Abstract
ABSTRACTTomato is considered the world’s most important crop owing to its high nutritional profile and flavor. However, its limited shelf life and post-harvest losses impact its marketing. The present study investigated the impact of aloe vera gel-based edible coating on tomato’s post-harvest quality under storage at 8°C for 12 days. The aloe vera-based coating solutions were made with varying concentrations of extracted gel that varied from 0 to 60% with inclusion of chitosan (0.5 to 2%). Physiological, chemical, nutritional, and microbiological analysis of coated and uncoated tomatoes was carried out during storage. It was found that uncoated (control) tomatoes showed maximum weight loss (5.85%), total soluble solids (5.3 ± 0.20 0Brix), change in pH (5.6 ± 0.26), microbial count (3.57 ± 0.12 log cfu/g), decrease in ascorbic acid content (19.23 ± 0.92 mg/100 g), and acidity (0.54 ± 0.01%) as compared to aloe vera-based coatings. However, the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%) performed much better than other prepared coatings in delaying the weight loss (2.1%), total soluble solid (3.7 ± 0.16 0Brix), change in pH (4.6 ± 0.21), ascorbic acid value (30.47 ± 1.31 mg/100 g), acidity (0.83 ± 0.04%), and microbial load (1.6 ± 0.08 log cfu/g). In addition, it also maintained firmness and color of tomatoes during storage of 12 days. Conclusively, the application of aloe vera-based coating (60% gel) with the inclusion of chitosan (2%) may be proposed for preserving the post-harvest quality of the tomatoes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Uncoated tomatoes lost 5.85% weight, more than coated fruit.
- Taxon
- tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- uncoatede0
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 5.85%e0
- Comparator
- aloe vera-based coatingse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“uncoated (control) tomatoes showed maximum weight loss (5.85%)”
e1“as compared to aloe vera-based coatings”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncoated tomatoes had 5.3 ± 0.20 0Brix soluble solids.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- uncoatede0
- Outcome
- total soluble solidse0
- Value
- 5.3 ± 0.20 0Brixe0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“uncoated (control) tomatoes showed maximum weight loss (5.85%), total soluble solids (5.3 ± 0.20 0Brix)”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncoated tomatoes had a pH change of 5.6 ± 0.26.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- uncoatede0
- Outcome
- change in pHe0
- Value
- 5.6 ± 0.26e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“uncoated (control) tomatoes showed maximum weight loss (5.85%), total soluble solids (5.3 ± 0.20 0Brix), change in pH (5.6 ± 0.26)”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncoated tomatoes had a microbial count of 3.57 ± 0.12 log cfu/g.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- uncoatede0
- Outcome
- microbial counte0
- Value
- 3.57 ± 0.12 log cfu/ge0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“uncoated (control) tomatoes showed maximum weight loss (5.85%), total soluble solids (5.3 ± 0.20 0Brix), change in pH (5.6 ± 0.26), microbial count (3.57 ± 0.12 log cfu/g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncoated tomatoes had ascorbic acid content of 19.23 ± 0.92 mg/100 g.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- uncoatede1
- Outcome
- ascorbic acid contente0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- 19.23 ± 0.92 mg/100 ge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decrease in ascorbic acid content (19.23 ± 0.92 mg/100 g)”
e1“uncoated (control) tomatoes showed maximum weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncoated tomatoes had acidity of 0.54 ± 0.01%.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- uncoatede1
- Outcome
- aciditye0
- Value
- 0.54 ± 0.01%e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“acidity (0.54 ± 0.01%)”
e1“uncoated (control) tomatoes showed maximum weight loss”
Claim · model-written summary
The 60% aloe vera gel and 2% chitosan coating delayed weight loss to 2.1%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)e0
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Direction
- delayinge0
- Value
- 2.1%e0
- Comparator
- other prepared coatingse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%) performed much better than other prepared coatings in delaying the weight loss (2.1%)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The 60% gel and 2% chitosan coating gave soluble solids of 3.7 ± 0.16 0Brix.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)e0
- Outcome
- total soluble solide0
- Value
- 3.7 ± 0.16 0Brixe0
- Comparator
- other prepared coatingse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%) performed much better than other prepared coatings in delaying the weight loss (2.1%), total soluble solid (3.7 ± 0.16 0Brix)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The 60% gel and 2% chitosan coating gave pH change of 4.6 ± 0.21.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)e0
- Outcome
- change in pHe0
- Value
- 4.6 ± 0.21e0
- Comparator
- other prepared coatingse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%) performed much better than other prepared coatings in delaying the weight loss (2.1%), total soluble solid (3.7 ± 0.16 0Brix), change in pH (4.6 ± 0.21)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The 60% gel and 2% chitosan coating preserved ascorbic acid at 30.47 ± 1.31 mg/100 g.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)e0
- Outcome
- ascorbic acid valuee0
- Value
- 30.47 ± 1.31 mg/100 ge0
- Comparator
- other prepared coatingse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%) performed much better than other prepared coatings in delaying the weight loss (2.1%), total soluble solid (3.7 ± 0.16 0Brix), change in pH (4.6 ± 0.21), ascorbic acid value (30.47 ± 1.31 mg/100 g)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The 60% gel and 2% chitosan coating gave acidity of 0.83 ± 0.04%.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)e0
- Outcome
- aciditye0
- Value
- 0.83 ± 0.04%e0
- Comparator
- other prepared coatingse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%) performed much better than other prepared coatings in delaying the weight loss (2.1%), total soluble solid (3.7 ± 0.16 0Brix), change in pH (4.6 ± 0.21), ascorbic acid value (30.47 ± 1.31 mg/100 g), acidity (0.83 ± 0.04%)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The 60% gel and 2% chitosan coating gave microbial load of 1.6 ± 0.08 log cfu/g.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)e0
- Outcome
- microbial loade0
- Value
- 1.6 ± 0.08 log cfu/ge0
- Comparator
- other prepared coatingse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%) performed much better than other prepared coatings in delaying the weight loss (2.1%), total soluble solid (3.7 ± 0.16 0Brix), change in pH (4.6 ± 0.21), ascorbic acid value (30.47 ± 1.31 mg/100 g), acidity (0.83 ± 0.04%), and microbial load (1.6 ± 0.08 log cfu/g)”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The coating maintained tomato firmness and color for 12 days.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)e1
- Outcome
- firmness and colore0
- Direction
- maintainede0
- Qualifier
- storage of 12 dayse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it also maintained firmness and color of tomatoes during storage of 12 days”
e1“the coating formulation comprising aloe vera gel (60%) + chitosan (2%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose 60% aloe vera gel plus 2% chitosan to preserve tomato postharvest quality.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- aloe vera-based coating (60% gel) with the inclusion of chitosan (2%)e0
- Outcome
- preserving the post-harvest qualitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the application of aloe vera-based coating (60% gel) with the inclusion of chitosan (2%) may be proposed for preserving the post-harvest quality of the tomatoes”
The same questions in other papers
chitosan · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
22 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →Aloe vera · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Aloe vera · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →chitosan · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →chitosan · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →chitosan · soil: chemistry · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Aloe vera · soil: chemistry · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Aloe vera · soil: biology · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.