8.16b | 5.29a | 0.22a | 12b | 16b | 50.00a | 72.73a |
P value | *** | *** | ** | * | ** | * | ** | ** |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 10). *, **, ***: significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively of DMRT. |
At the time of harvest, there were no significant differences in color, the amount of lycopene, soluble solids, titratable acidity, or vitamin C content among the different fruit sizes. This is because we selected tomatoes at the same developmental stage and sizes. However, after storage, the tomatoes of different sizes showed significant differences.
The small tomatoes were the firmest at the time of harvest compared with the other sizes. This may be due to better membrane integrity in smaller fruits [14]. Previous works reported that the large fruits were less firm than the small fruits at harvest time [1,2]. After storage, the large tomatoes were the firmest of the three different sizes. This may be related to the slower ripening due to the lower ethylene production as shown in Figure 2C. Less ethylene and less color development allow tomatoes to maintain a high level of firmness [21]. The large tomatoes maintained their firmness better than the other sizes, making them more desirable for long-time storage (Table 2).
Firmness (N) | Color (a*/b*) | Lycopene (mg kg−1 FW) | |||||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 13.04bz | 8.05a | 11.08a | 0.55a | 0.81b | 0.70b | 91.60a | 112.27 | 100.94b |
Medium | 15.53a | 7.28ab | 9.36ab | 0.55a | 0.82b | 0.71ab | 92.14a | 117.86 | 103.31ab |
Small | 15.85a | 6.45b | 9.17b | 0.56a | 0.86a | 0.75a | 91.93a | 126.46 | 106.23a |
P value | ** | ** | ** | NS | * | ** | NS | ** | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 10). NS, *, **: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.01, respectively of DMRT. |
Those tomatoes that changed color rapidly experienced a corresponding loss of quality. The small tomatoes had more rapid color development due to their higher levels of respiration and production of ethylene. Rates of respiration and ethylene production can influence the development of color in tomatoes. As a result, these factors lead the ripening of tomatoes [22,23]. Large tomatoes, which are the most desirable to export over long distances, change color very slowly and have lower rates of respiration and ethylene production compared to the medium and small fruits.
The levels of lycopene were influenced by size. The large tomatoes contained less lycopene than the other sizes, and this characteristic may happen due to their slower ripening. As a result, levels of lycopene were high due to an increased level of ripeness. As tomatoes ripen, levels of lycopene increase. This agrees with results from Brandt et al. [24], that the level of ripeness affects the lycopene content in tomatoes.
Among the different sizes, the small tomatoes contained the most soluble solids on the final day of storage (Table 3). Smaller fruits contained more soluble solids [4]. Usually, the amount of soluble solids increases during the ripening of tomatoes because the organic acids convert to sugar [14]. The small tomatoes showed lower titratable acidity and vitamin C content than the other sizes, due to being riper on the final day of storage. As smaller fruits ripen more quickly, their acidity decreases compared with larger fruits. The large tomatoes had the highest vitamin C content because of lower levels of ethylene production. These results support the results from a previous study [3] that small tomatoes had reduced levels of vitamin C.
Soluble solids (°Brix) | Titratable acidity (% citric acid) | Vitamin C (mg 100 g−1 FW) | |||||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 5.53az | 6.08b | 5.98b | 0.61a | 0.40a | 0.53a | 17.31a | 9.89a | 12.34a |
Medium | 5.53a | 6.10b | 6.06ab | 0.61a | 0.39ab | 0.52a | 18.56a | 8.16ab | 11.95ab |
Small | 5.54a | 6.47a | 6.20a | 0.62a | 0.35b | 0.46b | 18.43a | 6.15b | 10.97b |
P value | NS | * | * | NS | ** | * | NS | ** | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 5). NS, *, **: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.01 of DMRT. |
The lowest bacterial and fungal count occurred in large tomatoes after storage. The bacterial count at both harvest time and after storage was higher than the fungal densities (Table 4). The small tomatoes had the most bacteria and fungi probably due to high levels of ethylene and environmental conditions. Moreover, bacteria and fungi produce ethylene [25] and, as a result, tomatoes with higher levels of them ripen faster and lose their quality. In summary, ethylene increases the bacterial and fungal activity in small tomatoes.
Bacteria (× 10 colony ml−1) | Fungi (× 10 spores ml−1) | |||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 193.00az | 195.08b | 200.67b | 6.33a | 6.70b | 6.67b |
Medium | 194.67a | 198.04ab | 206.33ab | 6.67a | 6.59b | 9.00ab |
Small | 195.33a | 206.66a | 211.67a | 7.00a | 7.76a | 9.67a |
P value | NS | * | * | NS | * | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 5). NS, *: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 of DMRT. |
Tomatoes of different sizes (large, medium, and small) were examined to evaluate the quality, shelf life, and microbial activity associated with them. The large tomatoes were the firmest, and had the lowest rates of respiration and ethylene production on the final day of storage. The large tomatoes also had the longest shelf life, as well as the lowest occurrence of fungal and microbial activity. Therefore, it may be best to use larger cherry tomatoes when the fruit needs to be exported over long distances.
This work was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry (IPET) through Advanced Production Technology Development Program, funded by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (116111-03).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] | Kitinoja L, Gorny JR (1999) Postharvest technology for small-scale produce marketers: Economic opportunities, quality and food safety. UX Postharvest Technology Research and Information Center, Series, 21, April, Davis, USA. |
[2] | Kitinoja L, Kader AA (2002) Small-scale postharvest handling practices: A manual for horticultural crops, In: Postharvest Horticulture Series No. 8E, 4th Eds., Postharvest Technology Research and Information Center, University of California, Davis, USA. |
[3] |
Gruda N (2005) Impact of environmental factors on product quality of greenhouse vegetables for fresh consumption. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24: 227–247. doi: 10.1080/07352680591008628
![]() |
[4] | Kader AA, Rolle RS (2004) The role of post-harvest management in assuring the quality and safety of horticultural produce. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 152, Publishing Management Service, Information Division, FAO, Rome, Italy. |
[5] |
Islam MZ, Mele MA, Choi KY, et al. (2018) Nutrient and salinity concentrations effects on quality and storability of cherry tomato fruits grown by hydroponic system. Bragantia 77: 385–393. doi: 10.1590/1678-4499.2017185
![]() |
[6] | Mele MA, Islam MZ, Kang HM, et al. (2018) Pre-and post-harvest factors and their impact on oil composition and quality of olive fruit. Emir J Food Agric 30: 592–603. |
[7] |
Figàs MR, Prohens J, Raigón MD, et al. (2015) Characterization of composition traits related to organoleptic and functional quality for the differentiation, selection and enhancement of local varieties of tomato from different cultivar groups. Food Chem 187: 517–524. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.04.083
![]() |
[8] |
Grandillo S, Ku H, Tanksley S (1999) Identifying the loci responsible for natural variation in fruit size. Theor Appl Genet 99: 978–987. doi: 10.1007/s001220051405
![]() |
[9] |
Banerjee MK, Kalloo G (1989) The inheritance of earliness and fruit weight in crosses between cultivated tomatoes and two species of Lycopersicon. Plant Breed 102: 148–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.1989.tb00328.x
![]() |
[10] |
Tanksley SD (2004) The genetic, developmental, and molecular bases of fruit size. Plant Cell 16: S181–S189. doi: 10.1105/tpc.018119
![]() |
[11] |
Islam MZ, Mele MA, Choi KY, et al. (2018) The effect of silicon and boron foliar application on the quality and shelf life of cherry tomatoes. Zemdirbyste 105: 159–164. doi: 10.13080/z-a.2018.105.020
![]() |
[12] |
Mele MA, Islam MZ, Baek JP, et al. (2017) Quality, storability, and essential oil content of Ligularia fischeri during modified atmosphere packaging storage. J Food Sci Technol 54: 743–750. doi: 10.1007/s13197-017-2514-y
![]() |
[13] | Islam MZ, Mele MA, Kang HM (2018) Gaseous, physicochemical and microbial performances of silicon foliar spraying techniques on cherry tomatoes. J Agr Sci 40: 185–192. |
[14] |
Islam MZ, Mele MA, Baek JP, et al. (2016) Cherry tomato qualities affected by foliar spraying with boron and calcium. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 57: 46–52. doi: 10.1007/s13580-016-0097-6
![]() |
[15] |
Islam MZ, Mele MA, Baek JP, et al. (2018) Iron, iodine and selenium effects on quality, shelf life and microbial activity of cherry tomatoes. Not Bot Horti Agrobo 46: 388–392. doi: 10.15835/nbha46211012
![]() |
[16] | Kays JS, Paull RE (2004) Postharvest Biology. Exon Press, Athens. |
[17] |
Brown BI, Wills RBH (1983) Post-harvest changes in guava fruit of different maturity. Sci Hort 19: 237–243. doi: 10.1016/0304-4238(83)90069-9
![]() |
[18] |
Dìaz-Pèrez JC, Muy-Rangel MD, Mascorro AG (2007) Fruit size and stage of ripeness affect postharvest water loss in bell pepper fruit (Capsicum annuum L.). J Sci Food Agric 87: 68–73. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2672
![]() |
[19] |
El-Ramady HR, Domokos-Szabolcsy E, Abdalla M, et al. (2015) Postharvest management of fruits and vegetables storage. Sustain Agr Rev 15: 65–152. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-09132-7_2
![]() |
[20] | Dorais M, Papadopoulos AP, Gosselin A (2001) Greenhouse tomato fruit quality. Hortic Rev 26: 239–27. |
[21] |
Argenta LC, Krammes JG, Megguer CA, et al. (2003) Ripening and quality of 'Laetitia' plums following harvest and cold storage as affected by inhibition of ethylene action. Pesq Agropec Bras 38: 1139–1148. doi: 10.1590/S0100-204X2003001000002
![]() |
[22] | Islam MZ, Lee YT, Mele MA, et al. (2018) Effect of pre-harvest potassium foliar spray and postharvest storage methods on quality and shelf life of cherry tomatoes. Res J Biotechnol 13: 49–54. |
[23] |
Islam MZ, Mele MA, Choi K, et al. (2018) Salicylic acid in nutrient solution influence the fruit quality and shelf life of cherry tomato grown in hydroponics. Sains Malaysiana 47: 537–542. doi: 10.17576/jsm-2018-4703-14
![]() |
[24] |
Brandt S, Pek Z, Barna E, et al. (2006) Lycopene content and colour of ripening tomatoes as affected by environmental conditions. J Sci Food Agr 86: 568–572. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2390
![]() |
[25] |
Weingart H, Ullrich H, Geider K, et al. (2001) The role of ethylene production in virulence of Pseudomonas syringae pvs. glycinea and phaseolicola. Phytopathology 91: 511–518. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2001.91.5.511
![]() |
1. | S.M.E. Rahman, Mahmuda Akter Mele, Young-Tack Lee, Mohammad Zahirul Islam, Consumer Preference, Quality, and Safety of Organic and Conventional Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, and Cereals, 2021, 10, 2304-8158, 105, 10.3390/foods10010105 | |
2. | Zahir Shah Safari, Phebe Ding, Jaafar Juju Nakasha, Siti Fairuz Yusoff, Combining Chitosan and Vanillin to Retain Postharvest Quality of Tomato Fruit during Ambient Temperature Storage, 2020, 10, 2079-6412, 1222, 10.3390/coatings10121222 | |
3. | Leonel Vinicius Constantino, Laís Martins Rossetto, Marta Toledo Benassi, Claudia Oliveira, Douglas Mariani Zeffa, Alessandra Koltun, Juliano Tadeu Vilela Resende, Leandro Simões Azeredo Gonçalves, Physico-biochemical characterization of mini-tomatoes and internal preference mapping based on consumer acceptance, 2021, 282, 03044238, 110034, 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110034 | |
4. | Vanesa Olveira-Bouzas, Consuelo Pita-Calvo, Mª Lourdes Vázquez-Odériz, Mª Ángeles Romero-Rodríguez, Evaluation of a modified atmosphere packaging system in pallets to extend the shelf-life of the stored tomato at cooling temperature, 2021, 364, 03088146, 130309, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130309 | |
5. | Chengyao Jiang, Jiahui Rao, Sen Rong, Guotian Ding, Jiaming Liu, Yushan Li, Yu Song, Fruit Quality Response to Different Abaxial Leafy Supplemental Lighting of Greenhouse-Produced Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. Cerasiforme), 2022, 8, 2311-7524, 423, 10.3390/horticulturae8050423 | |
6. | Chandrima Shrivastava, Seraina Schudel, Kanaha Shoji, Daniel Onwude, Fátima Pereira da Silva, Deniz Turan, Maxence Paillart, Thijs Defraeye, Digital twins for selecting the optimal ventilated strawberry packaging based on the unique hygrothermal conditions of a shipment from farm to retailer, 2023, 199, 09255214, 112283, 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2023.112283 | |
7. | Pavlos Tsouvaltzis, Stela Gkountina, Anastasios S. Siomos, Quality Traits and Nutritional Components of Cherry Tomato in Relation to the Harvesting Period, Storage Duration and Fruit Position in the Truss, 2023, 12, 2223-7747, 315, 10.3390/plants12020315 | |
8. | Pamela dos S Antunes, Lígia Erpen-Dalla Corte, Janaina CM Bueno, Wilma Aparecida Spinosa, Juliano Tadeu V Resende, Fernando T Hata, Lilian C Cabrera, Douglas M Zeffa, Leandro SA Gonçalves, Leonel Vinícius Constantino, Firmness and biochemical composition of Shitake and Shimeji commercialized in natura and consumers' opinion survey, 2021, 39, 1806-9991, 425, 10.1590/s0102-0536-20210412 | |
9. | Hayri Ustun, Adem Dogan, Bunyamin Peker, Cansu Ural, Mustafa Cetin, Yunus Ozyigit, Mustafa Erkan, Determination of the relationship between respiration rate and ethylene production by fruit sizes of different tomato types, 2023, 103, 0022-5142, 176, 10.1002/jsfa.12129 | |
10. | Wen Xia Ling Felicia, Kobun Rovina, Joseph Merillyn Vonnie, Md Nasir Nur Aqilah, Kana Husna Erna, Misson Mailin, Consolidating plant-based essential oils onto polysaccharides-based coatings: Effect on mechanisms and reducing postharvest losses of fruits, 2022, 2, 27725022, 100226, 10.1016/j.afres.2022.100226 | |
11. | Kulyash Meiramkulova, Davud Devrishov, Zhanar Adylbek, Assel Kydyrbekova, Sayan Zhangazin, Rimma Ualiyeva, Aliya Temirbekova, Gulmira Adilbektegi, Timoth Mkilima, The Impact of Various LED Light Spectra on Tomato Preservation, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 1111, 10.3390/su15021111 | |
12. | Kusumiyati Kusumiyati, Farhan Ahmad, Muhammad Rabnawaz Khan, Mochamad Arief Soleh, Ristina Siti Sundari, Productivity of Cherry Tomato Cultivars as Influenced by Watering Capacities and Microclimate Control Designs, 2023, 17, 1874-3315, 10.2174/0118743315280566231119172531 | |
13. | Farhan Ahmad, Kusumiyati Kusumiyati, Muhammad Arief Soleh, Muhammad Rabnawaz Khan, Ristina Siti Sundari, Watering Volume and Growing Design’s Effect on the Productivity and Quality of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiformae) Cultivar Ruby, 2023, 13, 2073-4395, 2417, 10.3390/agronomy13092417 | |
14. | I. Darío Flores-Sánchez, Manuel Sandoval-Villa, Libia Iris Trejo-Téllez, Basic proposal for evaluation of plant genetic resources to generate new crops, 2025, 16, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2025.1507521 |
Fruit size (mm) | Fruit weight (g) | Fresh weight loss (%) | Shelf life (days) | Fungal incidence (%) | ||||
Harvest | Harvest | Box | MAP | Box | MAP | Box | MAP | |
Large | 31.28az | 16.56a | 4.32b | 0.17b | 15a | 19a | 30.00b | 37.50b |
Medium | 28.52b | 12.65ab | 4.69ab | 0.19ab | 14ab | 17ab | 40.00ab | 60.00ab |
Small | 24.16c | 8.16b | 5.29a | 0.22a | 12b | 16b | 50.00a | 72.73a |
P value | *** | *** | ** | * | ** | * | ** | ** |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 10). *, **, ***: significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively of DMRT. |
Firmness (N) | Color (a*/b*) | Lycopene (mg kg−1 FW) | |||||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 13.04bz | 8.05a | 11.08a | 0.55a | 0.81b | 0.70b | 91.60a | 112.27 | 100.94b |
Medium | 15.53a | 7.28ab | 9.36ab | 0.55a | 0.82b | 0.71ab | 92.14a | 117.86 | 103.31ab |
Small | 15.85a | 6.45b | 9.17b | 0.56a | 0.86a | 0.75a | 91.93a | 126.46 | 106.23a |
P value | ** | ** | ** | NS | * | ** | NS | ** | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 10). NS, *, **: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.01, respectively of DMRT. |
Soluble solids (°Brix) | Titratable acidity (% citric acid) | Vitamin C (mg 100 g−1 FW) | |||||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 5.53az | 6.08b | 5.98b | 0.61a | 0.40a | 0.53a | 17.31a | 9.89a | 12.34a |
Medium | 5.53a | 6.10b | 6.06ab | 0.61a | 0.39ab | 0.52a | 18.56a | 8.16ab | 11.95ab |
Small | 5.54a | 6.47a | 6.20a | 0.62a | 0.35b | 0.46b | 18.43a | 6.15b | 10.97b |
P value | NS | * | * | NS | ** | * | NS | ** | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 5). NS, *, **: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.01 of DMRT. |
Bacteria (× 10 colony ml−1) | Fungi (× 10 spores ml−1) | |||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 193.00az | 195.08b | 200.67b | 6.33a | 6.70b | 6.67b |
Medium | 194.67a | 198.04ab | 206.33ab | 6.67a | 6.59b | 9.00ab |
Small | 195.33a | 206.66a | 211.67a | 7.00a | 7.76a | 9.67a |
P value | NS | * | * | NS | * | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 5). NS, *: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 of DMRT. |
Fruit size (mm) | Fruit weight (g) | Fresh weight loss (%) | Shelf life (days) | Fungal incidence (%) | ||||
Harvest | Harvest | Box | MAP | Box | MAP | Box | MAP | |
Large | 31.28az | 16.56a | 4.32b | 0.17b | 15a | 19a | 30.00b | 37.50b |
Medium | 28.52b | 12.65ab | 4.69ab | 0.19ab | 14ab | 17ab | 40.00ab | 60.00ab |
Small | 24.16c | 8.16b | 5.29a | 0.22a | 12b | 16b | 50.00a | 72.73a |
P value | *** | *** | ** | * | ** | * | ** | ** |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 10). *, **, ***: significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively of DMRT. |
Firmness (N) | Color (a*/b*) | Lycopene (mg kg−1 FW) | |||||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 13.04bz | 8.05a | 11.08a | 0.55a | 0.81b | 0.70b | 91.60a | 112.27 | 100.94b |
Medium | 15.53a | 7.28ab | 9.36ab | 0.55a | 0.82b | 0.71ab | 92.14a | 117.86 | 103.31ab |
Small | 15.85a | 6.45b | 9.17b | 0.56a | 0.86a | 0.75a | 91.93a | 126.46 | 106.23a |
P value | ** | ** | ** | NS | * | ** | NS | ** | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 10). NS, *, **: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.01, respectively of DMRT. |
Soluble solids (°Brix) | Titratable acidity (% citric acid) | Vitamin C (mg 100 g−1 FW) | |||||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 5.53az | 6.08b | 5.98b | 0.61a | 0.40a | 0.53a | 17.31a | 9.89a | 12.34a |
Medium | 5.53a | 6.10b | 6.06ab | 0.61a | 0.39ab | 0.52a | 18.56a | 8.16ab | 11.95ab |
Small | 5.54a | 6.47a | 6.20a | 0.62a | 0.35b | 0.46b | 18.43a | 6.15b | 10.97b |
P value | NS | * | * | NS | ** | * | NS | ** | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 5). NS, *, **: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.01 of DMRT. |
Bacteria (× 10 colony ml−1) | Fungi (× 10 spores ml−1) | |||||
Harvest | Box | MAP | Harvest | Box | MAP | |
Large | 193.00az | 195.08b | 200.67b | 6.33a | 6.70b | 6.67b |
Medium | 194.67a | 198.04ab | 206.33ab | 6.67a | 6.59b | 9.00ab |
Small | 195.33a | 206.66a | 211.67a | 7.00a | 7.76a | 9.67a |
P value | NS | * | * | NS | * | * |
*Note: z means separation of columns by Duncan's multiple range tests (DMRT) (n = 5). NS, *: not significant, or significant at p ≤ 0.05 of DMRT. |