European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 244, Issue 5, pp 805–818 | Cite as

Impact of early harvesting and two cold storage technologies on eating quality of red ripe tomatoes

  • Antonio Raffo
  • Irene Baiamonte
  • Nicoletta Nardo
  • Stefano Nicoli
  • Elisabetta Moneta
  • Marina Peparaio
  • Fiorella Sinesio
  • Flavio Paoletti
Original Paper


Tomato fruits of cv. Caramba harvested at the pink ripening stage were cold stored for 4 and 7 days at 6 °C, then allowed to fully ripen at ambient temperature, and finally evaluated for eating quality, and compared with fruit fully ripened on the vine. In addition, fruits harvested at full ripeness were subjected to cold storage at 6 °C by a conventional or the innovative passive refrigeration PRS™ system for 2, 4, and 7 days, and then evaluated. Tomato quality evaluation included sensory, chemical (volatile compounds, sugars, and organic acids), and physical (flesh texture and skin colour) attributes. Fruit harvested at the pink stage, and then subjected to cold storage, when attained full external red colour showed less intense tomato odour, red ripe tomato odour, and flavour when compared to fruit fully ripened on the vine, and, at the same time, developed a perceptible mould off-odour. These differences were consistent with those observed in the levels of aroma compounds and fermentation metabolites. Main effects associated with cold storage of red ripe fruits by both conventional and passive refrigeration were increased skin toughness and decreased sourness. Passive refrigeration caused a more pronounced toughening of the skin, but no development off-odours were detected. Analysis of alteration of volatile synthesis confirmed recent findings on the molecular mechanism underlying chilling-induced loss of flavour in tomatoes.


Tomato fruit Freshness Refrigeration Short food supply chains Aroma 



This study was done within the frame of the FRESCO Project (“La freschezza dei prodotti ortofrutticoli”), financed by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

All subjectes involved in the sensory study were preliminary informed about the nature of the research and consented to their informed participation; an informative note was collected from each panellist.

Supplementary material

217_2017_2996_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)


  1. 1.
    Baldwin EA, Scott JW, Shewmaker CK et al (2000) Flavor trivia and tomato aroma: biochemistry and possible mechanisms for control of important aroma components. HortScience 35:1013–1021Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tieman D, Zhu G, Resende MF et al (2017) A chemical genetic roadmap to improved tomato flavor. Science 355:391–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang B, Tieman DM, Jiao C et al (2016) Chilling-induced tomato flavor loss is associated with altered volatile synthesis and transient changes in DNA methylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:12580–12585. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kader AA, Allen Stevens M, Albright-Holton M, Morris LL, Algazi M (1977) Effect of fruit ripeness when picked on flavor and composition in fresh market tomatoes. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 102:724–731Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kader AA, Morris LL, Allen Stevens M, Albright-Holton M (1978) Composition and flavor quality of fresh market tomatoes as influenced by some postharvest handling procedures. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 103:6–13Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ponce-Valadez M, Escalona-Buendía HB, Villa-Hernández JM et al (2016) Effect of refrigerated storage (12.5°C) on tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) fruit flavor: a biochemical and sensory analysis. Postharvest Biol Technol 111:6–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kavanagh EE, McGlasson WB (1986) Harvest maturity and acceptability of “Flora-Dade” tomatoes. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 111:78–82Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Renquist AR, Reid JB (1998) Quality of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) fruit from four bloom dates in relation to optimal harvest timing. N Zeal J Crop Hortic Sci 26:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sargent SA, Brecht JK, Wang Q, Olczyk T (2014) Handling Florida tomatoes—round and Roma tomato types. (SS-VEC-928). Series of the Horticultural Sciences Department, UF/IFAS Extension. Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  10. 10.
    Auerswald H, Peters P, Brückner B et al (1999) Sensory analysis and instrumental measurements of short-term stored tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Postharvest Biol Technol 15:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raffo A, Nicoli S, Nardo N et al (2012) Impact of different distribution scenarios and recommended storage conditions on flavor related quality attributes in ripening fresh tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem 60:10445–10455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Causse M, Friguet C, Coiret C et al (2010) Consumer preferences for fresh tomato at the European scale: a common segmentation on taste and firmness. J Food Sci 75:S531–S541. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sinesio F, Cammareri M, Moneta E et al (2010) Sensory quality of fresh French and Dutch market tomatoes: a preference mapping study with italian consumers. J Food Sci 75:S55–S67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galli F, Brunori G (2013) Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence document. Laboratorio di studi rurali Sismondi, ISBN 978-88-90896-01-9. Accessed 26 July 2017
  15. 15.
    Díaz de León-Sánchez F, Pelayo-Zaldívar C, Rivera-Cabrera F et al (2009) Effect of refrigerated storage on aroma and alcohol dehydrogenase activity in tomato fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol 54:93–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maul F, Sargent SA, Sims CA, Baldwin EA, Balaban MO, Huber DJ (2000) Tomato flavor and aroma quality as affected by storage temperature. J Food Sci 65:1228–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piombino P, Sinesio F, Moneta E et al (2013) Investigating physicochemical, volatile and sensory parameters playing a positive or a negative role on tomato liking. Food Res Int 50:409–419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Péneau S, Brockhoff PB, Hoehn E et al (2007) Relating consumer evaluation of apple freshness to sensory and physico-chemical measurements. J Sens Stud 22:313–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Costa C, Antonucci F, Menesatti P et al (2013) An advanced colour calibration method for fish freshness assessment: a comparison between standard and passive refrigeration modalities. Food Bioprocess Technol 6:2190–2195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pallottino F, Costa C, Antonucci F, Menesatti P (2013) Sweet cherry freshness evaluation through colorimetric and morphometric stem analysis: two refrigeration systems compared. Acta Aliment 42:428–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ghiraldi A (2008) Refrigerator for fresh products with temperature leveling means. US Patent Appl. 12/665, 515Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sargent SA, Moretti CL (2014) Tomato. In: Gross KC, Wang CY, Saltveit M (eds.) The commercial storage of fruits, vegetables, and florist and nursery stock, Draft—updated August 2014. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  23. 23.
    Batu A (2004) Determination of acceptable firmness and colour values of tomatoes. J Food Eng 61:471–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Porat R, Fallik E (2008) Production of off-flavours in fruit and vegetables under fermentative conditions. In: Bruckner B, Wyllie SG (eds) Fruit and vegetable flavour. v. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, pp 150–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Du X, Song M, Baldwin E, Rouseff R (2015) Identification of sulphur volatiles and GC-olfactometry aroma profiling in two fresh tomato cultivars. Food Chem 171:306–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mayer F, Takeoka GR, Buttery RG et al (2008) Studies on the Aroma of five fresh tomato cultivars and the precursors of cis- and trans-4,5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenals and methional. J Agric Food Chem 56:3749–3757. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tieman D, Bliss P, McIntyre L et al (2012) The chemical interactions underlying tomato flavor preferences. Curr Biol 22:1035–1039. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Farneti B, Alarcón AA, Papasotiriou FG et al (2015) Chilling-induced changes in aroma volatile profiles in tomato. Food Bioprocess Technol 8:1442–1454. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baldwin EA, Goodner K, Plotto A et al (2004) Effect of volatiles and their concentration on perception of tomato descriptors. J Food Sci 69:S310–S318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dorais M, Papadopoulos AP, Gosselin A (2001) Greenhouse tomato fruit quality. Hortic Rev 26:239–319Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thorne SN, Efiuvwevwere BJO (1988) Changes in organic acids on chilled tomato fruit (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). J Sci Food Agric 44:309–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chaib J, Devaux M-F, Grotte M-G et al (2007) Physiological relationships among physical, sensory, and morphological attributes of texture in tomato fruits. J Exp Bot 58:1915–1925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA)-Research Centre for Food and NutritionRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations