EFFECT OF SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE AND ALOE GEL ON SHELF

LIFE AND QUALITY OF TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum L.) FRUITS

MSc THESIS

GIRMA GUTEMA KAJELA

AUGUST 2022
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA
Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite and Aloe Gel on Shelf Life and Quality of
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Fruits

A Thesis Submitted to School of Plant Sciences,

Postgraduate Program Directorate,
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
(HORTICULTURE)

August2022
Haramaya University, Haramaya
 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

As thesis research advisor, I hereby certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis
prepared, under my guidance, by Girma Gutema Kajela, which is entitled „Effect of Sodium
Hypochlorite and AloeGelon Shelf Life and Quality of Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.)
Fruits’. We recommend that the thesis be submitted as it fulfills the thesis requirements.

Tewodros Bezu (PhD) __________________ ________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Fikreyohannes Gedamu (PhD) ________________ _______________

Co –Advisor Signature Date

As member of the Board of Examiners of the M.Sc. thesis open defense examination, I certify
that I have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Girma Gutema, and examined the
candidate. I recommend that the thesis be accepted as it fulfills the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Sciences in Agriculture (Horticulture).

__________________ ________________ ________________

Chairperson Signature Date

_______________ _________________ _________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

__________________ ________________ ________________

External Examiner SignatureDate

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent up on the submission of its final copy
to the Council of Graduate Studies(CGS) through the candidate‟s department or school
graduate commite (DGC or SGC).

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my grandfather, Kajela Dinka, who passed away when I
was an undergraduate student in 2016.

iii
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

By my signature below, I declare and confirm that this thesis is my work. I have followed all
ethical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data analysis, and
completion of this thesis. All scholarly matter that is included in the thesis has been given
recognition through citation. I affirm that I have cited and referenced all sources used in this
document. Every serious effort has been made to avoid any plagiarism in the preparation of
this thesis.

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science at Haramaya University. The thesis is deposited in the library of the university and is
made available to borrowers under the rules and regulations of the library. I solemnly declare
that this thesis has not been submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any
academic degree, diploma, or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis may be used without requiring special permission provided
that an accurate and complete acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for
permission for extended quotations from, or reproduction of, this thesis in whole or in part
may be granted by the Head of the School of Plant Sciences or the Dean of the School of
Graduate Studies when, in his or her judgment, the proposed use of the material is for
scholarly interest. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the
author.

Name: Girma Gutema Kajela Signature: ______________________

Date:

School/ Department: Plant Sciences

iv
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author of this thesis, Girma Gutema, was born on April 20, 1996, in Nabo Daleti Kebele,
Lalo Asabi District, West Wollega Zone of the Oromia region, located about 320 km west of
Addis Ababa. When he reached school age, he joined Lalo Wanjo Primary School in
September 2004 and attended from grades one to eight. He then completed grades nine to ten
at Burka Wanjo Secondary School and grades eleven to twelve at Inango Preparatory School,
which are also located in West WollegaZone of the Oromia region. After completing
preparatory school, he joined Wollega University in the field of Agriculture, Department of
Horticulture, in October 2016. Following his education for three years, he graduated with great
distinction on June 28, 2018, with the degree of Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Horticulture
from the University.

After graduation, he was employed by Wollega University, Department of Horticulture, as a

Graduate Assistant. After serving for one year, he joined the School of Graduate Studies of
Haramaya University on October 29th, 2019 to pursue a graduate study leading to the degree of
Master of Science in Horticulture.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Above all, I would like to thank the almighty God, who gave me the strength in every
challenge of the work and showed me its successful completion. He was the alpha and omega
of the work. My deepest gratitude also goes to my advisors, Dr. Tewodros Bezu and Dr.
Fikreyohannes Gedamu,for their kindness, patience, strong support, and guidance throughout
the fieldwork, laboratory experiments, and thesis writing up.

I would like to thank the Ethiopian Ministry of Education for providing me with the budget
required for the study and research work. I am also very thankful to Wollega University for
giving me the chance to learn with a study leave extension and Haramaya University for
educating me towards the degree of Master of Science. I am grateful to Mr. Bekele Kebede
and Mr. Shibiru Wakjira for their encouragement during the fieldwork too. My appreciation is
not little for my co-worker, Mr. Amana Mama, and my dearest friend, Mr. Belachew Debelo,
who assisted me during data collection. Laboratory technicians are also sincerely thanked for
their technical support. The greater gratitude also goes to the School of Plant Science,
Horticulture Section of Haramaya University for allowing me to use their laboratories with
equipment to conduct the experimental work. Last but not least, I would like to appreciate my
family who encouraged me through their prayers during my moments of discouragement.

vi
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AA Ascorbic Acid
AG Aloe Gel
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists
ATP Adenosine triphosphate
CRD Completely Randomized Design
CSA Central Statistics Agency
CV Coefficient of Varaition
DMRT Dunkan Multiple Range Test
DOI Digital Object Identifier
FAO Food and Agriculture and Organization
FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database
MOARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
NaOCl Sodium Hypochlorite
pH power of Hydrogen
PLW Physiological Loss in Weight
ppm Parts per million
RH Relative Humidity
TA Titratable Acidity
TSS Total Soluble Solids
USDA United States Department of Agriculture

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION iii

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR iv

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX xi

ABSTRACT xii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1. The Tomato Crop and Its Importance 4

2.2. Tomato Production and Post-Harvest Losses in Ethiopia 6

2.3. Quality Attributes of Tomato Fruits 7

2.4. Factors Determining the Postharvest Quality of Tomato Fruits 8

2.4.1. Preharvest factors 8

2.4.2. Harvest and Postharvest Factors 12
2.5. Major Postharvest Treatment Techniques of Tomato Fruits 15

2.5.1. Physical treatments 15

2.5.2. Chemical treatments 16
2.5.3. Edible Coatings 17
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 20

3.1. Description of Study Area 20

3.2. Experimental Materials 21

viii
 3.3. Treatments and Experimental Design 21

3.4. Experimental Procedures 22

3.4.1. Tomato production 22

3.4.2. Preparation of postharvest treatments 22
3.4.3. Fruit sample preparation 23
3.5. Data Collection 23

3.5.1. Physical characteristics and shelf-Life 24

3.5.2. Chemical Analysis 25
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27

4.1. Physiological Loss in Weight 27

4.2. Percentage of Fruit Decay 30

4.3. Marketable Tomato Fruits 33

4.4. Firmness 36

4.5. Shelf Life of Fruits 39

4.6. The pH 41

4.7. Total Soluble Solids 44

4.8. Titratable Acidity 47

4.9. Total Soluble Solids to Acid Ratio 50

4.10. Ascorbic Acid 52

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 51

6. REFERENCES 53

7. APPENDICES 74

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

TablePage
1. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on physiological loss in weight
(%) of tomato fruits during storage. 29
2. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on decay percentage (%) of
tomato fruits during storage. 32
3. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on Marketability (%) of tomato
fruits during storage. 35
4. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on Firmness(N mm-1) of tomato
fruits during storage. 38
5. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on Shelf-life (days) of tomato
fruits during storage. 40
6. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on pH of tomato fruits during
storage. 43
7. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on TSS (oBrix) of tomato fruits
during storage 46
8. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on TA (%) of tomato fruits during
storage. 49
9. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe gel coating on TSS to TA of tomato fruits
during storage. 51
10. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite dipping and Aloe gel coating on Ascorbic Acid
(mg 100 g-1) of tomato fruits during storage. 54

x
 LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1. ANOVA table for Percentage loss in weight (PLW); Decay percentage (%) and percentage
(%) of Marketable of tomato fruits during 28 days of storage. 74
2. ANOVA table for firmness; pH and Total soluble solids(TSS) of tomato fruits during28
days of storage. 75
3. ANOVA table for titratable acidity(TA); total soluble solids(TSS) to TA and Ascorbic
Acid(AA) content of tomato fruits during 28 days of storage. 77
4. ANOVA table for shelf life of tomato fruits during 28 days of storage. 78
5. Details of daily temperature and relative humidity inside the laboratory in which tomato
fruits stored from October 16, 2021 to November 14, 2021). 78

xi
 Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite and Aloe Gel on Shelf Life and Quality of
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Fruits

ABSTRACT

Due to their climacteric nature, high water content, active metabolic activities, and microbial
spoilage, tomato fruits are very susceptible to post-harvest deterioration which is the major
problem of its production in Ethiopia. Edible coatings and chlorination are used to extend
storage life and reduce quality deterioration by altering gas permeability, delaying ripening,
reducing water loss and microbial decay of the fruits. The study was therefore aimed to assess
the effect of NaOCl dipping and Aloe Gel (AG) coating on the post-harvest quality and storage
life of tomato fruits.Uniform and healthy fruits of the Shanty PM tomato variety were
harvested at the turning stage. The experiment was arranged in a factorial combinationby
using a completely randomized design with three replications. The treatments comprised of
four levels of NaOCl (0 ppm, 100 ppm, 200 ppm, and 300 ppm) and five levels of AG (0%,
25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). The treated fruits were stored at ambient conditions (17.5-
24.85oC Toand 74.04%RH) for assessment of physicochemical qualities, which was done at 4-
day intervals. The study results revealed that samples treated with 300ppm NaOCl + 100%
AG and 200ppm NaOCl + 100% AG verified to be the most effective in lowering physiological
loss in fruit weight (17.16% and 17.39%), decay percentage (44.19% and 44.52%), higher
marketability (55.68% and 55.35%), firmness(1.25 and 1.12 Nmm-1), and shelf life (29 days).
The use of the same treatment has also significantly slowed down the decrease in acidity
(0.33% and 0.34%) and rise in ascorbic acid content(15.10mg100 g-1 and 15.05mg100 g-1)
toward the end of the storage period.Moreover, all of the quality attributes of tomato fruits
were significantly preserved with an application of 100% AG aloneas compared to its lower
levels. In conclusion, the combination treatment of NaOCl and AG treatments, particularly
treatment with 300ppm NaOCl + 100% AG or 200ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, could potentially
be used to extend the shelf life of tomatoes while maintaining most of their quality attributes.
However, further research is suggested with consideration of more tomato varieties,
harvesting stages, different types of edible coatings, and chlorine forms to give conclusive
recommendations for tomato postharvest treatment.

Key words:chlorination, disinfection, coating, postharvest, storage.

xii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a member of the Solanaceae family and one of the
world's most economically important, edible, and nutritious vegetable crops. Tomatoes have
become an important cash and industrial crop in many parts of the world not only because of
their economic importance but also because of their nutritional value to the human diet and
subsequent importance to human health (Willcox et al., 2003; Ayandiji et al., 2011). It
supplies several nutrients of high nutritional value, including vitamins, minerals, lycopene and
other carotenoids in the human diet (Borguini et al., 2009; Melkamu and Getachew, 2017).
The therapeutic property of tomato fruit is due to its content of higher amounts of lycopene, a
type of carotenoid with anti-oxidant properties (Arab and Steck, 2000), which is beneficial in
reducing the incidence of some chronic diseases like cancer (Pila et al., 2010, Mahieddine et
al., 2018; Domnguezet al., 2020) and many other cardiovascular disorders (Burton-Freeman
and Reimers, 2011).

Tomatoes are a well-known vegetable crop in Ethiopia. As it is a relatively short-duration crop

and gives a high yield, it is economically attractive and the area under cultivation is increasing.
According to CSA (2018 and 2021), the total area under tomato production increased from 5,
235.42 ha in 2018 to 6, 433.73 ha in 2021.A total of 6,433.73 hectares of land produced
41,948.27 tons, with an average national yield of 6.52 tons ha-1 per year (CSA, 2021). Despite
its nutritional, economic, and health importance, the production of tomatoes in Ethiopia is
constrained by post-harvest losses, which limit the volumes of good-quality products reaching
consumers.

The extent of tomato post-harvest loss is significantly high, which was estimated at about 20
to 50% of harvested tomatoes (Pila et al., 2010). The magnitude of tomato post-harvest losses
in many African countries, like Ethiopia, is very high and hard to estimate (Woldemichael and
Demelash, 2014; Bezabhet al., 2017). The eastern parts of Ethiopia, such as Dire Dawa, Fedis,
Haramaya, Kombolcha, Babile, and others, are major horticultural crop producers (Abera et
al., 2019). However, postharvest loss and quality deterioration of horticultural crops in these
areas are high during harvesting, marketing, transporting and storage, which was estimated at
45.32% for tomato, followed by mango at 43.53% (Mohammad and Afework, 2018). The
 2

estimated post harvest loss of the produced tomtoes in east Shewa zone at different chain
actors was 39.31%(Gezai et al., 2020).

The major causes of tomato and other vegetable crop post-harvest losses in Ethiopia include
improper agronomic practices; poor post-harvest handling and pre-storage treatments;
physiological deterioration; and lack of appropriate transport and storage facilities (Mujtaba
and Masud, 2014; Hailu and Derbew, 2015; Bezabhet al., 2017). Deterioration by
microorganisms (fungi and bacteria) and insect pests are also the major issues to be considered
(Kiaya, 2014). As an alternative solution to the problem, optimal postharvest treatments for
fresh produce seek to slow down physiological processes of senescence and maturation,
reduce or inhibit the development of physiological disorders, and minimize the risk of
microbial growth and contamination (Mahajan et al., 2014).

The use of a disinfectant such as chlorinated water dipping of tomato fruits after harvest has
been known to reduce the microbial loads on the fruits and also maintain the quality of the
fruits during storage (Workneh et al., 2012). Sodium hypochlorite is one of the most
commonly used disinfectants for fresh produce, including tomatoes, owing to its very potent
oxidizing properties and cost-effectiveness (Artes et al., 2009). When dissolved in water,
NaOCl ionizes to Na+ and the hypochlorite ion in equilibrium with hypochlorous acid
(HOCl), which damages microbe cell membranes, proteins, and nucleic acids by oxidative
degradation upon contact (Mishra et al., 2018).However, its efficacy as an antimicrobial agent
is dependent on the levels of free chlorine (Baskaran et al., 2013). Therefore, optimization of
its concentration to the particular crop and variety is mandatory (Tilahun et al., 2003; Acedo et
al., 2009; Makonnen et al., 2021).

Edible coatings are one of the most efficient and safe methods for extending the shelf life of
horticultural crops (Abhirami et al., 2020), as they are a non-toxic, chemical-free, residue-free,
and long-lasting alternative to traditional packaging (Ghadermazi et al., 2019; Mohamed et al.,
2020). Edible coatings cover the food item to generate a modified atmosphere by creating a
semi-permeable barrier against O2, CO2, moisture and solute movement, thus reducing
respiration, water loss and oxidation reaction rates, hindering solute movement, reducing
metabolism, sealing in flavor volatiles, preserving texture and improving the appearance
(Davila-Avina et al., 2014).
 3

The gel from aloe plant leaves, which has been known for its therapeutic and antimicrobial
properties, is also used as an edible coating to prolong the storage life of tropical and
subtropical fruits, including tomatoes (Guillen et al., 2013; Radi et al., 2017; Kator et al.,
2018). According to Athmaselvi et al. (2013), post-harvest coating of aloe vera gel has shown
its effectiveness in significantly delaying ripening, maitaining firmness, and prolonging the
shelf life of stored tomato fruits. Besides, the antimicrobial effect of AG has been reported in
fruits such as tomatoes and mangos during storage (Dang et al., 2008; Hossaini2015;Sophia et
al., 2015). Mucilaginous fluid from different aloe species like aloe pubescens has also been
used for several years to treat a range of skin and hair diseases in Ethiopia though its effect on
maintaining the fruit's postharvest quality is not well studied(Mesfin and Brook,
2010).Generally,coating fruits with plant extract provides advantages for farmers because of
the easy availability and low cost. In Ethiopia, though the magnitude of the postharvest loss is
high, the efforts to alleviate the problem are limited.The effect of different edible coatings
combined with disinfectants on tomato post harvest quality and shelf life has been assessed so
farparticularly in Haramaya(Makonnen et al., 2021; Zebider et al., 2021). However, the
influence of sodium hypochlorite and aloe gel combination on physicochemical qualities of
this crop is not studied yet.Identification of sucheffective alternatives to minimize the
postharvest loss, is therefore crucial in this regard. Thus, this thesis research was initiated with
the following objective:

 To evaluate the effect of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) disinfection and aloegel(AG)

coating on shelf life and quality of tomato fruits.
 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1.The Tomato Cropand Its Importance

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is an herbaceous plant of the Solanaceae family that is
grown for its edible fruit (Moneruzzaman et al., 2009).Tomato is a short-lived perennial plant
grown as an annual plant, typically growing about 3-5 m in height. By use and culture, tomato
is regarded as vegetable. But from a botanical perspective, it is a berry fruit that is pulpy,
indehiscent (without shedding), and contains one or more seeds that are not stones (Hour et
al., 2015). Tomato originated from South America and was introduced to Europe in the 16th
Century and later to East Africa by colonial settlers in the early 1900 and it is between 1935
and 1940 that the tomato was introduced into Ethiopian agriculture (Wamache, 2005).
Although the country of domestication is still unknown, linguistic evidence suggests Peru and
Mexico as the major regions of domestication (Peralta et al., 2006).Wild relatives of tomato
are distributed in the Andes from Ecuador, through Peru and to Chile (Peralta et al., 2005),
growing between sea level and 3300 meters above sea level (Blanca et al., 2012) in diverse
climatic conditions.

Tomato plants vary in growth habits as determinate, semi-determinate, and indeterminate

(Farneti, 2014). Determinate or bush kinds are frequently suitable options for container
cultivation because they bear a whole crop all at once and top off at a certain height. Some of
the determinate type tomato varieties released in Ethiopia include melkashola, melkasalsa,
chali, cochoro,woyeno, and ARP tomato d2 ( Asfaw and Ehetu., 2015). Indeterminate or tall
varieties develop into vines that never top off and continue producing until killed by frost, and
they are mostly used in field and greenhouse production where there is adequate manual labor
for staking the plants and picking the fruit over a prolonged marketing period (Workneh et al.,
2012). Eshet, metadel, sirenka-1, mersa and lekku are few examples of indeterminate tomato
varieties. Determinate tomatoes, including both processing and fresh market types, are smaller
and more compact than indeterminate varieties. The third group is semi-determinate, with
characteristics that lie between the two types.
 5

Based on production purposes, tomatoes arealso classified as fresh market types and
processing industry types. Round, large, free from defects, good flavor and attractive red-
colored fruits are demanded characteristics for fresh market types. The fruits should also be
firm, healthy, evenly colored, good appearance and good keeping quality andhave high
vitamin content. Some of the fresh market tomato varieties include metadel, fetan, Bishola
and miya.Processing industry types are characterized by high TSS% (4.5-6.0), intensive red
color of both skin and flesh, low acid, resistance to cracking and high yield of processed
products (MoARD, 2009).The above indicated determinate tomato varieties are suitable for
processing industry.

Tomatoes, as climacteric and perishable fruits, have a very short life span, usually 2-3 weeks at
10 oC and 65% relative humidity (Rahman et al., 2010). Storage life is restricted by several
factors, including transpiration, postharvest diseases, increased ripening, and senescence. The
main factor associated with tomato postharvest shelf-life, particularly in tropical regions where
the temperature is high, is increased respiration, which results in faster fruit ripening and
deterioration of fruit quality (Bailen et al., 2006).

Tomato is an important cash-generating crop for small-scale farmers and provides an

employment opportunity in the production and processing industries (MoARD, 2009;MoANR,
2016). It is the second largest vegetable in the world, both in terms of production and
consumption (FAO, 2016; Villanueva, 2018; FAOSTAT, 2019). Reports from the United
States showed tomatoes as the second most consumed fresh vegetable, with 6 kg/person in
2017 (USDA, 2016). Tomato consumption is concentrated in China, India, North Africa, the
Middle East, the US, and Brazil, with tomato consumption per capita ranging from 61.9 to
198.9 kg (FAOSTAT, 2019). Tomatoes are important for health and rich in several good
compounds.

It contains all four major carotenoids: alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, lutein, and lycopene.
These carotenoids may have individual benefits but also have synergy as a group (Bhowmik et
al., 2012). Lycopene, the predominant carotenoid in tomatoes, exhibits the highest antioxidant
activity and singlet oxygen quenching ability of all dietary carotenoids. Tomatoes are known
as a source of vitamins and pro-vitamins (vitamin C, pro-vitamin A, beta-carotene, folate),
minerals such as potassium, and other secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, phytosterols,
 6

and polyphenols (Luthria et al., 2006). A 100 g of fresh tomato contains more than 46%, 8%,
and 3.4% of the daily requirements for vitamin A, vitamin C (82.5 mg), and potassium (3500
mg) (Canene-Adams et al., 2005). Furthermore, processed tomatoes such as soup, paste,
concentrate, juice, and ketchup also contribute positively to human health due to the content of
the mentioned compounds in these products (Bergougnoux, 2014).

2.2. Tomato Production and Post-Harvest Losses in Ethiopia

Tomatoes are produced in temperate, subtropical and tropical areas around the world (Blanca
et al., 2012). It is the second most important fruit or vegetable crop next to potatoes, with
approximately 182.3 million tons of tomato fruits produced on 4.85 million ha each year
(FAOSTAT, 2019).In Ethiopia, it is produced by smallholder farmers,private farms and
commercial statesboth in rainy and dry seasons (Ambecha et al.,2012). Small-scale farmer
produces the bulk of fresh market tomatoes while processing types are mainly produced on
large-scale horticultural farms.Tomato production is predominantly concentrated in river
valleys and lakes, especially in the Awash Valley and around Lake Ziway for their favorable
growing conditions, good access to market outlets, better infrastructure and other
facilities.While small-scale production for fresh market is a common practice around Koka,
Ziway, WondoGenet, Guder, Bako and many other areas (Amsalu et al., 2014; mebrat,
2014).Over 164 500 households in Ethiopia grow tomatoes regularly for both household
consumption and income generation (FAO, 2019). The climatic and soil conditions of Ethiopia
are also suitable for the production of a wide range of tropical and subtropical fruits and
vegetables including tomato. Ibrahimet al. (2021) indicated that the total production of tomato
in Ethiopia has shown a market increase, indicating that it has become the most profitable crop
providing a higher income to small- scale farmers compared to other vegetable crops.

Although increasing production is one aspect of fulfilling food demand, failure to reduce post-
harvest loss reduces the availability of food vegetables and income that could be generated by
selling the vegetables.The issue of postharvest losses is of high importance in the efforts to
combat hunger, raise revenue and improve food security in the world's poorest countries like
Ethiopia.
 7

According to the assessment of post-harvest loss and quality deterioration of horticultural

crops in Dire Dawa adminstration areas;the highest post-harvest loss (45.3%) was recorded for
tomato (Mohammed and Afework, 2018). An estimation of post-harvest loss of tomato in the
east Shewa Zone at different chain actors/ points was reported as 39.31% (20.45% producers,
8.63% wholesalers, 2.93% retailers, and 7.3% from hotels and cafes) of the total production
starting from field to consumption (Gezai et al., 2020). Another report on the field assessment
of postharvest loss of tomato across the supply chain in Dugda Woreda part of east Shewa
zone, indicated the tomato loss as high as 38.7%. The loss begins during harvesting and
happens along other chains including during transporting, storage, retailing and packing. The
major supply chain actors affected by the loss are smallholder farmers and retailers or
consumers (FAO, 2019).In developing countries like Ethiopia, most postharvest losses occur
before reaching the market. Searching for alternative postharvest treatment is therefore critical
to mitigate postharvest losses and maintain the eating qualities of tomatoes.

2.3.QualityAttributes of Tomato Fruits

Quality of fresh produce can be either consumer or product-oriented. Consumer-oriented

qualities are mainly related to the characteristics that attract consumers' or buyers' attention
whereas product- oriented qualities deal with intrinsic attributes of a given commodity, which
are often determined by using objective tests(Shewfelt, 1999).

Organic acids and soluble sugars are the major components of soluble solids in fresh tomato,
and their relative amounts vary depending on the tomato cultivar, agronomic practices, and
postharvest handling and storage practices (Tigist et al., 2013). The balance of sugars and
acids influences the flavor of fresh tomato. Titratable acidity (TA), also referred to as total
acidity, measures the total acid content in a food or beverage system and is determined by
titration of the acids in the food system with a standard base (Nielsen, 2017; Osae et al., 2017).
The core unit of acidity is hydrogen ions (H+). The acid content of tomato under normal
storage conditions decreases with storage time. Acidity in tomato is high (0.9 g/100 g fresh
tomato) at the green stage but decreases to 0.4 g/100 g fresh tomato or less for red tomatoes
(Serrano et al., 2005). Tigist et al. (2013) reported the average acid content of 8 tomato
varieties during storage that ranged from 0.25% at the end of storage, to 0.89% at harvest.
 8

Total soluble solid is the amount of sugar and soluble minerals present in fruits and vegetables
and is determined by a refractometer which is used worldwide due to its accessibility and
adequate precision for commercial purposes (Serrano et al., 2005). Sugars constitute 80-85 per
cent of soluble solids. According to Alleyne and Clark (1997), the soluble solid content is a
parameter determinant of fruit quality and is an important criterion for selecting tomato
genotypes for processing and canning. The total soluble solids increase during ripening due to
the degradation of polysaccharides to simple sugars thereby causing a rise in total soluble
solids. TSS is generally low in tomato, i.e. less than 5% for green tomatoes and when the
tomato turns red, TSS increases to around 7% (Villanueva, 2018). The TSS to TA ratio can be
used to predict the sensory taste perception of tomato (Beckles, 2012). It is paramount an
important quality attribute of tomato fruits, since sweetness and sourness are leading criteria
for tomato flavor (Beckles, 2012; Arthur et al., 2015).

pH is defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration and can span a
range of 14 orders of magnitude (pH = −log [H+]). pH is the measure of the strength of acids
and the instrument required for its determination is pH meter.A lower pH value indicates a
more acidic sample due to free H3O+, and a higher pH value indicates a more basic sample
(Addy et al., 2004). The tomato fruit pH ranges between 4 – 5 and should be <4.5 for
processed tomato because microbial growth is inhibited (Richard, 2017).Ascorbic acid (AA) is
one of the most important quality characteristics in fresh fruits and vegetables. Toor and
Savage (2006) reportedan ascorbic acid content of tomato fruits stored at 15and 25 oC to be
9.29 to 15.08 per 100 g and observed that the temporary storage timeof AA increased slightly,
and then decreased as the fruit approached senescence.

2.4.Factors Determining the Postharvest Quality of Tomato Fruits

2.4.1. Preharvest factors

Postharvest quality management of vegetables begins very early in the field and continues
until it reaches the end user. Many of the decisions that are made during crop production can
greatly influence the postharvest quality of crops(Silva, 2008). This is because the response of
fruit and vegetables during storage to post-harvest factors is partly dependent on pre-harvest
practices such as the use of fertilizers, insect pests and disease management, irrigation,
 9

weeding and environmental factors.Understanding and managing the various roles that pre-
harvest factors play on quality is therefore very important to achieve maximum harvest and
postharvest quality for any crop (Meaza et al., 2009). It is also critical to remember that
vegetable quality is only maintained, but not improved during the harvest and storage
processes.Some of the Preharvest factors that determine post-harvest qualities of tomatoes
may include cultural practices, genetic and environmental conditions like solar radiation,
temperature, day-length, water availability, soil mineral content, fertilization regime and
pruning techniques (Dorais et al., 2008) of which major ones are discussed hereunder.

2.4.1.1. Genetic factors

Internal factors such as genotype and fruit maturity stage affect the expression of genes,
enzymes and metabolites (Carbone et al., 2009;Tigistet al., 2012). Among them, genetic
factors play an important role especially in fruit quality, nutritional composition and the
postharvest life potential of perishable products (Scalzo and Mezzetti, 2010). The main
importance of genetic control in compounds related to fruit health and taste has been
emphasized in several studies.The quality characteristics of the cultivars are variable, which
may be due to individual plant differences or changes in fruit quality during harvest. Different
varieties are characterized by different quality parameters, which makes some varieties more
favored by producers and consumers than others (Getinet et al., 2011). For instance, the
acidity and soluble solid content are determined by many factors, such as cultivars (Byrne,
2003). Varieties of fruit grown for sale in the fresh market are not the best varieties for
processing since fruits of different cultivars differ in size, color, texture, and flavor as well as
storage potential (Getinet et al., 2011).Therefore, selecting high-yielding tomato varieties with
the required fruit quality and longer shelf life is an important decision for the grower to make
(Hanna, 2009).

2.4.1.2. Climatic conditions

Climatic conditions of the production field such as temperature, relative humidity, light
intensity and day length are among the major factors contributing to the nutritional quality of
fruits and vegetables. The tomato plant as a tropical one needs a sufficiently high temperature
to ensure completion of its life cycle and full fruit maturation.Temperature affects plant
 10

growth balance, flower development and pollination, fruit growth and development, thus
having a substantial influence on fruit quality. Low temperature (<13ºC) reduces pollen
viability while high temperature (>30ºC) favors an excessive growth of the style, both of
which cause poor fertilization and uneven development of locules, and thus result in
misshapen fruits such as „cat facing‟ and roughness (Rylski,1979). Ideal temperatures for
optimal tomato plant growth are 21.1 to 27.8 oC for day and 16.7 to 17.78 oC for night (Zhang,
2010). Relative humidity (RH) affects the transpiration rate of plants and therefore affects the
uptake of water and nutrients, mainly nutrients transported through xylem like calcium and
potassium.Abiotic stress such as very low relative humidity causes high transpiration rates and
accumulation of calcium in the mature leaves, which leads to an increase in reactive oxygen
leading risk of fruit disorders such as blossom end rot(Saure, 2014). The optimal relative
humidity levels for greenhouse tomatoes are between 60% and 70%.Light affectsthe
performance of tomato plants and fruits, resulting in various quality of tomatoes grown in
different seasons. Tomatoes produced during the winter are known to have low TSS compared
with tomatoes produced in summer. Besides, tomato fruits produced under indoor conditions
have lower TSS due to poor light quality as compared with out-door production (Beckles,
2012).Increased exposure to light increases fruit size (Tahir et al., 2007), total soluble solids
and flesh firmness (Woolf and Ferguson, 2000).

2.4.1.3.Agronomicpractices

Among agronomic factors affecting tomato composition and flavor; soil fertility, potassium
and water availability are determinant (Anttonen and Karjalainen, 2008; Shimeles et al.,
2017).Nutrient deficiency in the soil severely decreases tomato quality and yield. Researchers
have therefore studied the influence of plant nutrition on the quality of produced fruits. For
example, High calcium uptake in fruit has been shown to reduce respiration rates and ethylene
production, delay ripening, increase firmness, and reduce the incidence of physiological
disorders and decay, all of which result in increased shelf life. High nitrogen content, on the
other hand, is often associated with reduced shelf life due to increased susceptibility to
mechanical damage, physiological disorders, and decay (Kader, 2002). An adequate supply of
major nutrients such as potassium in tomato production improves fruit color and reduces the
incidence of yellow shoulder (Hartz et al., 2005), at the same time enhancing the titratable
 11

acidity and acid content of the fruit (Passam et al., 2007).But, an insufficient supply of the
same nutrient in soilless tomato production resulted in ripening disorders (Haifa, 2014).In
addition, there is a positive relationship between nitrogen availability and soluble solids
content. Tomato has a high water requirement throughout the growing period, until fruiting
occurs. Uneven levels of water application may lead to physiological disorders such as
cracking and splitting of the fruit skin. Careful water management could increase the fruit
solids.

2.4.1.4. Maturity stage at harvest

The maturity stage of tomato fruit at harvest is an importantfactor in many quality traits
(Beckles, 2012). Tomato, being a climacteric fruit, can be harvested at different stages during
maturity, like mature green, turning, or red ripen stage. Each stage at harvest has its own
postharvest attribute that the fruit will exhibit. Moneruzzaman et al.(2009) reported that the
shelf life of all tomato cultivars under investigation is longest when harvested at a green
mature stage.Although shelf life has been the most important aspect in loss reduction of fruit
and vegetables, other aspects may be of interest rather than shelf life. Fruit nutritional qualities
and appearance may be affected when harvested green. For example, sugar transport to fruits
in a vine-ripened tomato appears to increase during the latter part of maturity (Carrari et al.,
2006) and, therefore, when fruits are harvested immature or in a green state sugar import to
fruits will be cut off making postharvest degradation of starch, the main source of
carbohydrates, which is both undesirable and inadequate (Balibrea et al., 2006). Meanwhile,
harvesting later also promotes higher sugar accumulation in riper fruits which are susceptible
to mechanical injuries with a shorter shelf life (Toivonen, 2007). It is therefore important to
decide when a given commodity should be harvested to provide some marketing flexibility
and to ensure the attainment of acceptable eating quality to the consumer (Dhatt and Mahajan,
2007). It is suggested that fresh market tomatoes could better be harvested at the turning stage
when fruits can be easily transported to a distant market or stored for a long period while for
processing, fruits must be harvested when they are red-ripe so that they can directly be sent to
the processing factories (MOARD,2009).
 12

2.4.2.Harvest and Postharvest Factors

2.4.2.1.Handling

Physical handling can have a drastic effect on the postharvest quality and shelf life of most
harvested fruits and vegetables(Beckles, 2012). Bruising and mechanical damage to fruit
occurs before, during, and after harvesting and drastically reduces quality. In industrial
production methods, tomatoes can be mechanically harvested when they are at mature green,
placed in crates, sorted, sized, washed, cooled, stored, and transported over long distances. At
each stage, there are significant opportunities for mechanical damage to fruit, including
bruising, scarring, scuffing, cuts and punctures(Li and Thomas, 2014). Rough handling during
harvesting and after harvesting can cause mechanical injuries which can affect the postharvest
quality and shelf life of harvested fruit like tomatoes. Fruit may experience both internal or
external injury or either of them. Internal injury however may go undetected but still lead to
massive fruit loss (Lee et al., 2007). Improperpostharvest practices are injurious and cause
severe problems on tomato fruits. Physical damage during the handling process in general
increases the rate of respiration, ethylene production, and fruit water loss. The physical
damage also serves as an excellent entry point for pathogens (Alegbeleyeet al., 2018).

2.4.2.2.Microbial spoilage

Disease and pests are the major causes of postharvest losses of fruits and vegetables in tropical
and subtropical countries. This is because vegetables and fruits have high moisture content and
are rich in nutrients and thus naturally contaminated with microbes. Therefore, keeping the
number of microorganisms as low as possible by keeping a clean environment is very critical
(Lehto et al., 2011). Improper harvest and postharvest practices result in spoilage and
deterioration in the appearance, taste, and nutritional value of the product before reaching the
market (Babatola et al., 2008). Postharvest diseases were reported as one of the major causes
of the postharvest loss of horticultural fresh produce across the supply chain in Ethiopia,
which could be responsible for as much as a 10%–30% reduction in the yield of tomato crop
(Etebu et al., 2013). According to Fantahunet al. (2019), Phytophthora infestans is the most
important disease-causing post-harvest losses in tomatoes. The use of a disinfectant in pre-
cooling water can help to prevent both post-harvest diseases and field heat in produce.
 13

2.4.2.3.Storage temperature and relative humidity

Most of the factors that lead to the deterioration of the quality of the tomato fruit increase with
the increase in temperature (Atanda et al., 2011). Extreme increases in temperature will
increase respiration rate, ethylene production rate, and transpiration rate which in turn will
shorten the storage period of tomato fruits.Pinheiro et al. (2013) showed that the kinetics of
tomato quality degradation (color, texture, activation energy, total phenol content and weight
loss) are highly dependent on temperature and storage time. It is generally believed that
vitamin C is the most heat-sensitive nutrient compound in tomatoes (Sablani et al., 2006), and
it gradually decreases as the storage temperature increases. On the other hand, an extreme
reduction in temperature causes chilling injury and reduces fruit quality. Cantwell et
al.(2009)reported the impact of storage temperature on a variety of (grape) tomato and
discovered that storing at a temperature of 10∘C resulted in an excellent quality of fruit, while
storage below 10∘C showed chilling injury symptoms which included decay, off-flavor
development and poor color formation occurred. Low-temperature storage is therefore widely
used since higher temperatures increase fruit respiration and shorten their shelf-life (Pinheiro
et al., 2013; Biswas et al., 2014; Pinheiro et al., 2015).

Relative humidity is another main issue to consider in the storage of tomato fruits. Water loss
from harvested fruit produce is predominantly caused by the amount of moisture present in the
ambient air expressed as relative humidity (Arah et al., 2015).At harvest, fresh fruit contains
between 70-95% of water content. Evaporation of this water content from the tissues of the
fruit results in dehydration called Transpiration (Ramaswamy, 2014). Transpiration process
begins after harvesting, with water and nutrients no longer nourishing it.Quality losses occur
as visual changes, due to shriveling, weight loss, texture changes (softening) and a fading
appearance (El-Ramady et al.,2015). Shriveling of the fruit can become understandable with
any minor percentage of moisture loss. At very high relative humidity, harvested fruits
maintain their nutritional quality, appearance, weight, and flavor by reducing the rate at which
wilting, softening, and juiciness occur (Arah et al., 2015). Thus an increase in the relative
humidity in the storage environment is the best way to tackle the problem of postharvest
quality loss.
 14

2.4.2.4.Physiological factors

Respiration is the process of breakdown of stored organic reserves (carbohydrate, proteins and
fats) into simpler molecules with the release of energy in the form of ATP (Fonseca et al.,
2002). It is the major process responsible for deterioration of fresh produce and the respiratory
metabolic processes double for every 10ºC raise in temperature (Fagundes et al., 2013). When
the tomato fruit is left to ripen, on or off the plant, a marked increase in its respiration is
observed as it passes from the mature green phase to the ripe phase. During the process of
respiration, there is a loss of organic matter, food value and addition of heat load to the
system. The loss of stored food reserve in the fruit during respiration quickens senescence as
the required food for maintenance of living is exhausted (Barrett et al., 2004).However, the
positive effects vary with the type of commodity, and their tolerance to minimum oxygen
concentration at which they could tolerate without undergoing fermentative reactions or
anaerobic respiration. Conversely, mechanical damages that occurred during harvesting and
postharvest handling could raise their rate of respiration and other metabolic reactions,
hastening the deterioration process. In addition to these, fruit maturity, moisture stress, light,
growth hormones, pathogens and synthetic chemicals also influence the rate of respiration to a
certain extent (Saltveit, 1999).In general, the respiration rate of tomato fruit determines its
transit and postharvest life. It is directly proportional to the rate of deterioration and such
explains the phenomenon, the higher the respiration rate the higher the rate of deterioration
which results in shorter shelf life. The production of carbon dioxide through respiration can
cause the production of ethylene in stored climacteric products such as tomatoes, although it is
also dependent on certain other factors like oxygen levels, exposure time and ripening stage
(DeWild et al., 2003). Respiration and metabolic activities in the fruit are directly linked to the
temperature of its environment (Arah et al.,2015). The rate of respiration increases with a rise
in temperature (Singh et al.,2013), ethylene exposure and physical and physiological stresses.

Ethylene is a naturally occurring gaseous plant growth substance with copious effects on the
growth, development, and storage life of various horticultural crops. It is the simplest organic
compound that affects the physiological processes in plants. Researchers have reported that
once the ripening of climacteric fruits has started, the internal ethylene concentration increases
quickly to a higher level (reaching up to 100 µl l-1) attributed to the stronger diffusion
resistance, especially during later stages of fruit development (Saltveit, 1999; Bargel and
 15

Neinhuis, 2005; Paul and Srivastava, 2006). Tomato fruit is characterized by an increase in
ethylene production due to the high respiration rate that occurs during the ripening phase.
When maturation occurs, several structural and biochemical changes occur that give rise to
specific organoleptic qualities, which include modifications in external aspects, texture, and
flavor. The rate at which ethylene is produced is increased with maturity, disease incidence,
increased temperatures, physical or mechanical injuries, and water stress. A high rate of
respiration results in a higher amount of ethylene produced by the fruit. It is thus clear to say
that reduction of both the respiration rate and temperature of the storage system would be an
appropriate way of reducing ethylene production. Other methods of ethylene reduction include
the use of gas absorbers such as potassium permanganate and activated charcoal (Pinheiro et
al., 2009) and the application of calcium chloride. Coating the harvested tomato fruits with
different edible materials as well as chlorination is also reported to slow down postharvest
ethylene production (Prasad et al., 2018)

2.5.Major Postharvest Treatment Techniques of Tomato Fruits

2.5.1.Physical treatments

Due to their perishability nature, fresh vegetables are highly vulnerable to mechanical damage
that comes with poor handling and transportation. Losses occur during harvesting,
transportation, and marketing (Seung et al., 2000). Postharvest practices such as the timing of
harvest, handling techniques, and storage conditions, can change fruit sugar profiles (Habtamu
et al., 2016). Pre-storage treatments are the treatments given to a commodity generally after
harvesting to reduce post-harvest losses, enhance shelf life and maintain quality. These
treatments refer to the use of chemical and physical treatments such as washing, cleaning,
sorting, grading, waxing, packing, precooling, and low temperature storage (Habtamuet al.,
2016).Cleaning is a treatment given to remove adhering dust, dirt, extraneous matter, and
pathogenic load from the surface of a commodity (Banjaw, 2017). It sanitizes the product and
avoids the entry of undesirable contents to enter the packaging and storage line (Mebrat,
2014). Simple practices before transportation e.g. washing, sorting and the use of clean plastic
packages showed reduced aerobic bacterial count (ABC), coliform bacterial count, yeast and
mold by 2.51%, 32.7% and 29.86% respectively, as compared with the control (Khadka et al.,
 16

2017). Washing whole produce by dipping or submerging in chlorinated water was routinely
used and has a sanitizing effect on fruits and vegetables(Belew and Gebru, 2015). Moreover,
pre-storage hot water treatment has also been used as an effective method to control
postharvest decay chilling injury in various fruits and vegetables including tomato (Belew and
Gebru, 2015).

2.5.2.Chemicaltreatments

A wide range of chemicals have been and are still used for post-harvest disinfection of
fresh produce. Most of the cleaning and sanitizing chemicals used for this purpose include
chlorine (hypochlorites, chlorine dioxide), ozonation, hydrogen peroxide, trisodium phosphate,
organic acids (acetic, lactic, citric, and tartaric acid), electrolyzed water, and calcium-based
solutions (Tapia et al., 2015). Depending on the crop and situation, these sanitizing chemicals
are applied at different recommended concentrations by dipping, rinsing, or spraying on fruits
and vegetable surfaces for a predetermined contact time (Joshi et al., 2013).

Chlorines are combined with inorganic compounds such as sodium or calcium to produce
hypochloriteswhich are widely used in the food industry to kill decaying microorganisms
(Boyette et al., 1993).The antimicrobial effects of chloride solution as a low toxicity agent
have been generally indicated by several studies and it can be used as surface disinfection for
fresh fruits and vegetables including tomato (Cliver, 2003; Pinheiro et al., 2013). For instance,
Sibomanaet al. (2017) treated tomato with calcium hypochlorite solutionand observed a
significant reduction in coliform and fungal counts on its surfaces. Post-harvest application of
calcium chloride on tomato fruits has also been reported to improve fruit marketability,
minimize weight loss, excessive shrinkage, spoilage and metabolic stress after harvest (Etebu,
2013; Tessemma, 2013; Zebider et al., 2021).

Chlorine combined with sodium which is known as sodium hypochlorite or liquid bleach is the
most active form of the chlorine compounds. It is a highly available and cheap form of
chlorine that has been used particularly for tomato fruit disinfection at a rate of 200 – 350 ppm
((Suslow, 2000) and 3-5 min contact time (Harrup 2001). The potential of sodium
hypochlorite treatment in reducing postharvest losses and improving efficiency has been
reported (Buntong et al., 2013).The study revealed that sodium hypochlorite solution has been
 17

used to sterilize tomato fruits to reduce the incidence of fungal infection before any
postharvest treatment was applied(Soodet al., 2011; Tessema, 2013).Tessema (2013)
suggested that surface sterilization of tomato fruits with 500ppm NaOCl for 10 minutes has
been used to reduce the incidence of fungal infection before any pre-storage treatment. Similar
treatment effectiveness was observed in another study using water containing up to 200 mg/ml
chlorine, where the reduction in tomato naturally occurring and pathogenic micro-organisms
did not exceed 2 logs (Zhuang et al., 1995).Nasrin et al. (2008) and Dandago et al. (2017) also
stated that tomato fruits treated with 200ppm NaOCl showed lower weight loss, maintained
marketability and other quality attributes. Additionally, Dippingof tomato fruits in 100 mg ml-
1
of chlorinated water for 20 minutes had a good postharvest quality and marketability (Meaza
et al., 2009).Efficacy of chlorinated water in significantly reducing microbial load on tomato
fruits was enhanced when integrated with other effective post-harvest handling practices
(Tilahun et al., 2012; Cengiz and Certel, 2014). Furthermore, positive effects of sodium
hypochlorite treatment on the qualities of various horticultural cropslike melon (Rosarioet al.,
2018), strawberry (Alexandre et al., 2012; Coswoscket al., 2021), banana (Neravati et al.,
2018) and apple (Fareed et al., 2019) have been reported. In these crops, postharvest
treatments of NaOCl maintained marketability, pH, Titratable acidity, vitamin C, Firmness and
soluble solids to acid ratio. The combined influence of chlorination with aloe gelwas observed
in some vegetables including tomato. For instance, Firdous et al. (2020) reported that treating
tomato fruits with a combination of 80% aloe gel and 2% calcium chloride hasmaintained
their quality and shelf life.Overall physicochemical and organoleptic quality of apple fruits
treated with 10% AG and 2% CaCl2 was reported to be better as compared to untreated
samples (Khan et al., 2019). More over, Farina et al. (2019) indicated the effectiveness of 30%
aloe gel and 5% CaCl2 in keeping papaya fruit postharvest quality.

2.5.3.Edible Coatings

Edible coatings are thin layers of edible material that applied over the surface of the
horticultural commodities (Ochoa et al., 2013).Because of their biodegradability, edibility, and
miscibility, edible coatings and films are attracting more attention than other synthetic plastic
packaging materials (Aziz et al., 2018; Salama et al., 2018; Moghadam et al., 2020; Salehi,
2020). Edible coatings and films can preserve appearance, firmness, moisture and increase the
 18

shelf life of fruits because of their barrier properties against moisture and gas transmission,
lipid oxidation and controlling enzymatic activities and microbial spoilage (Brown et al.,
2018; Senturk Parreidt et al., 2018).The ideal coating is defined as a coating that can extend
the shelf life of fresh fruit without causing anaerobic bacteria, reducing spoilage without
affecting the quality of the fruit (Sonti, 2003).

The preservative effects of various edible coatings on the quality and shelf life of different
perishable crops have been studied. Acceptable quality and prolonged shelf life of tomato
fruits coated with either chitosan or pectin were reported (Zekrehiwot etal., 2017). Abera et al.
(2019) indicated the overall post-harvest quality of mango fruits treated with either cactus
mucilage or Aloe debrana gel or a combination of both. Suleyman et al. (2015) also reported
that in addition to preventing defects in lipid metabolism and weight loss, the gel developed
from Aloe debrana serves as packaging film. The performance of the beeswax edible coating
on quality preservation like TA, Vitamin C, pH, beta-carotene, and total sugar of stored
tomato was found to be best (Desta et al., 2019). Moreover, dipping tomato fruits in 6% CaCl2
and coating with 100% aloe vera gel or beeswax were recommended to serve as an important
postharvest treatment to maintain the quality and extend the storage life of the crop (Zebider et
al., 2021).

Among the most commonly used edible coatings, aloe gel, which is produced from Aloe
medicinal plant leaves, is a promising bio-preservative that has great potential to become a
common use for fresh fruits and vegetables. The mucilaginous fluid from different aloe
species, including Aloe pubescens, has been used to prevent infections, keep hair healthy and
bring about healing of cuts and wounds in Ethiopia, particularly in the Hararghe areas (Mesfin
and Brook, 2010; Bula and Baressa, 2017).This natural product is a safe and environmentally
friendly alternative to synthetic preservatives such as sulfur dioxide.

It was confirmed that tomato fruits coated with aloevera gel and chitosan maintained the total
phenolic content for up to 42 days than the control fruits (Khatri et al., 2020).According to
Roy and Karmakar (2019),treating tomato fruits with 95% aloe vera gel have significantly
extended the shelf life (28 days)by retaining moisture, color and ascorbic acid while slowing
the rate of physiological loss in weight and total soluble solids increment. Kator et al. (2018)
 19

also stated that coating the tomato with 100% of aloe vera gel reduced weight loss and
increased the marketability of the fruit during storage as compared with uncoated fruits.
Several studies have shown a decrease in the percentage of decay, extended shelf life,
improved marketability, firmness, color and sensory quality of aloe gel treated tomatoes
(Tzortzakis et al., 2019; Dong et al., 2020; Hasan et al., 2020). Furthermore, the effectiveness of
aloe gel-based edible coatings have been shown to prevent loss of moisture and firmness,
control respiratory rate and maturation development, delay oxidative browning, and reduce
microorganism proliferation in different produces including mango (Ochiki et al., 2014; Abera
et al., 2019), Mushroom (Mirshekari, 2019), Guava (Rehman et al., 2020), papaya (Farina et
al., 2020); Eggplant (Rosemand et al., 2021). The typical aloegel concentration used in these
studies ranged between 30% and 100%.The antifungal activity of aloe gel from several species
has been correlated with the content of aloin, one of the major phenolic compounds of aloe
leaves (Zapata et al., 2013).

One of the most important factors to be considered when using edible coating for tomato
postharvest treatment is harvesting maturity(Saltveit, 2005). According to Park et al. (1994)
and Zekrehiwot et al. (2017), the best stage for applying coatings to tomato is at the breaker
and turning stage. If the coating is applied at the green stage, it causes a blotchy ripening and
jumping of stages from mature green to breaker, turning, pink, light red and red (Mwendwa,
2016).
 20

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of Study Area

The tomato was grown at the Tony Farm research site of Haramaya University in 2021. The
site is located in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 518 kilometers east of Addis Ababa. It is at an elevation
of 1197 meters above sea level and is located at latitude 9°36′N, 41°52′S and longitude 60°E,
41.867°W. The total average annual rainfall is approximately 604 mm and the annual average
humidity is 41.82%. The area's average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures are
31.4 °C and 18.2 °C, respectively. The soil is classified as Eutric Regosol with a gentle slop
(3-8%) (Kindie, 2004). The texture and structure of the topsoil (0-30 cm) are sandy loam and
sub angular blocky, respectively. The soil has an average pH (H2O 1:2.5) of 8.54 and organic
matter content of 1.94% (0-15 cm) and 1.84% (15-30 cm) (Kindie, 2004).
 21

The laboratory experiment was conducted at Haramaya University, Horticulture laboratory

from October 16 to November 14, 2021. It is located in the eastern part of Ethiopia, in the East
Hararghe zone, 510 kilometers from Addis Ababa, 21 kilometers from Harar townand 40
kilometers from Dire Dawa, at 9o42'N latitude and 42o03'E longitude and altitude of 2043
meters above sea level.The area has an average annual rainfall of 760 mm, the minimum and
maximum temperature is 12.26 and 28.5oC, respectively (Petros and Berecha, 2015). The short
rainy season extends from March to April and the long rainy season extends from June to
October (Belay et al., 1998; Simret et al., 2014). The storage room was constructed from
bricks and a big glass window, well aerated and wide enough to accommodate the fruit
samples. The average minimum and maximum temperatures of the storage room were17.53°C
and 24.85°C with air relative humidity of74.04%.

3.2. Experimental Materials

A fruit of tomato variety shanty PM was used as experimental material. Shanty is a

commercial hybrid variety with a semi-determinate growth pattern. It was introduced to
Ethiopia by Hazera genetics LTD (Greenline PLC) in 2009. After transplanting, it takes 75
days to reach maturity (DAT). Shanty PM is widely grown in eastern Ethiopia, particularly in
Dire Dawa areas. It is a high-yielding variety with a broad spectrum of powdery mildew
resistance(MoANR, 2016).The fruits have oval shape, firm and red color.

3.3. Treatments and Experimental Design

The experiment consisted of four concentration levels of Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) (0%,
100 ppm, 200 ppm, and 300 ppm) and five Aloe gel (AG) concentrations (0, 25%, 50%, 75%,
and 100%). The experiment was arranged as a 4x5 factorial with 20 treatment combinations
using a completely randomized design (CRD) with three replications. The durations for
sodium hypochlorite dipping and aloe-gel coating of the fruits were five (5) minutes (Nasrin et
al., 2008) and two (2) minutes (Kator et al., 2018; Chandran et al., 2021), respectively.
 22

3.4. Experimental Procedures

3.4.1. Tomato production

Vigorous and healthy tomato seedlings of one month old were purchased from Roshanara
Roses PLC commercial vegetable nursery located in Debrezeitand weretransported to
Haramaya University's tony farm research site. Seedlings were transplanted at 100 cm between
rows and 30 cm between plants on 600 m2 of well prepared land (15 x 40 m) in July 28, 2021
as per the recommendation of Asfaw and Eshetu (2015). There were 40 rows in total, with 50
plants on each row. A total of 2000 seedlings were planted. NPS(19%N, 38%P2O5, and 7%S)
and Urea (46%N) were applied to the field at rates of 200 kg ha-1 and 150 kg ha-1,
respectively, during the transplanting (Feyissa, 2018; Tufaha et al., 2020). The total dose of
NPS and half of the Urea were applied in combination to the experimental area during
planting, and the remaining Urea was applied at an early flowering stage, or about 1½ after
transplanting. Transplanted seedlings were watered daily for the first two weeks, then weekly
till the plants were fully established. To control fungal disease, Ridomil® MZ 68 WG at a
rate of 2.5 kg ha-1 was used and Mancozeb® (Indofil M-45) at a rate of 2.5 kg ha-1 was
sprayed for controlling early, late blight and anthracnose. Similarly, Selecron® 720 EC at a
rate of 0.75 litter ha-1 for controlling leaf worm was applied.During the growing season, other
agronomic activities, including weeding and cultivationwere applied uniformly to the entire
experimental area according to the plant's requirements.

3.4.2.Preparation of postharvest treatments

Matured and healthy aloe (Aloe pubescence) leaves were collected from the Haramaya area
with a sterilized sharp knife. The leaves were stored in plastic bags and transported to the
horticulture laboratory of Haramaya University on the same day for aloe gel preparation. The
aloe gel was prepared by following the procedure described by Kator et al. (2018). The
tapering point of the leaf top and the short sharp spines located along the leaf margins were
removed by a sharp knife, and then the knife was introduced into the mucilage layer below the
green rind, avoiding the vascular bundles. The top and bottom of the leaf were removed and
the gel, colorless hydro-parenchyma part was separated from the outer cortex. The extracted
gel was then blended to remove the fibers. The filtered gel was then pasteurized at 70 oC for
 23

45 minutes and stored in clean, sterilized glass bottles. The obtained liquid was 100% gel and
was considered fresh aloe gel. The bottles containing the pasteurized gel were stored in the
refrigerator at an average temperature of 6 oC until ready for use. The 25%, 50%, and 75% gel
concentrations were obtained by diluting 25, 50, and 75 milliliters of pure (100%) aloe gel in
75, 50, and 25 milliliters of sterile distilled water, respectively.

A sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution or chlorine bleach (5%) was purchased.Each

treatment concentration of the NaOCl was prepared based on the percent active ingredient of
the NaOCl as described by Eifert and Sanglay (2002). Accordingly, 20ml of 5% sodium
hypochlorite was diluted in 10 liters of distilled water to create a solution with a 100 parts per
million (ppm) concentration of chlorine, 40ml in 10 liters of distilled water to make a solution
with a 200 ppm concentration, and 60ml in 10 liters of distilled water to produce a solution
with a 300 ppm concentration. The pH of the chlorine solution was between 6.5 and 7.

3.4.3. Fruit sample preparation

Uniform and healthy fruits were harvested manually with care at the turning stage. The tomato
maturity color chart was used for the maturity stage identification (Cantwell, 2000).
Harvesting was done from middle rows, all directions and in the middle of the tomato vine.
Soon after harvesting, the fruits were precooled, packed using plastic crates, cushioned with
newspaper, and transported to the horticulture laboratory of Haramaya University for
postharvest treatments. The fruits were then sorted, washed with tap water to reduce field heat,
soil particles and microbial population, and dried in the open air (Farneti, 2014) immediately
after arrival at the laboratory. 35 fruits (about 5 kg) of uniform maturity stage were used for
each post-harvest treatment per replication that encompassed a total of 2100 tomato fruits
(about 300 kg). Tomato fruits selected for physicochemical analysis were stored in the open
space of the horticulture laboratory on a table at an ambient average temperature and relative
humidity of 21.19 °C and 74.04 %, respectively.

3.5. Data Collection

The 35 tomato fruits treated with different concentrations of NaOCl and AG in each
experimental plot were divided into two subgroups, namely, destructive (21 tomato fruits) and
nondestructive (about 14 tomato fruits). Data related to physical analysis, such as percentage
 24

of marketable fruits, physiological loss in weight, percentage of decay, and shelf life, were
recorded from nondestructive subgroup samples. Physical and chemical analysis data were
collected at four-day intervals beginning on the first day (day zero) of storage. From the
destructive tomato sample, two fruits that were randomly selected for a firmness test were
alsoused for chemical analyses.The average ambient air temperature and relative humidity of
the storage laboratory room were measured throughout the storage period by using a digital
psychrometer (Model: ALNOR® 8612 SN03057107, Germany).

3.5.1. Physical characteristics and shelf-Life

Physiological loss in weight (%):

It was measured using methods described by Karki (2005) and Caron et al. (2013). The initial
weight of tomatoes (Wo) during the first day of storage was weighed and recorded. Then,
every four days, the fruits were weighed and their values were recorded as final weight (Wf).
An electronic balance (model YP6001N) was used for this purpose. Then the percent loss in
weight was calculated as follows:
𝑊𝑜 − 𝑊𝑓
𝑃𝑕𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔𝑕𝑡 (𝑃𝐿𝑊) = 𝑥 100
𝑤𝑜

Percentage of fruit decay:

It was determined by counting the number of rotten and shriveled tomato fruits periodically
and was expressed in percentage as employed by Dargieet al. (2013) using the following
formula:
𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑠
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦 (𝑃𝐹𝐷) = 𝑥100
𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑠

Marketable tomato fruit (%):

It was assessed periodically by counting the number of tomato fruits that were firm, free from
disease, shriveling or dehydration, good in appearance, and expressed in percentage as
described by Maeza et al. (2009), using the following:

𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑠

𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡 (𝑀𝑇𝐹)(%) = 𝑥 100
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑟𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑠
 25

Firmness (N mm-1):

The degree of firmness was determined by following the procedures described by AOAC
(2007). A hand-held penetrometer (model: FT444) was used for this purpose. The fruit was
held against a stationary, hard surface, and the tip of the probe of the device was forced into
the fruit at a slow, uniform speed (about 2 seconds) to the scribed line on the tip. Two
puncture tests per fruit were done on opposite cheeks, midway between the stem and blossom
ends. The reading was taken in N mm-1. The penetrometer was carefully calibrated before use,
and the drill press was also rinsed with distilled water and wiped with a tissue paper for each
samples.

Shelf life of fruits (Days):

The shelf life was calculated by counting the days required to reach the final stage of ripening
but up to the point at which the fruit remained suitable for consumption or marketing, i.e.,
when approximately 50% of the fruits displayed symptoms of unmarketability such as
shrivelling, spoilage, or imperfect visual appearance, the fruits were considered to have
reached the end of their shelf life (Moneruzzamanet al., 2009).

3.5.2. Chemical Analysis

pH:
Two tomato fruits that were used in fruit firmness analysis were crushed by a juice extractor to
prepare the tomato juice for pH determination.The pH was measured following the procedures
described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (2007) using a digital
pH meter (model-ME 962P). Accordingly, the pH meter was first calibrated using a buffer
solution of pH 4.0, 7.0, and 9.2 at room temperature. The sample was then taken in a 50 ml
beaker, stirred, an electrode of a pH meter was put in it, and a direct reading from the pH
meter was taken when the reading stabilized.The electrode of pH meter was washed with
distilled water and rinsed with tissue paper between each sample tests.

Total soluble solids(oBrix):

Total soluble solidswere determined by using the methods described by Dargieet al.(2013).
The digital hand refractometer (Model-ATAGO® PR-32α) with a range of 0 to 32 oBrix, and a
 26

resolution of 0.2 oBrix was used. The refractometer was standardized against distilled water (0
percent TSS). Two drops of clear juice were placed on the prism of a refractometer at room
temperature. The readings were then recorded as oBrix. Between samples, the prism of the
refractometer was rinsed with distilled water and dried before use.

Titratable acidity (%):

It was estimated by the acid-alkaline titration method as described in AOAC (2000) 942.15.
About 10 g of homogenized fruit pulp was taken into a 100 ml beaker and the volume was
made up to the mark with50ml distilled water. It was thoroughly mixed and then filtered with
muslin cloth. 10 ml of filtered sample was titrated against 0.1 N NaOH (Sodium hydroxide)
using three drops of 1% phenolphthalein solution as an indicator till a pink color appeared and
persisted for about 15 seconds. The observed titre value was used to calculate the acidity using
the formula indicated below, and the results were expressed as the percentage of citric acid as
it is the most abundant acid and the largest contributor to the total titratable acidity in tomatoes
(Agiuset al., 2018).
Titre×0.1N NaOH×0.064 ×Volume made with distilled water
TA % = x 100
Weight of sample g × Volume of an aliquot taken

Total soluble solids to acid ratio:

Total soluble solid to acid ratio was calculated by dividing the value of total soluble solid
(°Brix) by the value of the percentage of titratable acidity as described by Caron et al. (2013).

°B𝑟𝑖𝑥 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑜 𝑗𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒

𝑆𝑢𝑔𝑎𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝐴𝑐𝑖𝑑 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑜 𝑗𝑢𝑖𝑐𝑒

Ascorbic Acid

The dye solution was standardized before ascorbic acid determination. For standardization of
dye solution, 5ml of standard ascorbic acid solution was taken in a conical flask and 5ml of
3% metaphosphoric acid solution was added. They were thoroughly mixed and titrated against
indophenol dye solution to get the pink color end point and its persistence for 15 seconds, and
the burette readings were taken.The dye factor was then calculated 𝑎𝑠, 𝑑𝑦𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 =
0.5/𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔.
 27

The 2, 6-dichlorophenolindophenol standard (AOAC, 1994; Pila et al., 2010) method no.
967.21 was used to determine the ascorbic acid content (mg 100g-1) of tomato. A 10g of
tomato juice extract was diluted to 50 ml with 3% metaphosphoric acid in a 100 ml beaker.
The aliquot was filtered with muslin cloth, and 10ml of clear juice was titrated with the
standard dye to a pink end-point (persisting for 15 seconds). The ascorbic acid content was
then calculated using the following formula from the titration value, dye factor, dilution,
volume of aliquot taken for titration, and sample weight.

𝑇𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑒 × 𝐷𝑦𝑒𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 × 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑢𝑝

𝐴𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑 = × 100
𝐴𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑜𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑥 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔𝑕𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒

3.6. Data Analysis

The collected data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS statistical
software (SAS Institute, 2013) in accordance with Gomez and Gomez (1984).The significant
differences among the treatments were computed using the Duncan Multiple Range Test
(DMRT).

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1.Physiological Loss in Weight

Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) dipping and Aloe Gel (AG) coating had a highly significant (P
< 0.001) interaction effect on the physiological loss in weight (PLW) of tomato fruits
(Appendix Table 1).PLW was found to increase in both treated and untreated tomato fruits
throughout the storage period. But, the rate of increment was very low in fruit samples that
received a combination of NaOCl and AG treatments (Table 1). The highest PLW (5.72% to
29.96%) was observed in control fruits between the 4th and 28th days. While the lowest losses
in weight(1.11 to 17.16% and 1.26 to 17.39%), which were not statistically different, were
 28

recorded from fruits treated with 300 ppm NaOCl + 100% AG and 200 ppm NaOCl + 100%
AG, respectively, between 8th and 28th days.On the 4th day, however, 200 ppm NaOCl + 100%
AG showed lower PLW than 300 ppm NaOCl + 100% AG.Overall, PWL showed a decreasing
trend with an increase in the concentration of NaOCl from 0 to 300 ppm and AG from 0 to
100%.At the end of the storage period, the siginificantly lowest physiological loss in weight
was observed in sole 100% AG as well as its combination with all NaOCl concentrations.

Water loss is the factor that contributes most to weight loss, and for products sold by weight,
this will have economic consequences.Higher physiological losses in weight in an untreated
fruit sample could also be due to normally accelerated metabolic activities of the fruit. Thus,
the high transpiration and respiration rates in uncoated fruits could be considered as the
principal causes of the higher weight loss percentage (Sogvar et al., 2016; Nicolau-Lapena et
al., 2021). The significance of aloe gel coating in inhibiting fruit weight loss has been reported
(Suleyman et al., 2015). Firdous et al. (2020) indicated that physiological loss in weight of
uncoated tomato fruits was higher than that of aloe vera coated samples.Treating tomato fruits
with a combination of NaOCl and AG kept the PLW low during storage period. This finding is
in agreement with Kator et al. (2018), who suggested coating tomato fruits with 100% aloe
vera gel displayed higher fruit weight throughout the storage period. The effectiveness of
combined treatment in reducing weight loss of tomato fruit has also been indicated by Zebider
et al. (2021), who found a significant combined effect of 6% CaCl2 and 100% AG in reducing
tomato fruit weight loss.
 29

Table 1. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel (AG) coating on physiological loss in weight (%) of tomato
fruits during storage.
Treatments Storage duration(days)
NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0 0 5.72a 9.00a 12.04a 17.42 a
21.42a 26.46a 29.96a
100 0 4.65b 8.80a 9.82b 14.30b 19.69b 25.90a 27.96b
200 0 4.55bc 7.70b 9.79b 14.27b 17.65c 24.77b 25.38c
300 0 4.57b 7.50b 9.70b 14.20b 17.63c 23.70c 24.76c
0 25 4.44c 6.593c 9.80b 13.82bc 15.34d 20.42d 23.62d
100 25 4.16d 6.50c 9.29b 13.08cd 15.30d 19.48de 22.60e
200 25 3.80e 6.50c 9.30b 13.00d 15.23d 18.85ef 21.45f
300 25 3.75e 6.00d 9.29b 12.96d 15.15de 18.68ef 21.08fg
0 50 3.48f 4.67e 7.24c 11.50e 15.13de 18.60ef 20.92fg
100 50 3.35g 4.51e 6.01d 10.15f 15.09de 18.12fg 20.13gh
200 50 2.96h 3.30f 5.63de 10.00fg 14.43ef 17.93fg 19.41hi
300 50 2.76i 3.17fg 5.25ef 10.00fg 14.44ef 17.39g 19.54hi
0 75 2.50j 3.10fgh 4.78fg 9.70fg 14.3fg 16.06h 18.56ij
100 75 2.36k 2.90ghi 4.50gh 9.50fgh 14.18fg 15.92h 18.22jk
200 75 1.82l 2.83ghi 4.00hi 9.35fgh 13.63g 15.88h 18.16jk
300 75 1.69mn 2.75hi 3.69ij 9.29gh 13.61g 15.60h 18.16jk
0 100 1.80lm 2.67i 3.61ij 8.85h 13.61g 15.39h 17.80jk
100 100 1.60n 2.58i 3.32jk 7.30i 12.18h 15.37h 17.45k
200 100 0.75p 1.27j 2.89k 6.80i 12.12h 15.37h 17.39k
300 100 0.95o 1.11j 2.82k 6.73i 12.09h 15.25h 17.16k
CV(%) 2.3 4.7 4.7 4.1 2.7 3.1 2.7
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 30

The reduction in weight loss in coated samples might be due to the effects of the coatings,
which act as a semi-permeable barrier against the movement of oxygen. Similary, Atlaw
(2018) reported that the weight loss for uncoated and aloe vera coated mangoes was 22.04%
and 8.6%, respectively, after 35 days of storage.

NaOCl alone has also reduced PLW to some extent as compared with control treatments
(Table 1). This result is in agreement with the finding of Dandagoet al. (2017) who reported
the lowest percentage of moisture loss of tomato fruits dipped in 200 ppm of NaOCl.
Similarly, Nasrin et al. (2008) indicated that Lalima tomatoes washed in water containing 200
ppm chlorine for 5 minutes exhibited a lower weight loss of 4.90% when compared with those
washed in water alone, which was 7.49%. The reason behind this effect might be the
disinfection potential of chlorine in reducing microbial loads, which facilitates weight loss
through fruit deterioration. Generally, the lowest PLW of the treated fruits could be related to
the modified atmosphere created by AG coatings and the effect of NaOCl dipping on decay,
which lowered the rate of respiration and transpiration, water loss, and oxidation reactions
when the treatments are combined.

4.2.Percentage of Fruit Decay

The interaction of NaOCl and AG had a significant effect (P≤0.001) on the decay percentage
of tomato fruit samples throughout the storage period (Appendix Table 1). The percentage of
decayed fruits gradually increased up to the 12th day, and then after it continued to increase
sharply as the storage period advanced for all of the treatments. There was no observed
symptom of shrinkage and decay seen in the fruit samples treated with
300ppmNaOCl+100%AG and 200ppm NaOCl+100%AG until 12th day of storage. The lowest
fruit decay percentage of 0% to 44.19% was recorded from 300ppm NaOCl+100%AG
between the 4th and 28th days of storage (Table. 2) followed by thosetreated with 200ppm
NaOCl+100%AGwhich were not statistically different from each other. On the other hand, the
highest percentage of fruit decay, ranging from 16.57% to 91.33%, was observed in untreated
samples during the storage period. Fruit samples treated with 100ppmNaOCl+0%AG also
exhibited the highest decay percentage, which is statistically similar to that of control
treatment up to the end of their storage life.
31
 32

Table 2. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl)dipping and Aloe gel (AG) coating on decay percentage (%) of tomato fruits during
storage.
Treatments Storage duration(days)
NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0 0 16.57a 21.33a
32.24 a
51.23 a
78.67a 82.00a
91.33a
100 0 16.48a 20.43b 30.86 b
51.18 a
78.07a 81.74a 91.17a
200 0 16.29a 18.10c 24.71c 49.50ab 73.04b 80.42ab 90.50a
300 0 16.19a 17.71c 20.95d 49.00ab 72.02b 78.45b 85.68b
0 25 13.05b 17.67c 20.52d 49.00ab 68.05c 74.29c 84.91bc
100 25 10.29c 17.62c 19.86de 48.00b 67.10c 73.69c 84.55bc
200 25 10.00c 14.76d 19.19ef 35.21c 59.02d 73.52c 83.67c
300 25 8.91d 14.43d 17.86g 33.08c 47.37e 69.85d 71.18d
0 50 8.24de 14.00de 18.90efg 28.95d 44.62ef 66.05e 67.71e
100 50 7.91ef 13.43e 18.29fg 28.86d 41.52fg 58.43f 67.05e
200 50 7.71ef 12.05f 17.64g 29.95d 40.86g 56.14g 64.43f
300 50 7.29f 10.29g 16.43h 28.07d 39.93g 49.50h 54.26g
0 75 4.64g 9.40g 15.05i 23.95e 31.57h 46.00i 53.33g
100 75 3.10h 5.14h 14.67i 22.81e 27.95i 42.24j 51.76h
200 75 1.38i 4.64hi 8.52j 18.67f 26.57i 37.33k 50.86h
300 75 0.00j 3.76ij 8.02j 18.05f 25.19i 35.71k 48.71i
0 100 0.00j 3.26j 8.02j 14.76g 19.43j 32.52l 46.48j
100 100 0.00j 1.38k 7.95j 13.67g 18.43j 31.95l 46.48j
200 100 0.00j 0.00l 2.38k 10.29h 17.67j 31.81l 44.52k
300 100 0.00j 0.00l 2.38k 9.90h 17.43j 30.57l 44.19k
CV(%) 5.63 4.92 4.39 4.92 4.79 2.23 1.34
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 33

The fact is that when a combination of NaOCl and AG is used for post-harvest treatment of
tomatoes, the former treatment sterilizes the produce from rotting microorganisms and the
latter serves as a coating layer that controls moisture loss and gas exchange. Thus, combining
them played a crucial role in reducing fruit shrinkage and deterioration. Boyette et al. (1993)
concluded the effectiveness of chlorination when combined with other postharvest treatments.

A study has shown that edible coatings can modify the atmosphere around fruits, change the
normal gas composition inside the fruit, delay respiration rate and production of ethylene, thus
limiting the physiological decay of fruits (Maringgal et al., 2020). The observed high rot in
fruits dipped in only tap water is not surprising, as Hour etal. (2015) stated that although
washing tomato fruits with tap water may remove some soil and other debris, it cannot be
relied upon to remove microorganisms and it may even result in cross contamination.
Generally, the study results revealed that NaOCl dipping and AG coating significantly reduced
fruit decay loss for a relatively longer period. Similar to this, Firdous et al.(2020) stated that
uncoated tomato fruits showed 92% decay while those coated with 80% aloevera gel showed
only 7.69% decay during 30 days of storage. Coating of tomatoes with the combination of
10% aloe vera gel and 0.1% essential oil was also found to significantly decrease the
symptoms of decay during storage (Tzortzakis et al., 2019). Moreover, it has been suggested
that post-harvest treatment with chlorine has the potential to control decaying incidence,
prolong shelf life, and preserve valuable attributes of tomato fruits after harvest (Sood et al.,
2011). The present study also showed the significance of the NaOCl and Aloe gel combination
in reducing tomato fruit deterioration and post-harvest decay.

4.3.Marketable Tomato Fruits

The result of the current study indicated that the percentage of marketable (%) tomato fruits
was significantly (P < 0.001) influenced by the interaction effect of NaOCl dipping and AG
coating (Appendix Table 1). Marketability of stored tomato fruit was gradually decreased
across the increasing storage period. However, all the treated fruit showed more market
acceptability than the untreated sample. Any symptom of unmarketability has not been
observed in fruit samples that received 200ppm NaOCl+100%AG and 300ppm
NaOCl+100%AG treatments until the 12th day after storage.
 34

The highest percentage of marketable tomato fruits, ranging from 100% to 55.68%, was
recorded from samples treated with 300ppmNaOCl+100%AG during storage duration(Table
3). The next highest fruit marketability percentage of 100% to 55.35%, which wasnot
statistically different was obtained from the 200ppm NaOCl+100%AG treatment, followed by
100ppm NaOCl+100%AG and 100%AG alone. Furthermore, the combination of 75% AG
with chlorine has resulted in better fruit acceptability to the market. This might be due to the
effectiveness of aloe gel, which has been shown to prevent loss of moisture and firmness,
control respiratory rate and ripening, delay oxidative browning, and reduce microorganism
proliferation in fruits (Athmaselvi et al., 2013; Borah et al., 2016).

The decrease in apple fruit blemishes has been reported to be due to the fact that chlorine,
which is the major active ingredient in sodium hypochlorite, may interrupt the biological
processes of the fungus that causes fruit blotches (Fareed et al., 2019). In contrast to treated
fruits, control and sole chlorine treatment had the lowest percentage of saleable tomato fruits
in the advancement of storage time, though the higher concentration of chlorine was found to
be better when compared with control.

The possible reasons for the lower percentage of marketability in untreated fruit samples might
be uncontrolled ripening and respiration rates, enzymatic degradation of fruit cell walls and
decay, which become superior over an extended storage period (Prasad et al., 2018). Loss of
moisture through transpiration and loss of carbon reserves due to respiration enhances
shrinkage of fruits and unmarketability as well as unacceptability to consumers. Similarly, loss
of moisture from fruits equates to a loss of saleable weight, so it causes a direct loss in
marketing. Water loss also affect the shelf life and nutritional quality of a given commodity.
 35

Table 3. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on Marketability (%) of tomato fruits during
storage.

Treatments Storage duration(days)

NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0 0 79.52a 75.57a 63.76a 46.77a 17.33a 14.00a 4.67a
100 0 80.43a 75.67a 66.14b 47.00a 18.93a 15.26a 6.50b
200 0 81.81b 79.90bc 73.29c 47.50a 24.96b 17.58b 6.83b
300 0 82.71b 79.38b 77.14d 47.82a 26.98bc 20.55c 13.09c
0 25 83.95c 80.33c 78.05d 49.00a 29.90c 22.71d 13.32c
100 25 88.00d 81.29d 79.28e 49.00a 29.95c 24.48de 13.33c
200 25 89.21e 84.24e 79.71e 63.79b 39.98d 25.31e 14.45c
300 25 90.10ef 85.07ef 80.10ef 66.42c 52.13e 29.65f 28.32d
0 50 90.71fg 85.50f 80.31ef 69.14d 53.38e 31.95g 30.29e
100 50 91.26fg 85.57f 81.14f 69.55d 58.14f 40.57h 31.95f
200 50 91.29fg 85.95f 81.36f 70.05d 57.98f 43.36i 35.07g
300 50 91.85g 89.46g 83.07f 71.68d 59.82f 50.25j 45.49h
0 75 94.36h 89.60g 84.70h 75.05e 67.43g 53.00k 45.67h
100 75 96.40i 94.36h 84.83h 76.69e 71.55h 57.26l 47.74i
j
200 75 98.37 94.86h 91.73i 81.08f 73.18h 62.54m 48.89i
300 75 100.00k 96.11h 91.35i 81.82f 74.68h 64.04m 50.79j
0 100 100.00k 96.49h 91.55i 84.74g 81.83i 66.98n 53.27k
100 100 100.00k 98.37j 91.73i 86.20g 80.44i 67.80no 53.39k
200 100 100.00k 100.00k 97.49j 89.46h 82.32i 69.30o 55.35l
300 100 100.00k 100.00k 97.49j 89.97h 81.44i 68.06no 55.68l
CV% 0.78 0.61 0.86 2.21 3.95 2.98 2.71
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 36

The present study showed that the marketability of tomato fruit can be better preserved by
applying a combined treatment of 100% AG with 300ppm or 200ppm NaOCl. This result is
supported by the work of Kator et al. (2018) who reported a higher percentage of marketable
tomato fruits coated with 100% Aloe vera gel. Jaiswal et al. (2017) suggested using aloe gel
with citric acid and neem extract to improve tomato fruit qualities such as firmness, color,
marketability, and sensory characteristics. The study has also revealed that chlorinated water
dipping treatment significantly improved the percent marketability of tomatoes compared to
hot and tap water dipping treatments (Meaza et al., 2009). From this study, it is evident that
the fruits that have undergone chlorine washing and aloe gel coating retained quality and
showed a good visual appearance.

4.4.Firmness

The firmness of tomato fruits was significantly (P < 0.001) affected by the interaction of
NaOCl and AG over the storage period except for the 4th day (Appendix Table 2). There was a
gradual decrement in fruit sample firmness during the storage period. However, fruits treated
with a higher concentration of NaOCl and AG retained their better membrane integrity up to
the end of the storage period. Appreciated preservation of fruit firmness during the storage
period was observed in samples treated with 300ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, 200ppm NaOCl +
100% AG, and 100ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, which was quantified as 2.71 to 1.25N mm-1,
2.68 to 1.12N mm-1, and 2.69 to 1.12N mm-1, respectively (Table 4). Conversely, the untreated
fruits had the lowest firmness (2.5 to 0.15N mm-1) between the 4th and 28th days. Sole NaOCl
treatment was found to keep fruit firmness at a higher level than control (water treatment).

A study has also revealed that uncoated tomato fruits showed a significant decrease in
firmness as the length of the storage period advanced, while loss of texture and softening were
delayed in coated fruits (Zekrehiwot et al., 2017). Dadzie et al. (2021) and Tzortzakis et al.
(2019) pointed out that eggplant and tomato fruits subjected to aloe gel treatment had
displayed a slow decrement of skin firmness during the storage period.The loss of firmness
during the storage period is normal behavior during the maturation of tomatoes since it has
been reported that the increase in the ethylene concentration in the ripening stage promotes the
 37

synthesis of polygalacturonase, the enzyme responsible for fruit softening (Sucharitha et al.,
2018).
 38

Table 4. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on Firmness(N mm-1) of tomato fruits during
storage.

Treatments Storage duration (days)

NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0 0 2.50a 1.99a 1.55a 1.00a 0.50a 0.15a 0.15a
100 0 2.56bc 2.15b 1.72b 1.21b 0.73b 0.38b 0.17a
200 0 2.55b 2.22c 1.80c 1.38c 0.95c 0.37b 0.16a
300 0 2.56bc 2.25c 1.95d 1.53d 1.27d 0.75c 0.18a
0 25 2.60de 2.31d 1.94d 1.53d 1.30d 0.80cd 0.20a
100 25 2.61ef 2.39e 2.02e 1.60de 1.30d 0.85de 0.27b
200 25 2.61ef 2.41e 2.06ef 1.68ef 1.40e 0.88e 0.33c
300 25 2.60de 2.42e 2.12f 1.70ef 1.53f 0.88e 0.48d
0 50 2.62efg 2.41e 2.13f 1.74f 1.51f 0.91ef 0.50de
100 50 2.62efg 2.45ef 2.20g 1.76f 1.60g 0.93ef 0.50de
200 50 2.65fgh 2.48fg 2.30hi 1.80f 1.59g 0.97f 0.55ef
300 50 2.67hi 2.47fg 2.25gh 1.93g 1.72h 0.98f 0.60f
0 75 2.66gh 2.50fgh 2.31hi 2.10h 1.75h 1.25g 0.66g
100 75 2.67hi 2.53ghi 2.35ij 2.25i 1.83i 1.50h 0.68g
200 75 2.68hi 2.55hij 2.39jk 2.30ij 1.90j 1.52h 0.98h
300 75 2.67hi 2.55hij 2.41jk 2.30ij 1.93jk 1.75ij 1.08i
hi
0 100 2.68 2.56hij 2.42jk 2.33ij 1.95jk 1.75ij 1.07i
100 100 2.69hi 2.57ij 2.45kl 2.35ij 1.97k 1.73i 1.12i
200 100 2.68hi 2.59j 2.50l 2.36ij 2.28l 1.82jk 1.12i
300 100 2.71hi 2.60j 2.46kl 2.40j 2.31l 1.85k 1.25j
CV(%) 0.9 1.3 1.9 3.9 1.9 4.0 5.9
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 39

However, postharvest treatments like chlorination and coating can control the physiological
and enzymatic activities of fruits in storage. Buendiaet al. (2019) indicated that the active
ingredient contents of edible coatings can minimize loss of firmness by inhibiting the activities
of an enzyme responsible for the softening of tomato fruit tissues. Rosario et al. (2018)
reported the preserved firmness of melon fruits treated with sodium hypochlorite at 100 mg/L.
The reason behind the rapid decline in firmness of untreated fruits might be related to higher
moisture loss through natural pores of fruit, uncontrolled respiration rate, and enzymatic
activity, which occurred due to the absence of pre-storage disinfection and a physical barrier
surrounding the skin of the fruits.

The current finding indicated that fruits exposed to a combination of NaOCl and AG treatment
had the best fruit firmness retention. This result is in agreement with the work of Zebider etal.
(2021), who used postharvest treatments of 100% AG and 2% CaCl2 for tomato fruits and
reported their positive effect on fruit skin firmness. The higher membrane integrity of the
tomato fruits was suggested to be due to the delay in softening as a result of the effect of aloe
gel coating (Chargys et al., 2016; Chandran et al., 2021). The lowest weight loss and
respiration rate resulted in greater membrane integrity, giving the fruits greater firmness.

4.5.Shelf Life ofFruits

The significant interaction effect (P < 0.001) of sodium hypochlorite and aloe gel coating on
the shelf life of tomato fruits during storage is presented (Appendix Table 4). The study
revealed that the self-life of tomato fruits in the control treatment lasted after 14 days.
However, the fruits treated with a combination of higher concentrations of sodium
hypochlorite and aloe gel, particularly the application of 300ppm NaOCl + 100% AG and
200ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, resulted in a maximum fruit shelf life of 29 days, which was
followed by 100ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, 0ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, and 300ppm NaOCl +
75% AG, for which 28 days of storage life was recorded (Table 5). But, the difference among
these traetments is not statistically signifaicant. The shorter storage life of the control fruit may
be due to the higher respiration rate that occurred due to the absence of postharvest treatments.
On the other hand, the longer storage life of the treated fruit could mean that the treatment
material slowed down the rate of respiration and transpirational water loss and did not
 40

encourage the rapid exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen, ethylene formation, and attack by
decaying organisms.

Table 5. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on Shelf-
life (days) of tomato fruits during storage.

Treatments
NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) Shelf life
0 0 14.00a
100 0 14.33a
200 0 14.00a
300 0 15.00ab
0 25 16.00b
100 25 16.00b
200 25 18.00c
300 25 20.00d
0 50 20.33d
100 50 22.33e
200 50 22.00e
300 50 24.00f
0 75 24.33f
100 75 25.00f
200 75 27.00g
300 75 28.33gh
0 100 28.00gh
100 100 28.33gh
200 100 29.00h
300 100 29.33h
CV% 3.80%
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance
according to DMRT.

It has been reported that edible coatings can protect food products from various microbial
contamination and reduce deterioration effects (Dong et al., 2020) and prolong the storage
period (Grosso et al., 2020; Hasan et al., 2020). According to Khatri et al. (2020), the
combination of aloe vera gel and chitosan coating has successfully retarded physiological
processes and extended the shelf life of tomatoes by up to 42 days. Firdous et al. (2020)
indicated that treating tomatoes with 80% aloevera gel maintained fruit quality during 30 days
of storage, whereas tomatoes without aloevera gel deteriorated quickly (12 days). A prolonged
 41

shelf life (39days) of aloe gel coated tomato fruits was also stated by Athmaselvi et al. (2013).
Fresh-cut oranges treated with Aloe vera gel, gelatin, and tea extracts were also found to have
reduced weight loss, lower microbial attack, and improved post-harvest shelf life during
storage (Radi et al., 2017).Moreover, Nasrin et al. (2008) and Sood et al. (2011) have reported
that post-harvest treatment with chlorine (200ppm) has the potential to control decaying
incidence, prolong shelf life and preserve valuable attributes of tomato fruits after harvest.

4.6.The pH

The interaction effect of Sodium hypochlorite and Aloe gel on tomato fruit pH was not
significant during storage period. However, main effect of aloe gel coating had a highly
significant (P < 0.001) effect on tomato fruit pH from the start to the end of storage and that
of chlorinated water treatment showed a significant effect on the 16th (P < 0.001), 20th ( P ≤
0.05), 24th (P < 0.01), and 28th (P < 0.01) day after storage (Appendix Table 2). The pH of
tomato fruits showed an increasing trend from 3.76 to 4.65 for control fruits, while treated
fruits had the lowest increasing trend of pH between the 4th and 28th days after storage (Table
6). An excessive increase in fruit pH negatively affects the sensory quality of the fruits and
upsets their sugar-to-acidratio (Tigist et al., 2013). The tomato fruits exposed to pure aloe gel
(100%) treatment had a lower pH (3.66 to 4.30) compared to 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0% during
the storage intervals. This finding is consistent with the report of Makonnenet al., (2021), who
stated the pH range of tomato fruit was from 3.13 to 4.56 during storage experiments at
ambient temperature.

The rise in the pH of the tomato fruits during maturation might be due to the consumption of
organic acid for the metabolic processes during respiration (Wu et al., 2016; Tumwesigye et
al., 2017). Water loss from the fruit pericarp also causes an increase in the pH value of the
fruit (Apai, 2009).Aloe gel coating retards excessive moisture loss by covering natural
openings of the skin of the fruits; thus, it decelerates the pH increment. The present result
confirms the work of Zebider et al. (2021), who used 100% aloe vera gel and 2% calcium
chloride to treat tomato fruits and indicated the significance of the treatment in maintaining pH
at an appropriate level. Coating solutions containing 80% aloe vera gel with 2% calcium
chloride treatment have slightly increased tomato fruit‟s pH during 30 days of storage, which
 42

shows that biochemical reactions leading towards ripening and decay were slowed down by
aloe vera gel based coating (Firdous et al., 2020).
 43

Table 6. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on pH of tomato fruits during storage.

Treatments Storage duration (days)

NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
a
0 0 3.76 3.93a 4.20a 4.36a 4.50a 4.65a 4.65a
100 0 3.76a 3.93a 4.18ab 4.33a 4.49a 4.63a 4.64a
200 0 3.75a 3.92a 4.15abc 4.31ab 4.47ab 4.60ab 4.62ab
300 0 3.75a 3.90a 4.12abcd 4.30ab 4.43ab 4.58ab 4.59abc
0 25 3.75a 3.85abc 3.98bcde 4.25bc 4.39abc 4.57ab 4.54bcd
100 25 3.73a 3.87a 3.98abcde 4.21cd 4.36bc 4.53abc 4.54bcd
200 25 3.72a 3.85abc 3.95cdef 4.16d 4.35bc 4.48bcd 4.50cde
300 25 3.73a 3.86abc 3.93defg 4.15d 4.30cd 4.41cde 4.45defg
0 50 3.72a 3.83abc 3.89efgh 4.14de 4.28cd 4.42cde 4.47def
100 50 3.70ab 3.77abcd 3.88efghi 4.08ef 4.21de 4.35def 4.42efgh
200 50 3.67abc 3.73bcd 3.85efghi 4.02fgh 4.15ef 4.30efg 4.40fgh
300 50 3.68abc 3.73bcd 3.81efghi 4.03fg 4.14ef 4.27fgh 4.41efgh
0 75 3.66abc 3.71cd 3.78efghi 4.01fgh 4.08f 4.22fghi 4.38fghi
100 75 3.66abc 3.70cd 3.75fghi 3.99ghi 4.06fg 4.20ghi 4.38fghi
200 75 3.65abc 3.71cd 3.74fghi 4.00gh 4.02fghi 4.16hijk 4.34hij
300 75 3.66abc 3.71cd 3.75fghi 4.01fgh 4.03fgh 4.18ghij 4.35hij
0 100 3.66abc 3.70cd 3.71ghi 3.95hi 3.95ghij 4.12ijk 4.30ijk
100 100 3.64abc 3.69cd 3.69hi 3.93ij 3.92hij 4.09ijk 4.36ghij
200 100 3.58bc 3.64d 3.66i 3.87jk 3.89j 4.03k 4.27jk
300 100 3.56c 3.61d 3.72fghi 3.84k 3.92ij 4.05jk 4.24k
CV% 1.8 2.4 3.1 0.9 1.7 1.7 1.2
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 44

Athmaselvi et al. (2013) also reported that coating tomato fruits with aloe vera gel showed a
better effect in maintaining pH as compared with untreated fruits. Coating mango fruits with
75% aloe gel has also been suggested to regulate the excessive increase in fruit pH (Orichi et
al., 2014).

The primary uses of chlorine have been to inactivate or destroy pathogenic bacteria, fungi,
viruses, and other propagules of microorganisms associated with seed, irrigation water, farm
or horticultural implements, and equipment (Suslow, 2000). Hence, it controls the agents of
the product's perishability, which also causes postharvest quality loss.In agreement with the
current result, Margarinteno tomato fruits disinfected with 150 mg/L of NaOCl have been
reported to have lower pH as compared to control fruits (Josy et al., 2012). Alexandre et al.
(2012) tested 200 g/mL sodium hypochlorite for strawberry sanitization and confirmed that
treatments did not change pH values compared with fresh samples. The present study also
revealed that the application of NaOCl and aloe gel affected the pH of tomato fruits separately.

4.7.Total Soluble Solids

The interaction of NaOCl dipping and Aloe gel coating did not show a significant effect on the
total soluble solid content of tomato fruit except on the 12th and 20th days after storage. But,
the main effects of sodium hypochlorite and aloe gel were highly significant (P < 0.001)
starting from the 8th and 4thday, respectively (Appendix Table 2). The total soluble solids of all
fruit samples were continuously increasing regardless of treatments applied until the 16th day.
The content of soluble sugars rises during fruit ripening as a result of the activation of
numerous genes, including those that code for vacuolar invertase and sucrose synthase
(Barickman et al., 2016).

The rate of TSS increment at the commencement of the storage period was relatively faster in
untreated fruits, which also resulted in a higher TSS value for these samples. Thus, the
maximum TSS value of 4.72 to 5.74 oBrix was recorded from control fruits between 4th and
16th days (Table 7). Tomato fruits treated with higher concentrations of combined treatment or
aloe gel alone experienced a slight increment in TSS value until they reached their peak on day
20.
 45

On the 24th and 28th days, the highest soluble solids of 5.58 oBrix and 5.15 oBrix were obtained
from a combination of 300 ppm NaOCl and 100% AG, which were not significantly different
(Table 7).

The use of 300ppm NaOCl as a disinfectant was found to significantly (P < 0.001) keep the
soluble solid content of tomato fruits at a lower level as compared to the other lower
concentrations and control treatment. The reason could be that active chlorine in sodium
hypochlorite might have inhibited the postharvest microbial growth, which may cause fruit
cell wall degradation and enhance the breakdown of polysaccharides to simple sugars (Batzer
et al., 2002; Fareed et al., 2019).Other studies have shown that sodium hypochlorite and
calcium hypochlorite treatments have maintained the total soluble solids of banana fruits at a
lower level compared to ozone-treated fruits, which also agreed with the present result
(Netravati et al., 2018).

The main effect of aloe gel coating on the TSS of fruit samples was highly significant (P <
0.001) throughout the storage intervals. Coating tomato fruits with pure aloe gel (100%) kept
the increment of total soluble solids of the tomato fruits at a lower level compared to lower
concentrations up to the 20th day after storage. This could be due to the slower decrease in
acidity in the coated fruits, resulting in a slower ripening process (Ullah et al., 2017).

The rapid decline of TSS in fruits that received control treatment was, therefore, due to the
absence of coating material, which slows down the ripening and respiration processes of
stored fruits by regulating oxygen availability and macromolecular degradation. Hence, the
high TSS value might be due to the degradation of polysaccharides to simple sugars (the
conversion of starch to sugar) during ripening (Mezemer et al., 2017).
 46

Table 7. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on TSS (oBrix) of tomato fruits during storage.

Treatments Storage duration (days)

NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0 0 4.72a 4.97a 5.51a 5.74a 5.66cd 5.26j 4.92j
100 0 4.71a 4.95a 5.49ab 5.73ab 5.64cdef 5.27j 4.94ij
200 0 4.71a 4.93ab 5.48ab 5.71abc 5.62efg 5.33i 4.95ij
300 0 4.69ab 4.92ab 5.46bc 5.71abc 5.61fgh 5.35hi 4.97hi
0 25 4.67abc 4.89bc 5.43c 5.70bcd 5.58hij 5.38ghi 4.97hi
100 25 4.66abc 4.85cd 5.38d 5.69cd 5.55jk 5.40fgh 4.98ghi
200 25 4.64abcd 4.85cd 5.36d 5.67de 5.54kl 5.40fgh 4.99gh
300 25 4.62bcde 4.84cd 5.14e 5.65e 5.70a 5.42efg 4.99gh
0 50 4.60cdef 4.81de 5.12ef 5.61f 5.69ab 5.42efg 5.00fgh
100 50 4.59cdef 4.78def 5.09fg 5.59fg 5.67bc 5.43cdefg 5.01efg
200 50 4.59cdef 4.78efg 5.08fg 5.57g 5.65cde 5.43cdefg 5.02efg
300 50 4.59cdef 4.77efg 5.06gh 5.56gh 5.65cde 5.45cdef 5.03def
defg
0 75 4.56 4.75fgh 5.03hi 5.52hi 5.63cdef 5.46cde 5.03def
100 75 4.54efg 4.73ghi 5.02hi 5.52hi 5.63cdef 5.47cde 5.04de
200 75 4.54efg 4.70hij 4.99ij 5.49ij 5.59ghi 5.48cd 5.04cde
300 75 4.53fg 4.69ij 4.97jk 5.46jk 5.58ij 5.49bc 5.05cde
0 100 4.52fg 4.67jk 4.95jkl 5.44k 5.56jk 5.49bc 5.07bcd
100 100 4.52fg 4.65jkl 4.94kl 5.43kl 5.55jk 5.53ab 5.08bc
200 100 4.50g 4.62kl 4.91lm 5.40lm 5.53kl 5.55a 5.10b
300 100 4.48g 4.61l 4.89m 5.38m 5.51l 5.58a 5.15a
CV(%) 1.00 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.40
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 47

The current finding supports the work of Kanmaniet al. (2017) who reported that the TSS
concentration slightly increased initially and then decreased in the case of tomatoes coated
with aloe vera gel. Zebider et al. (2021) suggested the significance of 6% CaCl2 and 100% AG
in maintaining the TSS of tomato fruits at the optimum level as compared to bees wax and
cactus micillage treatments. Moreover, a gradual increment of soluble solids of mango fruits
coated with 75% AG has been stated (Ochiki et al., 2014; Abera et al., 2019). In the present
study, the separate use of aloe gel and NaOCl treatment significantly maintained the TSS of
tomato fruits better than a combination of both.

4.8. Titratable Acidity

Sodium hypochlorite dipping and Aloe gel coating showed a significant interaction effect on
the total titratable acidity (%) of tomato fruits during storage, except on days 8 and 12
(Appendix Table 3). The overall decrement of titratable acidity, which agreed with the
previous report of Zekrehiwot et al. (2017) that was demonstrated in pectin and chitosan
treated tomato fruits, was observed in the present study. But, the rate of reduction was
relatively more pronounced in fruits subjected to control treatment. The result of the present
study indicated that the maximum fruit acidity from 0.65% to 0.33% was observed in fruits
treated with 300ppm NaOCl +100% AG, followed by those treated with 200ppm NaOCl
+100% AG, 100ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, 0ppm NaOCl + 100% AG, and 300 ppm + 75% AG
across the storage period all of which are not sifignificantly different. Conversely, the control
and lower concentrations of sole chlorine treatment had the lowest value of less than 0.40%
during the 28 days after storage (Table. 8). At the end of the storage duration, the highest TA
values of 0.34% and 0.33% were recorded from fruits treated with 200ppm NaOCl + 100%
AG and 300ppm NaOCl +100% AG, respectively, while fruits exposed to control treatments
showed the lowest value of 0.13%. Similar to the present finding, Getinet et al. (2008)
indicated 0.67% TA of tomato fruits harvested at the turning stage. The fall in titratable acidity
has been suggested to be due to the metabolic activity of tomato fruits during ripening because
stored organic acids (i.e., citric acid) are converted into sugars to supply intermediates to the
tricarboxylic acid cycle during increases in respiration (Khatri et al., 2020; Sree et al., 2020).
 48

A reduction in acidity was therefore expected in terms of the rate of increase in the respiration
of fruit cells.
 49

Table 8. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on TA (%) of tomato fruits during storage.

Treatments Storage duration(days)

NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
a
0 0 0.35 0.31a 0.25a 0.21a 0.19a 0.17a 0.13a
100 0 0.38bc 0.35b 0.30b 0.28b 0.19a 0.18ab 0.17b
200 0 0.38bc 0.36bc 0.32bc 0.29b 0.24b 0.20bc 0.18b
300 0 0.39bcd 0.38bcd 0.33c 0.30bc 0.25b 0.22c 0.19bc
0 25 0.41d 0.40d 0.32bc 0.30bc 0.28c 0.19ab 0.17b
100 25 0.40cd 0.39cd 0.34cd 0.32cd 0.30cd 0.26d 0.21c
200 25 0.45e 0.42de 0.36de 0.34de 0.32d 0.27de 0.19bc
300 25 0.45e 0.41de 0.38e 0.37fg 0.34e 0.28def 0.20bc
0 50 0.46e 0.44ef 0.41f 0.36ef 0.36ef 0.27de 0.20bc
100 50 0.50f 0.46fg 0.43f 0.37fg 0.36ef 0.29efg 0.26d
200 50 0.52fg 0.48gh 0.46g 0.39gh 0.38fg 0.30fgh 0.27de
300 50 0.51f 0.49ghi 0.47g 0.41hi 0.39g 0.31gh 0.29defg
0 75 0.54gh 0.51hij 0.46g 0.43ij 0.40gh 0.28def 0.28def
100 75 0.55hi 0.52ijk 0.48g 0.45j 0.42h 0.30fgh 0.30efgh
200 75 0.56hi 0.55jkl 0.51h 0.48k 0.45i 0.31ghi 0.30efgh
300 75 0.56hi 0.54jkl 0.53hi 0.51k 0.47ij 0.32hi 0.31fghi
0 100 0.57ij 0.55kl 0.53hi 0.50kl 0.48j 0.33hi 0.32ghi
100 100 0.59j 0.57lm 0.55i 0.52l 0.51k 0.32hi 0.31fghi
200 100 0.62jk 0.60mm 0.58j 0.56m 0.54l 0.34i 0.34i
300 100 0.65l 0.62n 0.60j 0.57m 0.57m 0.46j 0.33hi
CV% 2.9 4.7 3.2 3.5 3.8 5.6 6.9
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 50

The reason for delayed TA reduction in treated fruit samples could be due to the potential of
aloe gel coating and chlorination in controlling the rate of respiration and preserving organic
acid during storage (Li et al., 2017). The current result is supported by the findings of Khatri
et al. (2020), who reported the capability of aloe vera gel coating to maintain the titratable
acidity of tomato fruits at a higher level than uncoated. Tomato fruit dipped in chlorinated
water has been reported to have higher TA as compared to hot water dipped fruits (Meaza et
al., 2009). Additionally, Josy et al. (2012) stated that waxing and washing margarinteno
tomato fruits in chlorinated water were found to be the most effective treatments in delaying
TA decline. According to the study findings, a combination of 300 ppm NaOCl and 100% AG,
as well as 200 ppm NaOCl and 100% AG concentrations, are the best postharvest treatments
for maintaining the TA of stored fruits at a desirable level.

4.9.Total Soluble Solids to Acid Ratio

Sodium hypochorite dipping and aloe gel coating showed a significant interaction effect on the
TSS to TA ratio of tomato fruits (Appendix Table 3). A general increment in the TSS to TA
ratio was observed in all treatments. However, fruits that received NaOCl and AG treatments
revealed relatively lower trends in the ratio changes as compared to control. During the course
of fruit ripening, total soluble sugar increases and acidity decreases due to the degradation of
polysaccharides to free sugars, which is the principal cause of the higher TSS to TA ratio
(Tessema, 2013 and Mati Ur et al., 2016).

The highest TSS to TA ratio from 13.69 to 38.42 was recorded from non-treated fruit samples
between the 4th and 28th days after storage (Table 9). The current result is close to the finding
of Zekrehiwot et al. (2017), who reported the ripening index (TSS to TA ratio) as low as 8.8
(for pectin coated) and as high as 32.7 (for non-coated) tomato fruits at the turning stage.

A combination of 300 ppm NaOCl, 200 ppm, 100 ppm with 100% AG as well as sole 100%
and 75% AG treatments resulted in significantly lower TSS to TA ratio at the end of storage
duration.The study results indicated that the control fruit exhibited a more pronounced
ripening development than NaOCl + AG treated tomatoes. Likewise, tomato fruits that had
undergone sole NaOCl treatment showed a comparatively higher TSS to TA ratio.
 51

Table 9. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on TSS to TA of tomato fruits during storage.

Treatments Storage duration (days)

NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0 0 13.49a 16.03a 22.35a 27.90a 30.34a 31.61a 38.42a
100 0 12.56b 14.28b 18.13b 20.50b 29.75a 29.35b 29.14b
200 0 12.40b 13.70b 17.32c 19.71bc 23.46b 26.25c 28.16b
300 0 12.14b 12.97c 16.55cd 19.24c 22.20b 24.70c 26.73bc
0 25 11.43c 12.23de 16.99c 18.79cd 20.00c 28.84b 28.78b
100 25 11.55c 12.45cd 15.83d 17.79d 18.53d 20.78d 23.42c
200 25 10.31d 11.55ef 14.92e 16.69e 17.51de 20.27d 26.88bc
300 25 10.28d 11.83de 13.52f 15.29fg 16.76ef 19.60def 25.50bc
0 50 10.00d 10.94fg 12.53g 15.59f 15.85fg 20.53d 25.53bc
100 50 9.19e 10.43gh 11.84g 15.12fg 15.77fg 18.74defg 19.30d
200 50 8.84ef 9.97hi 11.05h 14.28gh 15.03gh 18.12efgh 18.60de
300 50 9.01e 9.74hij 10.79h 13.56hi 14.64ghi 17.59fgh 17.37de
0 75 8.45fg 9.32ijk 10.94h 12.84ij 14.09hi 19.74de 18.17de
100 75 8.26g 9.08jkl 10.47hi 12.31jk 13.42ij 18.03efgh 16.81de
200 75 8.09gh 8.56lm 9.79ij 11.44kl 12.43jk 17.49fgh 16.82de
300 75 8.11gh 8.72klm 9.38j 10.71lm 11.87kl 17.16gh 16.30de
0 100 7.94gh 8.53lm 9.35j 10.88l 11.59klm 16.82gh 15.88de
hi
100 100 7.67 8.16mn 8.99jk 10.44lmn 10.89lmn 17.50fgh 16.40de
200 100 7.26ij 7.71n 8.47kl 9.64mn 10.24mn 16.34h 15.00e
300 100 6.89j 7.44n 8.15l 9.47n 9.66n 12.16i 15.61de
CV% 3.2 4.0 3.7 4.3 4.8 5.6 9.4
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a 5% level of significance according to DMRT.
 52

The pure aloe gel (100%) treatment alone resulted in a lower tomato fruit ripening index when
compared to lower concentrations in the advancement of storage duration. The coating
attributes of AG, which regulated the increment of TSS and TA decline, also maintained the
relationship between TSS and TA. This result agrees with the finding of Chargys et al. (2016),
who confirmed the decreased ripening index (TSS/TA ratio) of tomato fruits coated with 10%
aloe vera gel compared with control treatment. Similarly, a positive effect of a 75% aloe
debrana gel and cactus mucilage coating on TSS to TA ratio was reported on mango fruits
(Abera et al., 2019). Moreover, Coswosck et al. (2021) indicated that maintenance of TSS to
TA in strawberries that were sanitized by alternative treatments including NaOCl. The total
soluble solids (TSS) to titratable acidity (TA) ratio is often better related to the palatability of
the fruit than either sugar or acid levels alone. From the present finding, it could be concluded
that treating tomato fruit with a combination of 300 ppm NaOCl and 100% AG can keep the
ripening index at an optimum level.

4.10.Ascorbic Acid

Tomato fruit ascorbic acid content was significantly (P < 0.001) affected by aloe gel coating
throughout the storage duration. But, NaOCl dipping and interaction of both treatments did not
show a significant effect on this nutrient content until the 20th day after storage, though the
result of NaOCl dipping was also significant on the 4th day (Appendix Table 3). The
continuous increment of ascorbic acid was seen in all tomato fruit samples up to day 12 (Table
10). The increase in ascorbic acid could be attributed to cell wall degradation during the
ripening process, which provides substrates for ascorbic acid synthesis, explaining the ascorbic
acid increase with advanced ripening stage (Singh and Yadev, 2015). However, fruits
allocated to control, NaOCl alone, and 25% AG alone treatments showed a rapid increment of
ascorbic acid at the commencement of the storage period followed by a gradual decline
starting from the 16th day, which also indicated the end of their shelf life.

Starting from the 20th day, an overall decrement in the ascorbic acid content of fruit samples
was observed irrespective of treatment variation. The result is similar to the finding of
Athmaselvi et al. (2013) who stated the continuous increase in ascorbic acid content of tomato
fruits during the maturity stage followed by a slight fall during the light red stage. The higher
unrestricted respiration of the untreated fruits might have resulted in a higher change of the
 53

organic acids to soluble solids or other components, since ascorbic acid is a highly sensitive
nutrient (Joyce et al., 2016). From the 20th day up to the end of the storage period, the
treatment with a combination of higher levels of NaOCl and AG resulted in a significantly
increased mean ascorbic acid content, whereas the control, lower levels of aloe gel, and
NaOCl alone exhibited the reduced acid content of these fruits.

The range of ascorbic acid content in this study was 9.50 to 15.25 mg 100 g-1 fresh weight,
which is close to the concentration of ascorbic acid between 9.29 and 15.08 mg 100 g-1 for
fresh ripe tomato fruit reported by Tigist et al. (2013). Between the 16th and 28th days, the
highest ascorbic acid values, ranging from 14.94 to 15.10 mg/100 g-1, were obtained from a
combination of 300 ppm NaOCl and 100% AG. Statistically similar values of ascorbic acid
were also observed in the rest of the treatment combinations as well as sole 100% AG during
the same period. On the other hand, the control and 100 ppm NaOCl alone treated tomato
fruits showed maximum ascorbic acid contents of 13.78 mg/100 g and 14.00 mg/100
g, respectively, on the 12th day. From the 20th day onward, the minimum result was recorded
from the control treatments but it was not statistically different from sole NaOCl, 25% AGand
its combinations with sodium hypochlorite concentrations.

The higher value of ascorbic acid in control fruits during earlier intervals of the storage period
might be due to uncontrolled ripening and respiration rate. On the other hand, the increased
ascorbic acid content of coated tomatoes near the end of the storage period could be due to the
fact that the coating served as a protective layer against the auto oxidation of fruit by
controlling the permeability of O2 and CO2 deep inside the fruit.
 54

Table 10. Effect of Sodium hypochlorite(NaOCl) dipping and Aloe gel(AG) coating on Ascorbic Acid (mg 100 g-1) of tomato fruits
during storage.

Treatments Storage durations(days)

NaOCl(ppm) AG(%) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
0 0 12.52a 12.58ab 13.78a 13.32g 12.92f 11.39d 9.89e
100 0 12.45a 12.62a 14.00a 13.60fg 13.00f 11.55d 10.00e
200 0 11.75b 12.41ab 13.70ab 13.50fg 13.10f 11.44d 10.14e
300 0 11.71b 11.78bc 13.64ab 13.45g 13.11f 11.42d 10.12e
0 25 11.26bcd 11.80bc 13.68ab 13.60fg 13.14f 11.46d 10.30e
100 25 11.54bc 11.75bc 13.63ab 13.70defg 13.16f 11.56d 10.32e
200 25 10.77def 11.38cd 13.58ab 13.74defg 13.18f 11.48d 10.33e
300 25 11.08cd 11.30cd 13.60ab 13.69efg 13.89e 11.59d 10.39e
0 50 10.93de 11.06cdef 13.55ab 13.95cdefg 13.91e 13.40c 11.42cd
100 50 10.50ef 11.19cde 13.55ab 13.92cdefg 13.94e 13.45c 11.87cd
200 50 10.25fg 11.00cdef 13.51ab 13.95cdefg 14.27d 13.52c 11.94cd
300 50 10.23fg 10.96cdefg 13.47ab 14.35abcd 14.67c 14.60b 12.15cd
0 75 9.83gh 10.58defgh 12.45c 14.15bcdef 14.67c 14.62b 12.21cd
100 75 9.80gh 10.40efgh 13.38ab 14.30abcde 14.69c 14.68ab 12.50c
200 75 9.75gh 10.32fgh 13.15b 14.42abc 14.72c 14.71ab 13.60b
300 75 9.73gh 10.20fgh 12.59c 14.47abc 14.81bc 14.75ab 14.63a
0 100 9.73gh 9.76h 12.36c 14.50abc 14.86bc 14.80ab 14.70a
100 100 9.57h 10.11h 12.26c 14.78ab 15.03ab 14.98ab 14.85a
200 100 9.55h 9.85h 12.21c 14.94a 15.19a 15.15ab 15.05a
300 100 9.50h 10.10gh 12.10c 14.94a 15.25a 15.20a 15.10a
CV% 2.89 4.12 2.41 2.43 1.1 2.27 3.85
Means with the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at 5% level of significance according to DMRT
 50

Concomitantly, the significance of aloe vera gel coating in delaying the reduction of ascorbic
acid content of tomato fruits has been reported (Chrysargyris et al., 2016; Roy and Karmar,
2019). The work of Rehman et al. (2020) has also revealed that 80% aloe vera gel
concentrations reduced ascorbic acid oxidation and maintained its content in guava fruits.
Besides this, Sood et al. (2011) stated that tomato fruits disinfected with 200 ppm NaOCl and
packed in a low density polyethylene bag had a maximum ascorbic acid content of 10.04
mg/100 g compared to untreated fruits. Furthermore, evaluation of sodium hypochlorite
solution for sanitizing strawberries was reported to be better in maintaining ascorbic acid
content at a higher level compared to those only washed with water (Alexandre et al., 2012). It
is, therefore, possible to conclude from this study that the use of a combination of 300 ppm
NaOCl and 100% AG for tomato postharvest treatment can reduce ascorbic acid loss.
 51

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is amongst the most popular and widely grown vegetable
crops in the world due to its economic, nutritional and health benefits. In Ethiopia, an area
under production and the yield of tomato is increasing yearly but the quantity and quality of
harvested produce planned for consumption are highly affectedby a postharvest loss.
Chlorination and Surface coatings are used to extend the shelf life and reduce the loss of the
fruit by decreasing microbial contamination, altering gas permeability, reducing water loss and
delaying ripening.
The study was therefore intended to investigate the effect of Sodium hypochlorite and Aloe
gel treatments on shelf life and quality of shanty PM tomato fruits that were harvested at
turning stage. Treatments consisted of 4 x 5 factorial combinations of sodium hypochlorite
(0ppm, 100ppm, 200ppm and 300ppm) and aloe gel coating (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%)
which was laid out using completely randomized design in three replications.

The results of the study revealed the significant interaction effect of sodium hypochlorite
dipping and aloe gel coating on physical qualities of tomato fruits. The percentage of weight
loss at 28th day which was less than 17.80% was recorded from a combination of pure aloe gel
(AG) and all possible concentrations of NaOCl. Marketability of tomato fruits treated with
300ppm NaOCl + 100 % AG or200ppm NaOCl + 100% AG was found to be higher all over
storage time; of which the highest marketable percentage ranging from 100% to 55.68% was
recorded from 300 ppm NaOCl + 100% AG between 4th and 28th day. Treating the fruit
samples with higher concentrations of NaOCl and AG (300ppm + 100% or 200ppm + 100%)
exhibited a smaller decay percentage which was less than half of that of untreated samples. A
higher fruit firmness ranging from 2.71 to1.25N mm-1was observed due to the interaction of
300 ppm NaOCl and 100% AG during storage duration.The significantly prolonged shelf life
of fruits which was 29 days was observed in fruits treated with a combination of 300 ppm or
200ppm NaOCl and 100% AG.

The interaction of NaOCl and AG did not show a continuous significant effect on most of the
chemical attributes of tomato fruits during storage. The pH of the fruit sample was not
significantly influenced by the interaction of AG and NaOCl during all storage time. However,
 52

the effect of aloe gel coating was highly significant (p≤0.001) throughout the storage duration,
whereas NaOCl dipping showed a significant effect after the 16th day of storage. The pure
(100%) aloe gel had resulted in an acceptable pH value of tomato fruits, which was 4.30 at the
end of the storage period. The significant interaction effect of NaOCl and AG on TSS contents
of tomato fruits was not observed except on the 12th and 20th days. However, the main effects
of NaOCl and AG were highly significant starting from the 8th and 4th days, respectively. The
highest (5.51 oBrix) and lowest (4.89 oBrix) TSS values on the 16th day were recorded from
control and a combination of 300 ppm NaOCl and 100% AG, respectively. The application of
100% AG coating significantly controlled the TSS increment over storage duration. The
titratable acidity of tomato fruits was significantly affected by the interaction of NaOCl and
AG except on days 8th and 12th. Fruit samples treated with a blend of 300 ppm or 200 ppm
NaOCl with 100% AG displayed the maximum value of fruit TA, ranging from 0.65% to
0.34%, throughout the storage period. The TSS to TA ratio was significantly affected by the
interaction of both treatments. A combination of 300 ppm or 200 ppm NaOCl with 100% AG
maintained the lowest TSS to TA ratio of tomato fruits across the storage period. Between the
20th and 28th days, 300ppm NaOCl + 100% AG produced the highest mean values of ascorbic
acid (15.25 to 15.10 mg 100 g-1).

It can be concluded from the study that a combination of 300 ppm or 200 ppm with 100% aloe
gel or the use ofsole 100% aloe gel had a tendency to reduce physiological loss in weight and
decay percentage, keep good fruit firmness and high percentage of marketability, maintain
internal fruit quality as well as appearance, and prolong shelf life. Depending on the present
finding, it is suggested to use a combination of sodium hypochlorite and aloe pubescence gel
at higher concentrations (300ppm NaOCl +100 AG or 200ppm NaOCl +100 AG) or sole
100% AG as a postharvest treatment to mainatain physicochemical qualities of tomato fruits.
However, to give a conclusive recommendation, it is imperative to further conduct
experiments with consideration of different tomatovarieties, harvesting stages, chlorine forms,
coating materials, and dipping durations. Additionally, lycopene content and sensory analysis
of the tomato fruits under experiment as well as estimation of cost benefits for the applied
treatments will also be important.
 53

6. REFERENCES

Abera Girma, Kebede Woldetsadik and Wassu Mohammed. 2019. Effect of aloe gel and
cactus mucilage coating on chemical quality and sensory attributes of mango
(Mangifera indica L.). Journal of Postharvest Technology, 7 (2): 31-43.
Abhirami, P., Modupalli, N. and Natarajan, V. 2020. Novel postharvest intervention using rice
bran wax edible coating for shelf‐life enhancement of Solanum lycopersicumMill
fruit. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 44(12): e14989.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14989.
Acedo Jr, A., Chanthasombath, T., Sanatem, K., Phomachan, C. and Weinberger, K. 2008.
Effects of chlorine on fruit decay and shelf life of two tomato cultivars stored at
ambient and evaporative cooling condition. In Asia Pacific Symposium on Assuring
Quality and Safety of Agricultural Foods, (837):229-236.
Addy, K., Green, L. and Herron, E. 2004. pH and Alkalinity. URI Watershed Watch, (3): 1-4.
Agius, C., von Tucher, S., Poppenberger, B. and Rozhon, W. 2018. Quantification of sugars
and organic acids in tomato fruits. MethodsX, (5): 537-550.
Alegbeleye, O.O., Singleton, I. and Sant‟Ana, A.S. 2018. Sources and contamination routes of
microbial pathogens to fresh produce during field cultivation.A review on Food
microbiology,(73): 177-208.
Alexandre, E.M., Brandao, T.R. and Silva, C.L. 2012. Assessment of the impact of hydrogen
peroxide solutions on microbial loads and quality factors of red bell peppers,
strawberries and watercress. Food Control, 270.98" (2): 362-368.
Alleyne, V. and Clark, J.R. 1997. Fruit composition of Arapaho blackberry following nitrogen
fertilization. Hort Science, 32(2): 282-283.
Ambecha Gemechis, paul C. Struik and Bezabih Emana. 2012. Tomato production in
Ethiopia: constraints and opportunities. International Research on Food Security,
Natural Resource Management and Rural Development. Resilience of Agricultural
Systems against Crises: Book of Abstracts, 373.
Amsalu Ayana, Afari-Sefa, V., Bezabih Emana, Fekadu F. Dinssa, Tesfaye Balemi, Milkessa
Temesgen. 2014. Analysis vegetable seed systems and implications for vegetable
development in the tropics of Ethiopia. International Journal of Agriculture and
Forestry, 4(4): 325-337.
 54

Anttonen, M.J. and Karjalainen, R.O. 2008. Evaluation of means to increase the content of
bioactive phenolic compounds in soft fruits. In International Symposium on
Biotechnology of Fruit Species, (839): 309-314
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 2007. Official methods of analysis (17th
ed.). AOAC Press.
Apai, W. 2009. Application of chitosan-based coating incorporated with citric acid and
potassium sorbate to delay pericarp browning, chilling injury and decay of fresh longan
fruit. Ph.D. Thesis :46-160. Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Arab, L. and Steck, S. 2000. Lycopene and cardiovascular disease. The American journal of
clinical nutrition, 71(6): 1691S-1695S.
Arah, I.K., Amaglo, H., Kumah, E.K. and Ofori, H. 2015. Preharvest and postharvest factors
affecting the quality and shelf life of harvested tomatoes: a mini review. International
Journal of Agronomy. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/478041.
Artes, F., Gomez, P., Aguayo, E., Escalona, V. and Artes-Hernandez, F. 2009. Sustainable
sanitation techniques for keeping quality and safety of fresh-cut plant
commodities. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 51(3): 287-296. doi:
10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.10.003
Arthur, E., Oduro, I. and Kumah, P. 2015. Postharvest quality response of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) fruits to different concentrations of calcium chloride at
different dip-times. American Journal of Food and Nutrition, 5(1): 1-8.
Asfaw Zeleke and Eshetu Derso (eds). 2015. Production and management of major vegetable
crops in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Printed at Eth-Cana Printing Press 149 pages Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ISBN: 978-
99944-66-25-2.
Atanda, S. A., Pessu, P. O., Agoda, S., Isong, I. U. and Ikotun, I. 2011. The concepts and
problems of postharvest food losses in perishable crops. African Journal of Food
Science 5(11): 603-613.
Athmaselvi, K.A., Sumitha, P. and Revathy, B. 2013. Development of Aloe vera based edible
coating for tomato. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 5(16): 78 – 89.
Atlaw, T.K. 2018. Preparation and natural aloe Vera to enhance quality of Mango fruit.
Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 6(3): 76–81.
 55

Ayandiji, A, O. R., Adeniyi Omidiji, D. 2011. Determinant Postharvest Losses among Tomato
Farmers in Imeko-Afon Local Government Area of Ogun State, Nigeria. Global
Journal of Science Frontier Research, 11(5):22-28.
Aziz, M.S.A., Salama, H.E. and Sabaa, M.W. 2018. Bio based alginate/castor oil edible films
for active food packaging. Learning with technology(Lwt), 96: 455-460.
Babatola, L.A., Ojo, D.O. and Lawal, O.I. 2008. Effect of storage conditions on tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) quality and shelf life. Journal of Biological
Sciences, 8(2): 490-493.
Bailen, G., Guillen, F., Castillo, S., Serrano, M., Valero, D. and Martínez-Romero, D. 2006.
Use of activated carbon inside modified atmosphere packages to maintain tomato fruit
quality during cold storage. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(6): 2229-
2235.
Banjaw, T.D. 2017. Review of Post-Harvest Loss of Horticultural Crops in Ethiopia, Its
Causes and Mitigation Strategies. Journal of Plant Sciences and Agricultural
Research,2(1): 1-4.
Bargel, H. and Neinhuis, C. 2005. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit growth and
ripening as related to the biomechanical properties of fruit skin and isolated
cuticle. Journal of Experimental botany, 56(413): 1049-1060.
Barickman, T.C., Kopsell, D.A., Sams, C.E., 2016. Abscisic acid improves tomato fruit quality
by increasing soluble sugar concentrations. Journal of Plant Nutrition, (40): 964–973.
Barrett, D.M., Somogyi, L. and Ramaswamy, H.S. eds. 2004. Processing fruits: science and
technology. CRC press.
Baskaran, S.A., Upadhyay, A., Kollanoor‐Johny, A., Upadhyaya, I., Mooyottu, S., Roshni
Amalaradjou, M.A., Schreiber, D. and Venkitanarayanan, K. 2013. Efficacy of
plant‐derived antimicrobials as antimicrobial wash treatments for reducing
enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157: H7 on apples. Journal of food
science, 78(9): M1399-M1404.
Batzer, J.C., Gleason, M.L., Weldon, B., Dixon, P.M. and Nutter Jr, F.W. 2002. Evaluation of
postharvest removal of sooty blotch and flyspeck on apples using sodium hypochlorite,
hydrogen peroxide with peroxyacetic acid, and soap. Plant Disease, 86(12): 1325-
1332.
 56

Beckles, D.M. 2012. Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of
tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 63(1):
129-140.
Belay, S.C., Wortman, W. and Hoogenboom, G. 1998. Haricot bean agro-ecology in Ethiopia:
definition using agro-climatic and crop growth stimulation models. African Crop
Science Journal, 6: 9-18.
Belew Derbew and Gebru Hailu. 2015. Extent, causes and reduction strategies of postharvest
losses of fresh fruits and vegetables. A review. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and
Healthcare, 5(5): 49-64.
Bergougnoux, V. 2014. The history of tomato: from domestication to
biopharming. Biotechnology advances, 32(1): 170-189.
Bezabh Emana., Afari-Sefa V, Nenguwo N., Amsalu Ayana., Dereje Kebede., Hadija
Mohammed. 2017. Characterization of pre- and postharvest losses of tomato supply
chain in Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security, 6(3): 1- 11
Bhowmik, D., Kumar, P. K. S., Paswan S. and Srivastava S. 2012. Tomato-A Natural
Medicine and Its Health Benefits. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 1.
Biswas, P., East, A.R., Hewett, E.W. and Heyes, J.A. 2014. Interpreting textural changes in
low temperature stored tomatoes. Postharvest biology and technology, 879(0): 140-
143.
Blanca, J., Canizares, J., Cordero, L., Pascual, L., Diez, M.J. and Nuez, F. 2012. Variation
revealed by SNP genotyping and morphology provides insight into the origin of the
tomato. PloS one, 7(10): e48198.
Borah, A., Mathur, K., Srivastava, G.C. and Agrawal, M. 2016. Effect of Aloe vera gel coating
and bagging of fruits in enhancing the shelf life of tomato. International Journal of
Innovative Research in Science and Engineering, 2(6): 1-5.
Borguini, G.R., Da Silva, F.T. and Elizabeth, A. 2009. Tomatoes and tomato products as
dietary sources of antioxidants. Food Reviews International, 25(4): 313-325.
Boyette, M.D., Ritchie, D.F., Carballo, S.J., Blankenship, S.M. and Sanders, D.C. 1993.
Chlorination and postharvest disease control. Horticultural Technology, 3(4): 395-400.
 57

Brown, S.R.B., Kozak, S.M. and D‟Amico, D.J. 2018. Applications of edible coatings
formulated with antimicrobials inhibit Listeria monocytogenes growth on Queso
Fresco. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, (2):1.
Buendia, L., Soto, S., Ros, M., Antolinos, V., Navarro, L., Sánchez, M.J., Martínez, G.B. and
López, A. 2019. Innovative cardboard active packaging with a coating including
encapsulated essential oils to extend cherry tomato shelf life. LWT(Learning With
Technology). Food Science and Technology, 116: 108584.
Bula Kere and Baressa Anbessa. 2017. Aloes of Ethiopia: International Journal of Plant
Biology and Research,5(1): 1059.
Buntong, B., Srilaong, V., Wasusri, T., Kanlayanarat, S. and Acedo Jr, A.L. 2013. Reducing
postharvest losses of tomato in traditional and modern supply chains in
Cambodia. International Food Research Journal, 20(1): 233.
Burton-Freeman, B. and Reimers, K. 2011. Tomato consumption and health: Emerging
benefits. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(2): 182-191.
Byrne, D.H. 2003. Breeding peaches and nectarines for mild-winter climate areas: state of the
art and future directions. In Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Peach Symposium.
Agrigento, Italy, 10: 102-109.
Canene-Adams, K., Campbell, J.K., Zaripheh, S., Jeffery, E.H. and Erdman Jr, J.W. 2005. The
tomato as a functional food. The Journal of nutrition, 135(5): 1226-1230.
Cantwell, M. 2000. Optimum procedures for ripening tomatoes. Management of fruit
ripening, (9): 80-88.
Cantwell, M., Nie, X. and Hong, G. 2009. Impact of storage conditions on grape tomato
quality. In 6th International Science of Horticultural Science (ISHS) postharvest
symposium, Antalya, Turkey, 8: 8-12.
Carbone, F., Preuss, A., De Vos, R.C., D'AMICO, E.L.E.O.N.O.R.A., Perrotta, G., Bovy,
A.G., Martens, S. and Rosati, C. 2009. Developmental, genetic and environmental
factors affect the expression of flavonoid genes, enzymes and metabolites in
strawberry fruits. Plant, Cell and Environment, 32(8): 1117-1131.
Carrari, F., Baxter, C., Usadel, B., Urbanczyk-Wochniak, E., Zanor, M.I., Nunes-Nesi, A.,
Nikiforova, V., Centero, D., Ratzka, A., Pauly, M. and Sweetlove, L.J. 2006.
Integrated analysis of metabolite and transcript levels reveals the metabolic shifts that
 58

underlie tomato fruit development and highlight regulatory aspects of metabolic

network behavior. Plant Physiology, 142(4): 1380-1396.
Cengiz, M.F. and Certel, M. 2014. Effects of chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone on the
reduction of mancozeb residues on tomatoes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and
Forestry, 38(3): 371-376.
Chandran, T.T., Mini, C. and Anith, K.N. 2021. Quality evaluation of edible film coated
tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) fruits. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 58(2): 219-227
Chrysargyris, A., Nikou, A. and Tzortzakis, N. 2016. Effectiveness of Aloe vera gel coating
for maintaining tomato fruit quality. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural
Science, 44(3): 203-217.
Cliver, D.O. 2003. Microbial food contamination. In: Viruses and protozoan parasites.
(Wilson, C. L. and Droby, S., Eds.), CRC press, Boca Raton, FL.
Coswosck, K.H.C., Giorgette, M.A., Lepaus, B.M., SILVA, E.M.M.D., SENA, G.G.S.,
AZEVEDO, M.C.D.A. and SÃO JOSÉ, J.F.B.D. 2020. Impact of alternative sanitizers
on the physicochemical quality, chlorophyll content and bioactive compounds of fresh
vegetables. Food Science and Technology, 41: 328-334.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2018. Crop Production Forecast Sample Survey, 2017/18.
Report on Area and Production for Major Crops (for Private Peasant Holdings
“Meher” season). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2021. Crop Production Forecast Sample Survey, 2020/21.
Report on Area and Production for Major Crops (for Private Peasant Holdings
“Meher” season). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dadzie, R.G., Amoah, R.S., Ampofo-Asiama, J., Quaye, B., Kizzie-Hayford, N. and Abano,
E.E. 2021. Improving the Storage Quality of Eggplants (Solanum Aethiopicum L.)
Fruit using Aloe Vera Gel Coating. Journal of Food Technology Research, 8(2): 58-66.
Dandago, M.A., Gungula, D. and Nahunnaro, H. 2017. Effect of postharvest dip and storage
condition on quality and shelf life of tomato fruits (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in
Kura, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Food Sciences, 27(1): 61-71.
Dang, K.T., Singh, Z. and Swinny, E.E. 2008. Edible coatings influence fruit ripening, quality,
and aroma biosynthesis in mango fruit. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 56(4): 1361-1370.
 59

Dargie Tsegay, Buzayehu Tesfaye, Ali Mohammed, Haddis Yirga and Andnet Bayleyegn.
2013. Effects of harvesting stage and storage duration on post-harvest quality and shelf
life of sweet bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) varieties under passive refrigeration
system. International Journal of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Research, 4:
98–104.
Davila-Avina, J.E., Villa-Rodríguez, J.A., Villegas-Ochoa, M.A., Tortoledo-Ortiz, O., Olivas,
G.I., Ayala-Zavala, J.F. and González-Aguilar, G.A. 2014. Effect of edible coatings on
bioactive compounds and antioxidant capacity of tomatoes at different maturity
stages. Journal of food science and technology, 51(10): 2706-2712.
Desta Dugassa Fufa., Solomon Abera, Abebe Haile, and Kumar, V. 2019. Effect of using plant
extracts with coating materials on physicochemical quality of tomato fruit (Solanum
lycopersicum L.) stored at ambient temperature. Forte Journal of Agriculture, 1(1):1-
16.
DeWild, H.P., Otma, E.C. and Peppelenbos, H.W. 2003. Carbon dioxide action on ethylene
biosynthesis of preclimacteric and climacteric pear fruit. Journal of Experimental
Botany, 54(387): 1537-1544.
Dhatt, A.S. and Mahajan, B.V.C. 2007. Horticulture Postharvest Technology:
Harvesting. Handling and Storage of Horticultural Crops Punjab Horticultural
Postharvest Technology Centre Punjab Agricultural University Campus, Ludhiana (16-
07-2007).
Dominguez, R., Gullon, P., Pateiro, M., Munekata, P.E., Zhang, W. and Lorenzo, J.M. 2020.
Tomato as potential source of natural additives for meat industry. A
review. Antioxidants, 9(1): 73.
Dong, C., Wang, B., Li, F., Zhong, Q., Xia, X. and Kong, B. 2020. Effects of edible chitosan
coating on Harbin red sausage storage stability at room temperature. Meat Science,
159: 107919.
Dorais, M., Ehret, D.L. and Papadopoulos, A.P. 2008. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health
components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochemistry Reviews, 7(2): 231-250.
Eifert, J.D., and Sanglay, G.C. 2002. Chemistry of chlorine sanitizers in food processing.
Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation, 22(7): 534-538.
 60

El-Ramady, H.R., Domokos-Szabolcsy, E., Abdalla, N.A., Taha, H.S. and Fari, M. 2015.
Postharvest management of fruits and vegetables storage. Sustainable agriculture
reviews: 65-152.
Etebu, E., Nwauzoma, A.B. and Bawo, D.D.S. 2013. Postharvest spoilage of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and control strategies in Nigeria. Journal of Biology,
Agriculture and Healthcare, 3(10): 51-61.
Fagundes, C., Carciofi, B.A.M. and Monteiro, A.R. 2013. Estimate of respiration rate and
physicochemical changes of fresh-cut apples stored under different temperatures. Food
Science and Technology, 33: 60-67.
Fantahun Asrat, Asrat Ayalew, and Asfaw Degu. 2019. Postharvest Loss Assessment of
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in Fogera, Ethiopia. Turkish Journal of
Agriculture-Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2019. Strategic analysis and
intervention plan for fresh and industrial tomato in the Agro-Commodities
Procurement Zone of the pilot Integrated Agro-Industrial Park in Central-Eastern
Oromia, Ethiopia.
FAO. 2016. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [Online]. Rome-Italy:
Food and Agriculture organization of the United States. Available:
faostat3.fao.org/search/tomato%20/E [Accessed].
FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database). 2019.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home [Accessed April 15, 2019].
Fareed, K., Ahmed, M.J., Maqbool, M., Zahid, N., Hamid, A. and Shah, S.Z.A. 2019. Effect of
surface disinfectants on fruit blemishes (Sooty blotch and Flyspeck) and quality of
apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) cv. Banky during cold storage. Pure and Applied
Biology (PAB), 8(2): 1126-1134.
Farina, V., Passafiume, R., Tinebra, I., Scuderi, D., Saletta, F., Gugliuzza, G., Gallotta, A. and
Sortino, G. 2020. Postharvest application of aloe vera gel-based edible coating to
improve the quality and storage stability of fresh-cut papaya. Journal of Food Quality,
1-10, available at: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8303140.
Farneti, B. 2014. Tomato quality: from field to consumer. PhD Dissertation. Wageningen
University, Netherlands.
 61

FeyissaBegna. 2018. Evaluation of appropriate type and rate of new organic fertilizers with
inorganic fertilizers for growth and yield of tomato at east Shewa,
Ethiopia.International Journal of Unani and Integrative Medicine, 2(4): 07-10
Firdous, N., Khan, M.R., Butt, M.S. and Shahid, M. 2020. Application of aloe vera gel based
edible coating to maintain postharvest quality of tomatoes. Pakistan Journal of
Agricultural Sciences, 57(1): 245–249.
Fonseca, S.C., Oliveira, F.A. and Brecht, J.K. 2002. Modelling respiration rate of fresh fruits
and vegetables for modified atmosphere packages: A review. Journal of food
engineering, 52(2): 99-119.
Getinet, H., Tilahun Seyoum and Kebede Woldetsadik. 2008. The effect of cultivar, maturity
stage and storage environment on quality of tomatoes. Journal of Food
Engineering, 87(4): 467-478.
Getinet, H., Workneh, Tilahun Seyoum and Kebede Woldetsadik, 2011. Effect of maturity
stages, variety and storage environment on sugar content of tomato stored in multiple
pads evaporative cooler. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(80): 18481-18492.
Gezai Abera, Ibrahim, A.M., Forsido, S.F. and Kuyu, C.G. 2020. Assessment on post-harvest
losses of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentem Mill.) in selected districts of East Shewa
Zone of Ethiopia using a commodity system analysis methodology. Heliyon, 6(4):
e03749.
Ghadermazi, R., Hamdipour, S., Sadeghi, K., Ghadermazi, R. and Khosrowshahi Asl, A. 2019.
Effect of various additives on the properties of the films and coatings derived from
hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. A review. Food Sciences and Nutrition, 7, 3363–
3377.
Gharezi, M., Joshi, N. and Sadeghian, E. 2012. Effect of postharvest treatment on stored
cherry tomatoes. Journal of Nutrition and Food Science, 2(8): 1-10.
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A., 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John
Wiley and Sons.
Grosso, A.L., Asensio, C.M., Grosso, N.R. and Nepote, V. 2020. Increase of walnuts‟ shelf
life using a walnut flour protein-based edible coating. LWT, Food science and
technology, 118: 108712.
 62

Guillen, F., Diaz-Mula, H.M., Zapata, P.J., Valero, D., Serrano, M., Castillo, S. and Martinez-
Romero, D. 2013. Aloe arborescens and Aloe vera gels as coatings in delaying
postharvest ripening in peach and plum fruit. Postharvest biology and
technology, 83:54-57.
Habtamu Deribe, Belachew Beyene and Belay Beyene. 2016. Review on pre and post-harvest
management on quality tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production. Food
Science and Quality Management, 54: 72-79.
HAIFA. 2014. Tomato crop guide: Nutrients deficiency symptoms.
http://www.haifagroup.com/knowledge_center/crop_guides/tomato/plant_nutrition/nut
rient_deficiency_symptoms/.
Hailu Gebru and Derbew Belew. 2015. Extent, causes and reduction strategies of postharvest
losses of fresh fruits and vegetables. A reviewJournal of Biology, Agriculture and
Healthcare, 5(5): 49-64.
Hanna, H.Y. 2009. Influence of cultivar, growing media, and cluster pruning on greenhouse
tomato yield and fruit quality. Horticultural Technology, 19(2): 395-399.
Harrup, P.G., Holmes, R.J., Hamilton, A.J., Mebalds, M.I. and Premier, R.R. 2001. Sanitary
washing of vegetables.Proceedings of a workshop held in Beijing, People’s Republic of
China, 105:100-107.
Hartz, T.K., Johnstone, P.R., Francis, D.M. and Miyao, E.M. 2005. Processing tomato yield
and fruit quality improved with potassium fertigation. Horticultural Science, 40(6):
1862-1867.
Hasan, S.M.K., Ferrentino, G. and Scampicchio, M. 2020. Nanoemulsion as advanced edible
coatings to preserve the quality of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: A review.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 55: 1–10.
Hour, P., Da, G. N., Kong, V. and Boutong, B. 2015. Effect of NaOCl and LDPE Packaging
on Postharvest Quality of Tomatoes. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences. 3 (1-2):
9-12.
Ibrahim Aliyi, AbduselamFaris, AssefaAyele, Alemayehu Oljirra, MulubrihanBayessa. 2021.
Profitability and market performance of smallholder vegetable production: evidence
from Ethiopia. Heliyon, 7(9): e08008.
 63

Jaiswal, A.K., Kumar, S. and Bhatnagar, T. 2018. Studies to enhance the shelf life of tomato
using aloe vera and neem based herbal coating. Journal of Postharvest
Technology, 6(2): 21-28.
Joshi, K., Mahendran, R., Alagusundaram, K., Norton, T., and Tiwari, B. 2013. Novel
disinfectants for fresh produce. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 34: 54–61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.08.008.
Joyce, C., Willis, O., John K. and Ngoni N. 2016. Effect of Calcium chloride and Hydro-
cooling on Postharvest Quality of Selected Vegetables. Journal of Food Research, 5
(2): 143-151.
Kanmani, V.M., Sashidevi, G. 2017. Application of biodegradable Aloe vera gel for extending
the shelf-life of tomato. Food Science Research Journal 8(2): 132–137.
Kator, L., Hosea, Z.Y. and Ene, O.P. 2018. The Efficacy of Aloe-vera coating on postharvest
shelf life and quality tomato fruits during storage. Asian Research Journal of
Agriculture, 8(4): 1-9.
Khadka, R.B., Marasini, M., Rawal, R., Gautam, D.M. and Acedo, A.L. 2017. Effects of
variety and postharvest handling practices on microbial population at different stages
of the value chain of fresh tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) in Western Terai of
Nepal. BioMed Research International, 2017.
Khan, N., Riaz, A., Rahman, Z., Mawa, J.U. and Begum, H. 2019. Shelf life assessment of
apple fruit coated with aloe vera gel and calcium chloride. Pure and Applied Biology,
8(3): 1876-1889. http://dx.doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2019.80131.
Khatri, D., Panigrahi, J., Prajapati, A. and Bariya, H. 2020. Attributes of Aloe vera gel and
chitosan treatments on the quality and biochemical traits of post-harvest tomatoes.
Scientia Horticulturae, 259: 108837.
Kiaya, V. 2014. Post-harvest losses and strategies to reduce them. Technical Paper on
Postharvest Losses, Action Contre la Faim (ACF).
Kindie Tesfaye. 2004. Field comparison of resource utilization and productivity of three grain
legume species under water stress. East African Journal of Sciences, (1) 43-54.
Lee, E., Sargent, S.A. and Huber, D.J. 2007. Physiological changes in Roma-type tomato
induced by mechanical stress at several ripeness stages. Horticultural Science, 42(5):
1237-1242.
 64

Lehto, M., Kuisma, R., Maatta, J., Kymalainen, H.R. and Maki, M. 2011. Hygienic level and
surface contamination in fresh-cut vegetable production plants. Food control, 22(3-4):
469-475.
Lemma Desalegne and Shimelis Aklilu. 2003. Research experience in Onion Production.
Li, C., Tao, J. and Zhang, H. 2017. Peach gum polysaccharides-based edible coatings extend
shelf life of cherry tomatoes. Biotechnology, 7(3): 1-5.
Li, Z. and Thomas, C. 2014. Quantitative evaluation of mechanical damage to fresh
fruits. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 35(2): 138-150.
Luengwilai, K., Beckles, D.M. and Saltveit, M.E. 2012. Chilling-injury of harvested tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. Micro-Tom fruit is reduced by temperature pre-
treatments. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 63(1): 123-128.
Mahajan, P.V., Caleb, O.J., Singh, Z., Watkins, C.B. and Geyer, M. 2014. Postharvest
treatments of fresh produce. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. A
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372(2017): 20130309.
Mahieddine, B., Amina, B., Faouzi, S.M., Sana, B. and Wided, D. 2018. Effects of microwave
heating on the antioxidant activities of tomato (Solanum lycopersicumL.). Annals of
Agricultural Sciences, 63(2): 135-139.
Makonnen Tolasa, Fikreyohannes Gedamu and Kebede Woldetsadik. 2021. Impacts of
harvesting stages and pre-storage treatments on shelf life and quality of tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.). Cogent Food and Agriculture, 7(1): 1863620.
Maringgal, B., Hashim, N., Tawakkal, I.S.M.A. and Mohamed, M.T.M. 2020. Recent advance
in edible coating and its effect on fresh/fresh-cut fruits quality. Trends in Food Science
and Technology, (96): 253-267.
Mati Ur R., Muhammad S., Abdur R., Shahzad A., Muhammad O. S., Aftab A., Muhammad I.
r and Irshad A. 2016. Impact of Calcium Chloride Concentrations and Storage
Duration on Quality Attributes of Peach (Prunus persica). Russian Agricultural
Sciences, 42(2): 130–136.
Meaza Melkamu, Tilahun Seyoum and Kebede Woldetsadik. 2009. Effect of different
cultivation Practices and postharvest treatments on tomato quality. East African
Journal of Sciences, 3(1), 43–54.
 65

MebratTola. 2014. Tomato value chain analysis in the central rift valley: The case of
DugdaWoreda, East Shoa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Haramaya University,
Haramaya, Ethiopia.
Melkamu Alemayehu and Getachew Alemayehu. 2017. Study on alternative technologies for
the production of tomato during the rainy season in subhumid climate of Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Science and Technology, 10(1): 1-16.
Mesfin Tadesse and Brook Mesfin. 2010. A review of selected plants used in the maintenance
of health and wellness in Ethiopia. Ethiopian e-Journal for Research and Innovation
Foresight, 2(1): 85-102.
Mezemer Samuel, Abera Solomon, and Kebede Woldetsadik. 2017. Effect of bee wax and
linseed oil coatings and frequency of dipping on the biochemical and organoleptic
quality of fresh orange juice (Citrus sinensis cv. Valencia). Journal of Postharvest
Technology, 5(2):17-28.
Mishra, V., Abrol, G.S. and Dubey, N. 2018. Sodium and calcium hypochlorite as postharvest
disinfectants for fruits and vegetables. In Postharvest disinfection of fruits and
vegetables, 253-272. Academic Press.
MoANR (Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources). 2016. Crop Variety Register issue
No. 19, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development). 2009. Course for training of
trainers on improved horticultural crop technologies; vegetables: Tomatoes, Onion,
Hot pepper. Rural Capacity Building Project, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Moghadam, M., Salami, M., Mohammadian, M., Khodadadi, M. and Emam-Djomeh, Z. 2020.
Development of antioxidant edible films based on mung bean protein enriched with
pomegranate peel. Food Hydrocolloids, 104: 105735.
Mohamed, S.A., El-Sakhawy, M. and El-Sakhawy, M.A.M. 2020. Polysaccharides, protein
and lipid-based natural edible films in food packaging: A review. Carbohydrate
Polymers, 238: 116178.
Mohammed Kasso and Aferwork Bekele.2018.Post-harvestlossandquality
deteriorationofhorticulturalcropsinDireDawaRegion, Ethiopia. Journal
o f t h e S a u d i S o c i e t y o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Sciences,17(1): 88–96.
 66

Mohammed, N.A., Abu-Goukh, A.B.A. and Muddathir, A.M. 2018. Effect of Natural Waxes
on Quality and Shelf Life of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Fruits. University of
Khartoum Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 26.
Moneruzzaman, K. M., Hossain, A. B. M. S., Sani, W., Saifuddin, M., and Alenazi, M. 2009.
Effect of harvesting and storage conditions on the post-harvest quality of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) Cv. Roma VF. Australian Journal of Crop Science,
3(2): 113–121.
Mujtaba, A. and Masud, T. 2014. Enhancing post-harvest storage life of tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentumMill.Cv. Rio Grandi) using calcium chloride. American-Eurasian Journal
of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 14(2): 143 –149.
Mwendwa, R., Owino, O.W., Ambuko, J., Wawire, M. and Nenguwo, N. 2016.
Characterization of postharvest physiology attributes of six commercially grown
tomato varieties in Kenya. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and
Development, 16(1): 10613-10631.
Nasrin, T.A.A., Molla, M.M., Hossaen, M.A., Alam, M.S. and Yasmin, L. 2008. Effect of
postharvest treatments on shelf life and quality of tomato. Bangladesh Journal of
Agricultural Research, 33(4): 579-585.
Netravati, S.L., Mesta, R.K. and Rudresh, D.L. 2018. Effect of washing treatments on quality
of banana fruits. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(2): 3100-3103.
Nicolau-Lapena, I., Colas-Meda, P., Alegre, I., Aguilo-Aguayo, I., Muranyi, P., and Vinas, I.
2021. Aloe vera gel: An update on its use as a functional edible coating to preserve
fruits and vegetables. Progress in Organic Coatings, 151: 106007.
Nielsen, S.S. 2017. Introduction to food analysis. In Food analysis, 3-16. Springer, Cham.
Ochiki, S., Wolukau, J.N. and Gesimba, M.R. 2014. Effect of various concentrations of Aloe
vera coating on postharvest quality and shelf life of mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruits
Var. „Ngowe‟. African Journal of Biotechnology, 13(36). DOI: 10.5897/AJB2014.13996
Ochoa-Reyes E. 2013. Improvement of shelf life quality of green bell pepper using edible
coating formulation. The Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences
2(6): 2448-2451
 67

Osae, R., Essilfie, G. and Anim, J.O., 2017. Assessment of locally produced waxing materials
on the shelf life and fruit quality of two tomato varieties (Solanum
lycopersicum). Journal of Energy and Natural Resource Management (JENRM), 4(1).
Park, H.J., Chinnan, M.S. and Shewfelt, R.L., 1994. Edible corn‐zein film coatings to extend
storage life of tomatoes. Journal of food processing and preservation, 18(4): 317-331.
Passam, H.C., Karapanos, I.C., Bebeli, P.J. and Savvas, D. 2007. A review of recent research
on tomato nutrition, breeding and post-harvest technology with reference to fruit
quality. The European Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 1(1): 1-21.
Paul, V. and Srivastava, G.C. 2006. Role of surface morphology in determining the ripening
behaviour of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill.) fruits. Scientia
Horticulturae, 110(1): 84-92.
Peralta, I.E., Knapp, S. and Spooner, D.M. 2005. New species of wild tomatoes (Solanum
section Lycopersicon: Solanaceae) from Northern Peru. Systematic Botany, 30(2): 424-
434.
Peralta, I.E., Knapp, S. and Spooner, D.M. 2006. Nomenclature for wild and cultivated
tomatoes. Tomato genetics cooperative report, 56: 6-12.
Petros Yohannes and Berecha Regasa Gutu. 2015. Genetic Variability and Path Coefficient
Analysis for Yield and Yield Related Traits in Commons Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
Accessions at Haramaya University, East Hararge, Ethiopia. Doctoral dissertation,
Haramaya University.
Pila, N., Gol, B. N., and Rao, R. T. V. 2010. Effect of post-harvest treatments on physico-
chemical characteristics and shelf life of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits
during storage. American Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences, 9(5): 470–479.
Pinheiro, J, Alegria, C, Abreu, M, Sol, M, Gonçalves, EM and Silva, CL. 2015. Postharvest
Quality of Refrigerated Tomato Fruit (Solanum lycopersicum, cv. Zinac) at Two
Maturity Stages Following Heat Treatment. Journal of Food Processing and
Preservation, 39 (6): 697-709.
Pinheiro, J., Alegria, C., Abreu, M., Gonçalves, E.M. and Silva, C.L. 2013. Kinetics of
changes in the physical quality parameters of fresh tomato fruits (Solanum
 68

lycopersicum, cv. „Zinac‟) during storage. Journal of Food Engineering, 114(3): 338-
345.
Pinheiro, J., Alegria, C., Abreu, M., Gonçalves, E.M. and Silva, C.L. 2009. Temperature effect
on stored tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L.) quality parameters.
Prasad, K., Guarav, A.K., Preethi, P. and Neha, P. 2018. Edible coating technology for
extending market life of horticultural produce. Acta Scientific Agriculture, 2(5): 55-64.
Radi, M., E. Firouzi, H. Akhawan and S. Amiri. 2017. Effect of Gelatin- Based Edible
coatings incarporated with Aloe vera and Black and Green Tea Extracts on shelf life of
fresh cut oranges. Journal of Food and Quality, 24(10): 101-108.
Rahman, K.M., Islam, S., Rahman, M.W., Kenah, E., Galive, C.M., Zahid, M.M., Maguire, J.,
Rahman, M., Haque, R., Luby, S.P. and Bern, C. 2010. Increasing incidence of post-
kala-azar dermal leishmaniasis in a population-based study in Bangladesh. Clinical
Infectious Diseases, 50(1): 73-76.
Ramaswamy, H.S. 2014. Post-harvest technologies of fruits and vegetables. DEStech
Publications, Inc.
Rehman, M.A., Asi, M.R., Hameed, A. and Bourquin, L.D. 2020. Effect of Postharvest
application of aloe vera gel on shelf life, activities of anti-oxidative enzymes, and
quality of „Gola‟ guava fruit. Foods, 9(10): 1361.
Richard, O. 2017. Assessment of locally produced waxing materials on the shelf life and fruit
quality of two tomato varieties (Solanumlycopersicum L.). Journal of Energy and
Natural Resource Management, 4(1).
Rosario, D. K., Duarte, A. L. A., Madalao, M., Libardi, M. C., Teixeira, L. J., Conte-Junior, C.
A., and Bernardes, P. C. 2018. Ultrasound Improves Antimicrobial Effect of Sodium
Hypochlorite and Instrumental Texture on Fresh-Cut Yellow Melon. Journal of Food
Quality: 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/2936589.
Roy and Karmakar. 2019. Use of Aloe Vera Gel Coating as Preservative on Tomato.
International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, 10(5):461-466.
Rylski, I. 1979. Effect of temperatures and growth regulators on fruit malformation in
tomato. Scientia Horticulturae, 10(1):27-35.
 69

Sablani, S.S., Opara, L.U. and Al-Balushi, K. 2006. Influence of bruising and storage
temperature on vitamin C content of tomato fruit. Journal of Food Agriculture and
Environment, 4(1): 54.
Salama, H.E., Aziz, M.S.A. and Sabaa, M.W. 2018. Novel biodegradable and antibacterial
edible films based on alginate and chitosan biguanidine hydrochloride. International
journal of biological macromolecules, 116: 443-450.
Salehi, F. 2020. Edible coating of fruits and vegetables using natural gums: A
review. International Journal of Fruit Science, 20: 570-589.
Saltveit, M.E. 1999. Effect of ethylene on quality of fresh fruits and vegetables. Postharvest
biology and technology, 15(3): 279-292.
SAS institute. 2013. Base SAS 9.4 procedures guide: Statistical procedures, 40.
Saure, M.C. 2014. Why calcium deficiency is not the cause of blossom-end rot in tomato and
pepper fruit–a reappraisal. Scientia Horticulturae, 174: 151-154.
Scalzo, J. and Mezzetti, B. 2010. Biotechnology and breeding for enhancing the nutritional
value of berry fruit. Biotechnology in Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, 61.
Serrano, M., Guillen, F., Martínez-Romero, D., Castillo, S. and Valero, D. 2005. Chemical
constituents and antioxidant activity of sweet cherry at different ripening
stages. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(7): 2741-2745.
Shewfelt, RL. 1999. What is quality? Postharvest Biology and Technology,15 (3): 197-200.
Shimeles Tilahun, Seo, M.H. and Jeong, C.S. 2017. Review on factors affecting the quality
and antioxidant properties of tomatoes. African Journal of Biotechnology, 16(32):
1678-1687.
Sibomana, M., Ziena, L., Schmidt, S., and Workneh, T. 2017. Influence of transportation
conditions and postharvest disinfection treatments on microbiological quality of fresh
market tomatoes (cv. Nemo-Netta) in a South African supply chain. Journal of Food
Protection, 80: 345–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-229.
Silva, E. 2008. Influence of Preharvest factors on postharvest quality. In Wholesale success: a
farmer's guide to selling, postharvest handling, and packing produce (Midwest edition).
Available online at: http://www.familyfarmed.org/wholesale-success/.
 70

Simret Burga, Nigusse Dechassa, and Tegalign Tsegaw. 2014. Influence of mineral nitrogen
and potassium fertilizers on ware and seed potato production on alluvial soil in Eastern
Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences, 8(2): 155-164.
Singh, R., Giri, S.K. and Kulkarni, S.D. 2013. Respiratory behavior of turning stage mature
tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) under closed system at different
temperature. Croatian journal of food science and technology, 5(2): 78-84.
Singh, Y. and Yadav, Y.K. 2015. Effect of different storage environment on quality
characteristics of tomato and kinnow fruits. Agricultural Engineering International:
Center for Interdisciplinary Geriatric Research(CIGR) Journal, 17(1): 238-245.
Sogvar, O.B., Koushesh Saba, M. and Emamifar, A. 2016. Aloe vera and ascorbic acid
coatings maintain postharvest quality and reduce microbial load of strawberry fruit.
Postharvest Biology and Technology, 114: 29-35.
Soliva-Fortuny RC, Martin-Belloso O. 2003. New advances in extending the shelf life of
fresh-cut fruits: A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 14: 341-353.
Sonti S. 2003. Consumer perception and application of edible coatings on fresh-cut fruits and
vegetables. MSc. Thesis, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.
Sood, M., Kaul, R.K., Bhat, A., Singh, A. and Singh, I. 2011. Effects of harvesting methods
and postharvest treatments on quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumL.). Annals
of Food Science and Technology, 12(1): 58-62.
Sophia O., Gesimba M.R and Wolukau J.N. 2015. Effects of Aloe vera gel and storage
temperature on quality of mango (Mangifera Indica L.) fruits. Annuls Biological
research, 6(5):1-6.
Sree, K.P., Sree, M.S., Supriya, P. and Samreen. 2020. Application of chitosan edible coating
for preservation of tomato. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 8(4): 3281–
3285.
Stavropoulou, A., Loulakakis, K., Magan, N. and Tzortzakis, N. 2014. Origanum dictamnus
oil vapour suppresses the development of grey mould in eggplant fruit in vitro. BioMed
Research International, 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/562679.
Sucharitha, K. V., Beulah, A. M. and Ravikiran, K. 2018. Effect of chitosan coating on storage
stability of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). International Food Research
Journal, 25(1): 93 –99.
 71

Suleyman Abdilkadir, Gnanasekaran, N., Seifu Daniel. 2015. Amelioration of streptozotcin

induced hyper glycemia and dyslipidemia through aloe debrana. International Journal
of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 7(2): 975-1491.
Suslow, T. 2000. Chlorination in the production and postharvest handling of fresh fruits and
vegetables. Fruit and Vegetable Processing: 2-15.
Tahir, I.I., Johansson, E. and Olsson, M.E. 2007. Improvement of quality and storability of
apple cv. Aroma by adjustment of some pre-harvest conditions. Scientia
horticulturae, 112(2): 164-171.
Tapia, M., Gutierrez-Pacheco, M., Vazquez-Armenta, F., Aguilar, G. G., Zavala, J. A.,
Rahman, M. S., and Siddiqui, M. W. 2015. Washing, peeling and cutting of fresh-cut
fruits and vegetables minimally processed foods, 57–78. doi:10.13140/2.1.3857.4406.
Tessema Genanew. 2013. Effect of postharvest treatments on storage behavior and quality of
tomato fruits. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 9(1): 29-37.
Tigist Tadesse, Tilahun Seyoum and Kebede Woldetsadik, 2013. Effects of variety on the
quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 50(3): 477– 486.
Tigist, A., Workneh, Tilahun Seyoum and Kebede Woldetsadik. 2012. Effects of variety on
yield, physical properties and storability of tomato under ambient conditions. African
Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(45): 6005-6015.
Tilahun Seyoum., Osthoff G., Pretorius J. and Hugo, J. 2003. Comparison of anolyte and
chlorinated water as disinfecting treatment for stored carrots. Journal of Food Quality,
26: 463-472.
Toivonen, P.M. 2007. Fruit maturation and ripening and their relationship to quality. Stewart
Postharvest Review, 3(2): 1-5.
Toor, R.K. and Savage, G.P. 2006. Changes in major antioxidant components of tomatoes
during post-harvest storage. Food Chemistry, 99(4): 724-727.
Tufaha Mohammed, Wassu Mohammed, and Kebede Woldetsadik. 2020. Response of Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicumL.) Varieties to BlendedNps Fertilizer Rates at Dire Dawa,
Eastern Ethiopia (MSc THesis, Haramaya university).
 72

Tumwesigye, K.S., Sousa, A.R., Oliveira, J.C. and Sousa-Gallagher, M.J. 2017. Evaluation of
novel bitter cassava film for equilibrium modified atmosphere packaging of cherry
tomatoes. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 13: 1–14.
Tzortzakis, N., Xylia, P. and Chrysargyris, A. 2019. Sage essential oil improves the
effectiveness of aloe vera gel on postharvest quality of tomato fruit. Agronomy, 9(10):
635.
Ullah, A., Abbasi, N.A., Shafique, M. and Qureshi, A.A. 2017. Influence of edible coatings on
biochemical fruit quality and storage life of bell pepper cv. “Yolo Wonder”. Journal of
Food Quality, 2017: 1–11.
USDA. 2016. Vegetables and pulses Yearbook Tables [Online]. United States Department of
Agriculture. Available: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/vegetables-pulses.aspx
[Accessed 2018].
Villanueva Gutierrez, E.E. 2018. An overview of recent studies of tomato (Solanum
Lycopersicum spp) from a social, biochemical and genetic perspective on quality
parameters.
Wamache, A. 2005. Vegetable seeds handbook. Regina seeds Seminis. Printed by Bizone ltd.
Nairobi Kenya, 23-25.
Willcox, J.K., Catignani, G.L. and Lazarus, S. 2003. Tomatoes and cardiovascular health.
Woldemichael Henok and Demelash Biresaw. 2014. Development and evaluation of low cost
evaporative cooling systems to minimize postharvest losses of tomatoes (Roma VF)
around Woreta, Ethiopia. International Journal of Postharvest Technology and
Innovation, 4 (1): 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPTI.2014. 064165.
Woolf, A.B. and Ferguson, I.B. 2000. Postharvest responses to high fruit temperatures in the
field. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 21(1): 7-20.
Workneh, Tilahun Seyoum, Osthoff, G., and Steyn, M. 2012. Effects of pre-harvest treatment,
disinfections, packaging and storage environment on quality of tomato. Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 49(6): 685-694.
Wu, S., Lu, M. and Wang, S. 2016. Effect of oligosaccharides derived from Laminaria
japonica-incorporated pullulan coatings on preservation of cherry tomatoes. Food
Chemistry, 199: 296–300.
 73

Zapata, P.J., Navarro, D., Guillen, F., Castillo, S., Martinez-Romero, D., Valero. D. and
Serrano, M. 2013. Characterization of gels from different Aloe spp. as antifungal
treatment: Potential crops for industrial applications. Industrial Crops and
Products, 42: 223-230.
Zebider Shite, Yibekal Alemayehu, Fikreyohannes Gedamu. 2021. The Quality of Tomato
(Solanum Lycopersicum L.) After Pre Storage CaCl2 and Edible Coating Treatment.
Advances in Life Science and Technology, 89:1-20. Available online: www.iiste.org
Zekrehiwot Abebe, Yetenayet Bekele Tola and Ali Mohammed. 2017. Effects of edible
coating materials and stages of maturity at harvest on storage life and quality of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits. African Journal of Agricultural Research,
12(8): 550 –565.
Zhang, F.M. 2010. In: Protected Horticulture. Publication by Agricultural University Press,
China: 30-231.
Zhuang RY, Beuchat LR and Angulo FJ. 1995. Fate of Salmonella montevideo on and in raw
tomatoes as affected by temperature and treatment with chlorine. Applied
Environmental Microbiology, 61:2127–31.
 74

7. APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1.ANOVA table for Percentage loss in weight(PLW); Decay percentage(%)
and percentage (%) of Marketable of tomato fruits during 28 days of storage.

Days Sources of PLW(%)Decay(%)Marketable fruits(%)

variation D.F MS MS MS
4 NaOCl 3 2.414255*** 10.9575*** 28.6825***
AG 4 25.099286*** 515.2971*** 681.2393***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.106915*** 2.7946*** 4.5014***
Error 40 0.004863 0.1660 0.5088
S.E 0.070 0.407 0.713
Grand mean 3.08 7.40 91.50
8 NaOCl 3 4.39201*** 46.0051*** 60.5654***
AG 4 81.50073*** 669.6433*** 854.1691***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.38698*** 1.7366*** 3.7600***
Error 40 0.04836 0.2912 0.2912
S.E 0.220 0.540 0.540
 75

Grand mean 4.67 10.97 87.89

12 NaOCl 3 5.36503*** 122.0704*** 136.5722***
AG 4 118.83266*** 828.5545*** 1028.4613***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.51646*** 11.0320*** 16.3913***
Error 40 0.09804 0.5065 0.5065
S.E 0.313 0.712 0.712
Grand mean 6.64 16.22 82.71
16 NaOCl 3 8.9107*** 132.594*** 157.094***
AG 4 110.3112*** 2813.253*** 3153.972***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.9258*** 31.394*** 40.505***
Error 40 0.2032 2.281 2.281
S.E 0.451 1.510 1.510
Grand mean 11.11 30.71 68.14
20 NaOCl 3 6.3957*** 190.324*** 244.556***
AG 4 72.7224*** 6556.046*** 7075.027***
NaOCl*AG 12 1.5316*** 39.232*** 52.071***
Error 40 0.1672 4.589 4.589
S.E 0.409 2.142 2.142
Grand mean 15.11 44.72 54.12
24 NaOCl 3 4.3886*** 143.301*** 209.216***
AG 4 187.5462*** 5181.707*** 5632.113***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.7145* 21.176*** 23.316***
Error 40 0.3295 1.589 1.589
S.E 0.574 1.261 1.261
Grand mean 18.76 56.61 42.23
28 NaOCl 3 13.0041*** 199.7536*** 255.5993***
AG 4 175.7192*** 4314.3806*** 4740.3805***
NaOCl*AG 12 2.5155*** 21.3496*** 26.0501***
Error 40 0.3284 0.7889 0.7889
S.E 0.573 0.888 0.888
Grand mean 20.99 66.14 32.70
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; NaOCl: Sodium hypochlorite; AG: Aloe Gel; S.E: Standard error; D.F:
degree of freedom; MS: Mean square; ***: P <0.001: **: P < 0.01; *: P ≤ 0.05.

Appendix Table 2. ANOVA table for firmness; pH and Total soluble solids(TSS) of tomato
fruits during 28 days of storage.
Days Sources of D.F Firmness pH TSS
Variation MS MS MS
4 NaOCl 3 0.0023044** 0.004673ns 0.002295ns
 76

AG 4 0.0403067*** 0.039678*** 0.079451***

NaOCl*AG 12 0.0006656ns 0.001081ns 0.000297ns
Error 40 0.0005217 0.004362 0.001930
S.E 0.023 0.066 0.044
Grand mean 2.63 3.69 4.60
8 NaOCl 3 0.033508*** 0.005929ns 0.0072934***
AG 4 0.340406*** 0.134999*** 0.1682836***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.005140*** 0.001955ns 0.0001546ns
Error 40 0.001017 0.008116 0.0009135
S.E 0.032 0.090 0.030
Grand mean 2.42 3.78 4.79
12 NaOCl 3 0.082366*** 0.00743ns 0.0299610***
AG 4 0.935825*** 0.41116*** 0.6568977***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.010438*** 0.00126ns 0.0073643***
Error 40 0.001770 0.01409 0.0005852
S.E 0.042 0.119 0.024
Grand mean 2.17 3.89 5.17
16 NaOCl 3 0.148944*** 0.018719*** 0.0082372***
AG 4 2.351807*** 0.331040*** 0.1956262***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.019917*** 0.001833ns 0.0001344ns
Error 40 0.005190 0.001499 0.0004150
S.E 0.072 0.039 0.020
Grand mean 1.86 4.10 5.58
20 NaOCl 3 0.3563172*** 0.018704* 0.0035333***
AG 4 2.7841942*** 0.602832*** 0.0281072***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.0385408*** 0.001413ns 0.0048148***
Error 40 0.0009117 0.004897 0.0003350
S.E 0.030 0.070 0.018
Grand mean 1.57 4.20 5.61
24 NaOCl 3 0.187513*** 0.029680** 0.0083686***
AG 4 3.572472*** 0.583927*** 0.0905227***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.034689*** 0.001791ns 0.0007675ns
Error 40 0 0.001910 0.005415 0.0008617
S.E 0.044 0.074 0.029
Grand mean 1.10 4.34 5.43
28 NaOCl 3 0.126273*** 0.013539** 0.0042328***
AG 4 1.876869*** 0.199142*** 0.0410692***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.019994*** 0.001434ns 0.0004703ns
Error 40 0.001270 0.002658 0.0004300
S.E 0.036 0.052 5.02
 77

Grand mean 0.60 4.44 0.021

ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; NaOCl: Sodium hypochlorite; AG: Aloe gel; S.E: Standard error; D.F:
degree of freedom; MS: Mean square; ***: P < 0.001: **: P < 0.01; *: P ≤ 0.05; ns: not significant.

Appendix Table 3. ANOVA table for titratable acidity(TA);total soluble solids(TSS) to TA

and Ascorbic Acid(AA) content of tomato fruits during 28 days of storage.
Days Sources of TA TSS to TA AA
Variation D.F MS MS MS
4 NaOCl 3 0.0065536*** 3.03377*** 0.74810***
AG 4 0.1056398*** 52.70719*** 12.91250***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.0005231** 0.23357* 0.12485ns
Error 40 0.0002073 0.09772 0.09427
S.E 0.014 0.313 0.307
Grand mean 0.49 9.69 10.62
8 NaOCl 3 0.0068550*** 5.0504*** 0.3698ns
AG 4 0.1071792*** 75.4930*** 10.8027***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.0003925ns 0.6106** 0.1191ns
Error 40 0.0004783 0.1789 0.2075
S.E 0.022 0.423 0.456
Grand mean 0.47 10.68 11.06
12 NaOCl 3 0.0134511*** 21.0405*** 0.2157ns
AG 4 0.1383692*** 194.6084*** 4.9424***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.0001636ns 2.4278*** 0.1238ns
Error 40 0.0001950 0.2234 0.1017
S.E 0.014 0.473 0.319
Grand mean 0.43 12.87 13.21
16 NaOCl 3 0.0142550*** 35.4022*** 0.2068ns
AG 4 0.0142550*** 256.1788*** 3.2991***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.0004619* 6.9008*** 0.0403ns
Error 40 0.0001950 0.4315 0.1169
S.E 0.014 0.657 0.342
Grand mean 0.40 15.11 14.06
20 NaOCl 3 0.0118994*** 37.3793*** 0.58406***
AG 4 0.1655892*** 450.8090*** 9.21016***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.0003647*** 6.8985*** 0.08065**
Error 40 0.0001983 0.6381 0.02436
S.E 0.014 0.799 0.156
Grand mean 0.37 16.70 14.07
24 NaOCl 3 0.0133261*** 74.572*** 0.38360**
AG 4 0.0482708*** 273.611*** 35.11644***
 78

NaOCl*AG 12 0.0021553*** 9.257*** 0.18532*

Error 40 0.0002483 1.317 0.09107
S.E 0.016 1.148 0.302
Grand mean 0.28 20.58 13.29
28 NaOCl 3 0.0050550*** 79.587*** 1.7288***
AG 4 0.0549858*** 476.219*** 50.0980***
NaOCl*AG 12 0.0008481** 15.633*** 0.5932**
Error 40 0.0002883 4.212 0.2161
S.E 0.017 2.052 0.465
Grand mean 0.25 21.94 12.07
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; NaOCl: Sodium hypochlorite; AG: Aloe gel; S.E: Standard error; D.F:
degree of freedom; MS: Mean Square; ***: P < 0.001: **: P < 0.01; *: P ≤ 0.05;ns: not significant.

Appendix Table 4. ANOVA table for shelf life of tomato fruits during 28 days of storage.
Sources of variation D.F SS MS V.R F pr.
NaOCl 3 65.2667 21.7556*** 32.63 <.001
AG 4 1687.0667 421.7667*** 632.65 <.001
NaOCl*AG 12 23.7333 1.9778** 2.97 0.005
Error 40 26.6667 0.6667
Total 59 1802.7333
S.E 0.816
Grand mean 21.77
ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; NaOCl: Sodium hypochlorite; AG: Aloe gel; S.E: Standard error; D.F:
degree of freedom; MS: Mean square; ***: P < 0.001; **: P < 0.01; *: P ≤ 0.05.

Appendix Table 5.Details of daily temperature and relative humidity inside the laboratory in
which tomato fruits stored (from October 16, 2021 to November 14, 2021)

Minimum Maximum Average Daily

Dates
Temperature(oC) Temperature(oC) RH(%)
16/10/2021 17.20 23.40 75.00
17/10/2021 17.60 24.10 74.20
18/10/2021 18.50 26.40 71.40
19/10/2021 17.50 25.10 74.00
20/10/2021 16.80 26.20 68.20
21/10/2021 19.30 25.70 78.00
22/10/2021 18.80 25.10 76.40
23/10/2021 19.10 26.40 69.20
24/10/2021 16.40 23.20 80.60
25/10/2021 16.40 25.20 73.10
 79

26/10/2021 17.90 24.20 76.80

27/10/2021 18.60 26.10 74.30
28/10/2021 16.50 23.40 78.50
29/10/2021 19.60 26.20 74.10
30/10/2021 17.10 26.30 67.30
1/11/2021 16.60 23.20 79.80
2/11/2021 18.70 25.30 76.20
3/11/2021 16.20 26.00 66.70
4/11/2021 17.30 24.20 75.40
5/11/2021 17.20 25.10 67.50
6/11/2021 16.30 25.20 70.70
7/11/2021 15.60 23.20 74.42
8/11/2021 18.40 24.00 80.10
9/11/2021 16.20 25.30 69.60
10/11/2021 17.40 24.00 76.20
11/11/2021 18.30 22.50 80.10
12/11/2021 19.10 26.30 71.40
13/11/2021 17.40 26.10 69.10
14/11/2021 16.50 23.30 78.80
Average 17.53 24.85 74.04