ArticlePloS one2025
Physicochemical Attributes of Tomatoes after Different Forms of Harvesting and Transportation for Industrial Processing.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mechanized harvesting and transportation of tomatoes can significantly impact their physicochemical characteristics, affecting quality and industrial processing efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of harvesting methods and transportation conditions on the firmness, titratable acidity (TA), total soluble solids (TSS - °Brix), pH, and percentage of loss of fresh mass (LFM) of tomatoes intended for industrial use.
methodsThe mechanized harvesting and transportation of tomatoes can significantly impact their physicochemical characteristics, affecting quality and industrial processing efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of harvesting methods and transportation conditions on the firmness, TA, TSS (°Brix), pH, and percentage of LFM in tomatoes intended for industrial use.
resultsMechanized harvesting reduced tomato firmness, TA, pH, and increased mass loss. Manual harvesting resulted in 29.7% greater firmness than mechanical harvesting. The vibration effects varied depending on the floor and direction within the container, but container type did not significantly influence tomato quality. The position of the fruit in the transport medium affected firmness, with tomatoes at the rear exhibiting greater firmness and lower quality loss. Depth was negatively correlated with firmness, LFM, TA, and pH. The LFM increased with longer unloading times.
conclusionThe findings highlight the need for improved handling and logistics strategies in the tomato production chain to reduce quality deterioration during harvesting and transportation. Effective interventions can minimize economic losses and increase industrial processing efficiency. Additionally, the results of this study suggest that laboratory models that use equipment such as shakers can replicate these effects for other bulk-transported crops, including fresh fruits and tubers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.