Skip to main content
Log in

Quality of fresh-cut tomato as affected by type of cut, packaging, temperature and storage time

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Long-life ‘Calibra’ tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) were minimally fresh processed in slices or wedges and packaged in polypropylene (PP) trays. Passive and active (3 kPa O2+0 kPa CO2 and 3 kPa O2+4 kPa CO2) modified atmosphere packages (MAP) were used at 0 and 5 °C. After 14 days, the gas composition within passive MAP packages was 11–13 kPa O2+5.5–6 kPa CO2 and 8–9.5 kPa O2+10.5–11.5 kPa CO2 at 0 and 5 °C, respectively. The gas composition reached in active MAP at both temperatures for both types of cuts was around 7–10.5 kPa O2 and 7–9 kPa CO2. The highest C2H4 level (15 μL L−1) was found in passive MAP at 5 °C, while in active MAP at both temperatures about 6 μL L−1 C2H4 accumulated. After 7 days of storage at 0 °C, the tomato pieces showed better aroma, appearance and overall quality than those stored at 5 °C. No difference between MAP treatments was found, although both led to a better appearance and overall quality than controls in air. After 14 days at 0 °C, only MAP treatments kept a good flavour, overall quality and texture, with no differences between them. After 14 days at 5 °C in all treatments, the flavour fell below a fair condition and the slices showed a slight senescence. MAP significantly reduced total plate counts (TPC) of slices at 5 °C, although only active MAP reduced TPC in wedges after 14 days at 5 °C. A visibly better appearance and overall quality was found in slices than in wedges. The main factors influencing the quality of tomato pieces were the storage duration and temperature. To keep the quality of fresh-cut tomatoes, one should consider three factors for selection: a suitable low chilling sensitive tomato cultivar, an adherent placenta and optimal maturity stage at harvest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nguyen-the C, Carlin F (1994) Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 34:371–401

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Watada AE, Ko PN, Minott DA (1996) Postharvest Biol Technol 9:115–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pittia P, Nicoli MC, Comi G, Massini R (1999) J Sci Food Agric 79:955–960

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Artés F, Escriche AJ (1994) J Food Sci 59:1053–1056

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hobson GE (1987) J Hort Sci 62:55–62

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hong JH, Gross KC (2000) J Am Soc Hort Sci 125:736–741

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gil MI, Conesa MA, Artés F (2002) Postharvest Biol Technol 25:199–207

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pirovani ME, Piagentini MA, Güemes DR, Di Pentima JH (1998) J Food Quality 22:475–484

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kader AA (2002) In: Postharvest technology of horticultural crops, 3rd edn. Pub 3311. University of California, pp 135–144

  10. Aguayo E, Allende A, Artés F (2003) Eur Food Res Technol 6:494–499

    Google Scholar 

  11. Artés F, Conesa MA, Hernández S, Gil MI (1999) Postharvest Biol Technol 17:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hong JH, Gross KC (2001) J Food Sci 66:960–965

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Aguayo E, Giménez J, Artés F (2001) Alimentación Equipos Tecnología 6:83–88

    Google Scholar 

  14. Aguayo E, Escalona VH, Artés F (2001) Alimentación Equipos Tecnología 7:127–132

    Google Scholar 

  15. Conesa MA, Escalona VH, Artés F, Gil MI (2003) In: Artés F, Gil MI, Conesa, MA (eds) Improving postharvest technologies of fruits, vegetables and ornamentals, vol 1. International Institute of Refrigeration,pp 432–436

  16. Artés F, Artés-Hernández F (2000) Alimentación Equipos Tecnología 3:135–141

    Google Scholar 

  17. RD 3484/2000 (2001) Boletín Oficial del Estado 11:1435–1441

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gorny JR (2001) In: Oosterhaven J, Peppelenbos HW (eds) Proc. 8th controlled atmosphere research conference, vol. II. Acta Hort 600 ISHS, 609–614

  19. Kim J, Solomos T, Gross KC (1999) Postharvest Biol Technol 17:33–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mencarelli F, Saltveit ME (1988) J Am Soc Hort Sci 113:742–745

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenfeld HJ, Meberg KR, Haffner K, Sundell, HA (1999) Postharvest Biol Technol 16:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to CEBAS-CSIC and to Durán SAT for providing facilities and tomatoes respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Artés.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aguayo, E., Escalona, V. & Artés, F. Quality of fresh-cut tomato as affected by type of cut, packaging, temperature and storage time. Eur Food Res Technol 219, 492–499 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-004-0989-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-004-0989-z

Keywords

Navigation