Abstract
UNLABELLED: Mature-green cherry tomato fruits (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Jinyu) were exposed to different power densities of ultrasound (66.64, 106.19, and 145.74 W/L) at 25 °C to study ultrasound non-thermal effects on the storage properties. Among the three levels of ultrasound irradiation, 106.19 W/L ultrasound was effective in reducing the spoilage microorganisms, delaying postharvest ripening through inhibiting ethylene production and respiration rates, and consequently maintaining fruit firmness, flavor, enzyme activities, antioxidants (total phenolics, total flavonoids), and the total antioxidant capacity of cherry tomatoes. The 66.64 W/L ultrasound had similar effects but to a lesser extent. Meanwhile, although 145.74 W/L ultrasound resulted in higher content of ascorbic acid (AA), it showed many negative effects on the storage quality of fruits. These results demonstrated that ultrasound of appropriate power density had great potentials in inhibiting decay, maintaining flavor and nutritional quality of cherry tomatoes. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Recently, ultrasound has been considered as a multifunctional pretreatment method for the preservation of postharvest fruits and vegetables. Although the preservation effects were slight because of the screening of the thermal effects, its non-thermal effects presented potentials in improving storage quality of cherry tomato. Further studies are needed to explore the combinations between ultrasound with heating as well as other postharvest preservation technologies to enhance the effects of ultrasound. These explorations would facilitate the large-scale application of ultrasound in the preservation of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
106.19 W/L ultrasound reduced spoilage microorganisms.
- Taxon
- Cherry Tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformet0 - Treatment
- 106.19 W/L ultrasounde0
- Outcome
- spoilage microorganismse0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“106.19 W/L ultrasound was effective in reducing the spoilage microorganisms”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
106.19 W/L ultrasound delayed ripening by inhibiting ethylene production and respiration.
- Taxon
- Cherry TomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformet0
- Treatment
- 106.19 W/L ultrasounde1
- Outcome
- postharvest ripeninge0
- Direction
- delayinge0
- Qualifier
- inhibiting ethylene production and respiration ratese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“delaying postharvest ripening through inhibiting ethylene production and respiration rates”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
e1“106.19 W/L ultrasound was effective”
Claim · model-written summary
106.19 W/L ultrasound maintained firmness, flavor, enzyme activities, antioxidants, and antioxidant capacity.
- Taxon
- cherry tomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformee0
- Treatment
- 106.19 W/L ultrasounde1
- Outcome
- fruit firmness, flavor, enzyme activitiese0
- Direction
- maintaininge0
- Qualifier
- antioxidants (total phenolics, total flavonoids), and the total antioxidant capacitye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“consequently maintaining fruit firmness, flavor, enzyme activities, antioxidants (total phenolics, total flavonoids), and the total antioxidant capacity of cherry tomatoes”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
e1“106.19 W/L ultrasound was effective”
Claim · model-written summary
66.64 W/L ultrasound had similar but weaker effects.
- Taxon
- Cherry TomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformet0
- Treatment
- 66.64 W/L ultrasounde0
- Outcome
- similar effectse0
- Direction
- to a lesser extente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The 66.64 W/L ultrasound had similar effects but to a lesser extent”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
145.74 W/L ultrasound increased ascorbic acid content.
- Taxon
- Cherry TomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformet0
- Treatment
- 145.74 W/L ultrasounde0
- Outcome
- content of ascorbic acid (AA)e0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“145.74 W/L ultrasound resulted in higher content of ascorbic acid (AA)”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
145.74 W/L ultrasound harmed fruit storage quality.
- Taxon
- Cherry TomatoesSolanum lycopersicum var. cerasiformet0
- Treatment
- 145.74 W/L ultrasounde1
- Outcome
- storage quality of fruitse0
- Direction
- negative effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it showed many negative effects on the storage quality of fruits”
t0“Cherry Tomatoes”
e1“although 145.74 W/L ultrasound resulted”
The same questions in other papers
physical treatment · quality: general · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
physical treatment · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →physical treatment · soil: biology · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
physical treatment · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.