‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Sandri,Delvio
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Rinaldi,Maria M., Ishizawa,Taís A., Cunha,Ananda H. N., Pacco,Honorato C., Ferreira,Rafael B.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Engenharia Agrícola
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69162015000601093
Resumo: ABSTRACT This paper aims at evaluating the shelf life of mini tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) cultivar ‘Sweet Grape’, grown in hydroponics, and stored under environmental and refrigerated conditions inside different packages. We adopted a completely randomized design, in which treatments were combinations of storage conditions: environment (e) and refrigerated (r) with packaging: polyvinyl chloride film (PVC); low-density polyethylene (LDPE); biofilm of tomato fruit of Solanum lycocarpum A.St.-Hil (lobeira) (TFB); cassava starch biofilm (CSB); carnauba wax (Copernicia prunifera) (CW), and without packaging - control (C). Physicochemical and sensory tests were carried out at the beginning (day zero), and at 8, 19, and 33 days of storage (DS). Fruit stored inside PVCr, LDPEe, LDPEr, and CWr had an acceptable shelf life of 33 days. The use of cassava and tomato starches were not effective in controlling fruit fresh weight loss. ‘Sweet Grape’ tomato postharvest conservation was enhanced under refrigerated conditions. The sensory evaluation results revealed that CWr treatment most pleased appraisers, while PCV had the highest rejection rate.
id SBEA-1_9aa044c1a9a05cb9830e3cdbfbb348ba
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-69162015000601093
network_acronym_str SBEA-1
network_name_str Engenharia Agrícola
repository_id_str
spelling ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packagingLycopersicon esculentum Millstorageshelf lifelifespanexpirationexpiry dateABSTRACT This paper aims at evaluating the shelf life of mini tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) cultivar ‘Sweet Grape’, grown in hydroponics, and stored under environmental and refrigerated conditions inside different packages. We adopted a completely randomized design, in which treatments were combinations of storage conditions: environment (e) and refrigerated (r) with packaging: polyvinyl chloride film (PVC); low-density polyethylene (LDPE); biofilm of tomato fruit of Solanum lycocarpum A.St.-Hil (lobeira) (TFB); cassava starch biofilm (CSB); carnauba wax (Copernicia prunifera) (CW), and without packaging - control (C). Physicochemical and sensory tests were carried out at the beginning (day zero), and at 8, 19, and 33 days of storage (DS). Fruit stored inside PVCr, LDPEe, LDPEr, and CWr had an acceptable shelf life of 33 days. The use of cassava and tomato starches were not effective in controlling fruit fresh weight loss. ‘Sweet Grape’ tomato postharvest conservation was enhanced under refrigerated conditions. The sensory evaluation results revealed that CWr treatment most pleased appraisers, while PCV had the highest rejection rate.Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola2015-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69162015000601093Engenharia Agrícola v.35 n.6 2015reponame:Engenharia Agrícolainstname:Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola (SBEA)instacron:SBEA10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v35n6p1093-1104/2015info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSandri,DelvioRinaldi,Maria M.Ishizawa,Taís A.Cunha,Ananda H. N.Pacco,Honorato C.Ferreira,Rafael B.eng2016-03-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-69162015000601093Revistahttp://www.engenhariaagricola.org.br/ORGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistasbea@sbea.org.br||sbea@sbea.org.br1809-44300100-6916opendoar:2016-03-01T00:00Engenharia Agrícola - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola (SBEA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
title ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
spellingShingle ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
Sandri,Delvio
Lycopersicon esculentum Mill
storage
shelf life
lifespan
expiration
expiry date
title_short ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
title_full ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
title_fullStr ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
title_full_unstemmed ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
title_sort ‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
author Sandri,Delvio
author_facet Sandri,Delvio
Rinaldi,Maria M.
Ishizawa,Taís A.
Cunha,Ananda H. N.
Pacco,Honorato C.
Ferreira,Rafael B.
author_role author
author2 Rinaldi,Maria M.
Ishizawa,Taís A.
Cunha,Ananda H. N.
Pacco,Honorato C.
Ferreira,Rafael B.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Sandri,Delvio
Rinaldi,Maria M.
Ishizawa,Taís A.
Cunha,Ananda H. N.
Pacco,Honorato C.
Ferreira,Rafael B.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Lycopersicon esculentum Mill
storage
shelf life
lifespan
expiration
expiry date
topic Lycopersicon esculentum Mill
storage
shelf life
lifespan
expiration
expiry date
description ABSTRACT This paper aims at evaluating the shelf life of mini tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) cultivar ‘Sweet Grape’, grown in hydroponics, and stored under environmental and refrigerated conditions inside different packages. We adopted a completely randomized design, in which treatments were combinations of storage conditions: environment (e) and refrigerated (r) with packaging: polyvinyl chloride film (PVC); low-density polyethylene (LDPE); biofilm of tomato fruit of Solanum lycocarpum A.St.-Hil (lobeira) (TFB); cassava starch biofilm (CSB); carnauba wax (Copernicia prunifera) (CW), and without packaging - control (C). Physicochemical and sensory tests were carried out at the beginning (day zero), and at 8, 19, and 33 days of storage (DS). Fruit stored inside PVCr, LDPEe, LDPEr, and CWr had an acceptable shelf life of 33 days. The use of cassava and tomato starches were not effective in controlling fruit fresh weight loss. ‘Sweet Grape’ tomato postharvest conservation was enhanced under refrigerated conditions. The sensory evaluation results revealed that CWr treatment most pleased appraisers, while PCV had the highest rejection rate.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69162015000601093
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-69162015000601093
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v35n6p1093-1104/2015
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Engenharia Agrícola v.35 n.6 2015
reponame:Engenharia Agrícola
instname:Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola (SBEA)
instacron:SBEA
instname_str Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola (SBEA)
instacron_str SBEA
institution SBEA
reponame_str Engenharia Agrícola
collection Engenharia Agrícola
repository.name.fl_str_mv Engenharia Agrícola - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola (SBEA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistasbea@sbea.org.br||sbea@sbea.org.br
_version_ 1752126272440369152