Next Article in Journal
Real-Time PCR Method Combined with a Matrix Lysis Procedure for the Quantification of Listeria monocytogenes in Meat Products
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Study on Pale, Soft and Exudative (PSE) and Red, Firm and Non-Exudative (RFN) Pork: Protein Changes during Aging and the Differential Protein Expression of the Myofibrillar Fraction at 1 h Postmortem
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 10
Issue 4
10.3390/foods10040734
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Potential of Exploiting Economical Solar Dryer in Food Preservation: Storability, Physicochemical Properties, and Antioxidant Capacity of Solar-Dried Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Fruits

by
Salah A. Al Maiman
1,
Nawal A. Albadr
1,
Ibrahim A. Almusallam
2,
Mohammed Jawad Al-Saád
3,
Sarah Alsuliam
1,
Magdi A. Osman
1 and
Amro B. Hassan
1,*
1
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Date and Palm Center, Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture, P.O. Box 43, Alhufuf 31982, Saudi Arabia
3
Saudi Irrigation Organization, P.O. Box 43, Alhufuf 31982, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2021, 10(4), 734; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040734
Submission received: 9 February 2021 / Revised: 24 March 2021 / Accepted: 26 March 2021 / Published: 30 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Food Engineering and Technology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigated the effect of solar drying on storability and physiochemical and antioxidant capacities of dried tomatoes. Sliced fruit was dried at 45 ± 2 °C for 24 h under a solar tunnel dryer and stored at ambient temperature for 90 and 180 days. Solar drying treatments significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the bacterial and mold load, and eliminated Staphylococcus aureus, S. saprophyticus, and Escherichia coli in all samples. Solar drying treatment reduced the water activity of the dried tomato’s to 0.31 that remained at the same level during storage period 180 days. Storage of dried tomato slices resulted in the decrease of both color and vitamin C content while it increased the total carotenoid, lycopene, phenolic compound content, and antioxidant activity. Furthermore, the principle component analysis (PCA) revealed that solar drying of tomato slices enhanced its physicochemical properties, antioxidant capacity particularly after storage for 90 and 180 days. Interestingly, the solar drying process enhanced tomato slices storage and physicochemical characteristics, that resulted in extending the shelf life by up to 6 months, indicating the great potential application of low-tech solar in food industry and could become an emerging effective post-harvest preservative method for seasonal perishable vegetable and fruit, particularly in developing countries.

1. Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and tomato-based products play an important role in human nutrition and health. Tomatoes are an excellent source of many nutrients and phytochemical compounds, such as minerals, vitamin C and E, phenolic flavonides, lycopene, and carotenoids [1,2]. Many studies had shown strong correlation between regular consumption of tomatoes and related products and prevention of chronic disease such as cancer and heart disease [3,4,5]. These therapeutic actions are mainly be due to the valuable bioactive components and antioxidant properties of the tomato slices [6,7].
Like other highly seasonal, perishable fruits, tomatoes are susceptible to microbial degradation and rottening that result in a loss of quality and shortening of the shelf life, leading to high post-harvest losses [8,9]. The post-harvest losses of seasonal fruits and vegetables were estimated to be between 40% and 50% in many developing countries [10]. Therefore, several post-harvest processing methods have been explored to maintain seasonal fruit quality, safety so as to extend their shelf life. Cold storage is commonly used to improve shelf life and maintain quality after harvest. However, in developing countries due to poor storage systems, poor transportation coupled with inadequate processing facilities, and lack of processing enterprises, considerable amounts of harvested tomatoes are lost [11]. Therefore, suitable preservation approaches with low-cost processing methods is required.
Drying is the earliest and most common technology used for food preservation. Drying is known to reduces the moisture content and water activity, thereby controlling microbial growth (bacteria, yeasts, and molds) and oxidative and enzymatic reactions to a minimal level, that results in safe storage and increase product shelf life [12,13,14,15]. Furthermore, decreasing the moisture content of the products reduces their weight, volume, facilitating packaging, storage, and transportion [16].
Among drying techniques, sun drying has the lowest processing costs and does not require expertise. However, open sun drying is prevalent for long drying duration, weather dependence, exposure to rain, dust, insects, and animals are major obstacles to sun drying together with color degradation, poor rehydration, and low quality of the end product. On the other hand, Solar dryers are evolved to save time and to maintain the quality of products. Moreover, solar dryers use a clean and non-conventional source of energy [17]. The use of a solar dryer can be ysed to enhance the safety and quality issues associated with sun-dried food products [18]. In addition, a solar dryer can rapidly dry the product consistently and hygienically to meet consumer demands [19]. Several studies have investigated the impact of the drying process, particularly solar drying, on the physical, chemical, and nutritional characteristics of fruits and vegetables. Abrol et al. [20], investigated the effect of solar tunnel drying on the physicochemical and antioxidant properties of tropical fruits mango, banana, and papaya and reported that solar tunnel drying increased physicochemical and antioxidant properties of the fruit while slightly decreasing the vitamin C content. Azeez et al. [21] reported that drying of tomato slices in a vaccum oven at different temperatures and times significantly increased antioxidant activity, phenolic compounds and lycopene but significantly drecreased flavonoids and β cartone content.
Despite several studies investigating the effect of solar energy drying on fruit quality, further research in this field is needed to improve the technology use in the food industry. To date, no study has been carried out to evaluate the changes in storability characteristics and physicochemical and antioxidant properties of solar-dried tomatoes. Therefore, this study is designed to assess the changes in microbial load, physico-chemical, antioxidant activity, and bioactive compounds change during the storage of solar-dried tomatoes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Fruit Samples

Tomato samples were obtained from three tomato farm located in Khartoum, Sudan. After harvesting and sorting from the damaged ones, the fresh fruit samples were washed with tap water, and all inedible parts were removed manually.

2.2. Standards and Chemicals

Polyphenol standards (tannic acid, gallic acid, and catechin) with purity >97.5%, Folin–Ciocâlteu reagent, oxalic acid, aluminum chloride, sodium nitrite, ascorbic acid, 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol dye, and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) were purchased from Sigma–Aldrich Company Ltd. (Darmstadt, Germany). All other chemicals used were of at least analytical grade.

2.3. Solar Drying

The prototype of tunnel dryer had dimension of 2 by 1 m and 1 by 1 m for collector and drying chamber respectively Both collector and the drying units were covered with UV stabilized visqueen sheets and food grade black paint was used as an absorber in the collectors. A photovoltaic solar panel (model BP 255) was used to power an axial fan of 12 V each to generate an air flow of 0.25 m3 s−1 through the drying bed. The temperature, humidity, and air velocity along the drying length and across the tunnel were measured under no load conditions. The temperature and humidity sensor locations in the dryer are given in five place along the dryer. Fruits were cut into angular slices with 3 mm in thickness. The slices were placed on a wire mesh tray in cabinet dryers in a single layer and directly kept under a solar tunnel dryer at a temperature of 45 ± 4 °C for 24 h. The dried tomatoes were backed into vacuum plastic bags and stored at room temperature 25 ± 2 °C for 90 and 180 days, respectively. Fresh fruit was analyzed as undried samples and served as the control.

2.4. Moisture Content and Water Activity

The moisture content of the fresh and solar-dried tomato was measured using the hot air method as previously described [22]. The water activity was determined in fresh and dried tomato slies was measured at 25 °C (±0.2 °C) using hygrometer with selectable sensors for determination of air humidity, material moisture, and water activity (humimeter RH2, Schaller, Vienna, Austria), equipped with a temperature-controlled system which allow to have a temperature stable sampling environment.

2.5. Microbial Load Determination

The microbial load of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices was enumerated by counting of Staphylococcus aureus, S. saprophyticus, Escherichia coli, yeasts, and molds (log cfu/g). Samples (1 g) were homogenized in 10 mL peptone water (0.1%) and serially diluted and plated using the appropriate medium. The total Staphylococcus aureus and S. saprophyticus count were plated in Petri films (Staph. express. IDEXX) and incubated at 37 ± 1 °C for 24 to 48 h as previously described [23]. E. coli was counted according to American Public Health Association (APHA) [24] using MacConkey agar medium. Yeasts and molds were counted on acidified potato dextrose agar, (OxoidCM139) which was acidified by the addition of the proper amount of sterile 10% tartaric acid (Fluka-AG-Buchs.SG). Solidified pour plates were incubated upright at 25 ± 1 °C for 3–7 days and results were reported as log per gram of samples according to Association of Official Analytical Chemists AOAC [22].

2.6. Color and Browning Index

The color of powdered samples was determined using CIELAB (CIE) color scales. L* (whiteness/darkness), a* (redness/greenness), and b* (yellowness/blueness) values were measured using a colormeter (CR-300, Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan). Five measurements were averaged, and the total color difference (ΔE) estimated using the following equation reported by [25].
Δ E = ( Δ L ) 2   + ( Δ a ) 2 + ( Δ b ) 2
Browning index (BI) was calculated from L, a, and b values as described by Maskan [26] following equation
Browning   index   ( BI ) = 100 ( x − 0.31 ) 0.17 ,   where   x   = a + 1.75 L 5.645 L + ( a − 3012 b )

2.7. Titratable Acidity

Acidity was measured for the sample after mixing 1 g of sample with 10 mL of distilled water and then titrated against NaOH (0.1 N) until the color was pale pink. The titratable acidity was expressed as percent malic acid [22]:
LA % = [10 × V. NaOH × 0.009 × 0.1/W] × 100

2.8. Vitamin C Determination

Vitamin C in fresh and solar dried tomato slices was determined by titration with the indicator dye 2,6-dichloroindophenol according to the method of AOAC [22]. Approximately 5 g of sample was blended with 0.4% oxalic acid and filtered, and the volume adjusted to 100 mL with oxalic acid. A volume of 10 mL of this prepared sample was added to 5 mL of 10% oxalic acid and then titrated against 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol dye.

2.9. Carotenoids Determination

Carotenoids were extracted according to the method of Jacques et al. [27]. Approximately 2 g tomato powder was weighed and homogenized with 25 mL of cold acetone. The mixture was shaken for 10 min at room temperature, followed by filtration using Whatman No. 1 filter paper. The supernatant was transferred to a decanting funnel, where a liquid:liquid extraction was performed with 20 mL petroleum ether. The filtrate was washed with 100 mL distilled water to remove the acetone, and the lower phase was discarded. The procedure was repeated twice, and the petroleum ether layer filtered using Whatman No. 1 filter paper covered with 5 g of anhydrous sodium sulfate to remove residual water. The petroleum ether extracts were obtained, and the volume was adjusted to 25 mL with petroleum ether. The absorbance was measured at 450 nm, and the total carotenoid content was expressed in mg/100 g dry matter DM.

2.10. Lycopene Determination

Lycopene in the tomato samples was extracted with a solvent mixture of hexane:ethanol:acetone (2:1:1, v/v) following the procedure of Sadler et al. [28] with minor modifications. Briefly, 1 g lyophilized sample was resuspended with 8 mL of the solvent mixture, capped and placed on the rotary mixer, then after at least 30 min of extraction, 10 mL of distilled water was added to separate the phases, and the absorbance of lycopene level was measured at 503 nm after 5 min. The lycopene content was expressed in mg/100 g DM.

2.11. Phenolic Content and In Vitro Antioxidant Activity

Extraction of Antioxidants

A methanolic extract of tomato samples was prepared at a ratio of 1:25 (w/v) at 25 °C overnight. The extract was filtered, and the process was repeated with the residue. Extracts were collected and dried using a vacuum with a rotary evaporator and then kept dry for further analysis. The extracts were reconstituted with pure ethanol directly before the analysis of total phenolic content, total flavonoids, and DPPH scavenging activity.

2.12. Determination of Total Phenolic Content

The Folin–Ciocâlteu method [29] was used to estimate the total phenolic content (TPC) of the fresh and solar dried tomato samples. An aliquot (20 µL) of the dried methanolic extract solution (1:10 w/v) was mixed with 1.58 mL H2O and 100 µL of Folin–Ciocâlteu reagent. Then approximately 300 µL Na2CO3 was added to the solution, which was then kept at 20 °C for 2 h. The absorbance was detected at 765 nm in comparison with a blank solution. A calibration curve was performed using different concentrations of gallic acid (R2 = 0.9672), and the results were expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents gallic acid GAE/g sample (DM).

2.13. Determination of Total Flavonoid Content

The total flavonoid content (TFC) of the tomato samples was determined following the method of Kim, Jeong, and Lee [30]. A mixture of methanolic extract (1 mL), 5% NaNO2 solution (300 μL), and 10% aluminum chloride (300 μL) was incubated at 25 °C for 5 min, and then 1 M sodium hydroxide (2 mL) was added. The volume was then directly adjusted to 10 mL with H2O and thoroughly vortexed. The absorbance was detected at 510 nm. A calibration curve was performed using different concentrations of catechin (R2 = 0.974). TFC was stated as mg catechin equivalents (CE)/g sample (DW).

2.14. 2,2-Diphenyl-1-Picrylhydrazyl Radical Scavenging

The radical scavenging (DPPH) radical scavenging ability of the fresh and solar dried tomato samples was determined as previously described [31]. Approximately 0.9 mL of a 50 mM Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4) and 0.1 mL of the sample extracts, or deionized H2O, to serve as a control, were mixed and then incubated at room temperature for 30 min. The absorbance of the mixture was then read at 517 nm. The DPPH scavenging was calculated and expressed as trolox equivalent (mg TE/g).

2.15. Statistical Analysis

Data are presented as arithmetic means of three replicates. The experiments were conducted using a completely randomized block design and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance. Multiple significant differences in the means (p < 0.05) were evaluated using least significant difference (LSD) range test. Multivariate analysis was conducted using HJ-Biplot principle component analysis (PCA) algorisms as described in the XSTAT software.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Moisture Content and Water Activity of Fresh and Solar-Dried Tomato Slices

The changes in the moisture content (MC), water activity (aw), and the total acidity of the solar-dried tomato and dried tomato followed by storage are shown in Table 1. The MC for the n fresh tomato MC was found to be 94.7%, and was sharply decreased to to 3.95% after solar drying, and remained at the same level after stored for 90 and 180 days (3.51%–3.44%). The insignificant change in the moisture content of dried-tomato slices during storage might be attributed to the vacuum packaging. Similarly, the fresh tomato showed significantly higher water activity (0.91) than solar-dried tomato before and after storage (0.31–0.42).
The low misture conent and the water activity in solar-dried samples could be attributed to the efficient and quick removal of water from tomato slices, due to the uniform heat distribution and transfer in the dryer. Similar findings were reported by Mdziniso et al. [32] in green leafy and yellow succulent vegetables upon drying and subsequent ambient storage. Indicating that the solar drying method is promising cheap technques for drying vegetables that is associated with lower MC and water activity.

3.2. Microbial Load of Fresh and Solar-Dried Tomato Slices

The results showed that the log values of S. aureus and S. saprophyticus were higher in fresh tomato compared with those in solar-dried tomato before and after the storage (Table 2) at 3.38 and 3.60 log cfu/g, respectively. However, after solar drying, the log values of both S. aureus and S. saprophyticus was reduced to 3.0 log cfu/g. In the stored solar dried tomato slices, the log values of the S. aureus reduced to 1.5 log cfu/g, whereas S. saprophyticus was totally eliminated. E. coli was not detected in either fresh or dried samples. However, yeast was detected in solar-dried tomato (5.09 log cfu/g) but not in fresh samples. This contamination of tomato slices might be occurred during the drying process.
Overall, the average microbial population was significantly (p < 0.05) lower in the solar-dried tomato slices, particularly after storage, compared to the fresh samples. Ntuli et al. [33], reported that the absence of microbes in detection procedures indicates good hygienic, drying, storage, and handling practices. The elimination or the lowering the load of S. aureus, S. saprophyticus, and E. coli, the mold and yeast in the solar-dried sample could be attributed to decreasing both the moisture content and the tomato samples water activity after drying. Moreover, the microorganisms can keep their viability regardless of the water activity. The growth of bacteria require aw > 0.8 whiles yeasts and molds grow in aw > 0.6 [33]. During the storage period, there was a very slight decrease in the microbial load in dried samples, indicating that microbial safty of the solar drying of tomato slices up to 180 days of storage period.

3.3. Color Values of Fresh and Solar-Dried Tomato Slices

Color is an important characteristic in determining the quality of various foods. Pigments and aroma may be formed through non-enzymatic browning reactions when food is dried. Table 3 shows the changes in color values of the fresh tomato and solar-dried tomato followed by storing. The color values L, a, and b of fresh tomato were 56.4, 18.4, and 39.4, respectively. The lightness (L value) of the tomato was significantly (p < 0.05) decreased to 30.0 after solar drying and progressively decreased to 27.4 and 24.9 when the solar-dried tomato was stored for 90 and 180 days, respectively. The redness (a values) of the tomato sample was significantly (p < 0.05) altered after solar drying to 15.6 (Table 3). The a value was also found influenced by storing time. The lowest value, 8.81, was found in solar-dried tomato stored for 180 days. Similarly, there was a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in the yellowness (b values) in the solar-dried samples alone and dried and storage samples. Among the dried samples, the lowest b value (11.4) was obtained after 180 days of storage.
We calculated the color difference ΔE to evaluate the change in color in the solar-dried tomato and solar-dried samples, followed by storage time. The ΔE was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in stored tomato compared to the samples that were not stored and were found to be 32.2, 39.7, and 43.3 in dried samples stored for 0, 90, and 180 days, respectively (Table 3).
Moreover, the solar drying and/or storage process caused a significant decrease in lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*), leading to decreased in the BI for dried tomato. The BI was found to be 135.9 berior to the solar drying and it was decreased to 113.5 after drying of tomato slices. Additionally, storing of dried tomato slices for 90 and 180 day progressively decreased the BI to 94.7 and 85.3, respectively. The change in colour and BI of the dried sample was mainly due to the non-enzymatic browning/Maillard reaction. The decomposition of colour pigments and non-enzymatic reactions may occur and produce darkness in dried tomato slices [34]. Likewise, Ahmed et al. [35] and Chong et al. [36] reported the decrease in the L* value with increase in the darkness/brownness of food materials and pigment destruction were stated by various researchers.

3.4. Total Acidity, Vitamin C, Total Carotenoid, and Lycopene Content of Fresh and Solar-Dried Tomato Slices

Table 4 shows the effect of solar drying alone or followed by storage on the total acidity, vitamin C content, total carotenoid, and lycopene content of fresh tomato. The fresh tomato’s total acidity was found to be 4.19%. Solar drying processing caused insignificant (p > 0.05) increased in the total acidity. However storing the solar treated tomato slices for 90 and 180 days significant (p < 0.05) increase total acidity to 8.83 and 8.87, respectively. Similarly, Abrol et al. [20] reported an increase in acidity after solar drying of mango, banana, and papaya fruits. The increase in acidity may be due to MC reduction, leading to concentration-effect that increased acidity. Furthermore, the increase in acidity could be attributed to acid formation fromsugars oxidation and other chemical reactions [20].
The solar drying significantly (p < 0.05) decreased the vitamin C content of the fresh tomato from 63.8 mg/g DM to 53.1 mg/g DM, 52.2, and to 52.1 mg/g DM for 0, 90, and 180 days, respectively. However, there were no difference (p < 0.05) in the vitamin C content of samples with the storage time of 90–180 days (Table 4). Abrol et al. [20] reported similar trend in vitamin C losses after solar drying of mango, banana, and papaya that reached 78%, 75%, and 77.9%, respectively. Moreover, Nyangena et al. [37] found that vitamin C content in mango slices decreased with increased drying temperature, with the highest value observed in fresh samples. Vitamin C is susceptible to heat, which may explain the reduction in content following solar drying. Studies have shown that retaining vitamin C is difficult due to its heat liability [20,38].
The total carotenoid content of fresh tomato slices was 41.9 mg/g DM. As illustrated in Table 4, the solar drying process caused a significant (p < 0.05) increase in the total level of carotenoids of the tomato slices to 63.7 mg/g DM. Interestingly, the total carotenoid content was significantly higher in stored dried tomato at 88.6 and 88.9 mg/g DM after 90 and 180 days storage, respectively. Although, thermal processing such as dehydration, cooking, and baking is known to reduce carotenoid levels [39]. However, solar drying in this study significantly (p < 0.05) increased the total carotenoid level in tomatoes, which may be due to the low temperature and short time applied for the drying process. Similar to our findings drying of tomato using different drying methods such as sun, hot air oven, and microwave oven drying caused a significant increasing on its total carotenoid levels [40,41].
Lycopene content of the tomato prior to the solar drying was found to be 26.8 mg/100 g DM (Table 4). The solar drying process significantly (p < 0.05) increased the lycopene content in tomato to 30.5 mg/100 g DM. Similar results were also stated by Xianquan et al. [38], who found that lycopene remains relatively stable during thermal food processing procedures, particularly at low temperature and short application time. The tomato’s thermal processing may cause an increase in the lycopene content in tomato after drying, improving the bioavailability of lycopene, the principal carotene in the fruit, by cell wall disruption [38]. However, the lycopene content in tomato slices decreased significantly (p < 0.05) in storage after 180 days (29.6 mg/100 g DM). Reduced lycopene content after a long time of storage, 180 days in this study, might be due to autoxidation, which may cause fragmentation of the lycopene molecules [42].

3.5. Total Phenolic and Flavonoid Content and Antioxidant Activity of Fresh and Solar-Dried Tomato Slices

The TPC, TFC, and antioxidant activity (AA) as DPPH scavenging activity of fresh and dried tomato are illustrated in Table 5. The TPC, TFC, and AA of fresh tomato were 2.11 mg GAE/g, 1.90 mg Que/g, and 2.71 mg trolox/g in DM, respectively. Solar drying (0 day) significantly incread TFA content but not TPC and AA. However storing solar dried tomato slices significantly increased the content of TPC and TFC and AA activity levelcompared to fresh tomato.There was laso significant differeces in TPC, TFC, and AA between tomato slices stored for 90 and 180 days. The highest values of the TPC (3.18 mg GAE/g), TFC (4.48 mg Que/g), and AA (3.55 mg trolox/g) were observed after 180 days of storage. Similarly, several studies have reported that the solar drying process significantly increased the content of phenolic compounds and AA in some fruit and vegetables [20,21]. This increase was principally due to the increased release of phytochemicals from the food matrix, which increased these components’ extraction [43]. Moreover, the enhancement of phenolic compound content and the AA of solar-dried tomato may be attributed to the release of bound phenolic compounds resulting from cellular constituents’ breakdown due to the fast drying process [44,45].
Thermal treatment, such as oven drying, microwave heating, and sun drying, sharply reduced phenolic compounds and AA in dried leaf vegetables [31]. However, this study revealed that drying tomato slices using solar energy dryers enhanced the phenolic and flavonoid content and the AA. So, the increasing on the antioxidant activity might also be due to the hydrogen donation ability of antioxidants occurred as influenced by solar drying [46].

3.6. Principal Component Analysis and Partial Least Squares Regression Analysis

PCA using the HJ-Biplot method was performed to show the interrelationships between solar drying, storage, and measured parameters. The results demonstrated the interactive effects of the solar drying process on the physicochemical characteristics and phenolic compound contents and the microbial load and AA of solar-dried tomato, particularly after storage for 90 and 180 days (Figure 1). Interestingly, the contribution of the axes of the principal components PC1 and PC2 is explained as 79.4% and 17.6%, respectively, which resulted in high variability (97.0%) of the plotted components. Moreover, there was a strong positive correlation between radiation treatments and quality parameters of spices. Since s is an acute angle was found between the vectors of these parameters. Yan and Fregeau–Reid [47] explained that the eccentricity of characters that appear <90° angle is positively correlated, whereas those factors that formed >90° angles were associated with negative correlation, and those who have a 90° angle do not show a correlation in the biplot. Consequently, the treatments were separated into three groups. The control sample (fresh fruit) had higher values for vitamin C content and water activity of the tomato slices. The solar-dried tomato fruit (SDF) stored for 90 and 180 days (SDF 90 days and SDF 180 days) had the highest degree of correlation between the treatment parameters (lycopene content, color, carotenoids, TPC, TFC, acidity, and AA). Accordingly, these findings revealed that storing solar-dried tomato slices up to 6 months at 25 °C improve storability, physicochemical properties, and antioxidant capacity, hence extending shelf life.
The partial least squares regression (PLS) analysis classified the solar dying process’s validation on the storability and antioxidant characteristics of tomato slices. The interactive effects of solar drying and the storage time (x-variables) on the fungal load, color, water activity, total acidity, vitamin C, total carotenoid, lycopene content, TPC, TFC, and AA (y-variables) of tomato slices were clearly observed (Figure 2). The PLS revealed that solar-dried tomato slices particularly those stored for 90 and 180 days, showed positive validation of most studied parameters. Hence, the PLS specified that solar energy application in tomato drying followed by storage at ambient conditions produced the most valid drying treatment that could be considered for food industry applications.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated changes to the microbial load, physicochemical characteristics, and antioxidant capacity of solar-dried tomato slices during storage. The findings revealed that solar drying enhanced the content of bioactive compounds and the tomato slices antioxidant capacity and can be a beneficial factor for reducing the S. aureus, S. saprophyticus, and E. coli, the mold and yeast load of dried tomatoes and enhancing storage properties. Thus, low-tech solar energy shows great potential for food industry applications. It could become an emerging effective post-harvest preservative method. However, further research on application of solar drying technology concerning the impact on other quality parameters, and the storage properties of other fruits and vegetables are needed to improve its efficiency to accelerate the drying processing as well as to inhibit the microbial contamination during drying before it can be used as a reasonable low-tech alternative effective preservative method in food industries and technology.

Author Contributions

S.A.A.M.: Writing—review & editing, Funding acquisition. N.A.A.: Writing—review & editing. S.A.: Data curation, Visualization. I.A.A. and M.J.A.-S.: Data curation. M.A.O.: Writing—Reviewing and Editing. A.B.H.: Methodology, Data curation, Writing—Original draft preparation, Funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grant 01DL20003 and the Deanship at King Saud University for funding this work through research group NO. RG-1441-378.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their appreciation to Scientific Research’s Deanship at King Saud University for funding this work through research group NO. RG-1441-378. This project also received support from the Arab-German Young Academy of Sciences and Humanities (AGYA) funded under the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) grant 01DL20003. The authors thank the Deanship of Scientific Research and RSSU at King Saud University for their technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Giovanelli, G.; Paradise, A. Stability of dried and intermediate moisture tomato pulp during storage. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 7277–7281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kalogeropoulos, N.; Chiou, A.; Pyriochou, V.; Peristeraki, A.; Karathanos, V.T. Bioactive phytochemicals in industrial tomatoes and their processing byproducts. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Takeoka, G.R.; Dao, L.; Flessa, S.; Gillespie, D.M.; Jewell, W.T.; Huebner, B.; Bertow, D.; Ebeler, S.E. Processing Effects on Lycopene Content and Antioxidant Activity of Tomatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 3713–3717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Klipstein-Grobusch, K.; Launer, L.J.; Geleijnse, J.M.; Boeing, H.; Hofman, A.; Witteman, J.C. Serum carotenoids and atherosclerosis. The Rotterdam Study. Atherosclerosis 2000, 148, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Giovannucci, E.; Rimm, E.B.; Liu, Y.; Stampfer, M.J.; Willett, W.C. A prospective study of tomato products, lycopene, and prostate cancer risk. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2002, 94, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Adejo, G.O.; Agbali, F.A.; Otokpa, O.S. Antioxidant, Total Lycopene, Ascorbic Acid and Microbial Load Estimation in Powdered Tomato Varieties Sold in Dutsin-Ma Market. Open Access Libr. J. 2015, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Borguini, R.G.; Torres, E.A.F.D. Tomatoes and Tomato Products as Dietary Sources of Antioxidants. Food Rev. Int. 2009, 25, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shahnawaz, M.; Sheikh, S.A.; Soomro, A.H.; Panhwar, A.A.; Khaskheli, S.G. Quality characteristics of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) stored in various wrapping materials. Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 3, 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jayathunge, K.G.L.R.; Kapilarathne, R.A.N.S.; Thilakarathne, B.M.K.S.; Fernando, M.D.; Palipane, K.B.; Prasanna, P.H.P. Development of a methodology for production of dehydrated tomato powder and study the acceptability of the product. J. Agric. Technol. 2012, 8, 765–773. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wakholi, C.; Cho, B.-K.; Mo, C.; Kim, M.S. Current State of Post-harvest Fruit and Vegetable Management in East Africa. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2015, 40, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Perumal, R. Comparative Performance of Solar Cabinet, Vacuum Assisted Solar and Open Sun Drying Methods. Master’s Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 2007; p. 100. [Google Scholar]
  12. Beuchat, L.R.; Komitopoulou, E.; Beckers, H.; Betts, R.P.; Bourdichon, F.; Fanning, S.; Joosten, H.M.; Ter Kuile, B.H. Low–Water Activity Foods: Increased Concern as Vehicles of Foodborne Pathogens. J. Food Prot. 2013, 76, 150–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chong, C.H.; Law, C.L. Drying of Exotic Fruits, Vegetables and Fruits; Jangam, S.V., Law, C.L., Mujumdar, A.S., Eds.; National University of Singapore: Singapore, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 1–42. ISBN 978-981-08-7985-3. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sagar, V.R.; Kumar, P.S. Recent advances in drying and dehydration of fruits and vegetables: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 47, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Sokhansanj, S.; Jayas, D.S. Drying of Foodstuffs. In Handbook of Industrial Drying, 4th ed.; Mujumdar, A.S., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; pp. 521–544, ISBN-13 978-1-4665-9666-5. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chan, E.W.C.; Lye, P.Y.; Tan, L.N.; Eng, S.Y.; Tan, Y.P.; Wong, Z.C. Effects of drying method and particle size on the antioxidant properties of leaves and teas of (Morus alba, Lagerstroemia speciosa and Thunbergia laurifolia). Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 2012, 18, 465–472. [Google Scholar]
  17. Belessiotis, V.; Delyannis, E. Solar drying. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 1665–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arifin, U.F.; Djaeni, M. Degradation rate of vitamin B6 on red chili pepper drying by blanching-brine-calcium pretreatment. Commun. Sci. Technol. 2017, 2, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Condorí, M.; Echazú, R.; Saravia, L. Solar drying of sweet pepper and garlic using the tunnel greenhouse drier. Renew. Energy 2001, 22, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abrol, G.S.; Vaidya, D.; Sharma, A.; Sharma, S. Effect of Solar Drying on Physico-chemical and Antioxidant Properties of Mango, Banana and Papaya. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 2014, 37, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Azeez, L.; Adebisi, S.A.; Oyedeji, A.O.; Adetoro, R.O.; Tijani, K.O. Bioactive compounds’ contents, drying kinetics and mathematical modelling of tomato slices influenced by drying temperatures and time. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2019, 18, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. International Organization for Standardization “ISO”. Laboratory Protocol “Isolation of Salmonella spp. from Food and Animal Faces”. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso (accessed on 2 May 2016).
  24. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products, 16th ed.; Marshall, R.T., Ed.; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  25. Xiao, H.-W.; Law, C.-L.; Sun, D.-W.; Gao, Z.-J. Color Change Kinetics of American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) Slices During Air Impingement Drying. Dry. Technol. 2014, 32, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maskan, M. Production of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) juice concentrate by various heating methods: Colourdegradation and kinetics. J. Food Eng. 2006, 72, 218–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jacques, A.C.; Pertuzatti, P.B.; Barcia, M.T.; Zambiazi, R.C. Bioactive compounds in small fruits cultivated in the southern region of Brazil. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2009, 12, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sadler, G.; Davis, J.; Dezman, D. Rapid extraction of lycopene and β-carotene from reconstituted tomato paste and pink grapefruit homogenates. J. Food Sci. 1990, 55, 1460–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Waterhouse, A.L. Determination of total phenolics. Curr. Protoc. Food Anal. Chem. 2002, 6, 1.1.1–1.1.8. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim, D.-O.; Jeong, S.W.; Lee, C.Y. Antioxidant capacity of phenolic phytochemicals from various cultivars of plums. Food Chem. 2003, 81, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chan, E.; Lim, Y.; Wong, S.; Lim, K.; Tan, S.; Lianto, F.; Yong, M. Effects of different drying methods on the antioxidant properties of leaves and tea of ginger species. Food Chem. 2009, 113, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mdziniso, P.; Hinds, M.J.; Bellmer, D.D.; Brown, B.; Payton, M.E. Physical Quality and Carotene Content of Solar-Dried Green Leafy and Yellow Succulent Vegetables. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2006, 61, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ntuli, V.; Chatanga, P.; Kwiri, R.; Gadaga, H.T.; Gere, J.; Matsepo, T.; Potloane, R.P.; Victor, N.; Peter, C.; Raphael, K.; et al. Microbiological quality of selected dried fruits and vegetables in Maseru, Lesotho. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 11, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Soysal, Y.; Ayhan, Z.; Estürk, O.; Arıkan, M. Intermittentmicrowave–convective drying of red pepper: Drying kinetics, physical (colour and texture) and sensory quality. Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 103, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ahmed, J.; Shivhare, U.; Raghavan, G. Thermal degradationkinetics of anthocyanin and visual colour of plum puree. Eurian Food Res. Technol. 2004, 218, 525–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chong, C.H.; Law, C.L.; Cloke, M.; Abdullah, L.C.; Daud, W.R.W. Drying kinetics, texture, color, and determination ofeffective diffusivities during sun drying of Chempedak. Dry. Technol. 2008, 26, 1286–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nyangena, I.O.; Owino, W.O.; Imathiu, S.; Ambuko, J. Effect of pretreatments prior to drying on antioxidant properties of dried mango slices. Sci. Afr. 2019, 6, e00148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ndawula, J.; Kabasa, J.D.; Byaruhanga, Y.B. Alterations in fruit and vegetable ß-carotene and vitamin C content caused by open-sun drying, visqueen-covered and polyethylene-covered solar-dryers. Afr. Health Sci. 2004, 4, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Sahlin, E.; Savage, G.; Lister, C. Investigation of the antioxidant properties of tomatoes after processing. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2004, 17, 635–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arslan, D.; Özcan, M.M. Drying of tomato slices: Changes in drying kinetics, mineral contents, antioxidant activity and color parameters Secado de rodajas de tomate: Cambios en cinéticos del secado, contenido en minerales, actividad antioxidante y parámetros de color. CyTA J. Food 2011, 9, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Das Purkayastha, M.; Nath, A.; Deka, B.C.; Mahanta, C.L. Thin layer drying of tomato slices. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 50, 642–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xianquan, S.; Shi, J.; Kakuda, Y.; Yueming, J. Stability of Lycopene During Food Processing and Storage. J. Med. Food 2005, 8, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Shi, J.; Xue, S. Stability of Lycopene during Food Processing and Storage. In Lycopene. Nutritional, Medicinal and Therapeutic Properties; Preedy, V.R., Watson, R.R., Eds.; Apple Academic Press: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2009; pp. 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boateng, J.; Verghese, M.; Walker, L.T.; Ogutu, S. Effect of processing on antioxidant cntents in selected dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 1541–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Vega-Gálvez, A.; Di Scala, K.; Rodríguez, K.; Lemus-Mondaca, R.; Miranda, M.; López, J.; Perez-Won, M. Effect of air-drying temperature on physico-chemical properties, antioxidant capacity, colour and total phenolic content of red pepper (Capsicum annuum, L. var. Hungarian). Food Chem. 2009, 117, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Van, G.A.; Joubert, E.; Hannsman, C.T. Comparison of the antioxidant activity of aspalathin with that of other plant phenols of roolbos tea (Aspalathus linearis) tocoferol, BHT and BHA. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 623–638. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yan, W.; Fregeau-Reid, J. Breeding Line Selection Based on Multiple Traits. Crop. Sci. 2008, 48, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 10 00734 g001 550
Figure 1. Principal component analysis (PCA) of color (∆E), aw, total acidity, vitamin C content, total carotenoids, lycopene content, TPC, TFC, and AA of fresh fruit, solar-dried fruit (S D F 0 days), solar-dried fruit stored for 90 days (S D F 90 days), and 180 days (S D F 180 days).
Figure 1. Principal component analysis (PCA) of color (∆E), aw, total acidity, vitamin C content, total carotenoids, lycopene content, TPC, TFC, and AA of fresh fruit, solar-dried fruit (S D F 0 days), solar-dried fruit stored for 90 days (S D F 90 days), and 180 days (S D F 180 days).
Foods 10 00734 g001
Foods 10 00734 g002 550
Figure 2. Partial least squares regression analysis (PLS) of color (∆E), aw, total acidity, vitamin C content, total carotenoids, lycopene content, TPC, TFC, and AA of fresh fruit, solar-dried fruit (S D F 0 days), solar-dried fruit stored for 90 days (S D F 90 days), and 180 days (S D F 180 days).
Figure 2. Partial least squares regression analysis (PLS) of color (∆E), aw, total acidity, vitamin C content, total carotenoids, lycopene content, TPC, TFC, and AA of fresh fruit, solar-dried fruit (S D F 0 days), solar-dried fruit stored for 90 days (S D F 90 days), and 180 days (S D F 180 days).
Foods 10 00734 g002
Table
Table 1. Moisture content (%) and water activity (aw) of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
Table 1. Moisture content (%) and water activity (aw) of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
ParametersFresh FruitStored Solar-Dried Fruit
0 Day90 Days180 Days
MC94.42 ± 0.28 a3.93 ± 0.57 b3.51 ± 0.30 b3.44 ± 0.33 b
aw0.93 ± 0.02 a0.31 ± 0.001 b0.31 ± 0.002 b0.32 ± 0.001 b
Means in the same raw with the same superscript are not significantly (p < 0.05) different as assessed by least significant difference (LSD).
Table
Table 2. Microbial load of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
Table 2. Microbial load of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
Microorganism
Log cfu/g		Fresh FruitStored Solar-Dried Fruit
0 Day90 Days180 Days
Staphylococcus aureus3.38 ± 0.40 a3.0 ± 0.01 b1.5 ± 0.03 c1.5 ± 0.01 c
Staphylococcus saprophyticus3.60 ± 0.02 a3.0 ± 0.01 b0.0 ± 0.00 c0.0 ± 0.00 c
Escherichia colindndndnd
Moldndndndnd
Yeastnd5.09 ± 0.09 andnd
Means in the same raw with the same superscript are not significantly (p < 0.05) different as assessed by LSD. nd: Not detected.
Table
Table 3. Color values of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
Table 3. Color values of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
ParametersFresh FruitStored Solar-Dried Fruit
0 Day90 Days180 Days
L*56.4 ± 0.84 a30.0 ± 0.73 b27.4 ± 1.31 c24.9 ± 0.90 d
a*18.4 ± 0.22 a15.6 ± 0.73 b11.7 ± 1.00 c8.81 ± 1.15 d
b*39.4 ± 0.02 a16.4 ± 0.76 b13.2 ± 1.60 c11.4 ± 0.50 d
ΔE0.00 ± 0.00 d35.2 ± 0.74 c39.7 ± 1.30 b43.3 ± 0.85 a
BI135.9 ± 0.00 a113.5 ± 0.09 b94.7 ± 0.97 c85.3 ± 0.89 d
Means in the same raw with the same superscript are not significantly (p < 0.05) different as assessed by LSD.
Table
Table 4. Total acidity (%, DM), vitamin C (mg/g, DM), total carotenoid (mg/g, DM), and lycopene content (mg/100 g, DM) of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
Table 4. Total acidity (%, DM), vitamin C (mg/g, DM), total carotenoid (mg/g, DM), and lycopene content (mg/100 g, DM) of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
ParametersFresh FruitStored Solar-Dried Fruit
0 Day90 Days180 Days
Total acidity4.19 ± 0.19 b4.37 ± 0.05 b8.83 ± 0.29 a8.87 ± 0.23 a
Vitamin C63.6 ± 0.126 a53.1 ± 0.46 b52.2 ± 0.53 c52.1 ± 0.16 c
Carotenoid41.9 ± 0.42 c63.7 ± 0.15 b88.6 ± 0.08 a88.9 ± 0.10 a
Lycopene26.8 ± 0.45 c30.5 ± 0.04 a30.4 ± 0.08 a29.6 ± 0.06 b
Means in the same raw with the same superscript are not significantly (p < 0.05) different as assessed by LSD.
Table
Table 5. Total phenolic content (TPC; mg GAE/g DM) and total flavonoid content (TFC; mg Que/g DM) content and antioxidant activity (AA; 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) mg trolox/g DM) of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
Table 5. Total phenolic content (TPC; mg GAE/g DM) and total flavonoid content (TFC; mg Que/g DM) content and antioxidant activity (AA; 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) mg trolox/g DM) of fresh and solar-dried tomato slices.
ParametersFresh FruitStored Solar-Dried Fruit
0 Day90 Days180 Days
TPC2.11 ± 0.12 c2.15 ± 0.07 c2.68 ± 0.20 b3.18 ± 0.27 a
TFC1.90 ± 0.26 d2.46 ± 0.09 c3.77 ± 0.23 b4.48 ± 0.53 a
AA2.71 ± 0.03 c2. 75 ± 0.06 c2.91 ± 0.00 b3.55 ± 0.10 a
Means in the same raw with the same superscript are not significantly (p < 0.05) different as assessed by LSD.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Al Maiman, S.A.; Albadr, N.A.; Almusallam, I.A.; Al-Saád, M.J.; Alsuliam, S.; Osman, M.A.; Hassan, A.B. The Potential of Exploiting Economical Solar Dryer in Food Preservation: Storability, Physicochemical Properties, and Antioxidant Capacity of Solar-Dried Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Fruits. Foods 2021, 10, 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040734

AMA Style

Al Maiman SA, Albadr NA, Almusallam IA, Al-Saád MJ, Alsuliam S, Osman MA, Hassan AB. The Potential of Exploiting Economical Solar Dryer in Food Preservation: Storability, Physicochemical Properties, and Antioxidant Capacity of Solar-Dried Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Fruits. Foods. 2021; 10(4):734. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040734

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al Maiman, Salah A., Nawal A. Albadr, Ibrahim A. Almusallam, Mohammed Jawad Al-Saád, Sarah Alsuliam, Magdi A. Osman, and Amro B. Hassan. 2021. "The Potential of Exploiting Economical Solar Dryer in Food Preservation: Storability, Physicochemical Properties, and Antioxidant Capacity of Solar-Dried Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Fruits" Foods 10, no. 4: 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040734

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop