Some factors affecting 0n determination and measurement of tomato

Domates kalitesinin belirlenmesinde sertlik en önemli faktörlerden birisidir. Ürünün sertlik değerlerinin parçalanarak belirlen¬mesi en yaygın olarak kullanılan yöntemlerinden birisidir, instron ise sertlik ölçümünde yaygın olarak kullanılan çok hassas ve evrensel bir alettir. Bu aletin kullanımı ile kuvvet/deformasyon eğrisi elde edilmektedir. Eğer meyvenin sertlik değeri ürünün parçalanarak belirlenmesi durumunda instron aleti ile elde edilen sadece kuvvet veya deformasyon değerinin sertlik değeri olarak algılanması ve belirtilmesi doğru olmayıp kuvvetin (N) deformasyon (mm) değerine oranı (N/mm) olarak verilmesinde doğru sonucu vermektedir. Hiç yumuşama belirtisi olmayan %100 sertlikte olan domatesin pazarlanabilmesi bakımından 6 mm düz uçlu delgi ucunun kullanımı ile instron sertlik değerinin 1.4S Nmm"1 nin üzerinde olması gerekmektedir. Kısmen yumuşamış fakat mutfakta rahatlıkla kullanılabilinir sertlikte olan domatesin en düşük instron değeri ise 1.28 Nmm" olarak belirlenmiştir. Parmak ile duyusal sertlik değerlendirmesi ile instron verilerinden elde edilen yırtılma kuvveti arasında 0.96 ve sertlik değerleri ise 0.98 gibi yüksek korelasyon olduğu saptanmıştır. Korelasyon katsayı deformasyon değeri için ise (-0.89) ile (-0.97) olduğu saptanmıştır. Yeşil domatesin kabuğunun kesilmesi sertlik değeri üzerine önemli bir etki yapmazken kabuğun soyulması ise sertlik değerini önemli derecede azaltılmıştır. Pembe olum aşamasında ise hem kabuğun kesilmesi ve hemde soyulması sertlik önemli derecede azaltılmıştır.

Domates sertliğinin belirlenmesi üzerine etkili bazı faktörler

Firmness is one of the most important factor for determination of tomatoes quality. Distructive measurement of tomato firmness is one of the evaluation methods of fruit firmness. The Universal Instron is most common used machine for measurement of most adeqequate fruit firmness. During destructive measurement of firmness considedation of force or deformation values as a firmness of fruits could give incorrect result and taking epicarp strength over deformation values is more accurate to concern the firmness of tomato. Two of possible minimum firmness limits were suggested for tomato fruits at the point of retail marketing or using at home. All 100% marketable fruits should haveiirmness values above 1.45 N mm"1 but the Instron values of the tomato mainly consuming stage at home, should have higher than the 1.28 N mm"1. The firmness of tomatoes is closely assosiated with acceptability levels of the fruits. Subjective evaluation scores based on finger feel highly and positively correlated 0.96 and 0.98 with epicarp strength and firmness values, respectively. A negative and highly significant correlation (-0.97) exists between deformation values of subjective evaluatoin scores of Liberto variety, but this correlation slightly lower for Criterium and that was -0.89. Cuting the skin of mature green tomatoes did not affect on firmness but removing the skin highly effect on it. Both cutting and removing of the skin affected measurement of the firmness of tomatoes harvested at pink stage of maturity.

PDF

___

1. Geeson, J.D., K.M. Browne, K. Maddison, J. Shepherd and F. Guarald. Modified Atmosphere Packaging to Extend the Shelf Life of Tomatoes. Journal of Food Technology. 20: 339-349. 1985.
2. Yang, C.C. and M.S. Chinnan. Computer Modelling of Gas Composition and Colour Development of Tomatoes Stored in Polymoric Films. Journal of Food Science. 53, 869-872. 1988.
3. Burton, W.G. Ripening and senescence of fruits. In (Ed) W.G. Burton. Post-harvest physiology of food crops. Logman Group Ltd., p: 181-198. 1982.
4. Gormley, R.S. and S. Egan. Firmness and Colour of the Fruit of Some Tomato Cultivars From Various Sources During Storage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 29: 534-538. 1978
5. Kader, A.A., L.L. Morris and P. Chen. Evaluation of Two Objective Methods and Subjective Rating Scale For Measuring Tomato Firmness. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103: 70-73. 1978.
6. Curd, L. Destructive or non-destrucrive distortion of fruit for the evaluation of quality. Bsc. Thesis, Silsoe College Cranfield University, Silsoe, Beds, England MK45 4DT. 1987.
7. Geeson, J.D. and K.M. Browne. New Packaging Technology Aims to Extend Shelf Life. Grower. July 14, p: 35-38. 1983.
8. Hobson, G.E. The firmness of tomato fruit in relation polygalacturonase activity. J. Hort. Sci. 40, 66-72. 1965.
9. Hobson G.E. Low-Temperature Injury and The Storage of Ripening Tomatoes. Journal of Horticultural Science 62(1)55-62. 1987.
10. Hobson, G.E. The Short Term Storage of Tomato Fruits. Journal of Horticultural Science. 56(4): 363-368. 1981.
11. Ghafir, S. and A.K. Thompson. Desructive and non-desructive apple maturity and ripeness assessments. Agricultural Enginer. Summer, 40-43. 1994.
12. Thomas, T.H., L.K. Drew & P.W. Goodenough. Determination of Firmness of Field-Grown Tomato During Storage in Controlled Atmosphere or Ripened at Different Temperatures. Ann. Appl. Biol., 100: 197-202. 1982.
13. Esquerra, E.B. and D.K. Bautista. Modified Atmosphere Storage and Transport of ‘Improved Pope’ Tomatoes. ASEAN Food Journal. 5, 27-33. 1990.
14. Tong, C.B. and K.C. Gross. Ripening Characteristics of a Tomato Mutant, Dark Green. Journal Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114(4): 635- 638. 1989.
15. Risse, L.A., W.R. Miller and R.E. McDonald. Effects of film wrapping on mature green tomatoes before and after ethylene treatments. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 97, 112-114. 1984.
16. Risse, L.A., W.R. Miller ve S. Ben-Yehoshua. Weight Loss, Firmness, Colour and Decay Development of Individual Film Wrapped Tomatoes. Tropical Science. 25: 117-121. 1985.
17. Yang, C.C., P. Brennan, M.S. Chinnan and R.L. Shewfilt. Characterisation of Tomatoes Ripening process As Influenced by Individual Seal-Packaging and Temperature. Journal of Food Qouality. 10: 21-33. 1987.
18. Geeson, J.D. K.M Browne and F. Guaraldi. The Effects of Ethylene Concentration in Controlled Atmosphere Storage of Tomatoes. Ann. appl. Biol., 108, 605-610. 1986.
19. Geeson, J.D. Modified Atmosphere Packaging of Fruit and Vegetables. Acta Horticulture. 258: 143-150. 1989.
20. Adegoroye, A.S., P.A. Jolliffe and M.A. Tung. Texture Characteristics of Tomato Fruits (Lycopersion esculentium) Affected by Sunscald. Journal of Science Food Agriculture. 49, 95-102. 1989.
21. Batu, A. ve A.K. Thompson. Effects of Cross-head Speed and Probe Diameter on Instrumental Measurement of Tomatoes Firmness. ProCeedings of the International Conference for Agricultural Machiney and ProCess Engineering October 19-22. Seoul, KOREA. p: 1340-1345. 1993.
22. Batu, A. Controlled and Modified Atmosphere Storage of Tomatoes. PhD Thesis. Cranfield University, Silsoe College, Silsoe, Beds. MK45 4DT. England. 1995.
23. Dilley, D.R., E Lange and K. Tomako. Optimizing paremeters for controlled atmosphere storage of apples. In Controlled Atmosphere Research Conference Fifith Proceding. Wenatchee, Washington, USA. p: 221-236. 1989.
24. Fica, J.J., Skrzyaski and D.R. Dilley. The effect of cooling and delayed application of CA storage of McIntosh apples under low and high ethylene levels. In Controlled atmosphere for storage and transport of perishable agricultural commodities. Fouth National Controlled Atmosphere Reseach Conference. Reilgh, Nort Carolina. p: 82-94. 1985.
25. Porritt, S.W. and M.M. Meheriuk. Effectc of CO2 treatment on storage below or of apples and pears. In Horticultural Report. Controlled atmospheres for the stage and transport of perishable agricultural commodities. Second National Controlled Atmosphere Research Conference. Michigan State Univ. USA. p: 170-174. 1977.
26. Smith, S.M., S.D. Geeson, P.M. Genge and P.O. Sharples. The effects of modified atmosphere packaging and stage of ripeness on the quality of English pears during simulated marketing. In International Conference on Technical Innovations in Freezing and refrigeration of fruits and vegetables. Wellmann Hall, Univ. of California. Davis. USA. p: 315-324, 1989.
27. Ilangantileke, S. and V. Salokhe. 1989. Low pressure atmosphere atmosphere storage of thai mango. In Controlled Atmosphere Research Conference Fifith Proceding. Wenatchee, Washington, USA. P: 103-117. 1989.