Study on Storage Rules and Quality Comparison of Different Varieties of Tomatoes in Panzhihua

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2026-0088

Abstract

Abstract:

To investigate the differences in intrinsic characteristics and the patterns of quality change under room-temperature and low-temperature storage among three tomato cultivars (‘Chuanguofan No.1’, ‘Hemei 809’, and ‘Hongshuo Haomai’) from Miyi County, Panzhihua, 90%-mature fruits of the three cultivars were used as experimental materials. A total of 12 indicators covering physical quality, nutritional quality, and oxidative stability were determined. The study was conducted by integrating principal component analysis, cluster analysis, and correlation analysis, and kinetic models for quality change during storage were established for the three tomato cultivars. The results showed that during storage, quality deterioration phenomena (including decreased fruit firmness, rising weight loss rate, malondialdehyde accumulation, and nutrient loss) were more pronounced in the 25℃ room-temperature group than in the 10℃ low-temperature group. Meanwhile, low-temperature treatment at 10℃ significantly elevated lycopene content and weakened the correlations among various quality indicators (P<0.05). Principal component analysis and cluster analysis results indicated that ‘Chuanguofan No.1’ achieved the highest comprehensive quality score. Based on tomato firmness, kinetic models of quality change were constructed by coupling the first-order kinetic equation with the Arrhenius equation. This study obtained quality change data of the three tomato cultivars under room temperature and low temperature conditions. Storage at 10℃ can effectively delay the fruit deterioration process of all three cultivars. For freshly harvested tomatoes, the comprehensive ranking in terms of physical quality, nutritional quality, and oxidative stability is as follows: ‘Chuanguofan No.1’> ‘Hemei 809’> ‘Hongshuo Haomai’. The established kinetic models enable rapid prediction of the shelf life of these three tomato cultivars, providing a reference for quality assessment of tomatoes stored at different temperatures.

Key words: tomato, storage, quality, room temperature, low temperature, shelf-life model

CLC Number:

S641.2

LIU Shiyu, XIAO Xinyu, DU Yuhan, LEI Shanshan, YI Chengjing, FANG Weirui, LI Hongchen, CHEN Mingrui, LIU Yaowen. Study on Storage Rules and Quality Comparison of Different Varieties of Tomatoes in Panzhihua[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2026, 42(19): 187-199.

Figures/Tables 11

References 27

[1]	王仁杰, 蔡红明, 丁发强, 等. 5种口感番茄的风味物质分析与感官评价[J]. 中国蔬菜, 2025(6):146-156.
[2]	YAN L Y, GARCIA-CAPARROS P, WANG J X, et al. Biaxially oriented polyethylene film packing and hydrogen sulfide fumigation maintain postharvest quality of tomato fruits by reducing malondialdehyde levels and water loss[J]. Postharvest biology and technology, 2026, 231:113845. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2025.113845 URL
[3]	RUSSO M, FANALI C, TRIDDO G, et al. Analysis of phenolic compounds in different parts of pomegranate (Punica granatum) fruit by HPLC-PDA-ESI/MS and evaluation of their antioxidant activity: Application to different Italian varieties[J]. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2018, 410(15):3507-3520. doi: 10.1007/s00216-018-0854-8 pmid: 29350256
[4]	李景富, 何艳龙, 尚娜, 等. 番茄果实硬度与多个性状间相关分析及通径分析[J]. 东北农业大学学报, 2016, 47(5):1-8.
[5]	MOHAMMAD S U, SHALAHUDDIN M, PRODIP K B, et al. The protective role of vitamin C in the management of COVID-19: A review[J]. The journal of the egyptian public health association, 2021, 96(1):33-33. doi: 10.1186/s42506-021-00095-w
[6]	LI D, WU W, ZHANG H, et al. The interaction between imidazole-based ionic liquids and the mustard gas simulant CEES and its influence on its solubility[J]. Journal of molecular liquids, 2023, 385:122407. doi: 10.1016/j.molliq.2023.122407 URL
[7]	柯旭波, 潘凌洁, 张路, 等. 11个番茄品种的品质比较[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2015, 54(15):3692-3695.
[8]	程远, 万红建, 刘超超, 等. 十六个樱桃番茄品种果实风味品质相关指标比较分析[J]. 浙江农业学报, 2018, 30(11):1859-1869. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-1524.2018.11.08
[9]	庞胜群, 赵飏, 李格, 等. 灰色关联分析法综合评价不同品种加工番茄的品质[J]. 石河子大学学报(自然科学版), 2006(6):682-684.
[10]	曹建康. 果蔬采后生理生化指导[M]. 北京: 中国轻工业出版社,2022:29-49,70-72.
[11]	曾凡凡. MA包装结合1-MCP对樱桃番茄贮藏保鲜效果的影响[J]. 农业与技术, 2026, 46(7):34-39.
[12]	李爱玲. 油菜素内酯介导SlSAM3调控番茄果实色泽的分子机制[D]. 兰州: 甘肃农业大学, 2025.
[13]	NAUSCH H, BUYEL J F. Cryopreservation of plant cell cultures- Diverse practices and protocols[J]. New biotechnology, 2021, 62(3):86-95. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2021.02.002 URL
[14]	刘秀云, 曹碧婷, 岳钉伊, 等. 西瓜种质资源番茄红素含量鉴定与评价[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2025, 38(2):25-31.
[15]	梁结桦, 冯瑞, 田柬昕, 等. 不同贮藏温度对即食花胶品质的影响及其保质期预测模型的建立[J]. 农产品加工, 2026(10):70-74.
[16]	裴娇艳. 番茄果实采后品质特性变化及预测模型研究[D]. 南京: 南京农业大学, 2010.
[17]	刘晶玉, 等. 赛菲娅·斯拉衣丁,阿迪娜·赛提汗, 臭氧处理对番茄果实贮藏期品质及活性氧代谢的影响[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2025, 25(9):31-39.
[18]	张珮, 刘妍, 潘转, 等. 低温贮藏的桃果实品质近红外光谱预测模型比较[J]. 中国食品学报, 2025, 25(10):386-396.
[19]	张翼斐, 鲁丁强, 刘玉姣, 等. 温度对采后番茄代谢通量的影响研究[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2025, 25(10):36-45.
[20]	BABANJEE T, TALWAR D, SINGH K, et al. Combined preharvest and postharvest approaches for enhancing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit quality and storability[J]. Journal of stored products research, 2026,115(c):102853.
[21]	张晓英, 毛咪, 靳雨婷, 等. 不同药剂处理对番茄果实转色及品质的影响[J]. 植物科学学报, 2026, 44(3):379-390.
[22]	黄鑫燕, 匡家灵, 陈月舞, 等. 磷酸二氢钾与硼酸配施对番茄生长、果实品质与转色的影响[J]. 作物杂志, 2026.
[23]	黄玉波, 梁路, 庄秋丽, 等. 蚯蚓营养液促进番茄生长并改善其果实品质[J]. 北方园艺, 2025(1):44-51.
[24]	屈乃聃, 曹玲玲, 王惠玉, 等. 蔬菜抗坏血酸合成代谢及影响因素研究进展[J]. 蔬菜, 2025(5):17-26.
[25]	李蕾. Sly-miR167a调控番茄果实采后低温耐受能力的表观遗传学机制研究[D]. 海口: 海南大学, 2024.
[26]	戴露. 几种微生物菌剂对盐渍环境下番茄的促生效果及果实品质的影响研究[D]. 烟台: 鲁东大学, 2025.
[27]	AFTAB R A, AHMAD F, MONISH M, et al. Postharvest quality assessment of tomato during storage: An experimental and ML fusion[J]. Journal of stored products research, 2025, 112:102643. doi: 10.1016/j.jspr.2025.102643 URL

成分	特征值	方差贡献率/%	累计方差贡献率/%
1	8.763	73.028	73.028
2	3.237	26.972	100.000

成分	特征值	方差贡献率/%	累计方差贡献率/%
1	8.763	73.028	73.028
2	3.237	26.972	100.000

品质指标	第1主成分	第2主成分
丙二醛	0.997	0.074
抗坏血酸	0.993	0.121
可溶性固形物	0.993	0.121
番茄红素	-0.993	-0.121
可滴定酸	0.993	0.121
总酚	0.991	0.133
类黄酮	0.972	0.234
L^*	-0.876	0.483
单果重量	-0.735	0.678
a^/b^	-0.069	-0.998
可溶性蛋白质	0.477	0.879
硬度	-0.601	0.799

品质指标	第1主成分	第2主成分
丙二醛	0.997	0.074
抗坏血酸	0.993	0.121
可溶性固形物	0.993	0.121
番茄红素	-0.993	-0.121
可滴定酸	0.993	0.121
总酚	0.991	0.133
类黄酮	0.972	0.234
L^*	-0.876	0.483
单果重量	-0.735	0.678
a^/b^	-0.069	-0.998
可溶性蛋白质	0.477	0.879
硬度	-0.601	0.799

品种	F₁	F₂	Z
S1	2.732	1.248	2.332
S2	0.614	0.335	0.539
S3	0.411	-1.014	0.027