G Model

POSTEC-9194; No. of Pages 6 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Postharvest Biology and Technology xxx (2010) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Postharvest Biology and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/postharvbio

Postharvest UV-B irradiation maintains sensory qualities and enhances

antioxidant capacity in tomato fruit during storage
Changhong Liu a , Xiaoxu Han a , Luyun Cai a , Xianying Lu a , Tiejin Ying a, , Zhenhui Jiang a,b
a
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Zhejiang University, Kaixuan Road 268#, Hangzhou 310029, PR China
b
School of Food and Biological Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Mature-green tomato fruit (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Zhenfen 202) were exposed to different doses of
Received 26 June 2010 UV-B irradiation (10, 20, 40 and 80 kJ/m2 ) and stored in the dark at 14 C, 95% RH for up to 37 d. Of the
Accepted 3 September 2010 four doses, 20 or 40 kJ/m2 was most effective in maintaining a high level of rmness and delaying the
colour development. Furthermore, 20 or 40 kJ/m2 promoted the accumulation of total phenolics and total
Keywords: avonoids, and enhanced antioxidant capacity during storage, though UV-B irradiation could reduce the
Tomato
ascorbic acid content. A dose of 10 kJ/m2 had similar effects but to a lesser extent. The highest dose of
Postharvest UV-B irradiation
80 kJ/m2 resulted in higher lycopene content, but showed negative effects on texture, colour, and other
Sensory qualities
Antioxidants
antioxidants. The optimum dose of UV-B for maintaining sensory qualities and enhancing antioxidant
Storage capacity was 20 or 40 kJ/m2 . These results suggest that UV-B irradiation appears to be a useful non-
chemical way of maintaining postharvest quality and enhancing antioxidant capacity in tomato fruit.

2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Tomato fruit (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is a versatile veg-
etable that is consumed fresh as well as in the form of processed
products (Toor and Savage, 2005). It is among the most popularly
consumed fruit in the world and as such could be considered as
an important source of dietary antioxidants (Lenucci et al., 2006).
Tomato components such as lycopene, phenolics, avonoids and
vitamins C and E are mainly responsible for the antioxidant activ-
ity of raw tomatoes and processed tomato products (Leonardi et al.,
2000; Stewart et al., 2000). Results from epidemiological studies
have shown that high consumption of tomato fruit is consistently
correlated with a reduced risk of some types of cancer (Franceschi
et al., 1994) and may account for a low incidence of ischemic heart
disease (Gerster, 1997).
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid by consumers
and researchers to the health and nutritional aspects (vitamins con-
tent, mineral elements, antioxidants, etc.) of horticultural products
(Scalzo et al., 2005). Interest in the role of antioxidants in human
health has promoted research in the eld of horticulture and food
science to evaluate fruit and vegetable antioxidants and to deter-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 571 86971162; fax: +86 571 86971162.
E-mail address: yingtiejin22@163.com (T. Ying).
mine how their content and activity can be maintained or even
improved through crop breeding, cultural practices, and posthar-
vest storage and processing (Ayala-Zavala et al., 2004). Previous
studies have reported that postharvest UV-B irradiation retained
the green colour of broccoli orets during storage (Aiamla-or et al.,
2009, 2010), increased the content of potentially health-promoting
phenolics of grapes (Cantos et al., 2000) and the concentration of
vitamin D2 in mushrooms (Mau et al., 1998; Ko et al., 2008; Roberts
et al., 2008), improved the health value of apples (Hagen et al., 2007)
and nasturtium (Schreiner et al., 2009), and enhanced the level of
antioxidant compounds and antioxidant enzyme activity in plants
(Costa et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2008). Furthermore, in comparison
with UV-C, UV-B is a less harmful waveband, and may represent a
new practical approach for maintaining the postharvest quality of
fruit and vegetables.
Recently, treatment with UV-C has been reported to main-
tain postharvest quality (Maharaj et al., 1999; Barka et al., 2000),
increase ascorbic acid and total phenolic contents (Jagadeesh et al.,
2009), and improve nutritional qualities (Liu et al., 2009) of tomato
fruit. However, to our knowledge, there is no published data on
the effect of postharvest UV-B irradiation on sensory qualities and
antioxidant capacity of tomato fruit. Therefore, the objective of this
research was to investigate the potential of postharvest UV-B irra-
diation on sensory qualities and antioxidant capacity of tomato fruit
during storage.

0925-5214/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.09.003

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, C., et al., Postharvest UV-B irradiation maintains sensory qualities and enhances antioxidant
capacity in tomato fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.09.003
G Model
POSTEC-9194; No. of Pages 6 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 C. Liu et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology xxx (2010) xxxxxx
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Tomato fruit handling and irradiation with UV-B
Mature-green tomato fruit (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Zhenfen
202) were harvested manually from plants grown in a commercial
greenhouse in Jiashan County, China (120.92 E, 30.84 N) in March
2010. The cover material of the greenhouse was 0.1 mm polyethy-
lene (PE) lm with a reported UV-B transmissibility of 25.7% (Li and
Zou, 2009). Fruit of uniform shape and size and free from fungal
infection were selected, and transported for a short distance to the
laboratory. The fruit were then washed in tap water and air-dried
at ambient temperature using a fan.
Irradiation was carried out on the second day of harvest and
under ambient conditions. UV-B irradiation was provided by two
UV-B lamp tubes (TL 20W/01 RS with a spectral peak at 311 nm,
Philips) installed closely parallel to each other and above the
height-adjustable sample plate. A wooden box covered with alu-
minum foil and supported by a metal framework enclosed the UV-B
lamps, reectors, and sample plate, providing protection for the
operator. Fruit were placed rstly with their calyx ends up and
approximately 20 cm under the lamps. Uniformity of irradiation
intensity and dose for all fruit samples were ensured by aligning the
fruit samples parallel to the lamp tubes at equal distance, and mak-
ing sure that the length of the fruit line was reasonably shorter than
the length of the lamp tubes. The UV-B irradiation intensity was
measured by a portable digital radiometer for UV-B band (TAINA
TN-2340, TAINA Co., Ltd., Taiwan, China) at the three quarter fruit
height level, which was chosen to represent the average irradiation
intensity of the exposed hemisphere of the fruit. Doses variation
was realized by xing the distance from fruit to lamp tubes at
an appropriate level to acquire a designated irradiation intensity
(6.0 0.1 W/m2 ), and altering the exposure time. At half the calcu-
lated exposure time, each fruit was rotated 180 vertically so that
their blossom ends had an equal chance to face the lamp to ensure
uniform irradiation. Prior to irradiation treatment, the UV-B lamps
were allowed to stabilize by turning on for least 30 min. Irradiation
doses corresponding to 10, 20, 40 and 80 kJ/m2 were used in this
study. Thirty-six fruit were treated in each irradiation dose with
nine fruit treated for each irradiation batch. Untreated fruit were
considered as controls. After irradiation, fruit were placed in a box
for up to 37 d in the dark at 14 C and 95% RH.
2.2. Tomato fruit sampling
On each of the specied sampling days (7, 14, 21, 28 or 37 d),
six fruit were randomly chosen from the untreated and the UV-B
treated groups. The edible pericarp from the equatorial region of
the sampled tomato fruit was excised. After complete removal of
the parenchyma, the pericarp was cut into small pieces and frozen
in liquid nitrogen. Frozen samples were kept at 70 C for sub-
sequent analysis of various antioxidant components. All analyses
were conducted in triplicate.
2.3. Texture and colour measurement
A penetration test was performed on the skin of whole fruit
using a TA.XT2i texture analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, UK) with
a 5 mm diameter cylindrical probe. Samples were penetrated to a
depth of 15 mm. The speed of the probe was 1.0 mm/s during the
pre-test and penetration. Force and time data were recorded with
Texture Expert (Version 1.0) from Stable Micro Systems. From the
force versus time curves, rmness was dened as the maximum
force in newtons (N). Four determinations were made on each fruit
away from the locular ridge. Fruit surface colour values were mea-
sured using a WSC-S Colourimeter (Shanghai precision instrument
Please cite this article in press as: Liu, C., et al., Postharvest UV-B irradiation maintains sensory qualities and enhances antioxidant
capacity in tomato fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.09.003
Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China) and average readings at four predeter-
mined points on the equator of each fruit were recorded. Hunter
L*, a*, b* values were obtained, and colour was expressed as the
a*/b* ratio. Six fruit were tested for each irradiation treatment for
all of the above tests.
2.4. Total phenolics and avonoids
Total phenolics and avonoids were extracted and determined
according to the methods of Toor and Savage (2005). Total pheno-
lic contents were expressed as gallic acid equivalents, in mg/100 g
fresh weight (FW). Total avonoid contents were expressed as rutin
equivalents, in mg/100 g FW.
2.5. Lycopene
Lycopene from the fruit samples was extracted with hex-
ane:ethanol:acetone (2:1:1), containing 2.5% BHT (butylated
hydroxy toluene). Optical density of the hexane extract was mea-
sured spectrophotometrically at 472 nm against a hexane blank.
Concentration of lycopene was calculated using an extinction coef-
cient (E%) of 3450 (Toor and Savage, 2005). Results were expressed
as mg/100 g FW.
2.6. Ascorbic acid
Ascorbic acid was measured by titration using phenolindo-2,6-
dichlorophenol (DPIP) (Jagadeesh et al., 2009). Five grams of frozen
fruit sample was homogenized with 20 mL of a buffer solution con-
taining 1 g/L of oxalic acid and 4 g/L of anhydrous sodium acetate.
The fruit sample was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 15 min at 4 C.
An aliquot fraction of the extract was titrated against a solution con-
taining 295 mg/L DPIP and 100 mg/L sodium bicarbonate. A solution
containing 0.10 mg/mL ascorbic acid of the buffer solution was used
as the standard to quantify ascorbic acid in the fruit samples. The
extracts were at all times protected from light with aluminum foil
to avoid oxidation. Results were expressed as mg/100 g FW.
2.7. Antioxidant capacity assays
2.7.1. Ferric reducing/antioxidant power (FRAP) assay
The FRAP assay was performed following the method described
by Alothman et al. (2009). Briey, a 40 L aliquot of diluted fruit
extract was mixed with 3.6 mL FRAP reagent and the reaction mix-
ture was incubated at 37 C for 30 min. The absorbance then was
determined at 593 nm against blank of water. The FRAP reagent
was freshly prepared by mixing a 10 mM 2,4,6-tris (1-pyridyl)-5-
triazine (TPTZ) solution in 40 mM HCl with a 20 mM FeCl3 6H2 O
solution and 0.3 M acetate buffer (pH 3.6) in the ratio of 1:1:10. A
calibration curve was prepared using an aqueous solution of ferrous
sulphate FeSO4 7H2 O. Values were expressed as mM/100 g FW.
2.7.2. 2,2-Di-(4-tert-octylphenyl)-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH)
radical assay
The DPPH assay is not specic to any particular antioxidant
component, so it reects the overall antioxidant capacity of a sam-
ple. This determination was based on the method described by
Odriozola-Serrano et al. (2008). 0.2 mL fruit extract was mixed with
2.8 mL of 60 M ethanolic DPPH. The homogenate was shaken vig-
orously and kept in darkness for 30 min. The absorption of the
sample at 515 nm was measured with a spectrophotometer against
a blank of water. Results were expressed as percentage of DPPH
radical inhibition (DPPH %).
G Model
POSTEC-9194; No. of Pages 6 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Liu et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology xxx (2010) xxxxxx
2.7.3. -Carotenelinoleic acid assay
Two grams of frozen fruit sample were homogenized with
80% ethanol. Then the mixture was centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for
15 min. Antioxidant capacity was determined according to the
-carotene bleaching method as described by Kaur and Kapoor
(2002). 2 mg -Carotene was dissolved in 10 mL of chloroform. A
1 mL aliquot of the solution was added to a conical ask with 20 mg
linoleic acid and 200 mg Tween-40. Chloroform was removed in
a rotary evaporator at 50 C. Oxygenated distilled water (50 mL)
was added to the -carotene emulsion and mixed well. Aliquots
(4.8 mL) of the oxygenated -carotene emulsion and 0.2 mL of fruit
extract were placed in capped culture tubes and mixed well. The
tubes were immediately placed in a water-bath and incubated at
50 C. Oxidation of the -carotene emulsion was monitored spec-
trophotometrically by taking absorbance at 20 min intervals at
470 nm for 100 min. The control consisted of 4.8 mL of the oxy-
genated -carotene emulsion and 0.2 mL distilled water instead
of fruit extract. Antioxidant capacity was expressed as percentage
inhibition relative to control using the equation:
degradation rate of control degradation rate of sample
AA (%) =
degradation rate of control
where degradation rate = ln (a/b) 1/t, a = initial absorbance
(470 nm), b = absorbance (470 nm) at 100 min interval, t = time
(min).
2.8. Statistical analysis
Values were expressed as means standard deviations. Data
were analyzed using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) software.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncans multiple range test
were used to compare signicance of the difference between the
samples.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of UV-B irradiation on texture and colour of tomato fruit during storage
For fresh tomato fruit, the two quality attributes that are most important to
consumers are texture and skin colour (Tijskens and Evelo, 1994). In the present
study, tomato fruit gradually softened when stored at low temperature (Table 1).
However, UV-B irradiation (20 and 40 kJ/m2 ) maintained a signicantly higher level
(P < 0.01) of fruit rmness than untreated and 80 kJ/m2 UV-B treated fruit between
day 14 and 37. And the difference between 20 and 40 kJ/m2 UV-B irradiation was
not signicant (P > 0.05). Between day 14 and 37, UV-B irradiation with the highest
dose (80 kJ/m2 ) resulted in the lowest fruit rmness. After 37 d of storage, residual
rmness levels with UV-B irradiation (20 and 40 kJ/m2 ) were both 36% of the initial
value as compared with 32% in untreated fruit. The softening of tomato fruit can
be related to the production of free radicals as a result of senescence (Leshem et al.,
1986) and its effect on the cell wall. Barka et al. (2000) observed a reduction in activ-
ity of cell wall-degrading enzymes, i.e. polygalacturonase, pectin methyl esterase,
cellulase, xylanase, -d-galactosidase and protease in tomato fruit treated with UV
irradiation.
A number of changes occur when tomato fruit progress from the mature-green
to red-ripe stage of ripeness. The most obvious external changes of tomato fruit
during ripening are associated with the loss of chlorophyll and the accumulation
of lycopene (Saltveit, 2005). The average initial Hunter L*, a* and b* values for fruit
on their arrival to the laboratory (day 0) were 59, 19 and 32, respectively. How-
ever, during storage, untreated fruit lost their green colour much faster than UV-B
treated fruit. As storage progressed, the lightness factor L* of tomato fruit gener-
ally decreased within the 37 d. However, UV-B treated fruit, except for the dose of
80 kJ/m2 , were shinier (higher L* value) than untreated fruit, although the difference
was not signicant (P > 0.05) (data not shown). The Hunter a*/b* ratio of the tomato
fruit surface colour has been used as a reference parameter for red colour develop-
ment in tomato fruit (Arias et al., 2000). Between day 7 and 14, the means of a*/b*
ratio of UV-B treated fruit were signicantly lower (P < 0.05) than untreated fruit
except for 80 kJ/m2 UV-B irradiation. However, after 37 d of storage, the a*/b* ratios
of all UV-B irradiated fruit were higher than untreated fruit (data not shown). The
results were similar to those reported by Aiamla-or et al. (2009, 2010), who showed
that UV-B doses of at least 8.8 kJ/m2 signicantly delayed broccoli oret yellowing
and chlorophyll degradation.
Please cite this article in press as: Liu, C., et al., Postharvest UV-B irradiation maintains sensory qualities and enhances antioxidant
capacity in tomato fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.09.003
3
3.2. Effect of UV-B irradiation on total phenolics and total avonoids contents of
tomato fruit during storage
Phenolic compounds are important secondary metabolites in plants and the
antioxidative activities of total phenolics in several plant extracts have been recently
reported, suggesting possible protective roles of total phenolics in reducing risk
of cardiovascular diseases in humans (Velioglu et al., 1998). Total phenolics con-
tents from untreated and UV-B treated fruit are shown in Table 2. Both untreated
and UV-B treated fruit showed an increasing trend in total phenolics content dur-
ing the initial 21 d, then slightly decreased in the following seven days, and again
increased towards the end of storage. From day 14 to 37, fruit irradiated with 20 or
40 kJ/m2 demonstrated signicantly higher levels of total phenolics when compared
to the control (P < 0.01) and slightly higher levels than other UV-B treatments (10
and 80 kJ/m2 ). Similar results were obtained by Cantos et al. (2000), who showed
that refrigerated storage and UV-B irradiation of grapes can be benecial in terms
of increasing the content of potentially health-promoting phenolics.
Flavonoids act in plants as antioxidants, antimicrobials, photoreceptors, visual
attractors, feeding repellents, and light screening substances. As shown in Table 2,
untreated and UV-B treated fruit all showed an increasing trend in total avonoids
content during the whole storage period. Fruit irradiated with 20 or 40 kJ/m2 had
signicantly higher (P < 0.05) total avonoids content when compared to the control
and other UV-B treatments (10 and 80 kJ/m2 ) from day 14 to 28. However, at the
end of the storage period, the differences between untreated fruit and UV-B treated
fruit were not signicant (P > 0.05). Our results are consistent with a study (Hagen
et al., 2007) which showed that postharvest irradiation with vis + UV-B enhanced
the sum of avonoids, sum of phenols and total phenols in the peel of shade-grown
apples.
3.3. Effect of UV-B irradiation on lycopene content of tomato fruit during storage
Lycopene, the red pigment of tomato fruit, on average constitutes about 8090%
of the total carotenoids content (Shi and Le Maguer, 2000). Lycopene contents of
untreated and UV-B treated fruit are presented in Table 3. Lycopene content of
untreated and UV-B treated fruit increased during storage. After 37 d of storage,
the lycopene contents increased by about 40-fold when compared to initial levels.
During the rst 14 d, UV-B treatments, except the 80 kJ/m2 UV-B treatment, were
found to signicantly reduce (P < 0.01) lycopene content of fruit when compared to
the control. However, after 21 d of storage, fruit irradiated with higher doses of UV-B
(20, 40 and 80 kJ/m2 ) had higher lycopene contents than untreated fruit.
3.4. Effect of UV-B irradiation on ascorbic acid content of tomato fruit during
storage
Little is known about the effects of UV-B irradiation on the retention of dietary
antioxidants such as ascorbic acid in tomato fruit. Our results show that untreated
and UV-B treated fruit all showed an increasing trend in ascorbic acid content during
the whole storage period (Table 4). However, UV-B irradiation had a negative effect
on ascorbic acid content during storage. At the end of storage, the average ascorbic
acid contents of UV-B treated fruit (8 mg/100 g FW) were about 18% lower than
those of untreated fruit (9 mg/100 g FW). In contrast, Hagen et al. (2007) found that
the content of ascorbic acid in the peel of apples increased after treatments with
vis + UV-B. In this context, the effects of UV-B on ascorbic acid content have not yet
been clearly elucidated and more studies on it are needed.
3.5. Effect of UV-B irradiation on antioxidant capacity of tomato fruit during
storage
Currently there is a multiplicity of methods used for antioxidant assays. Nat-
ural antioxidants are often multifunctional and the mechanism dominating in a
particular test system depends on the composition of the system and the oxida-
tion conditions, which affect both the capacity and kinetics of oxidation. Clearly,
the inuence of all relevant parameters cannot be evaluated by using only a one-
dimensional assay protocol (Frankel and Meyer, 2000). Therefore, three methods
were used in this study to investigate the changes in total antioxidant capacity of
tomato fruit during storage.
Antioxidant capacity of tomato fruit as evaluated by FRAP, DPPH and AA are sum-
marized in Table 5. Untreated and UV-B treated fruit all showed an increasing trend
in FRAP values during the rst 21 d, after which 20, 40 and 80 kJ/m2 UV-B treated fruit
showed a slight decrease in the following seven days, and again increased toward the
end of storage. Over the initial 21 d of storage, fruit irradiated with 20, 40 or 80 kJ/m2
increased their FRAP values when compared to untreated and 10 kJ/m2 UV-B treated
fruit. However, at the end of storage, untreated fruit showed the highest FRAP value
(11 mM/100 g), but no signicant difference (P > 0.05) between untreated and UV-B
treated fruit were found.
Changes during storage in the percentage of DPPH radical inhibition by antiox-
idants in tomato fruit are shown in Table 5. Similar to FRAP, both untreated and
UV-B treated fruit showed an increasing trend during the initial 21 d of storage, then
slightly decreased over the following seven days, and again increased. Between day
7 and 28, 20 and 40 kJ/m2 UV-B irradiated fruit had higher DPPH values compared to
untreated fruit (P < 0.05). After 37 d of storage, all UV-B treatments increased DPPH
G Model
POSTEC-9194; No. of Pages 6 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 C. Liu et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology xxx (2010) xxxxxx

Table 1
Firmness (N) of untreated and UV-B treated tomato fruit during storage.

Storage time (days) Control 10 kJ/m2 20 kJ/m2 40 kJ/m2 80 kJ/m2

0 26.68 1.16 26.68 1.16 26.68 1.16 26.68 1.16 26.68 1.16
7 16.88 1.65 c, B 17.71 1.62 bc, AB 19.01 1.83 ab, AB 20.14 1.57 a, A 17.53 2.00 bc, B
14 12.68 1.63 b, B 15.37 1.69 a, A 15.79 1.79 a, A 16.18 1.83 a, A 11.68 1.59 b, B
21 9.71 1.52 c, B 10.35 1.31 bc, AB 11.27 1.92 a, A 11.09 1.40 ab, A 9.43 1.76 c, B
28 8.82 1.15 bc, B 9.61 1.47 ab, AB 10.52 1.34 a, A 10.17 1.36 a, A 8.28 1.11 c, B
37 8.59 1.10 bc, B 9.18 1.17 ab, AB 9.65 1.82 a, A 9.56 1.56 a, A 8.14 1.24 c, B

Firmness was dened as the maximum force (N). Each value represents mean standard deviation of three replicates; different small letters in the same row mean signicant
difference at P < 0.05, and different capital letters in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.01.

Table 2
Total phenolics content and avonoids content of untreated and UV-B treated tomato fruit during storage.

Storage time (days) Control 10 kJ/m2 20 kJ/m2 40 kJ/m2 80 kJ/m2

Total phenolics content (mg/100 g)

0 10.90 0.27 10.90 0.27 10.90 0.27 10.90 0.27 10.90 0.27
7 13.31 0.04 ab, A 13.52 0.10 ab, A 13.67 0.08 a, A 13.44 1.27 ab, A 12.46 0.26 b, A
14 14.68 0.55 c, B 15.18 0.11 c, B 16.63 0.11 b, A 17.59 0.27 a, A 14.50 0.78 c, B
21 18.71 1.01 b, AB 17.88 0.47 b, B 20.38 0.29 a, A 20.01 0.68 a, A 17.44 0.12 b, B
28 16.17 0.03 b, C 16.74 0.26 b, BC 17.91 0.16 a, A 17.38 0.08 a, AB 16.40 0.68 b, C
37 17.72 0.57 c, B 18.56 0.61 bc, AB 19.48 0.86 ab, AB 20.12 0.55 a, A 17.64 0.83 c, B
Total avonoids content (mg/100 g)
0 7.11 0.22 7.11 0.22 7.11 0.22 7.11 0.22 7.11 0.22
7 7.41 0.19 b, A 8.14 0.55 a, A 8.20 0.20 a, A 8.27 0.17 a, A 7.84 0.28 ab, A
14 8.56 0.19 c, B 8.88 0.07 c, B 9.81 0.08 b, A 10.21 0.26 a, A 8.92 0.24 c, B
21 9.66 0.17 b, A 10.10 0.03 b, A 10.73 0.60 a, A 10.81 0.03 a, A 9.86 0.12 b, A
28 10.34 0.14 d, C 10.80 0.17 c, BC 11.35 0.10 b, AB 11.93 0.25 a, A 10.75 0.10 cd, BC
37 11.67 0.31 a, A 11.87 0.31 a, A 12.02 0.23 a, A 12.17 0.20 a, A 11.76 0.24 a, A

Each value represents mean standard deviation of three replicates; different small letters in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.05, and different capital letters
in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.01.

Table 3
Lycopene content (mg/100 g) of untreated and UV-B treated tomato fruit during storage.

Storage time (days) Control 10 kJ/m2 20 kJ/m2 40 kJ/m2 80 kJ/m2

0 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.01
7 1.43 0.03 b, B 1.29 0.02 c, C 0.70 0.01 e, E 0.94 0.01 d, D 1.82 0.02 a, A
14 4.34 0.15 b, B 3.57 0.12 c, C 2.34 0.06 e, E 3.05 0.01 d, D 4.85 0.05 a, A
21 4.88 0.23 b, B 3.91 0.39 c, C 5.22 0.35 b, AB 5.46 0.21 ab, AB 5.99 0.30 a, A
28 5.16 0.52 ab, A 4.98 0.06 b, A 5.78 0.04 ab, A 5.65 0.35 ab, A 6.76 0.24 a, A
37 6.07 0.46 b, A 6.14 0.02 b, A 6.64 0.38 ab, A 6.38 0.55 ab, A 6.80 0.01a, A

Each value represents mean standard deviation of three replicates; different small letters in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.05, and different capital letters
in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.01.

values, and 20 kJ/m2 UV-B treated fruit had the highest DPPH (41%) which was about
15% higher than untreated fruit (P < 0.05).
In this study, AA remained constant in all treatments during the 28 d post-
irradiation period, and then increased sharply in the following seven days. Within
the whole storage period, 40 kJ/m2 UV-B treated fruit had higher AA than untreated
and other UV-B treated fruit and had the highest AA (86%) after 37 d storage, fol-
lowed by 20 kJ/m2 UV-B irradiation (85%). At the end of storage, UV-B irradiations
(20 and 40 kJ/m2 ) signicantly increased (P < 0.05) AA as compared to the control.
The above analysis clearly shows that postharvest UV-B treatment could increase
the antioxidant capacity of tomato fruit.
Previous studies have shown that soluble antioxidant activity contributes >92%
of the total antioxidant activity of tomatoes, while the lipophilic antioxidants, mainly
lycopene and lipophilic phenolics, contribute only about 8% (Toor and Savage, 2005).
In this study, an increase in the levels of total phenolics and total avonoids occurred
in UV-B treated fruit and their possible synergistic interactions may have been
responsible for the observed increase in the water-soluble antioxidant capacity
(expressed as FRAP and DPPH), even when ascorbic acid content was reduced by
the UV-B irradiation. On the other hand, an increase in the level of lycopene that
occurred in UV-B treated fruit at the end of storage may be responsible for the
increase in the liposoluble antioxidant capacity (expressed as AA). In summary, UV-
B irradiation had a positive effect on antioxidant capacity. The result is in agreement
with Hagen et al. (2007), who found that the antioxidant capacity increased signif-
icantly in the peel of both sun-exposed and shade-grown apples after irradiation
with vis + UV-B.

Table 4
Ascorbic acid content (mg/100 g) of untreated and UV-B treated tomato fruit during storage.

Storage time (days) Control 10 kJ/m2 20 kJ/m2 40 kJ/m2 80 kJ/m2

0 2.72 0.23 2.72 0.23 2.72 0.23 2.72 0.23 2.72 0.23
7 3.73 0.13 a, A 3.54 0.13 a, AB 3.22 0.14 b, BC 2.52 0.27 d, D 2.89 0.16 c, C
14 4.57 0.13 a, A 3.64 0.11 b, B 3.61 0.13 b, B 3.78 0.14 b, B 3.00 0.18 c, C
21 5.50 0.14 a, A 4.76 0.23 b, B 5.06 0.19 b, AB 4.85 0.18 b, B 4.06 0.12 c, C
28 7.18 0.13 a, A 6.53 0.35 b, AB 6.43 0.28 b, AB 5.44 0.28 c, C 6.08 0.26 b, BC
37 9.23 0.23 a, A 7.74 0.26 b, B 8.58 0.35 a, AB 6.22 0.33 c, C 7.55 0.37 b, B

Each value represents mean standard deviation of three replicates; different small letters in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.05, and different capital letters
in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.01.

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, C., et al., Postharvest UV-B irradiation maintains sensory qualities and enhances antioxidant
capacity in tomato fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.09.003
G Model
POSTEC-9194; No. of Pages 6 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C. Liu et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology xxx (2010) xxxxxx 5

Table 5
FRAP, DPPH and AA of untreated and UV-B treated tomato fruit during storage.

Storage time (days) Control 10 kJ/m2 20 kJ/m2 40 kJ/m2 80 kJ/m2

FRAP (mM/100 g)
0 5.76 0.18 5.76 0.18 5.76 0.18 5.76 0.18 5.76 0.18
7 6.63 0.30 d, C 6.89 0.17 cd, C 7.24 0.08 bc, BC 7.93 0.14 a, A 7.56 0.30 ab, AB
14 6.97 0.03 d, C 7.48 0.11 c, B 7.92 0.16 b, B 8.37 0.18 a, A 7.85 0.16 b, B
21 9.12 0.09 b, A 9.15 0.05 b, A 9.50 0.25 ab, A 9.60 0.38 a, A 9.50 0.01 ab, A
28 9.76 0.04 a, A 9.25 0.25 ab, A 9.07 0.40 b, A 9.06 0.29 b, A 9.44 0.19 ab, A
37 10.80 0.20 a, A 10.63 0.06 a, A 10.51 0.10 a, A 10.39 0.16 a, A 10.44 0.37 a, A
DPPH radical inhibition percentage (%)
0 20.99 1.00 20.99 1.00 20.99 1.00 20.99 1.00 20.99 1.00
7 24.61 0.87 c, B 26.37 0.66 bc, AB 28.44 0.43 a, A 26.96 1.34 ab, AB 24.74 0.98 c, B
14 28.45 0.21 c, C 29.98 1.55 bc, BC 32.00 0.17 ab, AB 33.50 1.96 a, A 30.03 1.02 bc, BC
21 34.02 0.88 b, A 34.81 2.03 ab, A 38.96 2.53 a, A 37.37 2.51 a, A 35.67 3.07 ab, A
28 32.08 0.78 c, B 32.88 1.32 bc, AB 35.41 1.69 a, A 34.76 1.16 a, A 34.30 1.19 ab, AB
37 36.09 0.94 b, A 38.65 0.43 ab, A 41.47 2.30 a, A 39.16 0.94 ab, A 37.77 3.45 ab, A
AA (%)
0 68.00 1.73 68.00 1.73 68.00 1.73 68.00 1.73 68.00 1.73
7 73.09 1.58 a, A 70.07 1.55 a, A 72.89 1.28 a, A 73.10 1.79 a, A 70.71 0.60 a, A
14 72.17 0.66 a, A 70.77 1.11 a, A 72.32 1.87 a, A 73.04 1.54 a, A 71.05 1.39 a, A
21 72.54 1.30 b, A 73.44 0.60 b, A 74.11 0.50 b, A 76.85 0.24 a, A 73.93 0.54 b, A
28 71.98 1.67 a, A 72.79 1.19 a, A 73.16 1.69 a, A 75.22 1.50 a, A 72.76 1.79 a, A
37 83.86 0.96 c, AB 84.09 0.09 bc, AB 85.48 0.55 ab, A 85.98 0.99 a, A 82.30 0.06 d, B

Each value represents mean standard deviation of three replicates; different small letters in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.05, and different capital letters
in the same row mean signicant difference at P < 0.01.

4. Conclusion
It can be concluded from this study that 20 or 40 kJ/m2 posthar-
vest UV-B irradiation was most effective in maintaining a high level
of rmness and delaying colour development. Furthermore, 20 or
40 kJ/m2 postharvest UV-B irradiation promoted the accumulation
of total phenolics and total avonoids, resulting in higher antiox-
idant capacity during storage. However, UV-B irradiation had a
negative effect on ascorbic acid content during storage. 10 kJ/m2
UV-B irradiation was also benecial with regard to sensory quali-
ties and antioxidant capacity, but to a lesser extent. At the highest
dose, 80 kJ/m2 resulted in higher lycopene content, but showed
negative effects on texture, colour, and antioxidants. In summary,
postharvest UV-B irradiation at intermediate doses had positive
effects on sensory quality and antioxidant capacity of tomato
fruit.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (grant no. 30972036).
References
Aiamla-or, S., Kaewsuksaeng, S., Shigyo, M., Yamauchi, N., 2010. Impact of UV-B irra-
diation on chlorophyll degradation and chlorophyll-degrading enzyme activities
in stored broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. Italica Group) orets. Food Chem. 120,
645651.
Aiamla-or, S., Yamauchi, N., Takino, S., Shigyo, M., 2009. Effect of UV-A and UV-B
irradiation on broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. Italica Group) oret yellowing during
storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 54, 177179.
Alothman, M., Bhat, R., Karim, A.A., 2009. UV radiation-induced changes of antioxi-
dant capacity of fresh-cut tropical fruits. Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 10,
512516.
Arias, R., Lee, T.C., Logendra, L., Janes, H., 2000. Correlation of lycopene measured
by HPLC with the L*, a*, b* color readings of a hydroponic tomato and the rela-
tionship of maturity with color and lycopene content. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48,
16971702.
Ayala-Zavala, F.J., Wang, S.Y., Wang, C.Y., Gonzalez-Aguilar, G.A., 2004. Effect of stor-
age temperatures on antioxidants capacity and aroma compounds in strawberry
fruit. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 37, 687695.
Barka, E.A., Kalatari, S., Makhlouf, J., Arul, J., 2000. Impact of UV-C irradiation on the
cell wall-degrading enzymes during ripening of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum
L.) fruit. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48, 667671.
Cantos, E., Garca-Viguera, C., Pascual-Tersa, S., Toms-Barbern, F.A., 2000. Effect
of postharvest ultraviolet irradiation on resveratrol and other phenolics of Cv.
Napoleon table grapes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48, 46064612.
Costa, H., Gallego, S.M., Tomaro, M., 2002. Effect of UV-B radiation on antioxidant
defense system in sunower cotyledon. Plant Sci. 162, 939945.
Franceschi, S., Bidoli, E., La Vecchia, C., Talamini, R., DAvanzo, B., Negri, E., 1994.
Tomatoes and risk of digestive-tract cancers. Int. J. Cancer 59, 181184.
Frankel, E.N., Meyer, A.S., 2000. The problems of using one-dimensional methods to
evaluate multifunctional food and biological antioxidants. J. Sci. Food Agric. 80,
19251941.
Gerster, H., 1997. The potential role of lycopene for human health. J. Am. Coll. Nutr.
16, 109126.
Hagen, S.F.A., Borge, G.I.B., Bengtsson, G., Bilger, W., Berge, A., Haffner, K., Solhaug,
K.A., 2007. Phenolic contents and other health and sensory related properties
of apple fruit (Malus domestica Borkh., cv. Aroma): effect of postharvest UV-B
irradiation. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 45, 110.
Jagadeesh, S.L., Charles, M.T., Gariepy, Y., Goyette, B., Raghavan, G.S.V., Vigneault,
C., 2009. Inuence of postharvest UV-C hormesis on the bioactive compo-
nents of tomato during post-treatment handling. Food Bioprocess Technol.,
doi:10.1007/s11947-009-0259-y.
Kaur, C., Kapoor, H.C., 2002. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of some
Asian vegetables. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 37, 153161.
Ko, J.A., Lee, B.H., Lee, J.S., Park, H.J., 2008. Effect of UV-B exposure on the
concentration of vitamin D2 in sliced shiitake mushroom (Lentinus edodes)
and white button mushroom (Agaricus bisporus). J. Agric. Food Chem. 56,
36713674.
Lenucci, M.S., Cadinu, D., Taurino, M., Piro, G., Dalessandro, G., 2006. Antioxidant
composition in cherry and high-pigment tomato cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem.
54, 26062613.
Leonardi, C., Ambrosino, P., Esposito, F., Fogliano, V., 2000. Antioxidant activity and
carotenoid and tomatine contents in different typologies of fresh consumption
tomatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48, 47234727.
Leshem, Y.Y., Halevy, A.H., Frenkel, C., 1986. Processes and Control of Plant Senes-
cence. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Li, S.Z., Zou, Z.R., 2009. The optical property research and analysis of new lm
cladding material. Res. Agric. Mech. 7, 185188.
Liu, L.H., Zabaras, D., Bennett, L.E., Aguas, P., Woonton, B.W., 2009. Effects of UV-
C, red light and sun light on the carotenoid content and physical qualities of
tomatoes during post-harvest storage. Food Chem. 115, 495500.
Maharaj, R., Arul, J., Nadeau, P., 1999. Effect of photochemical treatment in the
preservation of fresh tomato (Lycopersicon esculetum cv Capello) by delaying
senescence. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 15, 1323.
Mau, J.-L., Chen, P.-R., Yang, J.-H., 1998. Ultraviolet irradiation increased vitamin D2
content in edible mushrooms. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46, 52695272.
Odriozola-Serrano, I., Soliva-Fortuny, R., Martn-Belloso, O., 2008. Antioxidant
properties and shelf-life extension of fresh-cut tomatoes stored at different
temperatures. J. Sci. Food Agric. 88, 26062614.
Roberts, J.S., Teichert, A., McHugh, T.H., 2008. Vitamin D2 formation from post-
harvest UV-B treatment of mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) and retention during
storage. Food Chem. 56, 45414544.
Saltveit, M.E., 2005. Fruit ripening fruit quality. In: Heuvelink, E. (Ed.), Tomatoes.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 145170.

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, C., et al., Postharvest UV-B irradiation maintains sensory qualities and enhances antioxidant
capacity in tomato fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.09.003
G Model
POSTEC-9194; No. of Pages 6 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 C. Liu et al. / Postharvest Biology and Technology xxx (2010) xxxxxx

Scalzo, J., Politi, A., Pellegrini, N., Mezzetti, B., Battino, M., 2005. Plant genotype
affects total antioxidant capacity and phenolic contents in fruit. Nutrition 21,
207.
Schreiner, M., Krumbein, A., Mewis, I., Ulrichs, C., Huyskens-Keil, S., 2009. Short-
term and moderate UV-B radiation effects on secondary plant metabolism in
different organs of nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus L.). Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg.
Technol. 10, 9396.
Shi, J., Le Maguer, M., 2000. Lycopene in tomatoes: chemical and physical properties
affected by food processing. CRC Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 110, 142.
Stewart, A.J., Bozonnet, S., Mullen, W., Jenkins, G.I., Lean, M.E.J., Crozier, A., 2000.
Occurrence of avonols in tomatoes and tomato-based products. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 48, 26632669.
Tijskens, L.M.M., Evelo, R.W., 1994. Modelling colour of tomatoes during postharvest
storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 4, 8589.
Toor, R.K., Savage, G.P., 2005. Antioxidant activity in different fractions of tomatoes.
Food Res. Int. 38, 487494.
Velioglu, Y.S., Mazza, X., Gao, L., Oomah, B.D., 1998. Antioxidant activity and total
phenolics in selected fruits, vegetables and grain products. J. Agric. Food Chem.
46, 41134117.
Xu, C., Natarajan, S., Sullivan, J.H., 2008. Impact of solar ultraviolet-B radiation on
the antioxidant defense system in soybean lines differing in avonoid contents.
Environ. Exp. Bot. 63, 3948.

Please cite this article in press as: Liu, C., et al., Postharvest UV-B irradiation maintains sensory qualities and enhances antioxidant
capacity in tomato fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. (2010), doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.09.003