1. Introduction
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) belongs to the Solanaceae family; it is one of the favored vegetable crops and is widely consumed worldwide [1]. Tomatoes are major vegetable crops in the Kurdistan region and Iraq and are grown throughout the country [2]. According to FAOSTAT (2021) [3], the world production of fresh tomatoes was estimated at over 189 million tons, although production in Iraq (including the Kurdistan region) was estimated at approximately 744 thousand tons. Tomatoes are freshly consumed in salads and sandwiches or in multiple processed forms, such as sauces, pastes, juices, preserves, and dried [4]. Tomatoes contain large amounts of organic acids, reducing sugars, pectin, and carotenoids. Antioxidants, such as lycopene and phenolic compounds, are found in tomatoes and tomato products and are low in fat and calories, most importantly, to reduce the risk of heart disease in the prostate, lungs, and stomach [5].
Tomatoes have a short postharvest life, limited shelf life, and high moisture content, leading to deterioration. Inadequate processing facilities result in decreased income and significant loss of farmer production, affecting the country’s economy [6]. The farm suffers losses of up to 50% in tomato production from harvesting to consumption due to inadequate management practices, knowledge of optimal harvest stages, unsuitable handling treatments, and insufficient storage systems [7]. Tomato fruits exhibit climacteric respiration and can be picked at various stages, such as maturity, half-ripening, or ripening [8]. Consumers worldwide demand high-quality, chemical-free, and long-lasting fruits, leading to increased efforts to use natural, eco-friendly, safe, and antimicrobial preservatives [9]. In this case, hot water is used to treat harvested fruit, which has the potential for controlling insects and disease; maintaining fruit quality and chilling injury symptoms; improving shelf-life [10]; and decreasing cell wall activity, enzymatic degradation, the disruption of ethylene synthesis enzymes and the inhibition of ripening [11]. The use of edible coatings is one way to increase postharvest shelf-life, decrease weight loss, and extend storage life [12,13]. Recently, there has been increased interest in the use of Aloe vera as a coating to prevent fruit loss from moisture, softening, a slow rate of respiration, senescence, and reduced microorganism growth, thereby slowing oxidative browning [14]. The postharvest application of CaCl2 has been reported to maintain firmness, reduce physiological disorders, reduce respiration, increase shelf life, and delay the ripening and aging of apples, tomatoes, and peaches [15].
Recently, natural substances have been used to prolong the shelf-life of tomato fruits and maintain fruit quality during storage by controlling fungal growth. Plant extracts can extend fruit shelf-life by 8%–10%, providing an alternative to microbial pathogens that cause fruit decay [16]. Additionally, it is less harmful to both humans and animals than artificial or chemical preservatives [17]. The use of plant extracts and natural coatings as biopreservatives, which are multipurpose, easy to use as food, edible, and medicinal, environmentally friendly, safe, inexpensive, and antioxidant, inhibits fungal growth, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory activities, and have health benefits, has been attempted. The use of environmentally friendly and physical methods such as Mint and Catnip extracts for decay control and postharvest loss is gaining attention in agricultural practice. On the other hand, the widespread use of fungicides and other chemicals has caused several adverse effects on environmental and human health.
Therefore, this research focused on prolonging shelf-life and tomato quality under cold storage when fruits are harvested at the turning-color fruit stage and light red stages of maturity. The fruits were also treated with both leaf extracts, Mint (Mentha spicata L.) and Catnip (Nepeta cataria L.), in hot water and dipped into a mixture of Aloe vera gel and calcium chloride.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
A greenhouse experiment was conducted in the Sheikh Jamal private field at Krbchna, Sangaw, which is located 77 km southwest of Sulaymaniyah Province in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. The global position system (GPS) coordinates (latitude: 35°28′20″ N, longitude: 45°27′70″ E, altitude: 979 m) and a geographical map of the research area are shown in Figure 1 [18]. The research area has an arid and semiarid climate [19].
2.2. Growth Condition, Harvesting, and Postharvest Treatments
The Sangaw cultivar (Figure 2) of tomato plants was planted in a greenhouse from spring to summer 2021 under protected conditions and standard agricultural practices such as soil preparation, sowing, the addition of manure and fertilizers, irrigation, weed control, pest management, and plant growth regulators, etc. The fruits were harvested at two different stages of maturity on the basis of their skin color (turning-color fruit stage and light red color stage), with the calyx attached to the tomato plants in the early morning (4 to 5 a.m.) on 18 July 2021.
Picked fruits were kept at 15 °C for 12 h to remove heat from the field and maintain a uniform temperature. Afterward, the fruits were carefully brought to the laboratory to avoid internal bruising and to apply various treatments (distilled water, hot water at 35 °C, 10% (w/v) Aloe vera jelly, 2% (w/v) calcium, 5% (w/v) Mint, and 5% (w/v) Catnip). Samples with no apparent mechanical injuries, insects, or diseases were selected according to their color.
The fruits were subsequently divided to apply the postharvest treatments. Each stage tomato was divided into 6 groups for dipping in the solutions of the treatments for 5 min and then air-dried for 60 min. Each treated fruit was divided into 3 replicates, packed in plastic boxes, and stored in a cold storage room with a relative humidity of 90%–95% and a temperature of 10 ± 1 °C for 20 days with continuous monitoring.
2.3. Fruit Quality Assays and Biochemical Tests
After storage, the following parameters were recorded to determine fruit quality: fresh weight loss (%) according to El-Badawy [20]; firmness (g mm/s) measured with an analyzer of texture, CT3 TEXTURE ANALYZER Manual No. M08-372-F1116 (BROOKFIELD ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INC. 11 Commerce Boulevard, Middleboro, MA 02346 USA); and speed range from 0.1 mm/s to 2.0 mm/s, as described by the AOAC [21], the pH of the fruit juice was measured with a pH meter (pH/ISE/ORP/Temperature Meter, Benchtop, Digital, Model pH 211, HI2211-01, Hanna Equipments; made in Mumbai, India) [22], the total soluble solids (TSS%) were measured by a Digital Pocket Refractometer (ATAGO; Digital Hand-held “Pocket” Refractometer; Brand: ATAGO CO., LTD; Model: PL-1; made in Tokyo, Japan) [23]. The total titratable acidity (TTA%) was calculated as described by Tomadoni et al. [24], the total sugar content (%) was determined according to Joslyn [25], the lycopene content (mg kg−1) was measured as described by Suwanaruang et al. [26], the vitamin C content (mg 100 g−1 FW) was calculated via the method described by Ranganna [27], the total phenol content (mg 100 mL−1 FW) was estimated via a spectrophotometer (Shimadzu—UV-1700, Spectrometer (Molec.): UV/VIS, Kyoto, Japan) at a wavelength of 535 nm [27], and calcium (%) was determined via Walsh and Beaton [28].
2.4. Statistical Analysis
The experiment was carried out as a factorial experiment consisting of two factors:
Factor 1 involves two levels of maturity stages (turning-color fruit and light red color).
Factor 2 included six levels of postharvest treatments (distilled water, hot water at 35 °C, 10% Aloe vera, 2%CaCl2, 5% Mint, and 5% Catnip), and their interaction effects between factor 1 and factor 2, the experiment that included 36 treatments (2 maturity stages × 6 postharvest treatments × 3 replications = 36 experimental units). A complete randomized design (CRD) was used. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and data were analyzed by Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) at the 0.05 level via the statistical (XL-STAT) program.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Loss of Fresh Weight
Tomato fruits are harvested at different maturity stages, which significantly affects the loss of fresh weight (LFW), which is the first indicator of deterioration and a decrease in the quality of tomato fruits. As shown in Table 1, the variation in fresh weight loss was significant between the two stages of maturity. Compared with that of fruits stored in the light red color stage (6.04%), significantly less weight loss (3.21%) was noted in the turning-color fruit stage.
Regarding the postharvest treatments, it can be noticed from the data presented in the same table that the weight loss decreased significantly in all postharvest treatments except the control treatments. Among all the treatments, fruits immersed in 2% CaCl2 for 5 min presented LFW (3.90%).
The effects of the interaction between maturity stages and postharvest treatments on LFW. The lowest values (2.12%) were observed from the turning-color fruit stage with 5% Mint extract, whereas the highest value (7.99%) was observed at the light red maturity stage with distilled water (Table 1). Postharvest losses significantly affect the quality of fresh produce and are the major cause of deterioration. In general, lower weight loss allows for a longer storage life of the tomatoes, and a 5%–10% loss is acceptable for most agricultural products, including tomatoes [11]. These results were similar to those of the studies of Famuy et al. [29], in which the highest fresh weight loss occurred in the light red stage of maturity; likewise, low weight loss in the turning-color fruit stage could be stored for a longer period. Weight loss is an important indicator of the quality and shelf-life of fruits [30]. The loss of fruit occurs from moisture and carbohydrates [31] due to the loss of water through evaporation and carbon reserves as a result of respiration [32]. The severity of storage loss depends on the degree of maturity [8]. The water content and waxy layer present in fruits act as barriers to loss [33]. The juice content was significantly greater in the yellow stage than in the other mature stages, which may be due to the slightly developed wax on the skin fruit at the break color stage during storage. Surface wax, the most mature form of wax, is lost [34]. The coating prevents water loss and protects the fruits from damage caused by mechanical injury. Compared with papaya fruits coated with Aloe vera (7.93%), those not coated with Aloe vera lost more weight (22.50%) during storage [35]. The hygroscopic characteristics of Aloe vera may be the reason for this beneficial effect in terms of reducing moisture loss. Aloe vera helps create water barriers between the fruit and its environment, thus preventing external transfer [36]. Furthermore, CaCl2 has also been linked to decreased weight loss because of its more effective protective effect in mitigating fresh weight loss than the control [30]. CaCl2 could be due to the main role of calcium in creating calcium pectate hydrogels by retaining more water, which slows the process of dehydration [37]. Similar results were reported by Hao et al. [38], who used 2% CaCl2 and two temperatures (40 and 50 °C) of hot water-dipped tomato fruits for 2 min.
3.2. Firmness
Firmness is one of the most imperative points and plays an important role in the quality attributes of tomato fruits with respect to consumer acceptance [39]. As shown in Table 2, with respect to tomato firmness, the turning-color fruit stage (1118.31 g mm/s) is significantly firmer than the light red-colored stage (911.88 g mm/s). For the postharvest treatments, there was a significant difference in firmness among the 2% CaCl2, 10% Aloe vera, 5% Mint, and 5% Catnip treatments compared with the distilled water (control) treatment, where these treatments preserved the firmness of the fruits significantly more than the control treatment. Research conducted by Senevirathna and Daundasekera [40] revealed that the firmest fruits were those treated with 2% CaCl2, whereas the lowest firmness was found in control fruits.
Similarly, the interaction between the stage of maturity and the immersion treatment of fruits harvested in the turning-color fruit stage with 2% CaCl2 resulted in the highest firmness (1251.25 g mm/s), whereas the lowest value (701.50 g mm/s) was observed for light red fruits immersed in distilled water.
The firmness obtained in this study was comparable with the results reported by Arthur [41], who reported that breaker- and pink-stage fruits were much firmer than light red fruits [30]. The tomato fruits in the CaCl2 treatment were firmer than those in the other treatments and the control. Generally, fruit firmness decreases with increasing maturity. Fruit softening occurs in the cell wall via the enzymes hydrolase (polygalacturonase and pectinestarase), which cause changes in the structure and composition of the cell wall, increasing pectin solubilization and decreasing firmness [42]. There are other reasons for decreasing firmness during storage, such as moisture loss [43], polysaccharide degradation, or the presence of ethylene in fruits [44]. Poovaiah [45] reported that the application of calcium to fruits improves fruit quality and maintains firmness; it is the most important mineral involved in middle lamellae, helps to bind polygalactonic acid, provides rigidity and a strong membrane with delayed senescence, and reduces the respiration rate and transpiration in tomato fruits. With respect to the use of hot water after harvesting fruits, previous results were similar to those of Safdar Khan [11], who reported that tomato fruits treated with hot water were firmer than untreated fruits. This may be due to the inhibition of cell wall hydrolytic enzymes. In terms of Aloe vera application, table grapes retain significantly more firmness during cold storage [46].
3.3. pH of Fruit Juice
As shown in Table 3, there was no significant difference in the pH value between fruits in the turning-color fruits stage and those in the light red maturity stage stored at 10 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days. On the other hand, significant differences were found between the 2% CaCl2 treatment and the other treatments, with 2% CaCl2 resulting in the highest value (4.83). The high pH value clearly resulted from the interaction between the light red color stage of fruits immersed in 2% CaCl2, whereas the lowest value was obtained from the interaction between the turning-color fruits stage immersed in 5% Catnip extract. pH represents the acidity/alkalinity value that can be dramatically altered by the growth of microbes. Calcium had a significant effect on pH. The highest value (4.49) was recorded for the control treatment. The lowest value (4.47) was obtained from the calcium treatment [47]. Since the decrease in pH was greater in the control treatment, it may have returned to acid oxidation during storage, which led to a lower pH value. Additionally, the reason could be related to the development of microorganisms, which cause the development of organic acids [48]. Similarly, calcium chloride lowered the pH value [49]. Therefore, acidity is influenced by the different organic acids that are consumed during respiration, so acidity tends to decrease as the fruit ripens or as storage time increases with increasing fruit pH [8].
3.4. Total Titratable Acidity (TTA%)
In the present study, no significant difference in TTA% was detected between tomato fruits stored during the two stages of maturity. On the other hand, significant differences in acidity were observed between treated and untreated tomato fruits, with the highest acidity content (0.67%) recorded in the 5% Mint extract group and the lowest value (0.48%) obtained in the distilled water treatment group after the storage period (Table 4).
The interaction effect between the maturity stage and postharvest treatment had a significant effect on the TTA of tomato fruits. Tomatoes harvested in the turning-color fruits stage immersed with the 5% Mint extract were the most effective at preserving acidity, while the lowest value of acidity was recorded for the light red color treated with distilled water. This may be due to the decrease in TTA in fruits treated with distilled water (control), which quickly consumed the acid content during the respiration process and increased metabolic activity [50]. TTA plays an important role in determining fruit maturity. Organic acids are the second most important energy source after carbohydrates as substrate materials for respiration [51]. Our results were also confirmed by Tripathi and Dubey [52], who reported that Aloe vera induces a greater TTA and increases the TSS in coated berries, which indicated that, compared with coated berries, uncoated fruits are more developed to ripen during storage periods because they utilize acids for respiration during storage [53] and accelerate the metabolic activities of living tissues or convert them into sugars via gluconeogenesis [54]. Conversely, total sugars and TSS increased during storage [55].
3.5. Total Soluble Solids (TSS%)
Table 5 shows that significant differences were observed between the stages of maturity of the TSS in the tomato fruit cv. Sangaw stored for 20 days at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH. Compared with those in the turning-color fruit stage, the fruits harvested in the light red stage were more effective at attaining the highest values of TSS, with values of 4.36 and 3.82%, respectively. In addition, significant differences were found between the postharvest immersion treatments; the highest TSS (4.27%) was from the 10% Aloe vera. The difference was significant compared with that of the distilled water treatment (control), which resulted in the lowest (3.93%) amount of TSS. The data in the same table show that significant differences in the effects of the interaction between the stages of maturity and the postharvest treatment on the TSS content were detected. The maximum value (4.60%) was obtained from the turning-color fruit stage fruits immersed in 5% Mint, whereas the lowest value (3.57%) was obtained from the turning-color fruit stage fruits immersed in 35 °C hot water.
During storage, the main cause of weight loss is water loss, which results in a relatively high sugar content in the fruit. The study was carried out by Agar and Kaska [56], who reported the same results. In the ripening stage, polysaccharide degradation occurs, and polysaccharides are converted to simple sugars, thereby increasing the TSS [57]. Compared with those in the pink stage, the fruits in the breaker stage presented a low TSS percentage. Generally, increased TSS develops with maturity and during storage [31] and may be returned to starch breakdown and converted to sugars or polysaccharides by hydrolysis in the cell wall [58].
3.6. Total Sugar Percentage
After storage for 20 days, the total sugar content was significantly affected by the maturity stage (Table 6). The highest total sugar content (3.99%) was obtained in light red fruits, followed by 3.38% recorded in tomato fruits picked at the turning-color fruit stage. Regarding the effect of postharvest treatments, the maximum content was recorded at 2% CaCl2, and the minimum value recorded in distilled water was (3.85%) and (3.45%), respectively. With respect to the interaction effect between the maturity stage and the postharvest treatment on the total sugar content in the tomato fruits after the storage period, the highest value resulted from the interaction between 5% Mint at light red color fruits, whereas the lowest value was from the interaction between distilled water at the turning-color fruit stage of maturity. In addition, no significant differences were found between 5% Mint and 5% Catnip in light red color fruits. Sugar content was significantly affected by the harvest stages; it increased from the turning to the light red-colored fruit stage. Additionally, a similar increase in sugar content was detected in citrus fruit at the mature stage [8]. The same result obtained by Moneruzzaman et al. [59] was that the sugars varied according to the harvest stage. Sugar level increased with the development of maturation fruits from the green to the red color stage. The increase in sugars may be due to starch being converted into sugars.
Sugars have been shown to increase during ripening and decline after peak ripening [60], as indicated in previous works by Migliori et al. [61], which showed that the sugar content increased from the pink stage to the red stage of tomato fruits. In general, products with higher respiration rates will ripen faster and have a shorter shelf life than products with lower respiration rates. The metabolic activity of tissues can be monitored by the respiration rate [62]. Accordingly, the rate of change in sugars is an indicator of the respiration rate in fruits. Furthermore, starch conversion to sugar occurs before peak climacteric respiration; the respiration rate indicates the rate at which respiratory substrates (starch, sugars, and organic acids) are broken down [63].
3.7. Vitamin C
Vitamin C is a natural antioxidant in many fruits and vegetables and has important nutritional advantages for human health. It is used as an index of overall quality deterioration. The levels of vitamin C in tomato fruits vary greatly depending on the stage of harvesting. Compared with those harvested at the turning-color fruits stage the tomato fruits harvested at the turning-color stage of maturity presented greater vitamin C contents (Table 7). Regardless of the postharvest treatment, 10% Aloe vera resulted in the highest content of vitamin C, while the lowest value was obtained from the control (distilled water). However, no significant differences were found between the control and 35 °C hot water. Additionally, no significant differences were found between most of the dipping tomato fruits after harvest in vitamin C content between 10% Aloe vera, 2% CaCl2, 5% Mint, and 5% Catnip. These last treatments are significantly superior to previous (control and 35 °C hot water) treatments. On the other hand, it is clear from the data presented in the same table regarding the vitamin C content that fruit dipped in 10% Aloe vera in the turning-color fruits stage of maturity resulted in the highest value (16.99 mg 100 g−1 FW), whereas the minimum value (10.29 mg 100 g−1 FW) was obtained from the interaction effect between the control and light red-colored fruits. These results were in accordance with those of Grierson and Kader [64], in which the content of 100 g ranged from 15 to 23 mg.
These results are also in accordance with the findings of Bhattacharya [65], who reported that the ascorbic acid content of fresh fruit reached its maximum just before ripening and then decreased due to the action of an enzyme called ascorbic acid oxidase. Dandago et al. [66] reported that an increase in ascorbic acid is an indication that the fruit is still in the ripening stage, whereas a decrease in ascorbic acid indicates senescent fruit. These findings are in agreement with the results of Moneruzzaman et al. [8], who reported that the maximum vitamin C content in tomato fruits was recorded at the breaker stage and was reduced at the yellow and pink stages of maturity. In addition, coated oranges have a higher vitamin C content than uncoated oranges [67], which is in agreement with our results. Furthermore, Brishti et al. [35] reported that Aloe coated in papaya fruits had a higher concentration of vitamin C during storage.
The same result was reported for Aloe gel-coated nectarines by Ahmed et al. [68]. This was due to the low oxygen permeability of the coating, which delayed the deterioration of the oxidative reaction of the vitamin C content [69]. According to Srinu et al. [70], coating fruits reduces respiration and preserves vitamin C in those fruits. In previous studies, treating strawberry fruits with 1, 2, and 3% CaCl2 resulted in the highest levels of sugars, total titratable acidity, and vitamin C, the best overall acceptability, a shelf life of 7 days [71], and a slight decrease in the retention of a high amount of vitamin C [72]. High acidity and phenolic compounds are responsible for the stability of vitamin C in the breaking stage of storage because of its protective effect and antioxidant properties [73]. These results are in agreement with those of Dumas et al. and Toor and Savage [74,75].
3.8. Lycopene Content
The color assessment is the most remarkable exterior attribute for estimating the ripeness and shelf-life of tomato fruits, and it is a key factor in determining what the consumer prefers [76]. Tomato fruit contains major antioxidant compounds, such as carotenoids (lycopene) and ascorbic acid. The amount of these components varies with the stage of maturity; the present findings are in accordance with the reports of [77]. Table 8 shows that the lycopene content in fruits harvested in the light red color after being stored for 20 days at 10 °C was significantly greater (41.49 mg kg−1) than that in fruits at the turning-color fruit stage of maturity (32.92 mg kg−1). With respect to the postharvest treatments, there was a non-significant effect between all the treatments except the control, with a significantly greater content of lycopene (48.29 mg kg−1). As indicated in the same table, the effect of the combination of the maturity stage and postharvest treatments was obtained from light red fruit treated with distilled water (58.57 mg kg−1), while there was no significant difference between the other treatments. These results are in line with those obtained by Ali et al. and Daraghmah and Qubbaj [12,78]. The red color of a ripe tomato results from a new synthesis of carotenoids such as lycopene and beta-carotene [79]. The results indicated that the delay of lycopene synthesis in tomato fruits treated with 35 °C hot water, 10% Aloe vera, 2% CaCl2, 5% Mint, and 5% Catnip might result from the preservation of chlorophyll content and reduced biosynthesis of carotenoids [12]. All these reports revealed a similar delay in ripening, the breakdown of chlorophyll, and lycopene formation during red color development following the postharvest application of the Aloe vera coating, CaCl2, and water [40,80]. The reason for the delay in color formation is the inhibition of lycopene or lycopene precursor (pristoene and phyto-fluene) biosynthesis [81].
3.9. Total Phenol Content
Table 9 shows that the total phenol content in the tomato fruits significantly differed. The total phenol content was influenced by the fruit stage of maturity, where the turning-color fruit stage of the tomato fruits presented the highest value (95.49 mg 100 mL−1 FW) of total phenol content compared with that of the light red color fruits, which presented a statistically significant decrease (63.75 mg 100 mL−1 FW) in total phenol content. However, the total phenol content was significantly greater in the fruit samples subjected to 2% calcium chloride treatment (95.60 mg 100 mL−1 FW). These results showed that CaCl2 treatment had a significant effect on retaining the total phenol content of the tomato fruits. The lowest total phenol content (62.26 mg 100 mL−1 FW) was observed in the distilled water treatment. The interaction effect between the stage of maturity and the number of postharvest dips was statistically significant. The fruits that were dipped in 2% CaCl2 for 5 min and harvested in the turning-color fruits stage presented the highest total phenol content, whereas the lowest content was in distilled water for the light red fruits.
Indeed, tomatoes are rich sources of nutrients and phytochemicals, including phenolic compounds (chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, and rutin), which are several bioactive components in fresh tomatoes and tomato-based products [82]. Phenolic content levels are highly variable and may be influenced by the degree of maturity, variety, and agricultural practices [83]. However, under open field conditions, some factors affect phenolic compounds, such as genetics, light, temperature [84], and geographical and seasonal factors [85].
3.10. Calcium Content
Table 10 shows the significant differences in calcium content between the two maturity stages of tomato fruits. The highest value (0.14%) was recorded from the turning-color fruit stage, whereas the lowest value (0.10%) was observed from the light red fruit stage. Furthermore, tomato fruits dipped in 2% CaCl2 were significantly superior to those subjected to the other postharvest treatments. The same table shows that there were significant differences in calcium content among the stages of maturity combined with postharvest dipping; the highest value (0.21%) was recorded from the interaction between fruits in the turning-color fruits stage dipped in 2% CaCl2, whereas the lowest value (0.07%) was observed from the light red stage fruits dipped in distilled water (control).
In recent years, the application of CaCl2 to fruits has received considerable attention before and after harvest because of its beneficial effects on extending shelf life, delaying fruit color development, slowing ethylene production, maintaining quality [40], slowing ripening and senescence, maintaining firmness, slowing the respiration rate, and inducing disorders in fruits and vegetables [86]. Calcium chloride can be associated with the formation of a calcium network with pectin in cell wall fruits [87] and increases the rigidity and strength of the middle lamella to form calcium pectate [88].
4. Conclusions
Like other fruits, tomato fruits change constantly after harvest. They are living tissues that cannot be stopped, but they can be slowed down within certain limits to extend their shelf life, and we proceed to find some postharvest treatments to extend their storage life and marketability and maintain quality. Therefore, farmers and producers of tomato fruits can prolong storability, maintain quality, and export to distant regions with minimal losses when harvested at the turning-color fruit stage and dipped in 2% CaCl2. The use of some natural substances, such as Aloe vera and plant extracts, is because these materials are safe, healthy, and environmentally friendly.
Conceptualization, S.A.S.K.; methodology, B.A.M.; data curation, B.A.M.; formal analysis, S.A.S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.S.K. and B.A.M.; writing—review and editing, S.A.S.K. and B.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
This article contains all the data.
The authors are grateful to Sheikh Jamal Jalal Krbchna for helping us carry out this research.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Fresh weight loss% of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruit | 5.24 c | 2.28 e | 4.09 d | 2.84 e | 2.12 e | 2.65 e | 3.21 b |
| Light red color fruits | 7.99 a | 5.99 bc | 3.97 d | 4.96 cd | 6.37 b | 6.99 ab | 6.04 a |
| Main effects of | 6.62 a | 4.13 bc | 4.03 bc | 3.90 c | 4.24 bc | 4.82 b | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Firmness (g mm/s) of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 987.08 bc | 1077.33 abc | 1135.50 ab | 1251.25 a | 1079.58 abc | 1179.08 ab | 1118.31 a |
| Light red color fruits | 701.50 e | 741.25 de | 1044.83 abc | 1173.52 ab | 953.17 bcd | 857.00 cde | 911.88 b |
| Main effects of | 844.29 d | 909.29 cd | 1090.17 ab | 1212.39 a | 1016.38 bc | 1018.04 bc | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
pH values of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 4.64 de | 4.70 cde | 4.77 abc | 4.81 ab | 4.70 cde | 4.63 e | 4.71 a |
| Light red color fruits | 4.74 bcd | 4.75 bc | 4.70 cde | 4.86 a | 4.70 cde | 4.68 cde | 4.74 a |
| Main effects of | 4.69 bc | 4.73 b | 4.74 b | 4.83 a | 4.70 bc | 4.65 c | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
TTA% of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 0.52 bc | 0.61 ab | 0.65 ab | 0.53 bc | 0.73 a | 0.63 ab | 0.61 a |
| Light red color fruits | 0.45 c | 0.53 bc | 0.64 ab | 0.66 ab | 0.61 ab | 0.53 bc | 0.57 a |
| Main effects of | 0.48c | 0.57 bc | 0.65 ab | 0.60 ab | 0.67 a | 0.58 ab | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
TSS% of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 3.67 ef | 3.57 f | 4.03 cde | 4.13 abc | 3.77 def | 3.70 ef | 3.82 b |
| Light red color fruits | 4.20 abc | 4.33 abc | 4.50 ab | 4.23 bcd | 4.60 a | 4.40 abc | 4.36 a |
| Main effects of | 3.93 b | 3.95 b | 4.27 a | 4.18 ab | 4.18 ab | 4.05 ab | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Total sugar percentage of tomato fruits cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days in different maturity stages, and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 3.17 g | 3.27 fg | 3.37 ef | 3.61 d | 3.43 e | 3.41 e | 3.38 b |
| Light red color fruits | 3.73 d | 3.86 c | 3.96 bc | 4.08 ab | 4.20 a | 4.12 a | 3.99 a |
| Main effects of | 3.45 d | 3.56 c | 3.67 b | 3.85 a | 3.81 a | 3.76 a | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Vitamin C (100 g−1 FW) was added to the fruits of the tomato cultivar Sangaw, which were stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 14.76 a–d | 14.19 b–e | 16.99 a | 16.58 ab | 16.65 ab | 15.82 a–c | 15.83 a |
| Light red color fruits | 10.29 f | 11.99 ef | 14.79 a–d | 13.75 c–e | 13.02 de | 14.28 a–c | 13.02 b |
| Main effects of | 12.52 b | 13.09 b | 15.89 a | 15.17 a | 14.83 a | 15.05 a | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Lycopene content (mg kg−1) of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 38.15 bcd | 29.54 d | 31.60 cd | 35.14 bcd | 28.85 d | 34.35 bcd | 32.92 b |
| Light red color fruits | 58.57 a | 38.23 bcd | 32.67 cd | 35.96 bcd | 43.05 b | 40.43 bc | 41.49 a |
| Main effects of | 48.29 a | 33.88 b | 32.14 b | 35.55 b | 35.95 b | 37.39 b | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Total phenol content (mg 100 mL−1 FW) of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages and postharvest treatments with their combinations.
| Maturity | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects Of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 72.80 d | 87.00 c | 93.13 bc | 118.66 a | 103.40 b | 97.93 bc | 95.49 a |
| Light red color fruits | 51.73 e | 66.00 d | 66.47 d | 72.53 d | 62.40 de | 63.40 d | 63.75 b |
| Main effects of | 62.26 c | 76.50 b | 79.80 b | 95.60 a | 82.90 b | 80.66 b | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
Calcium content (%) of tomato fruits from cv. Sangaw stored at 10 ± 1 °C and 90%–95% RH for 20 days at different maturity stages after different combinations of postharvest treatments.
| Maturity Stage | Postharvest Treatments | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distilled Water | 35 °C | 10% | 2% CaCl2 | 5% Mint | 5% Catnip | Main Effects of Maturity Stage | |
| Turning-color fruits | 0.09 e–h | 0.11 d–g | 0.18 b | 0.21 a | 0.13 cd | 0.12 d–f | 0.14 a |
| Light red color fruits | 0.07 h | 0.08 gh | 0.12 de | 0.15 bc | 0.10 d–h | 0.09 f–h | 0.10 b |
| Main effects of | 0.08 d | 0.09 cd | 0.15 b | 0.18 a | 0.11 c | 0.10 cd | |
Means with different letters indicate a significant difference in the maturity stage effect within a column and the postharvest treatments effect within a row, and their interactions at the 5% level according to Duncan’s multiple range test.
References
1. Ajayi, A.M.; Hassan, G.F. Response of selected tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivars to on-field biotic stress. J. Agric. Crop Res.; 2019; 7, pp. 38-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33495/jacr_v7i3.19.110]
2. Rasul, K.S.; Grundler, F.M.; Tahir, N.A. Genetic diversity and population structure assessment of Iraqi tomato accessions using fruit characteristics and molecular markers. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol.; 2022; 63, pp. 523-538. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13580-022-00429-3]
3. FAOSTAT. Statistical Data on Crops, Tomatoes, World. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (accessed on 24 August 2023).
4. Yeshiwas, Y.; Tolessa, K. Postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) varieties grown under greenhouse and open field conditions. Int. J. Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. Res.; 2018; 9, pp. 1-6.
5. Collins, E.J.; Bowyer, C.; Tsouza, A.; Chopra, M. Tomatoes: An extensive review of the associated health impacts of tomatoes and factors that can affect their cultivation. Biology; 2022; 11, 239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology11020239] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35205105]
6. Tolasa, M.; Gedamu, F.; Woldetsadik, K. Impacts of harvesting stages and pre-storage treatments on shelf life and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Cogent Food Agric.; 2021; 7, 1863620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1863620]
7. Hakimi, S.S.; Dubey, N.; Saharawat, Y.S. Effect of harvesting stages and postharvest treatments on shelf life and quality of tomato (Lycoper-Sicon Esculentum Mill. Var. Pearson) STORED under ZECC condition. J. Ecoscience Plant Revolut.; 2020; 1, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37357/1068/jepr.1.1.01]
8. Moneruzzaman, K.M.; Hossain, A.; Sani, W.; Saifuddin, M.; Alenazi, M. Effect of harvesting and storage conditions on the post harvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) cv. Roma VF. Aust. J. Crop Sci.; 2009; 3, 113.
9. Pinela, J.; Ferreira, I.C. Nonthermal physical technologies to decontaminate and extend the shelf-life of fruits and vegetables: Trends aiming at quality and safety. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2017; 57, pp. 2095-2111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2015.1046547]
10. Lurie, S.; Pedreschi, R. Fundamental aspects of postharvest heat treatments. Hortic. Res.; 2014; 1, 14030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/hortres.2014.30]
11. Safdar Khan, M. Effect of Postharvest Hot Water and Hot Air Treatments on Quality and Shelf Life of Tomato. Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Reading: Reading, UK, 2009.
12. Ali, A.; Maqbool, M.; Ramachandran, S.; Alderson, P.G. Gum arabic as a novel edible coating for enhancing shelf-life and improving postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol.; 2010; 58, pp. 42-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.05.005]
13. Malekshahi, G.; ValizadehKaji, B. Effects of postharvest edible coatings to maintain qualitative properties and to extend shelf-life of pomegranate (Punica granatum L). Int. J. Hortic. Sci. Technol.; 2021; 8, pp. 67-80.
14. Kumar, S.; Bhatnagar, T. Studies to enhance the shelf life of fruits using Aloe vera based herbal coatings: A review. Int. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol.; 2014; 5, pp. 211-218.
15. Arah, I.K.; Ahorbo, G.K.; Anku, E.K.; Kumah, E.K.; Amaglo, H. Postharvest Handling Practices and Treatment Methods for Tomato Handlers in Developing Countries: A Mini Review. Adv. Agric.; 2016; 2016, 6436945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6436945]
16. Tunwari, B.A.; Labaran, A.G.; Aji, P.O.; Kyugah, J.T.; Williams, W.S. Effect of plant extracts on postharvest shelflife and qaulity of tomato fruits in storage at wukari, taraba state. Internatonal. J. Agric. Environ. Bioresearch; 2019; 4, pp. 420-430.
17. Irokanulo, E.O.; Egbezien, I.L.; Owa, S.O. Use of Moringa oleifera in the preservation of fresh tomatoes. IOSR J. Agric. Vet. Sci.; 2015; 8, pp. 127-132.
18. Kasnazany, S.A.S.; Barznjy, L.G.K.; Fatih, A.A.; Mirza, A.N.; Krbchna, S.J.J. Comparative study related to physico-chemical properties of four tomato cultivars grown in Kurdistan region, Iraq. Kufa J. Agric. Sci.; 2021; 13, pp. 41-52.
19. Najmaddin, P.M.; Whelan, M.J.; Balzter, H. Estimating daily reference evapotranspiration in a semiarid region using remote sensing data. Remote Sens.; 2017; 9, 779. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs9080779]
20. El-Badawy, H.E.M. Trials to Improve Marketing Characteristics and Prolonging Storage Life of Persimmon and Mango Fruits. Ph.D. Dissertation; Benha University: Benha, Egypt, 2007.
21. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis; 20th ed. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
22. Antoniali, S.; Leal, P.A.M.; Magalhães, A.M.; de Fuziki, R.T.; Sanches, J. Physico-chemical characterization of’Zarco HS’yellow bell pepper for different ripeness stages. Sci. Agric.; 2007; 64, pp. 19-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162007000100003]
23. Cao, S.; Hu, Z.; Pang, B.; Wang, H.; Xie, H.; Wu, F. Effect of ultrasound treatment on fruit decay and quality maintenance in strawberry after harvest. Food Control; 2010; 21, pp. 529-532. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.08.002]
24. Tomadoni, B.; Cassani, L.; Ponce, A.; Moreira, M.D.; Agüero, M.V. Optimization of ultrasound, vanillin and pomegranate extract treatment for shelf-stable unpasteurized strawberry juice. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.; 2016; 72, pp. 475-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.05.024]
25. Joslyn, M.A. Methods in Food Analysis: Physical, Chemical, and Instrumental Methods of Analysis; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1970.
26. Suwanaruang, T. Analyzing lycopene content in fruits. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia; 2016; 1, pp. 46-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.12.008]
27. Ranganna, S. Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruit and Vegetable Products; 2nd ed. Tata McGraw-Hill Education: New Delhi, India, 2011.
28. Walsh, L.M.; Beaton, J.D. Soil Testing and Plant Analysis; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison City, WI, USA, 1973.
29. Famuy, I.J.; Patrick, O.A.; Sedara, A. Effect of maturity stage on quality and shelf life of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) using refrigerator storage system. Eurasian J. Agric. Res.; 2020; 4, pp. 23-44.
30. Shehata, S.A.; Abdelrahman, S.Z.; Megahed, M.M.A.; Abdeldaym, E.A.; El-Mogy, M.M.; Abdelgawad, K.F. Extending shelf life and maintaining quality of tomato fruit by calcium chloride, hydrogen peroxide, chitosan, and ozonated water. Horticulturae; 2021; 7, 309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7090309]
31. Karki, D.B. Effect of harvesting States of the Quality of tomato (Lycopersion esculentum Mill CV. Avinash-2, Hybrid). Tribhuvan Univ. J.; 2010; 25, pp. 141-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3126/tuj.v25i1.3756]
32. Fagundes, C.; Moraes, K.; Pérez-Gago, M.B.; Palou, L.; Maraschin, M.; Monteiro, A.R. Effect of active modified atmosphere and cold storage on the postharvest quality of cherry tomatoes. Postharvest Biol. Technol.; 2015; 109, pp. 73-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.05.017]
33. Burghardt, M.; Riederer, M. Cuticular transpiration. Annu. Plant Rev. Biol. Plant Cuticle; 2008; 23, 292.
34. Bargel, H.; Neinhuis, C. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit growth and ripening as related to the biomechanical properties of fruit skin and isolated cuticle. J. Exp. Bot.; 2005; 56, pp. 1049-1060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eri098]
35. Brishti, F.H.; Misir, J.; Sarker, A. Effect of biopreservatives on storage life of papaya (Carica papaya L.). Int. J. Food Stud.; 2013; 2, pp. 126-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/2.1.2013.a10]
36. Morillon, V.; Debeaufort, F.; Blond, G.; Capelle, M.; Voilley, A. Factors affecting the moisture permeability of lipid-based edible films: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2002; 42, pp. 67-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408690290825466]
37. Turmanidze, T.; Gulua, L.; Jgenti, M.; Wicker, L. Potential antioxidant retention and quality maintenance in raspberries and strawberries treated with calcium chloride and stored under refrigeration. Braz. J. Food Technol.; 2017; 20, e2016089. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.8916]
38. Hao, W.J.; Nawi, I.H.M.; Idris, N.O.R. Effect of hot water treatment with calcium dips on postharvest quality of tomato. Malays. Appl. Biol.; 2020; 49, pp. 71-77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.55230/mabjournal.v49i4.1569]
39. Jin, C.H.; Suo, B.; Kan, J.; Wang, H.M.; Wang, Z.J. Changes in cell wall polysaccharide of harvested peach fruit during storage. J. Plant Physiol. Mol. Biol.; 2006; 32, pp. 657-664.
40. Senevirathna, P.; Daundasekera, W. Effect of postharvest calcium chloride vacuum infiltration on the shelf life and quality of tomato (cv. ‘Thilina’). Ceylon J. Sci.; 2010; 39, 35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cjsbs.v39i1.2351]
41. Arthur, E.; Oduro, I.; Kumah, P. Effect of Maturity Stage and Postharvest Calcium Chloride Treatment on the Quality and Storage Life of Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). J. Posthar. Tech.; 2015; 3, pp. 74-81.
42. Garcia, M.; Casariego, A.; Diaz, R.; Roblejo, L. Effect of edible chitosanzeolite coating on tomatoes quality during refrigerated storage. Emir. J. Food Agric.; 2014; 26, pp. 238-246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v26i3.16620]
43. Lana, M.M.; Tijskens, L.M.M.; Van Kooten, O. Effects of storage temperature and fruit ripening on firmness of fresh cut tomatoes. Postharvest Biol. Technol.; 2005; 35, pp. 87-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.07.001]
44. Majumder, K.; Mazumdar, B.C. Changes of pectic substances in developing fruits of cape-gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) in relation to the enzyme activity and evolution of ethylene. Sci. Hortic.; 2002; 96, pp. 91-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(02)00079-1]
45. Poovaiah, B.W. Role of calcium in prolonging storage life of fruits and vegetables. Food Technol.; 1986; 40, pp. 86-89.
46. Misir, J.; Brishti, F.H.; Hoque, M.M. Aloe vera gel as a novel edible coating for fresh fruits: A review. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2014; 2, pp. 93-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12691/ajfst-2-3-3]
47. Njoroge, C.K.; Kerbel, E.L. Effect of postharvest calcium treatment on soluble solids, pH, firmness and color of stored tomato fruits. East Afr. Agric. For. J.; 1993; 58, pp. 111-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00128325.1993.11663165]
48. Heard, G.M. Microbiology of Fresh-Cut Produce. Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables: Science, Technology, and Market; 1st ed. Lamikanra, O. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 187-249.
49. Albertini, M.V.; Carcouet, E.; Pailly, O.; Gambotti, C.; Luro, F.; Berti, L. Changes in organic acids and sugars during early stages of development of acidic and acidless citrus fruit. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2006; 54, pp. 8335-8339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf061648j]
50. Abd El Wahab, S.M. Maintain postharvest quality of nectarine fruits by using some essential oils. Middle East J. Appl. Sci.; 2015; 5, pp. 855-868.
51. Osterloh, A. Lagerung von Obst und Südfrüchten; 55 Tabellen Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany, 1996.
52. Tripathi, P.; Dubey, N.K. Exploitation of natural products as an alternative strategy to control postharvest fungal rotting of fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol. Technol.; 2004; 32, pp. 235-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2003.11.005]
53. Kader, A.A. Flavor quality of fruits and vegetables. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2008; 88, pp. 1863-1868. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3293]
54. Paliyath, G.; Murr, D.P.; Handa, A.K.; Lurie, S. Postharvest Biology and Technology of Fruits, Vegetables, and Flowers; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
55. Islam, M.K.; Khan, M.Z.H.; Sarkar, M.A.R.; Absar, N.; Sarkar, S.K. Changes in acidity, TSS, and sugar content at different storage periods of the postharvest mango (Mangifera indica L.) influenced by Bavistin DF. Int. J. Food Sci.; 2013; 2013, 939385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/939385] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26904616]
56. Agar, T.; Kaska, N. Effect of different harvest dates and postharvest treatment on the storage quality of mandarins. Postharvest Physiology, Pathology and Technologies for Horticultural Commodities. Recent Advances, Proceedings of the International Symposium, Agadir, Morocco, 16–21 January 1994; Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Agadir Campus: Agadir, Morocco, 1995.
57. Anyasi, T.A.; Aworh, C.O.; Jideani, A.I. Effect of packaging and chemical treatment on storage life and physicochemical attributes of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill cv. Roma). African J. Biotech.; 2016; 15, pp. 1913-1919.
58. Crouch, I. 1-Methylcyclopropene (Smartfresh TM) as an alternative to modified atmosphere and controlled atmosphere storage of apples and pears. Proceedings of the VIII International Controlled Atmosphere Research Conference; Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 8 July 2001; Number 600 pp. 433-436.
59. Moneruzzaman, K.M.; Hossain, A.; Sani, W.; Saifuddin, M. Effect of stages of maturity and ripening conditions on the biochemical characteristics of tomato. Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol.; 2008; 4, pp. 336-344.
60. Salunkhe, D.K.; Jadhav, S.J.; Yu, M.H. Quality and nutritional composition of tomato fruit as influenced by certain biochemical and physiological changes. Qual. Plant.; 1974; 24, pp. 85-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01092727]
61. Migliori, C.A.; Salvati, L.; Di Cesare, L.F.; Scalzo, R.; Lo Parisi, M. Effects of preharvest applications of natural antimicrobial products on tomato fruit decay and quality during long-term storage. Sci. Hortic.; 2017; 222, pp. 193-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.04.030]
62. Wills, R.B.H.; McGlasson, W.B.; Graham, D.; Joyce, D.C. Physiology and biochemistry. Postharvest: An Introduction to the Physiology and Handling of Fruit, Vegetables and Ornamentals; University of New South Wales Press: Sydney, Australia, 2007; pp. 28-51.
63. Knee, M. Do tomatoes on the plant behave as climacteric fruits?. Physiol. Plant.; 1995; 95, pp. 211-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1995.tb00829.x]
64. Gierson, D.; Kader, A.A. Fruit ripening and quality. The Tomato Crop: A Scientific Basis for Improvement; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986; pp. 241-280.
65. Bhattacharya, G. Served Fresh. Spotlight. Times Food Processing Journal. Available online: http://www.timesb2b.com/foodprocessing/dec03_jan04/spotlight.html (accessed on 15 July 2004).
66. Dandago, M.A.; Ilesanmi, J.O.Y.; Tamme, V. Effects of packaging and storage conditions on quality and storage life of tomato fruits (Lycopersicon esculentum MILL.) in Kura, Kano State, Nigeria. J. Postharvest Technol.; 2017; 5, pp. 71-82.
67. Jitender, K.; Sharma, R.K.; Ran, S. The effect of different methods of packing on the shelf life of kinnow. Haryana J. Hortic. Sci.; 2000; 29, pp. 202-203.
68. Ahmed, M.J.; Singh, Z.; Khan, A.S. Postharvest Aloe vera gel-coating modulates fruit ripening and quality of ‘Arctic Snow’nectarine kept in ambient and cold storage. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2009; 44, pp. 1024-1033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2008.01873.x]
69. Arowora, K.A.; Williams, J.O.; Adetunji, C.O.; Fawole, O.B.; Afolayan, S.S.; Olaleye, O.O. Effects of Aloe vera coatings on quality characteristics of oranges stored under cold storage. Greener J. Agric. Sci.; 2013; 3, pp. 39-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2013.1.110112192]
70. Srinu, B.; Vikram, K.B.; Rao, L.V.; Kalakumar, B.; Rao, T.M.; Reddy, A.G. Screening of antimicrobial activity of Withania somnifera and Aloe vera plant extracts against food borne pathogens. J. Chem. Pharm. Res.; 2012; 4, pp. 4800-4803.
71. Upadhayaya, A.K.; Sanghavi, K.U. Effect of Various Chemical and Packaging Methods on Storage Quality of Strawberry [Fragaria ananassa] Cv. Chandler. Adv. Plant Sci.; 2001; 14, pp. 343-350.
72. Ahmed, M.; Tariq, M. Enhancing post harvest storage life of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cv. Rio Grandi using calcium chloride. Am. J. Agric. Environ. Sci.; 2014; 14, pp. 143-149.
73. Ajayi, I.A.; Oderinde, R.A. Effects of different home storage conditions and preservation on some chemical constituents of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). J. Appl. Chem.; 2013; 4, pp. 19-29.
74. Dumas, Y.; Dadomo, M.; Di Lucca, G.; Grolier, P. Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidantcontent of tomatoes. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2003; 83, pp. 369-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1370]
75. Toor, R.K.; Savage, G.P. Antioxidant activity in different fractions of tomatoes. Food Res. Int.; 2005; 38, pp. 487-494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.10.016]
76. Ullah, J. Storage of Fresh Tomatoes to Determine the Level of Coating and Optimum Temperature for Extended Shelf Life; A Post Doctoral Fellowship Report Department of Food Science and Technology NWFP Agricultural University: Peshawar, Pakistan, 2009; 43p.
77. Vallverdú-Queralt, A.; Medina-Remón, A.; Andres-Lacueva, C.; Lamuela-Raventos, R.M. Changes in phenolic profile and antioxidant activity during production of diced tomatoes. Food Chem.; 2011; 126, pp. 1700-1707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.12.061] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25213947]
78. Daraghmah, F.S.; Qubbaj, T. Impact of gum Arabic and cactus mucilage as potential coating substances combined with calcium chloride treatment on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit quality attributes under ambient storage conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci.; 2021; 102, pp. 375-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2021-0164]
79. Bouzayen, M.; Latché, A.; Nath, P.; Pech, J.C. Mechanism of Fruit Ripening. Plant Developmental Biology—Biotechnological Perspectives; Pua, E.; Davey, M. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 319-339.
80. Gheribi, R.; Khwaldia, K. Cactus mucilage for food packaging applications. Coatings; 2019; 9, 655. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/coatings9100655]
81. Yakir, D.; Sadovski, A.; Rabinowitch, H.D.; Rudich, J. Effect of high temperature on quality of processing-tomatoes of various genotypes ripened off the vine. Sci. Hortic.; 1984; 23, pp. 323-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-4238(84)90028-1]
82. Asensio, E.; Sanvicente, I.; Mallor, C.; Menal-Puey, S. Spanish traditional tomato. Effects of genotype, location and agronomic conditions on the nutritional quality and evaluation of consumer preferences. Food Chem.; 2019; 270, pp. 452-458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.07.131]
83. Martinez-Valverde, I.; Periago, M.J.; Provan, G.; Chesson, A. Phenolic compounds, lycopene and antioxidant activity in commercial varieties of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2002; 82, pp. 323-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1035]
84. Jagadeesh, S.L.; Charles, M.T.; Gariepy, Y.; Goyette, B.; Raghavan, G.S.V.; Vigneault, C. Influence of postharvest UV-C hormesis on the bioactive components of tomato during posttreatment handling. Food Bioprocess. Technol.; 2011; 4, pp. 1463-1472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11947-009-0259-y]
85. Cruz-Carrión, Á.; de Azua, M.J.R.; Bravo, F.I.; Aragonès, G.; Muguerza, B.; Suárez, M. Tomatoes consumed in-season prevent oxidative stress in Fischer 344 rats: Impact of geographical origin. Food Funct.; 2021; 12, pp. 8340-8350. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D1FO00955A]
86. Akhtar, A.; Abbasi, N.A.; Hussain, A. Effect of calcium chloride treatments on quality characteristics of loquat fruit during storage. Pak. J. Bot.; 2010; 42, pp. 181-188.
87. Genanew, T. Effect of post harvest treatments on storage behavior and quality of tomato fruits. World J. Agric. Sci.; 2013; 9, pp. 29-37.
88. Gol, N.B.; Patel, P.R.; Rao, T.V.R. Improvement of quality and shelf-life of strawberries with edible coatings enriched with chitosan. Postharvest Biol. Technol.; 2013; 85, pp. 185-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.06.008]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
1 Director of Agriculture Training Center Region, General Director of Agriculture Research and Extension, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Rescores, Erbil 44001, Iraq; Horticulture Department, College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, University of Sulaimani, Sulaymaniya 46001, Iraq;
2 Horticulture Department, College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, University of Sulaimani, Sulaymaniya 46001, Iraq;