| Literature DB >> 35651638 |
Temitope T Banjo1, Omowunmi R Oluwole2, Victoria I Nzei3.
Abstract
Tomatoes are very important vegetable crops in the world but with a perishable nature. Due to its highly perishable nature, various methods have been investigated to increase its shelf life while still preserving its qualities. Therefore, this study investigated the potentials of the parts of Annona muricata and the calyces of Hibiscus sabdariffa in the preservation of tomato fruits. Tomato fruits were washed and treated with powdered, aqueous and ethanolic extracts of the leaves, seeds, bark of the Annona muricata and calyces of Hibiscus sabdariffa at different concentrations of 3%, 5%, 6%, 9% and 12% w/v. The tomato fruits were placed in well-aerated baskets for a period of 35 days during which organoleptic and microbial analysis were carried out. The different treatments with Annona muricata and Hibiscus sabdariffa had significant effects on the preservation of the tomato fruits at p < 0.05. The leaves of Annona muricata proved most effective preserving up to 50% of the tomatoes after the monitoring period. Moreover, 6% (w/v) of the aqueous extract of the leaves of Annona muricata resulted in a preservation rate of 75% of the tomato fruits. The spoilage microorganisms isolated from the tomato fruits are Candida krusei, Candida sp., Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus sp. The results of this research carried out shows that the extracts of Annona muricata and Hibiscus sabdariffa had significant preservative activities on the tomato fruits (p < 0.05), thus minimising wastes and economic loss to the farmers and country in general. © Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2022.Entities:
Keywords: Preservation; Roselle Plant; Soursop; Spoilage Microorganisms; Tomatoes
Year: 2022 PMID: 35651638 PMCID: PMC9128649 DOI: 10.21315/tlsr2022.33.1.1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trop Life Sci Res ISSN: 1985-3718
The effects of A. muricata leaf, bark and seed powder on preservation of tomato fruits.
| Time in days | Leaf | Bark | Seed | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 100 | 100 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 0.563 |
| 10 | 100 | 87.5 | 7 (87.5) | 3 (37.5) | 0.032 |
| 5 | 75 | 62.5 | 6 (75) | 1 (12.5) | 0.002 |
| 20 | 75 | 37.5 | 5 (62.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.002 |
| 25 | 62.5 | 37.5 | 3 (37.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.003 |
| 30 | 50 | 0.0 | 3 (37.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.001 |
| 35 | 50 | 0.0 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0.002 |
| Mean preservation rate | 73.21 | 46.43 | 57.14 | 21.43 | 0.021 |
Note: p < 0.05
The effects of ethanolic extract of leaf, bark and seeds A. muricata on preservation of tomato fruits.
| Time in days | Leaf | Bark | Seed | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 0.645 |
| 10 | 6 (75) | 6 (75) | 6 (75) | 3 (37.5) | 0.024 |
| 15 | 4 (50) | 5 (62.5) | 5 (62.5) | 1 (12.5) | 0.001 |
| 20 | 3 (37.5) | 4 (50) | 4 (50) | 0 (0.0) | 0.001 |
| 25 | 3 (37.5) | 4 (50) | 3 (37.5) | 0 (0.0) | 0.002 |
| 30 | 2 (25) | 3 (37.5) | 2 (25) | 0 (0.0) | 0.001 |
| 35 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (25) | 0 (0.0) | 0.003 |
| Mean preservation rate | 46.43 | 57.14 | 53.57 | 21.43 | 0.001 |
Note: p < 0.05
The effects of aqueous extract of the leaf, bark and seed of A. muricata and the calyces of H. sabdariffa on the preservation of tomato fruits.
| Time in days | Leaf | Bark | Seed | Roselle plant | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | NA |
| 10 | 7 (87.5) | 7 (87.5) | 8 (100) | 8 (100) | 3 (37.5) | 0.002 |
| 15 | 6 (75) | 6 (75) | 6 (75) | 6 (75) | 1 (12.5) | 0.072 |
| 20 | 5 (62.5) | 5 (62.5) | 5 (62.5) | 6 (75) | 0 | 0.026 |
| 25 | 4 (50) | 4 (50) | 3 (37.5) | 4 (50) | 0 | 0.040 |
| 30 | 3 (37.5) | 3 (37.5) | 3 (37.5) | 4 (50) | 0 | 0.052 |
| 35 | 3 (37.5) | 2 (25) | 2 (25) | 4 (50) | 0 | 0.001 |
| Mean preservation rate | 64.30 | 62.50 | 62.50 | 71.43 | 21.43 | 0.001 |
Note: p < 0.05
Figure 1The whole and cut section of tomato fruits after 35 days of treatment.
The effects of different concentrations of the aqueous extracts of A. muricata leaves on preservation of tomato fruits.
| Time in days | 3 g | 5 g | 6 g | 9 g | 7 g | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 4(100) | 4(100) | 4(100) | 4(100) | 4(100) | NA |
| 4 | 4(100) | 3(75) | 4 (100) | 3(75) | 4(100) | 0.064 |
| 7 | 4(100) | 2(50) | 4(100) | 3(75) | 3(75) | 0.026 |
| 9 | 3(75) | 2(50) | 4(100) | 2(50) | 3(75) | 0.001 |
| 12 | 3(75) | 1(25) | 3(75) | 2(50) | 2(50) | 0.003 |
| 15 | 2(50) | 0(0.0) | 3(75) | 1(25) | 2(50) | 0.002 |
| Mean preservation rate | 83.33 | 50 | 91.70 | 62.5 | 75 | 0.001 |
Note: p < 0.05
Comparative studies of the mean preservation rates of tomato fruits with different treatments of A. muricata.
| Powder | Ethanol | Aqueous | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf | 73.21 | 46.43 | 64.3 | 0.002 |
| Bark | 46.43 | 57.14 | 62.5 | 0.021 |
| Seed | 57.14 | 53.57 | 62.5 | 0.548 |
| Control | 21.43 | 21.43 | 21.43 | nd |
Note: p < 0.05; nd = not determined.
Figure 2Diagram showing colonial characteristics of Candida krusei.
Figure 3Diagram showing colonial characteristics of Bacillus subtilis.
Identification of spoilage yeasts from tomato fruits.
| SN | Macroscopy | Microscopy | GGT | Urea | Cy-Hex | Growth @37 | Glu | Yeast |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plate 7 | Creamy colour, smooth and glabrous | Small, elongated ovoid budding blastoconidia cells | − | − | − | + | + |
|
| Plate 5 | White chalky, slightly fluffy, rough and glabrous | Slight large, elongated ovoid budding blastoconidia cells | − | − | − | + | + | |
| Plate 2 | Creamy colour, smooth and glabrous | Small, elongated ovoid budding blastoconidia cells | − | − | − | + | + |
|
| Plate 4 | Creamy colour, smooth and glabrous | Large, slightly elongated ovoid budding blastoconidia cells | − | − | − | + | + |
Notes: GGT= Germ Tube Test, Urea = Urea Test, Cyhex = Cycloheximide, Glu = Glucose, + = Positive reaction, − = Negative reaction
Identification of spoilage bacteria from tomato fruits.
| LABEL | Gram | Motility | Glucose | Lactose | Mannitol | Maltose | Indole | Methyl Red | Vogesproskauer | Citrate | H2 S | Sucrose | Urea | Oxidase | Coagulase | Catalase | ISOLATE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PL 6 | GPB | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | NA | + |
|
| PL 3 | GPB | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | NA | + | |
| PL 1 | GPB | + | + | + | + | + | − | − | + | − | − | + | − | − | NA | + |
Notes: + = Positive reaction, − = Negative reaction, N A= Not applicable, NG = No growth, PL = Plate