handbook of vegetable preservation and processing, second...

ğ

ş

ğ

Handbook of Vegetable Preservation and Processing, Second Edition - ... https://www.crcpress.com/Handbook-of-Vegetable-Preservation-and-Pro...

1 de 3 20/10/2015 12:49

ğ

ğ

ğ

ğ ğ

ğ

š ć ć ć


2 de 3 20/10/2015 12:49

ž

ğ


3 de 3 20/10/2015 12:49

629

26Production and Handling of Tomato with a High Nutrition Quality

Miguel A. Cruz-Carrillo, Cipriano Garcia-Gutierrez, Daniel Arrieta-Baez, Adolfo Dagoberto Armenta-Bojorquez, Jorge Montiel-Montoya, and María Eugenia Jaramillo-Flores

26.1 Introduction

The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) with a production of 161,793,834 t in 2012, was the vegetable with the second highest worldwide production after potatoes (364,808,768 t). China being the coun-try with the highest production with 50,000,000 t, followed by India (17.5 million t), United States (13,206,950 t), Turkey (11,350,000 t), and Egypt (8,625,219 t). In 2011, globally presented a value of U.S. $725,685,929 (FAOSTAT Database 2014).

It is considered that the domestication of tomato started with the Aztec and Inca cultures where it was used as part of regular diet and its production and consumption grew at the same level as the popula-tion did. Nowadays tomato is sold fresh and also processed in several products like soups, pastas, con-centrates, juices, and ketchup. Several studies show its nutritional content as a rich source of lycopene, β-carotene, and vitamin C, some of which are maintained after its processing, providing important components for human health (Bergougnoux 2013).

AQ1

AQ2

ContEnts

26.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 62926.2 Tomato Nutritional Facts ............................................................................................................... 630

26.2.1 Tomato Properties ............................................................................................................. 63026.2.2 Husk Tomato .....................................................................................................................63126.2.3 Tomato Quality ................................................................................................................. 63226.2.4 Postharvest ....................................................................................................................... 634

26.3 Technology and Processing of Tomato Products .......................................................................... 63526.3.1 Tomato Ketchup ............................................................................................................... 637

26.4 Utilization of Agrowastes of Tomato Processing .......................................................................... 63826.5 Production and Handling of Tomato ............................................................................................. 639

26.5.1 Use of Biofertilizers in the Production of Tomato ........................................................... 63926.5.2 Use of Bioinsecticides for Plague Control in Tomato ...................................................... 639

26.5.2.1 Pest Management in Tomato............................................................................. 64026.5.2.2 Effectiveness of Native Isolates of Entomopathogenic Fungi against

Heliothis virescens ........................................................................................... 64026.5.3 Biological Control ............................................................................................................ 644

26.6 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 645Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................................... 645References .............................................................................................................................................. 645Websites Consulted for Insecticide Information .................................................................................... 647

K21711_C026.indd 629 4/29/2015 11:46:51 PM

630 Handbook of Vegetable Preservation and Processing

26.2 tomato nutritional Facts

26.2.1 Tomato Properties

Tomato contains of 93.4%–94.5% water, 0.85%–4.6% sugar, 0.78%–0.88% protein, 0.2%–0.3% fat, minerals, mainly potassium, and is a rich source of other nutrients such as ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and antioxidants compounds of carotenoids family like lycopene and β-carotene (Table 26.1) (Rao and Agarwal 2000).

In addition, fresh tomato and its derivative products provide the following carotenoids: violax-anthin, neoxanthin, lutein, zeaxanthin, α-cryptoxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin, α-carotene, β-carotene, γ-carotene, δ-carotene, neurosporene, phytoene, phytofluene, cyclolycopene, and β-carotene 5,6-epoxide. The importance of carotenoids as antioxidants is that they can delay or control the oxidation of lipids or other molecules to inhibit the onset of reactions in oxidative chain (Yahia et al. 2007). The α-carotene, β-carotene, and β-cryptoxanthin have provitamin A activity to become retinal (Guil-Guerrero and Rebolloso-Fuentes 2009). Lycopene consumption prevents lung, prostate cancer, and digestive tract (Mourvaki et al. 2005). In the same way, tomato con-sumption has been associated with a lower probability of breast cancer (Zhang et al. 2009) also for head and neck cancer and helps to protect against neurodegenerative diseases (Freedman et al. 2008). Epidemiological studies have shown that lycopene acts to protect cells from the effects of oxidation and oxidative damage (Mourvaki et al. 2005). Sauces and puree may be of help to lower urinary tract symptoms of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) and may have anticancer properties (Polívková et al. 2010). Tomato consumption might be beneficial for reducing cardiovascular risk associated with type 2 diabetes (Shidfar et al. 2011).

It is known that the nutrient content and antioxidant activity of tomato may vary depending on variety and growing conditions (Guil-Guerrero and Rebolloso-Fuentes 2009). Tomato fruits that grow on organic substrates containing significantly higher contents of Ca and Vitamin C, present less Fe compared with the fruit grown in hydroponic medium, whereas the content of P and K does not vary in fruits grown either in an organic or in hydroponic substrate (Guil-Guerrero and Rebolloso-Fuentes 2009). It was found that wild tomato variety contains five times more ascorbic acid than MVs (Bergougnoux 2013). Guil-Guerrero and Rebolloso-Fuentes (2009) compared the nutrient composition and antioxidant activ-ity of mature fruits of eight varieties of tomatoes (Cherry, Pear, Daniela Long Life, Lido, pear, Bunch, Raf, and Rambo) that were grown in a greenhouse, and found that they varied mainly in the content of vitamin C as follows: 39 mg/100 g fresh weight (FW) in the variety Cherry Pera, and 263 mg/100 g FW in the Rambo variety. On the other hand, the values for the content of moisture, crude protein, available carbohydrate, and neutral detergent fiber were similar for the commercial varieties of tomatoes (Table 26.2) studied.

Table 26.1

Nutritional Value of Red Fresh Tomato (Composition in 100 g)

Proximate Minerals Vitamins

Fibers (g) 1.2–1.83 Calcium (mg) 7–10 Vitamin C (mg) 13.7–23

Sugars (g) 0.85–4.6 Magnesium (mg) 0–11 Choline (mg) 6.7

Protein (g) 0.78–0.88 Phosphorus (mg) 24 Vitamin A (μg) 42

Total lipid (g) 0.20–0.3 Potassium (mg) 237 α-Carotene (μg) 449

Water (g) 93.4–94.52 Sodium (mg) 5 β-Carotene (μg) 101–510

Energy (kcal) 18–34.67 Fluoride (μg) 2.3 Lycopene (μg) 2573–9490

Vitamin K (μg) 7.9

Lutein+ zeaxanthin (μg) 123

Sources: Adapted from Rao, A.V. and Agarwal, S., J. Am. Coll. Nutr., 19, 563, 2000; INCAP (Instituto de Nutrición de Centroamérica y Pamanamá), Tabla de composición de alimentos de Centroamérica, Menchú, M.T. and Méndez, H. (eds.), (3ª Reimpresión), Guatemala, 2012; Hernández Suárez, M. et al., Food Chem., 106, 1046, 2008; Pinela, J. et al., Food Chem. Toxicol., 50, 829, 2012.

K21711_C026.indd 630 4/29/2015 11:46:51 PM


Furthermore, the content of microelements in the eight varieties analyzed presented a wide variation, probably largely influenced by agronomic practices, because the plants were grown under artificial sub-strate. High quantities for Zn, Fe, and Se were presented. It was also shown that the content of total carot-enoids (all-trans-lutein β-Carotene 9-cis-β-Carotene, Lycopene, and Lycopene isomers Neurosporene) as determined by HPLC was higher in red tomato, showing the greatest total carotenoid content as 583 mg/g dry weight (DW) in Cherry cultivar, with the higher lycopene content (350 mg/g), in all varieties. For the antioxidant activity determined by the technique of radical DPPH, the higher values were found for α-tocopherol, in the Lido and Raf varieties. The colorful varieties proved to be good sources of antioxidants in relation to the high content of carotenoids in mature stages (Guil-Guerrero and Rebolloso-Fuentes 2009).

It is known that the amount and composition of phenolic compounds in foods are influenced by the genotype, storage conditions, extraction procedure, and environmental conditions, in the same way, the quantity and quality of any other phytochemicals in tomato fruit are influenced by genetic and environ-mental factors (Luthria et al. 2006). Luthria et al. (2006) studied tomato fruits collected when ripe and comparable in size; varieties Oregon Spring and Red Sun that were developed in high tunnels, which were constructed with two contrasting materials that one provided an atmosphere of solar radiation and UV while the other material blocking transmission of UV. Subsequently three phenolic acids were iden-tified: caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, and ferulic acid by HPLC-DAD, caffeic acid being the predominant phenolic acid in the two tomato varieties developed in both conditions. The total concentration of these three phenolic acids in both varieties was approximately 20% + higher in the samples that were UV treated than those without UV treatment. Similar results were obtained for the amount of total phenolics when the tomato extract was analyzed using the Folin–Ciocalteu method. The results indicated that the content of phenolic in tomato was significantly affected by the spectral quality of the UV solar radia-tion. To understand the physicochemical changes during maturation, since the sugar content and color changes were related with the metabolized lycopene, Cheng et al. (2011), using the technique of chemical shift imaging (CSI) tool, for not to be destructive to the physiological analysis fruit and vegetables and corroborating by HPLC, analyzed the spatial distribution of sugar and lycopene during ripening from green to red, and obtained a consistent trend in the variation of sugar content, while the lycopene content increased significantly in the outer pericarp and the columella in red stage (Cheng et al. 2011).

26.2.2 Husk Tomato

Husk tomato (Physalis ixocarpa), botanical species native from Mexico, belongs to the Solanaceae fam-ily, its morphological characteristics are similar to tomato (S. lycopersicum) and it is used in the Mexican diet since the Aztecs. It is usually used in sauces in similar way to tomato. Fruits at different stages of development (E0: Stage 0, Bud; E1: Stage 1, very young fruit; E2: Stage 2, young fruit; E3: Stage 3,

AQ3

Table 26.2

Chemical Composition and Vitamin C during Ripening of Eight Varieties of Tomato (in 100 g of Fresh Fruit)

Cultivar Ripeness

Color Moisture

(g)

Crude Protein

(g)

Available Carbohydrate

(g) Lipids

(g)

neutral Detergent Fiber (g)

Ash (g)

E (kcal) E (kJ)

Vitamin C (mg)

Cherry, Pera, Racimo

Light red 93.3–96 0.56–0.91

1.16–1.91 0.20–0.49

0.78–1.25 0.78–1.25

8.9–12.6

37.4–52.8

82–174

Cherry, Pera, Rambo

Breakers 92.6–95.8

0.55–1.05

1.01–2.18 0.42–0.44

0.99–1.60 0.82–1.41

9.9–16.2

41.6–67.6

39–263

Daniela Larga Vida

Pink 93.9–96.0

0.75–0.96

1.26–2.04 0.28–0.67

1.10–1.27 0.75–1.14

10.4–15.7

43.7–65.8

62–155

Lido, Raf

Source: Adapted from Guil-Guerrero, J.L. and Rebolloso-Fuentes, M.M., J. Food Compos. Anal., 22, 123, 2009.

K21711_C026.indd 631 4/29/2015 11:46:51 PM


semi-ripe fruit; and E4: Stage 4, ripe fruit) do not show a significant variation in nutrient content; how-ever, the mature green tomato (E4) has the highest sugar and fiber content and lower total carbohydrates and proteins contents, whereas the very young fruit (E1) has the higher protein content. This probably is due to the biochemical, enzymatic processes present during fruit growth (Table 26.3).

26.2.3 Tomato Quality

Lycopene and β-carotene act as antioxidants and also are related to the color and quality perception (Heredia et al. 2009). During the ripening process, the fruit and vegetables undergo physicochemical changes that primarily affect its texture, flavor, color, and sugar content. The color change is the main indi-cator of maturity stages, which is related to the synthesis or degradation of lycopene (Cheng et al. 2011).

Tomato quality is not only related to the taste, texture, and appearance, but also other features such as the product’s ability to harvest, transport, and processing. The strength and resistance of the skin are the most important properties of the fruit in the characterization of the quality of processed tomatoes, espe-cially in the packaging industry (Arazuri et al. 2007). Batu (2004) studied the minimum acceptable value for the firmness and color of tomato from two varieties “Liberto” and “Criterium.” Two possible values for the minimum limit for fruit firmness were suggested: commercial value, which was related to very firm tomatoes having firmness values above 1.45 N mm and tomatoes suitable for consumption at home should have firmness values greater than 1.28 N mm. In order to determine the color, the most common method is measuring the difference in color using the Minolta Chroma meter model. The Minolta a*/b* were less variable for mature green and breaker stages. When the fruit reached Minolta a*/b*, from 0.60 to 0.95, in the light red stage, the fruits can easily be marketed. Red stage corresponded to too mature stage with Minolta a*/b* values between 0.95 and 1.21 (Batu 2004).

The tomato flavor results from a complex interaction between taste and aroma. The main constitu-ents of tomato taste are sugars, acids, phenols, and minerals, where sugars make a great contribution. The aroma of volatiles defines the unique flavor of tomato and a particular taste perception is the cul-mination of his unique sensibility and even a nostalgic experience. Consumers evaluate the sweetness of tomato, and sugar accumulation, together with acids, can be defined flavor intensity (Beckles 2012). The environmental conditions, cultivation and harvest type, are the most important factors taken into account in the development of new varieties with improved agronomic characteristics (Bergougnoux 2013). Cherry tomato varieties 818 and DT-2 ha, in especially 818 variety, have high contents of antioxidants, that is, lycopene, ascorbic acid, and phenols, which may be important to consider for germplasm improvement program (George et al. 2004). Moreover, the efficiency of the generation of new varieties is based on the availability of genetic diversity and heritability of the traits of inter-est. Often, many features can be enhanced simultaneously and introduced into the new array and most of them are controlled by several genes which can influence the environment. The organoleptic

Table 26.3

Proximate Composition of Growth Stages of Husk Tomato (P. ixocarpa)

Analysis E0 E1 E2 E3 E4

Dietary fibers (g/100 g) 2.013 ± 0.006 1.823 + 0.006 1.7 ± 0.017 1.243 + 0.123 2.157 + 0.006

Total carbohydrates (g/100 g) 4.04 ± 0.021 3.483 + 0.029 3.35 + 0.017 3.773 + 0.029 3.127 + 0.025

Sugars (g/100 g) 1.17 ± 0 2.317 + 0.023 2.46 + 0.015 2.71 + 0.04 2.993 + 0.023

Proteins (g/100 g) 1.453 ± 0.033 1.630 + 0.044 1.34 + 0.052 1.443 + 0.038 1.327 + 0.046

Fats (g/100 g) 0.28 ± 0 0.527 + 0.015 0.827 + 0.011 1.197 + 0.046 1.027 + 0.071

Saturated fats (g/100 g) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

Ash (g/100 g) 0.647 ± 0.015 0.610 + 0.010 0.517 + 0.006 0.557 + 0.021 0.527 + 0.03

Moisture (g/100 g) 91.573 + 0.055 91.930 + 0.025 92.267 + 0.011 91.89 + 0.25 91.887 + 0.03

Sodium (mg/100 g) 7.507 + 0.006 7.480 + 0.030 7.413 + 0.055 7.487 + 0.025 7.513 + 0.03

E (kcal/100 g) 24.51 25.22 26.31 32.39 27.18

E (kJ/100 g) 103.84 106.53 110.78 136.05 114.26

K21711_C026.indd 632 4/29/2015 11:46:51 PM


sensation is evaluated by sensory analysis. Traditional breeding usually starts from a cross between lines adapted species, or between an elite line and a wild species or species group close to as Solanum juglandifolium and Solanum ochranthum. The production of a new variety of crosses between two varieties can take 5–7 years, while the incorporation of new genes from wild relatives can take about 20 years. A list of the main features with potential for breeding and germplasm source is presented (Bergougnoux 2013) in Table 26.4.

Table 26.4

Main Agronomic Traits of Interest Available from Wild Tomato Species and Germoplasm Origen

Characteristics

Germoplasm source (Lycopersicum Name) (Bergougnoux 2013)

L. p

impi

nelli

foliu

m

L. h

irsu

tum

L. p

enne

llii

L. p

eruv

ianu

m

L. p

arvi

floru

m

L. c

hmie

lew

ski

L. c

hees

man

iae

L. e

scul

entu

m

L. c

hile

nse

L. c

hees

man

ii

Biotic stress Bacterial resistance * * * *

Resistance to fungi * * * * * * * *

Resistance to virus * * * * *

Resistance to insects * *

Abiotic stress Low temperature * *

Drought * *

Salt * *

Plant Branch number *

Male sterility *

Growth habit * *

Height * * * *

Self-pruning * *

Fruit Antiox. capacity *

Ascorbic acid *

Citric acid *

Color * * * * * *

β-carotene * * * *

Lycopene * * *

Orange *

Yellow *

Cracking * *

Diameter *

Shape * * * * *

Firmness * * * * * *

Sugars * *

Length *

Locule number *

Maturity * * * *

Ripening * * * *

Soluble solids * * * * *

Viscosity * * * * *

Weight * * * * * *

Yield * * * * * *

Jointless *

AQ4

K21711_C026.indd 633 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


26.2.4 Postharvest

Tomatoes are mainly harvested in orange and red stages (Farneti et al. 2012). Appearance and texture are two of the most fundamental factors affecting the quality of fresh-cut products (Domínguez et al. 2011). For agricultural products such as fruits, appearance and texture are two of the most fundamental factors affecting the quality of fresh-cut products (Domínguez et al. 2011). Lycopene and β-carotene as well as being antioxidants are related to the color and quality perception (Heredia et al. 2009). It has been shown that using storage temperatures below 12°C causes degradation of lycopene, reducing the quality of the fruit and its commercial value (Farneti et al. 2012).

Dhakal and Baek (2014) found that the simple single blue wavelength light is effective in extending the shelf-life of tomatoes by delaying softening and ripening, allowing the gradual development of red and accumulation of lycopene.

The cuticle of the fruit influences the modulation of development, especially the ripening and posthar-vest storage performance (Lara et al. 2014). The cuticular matrix whose main function is to reduce water loss and limit the loss of substances in internal tissues protects against physical, chemical, and biological damage and provides mechanical support (maximum stress, stress at break, or elastic modulus), to keep the fruit complete (Domínguez et al. 2011). Most of the mechanical actions that cause reduces in the quality of tomatoes are produced during harvest and transport (Arazuri et al. 2007). In the cuticle major biomechanical factors involved in storage strategies for postharvest preservation, are the resistance and stiffness, which decreases with increasing temperature, where at a given temperature structure shows a phase transition, which in the elastic modulus is dependent on the relative humidity and the water which is known to plasticize the cuticle (Domínguez et al. 2011).

The cuticle is the main barrier against biotic and abiotic environment in which the fruit is developed; therefore, its composition and structure has an important influence on the potential of postharvest stor-age. Table 26.5 shows a summary of the major cutin monomers fruit, to understand the role of the cuticle in fruit quality and postharvest storage (Gérard et al. 1992; Lara et al. 2014).

Table 26.5

Main Cutin Monomers in Cuticle of Different Fruits

Major Cutin Monomers Fruits

9(10),16-diOH C16:0 Black chokeberry, cloudberry; crowberry; raspberry; rowanberry; strawberry; rosehip; and sweet cherry

10(9,8),16-diOH C16 Black currant

9(10)(9,8)16-diOH C16 Black currant

9,16-diOH C16 Pepper and green pepper

10,16-diOH C16:0 Tomato, green pepper; and Lime

16-OH-10-oxo C16 Grapefruit; Lime

8,16-diOH C16 Cucumber

18-OH C18 Apple (unknown cultivar)

18-OH C18:1 Crowberry

9,10,18-triOH C18 Bilberry; lingonberry; sweet cherry; peach (melting and nonmelting); and Apple (cultivar Red Delicious)

9,18-diOH C18 Pumpkin

9-epoxy-18-OH C18 Pepper

9,10-epoxy-18-OH C18 Lingonberry; cranberry, bilberry; crowberry; pepper; and sea buckthorn

18-OH-9,10-epoxy C18:0 Black chokeberry; Apple (cultivar Red Delicious)

18-OH-9,10-epoxy C18:1 Black chokeberry

18-OH-9,10-epoxy-12-enoic C18 Apple (cultivars Golden Delicious and Red Delicious)

18-OH-9-enoic C18 Apple (cultivar Golden Delicious)

Mid-chain epoxy-tri-OH C18 Wild tomato

Sources: Adapted from Gérard, H.C. et al., Phytochem. Anal., 3, 139, 1992; Gérard, H.C. et al., Phytochemistry, 33, 818, 1994; Ray, A.K. et al., Phytochemistry, 6, 1361, 1995; Lara, I. et al., Postharvest Biol. Technol., 87, 103, 2014.

K21711_C026.indd 634 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


The factors that limit the shelf-life of fresh tomatoes are senescence, respiration, and disease development. To retard the growth of fungi or senescence was used a treatment with ultraviolet (UV)-C radiation, and this treatment increased the content of ascorbic acid, phenolic compounds, and lycopene. On the other hand, for the postharvest decontamination of fruits, the nonthermal tech-nology like Pulsed Light (PL) has used. The mechanism of microbial inactivation by photochemi-cal effects was reported as induction of structural changes in DNA of bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens, avoiding cell replication with the advantages like rapid microbial inactivation in short time treatments and lack of residual compounds and flexibility. However, pulsed light caused a sub-stantial loss of weight and the acceptability of the product quality for the third day (Aguiló-Aguayo et al. 2013).

26.3 technology and Processing of tomato Products

Around the world, to produce canned tomatoes, ketchup, tomato juice, sauces, and many other products, 33,197 million t of tomato were processed in 2013 (WPTC 2014). To produce tomato paste, fruit passes through several steps such as washing, breaking, and removal of skin and seeds by sieving, concentra-tion, packaging, pasteurization, and finally stored. Heat processing for inactivation of microorganisms and softening the fruit pulp to separate the epicarp usually use temperatures above 90°C, whereby the inactivation of pectinolytic enzymes is raised. It is well known that pectin methylesterase and endopoly-galacturonase causes a reduction in viscosity and lipoxygenase participates in the production of aroma. In contrast, at temperatures below 70°C, the enzyme activity is maintained resulting in a lower viscosity and undesirable compounds. Other components that influence the viscosity of the final product (tomato juice, ketchup, soups, and pasta) are insoluble solids, these are comprised of cell wall components and proteins, same as in fruit determine the firmness (Bergougnoux 2013). Furthermore, for the production of tomato paste, the tomato is homogenized at high temperatures where ingredients like water, starch, and vegetable oil are used. The thermal treatment cause photochemical reaction with subsequent degrada-tion of antioxidant components, and thus the nutritional quality of the product is altered. Moreover, the presence of vegetable oil in sausage may allow lipid oxidation, contributing to the oxidation reactions (Chanforan et al. 2012).

Furthermore, the processing conditions may also induce the transition metal ions of the stainless steel equipment into the product. Consequently, carotenoids (E)-lycopene and (E)-β-carotene can easily be isomerized to the E–Z conformations, although a decrease in the total carotenoid content can indicate other routes of degradation such as oxidative process. In contrast, there are reports on the increase in total carotenoid concentration in the dry matter of tomato paste, which we have found a high rate of isomeriza-tion to (E)-β-carotene compared to (E)-lycopene (Chanforan et al. 2012).

Georgé et al. (2011) compared the nutritional composition (carotenoids, polyphenols, and vitamin C) of red and yellow tomatoes, both fresh and subjected to thermal treatment as well as lyophilized. After subjecting to thermal processing, the yellow tomato showed a significant decrease in the content of β-carotene (44%), while the content of β-carotene and lycopene did not change in the red tomato. With the freeze-drying process it was found that, in both red and yellow tomatoes, the carotenoids content was significantly lower than fresh tomatoes. β-Carotene decreased 14% in the red fruit and 11% in yellow while the lycopene content decreased 47% in the red tomato. The content of vitamin C increased with the freeze-drying process and decreased with heat process-ing for both stages (Georgé et al. 2011).

However, there are studies reporting that the tomato processing had an overall positive effect on the contents of phenolic compounds. Components that increased were chlorogenic acid and glycosides of hydroxycinnamic acids, whereas rutin was not affected and naringenin largely was damaged. Chanforan et al. (2012) using HPLC-DAD-MS identified 57 phenolic compounds and alkaloids of the fresh tomato and products obtained by thermal processes (pasta sauces) including isomers naringenin (Table 26.6). Besides the aforementioned compounds also identified 28 identified carotenoids and carotenoid deriva-tives (Table 26.7).

K21711_C026.indd 635 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


Table 26.6

Phenolic and Alkaloids Compounds Present in Fresh Fruit and Processed Products of Tomato

Compound Ff P1 P2 Fp s1 P3 s2

3-O-Caffeoylquinic acid * * * * * * *

4-O-Caffeoylquinic acid * * * * * * *

5-O-Caffeoylquinic-acid * * * * * * *

5-O-Caffeoylquinic acid (cis form) * *

Caffeic acid-dihexose * * *

Caffeic acid-hexose (I) * * * * * * *

Caffeic acid-hexose (II) * * * * * * *

Caffeic acid-hexose (III * * * * * * *

Caffeic acid-hexose (IV) * * * * * * *

Caffeic acid-4-O-β-d-glucoside * * * * * * *

p-Coumaric acid-4-O-β-d-glucoside * * * * * * *

p-Coumaroylquinic acid * * * * * * *

p-Coumaric acid-hexose * * * * * * *

3,4-Dicaffeoylquinic acid * * * * * * *

3,5-Dicaffeoylquinic acid * * * * * * *

4,5-Dicaffeoylquinic acid * * * * * *

Dihydrokaempferol-dihexose * * * *

Dihydroxyphenylacetic acid hexose * * * * * * *

Dihydroxyphenylpropionic acid hexose (tR 2.6 min) * * * * * * *

Dihydroxyphenylpropionic acid hexose (tR 2.9 min) * * * * * * *

Hydroxymethoxyphenylpropionic acid hexose * * * * * * *

Hydroxyphenylpropionic acid hexose * * * * * * *

Eriodictyol * * * * * *

Eriodictyol-hexose * * * * * * *

Esculeoside B (I) * * * * * * *

Esculeoside B (II) * * * * * * *

Ferulic acid-hexose * * *

Kaempferol-3-O-rutinose * * * * * * *

Lycoperoside F, G or esculeoside A (I) * * * * *

Lycoperoside F, G or esculeoside A (II) * * * * *

Lycoperoside H (I) * * * * * * *

Lycoperoside H (II) * * * * * * *

Naringenin * * * * * * *

Naringenin chalcone *

Naringenin-hexose derivative * * * * * * *

Naringenin-hexose (I) * * * * * * *

Naringenin-hexose (II) * * * * * * *

Naringenin-hexose (III) * * * * * * *

Naringenin-hexose (IV) * * * *

Naringenin-hexose (V) * * * * * * *

Naringenin dihexose * * * * * * *

Naringenin-7-O-glucoside (prunin) * * * * * * *

Phloretin-di-hexose * * * * * * *

Quercetin 3-O-(2″-O-β-apiofuranosyl-6″-O-α-rhamnopyranosyl-β-glucopyranoside)

* * * * * * *

Quercetin-dihexose * *

Quercetin–glucose–rhamnose–apiose–ferulic acid * * * * * * *

(Continued )

K21711_C026.indd 636 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


26.3.1 Tomato Ketchup

The ketchup is made with fresh or processed tomatoes (tomato purees and pasta), plus spices and season-ings are added to give the characteristic flavor, also gums and starches as water-binding agents can be added to flesh, but its use depends on local regulations. Gums used in ketchup production provide a high consistency and low serum separation. Because of its low cost, corn starch is the most used, but can cause some problems in the quality as retrogradation.

The main parameters of the quality of ketchup are color, flavor, and flow properties. The rheological properties of ketchup depend on the amount of pectin, proteolysis and pectin fraction, pulp content, and homogenization process (Mert 2012).

The viscosity is an important quality parameter for consumer acceptance. For a consistent and desir-able quality in a paste ketchup of high quality, continuous monitoring and adjustment of process vari-ables (Bayod et al. 2008) are required. Consistency is considered a critical physical property, and linear viscoelastic properties and the elastic limit provide information on microstructure, which are important for handling, processing, and storage. Numerous studies on products made from tomato have demon-strated the relationship between the rheological properties and quality parameters, where to improve the rheological properties a hydrocolloid is added. The consistency of ketchup is improved using a homogenization valve. Often two-stage homogenization producing a bright and soft product is used. Moreover, by breaking up the fibrous structure of the tomato and reducing the average particle size, the final product quality is improved. In the homogenizing valve, the ketchup is forced through an opening of microscopic size, causing great turbulence and shear, in conjunction with compression, accelera-tion, reduction in pressure, cavitation, and impact, therefore disintegrate and disperse solids in tomato ketchup. In microfluidization, the fluid is forced to split into two microcurrents high speed collide with each other by causing fine particles (Mert 2012). In addition, in the process to prepare the paste, many structural changes occur which are reflected in the parameters studied (Bayod et al. 2008). Mert (2012) recommended microfluidizing as a novel method in processing ketchup, which compared the quality parameters of the ketchup through valve homogenization techniques and microfluidizing, where the dis-integration of solids proved to be more effective with microfluidization, also using high pressure micro-fluidization improved physical quality parameters were observed on lycopene content. Furthermore, the microfluidization at high pressures (above 1600 bar) resulted in small fibers and fibrils reduced moduli, elastic limit, and consistency Bostwick. George et al. (2004) recommended to pay attention to the cherry varieties (818, BR-124, and T-56) for use in processed products, because they had high content of soluble solids and titratable acidity.

AQ5

AQ6

Table 26.6 (continued )

Phenolic and Alkaloids Compounds Present in Fresh Fruit and Processed Products of Tomato


Quercetin–glucose–rhamnose–apiose-hexose * * * * * * *

Quercetin–glucose–rhamnose–apiose-p-coumaric acid * * * * * * *

Quercetin–glucose–rhamnose–apiose–sinapic acid * * * * *

Quercetin–glucose–rhamnose–apiose–syringic acid * * * * * * *

Rutin * * * * * * *

Rutin-hexose * * * * * * *

Sinapic acid-hexose * * * * * *

Syringic acid-hexose * * * * * * *

Syringic acid-hexose derivative * * * * * *

Tricaffeoylquinic acid * * * * * * *

Tricaffeoylquinic acid-hexose * * * * * * *

Source: Adapted from Chanforan, C. et al., Food Chem., 134, 1786, 2012.Note: Ff, fresh fruit of tomato; P1, tomato paste prepared with fresh fruit (Ff); P2, tomato paste (process a); Fp, tomato

pulp; S1, tomato sauce prepared with tomato paste (P2) and tomato pulp (FP); P3, tomato paste (process b); S2, tomato sauce prepared with tomato paste (P3).

K21711_C026.indd 637 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


26.4 Utilization of Agrowastes of tomato Processing

The processing industry from tomato generates large amounts of waste annually, known as “tomato pom-ace,” which has no commercial value and were supplied as food for animals (livestock). Tomato pomace consists primarily of seeds and skin of the fruit, which represent 4% of the weight of processed toma-toes. Toor and Savage (2005) found that for the tomato varieties Excel, Flavourine, and Tradiro grown in hydroponic medium and greenhouse, the skin and seeds provided, on average, 53% of total phenolics, 52% of total flavonoids, lycopene, 48%, ascorbic acid, 43%, and total antioxidant activity, 52%. So removing the skin and seeds in both fresh consumption and cooking at home or in processing, a significant percentage of the contribution of these components is lost. On the other hand, to give added value to these agrowastes applying cold pressure has been extracted lycopene from seeds and tomato skin, obtaining seed oil enriched with lycopene (Zuorro et al. 2013). Also these agrowastes, when subjected to a sequential enzy-matic hydrolysis of pectin, cellulose, and hemicellulose, it is possible to isolate the cuticle of the fruit of tomato, which is composed of an insoluble biopolyester in organic solvents, known as cutin, found within a complex waxes waterproof, and on its inner surface is interacting with the cell wall. Cutin consists of

AQ7

Table 26.7

Carotenoids in Fresh Fruit and Tomato Processed Products


Lutein monoester * * * * * * *

1,2-Epoxy-phytoene * * * * * *

Phytoene * * * * * * *

Phytofluene * * * * * * *

Isomer of phytofluene * * * * * * *

Isomer of ζ-carotene * *

(13Z)-β-Carotene * * * * * *

(E)-β-Carotene * * * * * * *

ζ-Carotene * * * * * * *

Di-(Z)-lycopene (TR 57.16 min) * * *

Di-(Z)-lycopene (TR 57.58 min) *


(15Z)-Lycopene *

Di-(Z)-lycopene (TR 57.91 min) * * * * * *


(5Z,13′Z)-Lycopene *

Di-(Z)-lycopene * *

(5Z,15Z)-Lycopene *

(11Z)-Lycopene *

(13Z)-Lycopene * * * * * * *

(5Z,13′Z)-Lycopene * * *

1,2-Epoxy-lycopene * * * * * * *

(9Z)-Lycopene * * * * * * *

(5Z,9′Z)-Lycopene * * * * * *

(7Z)-Lycopene *

5Z,5′Z)-Lycopene * * * * * * *

(E)-Lycopene * * * * * * *

(5Z)-Lycopene * * * * * * *

Source: Adapted from Chanforan, C. et al., Food Chem., 134, 1786, 2012.Note: Ff, fresh fruit of tomato; P1, tomato paste prepared with fresh fruit (Ff); P2, tomato paste (process a); Fp, tomato

pulp; S1, tomato sauce prepared with tomato paste (P2) and tomato pulp (FP); P3, tomato paste (process b); S2, tomato sauce prepared with tomato paste (P3).

K21711_C026.indd 638 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


hydroxylated long chain fatty acids and sometimes ethoxylated of families 16 and 18 carbon atoms, linked by ester bonds (Heredia 2003).The monomers of cutin tomato have been obtained by alkaline hydrolysis with 1.5 M KOH–MeOH (Osman et al. 1999). From that alkaline hydrolysis, it is possible to isolated the main monomer tomato cuticle, 10,16-dihydroxyhexadecanoic acid, from which has been successfully syn-thesized monomers such as 16-hydroxy-10-oxo-hexadecanoic and 7-oxohexa-decanedioic acids, for obtain-ing aliphatic biopolyesters as bioactive materials for applications in the medical field (Arrieta-Baez et al. 2011) and have also been obtained oligomers by enzymatic methods, from 10, 16-dihydroxyhexadecanoic acid and its methyl ester derivative methyl-10,16-dihydroxyhexadecanote, opening a new platform design of bioactive and biodegradable polymers, with physical, chemical, and biological properties focus on bio-medical applications (Gómez-Patiño et al. 2013).

26.5 Production and Handling of tomato

The physiological process of fruit ripening, lycopene accumulation, red coloration indicating full maturity also presenting important biochemical reactions, such as the accumulation of sugars and volatile compounds as well as cell wall degradation, resulting in the loss of firmness and consequently reduced shelf-life. Being a climacteric fruit, ripening begins by increased respiration and ethylene biosynthesis (Bergougnoux 2013).

The inadequate agronomical handling of the crop has an impact in the environment and after-harvesting quality of the fruit. The world’s yield of food comes from intensive agriculture, which is based on the application of agrochemicals; vegetables are the crops where more fertilizers and pesticides are used, due to the high volume of food produced and the succulence of the fruit that make them more susceptible to plagues and diseases. Big quantities of fertilizers based on nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are applied in tomato in higher doses that those recommended by research centers.

26.5.1 Use of biofertilizers in the Production of Tomato

Mineral fertilizers present collateral effects adverse to the environment and health. This requires the development of new biorational options, such as biofertilizers (Rabie and Humiany 2004). It is essential to assume a strategy of nutrient supply to the crops by the means of an intelligent combination of inor-ganic and biologic fertilizers, all within the sustainability framework, to reduce damages in the environ-ment, human, and animal health. The attainment of biofertilizers along with growth biostimulators and vegetable performance constitutes basic cornerstones that lead to an adequate and economically reason-able use of the different agricultural productive systems (Fundación Produce 2006).

The growth promoter bacterium (GPB) has received a great deal of attention for its potential to stim-ulate the development and health of vegetables. The GPB are distinguished in two groups: the first includes strains of species with the ability to synthesize substances that promote the plant’s growth by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and solubilizing iron and inorganic phosphorus, improving the plants toler-ance to stress by drought, salinity, toxic metals, and excess of pesticides.

The second group includes the bacteria capable of diminish or prevent the harmful effects of patho-genic microorganisms (Bashan and Holguin 1998; Lucy et al. 2004).

In the evaluation of 46 isolated natives of the bacterium Bacillus spp. in the production of tomato seedlings in greenhouse, strains of Bacillus were found with biomass yield (foliage dry weight) similar to the one obtained with chemical fertilization (Armenta-Bojórquez et al. 2009).

In the production of tomato fruits in the field (Armenta-Bojórquez et al. 2011), got fruit yields similar to the ones obtained with synthetic fertilization (40.22 t ha−1) compared with the production obtained with liquid compost supermargo enriched with Bacillus cereus (40.88 t ha−1); this compost is a fine alter-native in the organic production of the tomato crop.

26.5.2 Use of bioinsecticides for Plague Control in Tomato

The tomato is attacked by over 200 pests and diseases (Bai and Lindhout 2007), some of which are 8 microorganisms for bacterial diseases (Pseudomonas syringae pv. Tomato; Clavibacter michiganensis

AQ8

K21711_C026.indd 639 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


spp. Michiganensis; Xanthomonas campestris pv. Xanthomonas vesicatoria, Xanthomonas perforans, and Xanthomonas gardneri; Erwinia carotovora spp. Carotovora; Pseudomonas syringae pv. Syringae); 26 for fungal diseases (Alternaria alternata f.sp. lycopersici; Alternaria alternate; Stemphylium bot-ryosum; Pleospora tarda; Stemphylium herbarum; Pleospora herbarum; Ulocladium consortiale; Alternaria alternate; Alternaria solani; Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. radicis-lycopersici; Fusarium oxys-porum f.sp. lycopersici; Botrytis cinerea; Botryotinia fuckeliana; Phytophthora infestans; Fulvia fulva Oidiopsis sicula; Leveillula taurica; Pythium aphanidermatum; Pythium arrhenomanes; Pythium debaryanum; Pythium myriotylum; Pythium ultimum; Verticillium albo-atrum; Verticillium dahliae; Sclerotinia sclerotiorum; and Sclerotinia minor); 11 virus diseases (Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV); Curly top, Potato virus Y; Tomato bushy stunt virus; Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV); Tomato mottle gemini virus; Tomato spotted wilt virus; Tomato yellow leaf curl; Tomato yellow top virus; Tomato chlorosis virus; and Tomato infectious chlorosis virus), 2 viroids diseases (Tomato bunchy top viroid and Tomato planta macho viroid), 2 Mycoplasma like organisms (MLO) (Aster yellows MLO and Tomato big bud MLO), and 4 nematodes parasitic (Meloidogyne spp.; Belonolaimus longicaudatus; Paratrichodorus spp.; and Trichodorus spp.) (Bergougnoux 2013).

The tomato is attacked during its growth and phenological development for a variety of phytopha-gous insects, highlighted the complex larvae of the order Lepidoptera, consisting of fall armyworm Spodoptera exigua (Hübner), fruit and Heliothis zea (Boddie), pinworm Keiferia lycopersicella (Walsh), and fruitworm Heliothis virescens (Fabricius). Trumble and Alvarado (1993) reported from Sinaloa that in absence of chemical control the damage in tomato caused by S. exigua and Heliothis spp., ranging between 11% and 17%. Studies conducted by Brewer et al. (1990) indicate that the number of applica-tions required to control these pests is several times 29–40 per crop cycle. The international regulation on pesticide residues in tomato, and the increased tendency of pests to develop resistance to chemical pesticides, necessitates finding ecological strategies to control pests affecting tomato crops.

26.5.2.1 Pest Management in Tomato

Spraying insecticides is suggested when multiple eggs are viable for plant and/or the first larvae dam-age fruit. For armyworm, recommended primarily for the management of this pest biological insecticides based on Bacillus thuringiensis as Dipel® and Biobit® at a rate of 1.0 kg/ha and baculovirus NPV zea (Gemstar®) at the dose suggested by the manufacturer, when appear small third instar larvae and juveniles. Among synthetic insecticides may be used, diflubenzuron (Dimilin®), chlorpyrifos (Lorsban®), cyhalothrin (Karate®), methomyl (Lannate®), chlorfenapyr (Sunfire®), benzoate emamectin (Proclaim®), and meth-amidophos (Tamaron®) at the dose indicated on the label. The fruitworm has a more varied and abundant enzyme complex than the corn earworm, making it more difficult to control with insecticides, especially selected very fast populations resistant to pyrethroid insecticides, so a general measure is not recommended to use insecticides of this group until after the middle of crop development and preferably only once (Cortez 2005). Currently control of major pests (leafminer larvae, worms, moths, aphids, prawns, bugs, and cicadas) that attack tomato crop, the following insecticides and bio-insecticides (Table 26.8) are used.

26.5.2.2 Effectiveness of Native Isolates of Entomopathogenic Fungi against Heliothis virescens

Results of an experimental study on pest control of tomato using five products are shown in Tables 26.9 and 26.10 (extrapolated to ha−1), where the larvae mortality, losses, and commercial production are presented.

The evaluation of biorational insecticides showed that the best treatments for the larval mortality at the field level were the Bt (Versa), pyrethrins (Abatec), and nematodes (Capasanem) which got a level above 23% (Table 26.9).

The application of B1 Beauveria bassiana in field by starts having effect 120 h after application, which is probably due to the slow infection mechanism of the fungus causing mortality in insects. This is a disadvantage against chemicals that cause a quick death, but compared to chemical insecticides, they do not generate resistant in insect populations.

AQ9AQ10AQ11

K21711_C026.indd 640 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


Tab

le 2

6.8

Inse

ctic

ides

and

Bio

inse

ctic

ides

Use

in T

omat

o C

rop

Pest

s

Pro

duct

n

ame

Act

ive

Ingr

edie

nt

Con

cent

rati

on

Pla

gue

Dos

e D

ange

r

Chl

orpy

rifo

s (L

orsb

an)

Act

ive

ingr

edie

nt: C

hlor

pyri

fos:

O

,O-d

ieth

yl p

hosp

horo

thio

ate

and

O-3

,5,6

-tri

chlo

ro-2

-pyr

idhy

l ph

osph

orot

hioa

teC

ofor

mul

ants

c.s

.p.

48%

(80

g/L

)

100%

(1

L)

Tom

ato

mot

h (C

opit

arsi

a de

colo

ra)

and

cut

wor

ms

(Epi

noti

a ap

orem

a)A

phid

s: A

phis

cra

cciv

ora,

Aph

is fa

bae,

Aul

acor

thum

so

lani

, Lea

f min

er la

rvae

(L

irio

myz

a hu

idob

rens

is),

B

eetl

e (E

pica

uta

pilm

e), a

nd B

lack

cut

wor

ms

0.8–

1.2

L/h

aH

arm

ful

Difl

uben

zuro

n (D

imili

n)A

ctiv

e in

gred

ient

: Difl

uben

zuro

n:

N-[

(4-C

hlor

ophe

nyl)

carb

amoy

l]-2

, 6-

diflu

orob

enza

mid

eIn

ert i

ngre

dien

ts:

Dilu

ents

, ant

ifoa

ms,

bio

cide

, thi

cken

er,

disp

ersa

nts

and

rela

ted

com

poun

ds:

• So

dium

diis

opro

pyl n

apht

hale

ne

sulf

onat

e•

Sulf

uric

aci

d, m

ono-

C10

-16-

alky

l es

ters

, sod

ium

sal

ts

22%

(25

%a )

78%

<10

%

Pin

wor

m (

Tuta

abs

olut

a)25

0–50

0 g/

haH

arm

ful:

slig

htly

to

xic,

dan

gero

us

for

envi

ronm

ent,

pote

ntia

l ca

rcin

ogen

ic e

ffec

t, an

d ve

ry to

xic

to

aqua

tic o

rgan

ism

s

Cyh

alot

hrin

(K

arat

e)A

ctiv

e in

gred

ient

:L

ambd

a-cy

halo

thri

n: (

S)-α

-cya

no-3

-ph

enox

yben

zyl-

(Z)-

(1R

,3R

)-3-

(2-

chlo

ro-3

, 3,

3-tr

ifluo

ropr

op- 1

-eny

l)-2

,2-

dim

ethy

lcyc

lopr

opan

e ca

rbox

ylat

e an

d (R

)-α-

cyan

o-3-

phen

oxyb

enzy

l (Z

)-(1

S, 3

S)-3

-(2-

chlo

ro-3

, 3,

3-tr

ifluo

ropr

op-1

-eny

l)-2

, 2-

dim

ethy

lcyc

lopr

opan

e ca

rbox

ylat

eC

ofor

mul

ants

c.s

.p.

5% (

50 g

/L)

100%

(1

L)

Aph

id: M

yzus

per

sica

e, A

phis

gos

sypi

i, A

phis

faba

e,

Aph

is c

racc

ivor

a, A

ulac

orth

um s

olan

i, C

apit

opho

rus

spp.

, Cav

arie

lla

aego

podi

, Mac

rosi

phum

sol

anif

olii

, R

opal

osip

hum

pad

i, C

haet

osip

hon

frag

aefo

lii,

Bre

vico

ryne

bra

ssic

ae, a

nd A

cyrt

hosi

phon

pis

umL

eaf m

iner

larv

ae: L

irio

myz

a sa

tiva

e an

d L

irio

myz

a hu

idob

rens

is.

Lea

fhop

per:

Par

atha

nus

exit

iosu

s an

d E

mpo

asca

cu

rveo

la.

Trip

s: F

rank

linie

lla c

estr

um a

nd T

hrip

s ta

baci

.B

eetl

es: N

aupa

ctus

spp

. and

Pan

tom

orus

spp

.C

utw

orm

s: A

grot

is s

pp.,

Cop

itars

ia s

pp.,

Hel

ioth

is s

pp.,

Spod

opte

ra s

pp.,

Man

duca

sex

ta, M

elitt

ia c

ucur

bita

e,

Plu

tella

xyl

oste

lla, a

nd T

rich

oplu

sia

ni.

Bee

tle:

Epi

caut

a pi

lme

Mot

h: T

uta

abso

luta

, Pht

hori

mae

a op

ercu

lell

a, a

nd

Plu

tell

a sp

p.G

reen

sti

nk b

ug: N

ezar

a vi

ridu

la

150–

200

cc/h

aH

arm

ful (C

onti

nued

)

K21711_C026.indd 641 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


Tab

le 2

6.8

(con

tinu

ed )

Inse

ctic

ides

and

Bio

inse

ctic

ides

Use

in T

omat

o C

rop

Pest

s

Pro

duct

n

ame

Act

ive

Ingr

edie

nt

Con

cent

rati

on

Pla

gue

Dos

e D

ange

r

Lan

nate

Act

ive

ingr

edie

nt: M

etho

myl

: S-

Met

hyl-

N-(

(met

hylc

arba

moy

l)ox

y)

thio

acet

amid

eIn

ert i

ngre

dien

ts: D

iluen

t, di

sper

sant

an

d re

late

d co

mpo

unds

90%

(90

0 g/

kg)

(29%

a )

10%

Lea

fhop

per:

Em

poas

ca s

pp.

Tom

aro

pin

wor

m: K

eife

ria

lyco

pers

icel

laC

abba

ge lo

oper

: Tri

chop

lusi

a ni

Fru

itw

orm

: Hel

icov

erpa

zea

Salt

mar

sh c

ater

pill

ar: E

stig

men

e ac

rea

Arm

y w

orm

: Spo

dopt

era

exig

uaW

hite

fly: B

emis

ia ta

baci

, Gen

nadi

us, o

r Tr

iale

urod

es

vapo

rari

orum

Fle

ahop

per:

Epi

trix

spp

.Tr

ips:

Fra

nkli

niel

la s

pp.

250–

500

g/ha

Toxi

c an

d po

llute

th

e m

arin

e en

viro

nmen

t

Sunfi

reA

ctiv

e in

gred

ient

: Chl

orfe

napy

r:

4-B

rom

o-2-

(4-c

hlor

ophe

nyl)

-1-

(eth

oxym

ethy

l)-5

-(tr

ifluo

rom

ethy

l)

pyrr

ole-

3-ca

rbon

itrile

Cof

orm

ulan

ts c

.s.p

.

24%

p/v

(24

0 g/

L)

100%

p/v

(1

L)

Tom

ato

mot

h: T

uta

abso

luta

200–

300

cc/h

a (2

0–30

cc

/100

L

agua

)

Har

mfu

l

Proc

laim

Act

ive

ingr

edie

nts:

Em

amec

tin B

enzo

ate:

4″-

epi-

met

hyla

min

o-4″

-deo

xyav

erm

ectin

B1

benz

oate

(co

uld

be m

ixed

with

a

min

imum

of

90%

and

max

imum

of

10%

of

4″-e

pi-m

ethy

lam

ino-

4″-

deox

yave

rmec

tin B

1a a

nd B

1bIn

ert i

ngre

dien

ts

5% (

50 g

/kg)

95%

(95

0 g/

L)

Lar

val s

tage

:To

mat

o m

oth:

Tut

a ab

solu

taC

utw

orm

s: S

podo

pter

a sp

p., A

grot

is s

pp.,

and

Hel

ioth

is s

pp.

Pota

to m

oth:

Pht

hori

mae

a op

ercu

lell

a.L

eaf m

iner

: Lir

iom

yza

spp.

Arm

y w

orm

: Spo

dopt

era

exig

ua

200–

400

g/ha

Slig

htly

toxi

c, to

xic

to fi

sh a

nd a

noth

er

aqua

tic o

rgan

ism

s.

Toxi

c to

bee

s.

Cou

ld b

e to

xic

to

bene

fic o

rgan

ism

Tam

aron

Act

ive

ingr

edie

nt: M

etha

mid

opho

s (O

,S-d

imet

hyl p

hosp

hora

mid

othi

oate

)In

ert i

ngre

dien

ts: S

olve

nts,

em

ulsi

fier,

and

rela

ted

com

poun

ds

48.3

% (

600

g/L

)51

.70%

Lea

fhop

per:

Eut

etti

x te

nell

us1–

1.5

L/h

aV

ery

toxi

c,

neur

otox

ic, a

nd

toxi

c to

ani

mal

s lik

e fis

hes

(Con

tinu

ed )

K21711_C026.indd 642 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


Tab

le 2

6.8

(con

tinu

ed )

Inse

ctic

ides

and

Bio

inse

ctic

ides

Use

in T

omat

o C

rop

Pest

s

Pro

duct

n

ame

Act

ive

Ingr

edie

nt

Con

cent

rati

on

Pla

gue

Dos

e D

ange

r

Bio

inse

ctic

ide

Bio

bit

B. t

huri

ngie

nsis

, spp

. Kur

stak

i, st

rain

A

BT

S-35

1, f

erm

enta

tion

solid

s,

spor

es, a

nd in

sect

icid

al to

xins

Oth

er in

gred

ient

s

58.2

% (

32%

,a 54%

a )41

.80%

Loo

pers

Hor

nwor

ms

Tom

ato

frui

twor

mC

abba

ge m

oth:

Plu

tell

a xy

lost

ella

Cab

bage

Whi

te B

utte

rfly:

Pie

ris

bras

sica

eSa

ltm

arsh

cat

erpi

llar

Pin

wor

mA

rmyw

orm

sVa

rieg

ated

cut

wor

m

0.25

–0.5

0 kg

/ca

l (kg

/ha)

Slig

htly

toxi

c

Dip

elB

acil

lus

thur

ingi

ensi

s, s

pp. K

urst

aki

Iner

t ing

redi

ents

6.4%

(10

.3%

,a 32%

a )

93.6

0%

Fru

itw

orm

s: H

elio

this

spp

. and

Hel

icov

erpa

zea

Arm

ywor

ms:

Spo

dopt

era

exig

uaTo

mat

o m

oth:

Tut

a ab

solu

taVe

geta

ble

cutw

orm

s: C

opit

arsi

a co

nsue

taC

abba

ge lo

oper

: Tri

chop

lusi

a sp

p.So

ybea

n lo

oper

: Rac

hipl

usia

spp

. and

Pse

udop

lusi

a in

clud

ens

500–

1000

g/h

aSl

ight

ly to

xic

Gem

star

Poly

hedr

al o

cclu

sion

bod

ies

(OB

s) o

f th

e nu

clea

r po

lyhe

dros

is v

irus

of

Hel

icov

erpa

zea

Iner

t ing

redi

ents

>2

billi

on O

Bs/

mL

(0

.64%

)99

.36%

Cor

n ea

rwor

m: H

elic

over

pa a

rmig

era

Cot

ton

boll

wor

mTo

bacc

o bu

dwor

mN

ativ

e bu

dwor

m (

Hel

icov

erpa

pun

ctig

era)

375–

750

mL

/ha

Mod

erat

e ey

es o

r sk

in ir

rita

tion

a T

he p

erce

ntag

e va

ry d

epen

ds o

f tr

adem

ark.

K21711_C026.indd 643 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


The efficiency of the Bt-based (Versa) insecticide is probably due to the activity of δ-toxins that act in the postsynapse nerve impulse causing a mortality effect immediately.

The best treatments in reducing the percentage of fruit damaged by H. virescens were Bt (Versa) and pyrethrins (Abatec), showing averages below the recommended threshold, which is 3.25% for industrial tomato, while Nematodes (Capasanem) presented 5.9%. Although there were no significant differences within the three treatments, Nematodes (Capasanem) presented a percentage above the recommended threshold. When analyzing the performance results, we can see that the best treatment was Versa, with 16,900 t ha−1, while the results obtained with two native isolates (B1 and B2) were 13,200 and 16,200, respectively. In one cut fruit, there was no significant difference in the control and what is considered a good average per hectare at Sinaloa city. If pests and diseases are controlled with chemical treatments, which generate negative consequences to the environment and health, such as the development of resis-tance to chemicals, it is necessary to develop new chemicals. In addition to increased production costs, regulation on its use is becoming stricter (Bergougnoux 2013).

Biological insecticides prepared from entomopathogenic fungi are considered as promising candidates because of their low environmental impact, as well as for having some unique advantages among ento-mopathogens (bacteria, viruses, and entomopathogenic nematodes). They are able to infect the host by contact and adhesion of the spores to the buccal wall, membrane, or through intersegmental spiracles, so that ingestion of the microorganism is unnecessary and being for this reason useful for the control of important pest tomato compared to chemical insecticides.

26.5.3 biological Control

The activity of natural enemies, predators, and parasitoids is favored when conventional insecticide applications are not made. The first generations of fruitworm are controlled naturally by beneficial insects, but with the first spraying of insecticides natural biological control is removed. In this case,

Table 26.10

Tomato Fruit Damage and Yield in Five Treatments Tested against H. virescens in Field

treatment % in Damaged Fruit Commercial Production (t ha−1)

Capasanem (Nematodes) 5.9 ab 14.800 ab

B1 8.5 b 13.200 b

B2 10.2 c 16.200 a

Abatec (Pyrethrins) 3.2 a 16.400 a

Versa (Bt) 1.8 a 16.900 a

Control 13.8 c 11.100 c

Note: The average of three replicates per treatment is presented in each column. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 26.9

Effectiveness of Five Treatments, of Larvae H. virescens in 3 Days

treatment

time in Hours

24 48 72

B1 0.00 c 2.33 c 6.66 c

B2 0.00 c 3.00 c 6.33 c

Capasanem® (Nematode) 2.00 bc 9.33 b 23.33 b

Abatec® (Pyrethrins) 3.00 ab 4.66 c 32.33 a

Versa® (B. thuringiensis) 5.00 a 16.66 a 39.66 a

Control 0.33 c 2.33 c 2.66 c

Note: The average of three replicates per treatment is presented in each column. Different letters indi-cate significant differences between treatments, according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Data: Expressed as percentage of mortality.

K21711_C026.indd 644 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


it would be very appropriate to use any of the biorational insecticides mentioned (Bt or Baculovirus) because it does not directly affect beneficial insects.

The proper use of parasitoids and predators (at the time required for release) may be sufficient for the effective control for fruitworm, especially if the crop is set to the recommended planting period.

26.6 Conclusions

In this chapter, important aspects of the production and handling of high nutrition quality tomato pro-duce were presented. The inadequate handling of the crop has been negative impact in the environment and after-harvesting affecting the quality of the fruit. The nitrogen-based fertilizers produce nitrates and constitute the better-known inorganic contaminants, the ones that pollute the groundwater the most and perhaps the ones that generate the more health risks. For this reason, the biofertilizers as the promoter bacterium (GPB) and bioestimulators has received a great deal, also the biorational insecticides (Bt or Baculovirus and nematode), biological insecticides prepared from entomopathogenic fungi, and natural enemies are too considered as promising candidates for the control of important pest tomato compared to chemical insecticides.

This work also shows the importance of tomato from the economical and nutritional point of view as well as the demand of this fruit for consumed both fresh and processed, and due to it is a rich source of vitamins and minerals, outstanding the potential health benefits of lycopene. Finally, the chapter shows the experimental work results realized in several commercial food companies in studies focused in the tomato-processing formulation and quality norms of tomato paste, ketchup sauce, and tomato puree.

ACknowLEDGMEntMiguel A. Cruz-Carrillo is grateful to PIFI, CONACYT for a graduate scholarship (244190). Cipriano Garcia-Gutierrez and María Eugenia Jaramillo-Flores are SNI, Cipriano Garcia-Gutierrez, Daniel Arrieta-Baez, Adolfo Dagoberto Armenta-Bojorquez, Jorge Montiel-Montoya, and María Eugenia Jaramillo-Flores are EDI/IPN and COFAA/IPN fellows. Financial support: SIP-20131019; SIP20120464; and SIP-20144632.

REFEREnCEsAguiló-Aguayo I, Charles F, Renard CMGC, Page D, Carlin F. 2013. Pulsed light effects on surface decon-

tamination, physical qualities and nutritional composition of tomato fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 86:29–36.

Arazuri S, Jarén C, Arana JI, Pérez de Ciriza JJ. 2007. Influence of mechanical harvest on the physical proper-ties of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). J. Food Eng. 80:190–198.

Armenta-Bojórquez AD, Airola-Gallegos VM, Apodaca-Sánchez MA. 2009. Selección de aislados nativos de Bacillus subtilis para la producción de plántulas de tomate en Sinaloa. Primer simposium internacional de agricultura ecológica. Cd. Obregón, Sonora, México, pp. 252–260.

Arrieta-Baez D, Cruz-Carrillo M, Gómez-Patiño MB, Zepeda-Vallejo LG. 2011. Derivatives of 10,16-dihydroxyhexadecanoic acid isolated from tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) as potential material for aliphatic polyesters. Molecules 16:4923–4936.

Bai Y, Lindhout P. 2007. Domestication and breeding of tomatoes: What have we gained and what can we gain in the future? Ann. Bot. 100:1085–1094.

Bashan Y, Holguin G. 1998. Proposal for the division of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria into two clas-sifications: Biocontrol PGPB (plant growth-promoting bacteria) Soil Biol. Biochem. 30:1225–1228.

Batu A. 2004. Determination of acceptable firmness and colour values of tomatoes. J. Food Eng. 61:471–475.Bayod E, Willers EP, Tornberga E. 2008. Rheological and structural characterization of tomato paste and its

influence on the quality of ketchup. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 41:1289–1300.Beckles DM. 2012. Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lyco-

persicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 63:129–140.Bergougnoux V. 2013. The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming. Biotechnol. Adv. 32:1–20.

AQ12

K21711_C026.indd 645 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


Brewer MJ, Trumble JT, Alvarado Rodriguez B, Chaney WE. 1990. Beet armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) adult and larval susceptibility to three insecticides in managed habitats and relationship to laboratory selection for resistance. J. Econ. Entomol. 83:2136–2146.

Chanforan C, Loonis M, Mora N, Caris-Veyrat C, Dufour C. 2012. The impact of industrial processing on health-beneficial tomato microconstituents. Food Chem. 134:1786–1795.

Cheng YC, Wang TT, Chen JH, Lin TT. 2011. Spatial–temporal analyses of lycopene and sugar contents in tomatoes during ripening using chemical shift imaging. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 62:17–25.

Domínguez E, Heredia-Guerrero JA, Heredia A. 2011. The biophysical design of plant cuticles: An overview. New Phytol. 189:938–949.

Dhakal R, Baek KH. 2014. Short period irradiation of single blue wavelength light extends the storage period of mature green tomatoes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 90:73–77.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014. Agriculture Database. Available from: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/Q/QC/E (accessed February 2014).

Farneti B, Schouten RE, Woltering EJ. 2012. Low temperature-induced lycopene degradation in red ripe tomato evaluated by remittance spectroscopy. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 73:22–27.

Freedman ND, Park Y, Subar AF, Hollenbeck AR, Leitzmann MF, Schatzkin A, Abnet CC. 2008. Fruit and vegetable intake and head and neck cancer risk in a large United States prospective cohort study. Int. J. Cancer 122(10):2330–2336.

Fundación Produce Sinaloa. 2006. Memoria Agricultura orgánica. Memorias del Curso Eco Agro de Agricultura Orgánica. Fundación produce Sinaloa. Guamúchil, Sinaloa, pp. 7–9.

García GC, Medrano RH. 2006. Biotecnología financiera aplicada a bioplaguicidas. Primera Edición. La Casa Editorial. Durango, México, pp. 91–157.

George B, Kaur C, Khurdiya DS, Kapoor HC. 2004. Antioxidants in tomato (Lycopersium esculentum) as a function of genotype. Food Chem. 84:45–51.

Georgé S, Tourniaire F, Gautier H, Goupy P, Rock E, Caris-Veyrat C. 2011. Changes in the contents of carot-enoids, phenolic compounds and vitamin C during technical processing and lyophilisation of red and yellow tomatoes. Food Chem. 124:1603–1611.

Gérard HC, Osman SF, William FF, Moreau RA. 1992. Separation, identification and quantification of mono-mers from cutin polymers by high performance liquid chromatography and evaporative light scattering detection. Phytochem. Anal. 3:139–142.

Gérard HC, Pfeffer PE, Osman SF. 1994. 8,16-Dihidroxyhexadecanoic acid, a mayor component from cucum-ber cutin. Phytochemistry 33:818–819.

Gómez-Patiño MB, Cassani J, Jaramillo-Flores ME, Zepeda-Vallejo LG, Sandoval G, Jimenez-Estrada M, Arrieta-Baez D. 2013. Oligomerization of 10,16-dihydroxyhexadecanoic acid and methyl 10,16-dihydroxyhexadecanoate catalyzed by lipases. Molecules 18:9317–9333.

Guil-Guerrero JL, Rebolloso-Fuentes MM. 2009. Nutrient composition and antioxidant activity of eight tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) varieties. J. Food Compos. Anal. 22:123–129.

Hajek A, Leger R. 1994. Interactions between fungal pathogens and insect host. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39:293–322.Heredia A. 2003. Biophysical and biochemical characteristics of cutin, a plant barrier biopolymer. Biochim.

Biophys. Acta. 1620:1–7.Heredia A, Peinado I, Barrera C, Grau AA. 2009. Influence of process variables on colour changes, carotenoids

retention and cellular tissue alteration of cherry tomato during osmotic dehydration. J. Food Compos. Anal. 22:285–294.

Hernández Suárez M, Rodríguez EM, Díaz Romero C. 2008. Chemical composition of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) from Tenerife, the Canary Island. Food Chem. 106:1046–1056.

INCAP (Instituto de Nutrición de Centroamérica y Pamanamá). 2012. Tabla de composición de alimentos de Centroamérica, Menchú MT, Méndez H. (eds). (3ª Reimpresión). Guatemala.

Lara I, Belge B, Goulao LF. 2014. The fruit cuticle as a modulator of postharvest quality. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 87:103–112.

Lucy M, Reed E, Glick BR. 2004. Applications of free living plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 86:1–25.

Mert B. 2012. Using high pressure microfluidization to improve physical properties and lycopene content of ketchup type products. J. Food Eng. 109:579–587.

Mourvaki E, Stefania G, Rossi R, Rufini S. 2005. Passionflower fruit: A new source of lycopene? J. Med. Food 8(1):104–106.

AQ13

AQ14

K21711_C026.indd 646 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


Osman SF, Irwin P, Fett WF, O’Connor JV, Parris N. 1999. Preparation, isolation and characterization of cutin monomers and oligomers from tomato peels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47:799–802.

Pinela J, Barros L, Carvalho AM, Ferreira ICFR. 2012. Nutritional composition and antioxidant activity of four tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) farmer’ varieties in Northeastern Portugal homegardens. Food Chem. Toxicol. 50:829–834.

Polívková Z, Šmerák P, Demová H, Houška M. 2010. Antimutagenic effects of lycopene and tomato purée. J. Med. Food 6:1443–1450.

Rabie GH, Humiany AA. 2004. Role of VA mycorrhiza on the growth of cowpea plant and their associative effect with N2 fixing and P-solubilizing bacteria as biofertilizer in calcareous soil. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2:186–192.

Rao AV, Agarwal S. 2000. Role of antioxidant lycopene in cancer and heart disease. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 19:563–569.

Ray AK, Lin YY, Gérard HC, Chen Z-J, Osman SF, Fett WF, Moreau RA, Stark RE. 1995. Separation and iden-tification of lime cutin monomers by high performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Phytochemistry 6:1361–1369.

Shidfar F, Froghifar N, Vafa M, Rajab A, Hosseini S, Shidfar S, Gohari M. 2011. The effects of tomato con-sumption on serum glucose, Apolipoprotein B, Apolipoprotein A-I, Homocysteine and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 62(3):289–294.

SIAP. 2014. Servicio de información agroalimentaria y pesquera. Available from: http://www.siap.gob.mx/index.php?option/SIAP (accessed February 2014).

Toor RK, Savage GP. 2005. Antioxidant activity in different fractions of tomatoes. Food Res. Int. 38:487–494.

Trumble JT, Alvarado RB. 1993. Development and economic evaluation of an IPM program for fresh market tomato production in México. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 43:267–284.

WPTC (The World Processing Tomato Council). 2014. Available from: http://www.wptc.to/pdf/releases/WPTC%20world%20production%20estimate%20as%20of%2025%20October%20%202013.pdf (accessed February 2014).

Yahia EM, Soto-Zamora G, Brecht JK, Gardea A. 2007. Postharvest hot air treatment effects on the antioxidant system in stored mature-green tomatoes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 44:107–115.

Zhang CX, Ho SC, Chen YM, Fu JH, Cheng SZ, Lin FY. 2009. Greater vegetable and fruit intake is associated with a lower risk of breast cancer among Chinese women. Int. J. Cancer 1:181–188.

Zuorro A, Lavecchia R, Medici F, Piga L. 2013. Enzyme-assisted production of tomato seed oil enriched with lycopene from tomato pomace. Food Bioprocess Technol. 6:3499–3509.

websites Consulted for Insecticide Information

Biobit http://pdf.tirmsdev.com/Web/135/7794/135_7794_LABEL_English_pdf?download=true. http://www.tqc.com.pe/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/biobit_hoja.pdf. http://www.tqc.com.pe/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ficha_Biobit.pdf.Dimilin http://www.abcam.com/Diflubenzuron-Dimilin-ab142288.html. http://www.agroquimicos-organicosplm.com/dimilin-2l-666-3#inicio. http://www.kenogard.es/Web/MSDS/32145.pdf.Dipel http://www.bayercropscience.cl/upfiles/etiquetas/Eti_web_Dipel.pdf. http://blog.bayercropscienceco.bayerbbs-hosting.com/blog/2013/07/dipel%C2%AE-wg/. http://www.kenogard.es/Web/MSDS/87413.pdf.Gemstar http://www.agrian.com/pdfs/Gemstar_LC_Label1.pdf. http://www.sipcam.com.au/Label/sipcam/Gemstar_LC_Label.pdf.Karate http://www.syngenta.com/country/cl/cl/soluciones/proteccioncultivos/Documents/Etiquetas/

KarateZeon.pdf.

AQ15

AQ16

K21711_C026.indd 647 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM


Lannate http://www2.dupont.com/DuPont_Crop_Protection/es_MX/assets/downloads/MSDS/insecticid.as/

LANNATE%20SP.pdf. http://www2.dupont.com/DuPont_Crop_Protection/es_MX/products/Insecticidas/Lannate/index.html#tabs.Lorsban http://www.sag.cl/sites/default/files/Lorsban%204E%2005-04-2012.pdf.Proclaim http://www.syngenta.com/country/cl/cl/soluciones/proteccioncultivos/Documents/Etiquetas/

Proclaim.pdf.Sunfire http://www.sag.gob.cl/sites/default/files/sunfire_07-09-2012.pdf (February, 2014).Tamaron http://www.afipa.cl/afipa/bayer/msds/Tamaron_600_SL.pdf. http://www.ecured.cu/index.php/Tamar%C3%B3n. http://www.pro-agro.com.mx/prods/bayer/bayer78.htm.

Author Queries

[AQ1] Please check the chapter author name “María Eugenia Jaramillo-Flores” for correctness.[AQ2] Please check if the reference citation “FAOSTAT Database (2014)” can be changed to “FAO

(2014).”[AQ3] Please provide complete details for references “Luthria et al. (2006) and Cortez (2005).”[AQ4] Please provide the significance of “*” in Tables 26.4, 26.6, and 26.7. [AQ5] Please check if the sentence “In microfluidization...” conveys the intended meaning.[AQ6] Please check if the sentence “Mert (2012)...” conveys the intended meaning.[AQ7] Please check if the edit made in the sentence “Toor and Savage (2005) …” conveys the intended

meaning.[AQ8] Please check if the sentence “The physiological process...” conveys the intended meaning.[AQ9] Please check if the spelling “Capasanem” could be changed to “Capsanem” here and elsewhere

in the text.[AQ10] Cross reference to Table 35.9 in the sentence starting “The evaluation of biorational insecti-

cides...” has been changed to “Table 26.9” as per the text. Please check for correctness.[AQ11] Please check if the sentence “The application…” conveys the intended meaning.[AQ12] Please check if “Acknowledgment” section conveys the intended meaning.[AQ13] Please check the edit made to reference “FAO (2014)” for correctness.[AQ14] Please provide in-text citation for references “García and Medrano (2006), Hajek and Leger

(1994), and SIAP (2014).[AQ15] Please provide title for “WPTC (2014).”[AQ16] Please provide accessed date, year, title, and author/owner of the site for all URL IDs provided

under “Websites Consulted for Insecticide Information.”

K21711_C026.indd 648 4/29/2015 11:46:52 PM