Abstract
A kinetic study was conducted to account for the changes occurring in color, firmness, weight loss, and total phenolic content of tomatoes subjected to combined ultrasound technology (40 kHz, 13.78 W/L) and ultraviolet-C radiation (639.37 µw/cm2) treatment for 28 min. Combined treatment delayed ripening, increased firmness, weight loss, and induced total phenolic content retention of tomatoes compared to untreated samples. The change in color parameters of hue angle and chroma was described using the fractional conversion and zero-order models, respectively. Fractional conversion kinetic model was also found suitable for firmness degradation, while the zero-order and first-order models were appropriate for change in weight loss and total phenolic content retention prediction, respectively. Activation energy for measured parameters ranged from 121.29 to 199.70 kJ/mol at a temperature range of 33.76–37.12ºC, and showed highest sensitivity to treatment temperature in reduced ranking for firmness degradation, weight loss, total phenolic content retention, hue angle, and chroma. Practical applications The research provides a new method for postharvest handling of fruits and vegetables. The method utilizes ultrasound technology and ultraviolet-C radiation in combination and finds potential application in industries for shelf life extension during the storage, processing, and supply chain management of fruits and vegetables. However, the method may result in undesirable changes like weight loss, physical softening, or bioactive content degradation. Optimized parameters of the method are essential for loss minimizations and cost-effective practical applications. A thorough understanding of the influence of temperature of the system, treatment time, ultrasound acoustic energy density, and ultraviolet-C dosage on the quality properties of tomatoes and their change kinetics through fundamental approach modeling as presented in this research, is a step toward optimization of the technology.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Combined ultrasound and UV-C delayed tomato ripening relative to untreated samples.
- Taxon
- tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- combined ultrasound technology (40 kHz, 13.78 W/L) and ultraviolet-C radiation (639.37 µw/cm2) treatment for 28 min.e1
- Outcome
- ripeninge0
- Direction
- delayede0
- Comparator
- untreated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combined treatment delayed ripening, increased firmness, weight loss, and induced total phenolic content retention of tomatoes compared to untreated samples.”
e1“combined ultrasound technology (40 kHz, 13.78 W/L) and ultraviolet-C radiation (639.37 µw/cm2) treatment for 28 min.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment increased tomato firmness relative to untreated samples.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- Combined treatmente0
- Outcome
- firmnesse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- untreated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combined treatment delayed ripening, increased firmness, weight loss, and induced total phenolic content retention of tomatoes compared to untreated samples.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment increased tomato weight loss relative to untreated samples.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- Combined treatmente0
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- untreated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combined treatment delayed ripening, increased firmness, weight loss, and induced total phenolic content retention of tomatoes compared to untreated samples.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined treatment retained tomato total phenolic content relative to untreated samples.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- Combined treatmente0
- Outcome
- total phenolic content retentione0
- Direction
- retentione0
- Comparator
- untreated samplese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combined treatment delayed ripening, increased firmness, weight loss, and induced total phenolic content retention of tomatoes compared to untreated samples.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fractional conversion model described tomato hue angle change.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- hue anglee0
- Comparator
- zero-order modelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The change in color parameters of hue angle and chroma was described using the fractional conversion and zero-order models, respectively.”
t0“tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-order model described tomato chroma change.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- chromae0
- Comparator
- fractional conversione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The change in color parameters of hue angle and chroma was described using the fractional conversion and zero-order models, respectively.”
t0“tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Fractional conversion model was suitable for tomato firmness degradation.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- firmness degradatione0
- Comparator
- Fractional conversion kinetic modele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fractional conversion kinetic model was also found suitable for firmness degradation”
t0“tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero-order model was appropriate for tomato weight loss prediction.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Comparator
- zero-ordere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the zero-order and first-order models were appropriate for change in weight loss and total phenolic content retention prediction, respectively.”
t0“tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
First-order model was appropriate for tomato phenolic content retention prediction.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- total phenolic content retention predictione0
- Comparator
- first-order modelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the zero-order and first-order models were appropriate for change in weight loss and total phenolic content retention prediction, respectively.”
t0“tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Activation energies for measured tomato parameters ranged from 121.29 to 199.70 kJ/mol.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- Activation energye0
- Value
- 121.29 to 199.70 kJ/mole0
- Qualifier
- 33.76–37.12ºCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Activation energy for measured parameters ranged from 121.29 to 199.70 kJ/mol at a temperature range of 33.76–37.12ºC”
t0“tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Firmness degradation was most temperature-sensitive, followed by weight loss and phenolic retention, then hue and chroma.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- sensitivity to treatment temperaturee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- firmness degradation, weight loss, total phenolic content retention, hue angle, and chromae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“showed highest sensitivity to treatment temperature in reduced ranking for firmness degradation, weight loss, total phenolic content retention, hue angle, and chroma.”
t0“tomatoes”
The same questions in other papers
uv · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →radiation · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →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.