Impaginato 403 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2023 37(4): 403­413 DOI: 10.36253/ahsc­14410 Shelf­life and post­harvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculen‐ tum Mill.) varieties to different packaging materials at Mersa, North Wollo, Ethiopia S.H. Muhie 1 (*), S. Worku 2 , B. Masrie 2 1 Wollo University, South Wollo, Ethiopia. 2 Woldia University, North Wollo, Ethiopia. Key words: Packaging materials, quality, shelf life, tomato varieties. Abstract: Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) has a short shelf life at ambi­ ent conditions and is a highly perishable crop. Extreme post­harvest losses occur as a result of the wrong packaging materials. However, by employing the right packing materials, tomato varietals can have longer shelf lives. Globally rising fresh tomato demand has forced the development of essential mecha­ nisms, including packaging materials, to improve shelf life. The current study was initiated to evaluate the quality and shelf­life of tomato varieties in response to packaging materials at Mersa, North Wollo, Ethiopia, during 2021 cropping season. Three replications of a completely randomized design were used to test three tomato varieties (Roma VF, Oval red and Woyno) and seven packing materials [closed carton (CC), open carton (OC), closed wooden box (CWB), open wooden box (OWB), perforated polyethylene bag (PPB), non­per­ forated polyethylene bag (NPPB) and control (C)] at room temperature (20­ 22°C). According to the findings, there is a significant (P<0.05) interaction effect between packaging materials and varieties on a number of parameters, includ­ ing physiological weight loss, decay percentage, disease incidence, total soluble solids (TSS), tomato fruit PH, juice color score, overall acceptability, marketabil­ ity percentage, and shelf life. Non­perforated polyethylene plastic experienced the highest physiological weight losses of 79.88% and 79.63% after 18 days of storage. Roma VF variety showed the greatest weight loss. In addition, PPB showed the lowest decay percentage (20%) and maximum mar­ ketability (20%) during the 18th day of storage. At the end of storage, NPPB with Roma VF and Woyno varieties had a substantially (100%) larger decay loss of tomato fruits. NPPB has been linked to the high­ est disease incidence (20%). Roma VF and Oval red recorded the high­ est pH tomato fruit’s color and overall acceptability score on PPB. It can, thus, be concluded that packaging of tomato fruits in PPB can extend shelf­ life with better­quality of the produce. However, to develop plausible recom­ mendation, the study should be repeated in multi­location with more packag­ ing methods and varieties over seasons. (*) Corresponding author: hamidashm@gmail.com Citation: MUHIE S.H., WORKU S., MASRIE B., 2023 ­ Shelf‐ life and post‐harvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) varieties to diffe‐ rent packaging materials at Mersa, North Wollo, Ethiopia. ­ Adv. Hort. Sci., 37(4): 403­413. Copyright: © 2023 Muhie S.H., Worku S., Masrie B. This is an open access, peer reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ahs/) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Authors contributions: The authors (Dr. Seid Hussen and Dr. Biruk Masrie) developed the idea and initiation, edit the draft the proposal, and write the manuscript. The co­author (Solomon Worku) conducted the research, did data collection and analysis. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Received for publication 22 February 2023 Accepted for publication 1 August 2023 AHS Advances in Horticultural Science https://doi.org/10.36253/ahsc-14410 http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ahs/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Adv. Hort. Sci., 2023 37(4): 403­413 404 1. Introduction The tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) crop, which was domesticated in Mexico, is the most com­ monly grown vegetable crop in the world. From the equator to Chile, the western coastal plain of South America is where it originated (Mapes and Basurto, 2016). It ranks first on the list of canned vegetables and is the most extensively consumed vegetable crop, followed by the potato and sweet potato (Yesdhanulla and Aparna, 2018). The cultivated tomato was first used in Ethiopian agriculture between 1935 and 1940. It is one of the most impor­ tant crops grown by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Tomatoes are essentially a perennial plant, even though they are farmed as an annual crop. They are regarded as a delicate warm­season crop that is prone to cold (Abdu, 2016). Tomatoes have a relatively short shelf life due to several postharvest physiological, physical, and chemical changes that occur during storage (Haile and Safawo, 2018). Various methods and strategies are being evaluated to minimize postharvest losses and enhance their storage life. Because they are a cli­ macteric and perishable fruit, tomatoes have a very short shelf life, under normal circumstances (Caroline et al., 2015; Ayomide et al., 2019). Fruit rot, inappro­ priate handling and storage techniques, and external injury received during harvest are the main causes of post­harvest losses. A tomato fruit’s fresh weight is 90% water, and the size of the fruit is influenced by the water supply to the plant. Fruit with this much water content is perishable. The majority of fruits and vegetables suffer from water loss during storage, which is impacted by temperature (>55°F) and rela­ tive humidity (<80%) conditions (Bonazzi and Dumoulin, 2011). Despite the growth of Ethiopia’s horticultural sec­ tor, there is still a lack of funds to address post­har­ vest loss and crop quality issues (Kasso and Bekele, 2018). Post­harvest losses of horticulture crops in Ethiopia were observed to range from 15% to 70% (Urge et al., 2014). Post­harvest loss of horticulture products in Ethiopia was attributed to a number of factors, including transportation, a lack of proper storage facilities, and unsuitable packaging materials (Hagos, 2014; Kasso and Bekele, 2018). Losses during and after harvest are a significant source of food loss because they have a direct impact on people’s liveli­ hoods and the whole economy, which is important for food security, nutrition, and lowering poverty. Prior to marketing, transit, and storage, horticul­ tural crops experience the worst post­harvest loss and quality deterioration. Common horticultural goods’ post­harvest loss was attributed primarily to inadequate packaging, poor transportation, inade­ quate storage, and unfavorable market conditions (Seid et al., 2013). Various studies have explored the magnitude of vegetable postharvest losses, produc­ tion limitations, and agronomic practices. However, there is a dearth of data on the impact of storage conditions and packing materials on tomato fruit shelf life. Furthermore, the knowledge of different packaging materials and storage methods used by small­holder farmers and customers in Mersa and neighboring districts of Northeastern Ethiopia where the current research was conducted is scarce, despite few experiences across various regions of the coun­ try. Tomato growers, distributors and consumers can benefit from choosing the best possible packaging material to preserve tomato quality during harvest and extend shelf life. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of various packaging materials on the postharvest quality and shelf­life of tomato varieties at Mersa, North Wollo, Ethiopia. 2. Materials and Methods Description of the study area The current experiment was conducted at Mersa College of Agriculture, Woldia University, North Wollo, Ethiopia. The area is geographically locate at 390° 38’ E and 11°35’N with an altitude of 1600 m asl in the semi­arid tropical belt of north­eastern Ethiopia. It is 491 km away from Addis Ababa to the northeast and 30km away from Woldia town to the south. It receives an average annual rain fall ranging from 750 to 1000 mm with a bimodal pattern, short rainy season from February to April and long rainy season from July to September. The average annual temperature is about 28.5°C. The soil texture is clay loam and classified as vertisol. The pH of the soil is slightly acidic to slightly alkaline. Treatments and experimental design There were seven packaging materials available; namely open carton (OC), closed carton (CC), perfo­ rated polyethylene bag (PPB), non­perforated poly­ ethylene bag (NPPB), open wooden box (OWB), closed wooden box (CWB), and control (without packaging) (C); along with three varieties of tomato; Muhie et al. ‐ Post‐harvest quality of tomatoes in different packaging materials 405 Woyno, Oval red, and Roma VF. The experiment comprised of 21 treatments with three replications arranged in completely randomized design (CRD). The three tomato varieties were produced indepen­ dently in a field. Half a Kg of tomato fruits for each replication was used for the experiment. In accor­ dance with specifications of the design, each treat­ ment was assigned randomly to the experimental units within a replication. Description of experimental materials Varieties. Three tomato varieties (Roma VF, Woyno and Oval red) were used in the experiment. Seeds of all varieties were obtained from Sirinka Agricultural Research Center located at 20 kms to the north of the experimental site. Their descriptions are indicated in Table 1. Tomato fruits of each variety at the time of harvesting are as shown in the figure below (Fig. 1). Packaging materials. The treatment consisted of seven different packaging materials (open carton, closed carton, open wooden box, closed wooden box, perforated polyethylene bag, non­perforated polyethylene bag and ambient (without packaging) as control. Closed carton (CC). A carton made from paper­ board with the size of 42 cm length25 cm height and 35 cm width was used. The carton was closed after putting the fruits inside the carton. Open carton (OC): A carton made from paper­ board with the size of 42 cm length, 25 cm height and 35 cm width was used. Fruits were placed inside the carton and were left open. Closed wooden box (CWB). A wooden box made from wood with the size 40 cm length, 30 cm height and 30 cm width was used. The box was closed after putting the fruits inside it. Open wooden box (OWB). A wooden box made from wood with the size 40 cm length, 30 cm height and 30 cm width was used. Fruits were placed inside the wooden box and were left open. Perforated polyethylene bag (PPB). A Perforated polyethylene bag made from plastic with 0.4mm thickness of white polyethylene bag and it was hav­ ing 25% hole designed for the experimentation pur­ pose, were obtained from market. Fruits were placed in perforated polyethylene bag. Non‐perforated polyethylene bag (NPPB). A non­ Perforated polyethylene bag made from plastic with 0.4 mm thickness of white polyethylene bag designed for the experimentation purpose, were obtained from market. Fruits were placed in non­ perforated polyethylene bag. Control (without packaging) (C). Fruits were placed on open table at room temperature in labora­ tory without any packaging, were designed for the experimentation purpose. Experimental management Seeds were sown in rows of 15 cm spacing on well prepared raised nursery beds having the size of 1 m x 1 m (for each variety) at Mersa Habru Agricultural and Rural Development Office fruit nursery site. Seeds were covered lightly with fine soil and with Table 1 ­ Description of tomato varieties used for the experiment Description Types of Varieties Roma VF Woyno Oval red Year of release 1977 2006 2007 Altitude (masl) 700­1900 800­2000 800­2000 Growth habit Determinate Determinate Determinate Fruit shape Globular Oblong Oval Utilization Fresh Fresh Fresh Maturity (days) 95­100 100­120 100­110 Yield Research field 400 45 42 Yield Farmer`s field 120­140 13­17 14­18 Fig. 1 ­ Tomato varieties used in the experiment (A=Roma VF, B=Oval red, C=Woyno). Adv. Hort. Sci., 2023 37(4): 403­413 406 two­three cm thick grass mulch. Transplanting of seedlings to experimental field was done when seedlings attain the height of about 13­15 cm and at 3­4 true leave stage. All management activities were given as needed till harvesting. Fruits were harvested at breaker stage. Fruits were selectively harvested to maintain uniform color, sizes and fruits without any defects. The selectively harvested fruits were cleaned to remove the dust. Then the fruits were allowed to dry for half an hour by spreading on newspaper over the floor. Initial weight was taken from each variety and packed in the aforementioned packaging materi­ als. Half kilogram tomato fruits per treatment were packed in each packaging materials at room temper­ ature (20­22°C) (Fig. 2). Data collection Physiological weight loss, pH of tomato fruit juice, decay percentage, color score, disease incidence (%), overall acceptability and percentage marketability were collected during the experimental period from the total population at 3 days interval (0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 18 days). The physiological weight loss was taken at 3 days interval starting from date of packaging and deter­ mined using the methods described by (Workneh et al., 2012). It was determined using sensitive balance (type JD2000­2). The following formula was used to calculate weight loss. Physiological weight loss (%) = Initial weight ­ final weight × 100 Initial weight) The juice content (%) was determined by crashing randomly selected fruits then extracting using juice extractor and calculate juice content as follows: Juice content (%) = Total weight of juice­beaker weight x 100 Total weight of fruit pH of tomato fruit juice. Randomly selected fruits from each packaging was extracted using juice extractor and measure with pH meter (Harvard digi­ tal pH meter, Model H198103, made from Italy). Disease incidence (%). The fruits were observed visually for rotting and microbial infection and calcu­ lated according to the formula given below (Khru­ engsai et al., 1991). Disease incidence (%) = Number of infected fruits x 100 Total number of fruits Percentage of marketability. The marketable qual­ ity of fruits was subjectively assessed by procedure of Workneh et al. (2012) with a slight modification. These descriptive quality attributes were determined subjectively by observing the level of visible mold growth, decay, shriveling, smoothness and shininess of fruits with (15 respondents). A 1­5 rating, with1 = unusable, 2 = usable, 3 = fair, 4 = good, 5 = excellent was used to evaluate the fruit quality. Fruits receiving a rating of 3 and above were considered as mar­ ketable. The numbers of marketable fruits was used as a measure to calculate the percentage of mar­ ketable fruits during storage. After subjectively assessing the product, it was calculated using the fol­ lowing formula. Marketability % = No. of marketable tomato fruit × 100 Total no. of sampled tomato fruit Shelf life. The shelf life was calculated by counting the days required to attain the last stage of ripening, but up to the stage when fruit remained still accept­ able for marketing (Rao et al., 2011). Decay or rotting (%). Decay or rotting was deter­ mined by the visual observation. Development of spots on the fruit’s skin and softening and rotting of fruits were also being recorded. Color and overall acceptability score. Color was measured by comparing with the color chart described by Dadzie and Orchard (1997). It was determined by counting (15 respondents) the num­ ber of respondents from 0 to 5 scoring. A 1­5 rating with 0 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, and 4 = very good and 5 = excellent and finally the mean data will be analyzed. On the same way, overall acceptability was assessed by the above selected respondents and the result was taken by the 1­5 rating similar with mar­ ketability. The predominant colors which were used for evaluation are Green, 2=Breaker, 3=Turning, 4=Pink, 5= Light Red, 6= Red and 7 = Deep Red. Total soluble solids (TSS). The TSS was determined Fig. 2 ­ Experimental arrangement at room temperature (20­ 22°C). Muhie et al. ‐ Post‐harvest quality of tomatoes in different packaging materials 407 following the procedures described by (Waskar et al., 1999). An aliquot of juice was extracted using a juice extractor. A hand refract meter (WAY­2s Abb’e, 0­20 Brixo) was used to determine TSS the refractor meter was washed with distilled water. The refractometer was standardized against distilled water (0 percent TSS) and measure TSS. Data analysis The data obtained was statistically analyzed for analysis of variance (ANOVA) using General Linear Model (GLM) using SAS 9.13 version (SAS, 2002).The mean separation was made based on Least Significant Difference (LSD) at 5% level of significance. 3. Results and Discussion Physiological weight loss Tomato fruits experience great physiological weight loss if stored under normal conditions with­ out any treatment and safe storage environment (Iqbal et al., 2022). Physiological weight loss of toma­ to fruits was significantly influenced by the main effect of packaging materials (P<0.001), varieties (P<0.01) and interaction effect (P<0.01) of packaging materials and varieties at 18th days of storage. The result showed that, the highest physiological weight loss (79.88%) was recorded from control (without packaging) followed by Open carton (74.70%) from variety Roma VF (Table 2). The lowest Physiological weight loss (32.72%,) was recorded from variety Oval red with perforated plastic package, which was lower than the weight loss of tomato fruits subjected to all other packaging materials. In the current investigation, the highest weight loss observed in tomato fruits at the control treat­ ment may be due to the higher respiration rate exer­ cised. The result is supported by the findings of Sinha et al. (2019), in which maximum weight loss was recorded from control, without packaging materials. In addition, another group of researchers also report­ * significant at P≤0.05; ** highly significant at P≤0.01; *** very highly significant at P≤0.001; means with the same letter (s) within a colu­ mn are not significantly different at 5% level of significance. Table 2 ­ Interaction effects of packaging materials and varieties on physiological weight loss and decay percentage (at 9, 12, 15 and 18 days) of tomato at Mersa during 2021 cropping season Variety Packaging materials Physiological weight loss Decay percentage 9 12 15 18 9 12 15 18 Woyno OC 29.73 c 41.37 d 59.99 d 68.89 d 20.00 c 40.00 d 80.00 c 20.00 a CC 23.59 e 31.51 g 49.06 f 58.02 f 0.00 c 0.00 d 46.67 c 80.00 c OWB 26.77 d 36.38 e 51.83 e 60.10 e 20.00 a 20.00 c 60.00 a 80.00 c CWB 25.04 e 34.64 f 48.73 g 56.59 g 0.00 c 20.00 c 40.00 d 80.00 c PPB 13.19 g 19.69 h 27.75 h 32.72 h 0.00 c 0.00 d 20.00 e 60.00 d NPPB 2.83 h 40.09 d 58.14 d 67.14 d 0.00 c 0.00 d 60.00 a 100.00 a C 40.96 a 56.03 a 68.55 a 79.47 a 0.00 c 0.00 d 60.00 a 100.00 a Oval red OC 31.89 b 41.94 d 61.45 d 71.27 d 20.00 a 40.00 a 60.00 a 80.00 c CC 24.24 e 32.95 g 47.70 g 55.33 g 0.00 c 20.00 c 46.67 c 100.00 a OWB 30.75 c 40.45 d 58.63 d 68.01 d 0.00 c 20.00 c 40.00 d 80.00 c CWB 23.10 e 31.17 g 45.02 g 52.21 g 20.00 a 20.00 c 40.00 d 80.00 c PPB 15.86 f 21.56 h 31.23 h 36.23 h 0.00 c 0.00 d 20.00 e 60.00 d NPPB 2.34 h 40.09 d 58.14 d 67.44 d 20.00 a 20.00 c 33.33 d 86.67 c C 42.33 a 57.57 a 68.65 a 79.63 a 0.00 c 26.67 b 53.33 b 80.00 c Roma VF OC 32.78 b 44.44 b 64.40 b 74.70 b 0.00 c 20.00 c 60.00 a 93.33 b CC 24.50 e 33.32 g 48.54 g 56.29 g 20.00 a 40.00 a 60.00 a 93.33 b OWB 31.55 c 42.90 c 62.21 c 72.15 c 0.00 c 40.00 a 60.00 a 86.67 c CWB 23.74 e 31.99 g 46.34 g 53.76 g 0.00 c 20.00 c 60.00 a 86.67 c PPB 16.88 f 21.87 h 31.71 h 36.78 h 0.00 c 0.00 d 20.00 e 60.00 d NPPB 2.62 h 40.34 d 58.49 d 67.64 d 0.00 c 20.00 c 60.00 a 93.33 b C 42.65 a 58.00 a 68.86 a 79.88 a 6.67 b 20.00 c 60.00 a 100.00 a LSD (0.05) 2.03 2.31 3.99 4.39 4.15 4.152 10.99 10.17 Significant level 4.40 ** 7.01 ** 15.87 ** 22.83 ** 320.65 *** 276.19 *** 250.79 *** 143.92 *** CV (%) 5.21 3.77 4.52 4.28 5.21 3.77 4.52 4.28 408 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2023 37(4): 403­413 ed that the highest weight loss was recorded for tomato stored in ambient atmosphere without pack­ aging (control) (Sualeh et al., 2016). The highest weight loss from control and open carton may be due to faster metabolism at higher temperature, increased cell wall degradation and higher mem­ brane permeability leading to exposure of cell water for easy evaporation (Yao et al., 2020).The lowest physiological weight loss might be due to the fact that, polyethylene plastic protects the fruits from adverse conditions by avoiding mechanical damage, reducing moisture loss, providing beneficial modified atmosphere and preventing pilferage (Sinha et al., 2019). Similarly, Hailu et al. (2014) reported that weight loss of fruits in polyethylene bags was far low than from unpackaged fruits. Lower weight loss of packaged fruits could be due to slow rate of transpi­ ration and prevention of excessive moisture loss. Decay percentage Packaging materials vary in their tendency to reduce decay percentage of tomato fruits (Olveira­ Bouzas et al., 2021). Decay percentage was signifi­ cantly influenced by packaging materials (P<0.001), tomato varieties (P<0.05) and their interactions (P<0.001). The highest decay percentage (100 %) was obtained from both Roma VF and Woyno without packaging. It was followed by non­perforated polyeth­ ylene plastic and closed carton. However, the lowest decay percentage (20 %) was recorded from variety Woyno with open carton followed by Oval red (60%) with perforated plastic (Table 2). It is clearly identified that decay percentage increased with the storage time for all storage methods and ripening stages. This result is line with the work of (Moneruzzaman et al., 2009). Tomatoes at light red stage showed rapid dete­ rioration. Total deterioration of the fruit was recorded from closed carton with variety Oval red, non­perfo­ rated polyethylene plastic with variety of Woyno, and Control both from variety Roma VF and Woyno on the 18th days of storage period. Disease incident percentage Disease incident was significantly influenced by packaging materials (P<0.001), tomato varieties (P<0.001) and their interactions (P<0.001). Maximum disease incident (100%) was recorded from both vari­ ety Woyno and Oval red using non­perforated poly­ ethylene plastic, followed by the same packaging materials from Roma VF variety (93.33%). Disease incidence was found only in fruits with non­perforated polyethylene plastic and closed car­ ton packaging materials (Table 3). This could be due to inadequate air flow in non­perforated plastic and the accumulation of water from fruit respiration, which creates an environment conducive to fungi growth. After 12 days, the variety Woyno under closed cartons also started disease incidence while Roma VF in non­perforated polyethylene plastic increased by 20 % while all other packaging materials showed no incidence of disease. This result is in line with the findings of (Bautista­Baños et al., 2008). The highest disease occurrence may be due to the increasing of moisture content in the storage of both closed carton and non­perforated polyethylene plas­ tic packages. The water accumulation inside the packaging is high because of limited movement and exchange of air which can result in the occurrence of fungal disease. Color Color was significantly influenced by packaging materials (P<0.001) and their interactions (P<0.05). During the storage period, there was a general change of tomato fruit colour from breaker to deep red. The highest color change was observed in con­ trol followed by open carton and wooden box. Variation of skin color was due to variety and packag­ ing material. In comparison of tomato fruit variety color change from the breaker to deep red, Roma VF variety showed highest loss of greenness, while it was lowest in Woyno (Table 3). This result is in line with the work of Tigist et al. (2013), who reported that variety Roma VF showed faster rate of loss of greenness while it was slower for Melkasalsa that during normal ripening of tomato fruit, tissue colour changes from green through orange to red, which coincides with ethylene biosynthesis and a climac­ teric rise in respiration. The color acceptability of control fruits is shorter as compared to other packag­ ing materials (between 3 to 18 days of their storage), that is, in the range of very good to excellent espe­ cially perforated plastic packed tomato fruits. This change was due to the action of treatments on the fruits as polyethylene packaging (perforated) helps the color retention as described by (Ashenafi and Tura, 2018). pH of tomato fruit juice A significant variation in pH of tomato fruit juice was observed due to the main effect of packaging materials (P<0.001), varieties (P<0.01) and their interactions (P<0.001). The control had the highest pH value (4.23) in all varieties of tomato fruit fol­ Muhie et al. ‐ Post‐harvest quality of tomatoes in different packaging materials 409 lowed by Open wooden box in varieties Roma VF (4.18) and Oval red (4.15).Whereas lowest pH value were obtained in packaged fruits treated with closed carton from Woyno variety (3.1) (Table 4). The result showed that pH values ranging from 3.10­4.23 from all variety and packaging materials after 12 days of storage period. Generally, the pH of fruits increases as fruits undergo ripening. This might be due to citric acid in tomato juice, with pH of fruit normally between 4.0 and 4.5 (Anyasi et al., 2016). The higher pH of fruits under ambient storage condi­ tion could be associated with the utilization of acids for catabolism of sugar at faster rate. High storage temperature leads to faster respiration rate. The lower pH values of packaged fruits could be explained by the relatively reduced respiration rate in the package can inhibit loss of organic acids. Fruit juice content Fruit juice content and functional properties of tomato and other vegetables is likely to be affected by the type of storage condition and packaging mate­ rials (Alenazi et al., 2020). In the current experiment, a significant variation in fruit juice content was observed due to the main effect of packaging materi­ als (P<0.001) and varieties (P<0.01). PPB had highest fruit juice content (93.70%) on Oval red tomato fruit varieties and followed by both OC and control (92.37%) under variety Roma VF. Whereas, the low­ est juice content was recorded from OWB (85.26) Table 3 ­ Interaction effects of packaging materials and varieties on disease incidence percentage and color (at 9, 12, 15 and 18 days) of tomato at Mersa during 2021 cropping season * significant at P≤0.05; ** highly significant at P≤0.01; *** very highly significant at P≤0.001; means with the same letter(s) within a colu­ mn are not significantly different at 5% level of significance. Variety Packaging materials Disease incidence Color 9 12 15 18 9 12 15 18 Woyno OC 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.33 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a CC 0.00 c 6.67 c 20.00 b 20.00 c 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a OWB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a CWB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a PPB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 5.67 a 6.67 b 7.00 a NPPB 0.00 c 20.00 b 40.00 a 100.00 a 4.00 d 5.00 b 6.00 c 6.67 b C 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 5.67 a 7.00 a 7.00 a Oval red OC 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a CC 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 20.00 c 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a OWB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a CWB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a PPB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 5.67 a 6.67 b 7.00 a NPPB 20.00 a 20.00 b 40.00 a 100.00 a 4.33 d 6.00 c 6.67 b C 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.33 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a Roma VF OC 32.78 b 44.44 b 64.40 b 74.70 b 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a CC 0.00 c 0.00 d 6.67 c 6.66 d 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a OWB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.33 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a CWB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.67 b 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a PPB 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 5.00 c 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a NPPB 20.00 a 40.00 a 40.00 a 93.33 b 4.00 d 5.00 b 5.00 d 6.00 c C 0.00 c 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 e 6.00 a 6.00 a 7.00 a 7.00 a LSD (0.05) 0.43 0.42 2.08 4.16 0.46 0.36 0.29 0.29 Significant level 57.49 *** 66.67 *** 44.4 *** 27.51 *** 0.20 ** 0.17 ** 0.17 *** 0.06 * CV (%) 12.96 6.11 18.04 15.60 5.52 3.73 2.66 2.60 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2023 37(4): 403­413 410 and CWB (85.44) packaging materials on Woyno vari­ ety followed by NPPB (88.26%) on Oval red variety (Table 4). Similar findings were reported by (Gebeyehu, 2018). The variation of juice content may be due to differences in packaging materials which can affect the firmness and metabolic processes. The variation in juice content of tomato fruit among vari­ eties might be due to their genetic differences. Total soluble solids (°Brix) Total soluble solid (TSS) is one of the quality para­ meters in fruits and vegetables (Mesa et al., 2022). In the present research, TSS was significantly influenced by packaging materials (P<0.001), varieties (P<0.001) and interaction effect of packaging methods and vari­ eties (P<0.01). During the 12 day of storage period the TSS was range from 3.65 to 5.11°Brix (Table 4). The result showed that, the highest TSS (5.11) was recorded from variety Roma VF under the control fol­ lowed by Oval red variety. The lowest TSS (3.65) was recorded from variety Woyno using non­perforated polyethylene plastic (Table 4). The result agrees with the work of Sualeh et al. (2016). The variation in TSS might be due to advancement of fruit ripening, packaging materials and variety of tomato fruit. Total soluble solids (°Brix) of control and treated tomato fruits showed that they increased as the ripening proceeds. The lowest TSS value of non­perforated polyethylene plastic may be due to slowing down of respiration and metabolic activity. Whereas the highest TSS in the control may be due to high respiration and metabolic activity rise ripening process as result increasing TSS. In this regard, the view of Kumar et al. (2022) is noteworthy that the slower respiration also slows down the syn­ thesis and use of metabolites resulting in lower TSS due to the slower change from carbohydrates to sug­ ars which result in retardation of the ripening process. The changes in TSS content that occur during ripening are correlated with the hydrolytic shifts in starch concentration after harvest. Using sugars as a respiration substrate, the TSS content of fruits could decrease with time storage due to increased temper­ ature and biosynthesis processes or polysaccharide degradation at maturity (Azene et al., 2014). Overall acceptability (score) Overall acceptability was significantly influenced by packaging materials (P<0.001), tomato varieties (P<0.01) and their interactions (P<0.001). The pre­ sent study revealed that under Woyno variety, non­ perforated polyethylene plastic and control fruits showed, lower overall acceptability as compared to other packaging materials and varieties at 18 days of storage period (Table 5). At the later stage of ripen­ ing (18 days), Non Perforated polyethylene plastic and control fruits showed a lower overall acceptabili­ ty scores (0­3). Oval red and Roma VF varieties of tomato fruits under perforated plastic showed better overall acceptability followed by both carton packed and wooden box packaging (Table 5). The results led to a conclusion that the main rea­ son behind this improvement was due to the preven­ tion of fruit from decay organism and the fruit will have stored reserve which is protected from adverse Table 4 ­ Interaction effects of packaging materials and varieties on Juice content, PH and TSS of tomato at Mersa dur­ ing 2021 cropping season * significant at P≤0.05; ** highly significant at P≤0.01; *** very highly significant at P≤0.001; means with the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different at 5% level of signi­ ficance. Variety Packaging materials Storage period (days) Juice content pH TSS Woyno OC 89.30 d 4.01 f 4.65 f CC 88.39 e 3.10 h 4.53 g OWB 85.44 e 4.05 f 4.59 g CWB 85.26 e 3.98 f 4.40 h PPB 90.29 d 4.12 e 4.08 i NPPB 88.96 d 3.75 g 3.65 j C 92.03 c 4.23 a 4.87 c Oval red OC 91.65 c 4.04 f 4.36 i CC 90.83 d 4.02 f 4.45 j OWB 90.51 d 4.15 d 4.27 i CWB 91.69 c 3.98 f 4.38 i PPB 93.70 a 4.12 e 4.01 j NPPB 88.26 e 4.06 f 4.02 j C 92.37 b 4.23 b 5.01 b Roma VF OC 92.37 b 4.02 f 4.69 e CC 91.46 d 4.04 f 4.36 i OWB 91.91 c 4.18 c 4.57 g CWB 91.31 d 3.93 f 4.41 h PPB 92.03 c 4.13 e 4.52 g NPPB 91.92 c 3.26 h 4.02 j C 92.04 c 4.23 a 5.11 a LSD (0.05) 3.21 0.16 0.37 Significant level 7.13 * 0.07 *** 0.14 ** CV (%) 2.07 2.48 4.68 Muhie et al. ‐ Post‐harvest quality of tomatoes in different packaging materials 411 condition (Yahaya and Mardiyya, 2019). From break­ er to turning stage, the colour of fruits changed from poor to fair by showing not more than 30% of surface as not green in colour. When stage advances from pink to pink­red, the colour of all fruits was in the range of good to excellent. This result is in conformi­ ty with the work of (Priyankara et al., 2017). Up to 9th days Roma VF tomato variety exhibited best color and consumer acceptability, followed by Oval red were as Woyno scores low consumer acceptability. Marketability percentage Marketability percentage was significantly influ­ enced by packaging materials (P<0.001), tomato vari­ eties (P<0.05) and their interactions (P<0.001). At 9th days of storage period the highest percentage mar­ ketability (100%) was obtained from Woyno tomato fruit varieties using perforated polyethylene plastic followed by the same packaging materials (93.33%) from both Roma VF and Oval red tomato fruit vari­ eties (Table 5). The lowest marketability percentage was obtained from non­perforated polyethylene plastic (40%) of Woyno tomato fruit Variety followed by both Roma VF and Oval red (60%). When the stor­ age period increase in storage period (18 days) toma­ to fruits packed only with perforated polyethylene plastic (20%) from both Roma VF and Woyno tomato fruit varieties followed by Oval red tomato fruit vari­ eties using open carton packaging materials (6.67%). The difference in marketability of tomato fruits Table 5 ­ Interaction effects of packaging materials and varieties on overall acceptability and marketability percentage (at 9, 12, 15 and 18 days) at Mersa during 2021 cropping season * significant at P≤0.05; ** highly significant at P≤0.01; *** very highly significant at P≤0.001; means with the same letter(s) within a colu­ mn are not significantly different at 5% level of significance. Variety Packaging materials Overall acceptability Marketability percentage 9 12 15 18 9 12 15 18 Woyno OC 4.00 d 3.00 d 1.00 c 0.00 c 80.00 d 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c CC 4.00 d 3.00 d 1.00 c 0.00 c 80.00 d 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c OWB 3.00 f 4.00 b 1.00 c 0.00 c 60.00 f 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c CWB 4.00 d 4.00 b 1.00 c 0.00 c 80.00 d 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c PPB 5.00 a 4.00 b 2.00 b 1.00 a 100.00 a 80.00 a 40.00 a 20.00 a NPPB 3.00 f 2.00 f 0.00 e 0.00 c 40.00 g 20.00 f 0.00 d 0.00 c C 4.00 d 2.00 f 1.00 c 0.00 c 60.00 f 40.00 e 20.00 c 0.00 c Oval red OC 4.00 d 3.00 d 1.00 c 0.00 c 80.00 d 60.00 c 20.00 c 6.67 b CC 4.00 d 3.00 d 2.00 b 0.00 c 80.00 d 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c OWB 4.00 d 2.33 e 1.00 c 1.00 a 80.00 d 53.33 d 20.00 c 0.00 c CWB 4.00 d 3.00 d 2.00 b 0.00 c 73.33 e 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c PPB 5.00 a 4.00 b 3.00 a 1.00 a 93.33 b 80.00 a 26.66 b 0.00 c NPPB 3.00 f 1.67 f 0.00 e 0.00 c 60.00 f 20.00 f 0.00 d 0.00 c C 4.00 d 3.00 d 1.00 c 0.00 c 73.33 e 66.67 b 20.00 c 0.00 c Roma VF OC 4.00 d 3.00 d 2.00 b 1.00 a 80.00 d 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c CC 3.67 e 3.00 d 1.00 c 0.00 c 73.33 e 40.00 e 20.00 c 0.00 c OWB 3.67 e 3.33 d 1.00 c 0.00 c 73.33 e 40.00 e 20.00 c 0.00 c CWB 4.33 c 3.67 c 0.67 d 0.00 c 86.67 c 60.00 c 20.00 c 0.00 c PPB 4.67 b 4.33 a 3.00 a 0.67 b 93.33 b 80.00 a 40.00 a 20.00 a NPPB 3.00 f 2.00 f 1.00 c 0.00 c 60.00 f 20.00 f 20.00 c 0.00 c C 3.33 f 2.00 f 1.00 c 0.00 c 66.67 f 40.00 e 0.00 d 0.00 c LSD (0.05) 0.46 0.59 0.21 0.21 11.74 5.87 4.15 4.15 Significant level 0.22 ** 0.61 *** 0.71 *** 0.33 *** 144.97 ** 170.37 *** 222.22 *** 69.84 *** CV (%) 6.83 11.63 9.92 56.69 8.80 6.59 13.68 79.37 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2023 37(4): 403­413 412 was due to packaging materials, varieties of tomato fruits, and also percentage of decayed fruits and dis­ ease incidence obtained from non­perforated poly­ ethylene bags. The present result is in line with the study of Haile and Safawo (2018) who reported that, packaging of climacteric fruits in low density polyeth­ ylene bags delay ripening and softening, and hence improves marketability. These beneficial effects can be explained by the modified atmosphere created inside the package as well as the reduction in water loss. Lower respiration and ethylene production rates, due to modification of atmospheric gases inside the package could be the possible reason to extend the storage life of fruits (Islam et al., 2022). 4. Conclusions Tomatoes are prone to careless handling and packaging throughout local manufacturing. As a result, there is a significant postharvest loss of toma­ to fruits at every stage, from harvest to consumption. The fruit must therefore be handled properly after harvest in order to improve its protection and shelf life. With this context in mind, the goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of packaging material on the quality and shelf life of tomato fruit varieties after harvest. The physiological weight loss, percentage of decay, color score, general acceptability, TSS, pH, incidence of disease, variety, marketability, and shelf life of tomato fruits were all significantly influenced by packaging. Due to a faster respiration rate, the control had the greatest weight reduction. On perfo­ rated plastic, the weight reduction was accompanied by an accelerated water loss. Perforated plastic showed the highest marketability and degradation percentage. The Woyno variety under non perforat­ ed plastic had the highest illness incidence and the highest juice content (93.37%) of any type of plastic. Roma VF variety beneath perforated plastic had the highest TSS. When employing perforated plastic, fol­ lowed by open cartons and hardwood boxes, the storage term for tomato fruit was significantly lengthened. Under perforated plastic, the tomato variety with a longer shelf life was both Roma VF and Oval red. According to the findings of this study, tomato fruits packaged in low density polyethylene bags with per­ forations had a longer shelf life and better quality. However, a follow­up study in multiple locations and across seasons is necessary to substantiate this advice. There should be further research done using package types and materials that are not covered in this study. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge Wollo University, Woldia University and Sirinka Agriculture Research Center. References ABDU J., 2016 ­ A comparative study on selected tomato varieties for manufacturing paste. ­ Master of Science Degree in Food Engineering, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. ALENAZI M.M., SHAFIQ M., ALSADON A.A., ALHELAL I.M., ALHAMDAN A.M., SOLIEMAN T.H.I., IBRAHIM A.A., SHADY M.R., AL­SELWEY W.A., 2020 ­ Improved func‐ tional and nutritional properties of tomato fruit during cold storage. ­ Saudi J. Biol. Sci., 27(6): 1467­1474. ANYASI T.A., AWORH C.O., JIDEANI A.I.O., 2016 ­ Effect of packaging and chemical treatment on storage life and physicochemical attributes of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Roma VF). ­ African J. Biotech., 15(35): 1913­1919. ASHENAFI H., TURA S., 2018 ­ Shelf life and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits as affect‐ ed by different packaging materials. ­ African J. Food Sci., 12(2): 21­27. AYOMIDE O.B., AJAYI O.O., AJAYI A.A., 2019 ­ Advances in the development of a tomato postharvest storage sys‐ tem: Towards eradicating postharvest losses. ­ J. Physics: Conference Series, 1378(2): 22064. AZENE M., WORKNEH T.S., WOLDETSADIK K., 2014 ­ Effect of packaging materials and storage environment on postharvest quality of papaya fruit. ­ J. Food Sci. Technol., 51(6): 1041­1055. BAUTISTA­BAÑOS S., VELAQUEZ­DEL VALLE M.G., HER­ NANDEZ­LAUZARDOA A.N., BARKA E.A., 2008 ­ The rhi‐ zopus stolonifer‐tomato interaction, pp. 269­289. ­ In: AIT BARKA E., and C. CLÉMENT (eds: Plant‐microbe interactions. Research Signpost, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. BONAZZI C., DUMOULIN E., 2011 ­ Quality changes in food materials as influenced by drying processes. ­ Modern Drying Technol., 3: 1­20. CAROLINE I.S., ARNOLD M.O., JOSEPH N.A., 2015 ­ Influence of soil moisture levels and packaging on postharvest qualities of tomato (Solanum lycoper­ sicum). ­ African J. Agric. Res., 10(12): 1392­1400. DADZIE B.K., ORCHARD J.E., 1997 ­ Routine post‐harvest Muhie et al. ‐ Post‐harvest quality of tomatoes in different packaging materials 413 screening of banana/plantain hybrids: criteria and methods. INIBAP Technical Guidelines 2. ­ International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy, pp. 63. GEBEYEHU S.A., 2018 ­ The effects packaging materials on post harvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersium). ­ J. Nat. Sci. Res., 8(11): 97­103. HAGOS D.G., 2014 ­ Supply chain management (SCM) approach to reduce post‐harvest losses with special emphasis on cabbage supply from Akaki to Addis Ababa. ­ Addis Ababa University. HAILE A., SAFAWO T., 2018 ­ Shelf life and quality of toma‐ to (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits as affected by different packaging materials. ­ African J. Food Sci., 12(2): 21­27. HAILU M., SEYOUM WORKNEH T., BELEW D., 2014 ­ Effect of packaging materials on shelf life and quality of banana cultivars (Musa spp.). ­ J. Food Sci. Techn., 51(11): 2947­2963. IQBAL T., RAZA A., ZAFAR M., AFSHEEN S., KEBAILI I., ALROBEI H., 2022 ­ Plant‐mediated green synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles for novel application to enhance the shelf life of tomatoes. ­ Appl. Nanosci., 12: 179­191. ISLAM A., ACIKALIN R., OZTURK B., AGLAR E., KAISER C., 2022 ­ Combined effects of Aloe vera gel and modified atmosphere packaging treatments on fruit quality traits and bioactive compounds of jujube (Ziziphus juju­ ba Mill.) fruit during cold storage and shelf life. ­ Postharvest Biol. Techn., 187: 111855. KASSO M., BEKELE A., 2018 ­ Post‐harvest loss and quality deterioration of horticultural crops in Dire Dawa Region, Ethiopia. ­ J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci., 17(1): 88­ 96. KHRUENGSAI S., PRIPDEEVECH P., TANAPICHATSAKUL C., SRISUWANNAPA C., D’SOUZA P.E., PANUWET P., 2021 ­ Antifungal properties of volatile organic compounds produced by Daldinia eschscholtzii MFLUCC 19‐0493 isolated from Barleria prionitis leaves against Colletotrichum acutatum and its post‐harvest infec‐ tions on strawberry fruits. ­ Peer J., 9: e11242. KUMAR A., DESHMUKH R.K., GAIKWAD K.K., 2022 ­ Quality preservation in banana fruits packed in pine needle and halloysite nanotube‐based ethylene gas scavenging paper during storage. ­ Biomass Conv. Bioref., 2022: 1­ 10. MAPES C., BASURTO F., 2016 ­ Biodiversity and edible plants of Mexico, pp. 83­131. ­ In: LIRA R., A. CASAS, and J. BLANCAS (eds.) Ethnobotany of Mexico. Interactions of people and plants in Mesoamerica. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 560. MESA T., POLO J., ARABIA A., CASELLES V., MUNNÉ­BOSCH S., 2022 ­ Differential physiological response to heat and cold stress of tomato plants and its implication on fruit quality. ­ J. Plant Physiol., 268: 153581. MONERUZZAMAN K.M., HOSSAIN A., SANI W., SAIFUDDIN M., ALENAZI M., 2009 ­ Effect of harvesting and storage conditions on the post harvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cv. Roma VF . ­ Australian J. Crop Sci., 3(2): 113. OLVEIRA­BOUZAS V., PITA­CALVO C., VÁZQUEZ­ODÉRIZ M.L., ROMERO­RODRÍGUEZ M.Á., 2021 ­ Evaluation of a modified atmosphere packaging system in pallets to extend the shelf‐life of the stored tomato at cooling temperature. ­ Food Chem., 364: 130309. PRIYANKARA G., KARUNARATHNE C., SARANANDA K.H., ARIYARATNE M., 2017 ­ Effect of maturity stage on ripening and quality characters of four tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) varieties of Sri Lanka. ­ Tropical Agric. Res., 28(4): 496­502. RAO T.V.R., GOL N.B., SHAH K.K., 2011 ­ Effect of posthar‐ vest treatments and storage temperatures on the quali‐ ty and shelf life of sweet pepper (Capsicum annum L.). ­ Scientia Hortic., 132: 18­26. SEID H., HASSEN B., YITBAREK W.H., 2013 ­ Postharvest loss assessment of commercial horticultural crops in South Wollo, Ethiopia “challenges and opportunities”. ­ Food Sci. Quality Manage., 17: 34­39. SINHA S.R., SINGHA A., FARUQUEE M., JIKU M., RAHAMAN M.A., ALAM M.A., KADER M.A., 2019 ­ Post‐harvest assessment of fruit quality and shelf life of two elite tomato varieties cultivated in Bangladesh. ­ Bulletin Nat. Res. Centre, 43(185): 1­12. SUALEH A., DABA A., KIFLU S., MOHAMMED A., 2016 ­ Effect of storage conditions and packing materials on shelf life of tomato. ­ Food Sci. Quality Manage., 56(0): 60­67. TIGIST M., WORKNEH T.S., WOLDETSADIK K., 2013 ­ Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambi‐ ent conditions. ­ J. Food Sci. Technol., 50(3): 477­486. URGE M., NEGERI M., SELVARAJ T., GEBRESENBET G., 2014 ­ Assessment of post‐harvest losses of ware potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) in Chelia and Jeldu districts of West Shewa, Ethiopia. ­ Int. J. Res. Sci., 1(1): 16­29. WASKAR D.P., KHEDKAR R.M., GARANDE V.K., 1999 ­ Effect of post‐harvest treatments on shelf life and quality of pomegranate in evaporative cool chamber and ambi‐ ent conditions. ­ J. Food Sci. Technol., Mysore, 36(2): 114­117. WORKNEH T.S., OSTHOFF G., STEYN M., 2012 ­ Effects of preharvest treatment, disinfections, packaging and storage environment on quality of tomato. ­ J. Food Sci. Technol., 49(6): 685­694. YAHAYA S.M., MARDIYYA A.Y., 2019 ­ Review of post‐har‐ vest losses of fruits and vegetables. ­ Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res, 13(4): 10192­10200. YAO Y., WEI X., PANG H., WANG K., LIU Q., FU H., CHEN X., WANG Y., 2020 ­ Effects of radio‐frequency energy on peroxidase inactivation and physiochemical properties of stem lettuce and the underlying cell‐morphology mechanism. ­ Food Chem., 322: 126753. YESDHANULLA S., APARNA B., 2018 ­ Marketing channels and price spread of tomato in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. ­ J. Pharmac. Phytochem., 7(2): 873­ 876.