Next Article in Journal
The Complex Interrelationships of the Risk Factors Leading to Hamstring Injury and Implications for Injury Prevention: A Group Model Building Approach
Next Article in Special Issue
Trends and Opportunities in the Dairy Industry: A2 Milk and Processing Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Site-Specific Deterministic Temperature and Dew Point Forecasts with Explainable and Reliable Machine Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/app14146315
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Storage Conditions on Fruit Color, Firmness and Total Soluble Solids of Hydroponic Tomatoes Grown at Different Salinity Levels

by
Khalid A. Al-Gaadi
1,2,
Ahmed M. Zeyada
1,
ElKamil Tola
2,*,
Abdullah M. Alhamdan
1,3,
Khalid A. M. Ahmed
3,4,
Rangaswamy Madugundu
2 and
Mohamed K. Edrris
2
1
Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Precision Agriculture Research Chair, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
3
Chair of Dates Industry & Technology, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
4
Agricultural Research Centre, Agricultural Engineering Research Institute (AEnRI), Giza 12619, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(14), 6315; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146315
Submission received: 30 May 2024 / Revised: 12 July 2024 / Accepted: 17 July 2024 / Published: 19 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Innovations in Food Production, Packaging and Storage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tomatoes are delicate and prone to damage quickly, which ultimately leads to lower quality and increased post-harvest losses. Hence, an ideal storage environment is very important to maintain the quality of tomato fruits after harvest. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the effect of storage conditions on the quality parameters of tomato fruits. Experiments were de-signed for six storage periods (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 days) and two temperatures (12 °C and room air temperature “22 °C”). Three tomato fruit quality parameters (Brix, color, and firmness) have been selected and measured for three tomato varieties (Ghandowra-F1, Forester-F1, and Feisty-Red) grown hydroponically at three salinity levels (2.5, 6.0, and 9.5 dS m−1) of the nutrient solution. Results showed that the highest mean Brix values, for all varieties, were recorded at the highest salinity (9.5 dS m−1), and were significantly (Pr < 0.0001) higher than those at medium (6.0 dS m−1) and low (2.5 dS m−1) salinity levels. In addition, the highest fruit firmness was recorded at high salinity level (9.5 dS m−1), but there was no significant difference to that recorded at medium salinity (6.0 dS m−1). Regarding tomato fruit color, the highest average values were recorded for the Ghandowra-F1 (2.51) and Forester-F1 (2.69) varieties at medium salinity (6.0 dS m−1), while the highest average color value for the Feisty-Red variety (1.54) was obtained at high salinity (9.5 dS m−1). On the other hand, the Brix, color, and firmness of tomato fruits were significantly affected by the storage temperature. Moreover, the mean Brix values (7.66%) were slightly higher at 12 °C storage temperature compared to those at 22 °C (7.38%). In general, the fruit color values gradually increased with the storage period, especially under 22 °C storage temperature, with peak color values of 2.73, 2.70, and 1.66 recorded on the 12th day of the storage period for Ghandowra-F1, Forester-F1, and Feisty-Red, respectively. Tomato fruit firmness decreased faster with the storage period at 22 °C compared to the storage temperature of 12 °C. However, the highest average values of fruit firmness for Ghandowra-F1 (9.37 N cm−1) and Forester-F1 (9.41 N cm−1) recorded at control condition were not significantly different those recorded on the 8th day of storage at 12 °C storage temperature. By contrast, the highest average value of fruit firmness for Feisty-Red (8.85 N cm−1) recorded at control condition was not significant than that recorded on the 4th day of the storage period at 12 °C storage temperature (8.82 N cm−1). Overall, tomato fruits can be stored at 12 °C temperature for up to 20–24 days, without negative effects on fruit quality.

1. Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is one of the major fresh vegetables around the world [1]. Recently, the demand for tomatoes has increased with the increase in population, which may lead to insufficient production in the future [2]. Moreover, tomatoes are considered a valuable and healthy fruits, and their consumption is increasing due to the high demand for them. To address this problem, modern greenhouse technologies (such as hydroponic systems) are used, where ideal environmental conditions for plant growth can be maintained to obtain high productivity and quality.
The hydroponic system is one of the modern greenhouse methods and has become widely used for growing plants, where irrigation, nutrition, and environmental factors are controlled [3], as well as for controlling the salinity levels of irrigation water [4]. Tomatoes are among the essential vegetables produced in greenhouses in Saudi Arabia, and the area cultivated with tomatoes in greenhouses in 2021 was estimated at approximately 1260 hectares with an average productivity of 35–45 kg m−2 [5]. Hence, hydroponic systems have shown the best cultivation system compared to other greenhouse systems [6]. However, producing tomatoes under a hydroponic system enhances year-round supply by improving the quality of the harvested fruits [7]. Moreover, growing tomatoes under a hydroponic system can help the farmers to apply the precise water and nutrient requirements and optimize the plant growth for plant growth, yield, and quality [8]. Generally, production in either soil or in hydroponic system demands good quality of products [9].
Tomatoes, based on quality characteristics, are classified as a profitable product and source of income for most farmers [10]. Since tomatoes contain about 90% water, they are susceptible to damage quickly due to physical shocks, which leads to reduced quality after harvest [11]. Accordingly, many research studies have reported that maintaining the quality of tomato fruits after harvest is not an easy matter, and requires careful management [12]. Therefore, emphases have been placed on studying the quality tomato fruits by many researchers that can be estimated mainly through quality parameters including flavor, texture, color, and nutrient concentrations [13]. In addition, the quality parameters of tomato fruits can include the total soluble solids, pH, titratable acidity, and anthocyanin concentration [14]. Moreover, Godana et al. [15] reported that the total soluble solids concentration is considered as one of the indicators for the tasting quality and sugar content in fresh produce. In general, most consumers prefer fresh produce, the quality of which is graded based on appearance, taste, freshness, and firmness [16,17,18]. Moreover, many studies reported that size, color, aroma, firmness, and taste are the most important and strong factors for the quality of tomato fruits [19].
About 30% of the total global fresh food production is lost during the food transport chains until it reaches customers [20,21], while postharvest losses of tomato fruits may reach up to 50% [10]. These losses can be attributed to many factors, including unsuitable harvesting processes and equipment, inappropriate storage conditions, and inadequate packaging facilities [22], environmental factors [23], and improper transportation services [24]. In general, quality of agricultural products can be maintained after harvest by providing environmental control [25] and cold storage [26], where cold storage is the most common and widely used process to preserve the quality of agricultural products, especially tomatoes [27].
The environmental condition influences greatly during transition of production affecting the growth and quality of the tomato as well as after its harvest. Temperature is the main important factor in the storage process that affects the quality of tomatoes during post-harvest stage [28]. By contrast, high storage temperature damages the firmness and color of tomato fruits, while low storage temperature causes some damage, including reduced juice and softening of external shape [29]. Therefore, temperature control is an optimal way to maintain the quality of fresh products during the processes of supply chains [28]. Since temperature plays an important role in reducing fresh tomato production losses after harvest, cold storage has become one of the important post-harvest management practices, and it is widely used to maintain the quality of tomato fruits for a long time. In addition, the salinity level of irrigation water is another factor that can have a negative impact on the total yield and quality of tomato fruits [30], by decreasing fresh and dry fruit weights [31]. Storing tomato fruits at a temperature below 10 °C could negatively affect the external shape and color of tomato fruits; however, storage temperature of about 10 °C was considered the most appropriate to maintain the tomato quality [32].
In general, the capacity of storage depends on the post-harvest quality of the products and the storage conditions. Ullah [33] reported that the shelf life and quality standards of tomato fruits mainly depend on environmental conditions (i.e., the humidity and temperature). Tomato fruits are highly perishable, with a short shelf life when stored at ambient temperature. Islam et al. [34] found the longest shelf lives at 5 °C, 11 °C, and 24 °C were 21, 16, and 8 days, respectively.
Many studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of storage conditions on the fruits of tomatoes grown in greenhouses, but there is a lack of studies on the effect of storage conditions on tomato fruits produced under hydroponic systems. Therefore, the objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of storage conditions on the quality of tomato fruits produced hydroponically at different levels of water salinity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Setup

The experimental work was conducted in the hydroponic glasshouse facility of the Precision Agriculture Research Chair, King Saud University (Figure 1), located in the Educational Farm of the College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (46°37′10″ N, 24°44′12″ N). Three tomato varieties (Ghandowra-F1, Forester-F1, and Feisty-Red) were grown hydroponically in a glasshouse equipped with a semi-closed hydroponic system and MACQU (Geosmart, Athens, Greece) systems to control the indoor climate and irrigation and carry out treatments. The greenhouse is also equipped with sensors for relative humidity, temperature, and light intensity, the data of which are used to control the climate. The relative humidity of the glasshouse was maintained between 55% and 65%, while the temperature was maintained at 22 °C and 18 °C during the day and night, respectively.
Seedlings of the selected tomato varieties, after the formation of 3–4 leaves, were transplanted into perlite sacks on 4 December 2022, and the experimental work continued until the last harvest of tomato fruits on 28 March 2023. Three salinity levels of the nutrient solution were applied, namely with EC values of 2.5 dS m−1 (low salinity “S-1”), 6.0 dS m−1 (medium salinity “S-2”), and 9.5 dS m−1 (high salinity “S-3”), while the pH of the nutrient solution was maintained between 5.5 and 6.5.

2.2. Storage Conditions

Immediately after harvest, tomato fruits of each variety were stored under different storage conditions, and then compared with fresh tomato fruits (control condition). The storage treatments of tomato fruits were defined based on storage duration/period (days) and storage temperature (°C), where the storage treatments, shown in Table 1, consisted of six periods (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 days) and two temperatures, namely the room temperature (22 °C) with 40 ± 5% relative humidity and cold store temperature using laboratory refrigerators (12 °C) with 75 ± 5% relative humidity. However, tomatoes stored at room temperature (22 °C) were only examined during a period of 12 days, because deterioration and spoilage began after 12 days of storage.

2.3. Quality Parameters

Brix concentration, color, and firmness were measured at ambient temperature (22 °C), and used to evaluate the quality of tomato fruits at storage treatments [35,36], as follows:

2.3.1. Refractometric Index “Brix”

Preparation for measuring the total soluble solids (TSS) or the refractometric index (Brix) began by cutting fresh tomatoes, randomly selected from each treatment, into small slices and squeezing them using an electrical mixer for two minutes. Then, the juice was placed on a filter paper (Whatman No. 1), and the extracted solution was used to measure the TSS content using a portable digital refractometer calibrated (Model DR 6300-T, Ireland). Measurements were taken by reading the scale and the obtained readings were expressed as values of total soluble solids (% Brix).

2.3.2. Color

Tomato fruit color of the studied tomato varieties was measured using a calibrated Hunter Lab-scan XE colorimeter (Hunter Lab, Reston, VA, USA), which indicates the color value of L* (lightness), b* (yellowness), and a* (redness), following the methods described by Kuehni [37], which were used to calculate the total color difference “∆E” as shown in Equation (1) [38]. Then, the data of the total color difference were presented as numerical values.
∆ E = ( L 0 − L ) 2 + ( a 0 − a ) 2 + ( b 0 − b ) 2
where ΔE is the combination of the color change of all three color parameters (L, a, b), the subscript 0 indicates the initial color, and L, a, and b are the color parameters of tomato fruit. Moreover, L is lightness, a is the change color from green to red, and b is the change color from blue to yellow [39].

2.3.3. Firmness

Tomato fruit firmness values were measured, using a TA-HDi textural analyzer (Model: HD3128, Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, UK). The measurements were taken from three different points representing the entire surface of tomato fruits by penetrating the fruit with a stainless-steel cylindrical needle (1 mm in diameter) at a speed of 1 mm s−1 to a penetration depth of 10 mm. Tomato fruits were compressed, then the penetration force/penetration distance was calculated for each sample and expressed as fruit firmness (N cm−1).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

A split plot design analysis was performed for each tomato variety using the three different salinity levels (S-1, S-2, S-3) as main treatments and ten storage conditions (ST-0 to ST-9) as sub-treatments with three replicates. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure was used, and least significant difference (LSD) was calculated to establish the multiple comparisons of mean values at 5% probability and significance level (p < 0.05) within the Statistix 10 software. Then, the statical analysis results were used to compare the means of Brix, color, and firmness of tomato fruits and to determine if they are significantly different from one another. Regression analysis such as coefficient of variation (CV) and standard error (SE) was also performed.

3. Results and Discussion

The quality characteristics of tomato fruits for three varieties (Gandhowra-F1, Forester-F1, and Feisty-Red), grown at three salinity levels, were measured for ten storage treatments. The results of the statistical analysis showed that the studied quality characteristics (Brix, Color, and Firmness) were significantly affected by salinity levels and storage conditions.

3.1. Tomato Fruit Refractometric Index “Brix”

The total soluble solids—TSS (% Brix) of tomato fruits was significantly affected (Pr < 0.0001) by salinity levels and storage conditions, for all tomato varieties. Moreover, the mean values (% Brix) recorded at high salinity (S-3: 9.5 dS m−1) were significantly higher than those recorded at medium (S-2: 6 dS m−1) and low (S-1: 2.5 dS m−1) salinities, for all tomato varieties (Table 2). The results obtained in this study showed that increasing salt concentrations in irrigation water leads to an increase in the sugar and TSS contents in tomato fruits, and this is accordance with the study by Saito et al. [40]. Also, Krauss et al. [41] stated that higher salinity level leads to improved tomato fruit quality by increasing the TSS and sugar contents. Although no significant differences were recorded in the TSS values between the three tomato varieties, the highest mean value (% Brix) was recorded for the Gandhowra-F1 (7.79%), followed by the Forester-F1 (7.49%), and the least mean value was recorded for the Feisty-Red (7.36%).
On the other hand, the results showed statistically significant changes (Pr < 0.0001) in the TSS as a result of changes in the storage conditions compared to the control treatment (fresh fruits). Moreover, at storage temperature of 12 °C, the highest TSS value (8.19% Brix) was recorded for the Ghandowra-F1 variety on the 24th storage day, while the highest TSS values for Forester-F1 (7.83% Brix) and Feisty-Red (7.82% Brix) were recorded on the 16th storage day and at a temperature of 12 °C (cold storage).
In the case of storing tomato fruits at room temperature (22 °C), the highest TSS values were recorded for Ghandowra-F1 (7.84% Brix) and Feisty-Red (7.56% Brix) on the 12th storage day, while the highest TSS value for Forester-F1 (7.63% Brix) was recorded on the 8th storage day. These results were in line with the finding of Al-Dairi et al. [35], which showed an increase in the TSS during the storage periods. In general, a slight decrease in Brix content was noted at room temperature (22 °C) compared to cold storage temperature (12 °C). Overall, TSS content of the Ghandowra-F1 and Forester-F1 varieties increased by 6.4% and 4.2% after 24 days of storage, while it decreased slightly with the Feisty-Red variety. Tigist et al. [42] reported that the significant changes in the TSS of tomato fruits at different storage conditions may be attributed to the hydrolysis of carbohydrates to soluble sugars and the high water loss during storage periods.
Figure 2 shows the TSS results for tomato fruits for different combinations of salinity levels (S-1, S-2, and S-3) and storage treatments (ST-0 to ST-9) for all varieties. The highest mean TSS value (9.12% Brix) was recorded for Ghandowra-F1 for the combination S-3/ST-8, with no significant difference from TSS (8.80% Brix) recorded for the combination S-2/ST-9, while for Forester-F1, the highest mean TSS value (8.49% Brix) was associated with the combination S-2/ST-7, with no significant difference from the TSS value (8.39% Brix) obtained with the combination S-2/ST-8. However, for Feisty-Red, the highest mean TSS value (8.66% Brix) was associated with the combination of S-3/ST-7, with no significant differences from both TSS values (8.30% Brix) and (8.19% Brix) obtained for the combinations of S-3/ST-3 and S-2/ST-3. These results indicated that the hydroponically produced tomato fruits could be stored at 12 °C for a period of 20–24 days without sacrificing their fresh quality at harvest. Moreover, the best tomato fruit quality was associated with tomato plants irrigated with a nutrient solution of medium salinity level (6.0 dS m−1). Similar results were reported by Saito et al. [40] that, despite the higher salt levels, decreased tomato fruit yield led to an increase in sugar concentrations in tomato fruits, which is reflected in a good taste quality for customers.

3.2. Tomato Fruit Color

The effect of salinity levels on color difference values was statistically significant the for the Ghandowra-F1 variety (Pr < 0.0118), highly significant for the Forester-F1 variety (Pr < 0.00001), and not significant for the Feisty-Red variety (Pr < 0.1844). Moreover, the mean values of color change for the Ghandowra-F1and Forester-F1 varieties recorded at medium salinity (S-2: 6.0 dS m−1) were significantly higher than those recorded at low (S-1: 2.5 dS m−1) and high (S-3: 9.5 dS m−1) salinities (Table 3). However, no significant differences were observed on the color change between salinity levels for the Feisty-Red variety.
On the other hand, the color values of all tomato varieties were significantly (Pr < 0.0001) affected by storage conditions compared to the control treatment (fresh fruits), as shown in Table 4. However, the color difference values of all varieties showed an increasing trend starting from the initial storage (the control treatment) and reached the highest values on the 12th storage day at 22 °C, then the decline in color difference values began and continued until the last storage day (day 24 at 12 °C). This was attributed to the fact that the color index is sensitive and rapidly changing during storage periods [43]. However, storing tomato fruits at cold temperatures may lead to a decrease in lycopene content, which is responsible for the degree of color, during storage stages [44]. Hence, the increase in color indices indicates the development of a dark red color because of the accumulation of lycopene, which is associated with the endomembrane system [45]. In contrast, high storage temperature increases lycopene content and accumulation [27,46]. In general, Turk et al. [47] reported that the appropriate temperature to optimize the lycopene content of tomato ranges between 18 °C and 26 °C. The TSS and color difference values were increased at 16 and 18 days after storage. This was attributed to the fact that the high content of sugar in the maturity stage might lead to browning the color of tomato fruits [39].
Figure 3 shows the color results of tomato fruits for different combinations of salinity levels (S-1, S-2, and S-3) and storage treatments (ST-0 to ST-9) for all varieties. The highest mean value of color difference (3.05) was recorded for Ghandowra-F1 for the combination of S-2/ST-6, with no significant difference from that (3.00) recorded for the combination of S-2/ST-9, while for Forester-F1, the highest mean color value (3.26) was associated with the combination S-1/ST-6, with no significant difference from both color values (3.18) and (3.13) obtained with the combinations S-2/ST-6 and S-2/ST-9, respectively. However, for Feisty-Red, the highest mean color value (1.86) was associated with the combination of S-3/ST-6, with no significant differences from that (1.84) obtained for the combinations of S-3/ST-9.

3.3. Tomato Fruit Firmness

Table 5 shows the significant differences between salinity levels and storage conditions on tomato fruit firmness for all varieties. On average, the highest values of firmness of tomato fruits for all varieties were recorded for fruits produced at high salinity (S-3: 9.5 dS m−1), with significant differences from the lowest values recorded for fruits produced at low salinity (S-1: 2.5 dS m−1). However high salinity significantly improved the firmness of harvested tomato fruits. On the other hand, no significant differences were observed between the firmness values of fruits produced at high salinity (S-3: 9.5 dS m−1) and medium salinity (salinity-2: 6.0 dS m−1) for the Ghandowra-F1 and Forester- F1 varieties. Referring to the firmness of tomato fruits for the studied varieties, the highest value was recorded for Forester-F1 (8.46 N cm−1), followed by Ghandowra-F1 (8.36 N cm−1) and Feisty-Red (7.77 N cm−1).
Table 6 summarizes the interaction effect of the storage period and temperature on the firmness of tomato fruits. The highest mean firmness of tomato fruits was recorded in the control treatment (fresh fruits), then it decreased significantly with the length of storage periods. On the other hand, it was observed that the firmness decreased significantly at a storage temperature of 22 °C compared to 12 °C, at the same storage period. Similar findings were also obtained by Tigist et al. [42], where storage at a temperature near to 22 °C decreased tomato firmness during storage as a result of moisture content loss [15]. This result also was consistent with the findings of Kim et al. [48] that tomato fruit firmness did not change during storage at around 10 °C, but it decreased significantly when stored at temperatures greater than 20 °C. These results indicated that high storage temperatures might deteriorate the firmness of tomato fruits [27]. In contrast, Choi et al. [29] reported that low storage temperature results in less juiciness, which in turn leads to softer tomato fruit. Accordingly, tomato fruits of Ghandowra-F1 and Forester-F1 varieties could be successfully stored for up to 8 days at 12 °C, while the tomato fruits of the Feisty-Red variety could be stored successfully for up to 4 days at 12 °C. These results are in line with the findings of Jung et al. [27] that a low storage temperature of about 10 °C is suitable for maintaining the firmness of tomato fruits, where softening of tomato fruits completed at around the 7th day of storage. In general, as storage duration increased, the fruit hardness levels were significantly decreased.
Figure 4 shows the results of firmness values for tomato fruits as affected by different combinations of salinity levels (S-1, S-2, and S-3) and storage treatments (ST-0 to ST-9). The highest mean firmness values (9.76 N cm−1) and (9.05 N cm−1) were recorded for Ghandowra-F1 and Feisty-Red for the combination S-3/ST-0, with no significant difference from the firmness values (9.75 N cm−1) and (9.03 N cm−1) recorded for the combination S-3/ST-3. Moreover, no significant differences in the firmness values of tomato fruits for the Ghandowra-F1 variety were obtained between the combinations of S-3/ST-0 (9.76 N cm−1) and S-2/ST-3 (9.53 N cm−1), while for Forester-F1, the highest mean firmness value (9.72 N cm−1) was associated with the combination of S-2/ST-0, with no significant differences from the firmness value (9.66 N cm−1) obtained for the combination of S-2/ST-3. Based on the firmness values, tomato fruits of both the Ghandowra-F1 and Forster-F1 varieties, grown at salinity-3: (9.5 dS m−1), could be stored for up to 8 days at 12 °C, at salinity-2: (6.0 dS m−1), while the Feisty-Red variety could be stored up to the 8th day of storage and temperature of 12°.

4. Conclusions

This study aimed to investigate the influence of storage conditions on the quality parameters (TSS, color, and firmness) of hydroponically grown tomato fruits (varieties Ghandowra-F1, Forester-F1, and Feisty-Red) subjected to varying salinity levels (2.5, 6.0, and 9.5 dS m−1) in the nutrient solution. Postharvest, tomatoes were stored under controlled conditions: refrigerated at 12 °C (75 ± 5% RH) for periods of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 days, while room temperature storage (22 °C, 40 ± 5% RH) was limited to 12 days due to observed spoilage. Key findings indicate that salinity levels significantly influenced the quality attributes of the tomatoes, with the highest TSS and firmness values observed at 9.5 dS m−1 and optimal color retention at 6.0 dS m−1. Furthermore, storage conditions exhibited significant impacts (p < 0.0001) on TSS, color, and firmness, with lower temperatures (12 °C) preserving higher TSS and firmness compared to higher temperatures (22 °C). Varietal differences were also evident, with Ghandowra-F1 demonstrating the highest TSS and firmness values, and Forester-F1 exhibiting the highest color intensity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A.A.-G., A.M.Z. and E.T.; Data curation, A.M.Z., E.T. and K.A.M.A.; Formal analysis, A.M.Z., E.T., K.A.M.A. and A.M.A.; Investigation, K.A.A.-G., R.M. and M.K.E.; Methodology, A.M.Z., E.T., K.A.M.A. and M.K.E.; Resources, A.M.Z. and E.T.; Supervision, K.A.A.-G., E.T., A.M.A. and R.M.; Writing-original draft, A.M.Z.; Writing-review and editing, K.A.A.-G. and E.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, for funding this study through the Vice Deanship of Scientific Research Chairs.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Roccotiello, E.; Nicosia, E.; Pierdona, L.; Marescotti, P.; Ciardiello, M.A.; Giangrieco, I.; Mari, A.; Zennaro, D.; Dozza, D.; Brancucci, M.; et al. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) accumulation and allergenicity in response to nickel stress. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hernández-Pérez, O.I.; Valdez-Aguilar, L.A.; Alia-Tejacal, I.; Cartmill, A.D.; Cartmill, D.L. Tomato fruit yield, quality, and nutrient status in response to potassium: Calcium balance and electrical conductivity in the nutrient solution. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Torres Mendonça, A.J.; Silva, A.A.R.d.; Lima, G.S.d.; Soares, L.A.d.A.; Nunes Oliveira, V.K.; Gheyi, H.R.; Lacerda, C.F.d.; Azevedo, C.A.V.d.; Lima, V.L.A.d.; Fernandes, P.D. Salicylic Acid Modulates Okra Tolerance to Salt Stress in Hydroponic System. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. da Silva, A.A.R.; Sousa, P.F.d.N.; de Lima, G.S.; Soares, L.A.d.A.; Gheyi, H.R.; Azevedo, C.A.V. Hydrogen peroxide reduces the effect of salt stress on growth and postharvest quality of hydroponic mini watermelon. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 233, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Statistical Report, Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Available online: https://www.mewa.gov.sa/ar/InformationCenter/DocsCenter/YearlyReport/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 31 December 2021).
  6. Jones, J.B. Hydroponics: A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 3167–6423. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wilson, L.J.R.; Salas, R.A. Productivity and Quality of Aquaponically Grown Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Supplemented with Different Nutrient Solutions. Sci. Humanit. J. 2017, 11, 64–98. [Google Scholar]
  8. Niederwieser, J.G. Guide to Hydroponic Vegetable Production, 2nd ed.; Agricultural Research Council, Roodepoort Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute: Pretoria, South Africa, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gruda, N.S. Does soilless culture have an influence on product quality of vegetables? J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2009, 82, 141–147. [Google Scholar]
  10. Addo, J.; Osei, M.; Mochiah, M.; Bonsu, K.; Choi, H.; Kim, J. Assessment of farmer level postharvest losses along the tomato value Chain in three agro-ecological zones of Ghana. Int. J. 2015, 2, 2311–2476. [Google Scholar]
  11. Umeohia, U.E.; Olapade, A.A. Quality Attributes, Physiology, and Postharvest Technologies of Tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum)—A Review. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 12, 42–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bae, T.M.; Seo, J.S.; Kim, J.G.; Kim, D.K.; Chun, J.P.; Hwang, Y.S. Effect of preharvest application of chitosan on the growth and quality of peach fruit (Prunus persica L.). Korean J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 45, 601–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kader, A.; Rolle, R. The Role of Post-Harvest Management in Assuring the Quality and Safety of Horticultural Produce; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2004; Volume 152. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kemps, B.; Leon, L.; Best, S.; De Baerdemaeker, J.; De Ketelaere, B. Assessment of the quality parameters in grapes using VIS/NIR spectroscopy. Biosyst. Eng. 2010, 105, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Godana, E.A.; Satheesh, N.; Taye, A.H. Effect of storage methods and ripening stages on postharvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicom esculentum Mill) cv. Chali. Annals. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 1, 127–137. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lubes, G.; Goodarzi, M. Analysis of Volatile Compounds by Advanced Analytical Techniques and Multivariate Chemometrics. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 6399–6422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Xu, D.; Zuo, J.; Li, P.; Yan, Z.; Gao, L.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, A. Effect of methyl jasmonate on the quality of harvested broccoli after simulated transport. Food Chem. 2020, 319, 126561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Al-Dairi, M.; Pathare, P.B.; Al-Yahyai, R. Chemical and nutritional quality changes of tomato during postharvest transportation and storage. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2021, 20, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zoran, I.S.; Nikolaos, K.; Ljubomir, S. Tomato fruit quality from organic and conventional production. In Organic Agriculture Towards Sustainability; Pilipavicius, V., Ed.; Chapter 7; INTECH: London, UK, 2014; pp. 147–169. [Google Scholar]
  20. Munhuewyi, K. Postharvest Losses and Changes in Quality of Vegetables from Retail to Consumer: A Case Study of Tomato, Cabbage and Carrot. Master’s Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. Available online: https://scholar.sun.ac.za/items/0ced2d05-d80f-4110-b948-d57f780968b1 (accessed on 31 December 2021).
  21. Gautam, S.; Acedo, A.; Schreinemachers, P.; Subedi, B. Volume and value of postharvest losses: The case of tomatoes in Nepal. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 2547–2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chebanga, F.; Mukumbi, K.; Moses, M.; Mtaita, T. Postharvest losses to agricultural product traders in Mutare, Zimbabwe. J. Sci. Agric. 2018, 2, 26–38. [Google Scholar]
  23. Singh, V.; Hedayetullah, M.; Zaman, P.; Meher, J. Postharvest technology of fruits and vegetables: An overview. J. Postharvest Technol. 2014, 2, 124–135. [Google Scholar]
  24. Caixeta-Filho, J.; Pera, T. Post-harvest losses during the transportation of grains from farms to aggregation points. Int. J. Logist. Econ. Glob. 2018, 7, 209–247. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kwon, J.K.; Kim, S.H.; Jeon, J.G.; Kang, Y.K.; Jang, K.Y. Development of environmental control system for high-quality shiitake mushroom (Lentinus edodes (Berk.) Sing.) Production. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2018, 43, 342–351. [Google Scholar]
  26. Alsailawi, H.A.; Mudhafar, M.; Abdulrasool, M.M. Effect of Frozen Storage on the Quality of Frozen Foods-A Review. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 2020, 14, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jung, J.; Shim, J.; Chung, S.; Hwang, Y.; Lee, W.; Lee, H. Changes in quality parameters of tomatoes during storage: A review. Korean J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 46, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Arah, I.K.; Kumah, E.K.; Anku, E.K.; Amaglo, H. An overview of post-harvest losses in tomato production in Africa: Causes and possible prevention strategies. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2015, 5, 78–88. [Google Scholar]
  29. Choi, J.H.; Jeong, M.C.; Kim, D.M. Changes in quality parameters of tomatoes harvested at different mature stages during storage. Korean J. Food Preserv. 2013, 20, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, P.; Dai, Y.D.; Masateru, S.; Natsumi, M.; Kengo, I. Interactions of salinity stress and flower thinning on tomato growth, yield, and water use efficiency. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 2601–2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chaichi, M.R.; Keshavarz-Afshar, R.; Lu, B.; Rostamza, M. Growth and nutrient uptake of tomato in response to application of saline water, biological fertilizer, and surfactant. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khairi, A.; Falah, M.A.F.; Suyantohadi, A.; Takahashi, N.; Nishina, H. Effect of Storage Temperatures on Color of Tomato Fruit (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) Cultivated under Moderate Water Stress Treatment. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 3, 178–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ullah, J. Storage of Fresh Tomatoes to Determine the Level of (cacl2) Coating and Optimum Temperature for Extended Shelf Life. A Post Doctoral Fellowship Report, Asian Institute of Technology Bangkok, Thailand. 2009. Available online: https://www.coursehero.com/file/22474283/Storage-of-fresh-tomatoes-to-dertermine-the-level-of-Cacl2-coating-and-optimum-temperature-for-ext/ (accessed on 31 December 2021).
  34. Islam, M.Z.; Mele, M.A.; Choi, K.; Kang, H. Nutrient and salinity concentrations effects on quality and storability of cherry tomato fruits grown by hydroponic system. Post Harvest Technol. 2017, 77, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Al-Dairi, M.; Pathare, P.B.; Al-Mahdouri, A. Effect of storage conditions on postharvest quality of tomatoes: A case study at market-level. J. Agric. Mar. Sci. 2021, 26, 13–20. [Google Scholar]
  36. Karabulut, O.A.; Smilanick, J.L.; Crisosto, C.H.; Palou, L. Control of brown rot of stone fruits by brief heated water immersion treatments. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 903–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuehni, R.G. Color-tolerance data and the tentative CIE 1976 L*a*b* formula. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 1976, 66, 497–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bal, L.M.; Kar, A.; Satya, S.; Naik, S.N. Kinetics of colour change of bamboo shoot slices during microwave drying. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 827–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. García-Moreira, D.P.; Hernández-Guzmán, H.; Pacheco, N.; Cuevas-Bernardino, J.C.; Herrera-Pool, E.; Moreno, I.; López-Vidaña, E.C. Solar and Convective Drying: Modeling, Color, Texture, Total Phenolic Content, and Antioxidant Activity of Peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) Slices. Processes 2023, 11, 1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Saito, T.; Fukuda, N.; Nishimura, S. Effects of salinity treatment duration and planting density on size and sugar content of hydroponically grown tomato fruits. J. Jpn. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2006, 75, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Krauss, S.; Schnitzler, W.H.; Grassmann, J.; Woitke, M. The influence of different electrical conductivity values in a simplified recirculating soilless system on inner and outer fruit quality characteristics of tomato. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 441–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tigist, M.; Workneh, T.S.; Woldetsadik, K. Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Messina, V.; Dominguez, P.G.; Sancho, A.M.; de Reca, N.W.; Carrari, F.; Grigioni, G. Tomato quality during short-term storage assessed by colour and electronic nose. Int. J. Electrochem. 2012, 2012, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Javanmardi, J.; Kubota, C. Variation of Lycopene, Antioxidant Activity, Total Soluble Solids and Weight Loss of Tomato During Postharvest Storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006, 41, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tadesse, T.N.; Ibrahim, A.M.; Abtew, W.G. Degradation and formation of fruit color in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in response to storage temperature. Am. J. Food Technol. 2015, 10, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cherono, K.; Sibomana, M.S.; Workneh, T.S. Effect of infield handling conditions and time to pre-cooling on the shelf-life and quality of tomatoes. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2018, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Turk, R.; Seniz, V.; Ozdemir, N.; Suzen, M.A. Changes in The Chlorophyll Carotenoid and Lycopene Contents of Tomatoes in Relation to Temperature. Int. Soc. Hortic. Sci. Acta Hortic. 1994, 368, 856–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, M.; Moon, Y.E.; Han, S.G.; Yun, S.K.; Joa, J.H.; Park, J.S. Impact of Cold Stress on Physiological Responses and Fruit Quality of Shiranuhi Mandarin in Response to Cold Conditions. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 06315 g001
Figure 1. (A) The hydroponic glasshouse, (B) the control Unit, (C) the steel troughs (plant lines) including perlite sacks and plants as well as the irrigation system.
Figure 1. (A) The hydroponic glasshouse, (B) the control Unit, (C) the steel troughs (plant lines) including perlite sacks and plants as well as the irrigation system.
Applsci 14 06315 g001
Applsci 14 06315 g002
Figure 2. Effect of the interaction between salinity levels and storage conditions on the TSS of tomato fruits for all varieties: (A) Ghandowra−F1; (B) Forester−F1; and (C) Feisty−Red. Columns with different letters showed significant differences (LSD0.05).
Figure 2. Effect of the interaction between salinity levels and storage conditions on the TSS of tomato fruits for all varieties: (A) Ghandowra−F1; (B) Forester−F1; and (C) Feisty−Red. Columns with different letters showed significant differences (LSD0.05).
Applsci 14 06315 g002
Applsci 14 06315 g003
Figure 3. Effect of the interaction between salinity levels and storage conditions on color values of tomato fruits for all varieties: (A) Ghandowra−F1; (B) Forester−F1; (C) Feisty−Red. Columns with different letters showed significant differences (LSD0.05).
Figure 3. Effect of the interaction between salinity levels and storage conditions on color values of tomato fruits for all varieties: (A) Ghandowra−F1; (B) Forester−F1; (C) Feisty−Red. Columns with different letters showed significant differences (LSD0.05).
Applsci 14 06315 g003
Applsci 14 06315 g004
Figure 4. Effect of the interaction between salinity levels and storage conditions on the firmness values of tomato fruits for all varieties: (A) Ghandowra−F1; (B) Forester−F1; (C) Feisty−Red. Columns with different letters showed significant differences (LSD0.05).
Figure 4. Effect of the interaction between salinity levels and storage conditions on the firmness values of tomato fruits for all varieties: (A) Ghandowra−F1; (B) Forester−F1; (C) Feisty−Red. Columns with different letters showed significant differences (LSD0.05).
Applsci 14 06315 g004
Table 1. Storage conditions of tomato varieties.
Table 1. Storage conditions of tomato varieties.
Storage Treatment: ST (Day—Temperature)Abbreviations
ST-0 (Day 1—22 °C)—the control: fresh tomato fruitsST0-22
ST-1 (Day 4—12 °C)ST4-12
ST-2 (Day 4—22 °C)ST4-22
ST-3 (Day 8—12 °C)ST8-12
ST-4 (Day 8—22 °C)ST 8-22
ST-5 (Day 12—12 °C)ST12-12
ST-6 (Day 12—22 °C)ST12-22
ST-7 (Day 16—12 °C)ST16-12
ST-8 (Day 20—12 °C)ST20-12
ST-9 (Day 24—12 °C)ST24-12
Table 2. The effect of salinity levels on the TSS (% Brix) for the three tomato varieties.
Table 2. The effect of salinity levels on the TSS (% Brix) for the three tomato varieties.
Tomato VarietiesSalinity Levels
S-1 (2.5 dS m−1)S-2 (6.0 dS m−1)S-3 (9.5 dS m−1)
Ghandowra-F17.25 c,*7.87 b8.24 a
Forester- F16.91 c7.68 b7.89 a
Feisty-Red6.94 c7.35 b7.80 a
* Means with different letters indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level (LSD0.05).
Table 3. The effect of salinity levels on the color values for the three tomato varieties.
Table 3. The effect of salinity levels on the color values for the three tomato varieties.
Tomato VarietiesSalinity Levels
S-1 (2.5 dS m−1)S-2 (6.0 dS m−1)S-3 (9.5 dS m−1)
Ghandowra-F11.92 b,*2.51 a2.31 a
Forester- F12.62 a2.69 a 1.36 c
Feisty-Red1.27 a1.42 a1.54 a
* Means with different letters indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level (LSD0.05).
Table 4. The effect of storage conditions on the color difference values for the three tomato varieties.
Table 4. The effect of storage conditions on the color difference values for the three tomato varieties.
Storage TreatmentTomato Varieties
AbbreviationDay-°CGhandowra-F1Forester-F1Feisty-Red
ST-0(0–22; Control)1.72 h,*1.70 h1.05 g
ST-1(4–12)1.72 h1.70 h1.14 f
ST-2(4–22)1.89 g1.88 g1.15 f
ST-3(8–12)2.05 f2.03 f1.25 e
ST-4(8–22)2.25 e2.23 e1.37 d
ST-5(12–12)2.46 c2.44 c1.50 bc
ST-6(12–22)2.73 a2.70 a1.66 a
ST-7(16–12)2.50 a2.48 b1.52 b
ST-8(20–12)2.43 d2.41 d1.48 c
ST-9(24–12)2.70 a2.67 a1.63 a
LSD0.050.030.030.05
Pr > F0.00010.00010.0001
CV2.092.265.65
SE0.020.020.03
* Means with different letters indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level (LSD0.05).
Table 5. The effect of salinity levels on the fruit firmness (N cm−1) for the three tomato varieties.
Table 5. The effect of salinity levels on the fruit firmness (N cm−1) for the three tomato varieties.
Tomato VarietiesSalinity Levels (dS m−1)
S-1 (2.5)S-2 (6)S-3 (9.5)
Ghandowra-F17.87 b,*8.52 a8.71 a
Forester- F17.94 b8.59 a8.68 a
Feisty-Red7.32 c7.91 b8.08 a
* Means with different letters indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level (LSD0.05).
Table 6. The effect of storage conditions on the firmness values (N cm−1) for the three tomato varieties.
Table 6. The effect of storage conditions on the firmness values (N cm−1) for the three tomato varieties.
Storage TreatmentTomato Varieties
AbbreviationDay-°CGhandowra-F1Forester-F1Feisty-Red
ST-0(0–22; Control)9.37 a,*9.41 a8.85 a
ST-1(4–12)9.37 a9.41 a8.82 a
ST-2(4–22)9.34 b9.22 b8.61 b
ST-3(8–12)9.36 ab9.40 a8.60 b
ST-4(8–22)8.45 c8.48 c7.81 c
ST-5(12–12)7.84 d7.88 d7.25 d
ST-6(12–22)7.69 f7.72 f7.11 f
ST-7(16–12)7.77 e7.80 e7.18 e
ST-8(20–12)7.56 g7.60 g6.99 g
ST-9(24–12)7.04 h7.07 h6.51 h
LSD0.050.020.030.01
Pr > F0.00010.00010.0001
CV0.420.251.18
SE0.010.020.03
* Means with different letters indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level (LSD0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al-Gaadi, K.A.; Zeyada, A.M.; Tola, E.; Alhamdan, A.M.; Ahmed, K.A.M.; Madugundu, R.; Edrris, M.K. Impact of Storage Conditions on Fruit Color, Firmness and Total Soluble Solids of Hydroponic Tomatoes Grown at Different Salinity Levels. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6315. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146315

AMA Style

Al-Gaadi KA, Zeyada AM, Tola E, Alhamdan AM, Ahmed KAM, Madugundu R, Edrris MK. Impact of Storage Conditions on Fruit Color, Firmness and Total Soluble Solids of Hydroponic Tomatoes Grown at Different Salinity Levels. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(14):6315. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146315

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Gaadi, Khalid A., Ahmed M. Zeyada, ElKamil Tola, Abdullah M. Alhamdan, Khalid A. M. Ahmed, Rangaswamy Madugundu, and Mohamed K. Edrris. 2024. "Impact of Storage Conditions on Fruit Color, Firmness and Total Soluble Solids of Hydroponic Tomatoes Grown at Different Salinity Levels" Applied Sciences 14, no. 14: 6315. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146315

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop