The assessment of tomato fruit quality parameters under different sound waves

  • Ozlem AltuntasEmail author
  • Halil Ozkurt
Original Article


Sound stress is an abiotic stress factor wherein the sound wave form affects the growth and development of plants as an alternative mechanical stress. To explore this, 10-week-old tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants were used in this experiment. The tomato plants were exposed to three different frequency values consecutively: 600 Hz in the first week, 1240 Hz in the second week and 1600 Hz in the third week. The decibel (dB) value was adjusted to 90 dB in the sound amplifier. At the end of the experiment, lycopene, vitamin C, total sugar, total acid and total phenol levels were analysed and pH and 0Brix were measured in tomato fruits. As a result, it was determined that as the sound frequency intensity level increased, the concentration of fruit parameters also increased: lycopene, vitamin C, total sugar, total acid and total phenol. The total phenol content, lycopene content and ascorbic acid of the tomato plants that were exposed to sound waves at different frequencies increased at a rate of 70%, 20% and 14%, respectively. According to the results of all measured parameters in tomato fruits, 1600 Hz has been determined the best of sound wave frequency value.


Solanum lycopersicum Vegetable Abiotic stress Fruit quality parameters Frequency (Hz) Sound waves 



We thanks to Cukurova University Scientific Research Projects Directorate for financial support (Grant No. KIMYO001). And we also thank to Prof. Dr. Ebru Kafkas and her laboratory team for the analyses on tomato fruits.


  1. Atkinson NJ, Urwin PE (2012) The interaction of plant biotic and abiotic stresses: from genes to the field. J Exp Bot. Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson NJ, Dew TP, Orfila C, Urwin PE (2011) Influence of combined biotic and abiotic stress on nutritional quality parameters in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). J Agric Food Chem 59:9673–9682. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins ME, Foreman EK (2001) The effect of sound on the growth of plants. Can Acous 29:3–8Google Scholar
  4. Creath K, Schwartz GE (2004) Measuring effects of music, noise, and healing energy using a seed germination bioassay. J Altern Complement Med 10:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dasgan HY, Ekici B (2005) Comparison of open and recycling systems for ion accumulation of substrate, nutrient uptake and water use of tomato plants. Acta Hortic 697:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillard CJ, German JB (2000) Phytochemicals: nutraceuticals and human health. J Sci Food Agric 80:1744–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dorais M, Ehret DL, Papadopoulos AP (2008) Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochem Rev 2:231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. English-Loeb G, Stout MJ, Duffey SS (1997) Drought stress in tomatoes: changes in plant chemistry and potential nonlinear consequences for insect herbivores. Oikos 79:456–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Favati F, Lovelli S, Galgano F, Miccolis V, Di Tommaso T, Candido V (2009) Processing tomato quality as affected by irrigation scheduling. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 122:562–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fujita M, Fujita Y, Noutoshi Y, Takahashi F, Narusaka Y, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (2006) Crosstalk between abiotic and biotic stress responses: a current view from the points of convergence in the stress signaling networks. Curr Opin Plant Biol 4:436–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gagliano M, Renton M (2013) Love thy neighbour: facilitation through an alternative signalling modality in plants. BMC Ecol 13:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gagliano M, Mancuso S, Robert D (2012) Towards understanding plant bioacoustics. Trends Plant Sci 6:323–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giovanelli G, Lavelli V, Peri C, Nobili S (1999) Variation in antioxidant components of tomato during vine and post-harvest ripening. J Sci Food Agric 79:1583–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grassmann J, Hippeli S, Elstner EF (2002) Plant’s defence and its benefits for animals and medicine: role of phenolics and terpenoids in avoiding oxygen stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 40:471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hou TZ, Mooneyham RE (1999) Applied studies of the plant meridian system: II. Agri-wave technology increases the yield and quality of spinach and lettuce and enhances the disease resistant properties of spinach. Am J Chin Med 27:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kafkas E, Koşar M, Paydaş S, Kafkas S, Başer KHC (2007) Quality characteristics of strawberry genotypes at different maturation stages. Food Chem 100(3):1229–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lahoz I, Pérez-de-Castro A, Valcárcel M, Macua JI, Beltrán J, Roselló S, Cebolla-Cornejo J (2016) Effect of water deficit on the agronomical performance and quality of processing tomato. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 200:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenucci MS, Cadinu D, Taurino M, Piro G, Dalessandro G (2006) Antioxidant composition in cherry and high-pigment tomato cultivars. J Agric Food Chem 54:2606–2613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu JH, Kitashiba H, Wang J, Ban Y, Moriguchi T (2007) Polyamines and their ability to provide environmental stress tolerance to plants. Plant Biotechnol 24:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell JP, Shennan C, Grattan SR, May DM (1991) Tomato fruit yields and quality under water deficit and salinity. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 116:215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicholson RL, Hammerschmidt R (1992) Phenolic compounds and their role in disease resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol 30(1):369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliveira AB, Moura CFH, Gomes-Filho E, Marco CA, Urban L, Miranda MRA (2013) The impact of organic farming on quality of tomatoes is associated to increased oxidative stress during fruit development. PLoS ONE 8:e56354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ozdemir AE, Dundar O (2006) The effects of fungicide and hot water treatments on the internal quality parameters of Valencia oranges. Asian J Plant Sci 5(1):142–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poiroux-Gonord F, Bidel LPR, Fanciullino AL, Gautier H, Lauri-Lopez F, Urban L (2010) Health benefits of vitamins and secondary metabolites of fruits and vegetables and prospects to increase their concentrations by agronomic approaches. J Agric Food Chem 58:12065–12082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prior RL, Cao G (2000) Antioxidant phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables: diet and health implications. Hortic Sci 35:588–592Google Scholar
  26. Rao AV, Waseem Z, Agarwal S (1998) Lycopene content of tomatoes and tomato products and their contribution to dietary lycopene. Food Res Int 31:737–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saito T, Matsukura C, Ban Y, Shoji K, Sugiyama M, Fukuda N, Nishimura S (2008) Salinity stress affects assimilate metabolism at the gene-expression level during fruit development and improves fruit quality in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J Jpn Soc Hortic Sci 77:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sharma SK, Le Maguer M (1996) Kinetics of lycopene degradation in tomato pulp solids under different processing and storage conditions. Food Res Int 29:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Slimestad R, Verheulb M (2009) Review of flavonoids and other phenolics from fruits of different tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill.) cultivars. J Sci Food Agric 89:1255–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spanos GA, Wrolstad RE (1992) Phenolics of apple, pear, and white grape juices and their changes with processing and storage. A review. J Agric Food Chem 40(9):1478–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Telewski FW (2006) A unified hypothesis of mechanoperception in plants. Am J Bot 93:1466–1476CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Horticulture, Agriculture FacultyTurgut Ozal UniversityMalatyaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Technology and Programming, Karaisali Vocational SchoolCukurova UniversityAdanaTurkey

Personalised recommendations