Storage and Packaging Dependent Physical Properties of Tomatoes

Tarun Kumar, Suresh Chandra, Ankit Singh and Yogendra Singh

 

Department of Agricultural Engineering and Food Technology, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture & Technology, Modipuram, Meerut – 250110 (U.P.), India.

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to see the effect of packaging material and storage condition on the physical properties of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) varieties (Himshikhar and NS – 524). These varietal tomatoes were packaged in High Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) and stored under refrigerator, BOD incubator and ambient temperatures. Tomato variety Himshikhar packed in HDPE showed minimum shrinkage at ambient temperature followed by refrigerator and BOD condition.

Keywords: Physical properties, TSS, HDPE, refrigerator, shape factor.

INTRODUCTION

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) is the world’s most commercially produced vegetable (Gaware et al., 2010). The first known record of tomato is in the year 1554 in South America, after 200 years it gradually spread to other parts of the world (Kumar et al., 2012). Tomato is rich source of vitamins A, C, potassium, minerals and fibers. Lycopene is a phytochemical nutrient element found in many fruits and vegetables, but excessively found in tomato that imparts natural red colour (Holden et al., 1999). Use of tomatoes is increasing day by day and a variety of products like puree, syrup, paste, ketchup, juice etc. are made. To design and optimization a machine for handling, cleaning, conveying, separation and storing, the physical attributes and their relationships must be known (Mirzaee et al., 2008). Designing such equipment without consideration of these properties may yield poor results.

Therefore the determination and consideration of these properties have an important role (Taheri-Garavand et al., 2009). Among these physical properties, length, width, thickness, mass, volume, projected areas and center of gravity are the most important factors in sizing systems (Mohsenin, 1986). Viswanathan et al., (1997) concluded that properties viz., size, density, moisture and force varied with the variety of the tomato fruits. The per cent seed, pulp and skin content in the fruit also varied with the variety. Varshney et al., (2007) studies the physical and mechanical properties of tomato and revealed that moisture content and weight density of fruits decreased while loss and volume shrinkage increased with storage period. Kaymak et al., (2010) determined the color and several physical characteristics of two common tomato cultivars (Alida F1 and H2274) grown in Erzincan region in Turkey. Taheri-Garavand et al., (2011) studied on some morphological and physical characteristics of tomato used in mass models to characterize best post harvesting options. Li et al., (2011) studied the structural and geometrical properties; Atallah, (2012) conducted study on three different varieties of tomato, Onifade et al., (2013) investigate some physical properties of local variety of tomatoes that are relevant in the handling and processing of the fruits.

HDPE (High Density Poly Ethylene) used as storage materials, since packaging of fruits in polyethylene films results in modified atmosphere which reduced the fruit decay, softening and loss soluble solids during storage. Keeping of fruits in the polyethylene package help in extension of storage life and retention of quality (Salunkhe and Wu, 1973). According to Vidigal et al., (1979) packing in polyethylene bags decreased weight loss and controlled atmosphere storage improves keeping quality in fruits. Kumar et al., (1999) and Sammi and Masud, (2007) also used polyethylene packaging in their investigation to improve the shelf life of tomatoes. To our knowledge, detailed investigations concerning physical properties of tomato in relation with storage conditions and storage material have not been published. Therefore, the aim of this research was to see the effect on physical attributes of tomato due to HDPE as storage material and three different storage conditions. This information provides useful insights into design of processing, packing equipments and transportations for tomato.

Materials   and  Methods

The experiment was conducted at Food Analysis Laboratory of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut (India). Fresh, ripe, red in colour tomatoes, free from disease and insects were procured directly from the farmers of village Dhanju and Lawad. Two varieties of tomatoes namely Himshikhar and NS-524 were used for the present investigation.

Measurement of dimensions: Three linear dimensions namely polar diameter (D1), major diameter (D2) and minor diameter (D3) for all tomatoes were measured using a Vernier Caliper (least count 0.01mm). Polar diameter is defined as the distance between tomato apex and the stem end. Major and minor diameters of the tomatoes are defined as maximum and minimum width respectively in a plane perpendicular to a polar axis (Mohsenin, 1986).

Mass, volume and density: Mass of fresh tomatoes was determined using high accuracy electronic balance. As the tomatoes were numbered the weight of individual tomatoes were recorded every day. The volume of tomato was determined individually by water displacement method using a cylinder of 1 liter capacity. The mass and volume were expressed in ‘g’ and ‘ml’ respectively (1 ml=1cm3). Densities for tomatoes were calculated using the following equation:

—–(1)

Geometrical and morphological properties: Arithmetic mean diameters (AMD), geometric mean diameter (GMD), surface area and sphericity for tomatoes were calculated by using the following equations as suggested by Mohsenin (1986):

—–(2)

—–(3)

—–(4)

—–(5)

(For sphericity D₁ = largest diameter)

Shape factor (: Shape factor based on volume & surface area of tomatoes was determined (McCabe and Smith, 1984) as;

     —–(6)

Where,

Where, V= volume                  S= surface area

TSS: Total soluble solids of tomatoes were measured using a hand hold refractrometer.

Packaging and storage

High density poly ethylene (HDPE) as packaging material was used and then samples were stored under three different storage condition viz. ambient temperature, BOD incubator and refrigerator condition.

 

Statistical analysis

The data obtained from various experiments were recorded during the course of study and subjected to statistical analysis as per the method of “Analysis of variance”. The significance and non significance of data obtained from various experiments was judge with the help of F (Variance ratio) table. OPSTAT software and spreadsheet software (Microsoft Office excel-2007) were used to analyze the recorded data.

Results   and  Discussion

Tomato of variety Himshikhar stored under ambient and BOD incubator condition in HDPE shows a gradual decrement in mean values of entire physical parameters viz. polar diameter (4.80 – 3.63 cm), major diameter (5.80 – 4.28 cm), minor diameter (5.35 – 3.90 cm), AMD (5.317 – 3.933 cm), GMD (5.299 – 3.922 cm), mass (87.218 – 66.640 g), volume (90.00 – 64.50 ml), sphericity (91.438 – 68.873%), surface area (88.181 – 64.422 cm2), density (0.973 – 0.773 g/cc) and shape factor (1.011 – 0.746), which increase with increase in storage period. Similar trends were reported by Varshney et al. (2007). Some samples were spoiled after day five of storage. Tomato (Himshikhar) stored under refrigerator condition shows decrement in mean values of polar diameter (4.28 – 4.18 cm), major diameter (4.98 – 4.78 cm), minor diameter (4.80 – 4.60 cm), AMD (4.68 – 4.52 cm), GMD (4.673 – 4.508 cm), mass (59.219 – 59.065 g), volume (61.25 – 54.50 ml), shape factor (1.027 – 1.019) and surface area (69.171 – 64.557 cm2) with increase in storage period. Whereas the values of sphericity (94.006 – 94.510 %) and density (0.971 – 1.093 g/cc) shows increment. Result data explicit that the TSS increased (6.200 – 6.575 0brix) with increase in storage time for all the storage conditions. Tomato variety NS-524 stored under ambient temperature in HDPE shows decrement in mean values of physical parameters like major diameter (4.47 – 4.38 cm), minor diameter (4.27 – 4.25 cm), AMD (4.322 – 4.289 cm), GMD (4.320 – 4.288 cm), mass (50.478 – 50.221 g), volume (52.33 – 48.67 ml), surface area (58.842 – 57.975 cm2). Although the samples were spoiled after four days of storage. Whereas the values of shape factor (0.989 – 0.992), density (0.966 – 1.033 g/cc), sphericity (96.738 – 97.859 %) and TSS (4.467 – 5.067 0brix) increased continuously and polar diameter (D1) remain unchanged (4.23 cm) before samples get spoiled. The decrement was observed in entire physical parameters viz. polar diameter (4.33 – 2.77 cm), major diameter (4.50 – 2.93cm), minor diameter (4.37 – 2.73 cm), AMD (4.400 – 2.811 cm), GMD (4.399 – 2.809 cm), mass (50.662 – 32.381 g), volume (51.67 – 30.00 ml), surface area (60.921 – 37.345 cm2), density (0.976 – 0.717 g/cc) and shape factor (0.992 – 0.648) under refrigerator storage conditions. Half the samples were spoiled after five days of storage. Only TSS increased (5.733 – 6.467 0brix) continuously. Data explicit that the tomato (NS-524) stored under BOD incubator condition showed decrement in mean values of the entire physical parameter. The samples were spoiled after 3 days of storage under BOD incubator condition. Density (1.018 – 1.118 g/cc) and TSS (4.700 – 5.033 0brix) increased with increase in storage time but major diameter (D2) shows no change (4.50 cm) during storage.

Table 1: Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (ambient temperature) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: Himshikhar).

Mean values are 3 replicates

 

Table 2: Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (refrigerator) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: Himshikhar).

Mean values are 3 replicates

Table 3: Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (BOD incubator) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: Himshikhar).

Mean values are 3 replicates

Table 4: Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (ambient temperature) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: NS-524).

Mean values are 3 replicates

Table 5: Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (refrigerator) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: NS-524).

Tomato: NS-524Storage material & condition: HDPE, BODDaysD₁ (cm)D₂ (cm)D₃ (cm)

AMD

(cm)

GMD

(cm)

Sphericity (%)

Mass

(g)

Volume (ml)

Surface area

(cm²)

Density

(g/cc)

Shape factor

TSS

(⁰Brix)

14.374.504.404.4224.42097.53752.37551.6761.5011.0180.9954.700±0.15±0.36±0.36±0.27±0.27±0.75±9.51±10.41±7.38±0.05±0.03±0.2024.324.504.374.3944.39397.72152.31349.3360.7441.0650.994ND±0.19±0.36±0.31±0.27±0.27±1.98±9.48±10.13±7.37±0.05±0.0234.274.504.334.3674.36597.09752.25147.0059.9821.1180.993ND±0.23±0.36±0.25±0.27±0.27±1.83±9.46±9.85±7.36±0.06±0.024Spoiled5.0335Spoiled±0.216Spoiled-CD_5%0.2000.3640.3160.2740.2721.7229.57110.2287.4410.0550.028
SE(d)0.0890.1610.1400.1210.1210.7634.2414.5323.2970.0240.013
SE(m)0.0630.1140.0990.0860.0850.5402.9993.2052.3310.0170.009
CV5.0228.7777.8446.7606.7271.91819.85722.50213.2955.5913.102
R²0.7790.7710.7760.7750.7750.7730.7720.8010.7790.7370.772

Mean values are 3 replicates

Conclusion

On the basis of the experimental finding it may be conclude that tomato variety Himshikhar packed in HDPE shows minimum shrinkage at ambient temperature then refrigerator and BOD incubator storage condition. Tomato variety NS – 524 packed in HDPE shows maximum shrinkage under refrigerator condition then BOD incubator and ambient storage condition; however samples under BOD incubator spoiled after three days and under ambient temperature storage condition spoiled after four days of storage. Tomato variety Himshikhar was found superior over tomato variety NS – 524.

References

1. Atallah, M. M. Physical and mechanical properties of tomato plant to design a harvest machine. Bulletin of Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, 2012; 63(1): 8-18.
2. Gaware, T. J., Sutar N., and Thorat, B. N. Drying of tomato using different methods: comparison of dehydration and rehydration kinetics. Drying Technology, 2010; 28(5): 651-658.
3. Holden, J.M., Eldridge, A.L., Beecher, G.R., Buzzard, I., Marilyn, B., Seema Davis, C.S., Doughlass, L.W., Gebbardt, S.H.D. and Schakel, S. Carotenoid content of U.S. foods: an update of the database. J. Food Compos., Anal. 1999; 12: 169-196.
4. Kaymak, H. C., Ozturk, I., Kalkan, F., Kara, M. and Ercisli, S. Color and physical properties of two common tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 2010; 8(2):44-46.
5. Kumar, A., Ghuman, B.S. and Gupta, A.K. Non-refrigerated storage of tomatoes – effect of HDPE film wrapping. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 1999; 36(5):438-440.
6. Kumar, S., Chandra, S. and Singh, A. P. Shelf life and quality evaluation of ripe tomato under modified atmosphere packaging. Annals of Horticulture, 2012; 5(1): 116- 121.
7. Li Z., Li P., Liu J. Physical and mechanical properties of tomato fruits as related to robot’s harvesting. Journal of Food Engineering, 2011; 103: 170-178.
8. McCabe, W. L. and Smith, J. C. Unit operation of chemical engineering, (3rded.). McGraw Hill book company, Japan 1984.
9. Mirzaee, E., Rafiee, S., Keyhani, A., Emam Djom-eh Z. and Kheiralipour, K. Mass modeling of two varieties of apricot (prunus armenaica L.) with some physical characteristics. Plant Omics J., 2008; 1: 37-43.
10. Mohsenin, N.N. Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1986; pp 20-89.
11. Onifade, T. B., Aregbesola, O. A., Ige, M. T. and Ajayi, A. O. Some physical properties and thin layer drying characteristics of local varieties of tomatoes (Lycopersicon lycopersicum). Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 2013; 4(3): 275- 279.
12. Salunkhe, D.K. and Wu, N.T. Effect of low oxygen atmosphere storage on ripening and associated biochemical changes of tomato fruits. J. Am. Soc. of Hort. Sci., 1973; 98: 12.
13. Sammi, S. and Masud, T. Effect of different packaging systems on storage life and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum var. Rio Grande) during different ripening stages. Internet Journal of Food Safety, 2007; Food Safety Information Publishing. Vol.9, pp. 37- 44.
14. Taheri-Garavand, A., Rafiee, S. and Keyhani, A. Study on some morphological and physical characteristics of tomato used in mass models to characterize best post harvesting options. Australian J. of Crop Sci., 2011; 5(4): 433-438.
15. Varshney, A. K., Sangani, V. P. and Antala, D. K. Effect of storage on physical and mechanical properties of tomato. Agriculture Engineering Today, 2007; 31(3-4): 47- 53.
16. Vidigal, J.C., Singrist, J.M.M., Figneiredo, I.B. and Medina, J.C. Cold storage and controlled atmosphere storage of tomatoes. Bulletin do Institute de Technologia de Aimentos, Brazil, 1979; 16: 421.

17.           Viswanathan, R., Pandiyarajan, T. and Varadaraju, N. Physical and mechanical properties of tomato fruits as related to pulping. J. Food Sci. Tech., 1997; 34(6): 537- 539.