Quality Attributes and Storage of Tomato Fruits as Affected by an Eco-Friendly, Essential Oil-Based Product

Abstract

The preservation of fresh produce quality is a major aim in the food industry since consumers demand safe and of high nutritional value products. In recent decades there has been a turn towards the use of eco-friendly, natural products (i.e., essential oils-EOs) in an attempt to reduce chemical-based sanitizing agents (i.e., chlorine and chlorine-based agents). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an eco-friendly product (EP—based on rosemary and eucalyptus essential oils) and two different application methods (vapor and dipping) on the quality attributes of tomato fruits throughout storage at 11 °C and 90% relative humidity for 14 days. The results indicated that overall, the EP was able to maintain the quality of tomato fruits. Dipping application was found to affect less the quality attributes of tomato, such as titratable acidity, ripening index and antioxidant activity compared to the vapor application method. Vapor application of 0.4% EP increased fruit’s antioxidant activity, whereas tomatoes dipped in EP solution presented decreased damage index (hydrogen peroxide and lipid peroxidation levels), activating enzymes antioxidant capacity (catalases and peroxidases). Moreover, higher EP concentration (up to 0.8%) resulted in a less acceptable product compared to lower concentration (0.4%). Overall, the results from the present study suggest that the investigated EP can be used for the preservation of fresh produce instead of the current commercial sanitizing agent (chlorine); however, the method of application and conditions of application must be further assessed for every commodity tested.

Plant Essential Oil with Biological Activity

“…An important study published in this Special Issue, conducted by Xylia et al [ 6 ], evaluated the efficacy of an eco-friendly product based on rosemary and eucalyptus Eos and two different application methods (vapor and dipping) on the quality attributes of tomato fruits, and the obtained results indicated that eco-friendly products based on the studied EOs were able to maintain the quality of tomato fruits. In addition, Chrysargyris et al [ 7 ] studied the vapor application of sage EO for maintaining tomato fruit, where the quality attributes were more affected in green fruits and were less affected red fruits.…”

Development of a New Essential Oil-Based Technology to Maintain Fruit Quality in Tomato

“…These changes can be delayed through the application of eugenol (Tables 1 and 2) and are associated with lower ethylene production and a notable delay in the production of peak ethylene (Figure 1). The effects on ethylene production of applying essential oils to fruits is well established, and it was previously found that the application of rosemary and eucalyptus essential oil reduced ethylene production in tomato [28]. In table grapes [15], treatments with different essential oils, including eugenol, were associated with reduced ethylene production.…”

Variation in Essential Oil Content and Chemical Composition of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) at Various Growth Stages in the Mediterranean Region

“…Similar to the camphor content, the highest values for the 1.8-cineole content were obtained in the pre-flowering stage (22.61%). When compared the 1.8-cineole content with the earlier studies, diverse results were found, such as 6.19%-10.52% (Gürbüz et al, 2017), 41.25%-45.96% (Yıldırım, 2018), 37.50% (Khanjani et al, 2021), 10.81% (Xylia et al, 2021), 17.79%-23.40% (Micić et al, 2021), 26.40%-49.10% (Flamini et al, 2021), 40.10% (Christopoulou et al, 2021, 30.89%-31.61% (Dzięcioł, 2021), 28.97%-32.18% (Elyemni et al, 2022), 32.50%-51.79% (Rathore et al, 2022), 30.26% (Mwithiga et al, 2022), 25.26%-29.15% (Yeddes et al, 2022), 11.86% (Karakaş and Bekler, 2022).…”

“…The highest values for the isoborneol content were obtained in the mid-and post-flowering stage. Isoborneol content in the previous studies was found different, such as 3.48 % (Martínez et al, 2009), 0.20% (Hussain et al, 2010), 5.68% (Asressu and Tesema, 2014), 2.28%-9.8% (Farhat et al, 2017), 6.04%-12.02% (Gürbüz et al, 2017), 8.10% (Caputo et al, 2018), 11.96%-14.89% (Yıldırım, 2018), 0.11% (Micić et al, 2021), 6.00% (Khanjani et al, 2021), 30.29% (Xylia et al, 2021).…”