4. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN ROUTES, MATURTY
4.3 Results and Discussion
4.3.3 Physiological weight loss
79
80
by the ones harvestsd at pink, then red (Figure 4.9a and c). They achieved this by having an average PWL % of 10.62, 9.70, and 9.68, for tomatoes harvested at green , pink and red maturity stages, respectively. However, under cold storage, tomatoes harvested at red maturity had the highest PWL, of 5.62%, followed by the ones harvested at pink maturity with 4.90%, then green maturity with 3.99% (Figure 4.9b and d). Tomato fruit mass loss can be attributed to the rate of transpiration as well as respiration (Pinheiro et al., 2013).
Within different maturity stages tomato mass loss varied significantly with pre-storage treatments. Anolyte water and the combination of anolyte water + GA coating were the best treatments in reducing the rate of fruit mass loss. GA and HWT did not do well in terms of reducing PWL (Figure 4.13). However, their positive impact was significantly (P < 0.05) different from the control (untreated) tomatoes. Anolyte water was found to be the most effective treatment in reducing the rate of physiological weight loss in of tomatoes, however, its mode of action was not anderstood since its a disinfectant.
Integration of pre-storage treatments and storage conditions resulted in a highly significant (P
< 0.001) reduction in the PWL of tomatoes. The efficacy of the combined treatments was detected in tomatoes of different maturity stages and across all the supply routes. As mentioned previously, the pre-storage treatments suuch as anolyte water and Gum Arabic coating under cold storage conditions significantly (P < 0.001) reduced the mass loss in tomatoes. Integrated treatments resulted in more superior results, specifically in tomatoes harvested at the green maturity stage. Therefore, the results on the the effects of a three-way interaction between the harvesting maturity stage (green), pre-storage treatments anolyte water and Gum Arabic and cold storage conditions resulted in the most superior results in terms of reducing the rate of mass loss in tomatoes (Figure 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12, for green, pink and red, respectively). These treatments induced a highly significant ( P < 0.001) impact in reducing tomato PWL. Similar results were reported by (Tilahun, 2010) whereby the efficiency of integrating pre-storage treatments and storage conditions significantly reduced mass loss and sustained quality in tomatoes.
81
Figure 4.9 The effect of supply routes, maturity stages and storage conditions on mass loss of tomatoes harvested in different seasons 40
41 42 43 44 45
Green Pink Red
% Mass loss
Maturity stages
Winter ambient
EF EM PDa
LSD (P < 0.05)= 0.494 CV% = 2.4
40 41 42 43 44 45
Green Pink Red
% Mass loss
Maturity stages
Summer Ambient
EF EM PDc
LSD (P < 0.05)= 0.493 CV%= 2.4
0 2 4 6 8 10
Green Pink Red
% Mass loss
Maturity stages
Winter cold
EF EM PDb
0 2 4 6 8 10
Green Pink Red
% Mass loss
Maturity stages
Summer Cold
EF EM PDd
LSD (P < 0.05)= 0.493 CV% = 2.4 LSD (P < 0.05) = 0.494
CV% = 2.4
82
Figure 4.10 The interaction effect of pre-storage treatments and storage conditions on mass loss of green-matured tomatoes from different supply routes
Figure 4.10 The interaction effects of pre-storage treatments and storage conditions on mass loss of pink-matured tomatoes from different supply routes (LSD (P < 0.05) = 1.743, CV% = 2.4)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME (DAYS)
GREEN EF
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water CS-Control CS-Gum Arabic CS-HWT + GA
a
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME (DAYS)
GREEN EM
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water CS-Control CS-HWT + GA CS-Gum Arabic
b
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME (DAYS)
GREEN PD
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water CS-Control CS-Gum Arabic CS-HWT + GA
c
83
Figure 4.11 The interaction effect of pre-storage treatments and storage conditions on mass loss of pink-matured tomatoes from different supply routes (LSD (P < 0.05) = 1.743, CV% = 2.4)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME (DAYS)
PINK EF
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water CS-Control CS-Gum Arabic CS-HWT + GA
d
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME ( DAYS)
PINK EM
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water
e
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME (DAYS)
PINK PD
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water
f
84
Figure 4.12 The interaction effect of pre-storage treatments and storage conditions on mass loss of red-matured tomatoes from different supply routes (LSD (P < 0.05) = 1.743, CV% = 2.4)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL (%)
TIME (DAYS)
RED EF
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water CS-Control CS-Gum Arabic CS-HWT + GA
g
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME (DAYS)
RED EM
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water CS-Control CS-Gum Arabic CS-HWT + GA
h
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 8 1 6 2 4 3 2
PWL(%)
TIME (DAYS)
RED PD
AS- Anolyte + GA AS-Anolyte water AS-Gum Arabic AS-Control AS-HWT + GA CS- Anolyte + GA CS-Anolyte water CS-Control CS-Gum Arabic CS-HWT + GA
i
85
Figure 4.13 The overall effect of pre-storage treatments and storage conditions in mass loss % of tomato fruit of different harvest season 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Control HWT + GA Gum Arabic Anolyte + GA Anolyte water
PWL %
Treatments LSD (P < 0.05)= 0.411
CV% = 2.4
Summer Winter
86