Author Contributions
Conceptualization and visualization, Y.B. and S.Ø.S.; methodology, S.O.; software, E.-S.E.-S.; validation, A.E., E.-S.E.-S., S.Ø.S. and H.E.-R.; formal analysis, S.O. and Y.B.; investigation, A.E.; resources, H.E.-R.; data curation, A.E.; writing—original draft preparation, H.E.-R.; writing—review and editing, all authors.; visualization, S.Ø.S.; supervision, A.E. and Y.B.; project administration, S.Ø.S.; funding acquisition by S.Ø.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Overview of the applied treatments in the current study with applied doses (ppm) and the studied parameters.
Figure 1.
Overview of the applied treatments in the current study with applied doses (ppm) and the studied parameters.
Figure 2.
General overview of the steps of the experiment from field to harvesting the fruits, packing the fruits after applying the treatments, and ripening of the fruits during storage.
Figure 2.
General overview of the steps of the experiment from field to harvesting the fruits, packing the fruits after applying the treatments, and ripening of the fruits during storage.
Figure 3.
Average maximum and minimum room temperature and relative humidity during the storage periods of the tomato fruits in both seasons.
Figure 3.
Average maximum and minimum room temperature and relative humidity during the storage periods of the tomato fruits in both seasons.
Figure 4.
Effects of ethrel and ethylene application on weight loss (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at a 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 4.
Effects of ethrel and ethylene application on weight loss (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at a 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 5.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene on decay rate (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 5.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene on decay rate (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 6.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene applications on fruit color parameters 10 and 30 days after treatment in the 2021 season. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 6.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene applications on fruit color parameters 10 and 30 days after treatment in the 2021 season. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 7.
Effect of ethrel applications on total chlorophyll and carotene contents (mg 100 g−1 FW) of the tomato fruits 28 days after the treatments in the 2021 season. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 7.
Effect of ethrel applications on total chlorophyll and carotene contents (mg 100 g−1 FW) of the tomato fruits 28 days after the treatments in the 2021 season. Means followed by the same letter in same storage time are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 8.
Impact of different applied doses of ethrel and ethylene treatments on the activity of polygalacturonase and pectin methyl esterase 10 and 21 days after the treatments in the 2021 season. Means designed by the same letter (at the same storage time) are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Figure 8.
Impact of different applied doses of ethrel and ethylene treatments on the activity of polygalacturonase and pectin methyl esterase 10 and 21 days after the treatments in the 2021 season. Means designed by the same letter (at the same storage time) are not significantly different at the 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Treatments (in ppm): foliar ethrel included FE1 (2500), FE2 (5000), and FE3 (7500); dipping ethrel included DE1 (1000), DE2 (1500), and DE3 (2000); and ethylene gases were GE1 (100), GE2 (200), and GE3 (300).
Table 1.
Overview of the measured parameters and the sampling time.
Table 1.
Overview of the measured parameters and the sampling time.
Measured Parameters | Sampling Time (in Days after Treatment/Putting into Storage) |
---|
Physical parameters of fruits |
Ripening (%) | At day 4, 8, and 12 |
Weight loss, firmness | At day 8, 16, 24, and 32 |
Decay (%) | At day 24, 28, and 32 |
Color index (redness, lightness, and yellowness) | At day 10 and 30 |
Chemical parameters of fruits |
Ascorbic acid, TSS, and acidity | At day 8, 16, 24, and 32 |
Pigments (total chlorophyll, carotene, and lycopene) | At day 28 |
Enzymes activity (polygalacturonase and pectin methyl esterase) | At day 10 and 21 |
Table 2.
Effects of ethrel and ethylene applications on the ripening % of the tomato fruits 4, 8, and 12 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Table 2.
Effects of ethrel and ethylene applications on the ripening % of the tomato fruits 4, 8, and 12 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Treatments | Ripening (%) of Stored Tomato Fruits after Treatment |
---|
4 Days | 8 Days | 12 Days | 4 Days | 8 Days | 12 Days |
---|
2020 Season | 2021 Season |
---|
Control | 0.00 e | 18.50 f | 100 a | 0.00 e | 14.8 g | 100 a |
FE1 | 14.8 d | 37.0 e | 100 a | 18.5 d | 25.9 fg | 100 a |
FE2 | 18.5 d | 55.6 d | 100 a | 25.9 cd | 48.2 e | 100 a |
FE3 | 48.2 bc | 92.6 ab | 100 a | 48.2 b | 81.5 bc | 100 a |
DE1 | 18.5 d | 37.0 e | 100 a | 25.9 cd | 40.5 ef | 100 a |
DE2 | 37.0 c | 51.9 d | 100 a | 37.0 bc | 51.9 e | 100a |
DE3 | 40.0 bc | 77.8 c | 100 a | 48.2 b | 55.6 de | 100 a |
GE1 | 40.8 bc | 70.4 c | 100 a | 37.0 bc | 70.4 cd | 100 a |
GE2 | 51.9 ab | 88.9 b | 100 a | 48.2 b | 92.6 ab | 100 a |
GE3 | 63.0 a | 100.00 a | 100 a | 63.0 a | 100.00 a | 100 a |
F-test | ** | ** | NS | ** | ** | NS |
Table 3.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene application on the tomato fruit firmness (kg mm−2) 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Table 3.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene application on the tomato fruit firmness (kg mm−2) 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Treatments | Firmness (kg mm−2) of Stored Tomato Fruits after Treatment |
---|
8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days | 8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days |
---|
2020 Season | 2021 Season |
---|
Control | 320 a | 300 a | 250 a | 225 a | 285 a | 242 a | 210 a | 190 a |
FE1 | 295 a–d | 250 cd | 220 bc | 180 e | 230 c | 220 b | 175 bc | 150 cde |
FE2 | 270 de | 240 de | 210 cd | 152 f | 220 c | 195 c | 170 bc | 135 fg |
FE3 | 250 e | 230 e | 190 d | 145 f | 192 d | 185 d | 151 c | 130 g |
DE1 | 290 bcd | 253 cd | 231 abc | 200 bcd | 240 bc | 225 b | 185 ab | 147 cde |
DE2 | 273 cde | 253 cd | 230 abc | 195 cde | 240 bc | 225 b | 180 b | 145 def |
DE3 | 270.0 de | 250 cd | 220 bc | 190 de | 235 bc | 220 b | 173 bc | 140 efg |
GE1 | 310.0 ab | 275 b | 250 a | 215 ab | 285 a | 240 a | 200 ab | 165 b |
GE2 | 303.3 ab | 268 bc | 240 ab | 210 abc | 250 b | 235 ab | 193 ab | 160 bc |
GE3 | 300 abc | 265 bc | 235 ab | 200 bcd | 240 bc | 225 b | 190 ab | 155 bcd |
F-test | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
Table 4.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene applications on ascorbic acid content (mg 100 g−1) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Table 4.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene applications on ascorbic acid content (mg 100 g−1) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Treatments | Ascorbic Acid Content (mg 100 g−1) of Stored Tomato Fruits after Treatment |
---|
8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days | 8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days |
---|
2020 Season | 2021 Season |
---|
Control | 14.1 e | 13.20 h | 12.97 e | 12.4 d | 17.2 d | 14.0 c | 12.0 c | 11.0 c |
FE1 | 19.9 b | 28.00 bc | 21.03 b | 18.1 ab | 22.8 ab | 19.0 ab | 16.8 ab | 14.4 a |
FE2 | 16.1 cd | 18.90 fg | 14.40 de | 13.0 d | 20.0 bc | 17.0 abc | 15.5 abc | 12.0 b |
FE3 | 15.0 d | 17.60 g | 13.5 e | 13.0 d | 18.0 cd | 16.0 abc | 12.3 c | 11.0 d |
DE1 | 16.3 cde | 17.60 g | 15.10 d | 12.5 d | 18.0 cd | 16.0 abc | 14.3 abc | 12.0 b |
DE2 | 17 bcde | 21.10 ef | 15.80 d | 14.7 bcd | 20.0 bc | 17.0 abc | 14.4 abc | 12.5 b |
DE3 | 18.1 bcd | 23.80 de | 17.60 c | 16.4 bc | 20.0 bc | 17.0 abc | 15.5 abc | 13.0 ab |
GE1 | 18.1 bcd | 22.80 e | 17.60 c | 15.8 cd | 20.0 bc | 17.0 abc | 15.9 abc | 13.0 ab |
GE2 | 22.7 a | 30.80 b | 24.00 a | 19.1 a | 25.6 a | 20.0 a | 17.8 a | 14.2 a |
GE3 | 24.0 a | 35.20 a | 24.00 a | 19.5 a | 26.0 a | 20.0 a | 18.0 a | 14.4 a |
F-test | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | * |
Table 5.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene applications on TSS (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Table 5.
Effect of ethrel and ethylene applications on TSS (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Treatments | TSS Content (%) of Stored Tomato Fruits after Treatment |
---|
8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days | 8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days |
---|
2020 Season | 2021 Season |
---|
Control | 4.5 c | 3.97 d | 3.9 ab | 3.60 b | 4.77 e | 5.0 f | 4.27 e | 4.07 e |
FE1 | 5.00 ab | 5.07 a | 4.50 ab | 4.00 ab | 5.83 bcd | 6.1 b–f | 5.33 c | 5.50 ab |
FE2 | 4.90 abc | 4.20 bc | 3.93 ab | 3.70 b | 5.00 e | 5.83 c–f | 5.10 cd | 4.50 de |
FE3 | 4.50 c | 4.10 bcd | 3.87 b | 3.67 b | 5.10 e | 5.67 ef | 4.60 de | 4.20 e |
DE1 | 4.80 abc | 4.67 abcd | 4.07 ab | 3.83 ab | 5.77 cd | 6.6 a–e | 5.00 cd | 4.57 de |
DE2 | 4.83 abc | 4.77 abc | 4.30 ab | 3.90 ab | 6.00 bc | 6.8 a–e | 5.93 b | 4.70 cde |
DE3 | 4.73 abc | 4.70 abcd | 4.33 ab | 4.03 ab | 5.10 e | 5.9 b–f | 5.10 cd | 4.40 de |
GE1 | 4.93abc | 4.80 abc | 4.27 ab | 4.17 ab | 6.00 bc | 6.67 a–e | 6.00 b | 5.00 bcd |
GE2 | 5.07 a | 5.07 a | 4.40 ab | 4.20 ab | 6.40 ab | 7.0 ab | 6.00 b | 5.70 a |
GE3 | 5.10 a | 5.27 a | 4.80 a | 4.47 a | 6.83 a | 7.27 a | 6.83 a | 5.80 a |
F-test | * | ** | * | * | ** | ** | ** | * |
Table 6.
Effect of applied ethrel and ethylene doses on acidity (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Table 6.
Effect of applied ethrel and ethylene doses on acidity (%) of the tomato fruits 8, 16, 24, and 32 days after the treatment in 2020 and 2021.
Treatments | Acidity Content (%) of Stored Tomato Fruits after Treatment |
---|
8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days | 8 Days | 16 Days | 24 Days | 32 Days |
---|
2020 Season | 2021 Season |
---|
Control | 1.090 a | 0.929 a | 0.832 a | 0.768 a | 1.470 a | 1.280 a | 0.960 a | 0.896 a |
FE1 | 0.960 e | 0.832 b | 0.768 b | 0.640 b | 1.090 c | 0.960 b | 0.640 d | 0.576 ef |
FE2 | 0.897 f | 0.768 c | 0.640 d | 0.619 c | 1.030 c | 0.832 bc | 0.640 d | 0.512 f |
FE3 | 0.832 g | 0.640 e | 0.640 d | 0.576 d | 0.832 d | 0.704 c | 0.640 d | 0.512 f |
DE1 | 1.090 b | 0.832 b | 0.768 b | 0.640 b | 1.280 b | 0.960 b | 0.896 ab | 0.832 ab |
DE2 | 1.020 c | 0.832 b | 0.661 c | 0.640 b | 1.280 b | 0.960 b | 0.768 c | 0.704 cd |
DE3 | 1.000 d | 0.768 c | 0.640 d | 0.640 b | 1.150 bc | 0.896 b | 0.768 c | 0.640 de |
GE1 | 0.960 e | 0.725 d | 0.640 d | 0.576 d | 1.280 b | 1.130 a | 0.960 a | 0.875 ab |
GE2 | 0.896 f | 0.640 e | 0.576 e | 0.448 e | 1.090 c | 0.960 b | 0.832 bc | 0.768 bc |
GE3 | 0.832 g | 0.640 e | 0.512 f | 0.384 f | 1.030 c | 0960 b | 0.832 bc | 0.768 bc |
F-test | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |