Abstract
This study assessed the impact of bioactive coatings made from tomato peel fiber and moringa leaf extract on the physiological, physicochemical, shelf life, and sensory properties of fresh tomatoes during storage, with an emphasis on sustainable packaging and postharvest technology. Fresh tomatoes were coated with a bioactive solution containing tomato peel fiber and moringa leaf extract, followed by storage under ambient conditions. Quality parameters, including weight loss rate, firmness, colour change (ΔE), pH, total titratable acidity (TTA), total soluble solids (TSS), total phenolic content (TPC), ascorbic acid content (AAC), antioxidant activity, lycopene content, and respiration rate, were evaluated at four time points over a month. A control group of uncoated tomatoes was also analyzed. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA (α = 0.05). Results showed that the bioactive coating significantly reduced weight loss (0.61 vs. 0.93 %/day), firmness loss (0.4 vs. 0.7 N/day), colour change (ΔE 17.20 vs. 18.90), and respiration rate (4 vs. 10.7 mL CO 2 /kg·h) compared to uncoated tomatoes. Moreover, it preserved key quality attributes such as TTA, TSS, TPC, AAC, antioxidant activity, and lycopene content. Sensory evaluation revealed that the overall acceptability of coated tomatoes (76.01 %) was higher than that of uncoated tomatoes (68.04 %). In conclusion, tomato peel fiber and moringa leaf extract bioactive coatings, as natural preservatives, are effective in extending the shelf life and maintaining the quality of fresh tomatoes by reducing degradation, preserving physicochemical properties, and enhancing sensory appeal. These sustainable bioactive coatings offer a promising postharvest technology solution for improving storage, reducing food waste, and advancing sustainable packaging in the tomato industry. • Bioactive film from tomato peel and moringa extract preserves fresh tomato quality. • Coating significantly reduces weight loss, colour change, and firmness in tomatoes. • Shelf life of coated tomatoes extended under ambient storage conditions. • Overall acceptability of coated tomatoes higher than uncoated controls.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
The coating reduced tomato weight loss from 0.93 to 0.61 percent per day.
- Taxon
- tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- bioactive coatinge0
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 0.61 vs. 0.93 %/daye0
- Comparator
- uncoated tomatoese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bioactive coating significantly reduced weight loss (0.61 vs. 0.93 %/day)”
e1“compared to uncoated tomatoes”
t0“fresh tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating reduced firmness loss from 0.7 to 0.4 N per day.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- bioactive coatinge0
- Outcome
- firmness losse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 0.4 vs. 0.7 N/daye0
- Comparator
- uncoated tomatoese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bioactive coating significantly reduced weight loss (0.61 vs. 0.93 %/day), firmness loss (0.4 vs. 0.7 N/day)”
e1“compared to uncoated tomatoes”
t0“fresh tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating reduced tomato colour change from 18.90 to 17.20 ΔE.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- bioactive coatinge0
- Outcome
- colour changee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- ΔE 17.20 vs. 18.90e0
- Comparator
- uncoated tomatoese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bioactive coating significantly reduced weight loss (0.61 vs. 0.93 %/day), firmness loss (0.4 vs. 0.7 N/day), colour change (ΔE 17.20 vs. 18.90)”
e1“compared to uncoated tomatoes”
t0“fresh tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating reduced tomato respiration rate from 10.7 to 4 mL CO2 per kg per hour.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- bioactive coatinge0
- Outcome
- respiration ratee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 4 vs. 10.7 mL CO 2 /kg·he0
- Comparator
- uncoated tomatoese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“bioactive coating significantly reduced weight loss (0.61 vs. 0.93 %/day), firmness loss (0.4 vs. 0.7 N/day), colour change (ΔE 17.20 vs. 18.90), and respiration rate (4 vs. 10.7 mL CO 2 /kg·h) compared to uncoated tomatoes”
t0“fresh tomatoes”
Claim · model-written summary
Coated tomatoes had higher overall acceptability than uncoated tomatoes, 76.01 versus 68.04 percent.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- coated tomatoese0
- Outcome
- overall acceptabilitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 76.01 %e0
- Qualifier
- 68.04 %e0
- Comparator
- uncoated tomatoese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“overall acceptability of coated tomatoes (76.01 %) was higher than that of uncoated tomatoes (68.04 %)”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating extended shelf life under ambient storage.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- tomato peel fiber and moringa leaf extract bioactive coatingst0
- Outcome
- Shelf lifee0
- Direction
- extendede0
- Comparator
- uncoated tomatoese1
- Setting
- ambient storage conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shelf life of coated tomatoes extended under ambient storage conditions”
e1“A control group of uncoated tomatoes”
t0“tomato peel fiber and moringa leaf extract bioactive coatings”
The same questions in other papers
storage · physiology: respiration · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →botanical · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →storage · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
140 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
154 papers more in this group
See all 158 papers →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.