International Journal of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Research
Subscribe to IJBMBR
Full Name*
Email Address*

Article Number - 4E81FEF55879


Vol.9(1), pp. 1-6 , January 2018
https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBMBR2015.0237
ISSN: 2141-2154


 Total Views: 0
 Downloaded: 0

Full Length Research Paper

Postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) varieties grown under greenhouse and open field conditions



Yebirzaf Yeshiwas
  • Yebirzaf Yeshiwas
  • Department of Horticulture, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar
Kassaye Tolessa
  • Kassaye Tolessa
  • Department of Horticulture and Plant Sciences, Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, Ethiopia.
  • Google Scholar







 Received: 06 July 2015  Accepted: 26 June 2017  Published: 31 January 2018

Copyright © 2018 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article.
This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0


An experiment was carried out to evaluate performances of four tomato varieties (Bishola, Eshet, Marglobe and Moneymaker) harvested at ripe stage from greenhouse and open field condition at Jimma for post-harvest quality characters (total soluble solid, weight loss, titratable acidity, sugar-acid ratio, and pH). Bishola and Eshet had better chemical quality characteristics maintained throughout the end of the storage period. Varieties grown under open field condition showed highest fruit weight loss. The total soluble solid (TSS) values the open field grown tomatoes had highest than greenhouse grown tomatoes throughout storage period. The heighest TSS was obtained at 14 days storage  while the lowest was at harvest. Titratable acidity of tomatoes after harvest tended to decrease throughout the storage period. Bishola had highest titratable acidity when compared with Eshet. There was increase in sugar/acid ratio throughout storage time for greenhouse growing condition, under open field condition there is a slight increment and rapid after harvest and then decrease at 14 days the storage period. This indicates that Greenhouse grown tomatoes have good flavor than open field grown. Tomato varieties grown under greenhouse condition were less weight loss, and higher sugar acid ratio and less prone to physical injuries than fruits of grown under open field condition. Variety Eshet and Bishola could be selected in maintaining better overall quality characteristics.
 
Key words: Tomato, variety, storage period, greenhouse.

AVRDC (2005). Training report of the fifth regional training program in vegetable production and research. Bangkok, Thailand. pp.118-126.

 

Bertin N, Guichard S, Leonardi C, Longenesse JJ, Langlois D, Navez B (2000). Seasonal evolution of the quality of fresh greenhouse tomatoes under Mediterranean con ditions, affected by air vapour pressure deficit and plant fruit load. Ann. Bot. 85:741–750.
Crossref

 
 

Birhanu K, Tilahun K (2010). Fruit yield and quality of drip-irrigated tomato under deficit irrigation. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 10(2):1684-1715.
Crossref

 
 

Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research. National rice research institute, John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 188-210.

 
 

Hart DJ, Scott KJ (1995). Development and evaluation of an HPLC method for the analysis of carotenoids in foods, and the measurement of the carotenoid content of vegetables and fruits commonly consumed in the UK. Food Chem. 54:101-111.
Crossref

 
 

Hobson GE (1981). The short-term storage of tomato fruit. J. Hortic. Sci. 56:363-368.
Crossref

 
 

Kacem CN, Dehimat L, Meraihi Z, Destain J, Kahlat K, Thonart P(2013). Sensitivity of three tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) cultivars – Akoma, Pectomech and power- to chilling injury. Agric. Biol. J. North Am. 2(5):799-805.

 
 

Kader AA, Morris LL, Chen P (1978). Evaluation of two objective methods and a subjective rating scale for measuring tomato firmness. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 103(1):70-73.

 
 

Kader AA (2008). Perspective Flavor quality of fruits and vegetables. J. Sci. Food Agric. J. Sci. Food Agric. 88:1863-1868.
Crossref

 
 

Lana MM, Tijskens LMM, Van Kooten O (2005). Effects of storage temperature and fruit ripening on firmness of fresh cut tomatoes. The Netherands. Posth Biol Technol 35:87-95.
Crossref

 
 

Leonardi C, Ambrosino P, Esposito F, Fogliano V (2000). Antioxidant activity and carotenoid and tomatine contents in different typologies of fresh consumption tomatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:4723-4727.
Crossref

 
 

Muluken Y (2011). Tomatoes in two thirds the time with new greenhouse. www.skyscrapercity.com/

 
 

Nath A, Bidyut CD, Akath S, Patel RK, Paul D, Misra LK, OjhaH (2011). Extension of shelf life of pear fruits using different packaging materials. J Food Sci Technol. 49(5):556-563.
Crossref

 
 

Nileema SG, Sreenivasa MN (2011). Influence of liquid organic manures on growth, nutrient content and yield of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill.) in the sterilized soil. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 24(2):153-157.

 
 

Pairin H, Edgar C (2008). A Lexicon for texture and flavor characteristics of fresh and processed tomatoes. J. Sens. Stud. 23(5):583-599.
Crossref

 
 

Preedy VR, Watson R (2008). Tomatoes and tomato products nutritional, medicinal and therapeutic properties. Science Publishers, Enfield, NH, USA.
Crossref

 
 

Rutkowski KP, Michalczuk B, Konopascki P (2008). Nondestructive determination of 'Golden Delicious' apple quality and harvest maturity. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 16:39-52.

 
 

Sakiyama R, Stevens MA (1976). Organic acid accumulation in attached and detached tomato fruits. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 101:394-396.

 
 

Salunkhe DK, Jadhav SJ, Yu MH (1974). Quality and nutritional composition of tomato fruit as influenced by certain biochemical and physiological changes. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 24(1):85-113.
Crossref

 
 

Sahlin E, Savage GP, Lister CE (2004). Investigation of the antioxidant properties of tomatoes after ripening. J. Food Compos. Anal. 17(5):635-647.
Crossref

 
 

SAS Institute Inc. (2008). SAS/STAT®9.2 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Inc Cary, USA.

 
 

Simmonds NW (1969). Bananas.2nd Edition. London: Longman Publ.

 
 

Stevens MA (1972). Citrate and malate concentrations in tomato fruits: genetic control and maturational effects. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 97:655-658.

 
 

Tigist M, Tilahun S, Kebede W (2011). Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. J. Food Sci. Technol. Pp. 1-10.

 
 

Venter F (1977). Solar radiation and vitamin C content of tomato fruits. Acta Hortic. 58:121-127
Crossref

 
 

Vijay P, Rakesh P, Girish CS (2010). Ripening of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Part II: Regulation by its stem scar region. J. Food Sci. Technol. 47(5):527-533.
Crossref

 
 

Wahundeniya WM, Ramanan R, Wickramatunga C, Weerakkodi WA (2002). Comparison of growth and yield performance of tomato varieties under controlled environment conditions. Gannoruwa, Peradeniya.

 
 

Wener ZH (2000). Importance of the tomato. Agri-support online agricultural articles. Available at: 

View

 
 

Znidarcic D, Pozrl T (2006). Comparative study of quality changes in tomato. Acta Agric. Slov. 87(2):242-243.

 

 


APA Yeshiwas, Y., & Tolessa, K. (2018). Postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) varieties grown under greenhouse and open field conditions. International Journal of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Research, 9(1), 1-6.
Chicago Yebirzaf Yeshiwas and Kassaye Tolessa  . "Postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) varieties grown under greenhouse and open field conditions." International Journal of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Research 9, no. 1 (2018): 1-6.
MLA Yebirzaf Yeshiwas and Kassaye Tolessa  . "Postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) varieties grown under greenhouse and open field conditions." International Journal of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Research 9.1 (2018): 1-6.
   
DOI https://doi.org/10.5897/IJBMBR2015.0237
URL http://academicjournals.org/journal/IJBMBR/article-abstract/4E81FEF55879

Subscription Form