‘Sweet grape’ tomato post harvest packaging
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
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 |