Food and Bioprocess Technology

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 754–761 | Cite as

Active Packaging of Cardboard to Extend the Shelf Life of Tomatoes

  • I. García-García
  • A. Taboada-Rodríguez
  • A. López-Gomez
  • F. Marín-Iniesta
Original Paper


In order to extend the shelf life of fresh tomatoes using biodegradable materials, an active microcorrugated cardboard tray package was tested for use with fresh Cherry tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum var. cerasiforme). Active packaging characteristics were achieved by coating the interior surface of the cardboard tray with polylactic acid (PLA; 3% w/v) and, after filling with tomatoes, the tray was wrapped with a low-density polyethylene (LDPE) film of 70 or 20 μm thickness and hermetically heat sealed. Uncoated trays were used as control. The trays of tomatoes were stored at 20 ± 0.5 °C and 55 ± 2% relative humidity, for 30 days, and the ethylene concentration in the package atmosphere was measured periodically as an indicator of ripeness. The following fruit quality parameters were also studied: weight loss, surface colour, microbial count, firmness, soluble solids and pH. It was demonstrated that the capacity of PLA to adsorb ethylene and water vapour and the thickness of the LDPE film were decisive for controlling the ethylene concentration of the package atmosphere and for preventing condensation of water vapour on the fruit and film. The active packaging configuration and storage conditions used preserved fruit quality for a month, thus extending the useful life of the tomatoes and saving refrigeration costs.


Cardboard Active packaging Tomato shelf life PLA LDPE 


  1. Artés, F., García, F., Marquina, J., Cano, A., & Fernández-Trujillo, J. P. (1998). Physiological responses of tomato fruit to cyclic intermittent temperature regimes. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 14(3), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Artés, F., & Gómez, P. (2003). Packaging and colour control: the case of fruit and vegetables. In R. Avenhainen (Ed.), Novel food packaging techniques (pp. 416–438). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.Google Scholar
  3. Bailen, G., Guillen, F., Castillo, S., Serrano, M., Valero, D., & Martínez-Romero, D. (2006). Use of activated carbon inside modified atmosphere packages to maintain tomato fruit quality during cold storage. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54, 2229–2235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caleb, O. J., Opar, U. L., & Witthuhn, C. R. (2011). Modified atmosphere packaging of pomegranate and arils: a review. Food and Bioprocess Technology. doi:10.1007/s11947-011-0525-7.
  5. Cameron, A. C., & Yang, S. F. (1982). A simple method for determination of resistance to gas diffusion in plant organs. Plant Physiology, 70, 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gontard, N., & Guillaume, C. (2010). Packaging and the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. In G. L. Robertson (Ed.), Food packaging and shelf life: a practical guide (pp. 297–315). London: CRC.Google Scholar
  7. Jagadeesh, S. L., Charles, M. T., Gariepy, Y., Goyette, B., Raghavan, G. S. V., & Vigneault, C. (2010). Influence of postharvest UV-C hormesis on the bioactive components of tomato during post-treatment handling. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 4, 1463–1472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Javanmardia, J., & Kubota, C. (2006). Variation of lycopene, antioxidant activity, total soluble solids and weight loss of tomato during postharvest storage. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 41(2), 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee, D. S., & Renault, P. (1998). Using pinholes as tools to attain optimum modified atmospheres in packages of fresh produce. Packaging Technology and Science, 11, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Martínez-Romero, D., Guillén, F., Castillo, S., Zapata, P. J., Valero, D., & Serrano, M. (2009). Effect of concentration on quality parameters of fresh tomatoes using a carbon-heat hybrid ethylene scrubber. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51, 206–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. OECD. (2009). Guidance on objective tests to determine quality of fruits and vegetables fresh and dry and dried produce.
  12. Oliveira, N. S., Gonzalves, C. M., Coutinho, J. A. P., Ferreira, A., Dorgan, J., & Marrucho, I. M. (2006). Carbon dioxide, ethylene and water vapor sorption in polylactic acid. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 250(1–2), 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rennie, T. J., & Tavoularis, S. (2009). Perforation-mediated modified atmosphere packaging part I. Development of a mathematical model. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rhim, J. W., & Kim, J. H. (2009). Properties of poly(lactide)-coated paperboard for the use of 1-way paper cup. Journal of Food Science, 74(2), 105–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rhim, J. W., Lee, J. H., & Hong, S. I. (2007). Increase in water resistance of paperboard by coating with poly(lactide). Packaging Technology and Science, 20, 392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Robertson, G.L. (2006). Food packaging: principles and practice, 2nd ed. Taylor & Francis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Rodríguez-Lafuente, A., Lerin, C., & Batlle, R. (2010). Active paraffin-based paper packaging for extending the shelf life of cherry tomatoes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 6780–6786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sammi, S., & Masud, T. (2009). Effect of different packaging systems on the quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum var. Rio Grande) fruits during storage. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 44, 918–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sandhya, A. (2010). Modified atmosphere packaging of fresh produce: current status and future needs. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 43, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Serrano, M., Martínez-Romero, D., Castillo, S., Guillén, F., & Valero, D. (2005). The use of natural antifungal compounds improves the beneficial effect of MAP in sweet cherry storage. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 6(1), 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siripatrawan, U., & Assatarakul, K. (2009). Methyl jasmonate coupled with modified atmosphere packaging to extend shelf life of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) during cold storage. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 44(5), 1065–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, J. P., Ramaswamy, H. S., Ranganna, B., & Raghavan, G. S. V. (2003). Packaging of fruits and vegetables. In H. S. Ramaswamy, A. S. Mujumdar, G. S. V. Raghavan, & A. Chakraverty (Eds.), Handbook of postharvest technology (pp. 539–553). NewYork: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  23. Srinivasa, P. C., Harish Prashanth, K. V., Susheelamma, N. S., Ravi, R., & Tharanathan, R. N. (2006). Storage studies of tomato and bell pepper using eco-friendly films. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86, 1216–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taechutrakul, S., Netpradit, S., & Tanprasert, K. (2009). Development of recycled paper-based ethylene scavenging packages for tomatoes. Acta Horticurae (ISHS), 837, 365–370.Google Scholar
  25. Wills, R. B. H., & Warton, M. A. (2000). A new rating scale for ethylene action on postharvest fruit and vegetables. In F. Artés, M. I. Gil, & M. A. Conesa (Eds.), Improving postharvest technologies of fruits, vegetables and ornamentals (pp. 43–47). Murcia, Spain: Institute International of Refrigeration.Google Scholar
  26. Zagory, D. (1995). Ethylene-removing packaging. In M. L. Ronney (Ed.), Active food packaging (pp. 38–54). London: Blackie Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. García-García
    • 1
  • A. Taboada-Rodríguez
    • 1
  • A. López-Gomez
    • 2
  • F. Marín-Iniesta
    • 1
  1. 1.Food Technology, Nutrition and Bromatology Department, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of MurciaMurciaSpain
  2. 2.Food Engineering and Agricultural Equipment DepartmentTechnical University of CartagenaCartagenaSpain

Personalised recommendations