| Literature DB >> 29124068 |
Ram B Khadka1, Madan Marasini1, Ranjana Rawal1, Durga M Gautam2, Antonio L Acedo3.
Abstract
Background. Fresh vegetables such as tomato should have low microbial population for safe consumption and long storage life. The aerobic bacterial count (ABC) and coliform bacterial count (CBC), yeast, and mold population are the most widely used microbial indicators in fresh vegetables which should be lower than 4 log CFU g-1 for safe consumption. The stages of the supply chain, postharvest handling methods, and crop varieties had significant effects on microbial population. ABC, CBC, yeast, and mold population were significantly highest (P < 0.05) at retail market (5.59, 4.38, 2.60, and 3.14 log CFU g-1, resp.), followed by wholesale market (4.72, 4.71, 2.43, and 2.44 log CFU g-1, resp.), and were least at farm gate (3.89, 3.63, 2.38, and 2.03 log CFU g-1, resp.). Improved postharvest practices (washing in clean water and grading and packaging in clean plastic crate) helped to reduce ABC, CBC, and mold population by 2.51, 32.70, and 29.86 percentage as compared to the conventional method (no washing and no grading and packaging in mud plastered bamboo baskets). Among varieties, Pusa ruby had the lowest microbial load of 2.58, 4.53, 0.96, and 1.77 log CFU g-1 for ABC, CBC, yeast, and mold count, respectively. Significantly negative correlation (P < 0.05) was observed between fruit pH & ABC and pH & mold count. Although the microbial quality of fresh tomato is safe in the local market of western Terai of Nepal both in conventional and in improved practices however still it is essential to follow improved postharvest handling practices in production and marketing of newly introduced tomato cultivars (high-pH cultivars) for ensuring the safe availability of fresh tomato in the market.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29124068 PMCID: PMC5662808 DOI: 10.1155/2017/7148076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Difference between conventional and improved methods of transportation.
| Conventional method (farmer's practice) | Improved practice |
|---|---|
| (i) No washing | (i) Washing with tap water after harvesting |
Figure 1The microbial population in fresh tomato at different stages in supply chain. Means followed by the same letter(s) do not differ significantly at 1% level of probability.
The microbial population affected by postharvest management in fresh tomato.
| Practice | ABC (logCFU g−1) | Coliform (logCFU g−1) | Mold (logCFU g−1) | Yeast (logCFU g−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional | 4.77a | 5.07a | 2.35b | 2.98a |
| Improved | 4.65a | 3.41b | 2.59a | 2.09b |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.49 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.00 |
| CV | 20.35 | 17.76 | 15.55 | 23.77 |
| LSD | 0.56 | 0.44 | 0.22 | 0.35 |
Means followed by the same letter(s) do not differ significantly at 1% level of probability, P = probability value, CV = Coefficient of Variation, and LSD = Least Significant Difference.
Microbial population in different tomato cultivars at RARS, Khajura.
| Cultivars | ABC | Coliform | Mold | Yeast |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLN369A | 5.19a | 5.10a | 2.02a | 3.51a |
| CLN 3940 | 4.96b | 4.42c | 2.29a | 1.98ab |
| UC204A | 3.32c | 4.82b | 1.19b | 1.84b |
| Pusa ruby | 2.58d | 4.53c | 0.96b | 1.77b |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.09 |
| CV | 2.21 | 2.13 | 16.40 | 34.55 |
| LSD | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.53 | 1.57 |
Means followed by the same letter(s) do not differ significantly at 1% level of probability, P = probability value, CV = Coefficient of Variation, and LSD = Least Significant Difference.
Figure 2Correlation between the tomato fruit juice pH and microbial population. R2 value is adjusted value.