Abstract
Tomatoes are widely consumed but highly perishable due to their rapid respiration and delicate skin, causing significant post-harvest losses. Sustainable preservation is essential to maintain quality and reduce food waste. This study investigated aloe vera gel (AVG) as a natural, edible coating to extend tomato shelf life. Tomatoes at the pink ripening stage were coated with AVG for 3 and 6 minutes, then stored at 10 °C and 85% relative humidity for 16 days. The physicochemical traits pH, firmness, moisture content, total soluble solids (TSS), and microbial load were assessed every four days. AVG coatings slowed declines in pH, firmness, and moisture content compared to controls (p<0.05). Non-coated tomatoes dropped from pH 4.48 to 2.87, while 3- and 6-minute coated samples retained higher pH (3.28 and 3.65). Firmness fell to 0.56 kg/cm² in controls, but coated samples retained 1.18 and 1.50 kg/cm². Coated tomatoes had higher final moisture (78.35 to 80.25%) than controls (70.45%) and less weight loss (29.55 to 30.26 g vs. 28.11 g). TSS levels remained higher in coated tomatoes (3.10 to 3.40 °Brix vs. 2.40 °Brix), with lower microbial counts (2.95 and 2.16 vs. 4.24 log CFU/g). These results support AVG as an effective, eco-friendly method for preserving tomato quality.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
AVG coating slowed the pH decline of tomatoes: non-coated tomatoes dropped from pH 4.48 to 2.87, while 3- and 6-minute coated samples retained higher pH (3.28 and 3.65).
- Taxon
- Tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Organ / stage
- pink ripening stagee0
- Treatment
- AVGe0
- Outcome
- pHe2
- Direction
- retained highere2
- Value
- 3.28 and 3.65e2
- Comparator
- Non-coated tomatoese2
- Setting
- 10 °C and 85% relative humiditye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomatoes at the pink ripening stage were coated with AVG for 3 and 6 minutes, then stored at 10 °C and 85% relative humidity for 16 days”
e2“Non-coated tomatoes dropped from pH 4.48 to 2.87, while 3- and 6-minute coated samples retained higher pH (3.28 and 3.65)”
Claim · model-written summary
AVG-coated tomatoes retained firmness of 1.18 and 1.50 kg/cm², whereas firmness fell to 0.56 kg/cm² in controls.
- Taxon
- TomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Organ / stage
- pink ripening stagee0
- Treatment
- AVGe0
- Outcome
- Firmnesse3
- Direction
- retainede3
- Value
- 1.18 and 1.50 kg/cm²e3
- Comparator
- controlse3
- Setting
- 10 °C and 85% relative humiditye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomatoes at the pink ripening stage were coated with AVG for 3 and 6 minutes, then stored at 10 °C and 85% relative humidity for 16 days”
e3“Firmness fell to 0.56 kg/cm² in controls, but coated samples retained 1.18 and 1.50 kg/cm²”
Claim · model-written summary
AVG-coated tomatoes had higher final moisture (78.35 to 80.25%) than controls (70.45%).
- Taxon
- TomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Organ / stage
- pink ripening stagee0
- Treatment
- AVGe0
- Outcome
- final moisturee4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 78.35 to 80.25%e4
- Comparator
- controlse4
- Setting
- 10 °C and 85% relative humiditye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomatoes at the pink ripening stage were coated with AVG for 3 and 6 minutes, then stored at 10 °C and 85% relative humidity for 16 days”
e4“Coated tomatoes had higher final moisture (78.35 to 80.25%) than controls (70.45%)”
Claim · model-written summary
AVG-coated tomatoes are reported to have less weight loss (29.55 to 30.26 g vs. 28.11 g) than controls.
- Taxon
- TomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Organ / stage
- pink ripening stagee0
- Treatment
- AVGe0
- Outcome
- weight losse4
- Direction
- lesse4
- Value
- 29.55 to 30.26 g vs. 28.11 ge4
- Comparator
- controlse4
- Setting
- 10 °C and 85% relative humiditye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: reported values (29.55 to 30.26 g vs. 28.11 g) read as higher weight loss in coated samples, contrary to the wording "less weight loss"
Verbatim
e0“Tomatoes at the pink ripening stage were coated with AVG for 3 and 6 minutes, then stored at 10 °C and 85% relative humidity for 16 days”
e4“Coated tomatoes had higher final moisture (78.35 to 80.25%) than controls (70.45%) and less weight loss (29.55 to 30.26 g vs. 28.11 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
TSS levels remained higher in AVG-coated tomatoes (3.10 to 3.40 °Brix vs. 2.40 °Brix).
- Taxon
- TomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Organ / stage
- pink ripening stagee0
- Treatment
- AVGe0
- Outcome
- TSS levelse5
- Direction
- remained highere5
- Value
- 3.10 to 3.40 °Brix vs. 2.40 °Brixe5
- Setting
- 10 °C and 85% relative humiditye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomatoes at the pink ripening stage were coated with AVG for 3 and 6 minutes, then stored at 10 °C and 85% relative humidity for 16 days”
e5“TSS levels remained higher in coated tomatoes (3.10 to 3.40 °Brix vs. 2.40 °Brix)”
Claim · model-written summary
AVG-coated tomatoes had lower microbial counts (2.95 and 2.16 vs. 4.24 log CFU/g).
- Taxon
- TomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Organ / stage
- pink ripening stagee0
- Treatment
- AVGe0
- Outcome
- microbial countse6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 2.95 and 2.16 vs. 4.24 log CFU/ge6
- Setting
- 10 °C and 85% relative humiditye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomatoes at the pink ripening stage were coated with AVG for 3 and 6 minutes, then stored at 10 °C and 85% relative humidity for 16 days”
e6“with lower microbial counts (2.95 and 2.16 vs. 4.24 log CFU/g)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend AVG as an effective, eco-friendly method for preserving tomato quality.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume7
- Treatment
- AVGe7
- Outcome
- preserving tomato qualitye7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“These results support AVG as an effective, eco-friendly method for preserving tomato quality”
The same questions in other 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 · soil: physics · 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
Aloe vera · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
16 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.