EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DRYING METHODS AND PACKAGING

MATERIALS ON PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO

(Lycopersicon lycopersicum L.) IN YOLA, ADAMAWA STATE

AHMAD, Abubakar
M.TECH/CPH/16/0942

NOVEMBER, 2019

1
 EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT DRYING METHODS AND PACKAGING
MATERIALS ON PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO
(Lycopersicon lycopersicum L.) IN YOLA, ADAMAWA STATE

By

AHMAD, Abubakar
M.TECH/CPH/16/0942

M.TECH THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CROP

PRODUCTION AND HORTICULTURE, SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND
AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLGY, YOLA, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF M.TECH IN POSTHARVEST
PHYSIOLOGY AND STORAGE TECHNONOLGY OF THE MODIBBO ADAMA
UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, YOLA.

NOVEMBER, 2019

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis entitled “Effects of Different Drying Methods and
Packaging Materials on Physicochemical Characteristics of Tomato (Lycopersicon
lycopersicum L.) in Yola, Adamawa State” was carried by me and it is a record of my own
research work, and it has not been presented before any other institution for the award of
higher degree certificate. All references cited have been duly acknowledged.

………………………… ……………………..
AHMAD, Abubakar Date
(Student)

3
 DEDICATION

This research work is dedicated to my beloved father Mallam Ahmad Abubakar.

4
 APPROVAL PAGE

This thesis entitled “Effects of Different Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on
Physicochemical Characteristics of Tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum L.) in Yola,
Adamawa State” has met the requirements governing the award of M.Tech in Postharvest
Physiology and Storage Technology at Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola
and has been approved for its contribution to knowledge and literary presentation.

………………………… ………………………
Professor D. T. Gungula Date
Supervisor

………………………… ………………………
Dr. V. T. Tame Date
Internal Examiner

………………………… ………………………
Professor I. J. Ogoke Date
External Examiner

………………………… ………………………
Dr. A. B. Mustapha Date
Head of Department

………………………… ………………………
Professor A. A. Adebayo Date
Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies

5
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I want to acknowledge almighty Allah for guiding and protecting me

throughout my entire life up to this very moment and for seeing me through my studies
successfully. I want to acknowledge with sincere gratitude the supervision and guidance
given to me by my sagacious and scholarly supervisor; Prof. D. T Gungula, his
commitment in every aspect of the work starting from the conception to the completion of
this project encourage me. I also want to express my appreciation to the Head of
Department, Crop Production and Horticulture Dr. A. B. Mustapha and my lecturers
especially Dr. V. T. Tame, Professor B. B. Jakusko, Professor. J. B. Abakura, Prof. H.
Nahunnaro, Professor B. H. Kabura and also the members of entire staff of the Department
of Crop Production and Horticulture.
I appreciate the efforts of Mal. Bashir Ballah of the Department of Crop Protection
MAUTECH Yola for allowing me to dried my samples in their laboratory, I also thank Dr.
Mrs. J. O. Ilesanmi of the Department of Food Science and Technology MAUTECH for
doing the physicochemical analysis of my dried samples.
I am also highly indebted to my lovely and understanding wife Mrs. Fatima
Muhammad Umar for her time, support and prayers and to my kids; Amina, Ahmad and
Muhammad. My profound appreciation goes to my beloved mother Hajiya Maryam for her
financial support and prayers. The cooperation and prayers I received from friends and
family that are too numerous to mention but particularly Firdausi, Hajiya Hauwa, Kamal
Ladan, Abubakar Segun Agbaje, Kapsiya Joel and Koroma Stephen.
Finally, worthy of mention is the prayer and support of the entire colleagues both in
my place of work and school as well.

6
 ABSTRACT
The main purpose of this research was to determine the effect of different drying methods
and packaging materials on physicochemical characteristics of tomato fruits in Yola,
Adamawa State. Tomato has a very limited shelf life because of it’s climacteric in nature,
high respiration rate and moisture content that facilitate deterioration immediately after
harvest.The production of tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum) was conducted during 2017
season at Dumne, Song Local Government Area, Adamawa State. The variety “Rio de
grade” was purchased from Jos, Plateau State, the seeds were broadcasted first and later on
the seedlings were transplanted to the permanent site. The fruits were harvested during late
December 2017 when the fruits were fully matured and ripe. The harvested fruits were
subjected to blanching prior to three different drying methods and packaging materials
before storage for twelve (12) weeks. The three drying methods were shade drying, sun
drying and oven drying while the packaging materials were polythene bag, plastic
container and glass jar. The time taken for the drying was 78 hours, 15 days and 19 days
for oven, sun and shade drying respectively. Fresh and dried samples of tomato were
analysed for their physical/functional properties such as colour, bulk density and water
absorption capacity. The chemical properties considered were moisture, ash, fibre, lipid,
carbohydrate, calorific value and ascorbic acid. Sensory attributes evaluated in a prepared
stew were taste, aroma, and general acceptability. Fresh had higher moisture content with
95.64 % followed by shade dried with 5.90% while sun and oven dried had the least equal
mean value of 5.67%. The energy value was higher in the sun dried sample with 317.9
k/cal though not significant difference (P≤0.05) from the other dried samples, all the dried
samples were statistically difference at (P≤0.01) from fresh sample with 11.0 k/cal and all
these are as a result of high moisture content of the fresh sample .After drying, the
carbohydrate content of fruit increases and low carbohydrate of fresh fruits showed that
they supply little or no energy. On the other hand, highly significant difference occurred at
twelve weeks of storage among the packaging materials used. There was highly significant
difference on lipid, glass jar had the highest with 2.86 % followed by 2.83 and 2.80 % for
plastic container and polythene bag respectively. Oven drying was found to be faster and
efficient in moisture removal than sun and shade drying methods. On the other hand, glass
jar was found to be statistically better in maitaining the nutritive value of the dried samples
because of it static chemical property and low permeability to absorbs moisture in the
storage environment which ensures unimpaired taste, colour and other vital nutrients
followed by plastic container and polythene bag. Therefore, pretreatment (blanching) prior
to drying and the use of glass container should be adopted for better quality and long shelf
life of the products.

7
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE i
TITLE PAGE ii
DECLARATION iii
DEDICATION iv
APPROVAL PAGE v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
ABSTRACT vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES xiv
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 The Tomato Plant 3
2.1.1 Adaptation and climatic requirements 3
2.1.2 Importance of tomato in global agriculture 3.
2.2.3 Tomato as a food 5
2.2 Classification of Tomatoes 4
2.2.1 Classification by fruit type 4
2.2.2 Classification by growth pattern 5
2.3 Antioxidant properties and other health benefits of tomatoes 5
2.4 World Production of Tomatoes 8
2.4.1 Tomato production in Nigeria 8
2.5 Postharvest Handling of Fresh Tomatoes 8
2.5.1 Processing of tomatoes 8
2.5.2 Storage of fresh tomatoes 9
2.6 Processing and Preservation of Tomatoes 9
2.7 Marketing of Tomatoes 10
2.8 Drying 10
2.8.1 Artificial drying 11
2.8.2 Sun drying 12
8
2.8.3 Shade drying 12
2.8.4 Drying of fruits and vegetables 13
2.8.5 States of water in fruits and vegetables 13
2.8.6 Pre-treatments of fruits and vegetables before drying 14
2.9 Packaging 15
2.9.1 Types of packaging materials used 16
2.9.2 Plastic 16
2.9.3 Glass 16
2.9.4 Shelf life 17
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 18
3.1 Experimental Site 18
3.2 Source of Tomato Seeds 18
3.3 Agronomic Practices 18
3.3.1 Land preparation 18
3.3.2 Planting and transplanting 18
3.3.3 Fertilizer application 18
3.3.4 Water supply 18
3.3.5 Weed control 18
3.3.6 Harvesting 18
3.4 Sample collection 19
3.5 Preparation of tomato fruits for drying 19
3.6 Drying Procedures 19
3.6.1 Open sun drying 19
3.6.2 Shade drying 19
3.6.3 Hot air oven 19
3.7 Treatment Combinations and Experimental Design 19
3.8 Data Collection 21
3.9 Physical/Functional Properties 21
3.9.1 Colour determination 21
3.9.2 Bulk density 21
3.9.3 Water absorption Capacity 21
3.8 Chemical Composition 22
3.10.1 Moisture content 22

9
3.10.2 Ash content 22
3.10.3 Determination of crude protein 22
3.10.3.1 Stage I: Digestion Procedure 22
3.10.3.2 Stage II: Distillation 22
3.10.3.3 Stage III: Titration 23
3.10.4 Determination of fat content 23
3.10.5 Determination of fibre 23
3.10.6 Carbohydrate determination 23
3.10.7 Calorific value determination 23
3.10.8 Ascorbic acid 24
3.11 Storage Stability 24
3.11.1 Preparation of dried tomato soup 24
3.11.2 Preparation of fresh tomato soup 24
3.12 Sensory Evaluation 24
3.12.1 Preparation of soup with ingredients (fresh and dry tomato) 24
3.13 Data Analysis 24
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS 25
4.1 The Effects of Different Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on
Physical Properties of Dried Tomato 25
4.1.1 Water absorption capacity 25
4.1.2 Bulk density 25
4.2 Chemical Composition 29
4.2.1 Ascorbic acid 29
4.2.2 Moisture content 29
4.2.3 Ash content 34
4.2.4 Fibre content 34
4.2.5 Lipid content 39
4.2.6 Protein content 39
4.2.7 Carbohydrate content 42
4.2.8 Calorific value 42
4.3 Storage Stability 47
4.3.1 Colour 47
4.3.2 Taste 47

10
4.3.3 Aroma 50
4.3.4 Consistency 50
4.3.5 Overall acceptability 54
4.3 Sensory Quality 54
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 DISCUSSION 59
5.1 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Physical Properties of
Dried Tomato 59
5.2 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Chemical Properties of
Dried Tomato 60
5.3 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Storage Stability of
Dried Tomato 63
CHAPTER SIX
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66
6.1 Summary 66
6.2 Conclusion 66
6.3 Recommendations 66
6.4 Contribution to knowledge 67
REFERENCES 68
APPENDICES 77

11
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Water

Absorption Capacity of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of
Storage 26
2 The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
on Water Absorption Capacity of Dried Tomato at four and twelve
weeks of Storage 27
3 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Bulk Density
of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 28
4 The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
on Bulk Density of Dried Tomato at twelve weeks of Storage 30
5 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Ascorbic Acid
of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 31
6 The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
on Vitamin C of Dried Tomato at four weeks of Storage 32
7 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Moisture
Content of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 33
8 The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
on Moisture Content of Dried Tomato at four weeks of Storage 35
9 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Ash Content
(%) of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 36
10 The Effects ofInteraction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
on Ash Content of Dried Tomato at four weeks of Storage 37
11 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Fibre Content
(%) of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 38
12 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Lipid Content
(%) of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 40
13 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Protein
Content (%) of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 41
14 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Carbohydrate
Content (%) of Dried Tomato after Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 43
15 The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
on Carbohydrate Content of Dried Tomato after four weeks of Storage 44
16 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Calorific Value
(kj/cal) of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 45

17 The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials

on Calorific Value of Dried Tomato after four and of Storage 46

18 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Colour of

Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 48
19 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Taste of Dried
Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 49
20 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Aroma of
Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 51

12
21 The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
on Aroma of Dried Tomato at twelve weeks of Storage 52
22 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Consistency of
Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 53
23 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Overall
Acceptability of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve weeks of Storage 55
24 Effects of Drying Methods on Mean Sensory Evaluation of Dried
Tomato Before Storage 56

25 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Mean Sensory

Evaluation of Dried Tomato at Four (4) Weeks 57

26 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Mean Sensory

Evaluation of Dried Tomato at Twelve (12) Weeks 58

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Experimental Layout 20

13
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Title Page

I Evaluation sheet for Hedonic Rating of Stew Prepared from
Dried Tomato 77

II Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for

Percentage Moisture, Ash, Fibre, and Lipid after four and twelve
weeks of Storage 78
III Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for
Percentage Protein, CHO, Calorific Value and Vit. C after four
and twelve weeks of Storage 79

14
IV Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Bulk
density, Water Absorption Capacity, Colour and Aroma after
four and twelve weeks of Storage 80

V Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Taste,

Consistency and Overall Acceptability after four and twelve
weeks of Storage 81

VI Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Percentage

Moisture, Ash, Fibre, Lipid, Protein, CHO, Calorific Value and
Vit. C at Initial State of Drying 82

VII Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Bulk density,
Water Absorption Capacity, Colour, Aroma, Taste, Consistency
and Overall Acceptability at Initial State of Drying 83

15
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum L.) meaning “worlf-peach”, is a herbaceous,
usually sprawling plant of the solanaceae or night shade family that is typically cultivated
for the purpose of harvesting it fruits for human consumption (Agrios, 2005). Tomato is
one of the most important commercial and dietary vegetable crops that is cultivated all
over the world for its fleshy fruits. Tomato being a climacteric fruit, rapid rise in rate of
respiration leads to fruit deterioration during handling. After harvesting further
transpiration loses make the fruit shrive and eventually becoming unmarketable
(Adaskaveg, 2002).
Tomato is a native to South America (Nonneoke, 1989), and it was introduced to
West Africa by the Portuguese traders and freed slaves from the West Indies (Tindall,
1988). The global production of tomato is about 89.8 million metric tons from an area of
about 3,170,000 hectares (Ayandiji and Adeniyi, 2011). In Nigeria, (Tomato is cultivated
mostly in the northern parts of the Nigeria). Nigeria is ranked 16 th on the global tomato
production scale, accounting for 10.79% of Africa’s and 1.2% of total world production of
tomato (Leadership, 2013).
A total area of over 1 million hectares is used for tomato cultivation every year in
Nigeria. Tomato may be preserved into paste which is used for cooking and in production
of fruit drinks, puree and kethup. Tomato also serves as a cash crop for many farmers
(Ayandiji and Adeniyi, 2011). High yield of tomato result in high incomes to farmers
especially in the major producing areas. Tomato is a major contributor of carotenoid
(especially lycopene), phenolic, vitamin C and small amount of vitamin E in daily diets.
Results from the epidemiological studies showed that tomato product may have a
protective effect against various forms of cancer, especially prostate cancer and cardio
vascular diseases.
Although Nigeria is the 16th largest producer of tomato in the world, the federal
ministry of agriculture has estimated an annual production loss of up to 45% (Leadership,
2013). The estimated annual loss is the result of poor storage techniques, poor storage
facilities, poor food supply management chain, and low prices during peak production
period (Leadership, 2015).
High production seasonality, the dominance of rain fed agriculture, high
perishability of the vegetable, lack of ready market, lack of alternative uses of the
vegetable and poor pricing are some problems faced by farmers. Also, traders may be

1
lacking the appropriate postharvest skills of prolonging the shelf life of tomatoes. The
unavailability of large scale processing factories in the tomato production areas to process
the surplus produce for future use leaves farmers with no option but to watch their produce
waste when there is no ready market.
Tomato has a very short shelf life because of it climacteric in nature, high moisture
content and high respiration rate which predisposes the produce to loss of wholesomeness,
also very high percentage of tomato suffers a lot of bruises and cracks because of it thin
epidermis during harvesting which affect it quality and subsequent market value. Nigeria
experiences annual gluts during the production seasons, at such times a high percentage of
the harvested produce is lost due to poor postharvest practices coupled with poor storage
facilities. Obviously, any degree of postharvest losses of tomatoes has consequences on
farmers, traders and consumers. Tomato fruit have a very short shelf life after harvest if
held at room temperature. Different studies explained that calcium chloride reduced
postharvest decay, controlled development of physiological disorders, improved quality
and delayed aging or ripening (Stanly et al., 1995). It improves the skin strength (Mignani
et al., 1995) making the cell wall and tissues more resistant and less accessible to the
enzymes that produced by fungi and bacteria limiting infection while controlling ripening,
softening, storage breakdown, rotting and decay at the same time (Luna-Guzman et al.,
1999). According to different studies, it improved the Ca+2 contents, lycopene contents,
ascorbic acid contents, firmness index (Gracia et al., 1996) In the past, efforts were been
made to extend the postharvest shelf life and maintain the good quality of tomato fruits by
employing certain chemicals and growth hormones to slow down the metabolic activities
of the fruits. In places with relatively low postharvest technology for fruits and vegetables
as obtainable in developing countries like Nigeria, a natural way of preservation such as
drying is of utmost importance.
In view of this, this study was carried out in 2017/2018 in Yola with the following
objectives:
i. To determine the effects of drying methods on the physicochemical properties of
tomato fruits.
ii. To determine the effects of packaging material on the physicochemical properties of
tomato.
iii. To determine the effects of packaging materials on the storability of dried tomato
fruits.

2
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Tomato Plant
Tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum) is a typically red edible fruit and belongs to the
Night shade family (Solanaceae) except for the tiny current tomato. This family is the most
variable of all crop species in terms of agricultural utility and the third economically most
important crop family, exceeded only by grasses and legumes and the most valuable in
terms of vegetable crops (Van der Hoeven et al., 2002). According to Knapp et al. (2004),
the very diverse and large Solanaceae family is believed to consist of 96 genera and over
2800 species distributed in three subfamilies, Solanoideae (to which Solanum belongs),
Cestroideae, and Solanineae (Alam et al. 2007). The fruits are mostly red but there are
some other colours such as yellow. There is a lot of variation between cultivars in the size
and shape of the fruits, in the thickness of the fleshy mesocarp and in the development of
the placenta (Prashanth, 2003 and Veershetty, 2004).
2.1.1 Adaptation and climatic requirements
Tomato is native to tropical Central and South America, where it was cultivated in
pre-Columbian times. Its wild progenator is thought to have been the cherry tomato, L.
esculenton variety cerasiforme, which grows wild in the Peru – Ecuador area though
tomatoes were probably domesticated from weedy forms which had spread as far as north
Mexico. Tomatoes show a wide climatic tolerance and can be grown in the open wherever
there is more than three months of frost free weather. Tomato is more successful where
there are long sunny periods. The optimum growing temperatures are 21 0C to 240C. At
these temperatures good quality seeds will take about seven days to emerge. Temperature
affects flowering and pollination. The hot and dry weather leads to drying of the flowers
and stops pollination. If temperatures are below 150C or above 290C, pollen release is
restricted resulting in incomplete fertilization of ovules. This causes collapsed fruit walls
and formation of deep indentation in the fruit, a phenomenon called catface (Bok et al.,
2006).
2.1.2 Importance of tomato in a global agriculture.
Tomato plays major role in human nutrition as a vegetable, it constitute an
important component in human diet, especially in developing countries. It is the second
most consumed vegetable in the world behind potato. Tomatoes are eaten fresh in salads or
processed and can be stewed, fried, baked and used to produce soup, or used as juice
(Varela et al., 2003). In addition to this versatility, tomatoes are also an important source

3
of vitamins and minerals. They are an excellent source of phosphorus, iron and vitamin A,
B and C. They also contain small amounts of the B complex vitamins; thiamin, niacin and
riboflavin (Naika et al., 2005).
Tomatoes are grown for home consumption in the backyard gardens of almost
every homestead across sub – Saharan Africa. It is a cash crop for both smallholders and
medium-scale commercial farmers (Varela et al., 2003). Vegetables serve as an important
source of vitamins and minerals to the local populations particularly in the growing urban
areas. The vegetables crops are of nutritional importance to the low income farmers in
Africa. They are a cheap source of protein to those who cannot afford to purchase adequate
quantities of animal protein and to vegetarian who mainly depend on plant protein. Hence
sometimes they are called poor man’s meat (Opena and Kyomo, 1990).
2.1.3 Tomato as a food
According to Kybal (1993), the tomato was not eaten until the nineteenth century
because Mattiolus had called it mala insane (unhealthy flower) and scientific textbooks
kept insisting it was poisonous. In North America, tomato became common in the early
part of the 19th century. As in most of Europe, tomato was considered poisonous until its
acceptance around 1840 as a nutritious vegetable (Paran and Van der Knaap, 2011). This is
because when the tomato was first introduced to the Europeans, they considered it
poisonous for having qualities similar to other known poisonous plants and was therefore
only grown as an ornamental plant. People were reported to have gotten sick from eating it
but this, according to Lewis (2007) might have come from their plates they ate from and
not from the tomato itself. Plates were made from pewter, a soft metal that often had lead,
a very poisonous metal which could be caused to seep out by the acid in tomatoes.
However, Barceloux (2008) and (2009) wrote that like many other plants in the nightshade
family, tomato leaves and stems contain atropine and other alkaloids including the
tomatine that can be quite toxic if ingested.
2.2 Classification of Tomatoes
2.2.1 Classification by fruit type
Tomatoes can be classified either by fruit type or growth pattern characteristics. By
fruit type, the most commonly grown types are cherry, plum (Roma), and the common
table varieties (Jansen and Shock 2009). Relf et al. (2009) on the other hand classified
tomatoes based on their fruit characteristics as the cherry tomatoes, beefsteak type
tomatoes, paste tomatoes, winter storage tomatoes and tomatoes classified by the colour of
the fruit.

4
2.2.2 Classification by growth pattern
Reader (2003) and Jansen and Shock (2009) classified tomatoes into two types based
on determinate and indeterminate. They describe determinate vine growth to mean that the
plant will grow a certain amount of foliage and then future growth is directed towards fruit
production. They describe indeterminate growth pattern plants as those that are generally
vining and continue to grow new stems and leaves throughout the growing season, along
with fruit setting on a continuing basis. However, Dillard and Reiners (2010) identify a
third group, the semi-determinate with characteristics between the two types. Relf et al.,
(2009) agreed to these three groups but rather preferred to describe them as compact or
determinate, indeterminate and midget, patio, or dwarf.
Sacco (2008) described these two main types of tomato as the hybrid and the open
pollinated. Other authors however described what Sacco refer to as types, as groups.
Hybrid tomatoes are a cross between two different tomatoes often with a positive and
negative aspect (Sacco 2007). The positive aspect is the fact that they carry desired traits of
either parent such as size of fruit, resistance to some diseases and even odour. On the
negative front, their seeds could revert to either of the parent plant or would become sterile
and will not produce seeds at all. Gould (1992) reported that although not specifically
documented, early tomatoes were probably small fruited, since they were most likely of the
small-fruited cerasiforme variety cultivated by the Aztecs. Additionally, later emphasis on
breeding for smooth skinned cultivars suggests that early cultivars initially had rough skin.
2.3 Antioxidant Properties and other Health Benefits of Tomatoes
According to Keith (1999), over the last 20 years, scientists have been able to
demonstrate a common link among the various chronic diseases that currently plague the
American people. For example, conditions such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, rheumatoid
arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and cataracts as well as the actual aging process itself may
all be, in part, caused by a phenomenon known as oxidative or free radical damage. The
term oxidative is used because oxygen is frequently involved (Keith, 1999). According to
Keith (1999), antioxidants can prevent, stop, or reduce oxidative damage. Antioxidants are
naturally occurring chemicals in many foods, especially fruits and vegetables. Foods rich
in antioxidants help protect us from disease attack and they slow the aging process (Sun et
al., 2009). The balance between free radicals and antioxidants will determine the amount
of oxidative stress a person is undergoing. Decreasing free radical production, increasing
dietary antioxidant intake or both can reduce oxidative stress (Keith, 1999). Lycopene is
the pigment responsible for the characteristic deep red colour of ripe tomatoes and their

5
products (Ibitoye et al., 2009). According to Lindshield et al., (2006) lycopene has earned
a plethora of interest for its use as a preventative measure and possible treatment for
cardiovascular disease, skin health, eye health, and prostate cancer. Lycopene has also
been shown to be the most potent antioxidant produced by the carotenoid pathway (Cox,
2001). According to Challem (1999), the evidence is so convincing that the National
Cancer Institute recommends consumption of at least five servings of fruits and vegetables
a day to ward off cancer (Cox, 2001). These positive effects on human health are attributed
in large part to the antioxidant compounds found in high quantities in fruits and vegetables
(Ames, 1993). Carotenoids are a group of at least 600 compounds manufactured by plants
accounting for many of the bright colors in the plant kingdom. Only about 14 carotenoids
are found in appreciable levels in human tissues (Khachik et al., 1995). According to
Giovannucci (2002), of the 14 carotenoids found in human serum, tomato and tomato
products contribute to nine and are the predominant source of about one-half, including
lycopene. Giovannucci (1999) also reported that lycopene, a carotenoid, is believed to help
prevent cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. However, Dumas et al., (2003)
reported that tomato cultivars and genotypes vary greatly in lycopene, with processing
types generally higher in lycopene than salad or normal types. For instance, Naika et al.,
(2005) reported that yellow tomatoes have higher vitamin A content than red tomatoes, but
red tomatoes contain more lycopene, this anti-oxidant that may contribute to protection
against carcinogenic substances. Lycopene is thought to inhibit proliferation of cancerous
cells (Matsushima et al., 1995). Recent epidemiologic studies have suggested a potential
benefit of this carotenoid against the risk of prostate cancer, particularly the more lethal
forms of this cancer (Giovannucci, 2002).
Aside lycopene, tomatoes are also an excellent source of flavonoids and polyphenols,
which are also associated with lower cancer risk (Campbell et al., 2004). It has also been
demonstrated that dietary intake of tomatoes especially in the cooked form, are associated
with a decreased risk cardiovascular diseases. Cooked tomatoes according Knekt et al.
(2002) contain significant amounts of absorbable naringenin and chlorogenic acid. Aside
its unique and amazing ability to actually stimulate DNA repair in prostate cells, an
increased intake of the flavonoid has been shown in epidemiological research to be
associated with the reduced risk and beneficial effect on vascular diseases and asthma.
Sesso et al. (2003) also found that lycopene might help reduce risk of heart disease. One
study found that women who ate at least seven servings a week of tomato-based products
had a 30% reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases. Lycopene works synergistically with

6
the other phytochemicals in whole tomatoes to provide a wide range of health benefits.
New evidence shows that the protective effects of tomatoes against cancer and
cardiovascular disease are due to a combination of lycopene and the other phytonutrients
naturally present in the fruit and skin of the tomato. In other words, you will not obtain all
the nutrients if you skin the tomatoes (Heber and Lu, 2002). Knekt et al. (2002) reported
that lycopene concentration was associated with a thicker carotid artery, suggesting that the
serum lycopene concentration may play a role in the early stages of atherosclerosis.
Increased thickness of the inner lining of the carotid artery has been shown to predict
stroke and cardiovascular disease; thus, the researchers concluded that lycopene intakes
and serum concentrations might have clinical and public health relevance. Italian
researchers Riso et al. (2006) at the University of Milan reported that a daily glass of a
commercial tomato juice could lower one of the primary markers of inflammation by
almost 35% in less than one month.
Engelhard et al. (2006) evaluated the effect of a tomato extract containing lycopene
on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with hypertension, as well as the serum
lipoproteins, plasma homocysteine and oxidative stress markers. The researchers found
that a daily dose of lycopene helped lower blood pressure among 31 men and women with
mild hypertension. On average, the subjects’ systolic pressure dropped 10 points, while
their diastolic pressure, or bottom number, dipped 4 points. After a six year research in
nuns, Gross and Snowdon (2001), reported that lycopene might also improve longevity in
women. Sharma et al. (2003) explain that this might be because lycopene is an antioxidant
that reduces oxidative stress, which plays a major role in numerous health concerns for
women including breast cancer, cervical cancer, cardiovascular disease, and preeclampsia.
According to Rao et al. (2007) one of the most exciting recent discoveries about the
relationship between Lycopene intake and disease has been in the study of osteoporosis
risk. Rao et el. (2007) further reported that postmenopausal women with higher intakes of
lycopene had lower laboratory markers of bone turnover (a major risk factor for
osteoporosis). These women also had decreased levels of oxidative stress when consuming
higher levels of lycopene. From the various uses of tomato, it is evident that tomato passes
through several processing stages before consumption. Due to this, a study was conducted
to evaluate the stability, isomeric form, bioavailability and in vivo antioxidant properties of
lycopene. Fortunately, unlike many such nutrients in food, lycopene was found to be
somehow stable even after many stages of processing and a considerable length of storage
(Honglei et al., 2001). Lycopene content of tomatoes remained unchanged during the

7
multistep processing operations for the production of juice or paste and remained stable for
up to 12 months of storage at ambient temperature (Honglei et al., 2001). From these
findings, it can be seen that an increase in the consumption of tomatoes comes with a great
preventive and curative effects for many common ailments.
2.4 World Production of Tomatoes
Tomato is one of the most widely grown vegetables in the world (Srinivasan, 2010).
It is estimated to be grown on more than 5 million hectares with a production of nearly 129
million tonnes. China tops the chart of tomato growers worldwide. Other high growers
include the USA, Turkey and India. In Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tunisia and Morocco are the
leading producers in that other.
2.4.1 Tomato production in Nigeria
Excess production results in crash of the tomato prices, with prices slumping to N200
per basket in some high production areas. Therefore, farmers are left with no choice than to
sell their produce at a giveaway price. There is good scope for increased utilization of
tomatoes but this can be obtained only by adopting suitable storage techniques to avoid
masses loss (Leadership, 2013).
2.5 Postharvest Handling of Fresh Tomatoes
According to Kitinoja and Gorny (2009), postharvest handling of fresh vegetables
has a direct link with its shelf life. They reported that, handling starts right from harvesting
and put estimates of losses in developing countries in the range of 20% to 50% tracing
causes of losses to the field, during transport and marketing. Tomatoes are highly
perishable and very susceptible to mechanical damage with poor handling and
transportation (Bani et al., 2006). Losses occur at the stages of sorting, packaging, storage,
transport and marketing stages of the life the fresh horticultural produce (Kitinoja, 2008).
As a remedy, Kitinoja and Gorny (2009) recommend that when handling fresh
produce at its market destination, it is important to avoid rough handling, minimize the
number of handling steps and strictly follow a temperature and relative humidity
management. Stacking of non- uniform containers should also be done with care to prevent
collapse of weaker packages and heavier cartons should always be placed at the bottom of
a stack (Kitinoja and Gorny, 2009).
2.5.1 Processing of tomatoes
Right after harvesting, if the tomato is to be processed, little handling is required
before they are transported to the processing plant in the shortest possible time. Once at the
plant, they should be processed immediately or at least stored in the shade (Gould, 1992).

8
2.5.2 Storage of fresh tomatoes
According to Kitinoja and Gorny (2009), in developing countries, there is lack of
storage facilities on-farm or at wholesale or retail markets and lack of ventilation and
cooling in the very few existing on-farm facilities. Others include over-loading of cold
stores (where available) including placing warm produce into the cold room, stacking
produce too high (beyond container strength) and the practice of mixing produce with
others with different temperature and relative humidity requirements. There are few key
factors to consider when storing fresh produce. Because some cultivars have a naturally
longer storage potential than others of the same commodity Kitinoja and Gorny (2009)
recommend first determining which varieties would give you the best results. Insect pests
can cause a considerable deterioration and spoilage of fresh vegetables by damaging the
integrity of the food. According to Hurst et al., (1993), insects do not destroy tomatoes by
consuming large quantities of it, but once they damage the product, further deterioration
results from microbial invasion. FAO (2008) reported that when stored at 10 0 with the
optimum humidity of about 80%, green tomatoes can be stored for 16 - 24 weeks. In
another report, Ashby (2000) recommend 130 to 210c and a relative humidity of between 90
to 95% as the best transport conditions for green-mature tomatoes.
2.6 Processing and Preservation of Tomatoes
According to Robinson and Kolavalli (2010), in Ghana, many reports simply repeat
the mantra that processing offers a way of buying up the glut. However, the reality is that
“tomato gluts” is an annual feature that occurs only for a few weeks of the year and usually
results from the production of large volumes of rain-fed local varieties that are unsuitable
for processing. Ellis et al. (1998) reported that although tomato is a highly perishable crop,
the rate and extent of spoilage depends on several factors and that, to overcome this
problem calls for the need to develop simple, cost-effective and easily adaptable
preservation techniques. They added that doing this requires a better understanding of the
farm management system of farmers. Tomatoes can be processed into many forms to be
consumed instantly or preserved for future use. For example, according to Kitinoja and
Gorny (2009), horticultural produce are usually processed to become part of the following
categories: Beverages (juices, sparkling fruit flavored waters), Condiments (salsas, pickles,
chutneys, herb-vinegars, jams, jellies and preserves), Confections (fruit-based candies,
cookies, cakes) and Miscellaneous (bottled herbed mushrooms, fruit or vegetable-based
snack-foods).

9
 Adubofour et al. (2010) also reported about formulating four cocktail juices in
different ratios from a combination of carrots, tomatoes (Bolga variety) and two varieties
of orange and pineapple. A promotion of this could help increase the consumption of the
vegetable whiles helping swab the excess. On preservation, Kitinoja and Gorny (2009)
recommend the use of brine or vinegar to pickle vegetables such as the tomato. Due to the
acidic nature of vinegar, there is no need for further processing if it is decanted into
sterilized containers before being filled with the tomatoes. Ashby (2005) described a
simple home-drying method for stewing tomatoes. Ripe tomatoes are steamed or dipped
into boiling water to loosen skin, chilled in cold water, peeled and cut into sections about
¾ inch wide, or slice. These are blanched for three minutes and dried in the dehydrator for
10 – 18 minutes or twice this time using the conventional oven.
2.7 Marketing of Tomatoes
Six basic marketing alternatives are available to the tomato grower: wholesale
markets, cooperatives, local retailers, roadside stands, pick-your-own operations, and
processing firms (Orzolek et al., 2006). Marketing cooperatives generally use a daily-
pooled cost and price, which spread price fluctuations over all participating producers.
Fresh and processed produce can be marketed on the farm, at the farm gate, locally or
regionally via wholesale or retail operations, or through exports to other countries. When
deciding how to market your fresh and processed produce, each postharvest handling step
taken provides an opportunity to make additional profits (Kitinoja, 2004).
2.12 Drying
Drying is a mass transfer process that consists of water moisture evaporation from
foodstuffs. Moisture content is defined as the quantity of moisture contained in the product
and water activity describes the amount of water available for hydration of foods and is
defined as the vapour pressure of water in the food divided by that of pure water at the
same temperature. The initial moisture content of the product influences in the drying rate.
During drying, the moisture contained in the product is vaporized under the effect of heat
and transferred to the ambient air (Alamu et al., 2010). Air flow helps heat application
through the product and removal of humidity. Relative humidity is defined as the ratio of
water vapour in air to water vapor. The lower the relative humidity in the air, the more
capacity to remove moisture from the product, there is also a relationship between
temperature and relative humidity. The temperature of the air affects the relative humidity
(as temperature increases, relative humidity decreases in adiabatic conditions) (Chua and
Chou 2003). At atmospheric pressure, the efficiency of drying therefore depends of the

10
temperature/relative humidity and air flow through the product. Drying is an excellent way
to preserve food and solar dryers are appropriate food preservation technology for
sustainable development. Drying was probably the first ever food preserving method used
by man, even before cooking (Alamu et al., 2010). It involves the removal of moisture
from agricultural produce so as to provide a product that can be safely stored for longer
period of time.
Drying is a critical process, more than the other traditional methods of processing
(i.e. boiling and steaming). Indeed, the removal of water affects the internal cell structure
of the vegetable food leading to higher losses of micronutrients such as provitamin A.
In order to control better provitamin A losses in drying and storage, improved techniques
of drying and storage are required. However these technologies should be adapted to the
local environment. When working with small-scale farmers, it is necessary to consider
issues such as lack of infrastructure, lack of finance, distance from markets, low income
and lack of expertise. Technologies for flour processing on a large scale such as drum or
spray drying are not appropriate because they require large amounts of energy, high
technology and high capital cost (Van Hal 2000; Woolfe 1992). Drying technologies
suitable for farming areas should have a low initial capital cost; be easy to construct with
available natural materials and be easy to operate and maintain (Chua and Chou 2003).
There are two types of dryers, artificial or natural (solar or sun) that are suitable in that
respect and these are described below.
2.8.1 Artificial drying
Artificial drying can be conducted in a cabinet or tunnel dryer where air is heated by
a fuel or electricity (Van Hal 2000). Air flow can be perpendicular (cross flow, for
example, in a fluidized bed system) or parallel to the product. Other types of dryers that
are used with cassava in West Africa include bin and flash dryers. With artificial dryers,
temperature, drying time and air velocity are controlled leading to consistent, high quality
products. Cabinet dryers expose sweet potato slices to temperatures between 50 and 80°C
for a period of 2.5-24 h. (Van Hal 2000). The disadvantage of this system is the high
expenditure of energy increasing production costs (Van Hal 2000). An alternative to this
type of dryer is the biomass dryer cabinet or tunnel dryer using firewood or charcoal. This
also requires investment in fuel. These dryers can be expensive to build, but manufacturing
costs can be reduced by using materials available in rural places. The disadvantages of
these dryers are that the quality of product can be affected by smoke and using firewood
contributes to deforestation unless it is produced on a sustainable basis.

11
2.12.2 Sun drying
Sun-drying is the most affordable means of drying and is widely practiced in many
developing countries. Kósambo (2004) reported carotene losses in open air sun-drying and
cabinet drying of 83% and 28% respectively. Lower retention in open air sun-drying was
explained by the destructive effect of sunlight and the non-controlled environmental
conditions (Kósambo 2004). Sun dryers are more environmentally friendly systems and are
cheaper to operate than artificial dryers because they use natural free energy. Consequently
sun drying is one of the lowest-cost preservation methods and is the most commonly used
drying method. However traditional open air sun drying involves a number of risks for
product quality including dust, insects, mammals, rain and provitamin A damaging UV sun
radiation because of poor control over environmental factors. Improved sun drying was
therefore proposed by FAO (1985) in their “Expert consultation on planning the
development of sun drying techniques in Africa”.
Sun drying is the earliest method of drying farm produce ever known to man and it
involves simply laying the agricultural products in the sun on mats, roofs or drying floors.
This has several disadvantages since the farm produce are laid in the open sky and there is
greater risk of spoilage due to adverse climatic conditions like rain, wind, moist and dust,
loss of produce to birds, insects and rodents (pests); sun drying is totally dependent on
good weather and very slow drying rate with danger of mould growth thereby causing
deterioration and decomposition of the produce. The process also requires large area of
land takes time and highly labour intensive. In order to protect the products from above
mentioned disadvantages and also to accelerate the time for drying the products, control
the final moisture and reduce wastage through bacterial action, different types of solar
dryer can be used (Yaldyz and Ertekyn, 2001). With cultural and industrial development,
artificial mechanical drying came into practice, but this process is highly energy intensive
and expensive which ultimately increases product cost. Recently, efforts to improve sun
drying have led to solar drying.
2.8.3 Shade drying
An alternative to sun drying to limit degradation by sun-light of product nutritional
quality is shade drying. A critical factor in shade drying is air circulation around the
product and the thickness of the layer of product should be limited in order to facilitate
drying (FAO 2001). The disadvantage of this dryer is longer drying times that can lead to
off-odours (fermentation) if the temperature is low or humidity high.

12
2.8.4 Drying of fruits and vegetables
Fruits and vegetables are the fresh agricultural produce having high moisture
content and are perishable in nature. Fruit normally means the fleshy seed-associated
structures of certain plants that are sweet and edible in the raw state, such as apples,
oranges, grapes, strawberries, mjuniper berries and bananas. Vegetable usually means an
edible plant or part of a plant other than a sweet fruit or seed. This typically means the leaf,
stem, or root of a plant (Jasim, 2011). Some vegetables can be consumed raw, some may
be eaten, cooked, some must be cooked in order to be edible and some are dried to increase
the shelf life. Inhabitants living close to the Mediterranean Sea and in the Near East traded
fruits that had been dried in the open sun. Dried fruit is a delicacy, because of the nutritive
value (66– 90% carbohydrate) and the shelf life. Today, the production of dried fruits is
widespread. The selection of fruit for drying depends on local circumstances. Fruits can be
dried whole, in halves, or as slices, or alternatively can be chopped after drying. The
residual moisture content varies from small (3–8%) to large (16–18%) amounts, according
to the type of fruit (Josef, 2006).
A wide range of dried fruits and vegetables are available in the market in whole,
sliced, or ground form. Reduction in moisture during drying of high moisture materials,
like fruits and vegetables, induces changes in shape, density, and porosity. Product quality
plays a major role in food drying operation. Upon rehydration, dried vegetables should
exhibit desirable sensory and nutritional quality. Numerous processing techniques have
been practiced for drying of vegetables. However, it should be noted that water should be
removed in such a way that dehydrated products can easily be rehydrated to regain their
structure (Jasim, 2011). There is a time when the vegetable will be at peak quality from the
stand-point of colour, texture and flavour. This peak quality is short and may last only for
few days. The vegetables can be stored, in some specific natural conditions, in fresh state
that is without significant modifications of their initial organoleptic properties. Fresh
vegetable storage can be achieved by short term like freezing or by cold storage and long
term by drying. In order to assure preservation for long term storage, it is necessary to
process them by drying (King and Ann, 1992).
2.8.5 States of water in fruits and vegetables
Water in vegetables is present mainly in two forms, free (or unbound) and bound. Free
water behaves as pure water, and bound water, which is physically or chemically bound to
food materials, exhibits vapour pressure lower than that of pure water at the same
temperature. Free water is the first fraction of moisture adherent to the food surface to be

13
removed. Water remains in the pores and the capillaries. Bound water may exist in
different forms: unfreezeable, immobile, monolayer, etc. A fraction of bound water is
loosely adsorbed to food materials while higher energy requirement is necessary to remove
the trapped water (Jasim, 2011).
Drying a moist material and decreasing the water activity means evaporation of
bound water from inside the solid material into the atmosphere. Breaking water bonds,
releasing, and transferring heat connected to phase change require energy. Drying can be
done with different types of drying energy: convective (warm air), contact (cooled
surface), and radiative (infrared rays), and excitation (microwave) energies. Tasks of the
warm air are to transfer heat to the material being dried to establish the drying potential
and to transfer moisture into the air (Josef, 2006).
2.8.6 Pretreatments of fruits and vegetables before drying
Fruits, vegetables and their products in the dried form are good sources of energy,
minerals and vitamins. However, during the process of dehydration, there are changes in
nutritional quality (Sablani, 2006). Product quality is becoming more and more important
for dehydrated fruits and vegetables, which must retain quality attributes (colour, texture)
and nutritional quality after dehydration. Improvement of such qualities can be achieved by
pre-treatments before drying. Suitable pre-treatments can improve the drying process by
reducing the drying time, yields better-quality products, and energy savings. A more
number of vitamins such as A, C and thiamine are heat sensitive and sensitive to oxidative
degradation. Sulphuring can destroy thiamine and riboflavin while pre-treatment such as
dipping in sulphite solutions reduce the loss of vitamins during drying. As much as 80%
decrease in the carotene content of some vegetables may occur if they are dried without
enzyme inactivation. However, if the product is adequately blanched then carotene loss can
be reduced to 5%. Steam blanching retains higher amounts of vitamin C in spinach
compared with hot-water blanching (Ramesh et al., 2001). Blanching in boil water can
retain more ascorbic acid and colour in tomato (Inyang and Ike, 1998).
Various pre-treatment methods may be used in conjunction with the drying process
to maintain or even improve the quality of a dried product. Among many methods of pre-
treatment blanching is one of the most common. Blanching is usually performed prior to
drying to inactivate enzymes responsible for various undesirable enzymatic reactions.
Blanching also helps with colour retention and modification of product texture (Mate et
al., 1999; Ahmed et al., 2001). Moreover, blanching can help increase the drying rate,
hence reducing the drying time (Severini et al., 2005). Dipping or soaking a product

14
(especially vegetable) in organic acids such as citric acid, lactic acid or acetic acid
(Karapinar and Gonul, 1992; Yu et al., 2001) is an alternative to blanching as these pre-
treatment methods can help reduce the number of normal flora and pathogenic organisms.
Some organic acids such as acetic acid have been noted to reduce the activity of enzymes
responsible for browning (Naphaporn et al., 2010). These are the various pre-treatments
that can be employed prior to solar drying of fruits and vegetable.
2.9 Packaging
Packaging is essential in food systems because it helps to reduce losses, add value,
extend shelf-life, maintain quality and wholesomeness of products, improve market
standard and food safety (Inyang et al., 2006). It is the easiest and cheapest way of
preventing food contamination with undesirable organisms and foreign matter (Opara and
Mditshwa, 2013). Postharvest losses often occurr due to poor or inadequate packaging,
which results in shelf-life instability (Ogiehor and Ikenebomeh, 2006). Maintaining food
quality and improving safety, and reducing postharvest losses waste are key objectives of a
sustainable food system. High incidence of postharvest losses and waste pose a major
problem in the food industry and world at large. An estimated 1.3 billion tonnes of food is
wasted annually in production, distribution, and homes (Quested et al., 2011). In addition
to the effects of a wide range of socio-economic, climatic and environmental factors, the
loss and wastage of already harvested food is a major contributor to food and nutritional
insecurity. Moreover, reducing food loss and preventing waste also has environmental
benefits given that each tonne of prevented food waste contributes to avoiding 4.2 tonnes
of carbon dioxide emissions that would have been associated with the waste (Quested et
al., 2011).
In the early days of agriculture, leaves and animal skin were used as packaging
materials to carry food over short distances and to secure them for later use. In modern
food systems, the principal functions of packaging have widened to include containment,
protection, communication and convenience. Paine and Paine (1992) noted that “to ensure
delivery, the package must at least provide information as to the address of recipient,
describe the product and perhaps describe how to handle the package and use the product.”
Despite the overriding importance of packaging in maintaining quality and wholesomeness
and facilitating the movement of food along the value chain, there is continuing debate on
the amount of packaging used in the food industry in relation to packaging waste the
environmental impacts, as well as the role of packaging in reducing food losses and waste
(Opara, 2011). Inappropriate processing and packaging (or lack of these) can contribute to

15
25 to 50% food loss, especially in developing countries. About 10% of fruit and vegetables
shipped to European Union are discarded due to unacceptable quality and spoilage (World
Packaging Organization, 2008). These high levels of postharvest loss and waste suggest
that food production is only half the battle to feed the world (Opara, 2011).
2.9.1 Types of packaging materials used
There are wide range of packaging materials and packaging formats used in the
fresh and processed food industry to handle, store, and distribute fresh and processed food
products, from farm to the consumer. Different types of materials such as glass, plastic,
metal, cardboard are used for making packaging containers and the material used depends
on the nature of the food product because different packaging materials possess a range of
performance characteristics that exert significant impacts on shelf-life (Robertson, 2011).
2.9.2 Plastic container
Historically, packaging was used primarily to prevent food contamination with
unwanted objects. However, consumer demand for desirable food quality has led to a surge
in packaging innovation. For instance, Cha and Chinnan (2004) noted the increasing use of
plastic films in food packaging, which combines the biophysical properties of plastic films
with biopolymer coatings to maintain the nutritional and sensory quality of the product.
Using plastic as packaging material also offers marketing advantage. Unlike metal and
aluminium packaging materials, harnessing the transparency of film packaging for product
visibility is now widely practised, enabling consumers to assess the visual quality of the
product prior to purchase. However, the variable permeability to light, gases and vapours
of plastics is a major drawback. The various kinds of plastic films include low density
polyethylene (LDPE), laminated aluminium foil (LAF), high density polyethylene
(HDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE).
2.9.3 Glass jars
Glass is another common packaging material which dates back to 3000 BC and is
used mostly for packaging processed foods especially where moisture and oxygen barrier
is of great importance. Carbonated beverage drinks contain dissolved carbon dioxide
creating pressure within the package, and glass is often the suitable packaging capable of
withstanding carbon dioxide pressure. Moreover, the odourless and static chemical
property of glass that ensures unimpaired taste and flavour of the contents makes it
advantageous for food packaging (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007). The reusability and
recyclability of glass-based packaging material contribute to less negative impacts on the
environment; the heavy weight of glass adds to the transportation costs of food products.

16
2.9.4 Shelf life
Packaging is often used as a tool to extend shelf life by preventing or reducing
water loss, especially in fresh produce. Studies by Miller and Krochta (1997) showed that
polyethylene bags reduced water loss and extended storability of various fruit and
vegetables. Unpacked foods are often exposed to a range of microorganisms which have
the potential to reduce shelf-life (Paine and Paine, 1992). The choice of packaging type and
material has also effects shelf-life. For instance, Lee et al. (2002) reported that red pepper
paste packed on polyethylene plastic had prolonged shelf-life compared to other forms of
plastics, while Mexis et al. (2009) reported prolonged shelf-life and reduced microbial
growth of shelled-walnuts packed on polyethylene terephthalate/polyethylene compared to
polyethylene pouches.

17
 CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Experimental Site
The shade drying and sun drying Experiments were carried out in the Crop
Production and Horticulture Department while the oven drying was carried out in Crop
Protection Department, the physicochemical analysis was done in the Food Science and
Technology Department, Modibbo Adama University of Technology (MAUTECH), Yola
Adamawa State. The location of (MAUTECH) is at latitude 9 020’ 43’’ N and longitude 120
30’ 8’’ E, at an altitude 203.5 m above sea level. Yola has an annual mean minimum and
maximum temperature of 15.20C and 390C, respectively (Adebayo, 1999).
3.2 Source of Tomato Seeds
Seeds were purchased from Jos, Plateau State Nigeria and the variety used was Rio
de Grande.
3.3 Agronomic Practices
3.3.1 Land preparation
The land was ploughed and harrowed at Dumne, Song Local Government Area,
Adamawa State with a hand hoe so as to loose and level the soil for suitable seed
germination prior to transplanting. Beds were then prepared to raise the seedlings.
3.3.2 Planting and transplanting
The seeds were broadcasted on the beds lightly covered with soil on 30/08/2017, the
seedlings were later transplanted after four (4) weeks.
3.3.3 Fertilizer application
Organic fertilizer (cow dung) was applied at the rate of 8.5t/ha during land
preparation and mixed thoroughly into the soil.
3.3.4 Water supply
During the first four weeks, rain fed was used completely to raised the seedlings
while irrigation system of water supply was supplemented after transplanting at four (4)
days after transplanting and three (3) days after inflorescence.
3.3.5 Weed control
Plots were hand weeded at two (2) and seven (7) weeks after transplanting was used
to control weed.
3.3.6 Harvesting
Harvesting was done by hand picking matured ripe fruits in the morning time.

18
3.4 Sample collection
Tomato fruits at a fully matured ripe were harvested from the experimental land.
Tomato fruits of almost uniform colours, undamaged, free from disease and bruises were
selected for the experimental purpose.
3.5 Preparation of tomato fruits for drying
The selected tomato fruits were dipped in boiling water for 5 minutes and into cool
water (blanching) to deactivate microbial activity on the surface of the fruits and retain its
colour after drying. The fruits were sliced into almost uniform sizes so as to maintain
uniform drying. After drying, the dried products were ground into flour. The tomato flour
was packaged using three packaging materials (polythene bags, glass jars and plastic
containers).
3.6 Drying Procedures
3.6.1 Open sun drying
The sliced tomato fruits were evenly spread on a wide white polythene under the sun.
Dried samples were then milled into powder and passed through 1.0 mm sieve and
packaged in the packaging materials provided. The minimum and maximun mean
temperatures of the atmosphere were 26.730C and 32.310C, respectively. The time taken
for the samples to attained constant weight was 15 days.
3.6.2 Shade drying
The sliced tomato fruits were properly spread on wide white polythene and placed it
in a well-ventilated room. Natural current of air was used to dry the samples. The
minimum and maximun mean temperature of the room were 25.05 0C and 29.030C,
respectively. The time taken for the samples to attained constant weight was 19 days.
3.6.3 Hot air oven
The hot air oven was used to dry the samples. The oven was run for 15 minutes so as
to obtain a stable condition before placing the samples in the chamber. The temperature of
the drying chamber was maintained at 750C for 78 hrs when the weight was constant. The
dried samples were dry-milled into powder and passed through a 1.0 mm sieve. The milled
powder was then packaged in the respective packaging materials.
3.7 Treatment Combinations and Experimental Design
The treatments were arranged in a Split-Plot in Randomise Complete Block Design
(RCBD) with drying methods (oven drying, sun drying and shade drying) placed in the
main plot while the packaging materials (glass jar, plastic container and polythene) were
placed in the sub-plot and replicated three times as shown in Figure 1.

19
 Rep I Rep II Rep III
OV SU SH SU SH OV SH OV SU

GJ PC PB PB GJ PC PC PB GJ

PC PB GJ GJ PC PB PB GJ PC

PB GJ PC PC PB GJ GJ PC PB

Figure 1: Showing experimental layout in a Split-Plot Design

Keys:
PB = Polythene Bag
GJ = Glass Jar
PC = Plastic Container
SU = Sun Dried
SH = Shade Dried
OV = Oven Dried

20
3.8 Data Collection
The ground samples were analysed for physicochemical parameters such as colour,
bulk density, fat, carbohydrate, calorific value, water absorption capacity, ash, protein,
moisture content, fiber, and ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The parameters were recorded at 4,
and 12 weeks of storage respectively.
3.9 Physical/Functional Properties
3.9.1 Colour determination
The colour of dried tomato samples was determined using visual organoleptic
method by trained laboratory technologists, food scientists, students and some lecturers
who were familiar with the samples as cam be seen in the hedonic scale in appendix 1
(Iwe, 2002).
3.9.2 Bulk density
Bulk density was determined by using ten grams (10 g) of sample was weighed in 25
cm3 graduated measuring cylinder and was firmly tapped 30 times on a bench top to settle
the sample volume.
g mass
Bulk density( 3) = ……………(1)
m volume
3.9.3 Water absorption capacity
This was determined as described by Onwuga (2005). Two grams (2 g) of dried
sample was mixed thoroughly with 20 ml of distilled water in a kenwood blender for 30
seconds. The mixtures were allowed to settle for 30 minutes at room temperature and then
centrifuged. The volume of free water was decanted and discarded. The weight of water
absorbed by 2 g of samples was calculated and expressed as water absorption capacity. It
was expressed as grams of water absorbed per 100 g of sample.
ssw−sw
WHC= ……………(2)
sw

wsw−sw
OHC= ……………(3)
sw
Where:
SSW = Swollen Sample Weight
SW = Sample Weight
WSW = Water absorbed sample weight

21
3.10 Chemical Composition
3.10.1 Moisture content
The moisture content was determined according to the method described by AOAC
(2007). Five grams (5 g) of the sample was weighed into already weighed and cooled petri-
dishes. The samples were dried in the oven at 1050C for four (4) hours until weight remain
constant. The samples were cooled in the dessicator and the dry weight was taken. The
moisture content was calculated as described in the following equation:
w 2−w 3
% moisture = x 100……………(4)
w 2−w 1
Where:
W1 = initial weight of clean dry petri-dish
W2 = weight of petri-dish and sample before drying
W3 = final weight of oven dried sample and petri-dish
% Total solid (dry matter = 100 - % moisture)
3.10.2 Ash content
Ash content was determined as described by AOAC (2007). The dried sample (5 g)
was weighed into previously weighed porcelain crucible. The sample in the crucible was
burnt in a muffle furnace at temperature of 550 0C to light ashes. The temperature of the
furnace was cooled, the crucible with ash content was carefully removed from the furnace
and allowed to be cool at room temperature in a dessicators. It was weighed and the weight
of ash was obtained as shown below:
(weight of ash)
% Ash = x 100……………(5)
( weight of sample )
3.10.3 Determination of crude protein
The method use in this work was micro Khedjal’s method of protein determination as
described by AOAC (2007). This method was carried out in three (3) stages:
3.10.3.1 Stage I: Digestion procedure
Five grams (5g) of sample was poured into a conical flask, 2 Kjehdal’s tablet and
concentrated sulphuric acid H2SO4 was added. The flask was heated gently until forthing
ceases and the content turned into green colour.
3.10.3.2 Stage II: Distillation

22
 The prepared digest of the sample was connected to the micro Kjehdal distillation
apparatus through a funnel followed by the addition of 75 ml of 40 % sodium hydroxide.
To the condenser, a delivery tube was fixed. 50 ml of distilled water was pippeted into the
receiving flask, 1 ml of methlyne red indicator was added.
3.10.3.3 Stage III: Titration
0.5 ml of sodium thiosulfate was used to titrate the librated iodine. The value
obtained was used to calculate the percentage of nitrogen by weight using:
% nitrogen= N x 6.25……………(6)
N x 6.25 = conversion factor
3.10.4 Determination of fat content
Soxhlet extraction method was used as described by AOAC (2007). Five grams (5 g)
of sample was placed in a timble and inserted into soxhlet apparatus and the oil extracted
using hexane as solvent about four hours. The mass of soxhlet was noted before extraction.
The mass of flask and oil after extraction would be noted from which the mass and
percentage mass of oil was calculated.
massofflask+massofoil
% oil content = x 100……………(7)
massofsample
3.10.5 Determination of fibre
Five grams (5 g) of sample was poured into 600 ml beaker and 200 ml hot H 2SO4 was
added. The beakers were placed on digestion apparatus with pre-heated plates. It was
boiled and reflux for 30 minutes and filter through white man GF/F paper by gravity. The
beaker was rinsed with distilled water as described by AACC (2007). The residue was
washed on the paper with distilled water until the filtrate is neutral. The residue was
transferred back to the beaker. The beaker was returned to the digestion apparatus, boiled
and refluxed for 30 minutes. The paper with residue was transferred into a crucible to dry
sample at 1000C overnight and cooled in a dessicator and weighed. The samples were
placed in furnace at 6000C for six hours then cooled in a dessicator and reweighed.
The loss in weight after incineration X 100 = % crude fibre……………(8)
3.10.6 Carbohydrate determination
This was determined by subtracting from 100 the sum of the percentage moisture,
ash, protein, fat and fibre from 100.
% carbohydrate = 100 – (sum of moisture, ash, protein, fat, fibre)……………(9)
3.10.7 Calorific value determination

23
 Energy value was calculated using Atwater factor method (9 x % lipid) + (4 x %
protein) + (4 x % carbohydrate) as described by Osborne and Voogt (1978) and Ihekoronye
and Ngoddy (1985).

3.10.8 Ascorbic acid

Ascorbic acid was measured by 2, 6 dichlorodophenol indophenol visual titration
method according to AOAC (2007). Standard indophenols solution was prepared by
dissolving 0.05 g 2, 6 dichlorodophenol in distilled water, made up to 100 ml and filtered.
Standard solution of pure ascorbic acid was prepared by dissolving 0.05 g pure ascorbic
acid in 60 ml of 20% acetic acid and diluted with distilled water to exactly 250 ml, the dye
solution was standardized against the ascorbic acid solution by titration with 10 ml of the
ascorbic acid equivalent to ml of the dye solution.
3.11 Storage Stability
The storage stability of dried tomato samples was carried out for twelve (12) weeks
in glass jars, plastic containers and polythene bags at room temperature. At four (4) weeks
and twelve (12) weeks, the dried samples were evaluated for colour, consistency, taste,
aroma and overall acceptability using preference test scale.
3.11.1 Preparation of dried tomato soup
Powder of dry tomato was used to prepare the stew for sensory evaluation.
3.11.2 Preparation of fresh tomato soup
Fresh tomato was used to prepare the stew and compared with the dried ones prior to
packaging in their respective packaging materials at the initial stage of drying.
3.12 Sensory Evaluation
Soups were prepared from different samples of dried and fresh tomato. The colour,
consistency, taste, aroma and overall acceptability of each product were evaluated by ten
(10) member panel that is familiar with the product. Each attribute was evaluated
separately using a preference test as presented in appendix 1 (Iwe, 2002).
3.12.1 Preparation of soup with ingredients (fresh and dry tomato)
Dry tomato soup was prepared from each drying method using equal amount of the
following ingredients pepper, onion, palm oil, maggi, water and salt.
3.13 Data Analysis

24
 The data obtained from the experiment were subjected to statistical analysis of
variance (ANOVA). Means that were significantly different at (P≤ 0.05) were separated
using Least Significant Difference (LSD).

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Physical Properties of
Dried Tomato
4.1.1 Water absorption capacity
The results of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on water
absorption capacity are presented in Table 1. The result indicated highly significant
differences (P≤0.01) among the drying methods before storage and at 4 weeks of storage
but there was no significant difference (P≤0.05) at 12 weeks of storage. The oven dried
tomato had the highest water absorption capacity of (3.30 mg/100g) before storage. While
this was not significantly difference from the value (3.10 mg/100g), when tomato was
shade dried, it was significantly higher compared to the water absorption capacity (2.67
mg/100g) when sun dried. At four weeks of storage, the highest water absorption capacity
was obtained from oven dried tomato (3.19 mg/100g) followed by shade dried with (2.94
mg/100g) while sun dried was found to be least with (2.88 mg/100g). At both four and
twelve weeks of storage, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) among the packaging
materials used. There was highly significant interaction effects (P≤0.01) of drying methods
and packaging materials on water absorption capacity of the dried tomato at both four and
twelve weeks of storage as presented in Table 2. At four weeks of storage, the combination
of oven dried and polythene bag had the highest (3.27 mg/100g) followed by sun dried and
plastic container (3.17 mg/100g) while the leasst water absorption capacity was obtained
from the treatment combination of sun dried and glass jar (2.53 mg/100g). At twelve weeks
of storage, the highest water absorption capacity was obtained from the combination of
shade dried and plastic container (2.70 mg/100g) followed by sun dried and polythene bag
(2.50 mg/100g) while the least of (2.07 mg/100g) was obtained from the treatment
combination of glass jar and polythene bag.
4.1.2 Bulk density

25
 The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on bulk density
is presented in Table 3. The results show that the effect of the drying method on bulk
density was not significantly different (P>0.05) before storage, at four and twelve weeks of
storage among the drying methods. Likewise at both four and twelve weeks of storage,
there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in bulk density among the packaging materials
used. There was also no significant interaction effect (P>0.05) on the bulk density among
the drying methods and packaging materials at four weeks of storage.

Table 1: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Water Absorption

Capacity (mg/100g) of Dried Tomato after Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage
(WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 3.10 2.94 2.43

Sun 2.67 2.88 2.26

Oven 3.30 3.19 2.23

P<F 0.003 0.003 NS

LSD 0.220 0.195

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 3.02 2.30

Plastic Container 3.02 2.32

Glass Jar 2.97 2.30

P<F NS NS

LSD

Drying X Packaging ** **
NS = Not significant, ** = Highly Significant

26
Table 2: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Water
Absorption Capacity (mg/100g) of Dried Tomato at four and twelve Weeks of
Storage (WOS)

4 WOS 12 WOS

Polythen Plastic Glass Polythen Plastic Glass

e e

Shade 2.87 2.77 3.20 2.33 2.70 2.26

Sun 2.93 3.17 2.53 2.50 2.00 2.27

Oven 3.27 3.13 3.17 2.07 2.27 2.37

P<F 0.005 0.007

LSD 0.28 0.42

Table 3: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Bulk Density

(mg/100g) of Dried Tomato after Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

27
Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 0.61 0.60 0.61

Sun 0.61 0.61 0.61

Oven 0.61 0.62 0.61

P<F NS NS NS

LSD

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 0.61 0.61

Plastic Container 0.61 0.61

Glass Jar 0.61 0.61

P<F NS NS

LSD

Drying X Packaging NS *
NS = Not significant, * = Significant

There was no significant interaction effect (P>0.05) at four weeks but there was significant
interaction effects (P≤0.05) at twelve weeks of storage (Table 4). The combination of sun
dried and glass jar as well as shade dried and plastic container were found to have the
highest equal mean value of (0.62 mg/100g).
4.2 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Chemical Composition
of Dried Tomato
4.2.1 Ascorbic acid
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on vitamin C
content is presented in Table 5. The results showed highly significant difference (P≤0.01)
between the dried and fresh samples before storage and at four weeks of storage, but there
was no significant difference (P>0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. The oven dried sample

28
recorded the highest vitamin C content of (15.64 mg/100g) followed by shade dried with
(14.26 mg/100g) while the least was obtained from the fresh sample with (6.73 mg/100g)
before storage. At four weeks of storage, the highest vitamin C content was obtained from
oven dried sample (12.07 mg/100g) followed by shade dried with 11.08 mg/100g while
sun dried had the least of (9.77 mg/100g). There was highly significant difference (P≤0.01)
among the packaging materials used at four weeks, but there was no significant difference
(P>0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. Glass jar recorded the highest of (11.73 mg/100g)
followed by plastic container (11.46 mg/100g) while the least was obtained from polythene
bag (9.75 mg/100g). There was highly significant interaction (P≤0.01) between the drying
methods and packaging materials in ascorbic acid content of dried tomato at four weeks of
storage, the treatment combination of oven dried and glass jar recorded the highest (13.63
mg/100g) followed by the combination of oven dried and plastic container (13.46
mg/100g) while the least was obtained from the treatment combination of sun dried and
glass jar (8.81 mg/100g) as can be seen in table (Table 6) but there was no significant
interaction (P>0.05) effect at twelve weeks of storage.
4.2.2 Moisture content
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on moisture
content is presented in Table 7. The result showed highly significant difference (P≤0.01)
between the fresh sample and dried samples before storage, but there was no significant
difference (P>0.05) among the drying methods at both four and twelve weeks of storage.
Before storage, fresh sample recorded the highest moisture content of 95.64% while shade
dried with 5.90% but shade dried sample was not statistically difference at (P≤0.05) from

Table 4: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Bulk
Density (mg/100g) of Dried Tomato at twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Polythene Bag Plastic Container Glass jar

Shade Dried 0.60 0.62 0.61

Sun Dried 0.61 0.61 0.62

Oven Dried 0.60 0.60 0.61

P<F 0.027

LSD 0.008

29
Table 5: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Ascorbic Acid (mg/100g)
of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 14.26 11.08 8.77

Sun 10.81 9.77 10.16

Oven 15.64 12.07 9.30

Fresh Tomato 6.73

P<F <.001 <.001 NS

LSD 0.130 0.385

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 9.75 9.30

Plastic Container 11.46 9.20

30
Glass Jar 11.73 9.72

P<F <.001 NS

LSD 0.220

Drying X Packaging ** NS
NS = Not significant,* * = Highly Significant

Table 6: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on

Ascorbic Acid (mg/100g) of Dried Tomato at four Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Polythene Bag Plastic Container Glass jar

Shade Dried 10.04 10.43 12.76

Sun Dried 10.03 10.48 8.81

Oven Dried 9.17 13.46 13.63

P<F <.001

LSD 0.433

31
Table 7: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Moisture Content (%)
of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 5.90 3.86 10.78

Sun 5.67 3.76 11.44

Oven 5.67 3.09 10.39

Fresh Tomato 95.64

P<F <.001 NS NS

LSD 1.271

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 3.51 11.50

Plastic Container 3.59 9.94

Glass Jar 3.61 11.17

P<F NS NS

Drying X Packaging ** NS
NS = Not significant, ** = Highly Significant

32
sun and oven dried samples. At four and twelve weeks of storage, there was no significant
difference (P>0.05) among the packaging materials used. There was highly significant
interaction effects (P≤0.01) between the drying methods and packaging materials at four
weeks of storage, the combination of shade dried and glass jar had the highest (4.48%)
followed by sun dried and plastic container (4.23%) while the lowest was obtained from
the treatment combination of oven dried and plastic container (2.62%) as presented in
Table 8. But the results showed that there was no significant difference (P>0.05) at twelve
weeks of storage.
4.2.3 Ash content
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on Ash content
is presented in Table 9. The result indicated highly significant difference (P≤0.01) between
the dried samples and fresh sample before storage and at four weeks of storage, but there
was no significant difference (P>0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. Before storage, shade
dried had the highest Ash content of 3.68% followed by sun dried with 3.42% while the
lowest of 0.81%. At four weeks of storage, shade dried had the highest of 7.70% sun dried
with 6.60% but sun dried was not statistically difference (P>0.05) from oven dried sample.
At both four and twelve weeks of storage, there was no significant difference (P>0.05)
among the packaging materials used. There was significant interaction (P≤0.05) between
the treatment combination at four weeks of storage but no significant interaction effects
(P≤0.05) recorded between the treatment combination at twelve weeks of storage. At four
weeks of storage, the combination of shade dried and glass jar recorded the highest
(8.00%) followed by shade dried and plastic container (7.87%) while oven dried and
plastic container recorded the least of (6.05%) as presented in Table 10.
4.2.4 Fibre content
The result of drying methods and packaging materials on fibre content is presented
in Table 11. The result showed highly significant difference (P≤0.01) between the dried
samples and fresh sample before storage. Oven dried recorded the highest of (15.11%) but
was not statistically difference at (P>0.05) from sun and shade dried samples, while the
least of (1.05%) was obtained from the fresh sample. There was no significant difference
(P>0.05) among the drying methods both at four and twelve weeks of storage. There was
significant difference (P≤0.05) among the packaging materials used at four weeks of
storage but highly significant difference (P≤0.01) was recorded at twelve weeks of storage.

33
Table 8: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on
Moisture Content (%) of Dried Tomato at four Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Polythene Bag Plastic Container Glass jar

Shade Dried 3.17 3.92 4.48

Sun Dried 4.02 4.23 3.02

Oven Dried 3.35 2.62 2.32

P<F <.001

LSD 1.070

Table 9: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Ash Content (%) of Dried
Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

34
Shade 3.68 7.70 6.56

Sun 3.42 6.60 6.83

Oven 2.45 6.23 6.49

Fresh Tomato 0.81

P<F <.001 0.008 NS

LSD 0.038 0.671

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 6.90 6.37

Plastic Container 6.79 6.92

Glass Jar 6.85 6.59

P<F NS NS

LSD

Drying X Packaging * NS
NS = Not significant, * = Significant

Table 10: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Ash
Content (%) of Dried Tomato at four Weeks of Storage

Polythene Bag Plastic Container Glass jar

Shade Dried 7.23 7.87 8.00

Sun Dried 7.15 6.45 6.20

Oven Dried 6.34 6.05 6.33

P<F 0.025

35
LSD 0.772

Table 11: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Fibre Content (%)
of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 14.83 14.85 14.37

Sun 15.05 14.70 14.38

Oven 15.11 14.78 14.46

Fresh Tomato 1.05

P<F <.001 NS NS

36
LSD 0.682

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 14.69 14.15

Plastic Container 14.74 13.38

Glass Jar 14.91 14.68

P<F 0.028 <.001

LSD 0.159 0.167

Drying X Packaging NS NS
NS = Not significant

At four weeks of storage, glass jar recorded the highest of (14.91%) while the least of
(14.69%) was obtained from polythene bag. At twelve weeks of storage, glass jar recorded
the highest of (14.68%) followed by polythene bag with (14.15%) while the least of
(13.38%) was obtained from plastic container. There was no significant interaction
(P>0.05) between the treatment combination in the percentage of fibre content both at four
and twelve weeks of storage.
4.2.5 Lipid content
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on lipid content
is presented in Table 12. The result showed highly significant difference (P≤0.01), all the
dried samples were found to be significantly difference from the fresh sample before
storage. Shade dried recorded the highest of (2.90%) while the least of (0.19%) was
obtained from fresh sample. At both four and twelve weeks of storage, there was no
significant difference (P>0.05) among the drying methods. In the case of packaging
materials used, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) at four weeks of storage, but
there was highly significant difference (P≤0.01) at twelve weeks of storage. Glass jar
recorded the highest of (2.86%) followed by plastic container with (2.83%) while the least
of (2.80%) was obtained from polythene bag. There was no significant difference (P>0.05)

37
between the treatment combination in the percentage of lipid content both at four and
twelve weeks of storage.
4.2.6 Protein content
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on protein
content is presented in Table 13. The result indicated highly significant difference (P≤0.01)
between the dried samples and fresh sample before storage, shade dried sample recorded
the highest mean value of (3.12%) while the least of (1.01%) was obtained from fresh
sample. At both four and twelve weeks of storage, there was no significant difference
(P>0.05) among the drying methods. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) among
the packaging materials used at four weeks of storage, but highly significant difference
(P≤0.01) was recorded at twelve weeks of storage. Glass jar recorded the highest of
(3.14%) while the least of (2.95%) was obtained from polythene bag. There was no
significant interaction effects (P>0.05) between the treatment combination in the
percentage of protein content both at four and twelve weeks of storage.

Table 12: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Lipid Content (%)
of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 2.90 2.88 2.83

Sun 2.88 2.89 2.84

Oven 2.88 2.88 2.82

Fresh Tomato 0.19

P<F <.001 NS NS

LSD 0.148

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 2.88 2.80

Plastic Container 2.88 2.83

Glass Jar 2.88 2.86

38
P<F NS <.001

LSD 0.024

Drying X Packaging NS NS
NS = Not significant

Table 13: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Protein Content (%) of
Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 3.12 3.18 3.07

Sun 3.12 3.13 3.03

Oven 3.12 3.16 3.06

Fresh Tomato 1.01

P<F <.001 NS NS

LSD 0.109

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 3.11 2.95

Plastic Container 3.16 3.07

Glass Jar 3.20 3.14

P<F NS 0.003

LSD 0.098

Drying X Packaging NS NS
NS = Not significant

39
40
4.2.7 Carbohydrates content
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on
carbohydrates content is presented in Table 14. The result indicated highly significant
difference (P≤0.01) between the dried samples and fresh sample before storage, sun dried
recorded the highest of (69.87%) followed by oven dried sample with (69.77%) while the
least of (1.30%) was obtained from fresh sample. There was significant difference
(P≤0.05) among the drying methods at four weeks of storage but there was no significant
difference (P>0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. At four weeks of storage, oven dried
recorded the highest of (70.06%) while the least of (67.53%) was obtained from shade
dried sample. At both four and twelve weeks of storage, there was no significant difference
(P>0.05) among the packaging materials used. There was highly significant interaction
(P≤0.01) between the treatment combination at four weeks of storage, but there was no
significant (P>0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. The combination of oven dried and plastic
container recorded the highest (70.56%) followed by the treatment combination of oven
dried and polythene bag (70.33%) while the least was obtained from the treatment
combination of shade dried and glass jar (66.51%) as can be seen in Table 15.
4.2.8 Calorific value
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on calorific
value is presented in Table 16. The result indicated highly significant difference (P≤0.01)
between dried samples and fresh sample before storage, sun dried recorded the highest of
(317.9kj/cal) but was not statistically difference from oven and shade dried samples while
the least of (11.0 kj/cal) was obtained from fresh sample. There was significant difference
(P≤0.05) among the drying methods at four weeks of storage but there was no significant
difference (P>0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. At four weeks of storage, oven dried had
the highest of (318.80 kj/cal) followed by sun dried sample with (314.25 kj/cal) while the
least of (308.76 kj/cal) was obtained from shade dried sample. At both four and twelve
weeks of storage, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) among the packaging
materials used. There was highly significant interaction (P≤0.01) between the treatment
combination at four weeks of storage, but there was no significant (P>0.05) at twelve
weeks of storage. The combination of oven dried and plastic container recorded the highest
(320.85 kj/cal) while the least was obtained from the treatment combination of shade dried
and glass jar (304.80 kj/cal) as can be seen in Table 17.

41
Table 14: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Carbohydrate Content
(%) of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 69.56 67.53 62.95

Sun 69.87 68.93 61.48

Oven 69.77 70.06 62.79

Fresh Tomato 1.30

P<F <.001 0.027 NS

LSD 1.665 1.555

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 69.12 62.24

Plastic Container 68.85 63.19

Glass Jar 68.56 61.79

P<F NS NS

LSD

Drying X Packaging ** NS
NS = Not significant, ** = Highly Significant

Table 15: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials
Carbohydrate Content (%) of Dried Tomato at four Weeks of Storage

Polythene Bag Plastic Container Glass jar

42
Shade Dried 68.75 67.33 66.51

Sun Dried 68.28 68.64 69.87

Oven Dried 70.33 70.56 69.30

P<F 0.005

LSD 1.635

Table 16: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Calorific Value (kj/cal)
of Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 316.9 308.76 289.55

43
Sun 317.9 314.25 283.60

Oven 317.4 318.80 288.78

Fresh Tomato 11.0

P<F <.001 0.023 NS

LSD 7.210 5.866

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 314.84 285.96

Plastic Container 313.96 290.51

Glass Jar 312.96 285.46

P<F NS NS

Drying X Packaging ** NS
NS = Not significant,* * = Highly Significant

Table 17: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials Calorific
Value (kj/cal) of Dried Tomato at four weeks of Storage

Polythene Bag Plastic Container Glass jar

Shade Dried 313.66 307.93 304.80

Sun Dried 311.37 313.11 318.14

Oven Dried 319.63 320.85 316.03

P<F 0.003

LSD 6.184

44
4.3 Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Storage Stability of
Dried Tomato
4.3.1 Colour
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on colour is
presented in Table 18. The result indicated highly significant difference (P≤0.01) between
the fresh sample and dried samples before storage, fresh sample recorded the highest of
8.67 followed by oven dried with 7.33 but oven dried was not statistically difference
(P>0.05) from shade and sun dried samples. At both four and twelve of storage, there was
no significant difference (P>0.05) among the drying methods. There was highly significant
difference (P≤0.01) among the packaging materials used both at four and twelve weeks of
storage. At four weeks of storage, glass jar had the highest of 7.89 but was not statistically
difference (P≤0.05) from plastic container, while the least of 7.00 was obtained from
polythene bag. At twelve weeks of storage, plastic container had the highest of 7.67 and it
was statistically better than both glass jar and polythene bag with equal value of 7.00.
There was no significant interaction (P>0.05) between the drying methods and packaging

45
materials both at four and twelve weeks of storage. The ratings of the hedonic scale can be
seen in appendix 1.
4.3.2 Taste
The result of drying methods and packaging materials on taste is presented in Table
19. The result indicated highly significant difference (P≤0.01) between the fresh sample
and the dried samples before storage, fresh sample had the highest of 8.33 followed by
oven dried with 7.00 while the least of 6.33 was obtained from sun dried sample. There
was no significant difference (P>0.05) among the drying methods at both four and twelve
weeks of storage. There was highly significant difference (P≤0.01) among the packaging
materials used at four weeks of storage but there was no significant difference (P>0.05) at
twelve weeks of storage. At four weeks of storage, glass jar and polythene bag recorded
the highest equal mean values of 7.00 while plastic container had the least of 6.44. There
was no significant interaction (P>0.05) between the drying methods and packaging
materials both at four and twelve weeks of storage. The ratings of the hedonic scale can be
seen in appendix 1.

Table 18: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Colour of Dried Tomato
at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 7.00 7.33 7.22

Sun 7.00 7.57 7.22

Oven 7.33 7.57 7.22

Fresh Tomato 8.67

P<F 0.004 NS NS

LSD 0.745

Packaging Materials

46
Polythene Bag 7.00 7.00

Plastic Container 7.57 7.67

Glass Jar 7.89 7.00

P<F 0.008 0.001

LSD 0.504 0.342

Drying X Packaging NS NS
NS = Not significant

Table 19: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Taste of Dried Tomato
at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 6.67 6.67 6.89

Sun 6.33 6.67 7.00

Oven 7.00 7.11 7.00

Fresh Tomato 8.33

P<F 0.009 NS NS

LSD 0.942

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 7.00 7.00

Plastic Container 6.44 7.11

Glass Jar 7.00 6.78

P<F 0.003 NS

LSD 0.313

47
Drying X Packaging NS NS
NS = Not significant

4.3.3 Aroma
The result of the effects of drying methods and packaging materials on aroma is
presented in Table 20. The result indicated no significant difference (P>0.05) between the
dried samples and fresh sample before storage. Likewise, the result indicated no significant
difference (P>0.05) among the drying methods at four weeks of storage, but highly
significant difference (P≤0.01) was recorded at twelve weeks of storage. At twelve weeks
of storage, oven dried recorded the highest of (7.22) followed by sun dried with (7.11)
while the lowest of (6.22) was obtained from shade dried sample. There was no significant
difference (P>0.05) recorded among the packaging materials used at four weeks of storage,
but there was significant difference (P≤0.05) recorded at twelve weeks of storage. At
twelve weeks of storage, plastic container and polythene bag recorded the highest equal
mean values of (7.00) while the least of (6.56) was obtained from glass jar. There was no
significant interaction (P>0.05) between the treatment combination at four weeks but
highly significant interaction (P≤0.01) was recorded at twelve weeks of storage. At twelve
weeks of storage, the highest was obtained from the treatment combination of oven dried
and polythene bag (8.00) followed by sun dried and plastic container (7.33) while the least
of (6.00) was obtained from the treatment combination of shade dried and glass jar and as
well as shade dried and polythene bag as can be seen in Table 21. The ratings of the
hedonic scale can be found in appendix 1.
4.3.4 Consistency
The result of drying methods and packaging materials on consistency is presented
in Table 22. The result indicated significant difference (P≤0.05) between the dried samples
and fresh sample before storage. The highest consistency of 8.00 was obtained from fresh
sample but was not statistically difference (P≤0.05) from both oven and sun dried samples

48
while the least of 7.00 was obtained from shade dried sample. There was no significant
difference (P>0.05) among the drying methods at four weeks of storage, but there was
significant difference (P≤0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. Oven dried and sun dried
samples recorded the highest equal mean values of 7.22 while the least of 6.56 was
obtained from shade dried sample. There was significant difference (P≤0.05) among the
packaging materials used at both four and twelve weeks of storage. At four weeks of
storage, glass jar and polythene bag recorded the highest equal mean values of 7.44 while
the least of 6.89 was obtained from plastic container. The ratings of the hedonic scale can
be found in appendix 1.

Table 20: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Aroma of Dried Tomato
at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 6.67 7.78 6.22

Sun 6.67 7.89 7.11

Oven 7.00 7.78 7.22

Fresh Tomato 8.00

P<F NS NS 0.010

LSD 0.504

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 7.00 7.00

Plastic Container 7.57 7.67

Glass Jar 7.89 7.00

P<F NS 0.022

LSD 0.342

Drying X Packaging NS **
NS = Not significant, ** = Highly Significant

49
Table 21: The Effects of Interaction of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on
Aroma of Dried Tomato at twelve weeks of Storage

Polythene Bag Plastic Container Glass jar

Shade Dried 6.00 6.67 6.00

Sun Dried 7.00 7.33 7.00

Oven Dried 8.00 7.00 6.67

P<F 0.006

LSD 0.614

50
Table 22: Effect of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Consistency of Dried
Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 7.00 7.11 6.56

Sun 7.33 7.33 7.22

Oven 7.33 7.11 7.22

Fresh Tomato 8.00

P<F 0.050 NS 0.040

LSD 0.666 0.534

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 7.44 6.89

Plastic Container 6.89 6.79

Glass Jar 7.44 7.33

P<F 0.034 0.032

LSD(0.05) 0.464 0.419

Drying X Packaging NS NS
NS = Not significant

At twelve weeks of storage, glass jar recorded the highest of 7.33 followed by polythene
bag with 6.89 and the polythene while the least of 6.79 was obtained from plastic
container. There was no significant interaction (P>0.05) between the treatment

51
combination at both four and twelve weeks of storage. The ratings of the hedonic scale can
be found in appendix 1.
4.3.5 Overall acceptability
The result of drying methods and packaging materials on overall acceptability of
dried samples of tomato is presented in Table 23. The result showed no significant
difference (P>0.05) between the fresh sample and dried samples before storage. There was
also no significant difference (P>0.05) among the drying methods at both four and twelve
weeks of storage. Likewise, there was no significant difference (P>0.05) among the
packaging materials used at both four and twelve weeks of storage. Significant interaction
(P>0.05) was not found between the treatment combination of drying methods and
packaging materials in overall acceptability at both four and twelve weeks of storage. The
ratings of the hedonic scale can be found in appendix 1.
4.4 Sensory Quality
The mean score of the quality attributes of dried tomato are presented in Table 24
to 26. Although the prepared stews were liked by the pane, dried tomato samples were
analysed for its sensory qualities before storage, at four weeks and twelve weeks of storage
by untrained panelists using 9.0 hedonic scale for colour, taste, aroma, consistency and
overall acceptability. Hedonic testing is limited use in sensory evaluation but is commonly
used, changes in descriptive rating does not necessary translate to difference in the quality
attributes. The ratings of the hedonic scale can be found in appendix 1.

Table 23: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Overall Acceptability of
Dried Tomato at Four and Twelve Weeks of Storage (WOS)

52
Treatments Before Storage 4 WOS 12 WOS

Drying Methods

Shade 7.00 7.33 7.33

Sun 7.00 7.56 7.44

Oven 7.00 7.67 7.44

Fresh Tomato 8.00

P<F NS NS NS

LSD

Packaging Materials

Polythene Bag 7.78 7.44

Plastic Container 8.00 7.33

Glass Jar 7.67 7.44

P<F NS NS

LSD(0.05)

Drying X Packaging NS NS
NS = Not significant

Table 24: Effects of Drying Methods on Mean Sensory Evaluation of Dried Tomato
at Initial Stage
Samples Colour Taste Aroma Consistency Overall
Acceptability

Shade Dried 7 7 7 7 7
Sun Dried 7 7 7 7 7

Oven Dried 7 7 7 7 7

53
 Fresh 9 8 8 8 8

KEYS:
9 = Like Extremely
8 = Like very Much
7 = Like Moderately
6 = Like Slightly
5 = Not Like No Dislike
4 = Dislike Slightly
3 = Dislike Moderately
2 = Dislike Very Much
1 = Dislike Extremely

Table 25: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Mean Sensory
Evaluation of Dried Tomato at Four (4) Weeks
Samples Colour Taste Aroma Consistency Overall
Acceptability

SH + PB 7 7 8 7 7
SH + PC 7 6 8 7 7

SH + GJ 8 7 7 7 7

SU + PB 7 7 8 7 7

54
 SU + PC 8 6 8 7 8

SU + GJ 8 7 8 7 8

OV + PB 7 7 8 7 8

OV + PC 8 7 8 7 8

OV + GJ 8 7 8 8 8

KEYS:
SH = Shade Dried 9 = Like Extremely 3 = Dislike Moderately
SU = Sun Dried 8 = Like very Much 2 = Dislike Very Much
OV = Oven Dried 7 = Like Moderately 1 = Dislike Extremely
PB = Polythene Bag 6 = Like Slightly
PC = Plastic Container 5 = Not Like No Dislike
GJ = Glass Jar 4 = Dislike Slightly

Table 26: Effects of Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Mean Sensory
Evaluation of Dried Tomato at Twelve (12) Weeks
Samples Colour Taste Aroma Consistency Overall
Acceptability

SH + PB 7 7 6 7 8
SH + PC 8 7 7 6 7

SH + GJ 7 7 6 7 7

SU + PB 7 7 7 7 7

SU + PC 8 7 7 7 8

55
 SU + GJ 7 7 7 8 8

OV + PB 7 7 8 7 8

OV + PC 8 7 7 7 7

OV + GJ 7 7 7 8 8

KEYS:
SH = Shade Dried 9 = Like Extremely 3 = Dislike Moderately
SU = Sun Dried 8 = Like very Much 2 = Dislike Very Much
OV = Oven Dried 7 = Like Moderately 1 = Dislike Extremely
PB = Polythene Bag 6 = Like Slightly
PC = Plastic Container 5 = Not Like No Dislike
GJ = Glass Jar 4 = Dislike Slightly

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.1 Effects of Different Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Physical
Properties of Dried Tomato
Studies on the effect of drying methods on physical parameters which includes
water absorption capacity and bulk density have shown variation in one of the physical
parameter both before storage of dried samples at four and twelve weeks of storage. The
drying methods have shown variation on the rate of water absorption capacity (mg/100g)
of dried samples with oven dried recording the highest rate of water absorption capacity as
compared to open sun and shade dried samples before storage and four weeks after storage.
Oven dried showed highest water absorption capacity and this is attributed to high drying

56
efficiency during the drying period. High reduction in moisture content will lead to higher
water absorption capacity during the subsequent use of the products, in other words, the
higher the drying efficiency the higher the water absorption capacity during subsequent
processing. According to Emperatriz et al. (2008), high reduction of moisture during
drying lead to high water absorption capacity and also decreases the perishability of the
products and extend shelf life, thereby making the products available almost all year round.
The ability of oven to dry the sample efficiently ensures the higher rate of water absorption
capacity and this study is in conformity with the findings of Damirel and Turhan (2003) on
dwarf canvedish and banana slices. Before storage, there was highly significant difference
(P≤0.01) and this could be as a result of high relative humidity of the outside environment.
There was no significant difference (P>0.05) observed at twelve weeks of storage. The
Packaging materials have shown no difference (P>0.05) on water absorption capacity
either at four or twelve weeks of storage. On the other hand, the study showed that there
was highly significant difference between the combination of drying methods with
packaging materials both at four and twelve weeks after storage but the difference
observed is not attributed to packaging materials rather is attributed to the drying methods
because of the initial drying methods.
There was no significant difference (P>0.05) observed on bulk density both before
storage and at four and twelve weeks of storage. This proved that the bulk density of dried
tomato was not generally affected by the particle size of the dried samples, drying methods
and even the packaging materials used. There was no significant difference (P>0.05)
observed between the treatments combination of drying methods and packaging materials
at four weeks but there was significant difference (P≤0.05) observed at twelve weeks after
storage. According to Mephba et al. (2007), reported that when the bulk density is low, it
suggest its potentiality in the formulation of complementary food where high nutrients are
needed, bulk density is generally depends on starch, protein content and particle size.
5.2 Effects of Different Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Chemical
Properties of Dried Tomato
Studies on the effect of different drying methods and packaging materials on chemical
parameters of dried tomato which includes percentage of moisture, ash, fibre, lipid, protein
carbohydrate, calorific value and ascorbic acid have shown variation in some of the
parameters. The percentage moisture content was observed to be highly significant
(P<0.01). There was highly significant difference between the fresh and dried samples
before storage, the high moisture content in fresh sample is not surprising since it has been

57
reported by Fakaye (2009),that fresh fruits contains basically 85% water. The lower
content of moisture of oven and sun dried samples is expected. Drying involves lowering
the amount of moisture to below 1-15% in fruits and vegetables (Dupriez and Coener,
1992). Moisture content of food is very important on nutrients density and shelf life of
agricultural produce. In general, the reduction of moisture leads to an increase in the shelf
life and concentration of other nutrients, therefore, for fruits and vegetables to be preserved
for long periods of time before use, the moisture content has to be reduced (Morris et al.,
2004). According to Kolawale et al. (2011), food substances, especially food crops with
high moisture content will favour the growth and multiplication of pathogenic microbes,
and moisture content of greater than 15% is said to promote enzymatic reactions of other
constituents of the dried products leading to loss of vitamins. Therefore, it was observed
that the moisture content of all the three drying methods of 5.90% and 5.67% for shade and
oven dried samples respectively were within the acceptable moisture level for dried fruits
and this are in conformity to that obtained by (Ukegbu et al., 2013). At both four and
twelve weeks of storage, neither the drying methods nor the packaging materials found to
be significant (P>0.05) and this could be as a result of proper drying, but the combination
effect was found to be highly significant at four weeks and not significant at twelve weeks
after storage. At four weeks of storage, there was significant difference (P≤0.05) between
the interaction from 4.48% to 2.62% and this could be attributed to the initial drying
methods before storage not the packaging materials.
The percentage Ash content was found to be highly significant (P≤0.01) both at the
initial stage of drying and four weeks after storage. At four weeks after storage, oven dried
sample was found to be better than sun and shade dried samples in terms of ash content
and this could be attributed to high drying efficiency of the oven. There was no significant
difference (P>0.05) observed at twelve weeks after storage, likewise no significant
difference observed among the packaging materials both at four and twelve weeks of
storage (P>0.05). There was significant difference (P≤0.05) between the combination
treatment at four weeks but no significant difference (P>0.05) observed at twelve weeks of
storage, this findings is similar to that obtained by (Onwuka, et al., 2002). The variation in
the ash content could be attributed to the type of drying methods used and high ash content
indicate the mineral content of food.
All the dried samples were found to be better than the fresh sample in terms of
crude fibre before storage. But no significant difference (P>0.05) was found among the
drying methods at four and twelve weeks after storage. This showed clearly that higher

58
drying temperature increases crude fibre. Dietary fibre is necessary for healthy condition,
curing of nutritional disorders and increase food digestion (Ifon et al., 2009). There was
significant difference (P≤0.05) and highly significant difference (P≤0.01) observed at four
and twelve weeks of storage respectively among the packaging materials. At four weeks,
glass jar was found to be better with and the trend continues the same way after twelve
weeks of storage. This finding is in conformity with the findings of Marsh and Bugusu
(2007), who reported that glass jar has a static chemical property and low permeability to
absorb moisture from the storage environment which ensures unimpaired taste, colour, and
other vital nutrients.
All the dried samples were found to be better than the fresh sample in terms of lipid
content at the initial stage of drying. The low percentage of lipid in the fresh sample could
be attributed to the higher moisture content of fresh sample. Neither the drying methods
nor the packaging materials was observed to be statistically difference (P>0.05) at four
weeks after storage but there was highly significant difference (P≤0.01) found in the
packaging materials at twelve weeks of storage. Glass jar was observed to be better in
maintaining the physicochemical properties of dried tomato than other packaging materials
and this is in conformity with the findings of Marsh and Bugusu (2007), who reported that
glass jar has a static chemical property and low permeability to absorb moisture from the
storage environment which ensures unimpaired taste, colour, and other vital nutrients..
The protein content in dried samples was observed to highly significant (P≤0.01)
from the fresh sample which and this is attributed to the high moisture content of the fresh
sample. At both four and twelve weeks of storage there was no significant difference
(P>0.05) observed among the drying methods. In the case of packaging materials, no
significant difference (P>0.05) observed at four weeks of storage, but there was highly
significant difference observed at twelve weeks of storage. Glass jar was better than it
counterparts plastic container and polythene bag respectively and this could be attributed to
the high efficiency of glass and static chemical properties to unimpaired taste, colour and
other quality attributes of the stored product as reported by (Marsh and Bugusu, 2007).
Carbohydrate content was highly significant (P≤0.01) before storage, all the three
drying methods were found to be better than the fresh sample before storage. Sun dried
samples were found to be better than the fresh sample had. This study is similar to the
finding of (Rosello et al., 2000). After drying the carbohydrate content of fruits and
vegetables increases, low carbohydrate of fresh fruit and vegetables showed that they
supply little or no energy when consumed except when supplanted with other foods

59
(Rosello et al., 2000). Oven dried was found to be better in terms of carbohydrate content
and this could be attributed to the high drying efficiency of oven to reduce higher moisture
content during the drying process. In the case of packaging materials, no significant
difference (P>0.05) observed both at four and twelve weeks of storage. On the other hand,
there was highly significant difference found between the interaction effect at four weeks,
but no significant difference observed between the interaction effect at twelve weeks after
storage. The interaction between oven dried with plastic container were found to be better.
The significant difference here could be as a result of the effect of drying methods.
Calorific value was observed to be highly significant before storage, high
carbohydrate content leads to the higher energy gain. The fresh sample was found to be
very low in Carbohydrate content as compared to other drying methods, thereby leads to
the low energy value. This study is similar to the findings of Rosello et al. (2000), who
reported that low carbohydrate of fresh fruit and vegetables showed that they supply little
or no energy value when consumed. In the case of packaging materials, no significant
difference (P>0.05) found both at four and twelve weeks after storage.
Ascorbic acid was observed to be highly significant difference (P≤0.01) at the
initial stage of drying, oven dried was statistically better while fresh sample was found to
be the least and this could be as a result high moisture content in the fresh sample. In all
the drying methods, vitamin C was depleted in the sun dried sample and could be as a
result of oxidative destruction in the present of oxygen, light, heat, moisture and metal ions
as reported by (Russell and McDowell, 1989). The trend also continues the same way at
four weeks of storage but no significant difference (P>0.05) was observed among the
drying methods at twelve weeks of storage. In the case of packaging materials, significant
difference (P≤0.05) was observed at four weeks but there was no significant difference
(P>0.05) at twelve weeks of storage. At four weeks, glass jar was found to be better than
plastic and polythene bag, and this could be as a result of low permeability and static
chemical property of glass that ensures it efficiency in preservation as reported by (Marsh
and Bugusu, 2007). On the other hand, there was highly significant difference observed
between the interaction at four weeks but no significant difference observed between the
interaction effect at twelve weeks of storage. The interaction between oven dried and glass
jar was observed to be better while the least was found from the interaction between sun
dried with glass jar and this could be as a result of confined and high drying efficiency of
oven as well as good preservation quality of glass jar.

60
5.3 Effects of Different Drying Methods and Packaging Materials on Storage
Stability of Dried Tomato
Shelf life refers to the end of consumers acceptability and it is the time of which
majority of the consumers are displeased with the products (Labuza and Schmid, 1985).
Studies on the effect of drying methods and packaging materials on storage stability
parameters which includes colour, taste, aroma, consistency and overall acceptability have
shown variation in some parameters mostly at the initial stage and four weeks after storage.
Dried samples of tomato were analysed for their sensory qualities during storage by
untrained panelists using 9.0 hedonic scale for all the sensory parameters. There was
highly significant difference (P≤0.05) observed in colour changes among the drying
methods before storage. Fresh sample was found to be better than all the dried samples and
this could be as a result that fresh fruits have good colour appearance than dried ones,
though all the samples were accepted by the panelists. Colour is an important attribute
because it is usually the first property the consumers observed. Retention of food colour
after thermal processing may be used to predict the extent of potential shelf life and of food
(Shin and Bhomik, 1985). There was no significant difference (P>0.05) observed among
the drying methods both at four and twelve weeks of storage while highly significant
difference was observed among the packaging materials both at four and twelve weeks of
storage. At four weeks, glass jar was observed to be better than plastic container and
polythene bag and this is in conformity with the findings of Marsh and Bagusu (2007) who
reported that glass container has a static chemical property and low permeability to absorb
moisture from the storage environment which ensures unimpaired taste, colour, and other
vital nutrients. On the other hand, no significant difference (P≤0.05) was found between
the interaction effect at both four and twelve weeks of storage.
Fresh sample was found to be better than the other dried samples in terms of taste
before storage though all the samples were liked by the panelists, while sun dried sample
was found to least and could be as a result of oxidative destruction in the present of
oxygen, light, heat, moisture and metal ions as reported by (Russell and McDowell, 1989).
There was no significant difference (P>0.05) found at both four and twelve weeks of
storage in all the drying methods, but there was highly significant difference was observed
among the packaging materials at only four weeks after storage. Glass jar was found to be
better than it counterpart and this is in conformity with the findings of Marsh and Bagusu
(2007) who reported that glass container has a static chemical property and low
permeability to absorb moisture from the storage environment which ensures unimpaired

61
taste, colour, and other vital nutrients.. On the other hand, there was no significant
difference observed between the interaction effect at four and twelve weeks of storage.
Aroma was observed to be not significantly difference (P>0.05) before storage,
both the fresh sample and dried samples were liked and accepted by the panelists and this
could be attributed to the blanching of the fruit prior to drying. No significant difference
(P>0.05) was found in the drying methods at four weeks but there was highly significant
difference observed at twelve weeks of storage. In the case of packaging materials, no
significant difference observed at four weeks but there was significant difference at twelve
weeks of storage. Plastic container and polythene bag were statistically better than glass jar
.There was also no significant difference observed between the interaction at four weeks
but significant difference was found at twelve weeks of storage.
Consistency of the samples was found to be significant difference (P≤0.05) before
storage, the fresh sample had more consistency than all the dried samples and could be
attributed to its freshness form. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) found in the
drying methods at four weeks but there was significant difference (P≤0.05) observed at
twelve weeks of storage. At twelve weeks, oven dried samples was found to be better and
this confined environment and high drying efficiency of oven. In the case of packaging
materials, there was significant difference found both at four and twelve weeks of storage.
At both four and twelve weeks, glass jar was found to be statistically better and this could
be attributed to high quality and effectiveness of glass jar against the other packaging
materials. On the other hand, there was no significant difference observed between the
interaction effect both at four and twelve weeks of storage.

Overall acceptability was found to be not significant both before storage, four and twelve
weeks of storage by either the drying methods or the packaging materials and this could be
attributed to the pretreatment (blanching) of tomato fruits prior to drying and subsequent
packaging before storage.

62
 CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Summary
Tomato was cultivated during the 2017 cropping season at Dumne, Song Local
Government Area of Adamawa State, Nigeria. The variety cultivated was ‘Rio de grande’
and the crop established very well on the field after transplanted and all cultural practices
were executed as at when due. The harvested tomato fruits were subjected to three
different drying methods (shade, sun and oven) and packaging materials (polythene bag,
plastic container and glass jar) at the department of crop production and horticulture while
the physical and chemical analysis was conducted at the department of food science and
technology, Modibbo Adama University of Technology, Yola, Adamawa state. Food
drying is one of the method that is used to preserve some perishable agricultural produce;
in order to ensure their availability almost all year round, reduce postharvest losses and
achieve food security.
6.2 Conclusion
In this study, the various drying methods used were capable of preserving the
nutrients in the food crops without total loss of any nutrient. Shade dried and oven dried
samples were found to be more nutritive, on the other hand, oven drying and sun drying
were faster than the shade drying method. Oven drying was more cost effective and gave
the lowest moisture content in this study, suggesting higher capacity to prevent microbial
growth and decay in the dried samples, thus confers a greater increase in shelf-life on the
dried samples. On the other hand, glass container was found to be better in terms of
maitaining physical and chemical properties of the dried samples followed by plastic
container.
6.3 Recommendations
The demand for tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum) by the growing population has
not been met despite the increase in production of this crop, this is as a result of 45-50% of
postharvest losses. It is therefore, recommended that;
1. There is need to process and preserve tomato especially at the peak of production so
as to make it availability almost all year round.
2. The use of shade or oven drying and should be adopted for proper nutritive value.
3. The use of glass jar and plastic container should be adopted for proper preservation
of dried tomato.

63
 4. Tomato for immediate processing should be harvested at fully ripe stage and free
from decay and disease for better quality during processing and storage.
5. Further studies should be carried out on the factors that affect the storability of both
fresh and dried tomato for it availability to the increasing demand.
6.4 Contribution to Knowledge
This research contributed to knowledge in the following ways:
1. Shade dried samples revealed better quality and nutritive value retention during the
storage period.
2. Oven drying remove higher moisture content efficiently and at a very short time than
other drying methods.
3. Glass jar maintain better quality and nutritive value of dried samples of tomato
better than the plastic container and polythene bag, but it also has the disadvantage
of fragility.
4. Consumption of either fresh or dried tomato can be used as source of dietary
diversification as antioxidants.

64
 REFERENCES
AACC International (2010). Approved methods of analysis,11th edn (On-line). AACC
International, St. Paul, MN, USA: American Association of Cereal Chemists.
Adaskaveg, J.E., Forster, H., and sommer, N.F., (2002).Principles of post-harvest
pathology and management of decays of edible horticultural crops. P.196-197.
Adubofuor, J. E., Amankwah, A., Arthur, B. S. and Appiah, F. (2010). Comparative study
related to physico-chemical properties and sensory qualities of tomato juice and
cocktail juice produced from oranges, tomatoes and carrots. African Journal of
Food Science. 4(7): 427 – 433.

Ahmed, J., Shivhare, U. S. and Singh, G. (2001). Drying Characteristics and Product
Quality of Coriander Leaves. Journal of Food and Bioproducts Processing, 79:.
103–106.

Agrios,G. N. (2005). Plant Pathology, 5th Edition, Academic Press, New York, USA. P: 58

Alam, T., Tanweer, G. and Goyal, G.K. (2007). Stewart Postharvest Review, Packaging
and storage of tomato puree and paste. Postharvest Review3(5): 1-8

Alamu, O. J. Nwaokocha, C. N and Adunola, O. (2010). Design and construction of a

domestic passive solar food dryer, Leonardo Journal of Sciences. p. 71-82.

Ames, B.M., Shigena, M.K., Hagen, T.M. (1993). Oxidants, antioxidants and the
Degenerative Diseases of Ageing. Journal of Health National academic Science.
7915-7922.

Ashby, H. (2000). Protecting Perishable Foods during Transport by Truck. Transportation

and Marketing Programs. USDA Handbook. Pp 1-

Ayandiji, A. O. R. and Adeniyi, O. D. (2011). Determinant Post-harvest Losses among

Tomato Farmers in Imeko-Afon Local Government Area of Ogun State, Nigeria.
Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 11(5): 22-28.

Bani, R. J., Josiah, M. N. and Kra, E. Y. (2006). Postharvest Losses of Tomatoes in

Transit.Agricultural Mechanization of Latin American Journal Code: S0084B.
37(2): 84-86

Barceloux, D. G. (2008). Potatoes, Tomatoes and Solanine Toxicity (Solanum

tuberosum,L., Solanum lycopersicum L.) pp. 77-83. P

Barceloux, D. G. (2009). Potatoes, Tomatoes and Solanine Toxicity (Solanum tuberosum,

L., Solanum lycopersicum L.). Disease-a-Month 55 (6): Pp. 391- 402.

Bok, I. M., Madisa, D., Machcha, M., Moamogwe, and More, K. (2006). Manual for
vegetable production in Botswana. Department of Agricultural Research.
Gaborone. Botswana.

65
Bhowmik, S. R. and Shin S. (1995) Thermal kinetics of colour changes in pea puree.
Journal of Food Engineering.24: 77-86.

Campbell, J. K., Canene-Adams, K., Lindshield, B. L., Boileau, T. W., Clinton, S. K.,
Erdman, J. W. Jr. (2004).Tomato phytochemicals and prostate cancer risk.
American Journal of Nutrition. 134(12):3486-3492

Cha, D. S. and Chinnan, M. S. (2004). Biopolymer-based antimicrobial packaging: A

review. Review of Food Science and Nutrition. 44(2):223-237.

Chou S. K. (2001). Osmotic Dehydration of Potato and Carrots. Drying Technology,19:

2193-2207.

Cobley, L.S. and Steele, W. M. (1976). An Introduction to the Botany of Tropical Crops.
Second edition. Longman Group Limited London.

Chua, K. J. and Chou, S.K. (2003) Low-cost drying methods for developing countries.
Trends in Food Science and Technology 14: 519-528.

Demirel, D. and Turhan M. (2003). Air drying behavior of Dwarf Cavendish and gros
Michel banana slices. Journal of Food Engineering. 59: 1-11.

Dillard, H. and Reiners, S. (2010). Diagnosing Tomato Problems. University of Cornell.

College of Agriculture& Life Science. New York State Agric. Experiment Station
Bulletin (1885-1970): [961]

Dumas, Y., Dadomo, M., Di Lucca, G. and Grolier, P. (2003). Effects of environmental
factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. Journal of
Science and Food Agriculture83:369-382.

Dupriez, H. and Coener, P .(1992). African garden and orchards growing vegetables and
fruits. Macmillan Press Limited, London, pp. 35- 46.

Emperatriz, P. D., Ronald, M., Elevina, P. and Mily S. (2008). Production and
characterization of unripe plantain (Musa paradisiacal L.). Flours: Intercienca, 33:
290-296.

Engelhard, Y.N., Gazer, B. and Paran, E. (2006). Natural antioxidants from tomato extract
reduce blood pressure in patients with grade-1 hypertension: a double-blind, placeb
controlled pilot study. American Heart Journal.151(1).

Fakeye, I. O .(2009). Nigerian Leafy Vegetables. Nigeia Journal of Food Science. 1: 55.

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (2001). Processing, Preservation and Storage. Home
Gardening Technology. InImproving Nutrition through Home Gardening. A
training package for preparing field workers in Africa. Nutrition
Programmes Service Food and Nutrition Division Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2001.
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/X3996E/x39
96e42.htm [accessed 03 March 2017].

66
Food and Agriculture Organisation, (2008). Vegetations Types of Ghana. (Online)
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/agpc/doc/Counprof/Ghana/ghanaveg.htm.Accessed
February 6, 2017. 10:54am GMT

Food and Agriculture Organisation, (2009). Course on agribusiness management for

producers’ associations. Module 4 Post-harvest and marketing. Santacoloma P,
Roettger A, Tartanac F. (eds) Training materials for agricultural management,
marketing and finance. 8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.

Giovannucci, E. (1999). Tomatoes, tomato-based products, lycopene, and prostate cancer:

Review of the epidemiologic literature. Journal of National Cancer Institution.
91:317-331.

Giovannucci, E., Rimm, E. B., Liu, Y., Stampfer, M. J. and Willett, W. C. (2002). A
prospective study of tomato products, lycopene, and prostate cancer risk. Journal
of National Cancer Institution 94:391-398

Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F.,
Pretty, J. et al., (2010). Food Security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.
Science 327:812-818

Gould, W. A. (1992). Tomato production, processing and technology. Third edition,

Woodhead Publishing Limited. Pp 2-158.

Gracia, J. M., S. Herrera and A Morilla. (1996). Effects of postharvest dips in calcium
chloride on strawberry. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. 44: 30-33.

Griffiths, N. (1985). Sensory analysis in measuring shelf-life. Food, Flavors, Ingredients,

Packaging and Processing 7: 47-48.

Gross, M.D. and Snowdon, D.A. (2001). Plasma lycopene and longevity: findings from the
Nun Study. FASEB Journal VOL 15. NO.4. Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology. Pp. A400.

Hassan, S. W., Umar, R. A., Maishanu, H. M., Matazu, I. K., Faruk, U. Z. and Sani A. A.
(2007). The Effect of Drying Method on Nutrients and Non-nutrients Composition
of Leaves (Gynandropsis gynandra). Asian Journal of Biochemistry.2: 349-353
Heber, D. and Lu, Q.Y. (2002). Overview of mechanisms of action of lycopene.
Experimental Biology Med (Maywood).227(10): 920.
Herzog, A., Siler, U., Spitzer, V., Seifert, N., Denelavas, A., Hunziker, P. B. et al., (2005).
Lycopene reduced gene expression of steroid targets and inflammatory markers in
normal rat prostate. FASEB Journal 19. 10: 272-274
Honglei, S., Agarwal, S. and Rao, A.V. (2001). Lycopene Content of Tomato Products: Its
Stability, Bioavailability and In Vivo Antioxidant Properties. Journal of Medicinal
Food. 4(1): 9-15

67
Hurst, W. C., Reynolds, A. E., Schuler, A. G. & Christian, J. A. (1993). Maintaining Food
Quality in Storage. Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 914. Univ. of Georgia
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science. (Postharvest Training /Food
Processing/Food quality storage).
http://www.Leadership2015great tomato waste in Nigeria

http://www. Leadership 2013//great tomato loss in Nigeria

Ibitoye, D. O., Akin-Idowu, P. E. and Ademoyegu, O. T. (2009). Agronomic and Lycopene

Evaluation in Tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum Mill.) As a Function of
Genotype. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences5 (5): 892-895. IDOSI
Publication. ISSN 1817- 304.
Ifon, E. T. Bassir, O. and Latunde-Dada G.O. (2009). The nutritive value of some Nigeria
leafy vegetables. Part 1, Vitamin and mineral content. Journal of Food Chemistry,
3: 267- 350.

Ilker, R., Kader, A. A. and Morris, L. L. (1977). Anatomical box symptoms on tomato
fruit. Phytopathology 67: 1227 – 1231

Inyang, U.E., Ike, C.I., 1998. Effect of Blanching, Dehydration Method, Temperature on
the Ascorbic Acid, Color, Sliminess and other Constituents of Okra Fruit,
International Journal of Food Science and Nutrition.49. 125–130.

Inyang, C., Tsav-Wua, J. & Akpapunam, M. (2006). Impact of traditional processing

methods on some physico chemical and sensory qualities of fermented casava
flour" kpor umilin". African Journal of Biotechnology,5, 1985-1988.

Iwe, M. O. (2002). Handbook of sensory method and analysis. Rejoint comm. Ervices ltd,
Uwani Enugu Pp: 11-13.

Jasim, A. (2011). Hand book of vegetables and vegetable processing, wiley blackwell,
USA.

Jensen, L. and Shock, C. (2009). Common Tomato Varieties. US Dept. of Agric & Oregon
State Extension Service Oregon State University. (Online)
http://www.cropinfo.net/CommonTomatoVarietiesApril2010.pdf.
Accessed:November 14, 2016. 14:15pm GMT.
Josef, B. (2006). Hand book of fruits and fruit processing, Blackwell publishing, USA.

Karapinar, N. and Gonul, S. A. (1992). Removal of Yersinia Enterocolitica from Fresh

Parsleyby Washing with Acetic Acid or Vinegar. International Journal of Food
Microbiology.16. 261–264.

Keith, R. E. (1999). Antioxidants and Health. Pp: 1-4. Pub: Alabama Cooperative
Extension System Pub ID: HE-0778

68
King, F. S and Ann, B.(1992). Nutrition in Developing Countries, 2nd edition. Tropical
Development and research Institute, London, United Kingdom.

Kitinoja, L. (2004). Small-Scale Marketing Strategies Manual. UC PTRIC Horticultural

Series No. 21. Pp. 1-8.

Kitinoja, L. (2008). Causes and Sources of Postharvest Problems. Postharvest Training

CDRom\Sample Presentations. From Ghana. Pp 1 -19.

Kitinoja, L. and Gorny, J. (2009)1. Storage Practices and Structures. Postharvest

Technology for Fruit & Vegetable Produce Marketers. 3-5

Knapp, S., Bohs, L., Nee, M., Spooner, D.M. (2004). Solanaceae-a model for linking
genomics with biodiversity. Comp. Funct. Genom. 5:285–291.

Knekt, P., Kumpulainen, J., Järvinen, R., Rissanen, H., Heliövaara, M., Reunanen,
A., Hakulinen, T. and Aromaa, A. (2002). Flavonoid intake and risk of chronic
diseases. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 76(3):560-8.

Kolawole O.M, Ayiboye A.E, Aturu E. E and Anibijuwun I. I .(2011). Effect of solar
drying on the proximate and microbial composition of Abelmoschus esculentus.
Journal of Microbial Biotechnology. 1: 71 – 81.

Kósambo L. (2004). Effect of storage and processing on carotene content in fresh

sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) roots and its products. CIP Funded
Research Project: Annual Report (July 2003 – June 2004). Kenya Industrial
Research and Development Institute. Nairobi. 11pp.

Kybal, J. (1993). Plantas Aromaticas y Culinarias (Madrid Susaeta, 1993), 122: Simon
Varey,Rafael Chabrań, Dora B. Weiner (2000). Searching for the secrets of nature:
the life and works of Dr. Francisco Hernandez. Published by Stanford University
Press. Pp167.

Labuza TP, Schmidl MK (1985) Accelerated shelf-life testing of foods. Journal of Food
Technology 39: 57- 64.

Luna-Guzman, I., M. Cantwell and D. M. Barrett. 1999. Fresh-cut Cantaloup: Effects of

CaCl2 dips and heat treatments on firmness and metabolic activity. Postharvest
Biology Technology. 17:201-207

Lewis, K. (2007). All about Tomatoes. Backyard Gardening Jalic Inc. 2005-201. (Online)
http://www.backyardgardening.net/article/tomatoes-profile/ Accessed: January 18,
2017. 12:16pm GMT

Lindshield, B. L., Canene-Adams, K., and Erdman, J.W. Jr. (2006). Lycopenoids: Are
lycopene metabolites bioactive? Arch. Biochemistry and Biophysics. 458, Issue 2.
Pages 136-140. Pub: Elsevier Inc.

Marsh K, Bugusu B (2007). Food packaging? Roles, materials, and environmental issues.
Journal of Food Science.72(3):39-55.

69
Mate, J. I., Zwietering, M. and vant Riet, K. (1999). The Effect of Blanching on the
Mechanical and Rehydration Properties of Dried Potato Slices, European Food
Research and Technology,209. 343–347.

Matsushima, N.R., Shidoji,Y., Nishiwaki, S., Yamada, T., Moriwaki, H. and Muto, Y.
(1995). Suppression by carotenoids of microcystin-induced morphological changes
in mouse hepatocytes. Lipids Vol. 30, Number 11. Pp 1029-1034, DOI:
10.1007/BF02536288. AOCS Press.

Meir, S., Rosenberger, I., Aharon, Z., Grinberg, S. and Fallik, E. (1995). Improvement of
the postharvest keeping quality and colour development of bell pepper (cv. ‘Maor’)
by packaging with polyethylene bags at a reduced temperature. Postharvest Biology
and Technology. 5(4):303-309.

Mepba, H. D., Eboh, L. and Nwaojigwa, S. U. (2007). Chemical Composition, Functional

and Baking Properties of Wheat Plantain composite flours. African Journal of
Food and Agricultural Nutrition.7(1): 22.

Mexis, S. F., Badeka, A. V., Riganakos, K. A., Karakostas, K. X. and Kontominas, M. G.

(2009). Effect of packaging and storage conditions on quality of shelled walnuts.
Food Control 20 (8):743-751.

Mignani, I., L. C. Greve, R. Ben-Arie, H. U. Stotz, C. Li, K. Shakel and J. Labavitch.

(1995). The effect of GA and divalent cations on aspects of pectin metabolism and
tissue softening of ripening tomato pericarp. Physiology of Plant., 93: 108-115.

Morris A, Barnett A, Burrows O . (2004). Effect of processing on nutrient content of

foods: Asian Journal of Biochemistry, 37 (3): 160 – 164.

Naika, N., van Lidt de Jeude, J., de Goffau, M., Hilmi, M. and van Dam, B. (2005).
Cultivation of tomato, production, processing and marketing. Agrodok-series
No. 17.

Naphaporn, C., Praphraiphetch,C. and Devahastin, S. (2010). Effect of Pretreatment

on SurfaceTopographical Features of Vegetables during Drying, Journal of Food
Engineering,101. 41–48.

Nonneoke, I. L. (1989). Vegetable Production. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, Pp

657.

Ogiehor, I. & Ikenebomeh, M. (2006). The effects of different packaging materials on the
shelf stability of garri. African Journal of Biotechnology,5, 741-745.

Onwuga, G. I. (2005). Food Analysis and instrumentation, theory and practice. Nepthali
Prints. Pp. 111.

Onwuka, G. I., Nwabara, C. C., Nwokedi, P. M., Echendu, C. A., Asumugha, U. and
Igboekwe, M. U. (2002). Comparative studies of the efficacy of sun drying, solar
dryer and hot air oven in the preservation of tomatoes, okra, pepper and onion.
Nigeria Journal of Food Science. 20: 10 – 14.

70
Opara, U. L . (2011). From hand holes to vent holes: What’s next in innovative
horticultural packaging? Inaugural Lecture, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.

Opara, U. L. & Mditshwa, A. (2013). A review on the role of packaging in securing food
system: Adding value to food products and reducing losses and waste. African
Journal of Agricultural,8, 2621-2630.

Opena, R.T. and Kyomo, M. L. (1990). Vegetable Research and Development in

SADCC Countries: Proceedings of workshop held at Arusha, Tanzania, 9 – 13
July 1990. AVRDC Publication No. 90 – 328.

Orishagbemi, C. O., Ozumba, A. U. and Olatunji, O. (2000). Effect of Simulated Shaded

Drying on the Colour Stability of Dehydrated Okra. Proceedinds, 20th Annual
Conferences. Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi. 103-105.

Orzolek, M. D., Bogash, M. S., Harsh, M. R., Lynn, F., Kime, L. F.,Jayson, K., et al.,
(2006). Tomato Production. Agricultural Alternatives Pub. Code # UA291. Pp. 2-3.

Osborne, D. R. and Voogt, P. (1978). The analysis of Nutrients in Foods. Academic press,
London Pp 128.

Osunde Z. D. and Musa Makama, A. L. (2007). Assessment of Changes of Nutritional

Values of Locally Sun-dried vegetables. Journal of Food Technology. 10(4): 248-
253.

Paine, F. A. and Paine, H. Y. (1992). A handbook of food packaging. 2nd Edition. Blackie
Academic and Professional.

Paran, I. and van der Knaap, E. (2007). Genetic and molecular regulation of fruit and plant
domestication traits in tomato and pepper. Journal of Experimental Biotechnology.
58 (14): 3841-3852.

Prashanth, S. J. (2003). Genetic variability and divergence studies in tomato

(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill).M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural
Science, Dharwad (India).

Proulx, E., Nunes, M. C. N., Emond, J. P. and Brecht, J. K. (2005). Quality attributes
limiting papaya postharvest life at chilling and non chilling temperatures. Proc. Fla.
State Horticultural Socociety. 118: 389 – 395.

Quested, T. Parry, A. Easteal, S. and Swannell, R. (2011). Food and drink waste from
households in the UK. Nutr. Bull. 36(4):460-467.

Ramesh, M. N., Wolf Tevini, D. and Jung, G. (2001). Influence of Processing

Parameters on the Drying of Spice Paprika, Journal of Food Engineering,49.
63–72.

Rao, L.G., Mackinnon, E.S., Josse, R.G., Murray, T.M., Strauss, A. and Rao, A.V. (2007).
Lycopene consumption decreases oxidative stress and bone resorption markers in
postmenopausal women. Osteoporosis Int.18 (1). Pp: 109-15.
71
Reader, L. (2003). Tomatoes in the Desert Garden. University of Arizona Coop. Ext.
Master Gardener Journal. Pub. Maricopa County Master Gardeners. (Online)
http://ag.arizona.edu/maricopa/garden/html/pubs/0103/bountiful.html Accessed:
18th October, 2016.

Relf, D., McDaniel, A. and Morse, R. (2009). Tomatoes. Virginia Cooperative Extension
Publication 426-381.

Riso, P., Visioli, F., Grande, S., Guarnieri, S., Gardana, C., Simonetti, P., Porrini, M.
(2006). Effect of a tomato-based drink on markers of inflammation,
immunomodulation, and oxidative stress. Journal of Agricultural Food
Chemistry. 5;54(7). Pp: 2563-6.

Robinson, J.Z.E. and Kolavalli, L. S. (2010). The Case of Tomato in Ghana: Processing.
Working Paper # 21. Development and Strategy Governance Division, IFPRI,
Accra, Ghana: Ghana Strategy Support Program (GSSP) GSSP. Pp: 1-10.

Robertson, G. L. (2010). Food packaging and shelf life: A Practical Guide. Taylor and
Francis Group, Boca Raton, USA.

Robertson, G. L. (2011). Paper-based packaging of frozen foods. In Handbook of Frozen

Food Processing and Packaging Edited by D. (Sun Second), CRC Press

Rossello C, Berna A, Mulet A .2000. Solar drying of fruits in a Mediterranean climate.

Drying Technol. 8 (2): 305 – 321.
Russel, ., McDowell, R. L .(1989). Vitamin in animal nutrition, comparative aspects to
human nutrition. Academy Press Inc; New York, pp. 340 – 352.

Sablani, S. S. (2006). Drying of Fruits and Vegetables: Retention of Nutritional and

FunctionalQuality, Drying Technology, 24: 428–432.

Sacco, A. (2008). Genetic Mechanisms underlying Tomato Quality Traits. Università Degli
Studi Di Napoli Federico II. Pp. 1 – 16

Salunkhe, D. K., Bolin H. R. and Reddy N. R. (1991). Processing, storage andNutritional

Quality of Fruits and Vegetables. 2nd edition, CRC Press inc., Boca Raton, FI,
USA. Pp 2.

Stanly, D. W., M. C. Bourne, A. P. Stone and W. V. Wismer. 1995. Low temperature

blanching effects on chemistry, firmness and structure of canned green beans and
carrots. Food Science., 60:327-333.

Severini, C., Baiano, A., Pilli, T. D., Carbone, B. F. and Derossi, A. (2005). Combined
Treatments of Blanching and Dehydration: Study on Potato Cubes, Journal of
Food Engineering,68. 289–296.

Sesso, H. D, Liu, S., Gaziano, J. M., Buring J. E. (2003). Dietary lycopene, tomato-based
food products and cardiovascular disease in women. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition.;133(7). Pp: 2336- 41.

72
Shin S, Bhowmik SR (1995). Thermal kinetics of color changes in pea puree. Journal of
Food Eng 24: 77-86.

Siler, U., Barella, L., Spitzer, V., Schnorr, J., Lein, M., Goralczyk, R. and Wertz, K.
(2004). Lycopene and vitamin E interfere with autocrine/paracrine loops in the
Dunning prostate cancer model. FASEB Journal18: 1019-1021.
Srinivasan, R. (Ed.) (2010). Safer tomato production methods: A field guide for soil
fertility and pest management. AVRDC – The World Vegetable Centre, Shanhua,
Taiwan. AVDRC Publication No. 10 – 740. Pp 2 - 97.
Sun, T., Simon, P.W., Tanumihardjo, S.A. (2009). Antioxidants and Antioxidant Capacity
of Biofortified Carrots (Daucus Carota, L.) of Various Colors. USDA Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 57(10):Pp4142-4147.
Tindall, R. L. (1988). Tomato in the tropical Western press Boulder, Colorado. 56-71.

Ukegbu, P. O. and Okereke, C. J. (2013). Effect of solar and sun drying methods on the
nutrient composition and microbial load in selected vegetables, African Spinach
(Amaranthus hybridus), fluted pumpkin (Telferia occidentalis), and okra (Hibiscus
esculentus). Sky Journal of Food Science. 2 (5).35-40

Van der Hoeven, R. S., Ronning, C., Giovannoni, J. J., Martin, G. and Tanksley, S.
D.(2002). Deductions about the number, organization, and evolution of genes in the
tomato genome based on analysis of a large expressed sequence tag collection and
selective genomic sequencing. The Plant Cell 14, pp. 1441–1456.

Van Hal, M. (2000). Quality of sweetpotato flour during processing and storage. Food
Review International 16, 1-37.

Varela, A. M., Seif, A. andLohr, B. (2003). A guide to IPM in tomato production in

Eastern and Southern Africa. CTA/ICIPE/GTZ.

Veershetty, V. (2004). Studies on variability, character association and genetic diversityin

tomato(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). M.Sc. (Agric.) Thesis, University of
Agriculture, Dharwad (India).

Wilcox, G. E. (1970). Influence of row spacing and plant density on single harvest
tomato yields. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science. 95:435-
437.

Woolfe, J. A. (1992). Postharvest procedures: Sweet Potato an Untapped Food Source.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pp 643.

Yaldyz, O. and Ertekyn, C. (2001). Thin layer solar drying of some vegetables. Journal of
Drying Technology,19. 583–597.

Yu, K., Newman, M.C., Archbold, D. and Hamilton-Kemp, T.R. (2001). Survival of
Escherichia Coli O157:H7 on Strawberry Fruit and Reduction of the Pathogen
Population by Chemical Agents, Journal of Food Protection,6. 1334–1340.

73
 APPENDICES

Appendix I: Specimen Evaluation Sheet for Hedonic Rating of Stew Prepared From
Dried Tomato Samples

Name:………………………........................... Date:……………………

You are presented with coded samples of stew, please you are to assess each at a time and
score the degree of difference using the scale below:

Like Extremely = (9)

Like Very Much = (8)

Like Moderately = (7)

Like Slightly = (6)

Not Like Nor Dislike = (5)

Dislike Slightly = (4)

Dislike Moderately = (3)

Dislike Very Much = (2)

Dislike Extremely = (1)

ATTRIBUT A B C D E F G H I
E
Colour
Consistency
Taste
Aroma
Overall
Acceptability

Appendix II: Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Percentage
Moisture, Ash, Fibre, and Lipid after four and twelve weeks of
storage

Source of variation DF After four weeks

% Moisture % Ash % Fibre % Lipid % Moisture

Replication 2 0.109 0.084 0.009 0.000 1.231

74
Drying 2 1.540NS 5.234** 0.05NS 0.000NS 2.565NS

Error (a) 4 0.677 0.263 0.014 0.000 2.593

Packaging 2 0.023NS 0.028NS 0.117* 0.000NS 6.037NS

Drying x packaging 4 1.532** 0.639* 0.006NS 0.000NS 1.773NS

Error (b) 12 0.128 0.156 0.024 0.000 2.097

75
Appendix III: Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Percentage
Protein, CHO, Calorific Value and Vit. C after four and twelve weeks
of storage

Source of variation DF After four weeks

% Protein % CHO Calorific Vit. C % Protein
Value
Replication
2 0.006 0.374 5.492 0.019 0.008

Drying 2 0.007NS 14.469* 227.203* 12.084** 0.003NS

Error (a) 4 0.005 1.412 20.088 0.087 0.007

Packaging 2 0.018NS 0.709NS 8.115NS 10.413** 0.087**

Drying x packaging 4 0.002NS 3.292** 54.174** 8.747** 0.003NS

Error (b) 12 0.007 0.508 7.381 0.043 0.009

76
Appendix IV: Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Bulk
density, Water Absorption Capacity, Colour and Aroma after
four and twelve weeks of storage

Source of variation DF After four weeks

Bulk Water Colour Aroma Bulk
Density Absorption Density A
Replication
2 0.000 0.007 0.037 1.037 0.000

Drying 2 0.001NS 0.241** 0.148NS 0.037NS 0.000**

Error (a) 4 0.000 0.006 0.093 0.148 0.000

Packaging 2 0.000NS 0.009NS 0.259NS 0.259NS 0.000NS

Drying x packaging 4 0.000NS 0.234** 0.204** 0.204NS 0.000NS

Error (b) 12 0.000 0.036 0.167 0.167 0.000

77
Appendix V: Combined Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Taste,
Consistency and Overall Acceptability after four and twelve weeks of
storage

Source of variation DF After four weeks After t

Taste Consistency Overall Taste Consis

Acceptability

Replication 2 0.037 0.037 0.482 0.259 0.3

Drying 2 0.594NS 0.148NS 0.259NS 0.037NS 1.33

Error (a) 4 0.204 0.037 0.148 0.093 0.1

Packaging 2 0.926** 0.926* 0.037NS 0.259NS 0.77

Drying x packaging 4 0.259NS 0.593NS 0.204NS 0.093NS 0.11

Error (b) 12 0.926 0.204 0.315 0.093 0.1

78
Appendix VI: Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Percentage Moisture,
Ash, Fibre, Lipid, Protein, CHO, Calorific Value and Vit. C at Initial
State of Drying

Source of Variation DF % Moisture % Ash % Fibre % Lipid % Protein %

Replication 2 0.889 0.001 0.120 0.003 0.004

Drying 3 6060.945** 5.523** 146.018** 5.454** 2.322** 35

Error 6 0.405 0.000 0.117 0.005 0.003

79
Appendix VII: Mean Square from the Analysis of Variance for Bulk density, water
Absorption Capacity, Colour, Aroma, Taste, consistency and
Overall Acceptability at Initial State of Drying

Source of Variation DF Bulk density Water Colour Aroma Taste

Absorption

Replication 2 0.000 0.004 0.250 0.333 0.333

Drying 3 0.000NS 0.314** 1.889** 1.194NS 2.306**

Error 6 0.000 0.009 0.139 0.444 0.222

80