Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 1, 2015

Evaluation of Chemical, Biochemical and Microbiological Quality in Tomato Using Multivariate Analysis

Nafiisa Sobratee and Tilahun S. Workneh

Abstract

Tomato quality is determined by metabolite content which is governed by post-harvest physiological changes. A 30-day full factorial experiment investigated pre-packaging, disinfection and storage temperatures on 18 different biochemical, microbiological, enzymatic and subjective quality attributes of tomato quality. Principal component analysis revealed associations among the variables such as PC1 (28.85%): coliform/enzymatic softening; PC2 (21.52%): free sugars/sweetness; and PC3 (18.20%): sucrose hydrolysis/microbial spoilage/defense metabolites. Discriminant analysis showed that some specific parameters were highly significant (P<0.001) in determining quality changes in relation to the washing procedures and storage temperature. The prominence of ascorbic acid was observed in the equations which discriminate mostly on the basis of microbial deterioration. Further works in this respect entail fine-tuning through model verification of the equations. Multivariate analysis techniques are, therefore, recommended in studies whereby understanding of the phenomenon driving the post-harvest system’s dynamics has to be understood through diverse interrelated metabolic parameters.

References

1. SerranoM, Martinez-RomeroD, CastilloS, GuillenF, ValeroD. The use of the natural antifungal compounds improves the beneficial effect of MAP in sweet cherry storage. Innovative Food Sci Emerg Technol2005;6:11523. Search in Google Scholar

2. AguayoE, EscalonaVH, Arte´sF. Effect of cyclic exposure to ozone gas on physicochemical, sensorial and microbial quality of whole and sliced tomatoes. Postharvest Biol Technol2006;39:16977. Search in Google Scholar

3. AguayoE, EscalonaVH, SilveiraAC, Arte´sF. Quality of tomato slices disinfected with ozonated water. Food Sci Technol Int2014;20:22735. Search in Google Scholar

4. DelaquisPJ, FukumotoLR, ToivonenPMA, CliffMA. Implications of wash water chlorination and temperature for the microbiological and sensory properties of fresh-cut iceberg lettuce. Postharvest Biol Technol2004;31:8191. Search in Google Scholar

5. GiraldoLF, ForeroRA, SalazarCR, TorresR. The effect of packaging and potassium permanganate on the storage of tomatoes under room conditions. Ravista Inst Collanbiano Agropecuario1977;12:393405. Search in Google Scholar

6. Martin-BellosoO, Soliva-FortunyR, Oms-OliuG. Fresh-cut fruits. In: YHHui, editor. Handbook of fruits and fruit processing. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Search in Google Scholar

7. OlaimatAN, HolleyRA. Factors influencing the microbial safety of fresh produce: a review. Food Microbiol2012;32:119. Search in Google Scholar

8. PruskyD, EshelD, KobilerH, YakobyN, MoualemDB, AckermanM, et al. Postharvest chlorine treatments for the control of the persimmon black spot disease caused by Alternaria alternata. Postharvest Biol Technol2001;22:2717. Search in Google Scholar

9. GetinetH, WorknehTS, WoldetsadikK. Effect of maturity stages, variety and storage environment on sugar content of tomato stored in multiple pads evaporative cooler. Afr J Biotechnol2011;18:48192. Search in Google Scholar

10. IslamMS, MatsuiT, YoshidaY. Carbohydrate content and the activities of sucrose synthase, sucrose phosphate synthase and acid invertase in different tomato cultivars during fruit development. Sci Hortic1996;65:12536. Search in Google Scholar

11. ŽnidarcicD, PozrlT. Comparative study of quality changes in tomato cv. ‘Malike’ (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.) Whilst stored at different temperatures. Acta Agric Slovak2006;87:23543. Search in Google Scholar

12. MartensH, MartensM. Multivariate analysis of quality an introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2001. Search in Google Scholar

13. SuarezMH, MendezEP, GaldonBR, RodriguezER, RomeroCD. Influence of agronomic variables on quality of tomato fruits. Agric Sci2011;2:42431. Search in Google Scholar

14. FarnetiB, CristescuSM, CostaG, HarrenFJM, WolteringEJ. Rapid tomato volatile profiling by using proton-transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS). J Food Sci2012;77:C5519. Search in Google Scholar

15. MaulF, SargentSA, BalabanMO, BaldwinEA, HuberDJ, SimsCA. Aroma volatile profiles from ripe tomatoes are influenced by physiological maturity at harvest: an application for electronic nose technology. J Am Soc Hortic Sci1998;123:1094101. Search in Google Scholar

16. TiwariG, SlaughterDC, CantwellM. Non-destructive maturity determination in green tomatoes using a handheld visible and near-infrared instrument. Postharvest Biol Technol2013;86:22129. Search in Google Scholar

17. WorknehTS, OsthoffG, SteynMS. Influence of pre-harvest and postharvest treatments on stored tomato quality. Afr J Agric Res2011;612:272536. Search in Google Scholar

18. WorknehTS, OsthoffG, SteynMS. Effects of preharvest treatment, disinfections, packaging and storage environment on quality of tomato. J Food Sci Technol2012;49:68594. Search in Google Scholar

19. JoliffeIT. Principal component analysis. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag, 1986. Search in Google Scholar

20. SharmaS. 1996. Applied multivariate techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc:493 pp. Search in Google Scholar

21. TabachnickBG, FidellLS. Using multivariate statistics, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Search in Google Scholar

22. McLachlanGJ. Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recognition. New York: Wiley- Interscience, 2004. Search in Google Scholar

23. Cruz-CastilloJG, GaneshanandamS, MacKayBR, LawesGS, LawokoCRO, WooleyDJ. Applications of canonical discriminant analysis in horticultural research. Hort Sci1994;29:111519. Search in Google Scholar

24. AgrestiA. An introduction to categorical data analysis. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley and Sons, 1996. Search in Google Scholar

25. NunesMCN and EdmondJP. Chlorinated water treatments affects postharvest quality of green bell peppers. J Food Qual1999;22:35361. Search in Google Scholar

26. WorknehTS, OsthoffG, PretoriusJC, HugoCJ. Comparison of anolyte and chlorinated water as a disinfecting dipping treatment for stored carrots. J Food Qual2003;26:46374. Search in Google Scholar

27. MaulF, SargentSA, SimsCA, BaldwinEA, BalabanMO, HuberDJ. Tomato flavor and aroma quality as affected by storage temperature. J Food Sci2000;65:122837. Search in Google Scholar

28. TeferaT, SeyoumT, WoldetsdikK. Effect of disinfection, packaging, and storage environment on the shelf life of mango. Biosyst Eng2007;96:153750. Search in Google Scholar

29. JeonBS, LeeCY. Shelf-life extension of American fresh ginseng by controlled atmosphere storage and modified atmosphere packaging. J Food Sci1999;64:32831. Search in Google Scholar

30. RiazMN, BushwayAA. Compositional analysis of four red raspberry cultivars grown in Maine. J Food Qual1996;19:45765. Search in Google Scholar

31. KoehlerPE, KaysSJ. Sweet potato flavor. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of optimum sweetness. J Food Qual1991;14:2419. Search in Google Scholar

32. MarangoniAG, JackmanRL, StanleyDW. Chilling-associated softening of tomato fruit is related to increased pectinmethylesterase activity. J Food Sci1995;606:127781. Search in Google Scholar

33. YoshidaO, NakagawaH, OguraN, SatoT. Effect of heat treatment on the development of polygalacturonase activity in tomato fruit during ripening. Plant Cell Physiol1984;25:5059. Search in Google Scholar

34. NelsonN. A photometric adaptation of the Somogyi method for determination of glucose. J Biol Chem1944;153:37580. Search in Google Scholar

35. AOAC. Official Methods of analysis. Washington, D.C.: Assoc Offic Agr Chemist1970. Search in Google Scholar

36. BrackettRE. Influence of modified atmosphere packaging on microflora and quality of fresh bell peppers. J Food Prot1990;53:25557. Search in Google Scholar

37. MohammedM, WilsonLA, GomesPI. Postharvest sensory and physiochemical attributes of processing and non-processing tomato cultivars. J Food Qual1999;22:16782. Search in Google Scholar

38. WatkinsMW. Determining parallel analysis criteria. J Mod Appl Stat Methods2006;5:3446. Search in Google Scholar

39. WalkerAJ and HoLC. Carbon translocation in tomato – effects of fruit temperature on carbon metabolism and rate of translocation. Ann Bot1977;41:82532. Search in Google Scholar

40. AbegazEG, TandonKS, ScottJW, BaldwinEA, ShewfeltRL. Partitioning taste from aromatic flavor notes of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill) to develop predictive models as a function of volatile and nonvolatile components. Postharvest Biol Technol34;2004:22735. Search in Google Scholar

41. BenjaminiY, HochbergY. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc Brit1995;57:289300. Search in Google Scholar

42. MarinaAM, Che ManYB, AminI. Use of the SAW sensor electronic nose for detecting the adulteration of virgin coconut oil with RBD palm Kernel Olein. J Amer Chem Soc2010;87:26370. Search in Google Scholar

43. CarrariF, FernieA. Metabolic regulation underlying tomato fruit development. J Exp Bot2006;57:188397. Search in Google Scholar

44. Oms-OliuG, Odriozola-SerranoI, Martín-BellosoO. The effects of non-thermal technologies on phytochemicals. Phytochemicals: a global perspective of their role in nutrition and health. Croatia: InTech, 2012:10820. Search in Google Scholar

45. ZhaoY, WangR, TuK, LiuK. Efficacy of pre-harvest spraying with Pichia guillermondii on post-harvest decay and quality of cherry tomato fruit during storage. Afr J Biotechnol2011;10:961322. Search in Google Scholar

Supplemental Material

The online version of this article (DOI: 10.1515/ijfe-2014-0099) offers supplementary material, available to authorized users.

Published Online: 2015-4-1
Published in Print: 2015-4-1

©2015 by De Gruyter