Horticulture, Environment, and Biotechnology

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 215–223 | Cite as

Effect of cultivar and growing medium on the fruit quality attributes and antioxidant properties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

  • Shimeles Tilahun
  • Mu Hong Seo
  • Do Su Park
  • Cheon Soon Jeong
Research Report Postharvest Technology


The objective of this research was to identify the growing medium that yielded the highest nutritional quality and longest marketable shelf life in tomato fruits. ‘TY Megaton’ and ‘Yureka’ cultivars were grown on soil and coir pith in the same climate-controlled glasshouse using a standard nutrient solution and the recommended cultivation practices. Fruits were harvested at the pink stage of ripening and stored at 12 °C in 85 ± 5% relative humidity for 20 days. The fruits of both cultivars grown on either growing medium were of acceptable quality for sale after 3 weeks of storage. The contents of the most important secondary metabolites of tomato responsible for providing their antioxidant activity (ascorbic acid, lycopene, and polyphenols) were not significantly affected by the choice of growing medium; however, significant differences were observed between the cultivars throughout the storage period. The results of this study demonstrated that the choice of cultivar is more important for fruit quality than the growing medium. The lycopene content and antioxidant activity of the fruits suggest that it is possible to achieve optimum nutrition from the pink-stage fruit of both cultivars after 12 days of storage, irrespective of the growing medium used.


Antioxidant activity Ascorbic acid Coir pith Growing media Lycopene Phenolics 



This research was supported by the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (IPET) through the Agri-Bioindustry Technology Development Program, funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (314086-3), and supported by the Brain Korea 21 plus program of the Department of Horticulture, Kangwon National University.


  1. Abad M, Noguera P, Puchades R, Maquieira A, Noguera V (2002) Physico-chemical and chemical properties of some coconut coir dusts for use as a peat substitute for containerized ornamental plants. Bioresour Technol 82:241–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arias R, Lee TC, Logendra L, Janes H (2000) Correlation of lycopene measured by HPLC with the L*, a*, b* color readings of a hydroponic tomato and the relationship of maturity with color and lycopene content. J Agric Food Chem 48:1697–1702. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Batu A (2004) Determination of acceptable firmness and color values of tomatoes. J Food Eng 61:471–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilderback TE, Warren SL, Owen JS, Albano JP (2005) Healthy substrates need physicals too! HortTechnology 15:747–751Google Scholar
  5. Brandt S, Pék Z, Barna E, Lugasi A, Helyes L (2006) Lycopene content and color of ripening tomatoes as affected by environmental conditions. J Sci Food Agric 86:568–572. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Jesús Dávila-Aviña JE, Villa-Rodríguez J, Cruz-Valenzuela R, Rodríguez-Armenta M, Espino-Díaz M, Ayala-Zavala JF, González-Aguilar G (2011) Effect of edible coatings, storage time and maturity stage on overall quality of tomato fruits. Am J Agric Biol Sci 6:162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dumas Y, Dadomo M, Di Lucca G, Grolier P (2003) Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. J Sci Food Agric 83:369–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etminan M, Takkouche B, Caamano-Isorna F (2004) The role of tomato products and lycopene in the prevention of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 13:340–345Google Scholar
  9. FAOSTAT (2014) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Cropping Database. Accessed 3 July 2017
  10. Fish WW, Perkins-Veazie P, Collins JK (2002) A quantitative assay for lycopene that utilizes reduced volumes of organic solvents. J Food Compos Anal 15:309–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser PD, Truesdale MR, Bird CR, Schuch W, Bramley PM (1994) Carotenoid biosynthesis during tomato fruit development (evidence for tissue-specific gene expression). Plant Physiol 105:405–413CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. George B, Kaur C, Khurdiya DS, Kapoor HC (2004) Antioxidants in tomato (Lycopersium esculentum) as a function of genotype. Food Chem 84:45–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Getinet H, Seyoum T, Woldetsadik K (2008) The effect of cultivar, maturity stage and storage environment on quality of tomatoes. J Food Eng 87:467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghehsareh AM, Borji H, Jafarpour M (2011) Effect of some culture substrates (date-palm peat, cocopeat and perlite) on some growing indices and nutrient elements uptake in greenhouse tomato. Afr J Microbiol Res 5:1437–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Liu Y, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC (2002) A prospective study of tomato products, lycopene, and prostate cancer risk. J Natl Cancer I 94:391–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helyes L, Pék Z, Lugasi A (2006) Tomato fruit quality and content depend on stage of maturity. HortScience 41:1400–1401Google Scholar
  17. Kim HS, Jung JY, Kim HK, Ku KM, Suh JK, Park YM, Kang YH (2011) Influences of meteorological conditions of harvest time on water-soluble vitamin contents and quality attributes of oriental melon. J Bio-Environ Control 20:290–296Google Scholar
  18. Kowalczyk K, Gajc-Wolska J (2011) Effect of the kind of growing medium and transplant grafting on the cherry tomato yielding. Acta Sci Pol Hort Cultus 10:61–70Google Scholar
  19. Lee E, Sargent SA, Huber DJ (2007) Physiological changes in Roma-type tomato induced by mechanical stress at several ripeness stages. HortScience 42:1237–1242Google Scholar
  20. Luitel BP, Adhikari PB, Yoon CS, Kang WH (2012) Yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars established at different planting bed size and growing substrates. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 53:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGuire RG (1992) Reporting of objective color measurements. HortScience 27:1254–1255Google Scholar
  22. Neelam P, Mehar AH, Puneet D, Manoj SK, Pravendra N (2003) Expression and activities of ethylene biosynthesis enzymes during ripening of banana fruits and effect of 1-MCP treatment. J Plant Growth Regul 40:11–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nunes MCN (2008) Color atlas of postharvest quality of fruits and vegetables. Wiley, New York, pp 239–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park CY, Kim YJ, Shin Y (2016) Effects of an ethylene absorbent and 1-methylcyclopropene on tomato quality and antioxidant contents during storage. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 57:38–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Park M, Chung Y, Lee S (2017) Quality changes in tomato fruits caused by genotype and environment interactions. Hortic Sci Technol 35:361–372. Google Scholar
  26. Pataro G, Sinik M, Capitoli MM, Donsì G, Ferrari G (2015) The influence of post-harvest UV-C and pulsed light treatments on quality and antioxidant properties of tomato fruits during storage. Innov Food Sci Emerg 30:103–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Preedy VR, Watson RR (2008) Tomatoes and tomato products: nutritional, medicinal and therapeutic properties. Science Publishers, EnfieldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prema G, Indiresh KM, Santhosha HM (2011) Evaluation of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. Cerasiforme) genotypes for growth, yield and quality traits. Asian J Hortic 6:181–184Google Scholar
  29. Rai GK, Kumar R, Singh AK, Rai PK, Rai M, Chaturvedi AK, Rai AB (2012) Changes in antioxidant and phytochemical properties of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.) under ambient condition. Pak J Bot 44:667–670Google Scholar
  30. Rao AV, Rao LG (2007) Carotenoids and human health. Pharmacol Res 55:207–216. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts PK, Sargent SA, Fox AJ (2002) Effect of storage temperature on ripening and postharvest quality of grape and mini-pear tomatoes. Proc Fla State Hort Soc 115:80–84Google Scholar
  32. Sargent SA, Brecht JK, Olczyk T (2005) Handling Florida vegetables-round and roma tomato types. University of Florida IFAS Extensión. Accessed 9 Mar 2017
  33. Suárez MH, Rodríguez ER, Romero CD (2008) Analysis of organic acid content in cultivars of tomato harvested in Tenerife. Eur Food Res Technol 226:423–435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taye AM, Tilahun S, Park DS, Seo MH, Jeong CS (2017) Effects of continuous application of CO2 on fruit quality attributes and shelf life during cold storage in cherry tomato. Hortic Sci Technol 35:300–313. Google Scholar
  35. Tilahun S, Park DS, Taye AM, Jeong CS (2017) Effects of storage duration on physicochemical and antioxidant properties of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Hortic Sci Technol 35:88–97. Google Scholar
  36. Tzortzakis NG, Economakis CD (2008) Impacts of the substrate medium on tomato yield and fruit quality in soilless cultivation. Hort Sci 35:83–89Google Scholar
  37. USDA (1991) United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Horticultural Science and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shimeles Tilahun
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mu Hong Seo
    • 1
  • Do Su Park
    • 1
  • Cheon Soon Jeong
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureKangwon National UniversityChuncheonKorea
  2. 2.Department of Horticulture and Plant SciencesJimma UniversityJimmaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations