View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Veterinary Faculty, University of Murcia, , Campus de Espinardo 30100, Murcia, , Spain
Open access

Abstract

Tomato is rich in different bioactive compounds, especially the carotenoid lycopene, which intake is associated with various health benefits. Post-harvest use of ultraviolet light (UV) and light-emitting diode (LED) has been shown to increase the concentration of tomato bioactive compounds. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ultraviolet (A and C) and red-blue LED light on the concentration of carotenoids during a 7-days storage trial of mature green tomatoes. Exposure to combined UV and LED light nearly doubled the total carotenoid concentration and had no negative impact on sensory attributes.

Abstract

Tomato is rich in different bioactive compounds, especially the carotenoid lycopene, which intake is associated with various health benefits. Post-harvest use of ultraviolet light (UV) and light-emitting diode (LED) has been shown to increase the concentration of tomato bioactive compounds. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ultraviolet (A and C) and red-blue LED light on the concentration of carotenoids during a 7-days storage trial of mature green tomatoes. Exposure to combined UV and LED light nearly doubled the total carotenoid concentration and had no negative impact on sensory attributes.

1 Introduction

Intake of carotenoids has been correlated with the reduced incidence of several chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and several types of cancer (Böhm et al., 2020). Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a source of bioactive phytochemicals as lycopene, ascorbic acid, tocopherol, and phenolic compounds (Chaudhary et al., 2018). Tomato is a climacteric fruit and continues to ripen after harvest, therefore, leaving room for further biosynthesis of bioactive compounds. Various strategies have been developed to increase the concentration of bioactive compounds during post-harvest storage. Among them, artificial lighting treatments using ultraviolet light (UV) and/or light-emitting diodes (LED) have been shown to enhance carotenoid levels (Bravo et al., 2012; Nájera et al., 2018; Panjai et al., 2017, 2019; Dyshlyuk et al., 2020). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of combined exposure to UV (A and C) and red-blue LED light on the concentration of carotenoids during storage of mature green tomatoes. Attention has been also paid to other quality parameters such as mass loss, colour, acidity, soluble solids, and sensory attributes.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Samples and experimental design

Tomatoes (S. lycopersicum L.) cultivar “Asurcado” − belonging to the same batch − were purchased at the green stage of maturity 1 (USDA, 2005). Tomatoes were washed, weighed, and randomly assigned to each experimental condition (n = 4 tomatoes/condition). Tomatoes, with or without pre-treatment with combined UV (A+C) light, were stored for 7 days at room temperature (20 ± 1 °C; 63 ± 3% relative humidity) in the dark or under continuous red-blue LED (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Light conditions used for the storage of tomatoes. Energy consumption [kW] of each light treatment is shown between brackets

Citation: Acta Alimentaria 50, 4; 10.1556/066.2021.00015

2.2 UV-light pre-treatment

The UV-light pre-treatment (1 kJ m−2) was performed at room temperature in an UV-viewing cabinet (Panreac, Barcelona, Spain) equipped with two 8 W lamps emitting UVA (λ = 366 nm) and UVC (λ = 254 nm) (Bravo et al., 2012). Light intensity in the treatment area (40 Lux) was measured using a digital light meter (ISO-TECH LUX 1335, RS Amidata S.A., Madrid, Spain). The full pre-treatment lasted 5 h and tomatoes were turned over after 2.5 h to ensure UV light exposure of both fruit sides.

2.3 Continuous red-blue LED storage

LED storage was carried out using a 24 W LED lamp (Light K5, Kmashi, WNT-Luxtech Co., Ltd. Guangdong, China) equipped with 9 red diodes (λ = 620–625 nm) and 3 blue diodes (λ = 460–467 nm). In order to ensure light exposure of both fruit sides, tomatoes were turned over daily. Light intensity in the treatment area was 3.7 kLux. Photosynthetic photon flux density (PPDF) (25.4 μmol m−2 s−1) was measured using a spectrometer ALP-01 (Asensetek Incorporation, New Tai Pai City, Taiwan). Data of energy consumption of the different light conditions were measured using a Wi-Fi smart plug with energy monitoring EG-EW003MC (Energeeks Iberia S.L., Madrid, Spain). At the end of the storage trial, samples were homogenised and kept frozen at –20 °C until analysed. Green tomato samples (n = 4) were also analysed as initial control (day 0).

2.4 Analysis of carotenoids

Carotenoids were HPLC-analysed after extraction with methanol/tetrahydrofuran (v/v, 50:50) containing 0.1% butylated hydroxytoluene (Seybold et al., 2004). Chromatography separation was performed using a C30 column 250 × 4.6 mm, 5 µm i.d. (Análisis Vínicos S.L., Villarrobledo, Spain) in an Agilent HPLC system. Carotenoids were identified according to their absorption spectrum and retention times by chromatographic comparisons with authentic standards (Sigma, St. Louis, USA). Results were expressed as mg kg−1 of fresh mass.

2.5 Colour measurements and ripening index

Colour (CIELab) was measured in homogenised tomato samples using a colorimeter (Chroma meter CR300, Konica-Minolta, Tokio, Japan) and reported as L*, a*, and b*, Chroma and Hue values. Colour index was calculated as the a*/b* ratio (Nájera et al., 2018). The total colour difference (ΔE) was used to characterise the overall change in colour during storage and was calculated by the following equation (Song et al., 2017):
ΔEab=(L2L1)2+(a2a1)2+(b2b1)2
where L 1, a 1 and b 1 are L* a* b* values of green tomatoes at day 0 (initial control).

The ripening index was calculated as the TSS to TA ratio (Majidi et al., 2011). The percent of total soluble solids (TSS) was measured at 20 °C using an Abbe Mat 200 digital refractometer (Anton Paar GmbH, Ostfildern, Germany). Titratable acidity (TA), expressed as citric acid (%), was determined by titrating with NaOH (0.1 N) up to pH 8.1.

2.6 Sensory analyses

To study the impact of light treatments on sensory attributes, the experiment was repeated with the most effective light condition (UV+LED) and the control. A Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) was carried out by 7 panellists trained according to ISO 8586:2012. The samples were randomly blind-labelled with 3 digit codes. The evaluated attributes were: peel colour, flesh colour, odour, texture, firmness, juiciness, sweetness, acidity, and taste. The intensity of each attribute was rated using an unstructured scale with defined boundaries, established using reference samples corresponding to different levels of intensity (low to high), and descriptors (Table 1). Panellists rated the samples on a 10 cm unstructured linear scale with anchor points at each end (0: low and 10: high).

Table 1.

References and descriptors for the quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA)

Sensory attribute/IntensityLowMediumHigh
ColourGreen tomatoPink tomatoRed tomato
FirmnessCanned asparagus tipWatermelonOlives
TextureBoiled courgetteRaw courgetteRaw carrot
JuicinessGreen appleOrangeWatermelon
SweetnessWaterGlucose (10 g L−1)Glucose (20 g L1)
AcidityWaterCitric acid (1.5 g L−1)Citric acid (3 g L−1)
OdourUnripe, grassyTomato-like, floralOverripe, pungent, fermented
TasteUnripe, leafyTomato-like, fruity, sweetOverripe, pungent, fermented

2.7 Statistical analyses

Results are expressed as mean ± SD. Data were analysed by SPSS 24.0 (IBM, New York, USA). Comparisons between the means were analysed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test, whereas a Student’s T-test was performed for sensory analyses. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Carotenoids concentrations

Light conditions had significant impact on lycopene and β-carotene concentrations, but not on those of lutein (Table 2). Exposure to UV alone increased the carotenoid concentration in samples stored in darkness, but higher increases were observed in samples stored under continuous red-blue LED light. The strongest enhancing effect was observed for the combined UV+LED treatment, which significantly raised the total carotenoid concentration by 1.8-fold. In line with our results, in tomatoes stored at room temperature under continuous red light combined with full UV spectra short-daily treatments (30 min), a 1.5-fold increase in carotenoid concentration was documented, but the yield was similar to that elicited by red light alone (Panjai et al., 2017). In our study, the combined UV+LED treatment raised lycopene concentration by 1.7-fold and β-carotene concentration by 3.5-fold, when compared with control. This agrees with results of Panjai et al. (2017, 2019), who reported that β-carotene reached its maximum concentration after 10 days of storage under LED light alone or combined with UV, and then dropped. Instead, lycopene concentration continued to increase, while control tomatoes stored in darkness showed a delayed increase in both lycopene and β-carotene concentrations until day 10, and then rose. This could explain why, in our study, β-carotene concentration increased more strongly than of lycopene. At the end of our 7-day storage trial, the lowest β-carotene concentrations in control tomatoes and nearly the highest concentrations in treated tomatoes were measured.

Table 2.

Carotenoids, titratable acidity (TA), total soluble solids (TSS), ripening index (TA/TSS ratio), and mass loss of tomatoes stored under various light conditions

Light conditionLutein (mg kg−1)β-carotene (mg kg−1)Lycopene (mg kg−1)Total carotenoids1 (mg kg−1)TA (% citric acid)TSS (%)TSS/TA ratioMass loss (%)
Day 0
Green tomato1.62 ± 0.36a0.90 ± 0.40cNot detected2.52 ± 0.76c0.77 ± 0.06a8.0 ± 0.3b10.4 ± 0.4b
Day 7
Control1.18 ± 0.03a5.61 ± 0.06c77.50 ± 8.26c84.29 ± 8.35b0.72 ± 0.01a9.7 ± 0.4a13.6 ± 0.5a10.7 ± 2.1a
UV0.98 ± 0.12a11.99 ± 2.30b84.04 ± 12.35bc97.01 ± 14.77b0.70 ± 0.01a10.0 ± 0.4a14.4 ± 0.6a10.3 ± 2.5a
LED1.57 ± 0.25a17.47 ± 1.49a106.54 ± 6.29ab125.58 ± 8.03a0.63 ± 0.04a10.0 ± 0.4a15.8 ± 0.7a12.6 ± 2.6a
UV + LED1.40 ± 0.07a19.61 ± 0.18a132.32 ± 13.21a153.32 ± 13.44a0.64 ± 0.05a9.9 ± 0.3a15.6 ± 0.7a13.8 ± 2.5a

1Total carotenoids were calculated as the sum of lutein, β-carotene, and lycopene.

a–c Different superscript letters within columns mean statistically significant differences at P < 0.05.

3.2 Quality parameters: colour, TSS/TA ratio, and mass loss

As tomatoes ripened and carotenoid contents increased, colour parameters shifted to more reddish values, again more markedly following combined UV+LED treatment (Table 3). Compared with control, combined UV+LED treatment produced the highest changes in the a* parameter (1.2-fold) and the colour index (a*/b*) (1.4-fold), indicating a shift towards red colour. Hue angle and lightness (L*) dropped by about 70% and 30% in UV+LED samples, respectively, indicating the darkening of the red colour. Finally, the increase in the overall colour difference (ΔE) confirmed combined UV+LED treatment as majorly responsible for colour changes. As shown in Table 2, light treatments slightly increased the TSS/TA ratio due to increased TSS and reduced acidity (TA). This effect was more marked in tomatoes exposed to LED alone or in combination with UV. The pattern of changes observed for quality parameters agreed with previous reports (Panjai et al., 2017; Nájera et al., 2018). Mass losses were higher, albeit non-significantly, under LED illumination conditions (Table 2).

Table 3.

Colour parameters of tomatoes stored under various light conditions

Light conditionL*a*b*Colour index (a*/b*)ChromaHueΔE
Day 0
Green tomato51.38 ± 1.67a−9.63 ± 1.44c24.33 ± 1.43a−0.40 ± 0.04d26.17 ± 1.86a111.53 ± 1.79a
Day 7
Control37.95 ± 0.19b18.48 ± 0.76b15.38 ± 0.96b1.20 ± 0.03c24.04 ± 1.20a39.77 ± 0.59b32.45 ± 0.49b
UV39.00 ± 2.82ab18.85 ± 0.52ab15.09 ± 0.52b1.25 ± 0.01c24.15 ± 0.74a38.69 ± 0.19bc32.45 ± 1.34b
LED36.66 ± 2.06b18.12 ± 1.00b13.20 ± 0.44b1.37 ± 0.03b22.45 ± 1.08a36.10 ± 0.60c33.25 ± 1.63ab
UV + LED35.19 ± 0.71b22.10 ± 0.43a13.39 ± 0.12b1.65 ± 0.01a25.84 ± 0.63a31.21 ± 0.22d37.30 ± 0.38a

a–d Different superscript letters within columns mean statistically significant differences at P < 0.05.

3.3 Sensory attributes

A second experiment was carried out to investigate whether the effect of UV+LED treatments were reproducible, as well as to assess the impact of light treatments on sensory attributes. As can be seen from Table 4, the second experiment gave similar results to the previous one; lycopene concentration increased 3-fold in samples exposed to UV+LED, and, consequently, overall colour difference (ΔE) showed a similar behaviour. Accordingly, these changes had a significant effect on flesh colour as detected by panellists in the QDA. As illustrated in Fig. 2, for UV+LED tomatoes, the scores for flesh (7.9) and peel colour (8.5) were the highest among attributes, whilst acidity (3.2) was the lowest. The panellists could clearly see the difference in flesh colour between control (5.7) and UV+LED sample (8.5), rating higher the tomatoes that had developed a redder or darker red colour. Panellists reported UV+LED treated tomatoes as less acid (3.2) than control (5.9), but they did not detect differences in sweetness. This is in line with the changes observed in the TSS/TA ratio − an indicator of fruit sweetness − that increased upon UV+LED treatment mainly due to decreased TA rather than to increased TSS (Table 4). Finally, no differences were observed for other sensory attributes such as juiciness, odour, taste, texture, or firmness. Again, mass loss was higher in UV+LED samples (Table 4), but it did not affect the perceived firmness and texture (Fig. 2).

Table 4.

Colour difference (ΔE), titratable acidity (TA), total soluble solids (TSS), ripening index (TSS/TA ratio), and weight loss of tomatoes stored under darkness or UV+LED light conditions in experiment 2

Light conditionLycopene1 (mg kg−1)ΔETA (% citric acid)TSS (%)TSS/TA ratioMass loss (%)
Day 0
Green tomato0.8 ± 0.7c0.66 ± 0.02a5.2 ± 0.1c7.9 ± 0.2b
Day 7
Control26.7 ± 1.0b39.4 ± 1.6b0.70 ± 0.02a9.0 ± 0.2a12.8 ± 0.3a4.3 ± 0.4a
UV + LED79.2 ± 1.7a74.2 ± 1.9a0.51 ± 0.02a7.3 ± 0.4b14.4 ± 0.7a5.2 ± 0.5a

a–c Different superscript letters within columns mean statistically significant differences at P < 0.05.

1Colorimetric determination of lycopene (Sharma and Le Maguer, 1996).

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Results of the quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) of UV + LED and control tomatoes. The spider-web chart shows the mean sensory scores obtained for each attribute from the sensory evaluation. *Statistical significance at P < 0.05

Citation: Acta Alimentaria 50, 4; 10.1556/066.2021.00015

4 Conclusions

Exposure to combined UV and LED light nearly doubled the total carotenoid concentration compared with tomatoes stored in the dark. Light treatments did not cause significant mass losses and had no negative impact on sensory attributes. Indeed, colour was improved and acidity reduced. LED light alone was sufficient to elicit a significant increase in carotenoid concentrations in comparison with combined UV and LED light. This can be considered an advantage, since it is not necessary to install UV lamps in addition to the safe and non-thermal LED lights to achieve an enhanced effect on carotenoid accumulation. Besides, LED lights are energy-efficient − our 7-days LED treatment consumed 3.36 kW in total − and might involve significant reductions in energy consumption compared to incandescent light, which consumes a minimum of 75% more energy (USDE, 2021). With regard to the relevance to local crop producers, one potential interest of supplemental lighting could be the management of temporary storage. For instance, when tomatoes are harvested at greener stages − e.g. harvested early to prevent freeze damage − artificial lighting could be a useful tool to foster ripening, improving commercial and antioxidant value, and thus, reducing the losses due to non-marketable production. Last but not least, LEDs are also suitable in cold-storage applications to increase tomato carotenoid contents (Baenas et al., 2021).

Acknowledgements

N. Baenas was funded by a postdoctoral contract “Juan de la Cierva Formación” (FJCI-2017-33658) from the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness of Spain. Authors would like to acknowledge the EUROCAROTEN network (COST ACTION CA15136). Authors are grateful to JF. Nicolás and A. Abellán for sharing their expertise in measuring light intensity. In memoriam Ricardo García Rodríguez “Triqui”.

References

  • Baenas, N. , Iniesta, C. , González-Barrio, R. , Nuñez-Gómez, V. , Periago, M.J. , and García-Alonso, F.J. (2021). Post-harvest use of ultraviolet light (UV) and light emitting diode (LED) to enhance bioactive compounds in refrigerated tomatoes. Molecules, 26(7): 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26071847.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Böhm, V. , Lietz, G. , Olmedilla-Alonso, B. , Phelan, D. , Reboul, E. , Bánáti, D. , Borel, P. , Corte-Real, J. , de Lera, A.R. , … and Bohn, T : (2020). From carotenoid intake to carotenoid blood and tissue concentrations – implications for dietary intake recommendations. Nutrition Reviews, 79(5): 544573.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bravo, S. , García-Alonso, J. , Martín-Pozuelo, G. , Gómez, V. , Santaella, M. , Navarro-González, I. , and Periago M.J. (2012). The influence of post-harvest UV-C hormesis on lycopene, β-carotene, and phenolic content and antioxidant activity of breaker tomatoes. Food Research International, 49(1): 296302.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chaudhary, P. , Sharma, A. , Singh, B. , and Nagpal, A. K. (2018). Bioactivities of phytochemicals present in tomato. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 55(8): 28332849.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dyshlyuk, L. , Babich, O. , Prosekov, A. , Ivanova, S. , Pavsky, V. , and Chaplygina, T. (2020). The effect of postharvest ultraviolet irradiation on the content of antioxidant compounds and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in tomato. Heliyon, 6(1), e03288.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ISO 8586:2012. Sensory analysis – general guidelines for the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Majidi, H. , Minaei, S. , Almasi, M. , and Mostofi, Y. (2011). Total soluble solids, titratable acidity and ripening index of tomato in various storage conditions. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5: 17231726.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nájera, C. , Guil-Guerrero, J.L. , Enríquez, L.J. , Alvaro, J.E. , and Urrestarazu, M. (2018). LED-enhanced dietary and organoleptic qualities in postharvest tomato fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 145: 151156.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Panjai, L. , Noga, G. , Fiebig, A. , and Hunsche, M. (2017). Effects of continuous red light and short daily UV exposure during postharvest on carotenoid concentration and antioxidant capacity in stored tomatoes. Scientia Horticulturae, 226: 97103.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Panjai, L. , Noga, G. , Hunsche, M. , and Fiebig, A. (2019). Optimal red light irradiation time to increase health-promoting compounds in tomato fruit postharvest. Scientia Horticulturae, 251: 189196.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seybold, C. , Fröhlich, K. , Bitsch, R. , Otto, K. , and Böhm, V. (2004). Changes in contents of carotenoids and vitamin E during tomato processing. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(23): 70057010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sharma, S.K. and Le Maguer, M. (1996). Kinetics of lycopene degradation in tomato pulp solids under different processing and storage conditions. Food Research International, 29(3–4): 309315.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Song, J. , Wang, X. , Li, D. , and Liu, C. (2017). Degradation kinetics of carotenoids and visual colour in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima L.) slices during microwave-vacuum drying. International Journal of Food Properties, 20(supp1): S632S643.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • USDA (2005). Tomatoes: shipping point and market inspection instructions. United States Department of Agriculture. Available online: https://www.presentica.com/doc/11224942/tomatoes-pdf-document, last accessed: 25 Aug 2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • USDE (2021). U.S. Department of Energy. Energy saver. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/about-us (accessed on March 26, 2021).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baenas, N. , Iniesta, C. , González-Barrio, R. , Nuñez-Gómez, V. , Periago, M.J. , and García-Alonso, F.J. (2021). Post-harvest use of ultraviolet light (UV) and light emitting diode (LED) to enhance bioactive compounds in refrigerated tomatoes. Molecules, 26(7): 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26071847.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Böhm, V. , Lietz, G. , Olmedilla-Alonso, B. , Phelan, D. , Reboul, E. , Bánáti, D. , Borel, P. , Corte-Real, J. , de Lera, A.R. , … and Bohn, T : (2020). From carotenoid intake to carotenoid blood and tissue concentrations – implications for dietary intake recommendations. Nutrition Reviews, 79(5): 544573.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bravo, S. , García-Alonso, J. , Martín-Pozuelo, G. , Gómez, V. , Santaella, M. , Navarro-González, I. , and Periago M.J. (2012). The influence of post-harvest UV-C hormesis on lycopene, β-carotene, and phenolic content and antioxidant activity of breaker tomatoes. Food Research International, 49(1): 296302.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chaudhary, P. , Sharma, A. , Singh, B. , and Nagpal, A. K. (2018). Bioactivities of phytochemicals present in tomato. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 55(8): 28332849.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dyshlyuk, L. , Babich, O. , Prosekov, A. , Ivanova, S. , Pavsky, V. , and Chaplygina, T. (2020). The effect of postharvest ultraviolet irradiation on the content of antioxidant compounds and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in tomato. Heliyon, 6(1), e03288.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ISO 8586:2012. Sensory analysis – general guidelines for the selection, training and monitoring of selected assessors and expert sensory assessors .

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Majidi, H. , Minaei, S. , Almasi, M. , and Mostofi, Y. (2011). Total soluble solids, titratable acidity and ripening index of tomato in various storage conditions. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5: 17231726.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nájera, C. , Guil-Guerrero, J.L. , Enríquez, L.J. , Alvaro, J.E. , and Urrestarazu, M. (2018). LED-enhanced dietary and organoleptic qualities in postharvest tomato fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 145: 151156.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Panjai, L. , Noga, G. , Fiebig, A. , and Hunsche, M. (2017). Effects of continuous red light and short daily UV exposure during postharvest on carotenoid concentration and antioxidant capacity in stored tomatoes. Scientia Horticulturae, 226: 97103.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Panjai, L. , Noga, G. , Hunsche, M. , and Fiebig, A. (2019). Optimal red light irradiation time to increase health-promoting compounds in tomato fruit postharvest. Scientia Horticulturae, 251: 189196.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seybold, C. , Fröhlich, K. , Bitsch, R. , Otto, K. , and Böhm, V. (2004). Changes in contents of carotenoids and vitamin E during tomato processing. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(23): 70057010.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sharma, S.K. and Le Maguer, M. (1996). Kinetics of lycopene degradation in tomato pulp solids under different processing and storage conditions. Food Research International, 29(3–4): 309315.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Song, J. , Wang, X. , Li, D. , and Liu, C. (2017). Degradation kinetics of carotenoids and visual colour in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima L.) slices during microwave-vacuum drying. International Journal of Food Properties, 20(supp1): S632S643.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • USDA (2005). Tomatoes: shipping point and market inspection instructions. United States Department of Agriculture. Available online: https://www.presentica.com/doc/11224942/tomatoes-pdf-document, last accessed: 25 Aug 2021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • USDE (2021). U.S. Department of Energy. Energy saver. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/about-us (accessed on March 26, 2021).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: András Salgó

Co-ordinating Editor(s) Marianna Tóth-Markus

Co-editor(s): A. Halász

       Editorial Board

  • L. Abrankó (Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary)
  • D. Bánáti (University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary)
  • J. Baranyi (Institute of Food Research, Norwich, UK)
  • I. Bata-Vidács (Agro-Environmental Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • J. Beczner (Food Science Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • F. Békés (FBFD PTY LTD, Sydney, NSW Australia)
  • Gy. Biró (National Institute for Food and Nutrition Science, Budapest, Hungary)
  • A. Blázovics (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • F. Capozzi (University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy)
  • M. Carcea (Research Centre for Food and Nutrition, Council for Agricultural Research and Economics Rome, Italy)
  • Zs. Cserhalmi (Food Science Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • M. Dalla Rosa (University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy)
  • I. Dalmadi (Szent István University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • K. Demnerova (University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic)
  • M. Dobozi King (Texas A&M University, Texas, USA)
  • Muying Du (Southwest University in Chongqing, Chongqing, China)
  • S. N. El (Ege University, Izmir, Turkey)
  • S. B. Engelsen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark)
  • E. Gelencsér (Food Science Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Budapest, Hungary)
  • V. M. Gómez-López (Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia, Murcia, Spain)
  • J. Hardi (University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia)
  • K. Héberger (Research Centre for Natural Sciences, ELKH, Budapest, Hungary)
  • N. Ilić (University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia)
  • D. Knorr (Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany)
  • H. Köksel (Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey)
  • K. Liburdi (Tuscia University, Viterbo, Italy)
  • M. Lindhauer (Max Rubner Institute, Detmold, Germany)
  • M.-T. Liong (Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia)
  • M. Manley (Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa)
  • M. Mézes (Szent István University, Gödöllő, Hungary)
  • Á. Németh (Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • P. Ng (Michigan State University,  Michigan, USA)
  • Q. D. Nguyen (Szent István University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • L. Nyström (ETH Zürich, Switzerland)
  • L. Perez (University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain)
  • V. Piironen (University of Helsinki, Finland)
  • A. Pino (University of Catania, Catania, Italy)
  • M. Rychtera (University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic)
  • K. Scherf (Technical University, Munich, Germany)
  • R. Schönlechner (University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria)
  • A. Sharma (Department of Atomic Energy, Delhi, India)
  • A. Szarka (Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • M. Szeitzné Szabó (National Food Chain Safety Office, Budapest, Hungary)
  • S. Tömösközi (Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary)
  • L. Varga (University of West Hungary, Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary)
  • R. Venskutonis (Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania)
  • B. Wróblewska (Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research, Polish Academy of Sciences Olsztyn, Poland)

 

Acta Alimentaria
E-mail: Acta.Alimentaria@uni-mate.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Biological Abstracts
  • BIOSIS Previews
  • CAB Abstracts
  • Chemical Abstracts
  • Current Contents: Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences
  • Elsevier Science Navigator
  • Essential Science Indicators
  • Global Health
  • Index Veterinarius
  • Science Citation Index
  • Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch)
  • SCOPUS
  • The ISI Alerting Services

 

2020
 
Total Cites
768
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
0,650
Rank by
Nutrition & Dietetics 79/89 (Q4)
Impact Factor
Food Science & Technology 130/144 (Q4)
Impact Factor
0,575
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year
0,899
Impact Factor
Journal
0,17
Citation Indicator
 
Rank by Journal
Nutrition & Dietetics 88/103 (Q4)
Citation Indicator
Food Science & Technology 142/160 (Q4)
Citable
59
Items
Total
58
Articles
Total
1
Reviews
Scimago
28
H-index
Scimago
0,237
Journal Rank
Scimago
Food Science Q3
Quartile Score
 
Scopus
248/238=1,0
Scite Score
 
Scopus
Food Science 216/310 (Q3)
Scite Score Rank
 
Scopus
0,349
SNIP
 
Days from
100
submission
 
to acceptance
 
Days from
143
acceptance
 
to publication
 
Acceptance
16%
Rate
2019  
Total Cites
WoS
522
Impact Factor 0,458
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
0,433
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,503
Immediacy
Index
0,100
Citable
Items
60
Total
Articles
59
Total
Reviews
1
Cited
Half-Life
7,8
Citing
Half-Life
9,8
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00034
Article Influence
Score
0,077
% Articles
in
Citable Items
98,33
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,04267
Average
IF
Percentile
7,429
Scimago
H-index
27
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,212
Scopus
Scite Score
220/247=0,9
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Food Science 215/299 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,275
Acceptance
Rate
15%

 

Acta Alimentaria
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 1100 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 754 EUR / 944 USD
Print + online subscription: 872 EUR / 1090 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Alimentaria
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
1972
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia    
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0139-3006 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2535 (Online)

 

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Aug 2021 0 0 0
Sep 2021 0 0 0
Oct 2021 0 0 0
Nov 2021 0 47 32
Dec 2021 0 65 84
Jan 2022 0 48 42
Feb 2022 0 0 0