Storage and packaging dependent physical properties of tomatoes.
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 ([D.sub.1]), major diameter ([D.sub.2]) and minor diameter ([D.sub.3]) 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=1[cm.sup.3]). Densities for tomatoes were calculated using the following equation:
Density = weight(g)/volume ([cm.sup.3]) ...(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):
AMD = [[D.sub.1] + [D.sub.2] + [D.sub.3]/3] ...(2)
GMD = [cube root of ([D.sub.1][D.sub.2][D.sub.3])] ...(3)
Surface area = [pi][(GMD).sup.2] ...(4)
Sphericity = GMD/[D.sub.1] ...(5)
(For sphericity [D.sub.1] = largest diameter)
Shape factor ([lambda]): Shape factor based on volume & surface area of tomatoes was determined (McCabe and Smith, 1984) as;
Shape factor = a/b ...(6)
Where,
a = v/[([D.sub.3]).sup.3]
b = S/[([D.sub.3]).sup.2]
V = [pi][GMD.sup.2] [D.sub.2.sup.2]/6(2[D.sub.2] - GMD) S = [pi][GMDD.sub.2.sup.2]/(2[D.sub.2] - GMD)
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 [cm.sup.2]), 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 [cm.sup.2]) 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 [degrees]brix) 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 [cm.sup.2]). 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 [degrees]brix) increased continuously and polar diameter ([D.sub.1]) 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 [cm.sup.2]), 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[degrees]brix) 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 [degrees]brix) increased with increase in storage time but major diameter ([D.sub.2]) shows no change (4.50 cm) during storage.
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, (3rd ed.). 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. andAntala, 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.
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.10.4.54
(Received: 13 June 2016; accepted: 19 September 2016)
* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mailankitsingh@yahoo.com
Table 1. Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (ambient temperature) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: Himshikhar) Himshikhar Tomato: [D.sub.1] [D.sub.2] [D.sub.3] Days (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 4.80 5.80 5.35 [+ or -] 0.23 [+ or -] 0.24 [+ or -] 0.10 2 4.80 5.65 5.20 [+ or -] 0.23 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.18 3 4.79 5.65 5.20 [+ or -] 0.25 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.18 4 4.78 5.65 5.20 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.18 5 4.78 5.63 5.18 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.29 [+ or -] 0.21 6 3.63 4.28 3.93 [+ or -] 2.43 [+ or -] 2.86 [+ or -] 2.62 7 3.63 4.28 3.90 [+ or -] 2.43 [+ or -] 2.86 [+ or -] 2.61 [CD.sup.5%] N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.791 0.953 0.877 SE(m) 0.559 0.674 0.620 CV 25.104 25.545 25.562 [R.sup.2] 0.637 0.682 0.688 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: AMD GMD Sphericity Days (cm) (cm) (%) 1 5.317 5.299 91.438 [+ or -] 0.10 [+ or -] 0.10 [+ or -] 2.91 2 5.217 5.203 92.151 [+ or -] 0.16 [+ or -] 0.16 [+ or -] 2.01 3 5.213 5.198 92.068 [+ or -] 0.16 [+ or -] 0.16 [+ or -] 2.06 4 5.208 5.194 91.985 [+ or -] 0.16 [+ or -] 0.16 [+ or -] 2.12 5 5.192 5.178 92.114 [+ or -] 0.18 [+ or -] 0.18 [+ or -] 2.12 6 3.942 3.930 69.016 [+ or -] 2.63 [+ or -] 2.62 [+ or -] 46.06 7 3.933 3.922 68.873 [+ or -] 2.62 [+ or -] 2.62 [+ or -] 45.97 [CD.sup.5%] N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.873 0.870 15.775 SE(m) 0.617 0.615 11.154 CV 25.408 25.401 26.129 [R.sup.2] 0.674 0.672 0.612 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Mass (g) Volume Surface Days (%) (ml) area ([cm.sup.2]) 1 87.218 90.00 88.181 [+ or -] 10.71 [+ or -] 14.14 [+ or -] 3.46 2 87.215 89.00 85.067 [+ or -] 10.70 [+ or -] 13.22 [+ or -] 5.17 3 87.200 88.63 84.912 [+ or -] 10.70 [+ or -] 13.28 [+ or -] 5.17 4 87.184 88.25 84.757 [+ or -] 10.70 [+ or -] 13.38 [+ or -] 5.19 5 86.969 86.75 84.254 [+ or -] 10.83 [+ or -] 11.84 [+ or -] 5.84 6 66.654 65.75 64.712 [+ or -] 45.57 [+ or -] 44.78 [+ or -] 43.34 7 66.640 64.50 64.422 [+ or -] 45.56 [+ or -] 43.56 [+ or -] 43.10 [CD.sup.5%] N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 14.103 13.070 13.795 SE(m) 9.972 9.242 9.754 CV 24.533 22.585 24.548 [R.sup.2] 0.631 0.706 0.717 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Density Shape TSS Days (g/cc) factor ([sup.0]Brix) 1 0.973 1.011 6.550 [+ or -] 0.04 [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.58 2 0.983 1.000 N.D. [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.03 3 0.987 1.001 N.D. [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.03 4 0.991 1.002 N.D. [+ or -] 0.04 [+ or -] 0.03 5 1.004 1.000 N.D. [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.03 6 0.760 0.749 N.D. [+ or -] 0.51 [+ or -] 0.50 7 0.773 0.746 6.825 [+ or -] 0.52 [+ or -] 0.50 [+ or -] 0.57 [CD.sup.5%] N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.186 0.174 SE(m) 0.131 0.123 CV 28.414 26.421 [R.sup.2] 0.536 0.645 Mean values are 3 replicates Table 2. Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (refrigerator) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: Himshikhar). Himshikhar Tomato: [D.sub.1] [D.sub.2] [D.sub.3] Days (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 4.28 4.98 4.80 [+ or -] 0.43 [+ or -] 0.58 [+ or -] 0.54 2 4.26 4.94 4.74 [+ or -] 0.46 [+ or -] 0.56 [+ or -] 0.60 3 4.25 4.90 4.68 [+ or -] 0.48 [+ or -] 0.55 [+ or -] 0.66 4 4.21 4.88 4.66 [+ or -] 0.47 [+ or -] 0.56 [+ or -] 0.66 5 4.18 4.85 4.65 [+ or -] 0.46 [+ or -] 0.57 [+ or -] 0.66 6 4.18 4.78 4.60 [+ or -] 0.46 [+ or -] 0.63 [+ or -] 0.63 CD5% 0.068 0.115 0.091 SE(d) 0.032 0.053 0.042 SE(m) 0.023 0.038 0.030 CV 1.066 1.547 1.282 R2 0.951 0.971 0.940 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: AMD GMD Sphericity Days (cm) (cm) (%) 1 4.68 4.673 94.006 [+ or -] 0.51 [+ or -] 0.51 [+ or -] 1.38 2 4.65 4.636 93.905 [+ or -] 0.53 [+ or -] 0.53 [+ or -] 1.68 3 4.61 4.599 93.809 [+ or -] 0.55 [+ or -] 0.55 [+ or -] 2.53 4 4.58 4.573 93.790 [+ or -] 0.55 [+ or -] 0.55 [+ or -] 2.76 5 4.56 4.548 93.773 [+ or -] 0.55 [+ or -] 0.55 [+ or -] 3.00 6 4.52 4.508 94.510 [+ or -] 0.56 [+ or -] 0.56 [+ or -] 2.00 CD5% 0.071 0.071 N.S. SE(d) 0.033 0.033 0.756 SE(m) 0.023 0.023 0.535 CV 1.015 1.012 1.139 R2 0.993 0.994 0.160 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Mass (g) Volume Surface Days (%) (ml) area([cm.sup.2]) 1 59.219 61.25 69.171 [+ or -] 19.22 [+ or -] 20.56 [+ or -] 14.56 2 59.185 60.13 68.147 [+ or -] 19.19 [+ or -] 20.07 [+ or -] 15.03 3 59.151 59.00 67.124 [+ or -] 19.17 [+ or -] 19.63 [+ or -] 15.51 4 59.137 58.63 66.380 [+ or -] 19.16 [+ or -] 19.46 [+ or -] 15.47 5 59.124 57.75 65.646 [+ or -] 19.14 [+ or -] 19.26 [+ or -] 15.51 6 59.065 54.50 64.557 [+ or -] 19.12 [+ or -] 18.56 [+ or -] 15.69 CD5% 0.060 1.712 1.993 SE(d) 0.028 0.796 0.927 SE(m) 0.020 0.563 0.655 CV 0.067 1.922 1.960 R2 0.954 0.899 0.995 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Density Shape TSS Days (g/cc) factor ([sup.0]Brix) 1 0.971 1.027 6.200 [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.01 [+ or -] 0.32 2 0.988 1.021 N.D. [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.02 3 1.006 1.014 N.D. [+ or -] 0.05 [+ or -] 0.02 4 1.013 1.017 N.D. [+ or -] 0.05 [+ or -] 0.02 5 1.028 1.020 N.D. [+ or -] 0.04 [+ or -] 0.02 6 1.093 1.019 6.575 [+ or -] 0.06 [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.43 CD5% 0.028 N.S. SE(d) 0.013 0.007 SE(m) 0.009 0.005 CV 1.804 1.000 R2 0.863 0.239 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) Himshikhar Tomato: [D.sub.1] [D.sub.2] [D.sub.3] Days (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 4.50 5.15 4.90 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.40 [+ or -] 0.36 2 4.50 5.13 4.86 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.43 [+ or -] 0.34 3 4.50 5.10 4.83 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.46 [+ or -] 0.33 4 4.50 5.06 4.83 [+ or -] 0.26 [+ or -] 0.45 [+ or -] 0.33 5 3.45 3.88 3.68 [+ or -] 2.31 [+ or -] 2.61 [+ or -] 2.47 6 3.43 3.85 3.68 [+ or -] 2.29 [+ or -] 2.60 [+ or -] 2.47 CD5% N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.764 0.847 0.833 SE(m) 0.540 0.599 0.589 CV 26.058 25.531 26.414 R2 0.688 0.730 0.719 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: AMD GMD Sphericity Days (cm) (cm) (%) 1 4.850 4.842 94.085 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 1.62 2 4.829 4.822 94.180 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 1.92 3 4.808 4.801 94.279 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 2.29 4 4.796 4.790 94.731 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 1.97 5 3.667 3.662 70.941 [+ or -] 2.46 [+ or -] 2.46 [+ or -] 47.31 6 3.650 3.645 71.125 [+ or -] 2.45 [+ or -] 2.44 [+ or -] 47.46 CD5% N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.815 0.814 17.538 SE(m) 0.576 0.575 12.401 CV 25.983 25.995 28.655 R2 0.714 0.714 0.669 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Mass (g) Volume Surface Days (%) (ml) area([cm.sup.2]) 1 66.287 68.75 73.874 [+ or -] 14.76 [+ or -] 13.77 [+ or -] 10.05 2 66.185 68.38 73.263 [+ or -] 14.75 [+ or -] 13.79 [+ or -] 10.13 3 66.082 68.00 72.651 [+ or -] 14.74 [+ or -] 13.83 [+ or -] 10.21 4 65.917 67.50 72.298 [+ or -] 14.82 [+ or -] 14.39 [+ or -] 10.15 5 52.855 53.75 56.310 [+ or -] 37.07 [+ or -] 37.69 [+ or -] 38.37 6 52.760 53.50 55.789 [+ or -] 37.01 [+ or -] 37.42 [+ or -] 38.03 CD5% N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 9.510 9.804 11.368 SE(m) 6.725 6.932 8.039 CV 21.805 21.898 23.866 R2 0.702 0.739 0.743 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Density Shape TSS Days (g/cc) factor ([sup.0]Brix) 1 0.961 1.012 6.100 [+ or -] 0.04 [+ or -] 0.01 [+ or -] 0.59 2 0.965 1.008 N.D. [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.01 3 0.969 1.005 N.D. [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.01 4 0.975 1.008 N.D. [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.01 5 0.737 0.752 N.D. [+ or -] 0.49 [+ or -] 0.50 6 0.739 0.756 6.475 [+ or -] 0.49 [+ or -] 0.50 [+ or -] 0.61 CD5% N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.177 0.187 SE(m) 0.125 0.132 CV 28.142 28.609 R2 0.649 0.692 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) Himshikhar Tomato: [D.sub.1] [D.sub.2] [D.sub.3] Days (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 4.23 4.47 4.27 [+ or -] 0.42 [+ or -] 0.35 [+ or -] 0.25 2 4.23 4.45 4.27 [+ or -] 0.42 [+ or -] 0.35 [+ or -] 0.25 3 4.23 4.43 4.27 [+ or -] 0.42 [+ or -] 0.35 [+ or -] 0.25 4 4.23 4.38 4.25 [+ or -] 0.42 [+ or -] 0.38 [+ or -] 0.25 5 6 CD5% 0.396 0.341 0.240 SE(d) 0.176 0.151 0.106 SE(m) 0.124 0.107 0.075 CV 7.618 6.267 4.577 R2 0.685 0.696 0.688 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: AMD GMD Sphericity Days (cm) (cm) (%) 1 4.322 4.320 96.738 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 1.10 2 4.317 4.315 96.976 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 0.69 3 4.311 4.310 97.219 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 0.31 4 4.289 4.288 97.859 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 0.34 [+ or -] 1.30 5 Spoiled 6 Spoiled CD5% 0.321 0.320 1.046 SE(d) 0.142 0.142 0.463 SE(m) 0.101 0.100 0.328 CV 6.059 6.056 0.876 R2 0.689 0.689 0.679 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Mass (g)Volume Surface Days (%) (ml) area([cm.sup.2]) 1 50.478 52.33 58.842 [+ or -] 10.79 [+ or -] 11.68 [+ or -] 9.09 2 50.441 51.17 58.699 [+ or -] 10.79 [+ or -] 10.80 [+ or -] 9.11 3 50.405 50.00 58.555 [+ or -] 10.79 [+ or -] 10.00 [+ or -] 9.14 4 50.221 48.67 57.975 [+ or -] 10.83 [+ or -] 10.07 [+ or -] 9.30 5 6 CD5% 10.281 10.298 8.722 SE(d) 4.555 4.563 3.864 SE(m) 3.221 3.226 2.732 CV 16.608 16.586 12.132 R2 0.688 0.726 0.693 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Density Shape TSS Days (g/cc) factor ([sup.0]Brix) 1 0.966 0.989 4.467 [+ or -] 0.01 [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.06 2 0.986 0.990 ND [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.02 3 1.007 0.991 ND [+ or -] 0.04 [+ or -] 0.02 4 1.033 0.992 ND [+ or -] 0.07 [+ or -] 0.02 5 5.067 6 [+ or -] 0.12 CD5% 0.052 0.021 SE(d) 0.023 0.009 SE(m) 0.016 0.007 CV 4.215 1.716 R2 0.646 0.684 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) Himshikhar Tomato: [D.sub.1] [D.sub.2] [D.sub.3] Days (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 4.33 4.50 4.37 [+ or -] 0.31 [+ or -] 0.20 [+ or -] 0.32 2 4.32 4.50 4.33 [+ or -] 0.33 [+ or -] 0.20 [+ or -] 0.33 3 4.30 4.50 4.30 [+ or -] 0.36 [+ or -] 0.20 [+ or -] 0.35 4 4.23 4.50 4.30 [+ or -] 0.35 [+ or -] 0.20 [+ or -] 0.35 5 4.17 4.50 4.30 [+ or -] 0.35 [+ or -] 0.20 [+ or -] 0.35 6 2.77 2.93 2.73 [+ or -] 2.42 [+ or -] 2.55 [+ or -] 2.39 CD5% N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.819 0.847 0.841 SE(m) 0.579 0.599 0.595 CV 24.962 24.466 25.404 R2 0.522 0.428 0.465 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: AMD GMD Sphericity Days (cm) (cm) (%) 1 4.400 4.399 97.708 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 2.12 2 4.383 4.382 97.323 [+ or -] 0.28 [+ or -] 0.29 [+ or -] 2.50 3 4.367 4.365 96.936 [+ or -] 0.30 [+ or -] 0.30 [+ or -] 2.89 4 4.344 4.342 96.431 [+ or -] 0.29 [+ or -] 0.30 [+ or -] 2.76 5 4.322 4.319 95.920 [+ or -] 0.29 [+ or -] 0.29 [+ or -] 2.64 6 2.811 2.809 63.785 [+ or -] 2.45 [+ or -] 2.45 [+ or -] 55.28 CD5% N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.836 0.835 18.973 SE(m) 0.591 0.591 13.416 CV 24.932 24.937 25.437 R2 0.471 0.472 0.475 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Mass (g) Volume Surface Days (%) (ml) area([cm.sup.2]) 1 50.662 51.67 60.921 [+ or -] 11.84 [+ or -] 10.41 [+ or -] 7.49 2 50.580 51.17 60.466 [+ or -] 11.83 [+ or -] 10.77 [+ or -] 7.77 3 50.498 50.67 60.011 [+ or -] 11.81 [+ or -] 11.15 [+ or -] 8.05 4 50.336 49.50 59.387 [+ or -] 11.82 [+ or -] 11.30 [+ or -] 7.96 5 50.174 48.33 58.759 [+ or -] 11.83 [+ or -] 11.55 [+ or -] 7.87 6 32.381 30.00 37.345 [+ or -] 30.33 [+ or -] 27.84 [+ or -] 33.21 CD5% N.S. N.S. N.S. SE(d) 10.290 10.064 11.406 SE(m) 7.276 7.116 8.065 CV 26.566 26.288 24.880 R2 0.451 0.569 0.511 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Density Shape TSS Days (g/cc) factor ([sup.0]Brix) 1 0.976 0.992 5.733 [+ or -] 0.04 [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.92 2 0.985 0.988 ND [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.02 3 0.995 0.985 ND [+ or -] 0.02 [+ or -] 0.02 4 1.017 0.990 ND [+ or -] 0.04 [+ or -] 0.02 5 1.041 0.995 ND [+ or -] 0.07 [+ or -] 0.02 6 0.717 0.648 6.467 [+ or -] 0.62 [+ or -] 0.56 [+ or -] 0.90 CD5% N.S. N.S. SE(d) 0.201 0.194 SE(m) 0.142 0.137 CV 25.714 25.415 R2 0.246 0.420 Mean values are 3 replicates? Table 6. Effect of packaging material (HDPE) and storage condition (BOD incubator) on the physical properties of tomato (variety: NS-524) Himshikhar Tomato: [D.sub.1] [D.sub.2] [D.sub.3] Days (cm) (cm) (cm) 1 4.37 4.50 4.40 [+ or -] 0.15 [+ or -] 0.36 [+ or -] 0.36 2 4.32 4.50 4.37 [+ or -] 0.19 [+ or -] 0.36 [+ or -] 0.31 3 4.27 4.50 4.33 [+ or -] 0.23 [+ or -] 0.36 [+ or -] 0.25 4 5 6 CD5% 0.200 0.364 0.316 SE(d) 0.089 0.161 0.140 SE(m) 0.063 0.114 0.099 CV 5.022 8.777 7.844 R2 0.779 0.771 0.776 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: AMD GMD Sphericity Days (cm) (cm) (%) 1 4.422 4.420 97.537 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 0.75 2 4.394 4.393 97.721 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 1.98 3 4.367 4.365 97.097 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 0.27 [+ or -] 1.83 4 Spoiled 5 Spoiled 6 Spoiled CD5% 0.274 0.272 1.722 SE(d) 0.121 0.121 0.763 SE(m) 0.086 0.085 0.540 CV 6.760 6.727 1.918 R2 0.775 0.775 0.773 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Mass (g) Volume Surface Days (%) (ml) area([cm.sup.2]) 1 52.375 51.67 61.501 [+ or -] 9.51 [+ or -] 10.41 [+ or -] 7.38 2 52.313 49.33 60.744 [+ or -] 9.48 [+ or -] 10.13 [+ or -] 7.37 3 52.251 47.00 59.982 [+ or -] 9.46 [+ or -] 9.85 [+ or -] 7.36 4 5 6 CD5% 9.571 10.228 7.441 SE(d) 4.241 4.532 3.297 SE(m) 2.999 3.205 2.331 CV 19.857 22.502 13.295 R2 0.772 0.801 0.779 Storage material & condition: HDPE, ambient temperature Tomato: Density Shape TSS Days (g/cc) factor ([sup.0]Brix) 1 1.018 0.995 4.700 [+ or -] 0.05 [+ or -] 0.03 [+ or -] 0.20 2 1.065 0.994 ND [+ or -] 0.05 [+ or -] 0.02 3 1.118 0.993 ND [+ or -] 0.06 [+ or -] 0.02 4 5.033 5 [+ or -] 0.21 6 -- CD5% 0.055 0.028 SE(d) 0.024 0.013 SE(m) 0.017 0.009 CV 5.591 3.102 R2 0.737 0.772 Mean values are 3 replicates
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Author: | Kumar, Tarun; Chandra, Suresh; Singh, Ankit; Singh, Yogendra |
---|---|
Publication: | Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology |
Article Type: | Report |
Date: | Dec 1, 2016 |
Words: | 5556 |
Previous Article: | Fruit and vine rot of pointed gourd (Trichosanthes dioica Roxb.) as influenced by planting systems and weather parameters in East coast region of... |
Next Article: | Evaluation of bio-efficacy and phytotoxicity of chlorothalonil 75 % WP against fruit rot of chilli. |
Topics: |