Assessment of packaging materials for quality attributes of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) cultivars during storage

SUDHIR SINGH; ARCHANA SINGH; PREETI DIXIT; PRITI KHEMARIYA

doi:10.56093/ijas.v85i7.50151

Authors

SUDHIR SINGH Principal Scientist, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Bag No. 1, Jakkhini (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 305
ARCHANA SINGH MSc student, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Bag No.1, Jakkhini (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 305
PREETI DIXIT Ph D student, Post Harvest Technology Lab, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Bag No. 1, Jakkhini (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 305
PRITI KHEMARIYA Ph D student, Post Harvest Technology Lab, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Post Bag No. 1, Jakkhini (Shahanshahpur), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 305

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v85i7.50151

Keywords:

Hybrid tomato, Open pollinated tomato, Packaging materials, Quality attributes, Tomato cultivars

Abstract

The effects of packaging materials [Corrugated fibre boxes (CFB), non-perforated polypropylene pouches (NPPP), perforated polypropylene pouches (PPP), plastic crates (PC), jute bags (JB)] were assessed on quality attributes in open pollinated (OP) and hybrid tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivars during ambient storage (24-32oC and 70- 85% RH). Tomato OP variety, Kashi Hemant had shown maximum PLW (65.2%) in PC while coded IIVR hybrid 1 exhibited minimum PLW (1.3%) in NPPP after 20 days of storage at ambient storage temperature. The maximum increase in â€˜aâ€™ value was also obtained in PC followed by JB, CFB, PPP and NPPP. Maximum (14.7-25.0 mg/100g) increase in ascorbic acid was obtained in hybrid Kashi Abhiman during 25 days of storage in NPPP whereas, OP variety Kashi Amrit had shown minimum increase (10-18.5 mg/100g) in ascorbic acid in PC after 15 days of storage.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ajlouni S, Kremar S and Maasih L. 2001. Lycopene content in hydroponic and non-hydroponic tomatoes during post harvest storage. Food Australia 53: 195–6.

Beckles D M. 2012. Factors affecting the post harvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) fruit. Post harvest Biology and Technology 63: 129–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016

Chiesa A, Diaz L, Cascone O, Panak K, Camperi S, Frezza D and Fraguas A. 1998. Texture changes on normal and long shelf-life tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.) fruit ripening. Acta Horticulturae 464: 487–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1998.464.81

Dumvilli J C and Fry S C. 2000. Uronic acid derived oligosaccharides: Their biosynthesis degradation and signaling role in non-diseased plant tissues. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 38: 125–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0981-9428(00)00163-7

Garcia-Garcia, I, Taboada-Rodriguez, A, Lopez-Gomez A and Marin-Iniesta F. 2013. Active packaging of cardboard to extend the shelf life of tomatoes. Food Bioprocess Technology 6: 754–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-011-0759-4

Gross J. 1991. Pigments in vegetable chlorophylls and carotenoids. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2033-7_2

Indian Horticulture Database. 2013. (In) Facts and figures, p 192. Tiwari R K, Mistry N C and Singh B (Eds).

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Gurgaon.

Kaur C, George B, Deepa N, Singh B and Kapoor H C. 2004. Antioxidant status of fresh and processed tomato- A review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 41: 479–86.

Lawless H J and Haymann H. 1998. Consumer field test and questionnaire design. (In) Sensory Evaluation of Food, pp 480–18. Champan H (Ed). CRC Press. New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7843-7_14

Moneruzzaman K M, Hossain A B M S, Sani W, Saifuddin M and Alenazi M. 2009. Effect of harvesting and storage conditions on the post harvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) cv. Roma VF. Australian Journal of Crop Science 3: 113–21.

Ranganna S. 1997. Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruits and Vegetables Products, 2nd edn. Tata McGrawhill Publishing Company, Ltd, New Delhi.

Salunkhe D K, Yadhev S J and Yu M H. 1974. Quality and nutritional composition of tomato fruit as influenced by certain biochemical and physiological changes. Quality Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 24(1-2): 85–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01092727

Sammi S and Masud T. 2007. Effect of different packaging systems on storage life and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum var. Rio Grande) during different packaging stages. International Journal of Food Safety 9: 37–44

Sargent S A and Moretti C L. 2005. Tomato strawberry fruits and their shelf life during storage. Acta Horticulturae 567: 759–62.

Singh S, Singh J and Rai M. 2008. Nutritional attributes of processed tomatoes. Critical Review of Food Science and Food Safety 7: 335–9.

Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1967. I Regression. II. Two way classifications. Statistical methods, 6 Edn, 141–4, 299– 338.

Thorne S and Alvarez J S S. 1982. The effect of irregular storage temperature on firmness and surface colour in tomatoes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33: 671–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740330713

Yadava R K, Sanwa S K, Singh P K and Buragohain J. 2009. Effect of pretreatments and packaging of tomato in LDPE and PET films on the storage life. Journal of Food Science and Technology 46: 139–41.