IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Research article
erd

Postharvest Management Options to Improve Tomato Value
Chain in Cambodia
TONG SOCHEATH*Division of Research and Extension, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: tsocheath@rua.edu.kh

BORARIN BUNTONGDivision of Research and Extension, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

ANTONIO ACEDO JR.
Institute of Crop Science, University of the Philippines Los Banos, College, Laguna, Philippines
Received 23 April 2020

Accepted 12 December 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Tomato (cv. Mongal) value chain practices of a farmers’ cooperative as pilot modelin Siem Reap, Cambodia, were assessed and improved through the introduction of
postharvest technologies and best practices. The existing value chain (EVC) practices
included harvesting tomatoes at the breaker stage, use of harvesting container with smoothsurface (plastic pail), use of plastic crate in hauling harvested tomatoes to the farmers’ house
where packaging in ordinary plastic bags at 10 kg fruit per bag was done. No sorting andspecial storage were practiced except for overnight storage at ambient when harvesting wasdone in the afternoon. The packed fruit were then transported to the city market about 12 km
from the farm or 30-45 minutes ride using a motorcycle-driven carrier (locally named‘TukTuk’). Marketing tomatoes usually took half day. Using the cooperative’s simple
packhouse which linked farm production and marketing, improved value chain (IVC)
practices were introduced, including sorting to ensure more uniform quality and damage-free
fruit, sanitizing with 0.01% calcinated calcium (non-chlorine sanitizer) by dipping fruit in thesolution for 3 minutes, modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) using perforated 50 µm thicklow-density polyethylene bag at 10 kg fruit per bag, and transporting and direct retailing in
ice box using a dedicated motorcycle-driven carrier. In another set of trials, three-day storage
simulating extended period of distribution and marketing was included using ambientcondition in the EVC while in the IVC, three storage options were introduced: ice box (3 kg
ice per box with about 25 kg fruit replenished every day); low-cost cold storage using the
Coolbot chamber; or evaporative cooler (EC). Results revealed that without storage (direct
marketing after harvest) total postharvest loss was about 14% in the EVC; this was
remarkably reduced to 4% in the IVC. IVC fruit were also firmer, had higher soluble solids
and much reduced microbial load than EVC fruit. No pesticide residue was detected in both
EVC and IVC fruit. With the three-day storage, the three storage options in the IVC did not
differ much in reducing postharvest loss to about 3-6% from 22% in the EVC. IVC fruit also
ripened slowly resulting in higher firmness than EVC fruit. Other quality attributes were notaffected. Vitamin C content was slightly higher in IVC fruit than in EVC fruit. From theresults, there is potential for integrating postharvest management options in value chains to
reduce postharvest loss and enhance quality of tomatoes.
Keywords Solanum lycopersicum, value chain improvement, farm-packhouse-market
model, postharvest loss reduction

INTRODUCTION
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is a major fruit-vegetable in Cambodia with production continually
expanding as a result of the introduction of improved varieties and production techniques as well as
increased market demand and entry of modern market outlets (e.g. supermarkets, hotels andⒸ ISERD

154

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

restaurants) due to the flourishing tourism industry (Buntong et al., 2012). However, poor postharvest
practices are a serious problem resulting in poor quality perception and high postharvest losses(Genova et al., 2006; AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center, 2016). Postharvest losses vary with typeof produce, location, growing season and the value chain stage (Weinberger and Acedo, 2011; Acedo
and Easdown, 2015). Postharvest losses of tomato in Cambodia were estimated at 11-35% in Kandal
province (Genova et al., 2006), 23% in traditional and modern supply chains in Kandal and Kampong
Speu provinces (Buntong et al., 2012) and 26% in Battambang and Siem Reap provinces (AVRDCThe World Vegetable Center, 2016). Aside from poor postharvest practices and the perishable natureof fresh produce, other factors contributing to losses include the fragmented and unorganized supply
chains and the hot and humid tropical climate. Postharvest losses are often absorbed by farmers as
reduced farm gate prices and by consumers through an increased purchase price. Postharvest losses
contribute to Cambodia’s high dependence on vegetable imports from Vietnam and Thailand
estimated at about 80% of domestic consumption (Millar, 2017). As part of Cambodia’s strategic
priorities to achieve inclusive and sustainable development, domestic production and marketing of
all kinds of vegetable are being promoted in order to substitute imports (Royal Government of
Cambodia, 2018).
Postharvest losses have significant economic, social, and environmental consequences.
Globally, food loss amounts to about one-third of total production valued at almost one trillion US
dollars in annual economic losses; contributes to hunger and malnutrition; represents about 25% ofwater used by agriculture; requires cropland area the size of China; and generates about 8% of global
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) which is the third largest after China and USA (FAO, 2013; HLPE,
2014). Reducing postharvest losses is a global agenda embedded in the United ations Sustainable
Development Goal (SDG) 12.3 which targets reducing food waste including postharvest losses by
50% by 2030 (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/). About half of the global food losses can beprevented with a more efficient supply chain and the saved food can feed about one billion extra
people, thereby reducing the pressure to raise more food to feed an additional two billion people by
2050. Postharvest technologies play a vital role toward this end and can enable developing countries
to improve the quality and competitiveness of their horticultural produce in domestic andinternational markets as they integrate into the world economy and global value chains proliferate.
Additionally in Cambodia, reducing postharvest losses could potentially contribute to vegetable
import substitution and self-sufficiency.
Postharvest management (PHM) is vital to reduce postharvest losses and contribute to improved
food and nutrition security through three different pathways: (1) increasing the availability of foodat farm-gate and market level, (2) reducing the price of food and thus enhancing potential access,and (3) reducing the volatility and quality of food availability (Van Gogh et al., 2017). PHM also
contributes to food safety which is the most critical dimension of food quality. If the quality has
deteriorated to a level that the food is no longer safe for human health, the food needs to be removed
resulting in quantitative food loss (Bin Liu, 2016). Economic revenues of improved PHM include
both efficiency (positive benefit-cost ratio) and effectiveness (incentives for supply chain
stakeholders to engage in PHM activities). Furthermore, PHM increases employment as farmers andother value chain agents are engaged in postharvest loss reduction activities. PHM can also reduce
GHG emission and global warming.
A value chain approach on PHM is important to effectively reduce postharvest losses (Batt andCadilhon, 2007; Van Gogh, 2017). It should target smallholders who are the dominant players in
supply chains in developing countries including Cambodia; otherwise, they would be further
disadvantaged and marginalized (Van der Meer, 2006; Chan, 2009). PHM can overcome theunderperformance in postharvest chains in terms of the loss of quantity and quality of the harvested
produce, and hence the loss of revenues and resources. Postharvest losses are not caused by one or
two specific links in the chain but are the result of an entire value chain. Tackling these losses
therefore requires a value chain approach rather than actions from a single stakeholder or a single
solution approach. The value chain approach specifies that the costs incurred in specific parts of thechain to create the added value will be sufficiently compensated by the revenues from the entire value
chain. PHM measures are stimulated when there is good prospect of obtaining the revenues inexchange for the costs and risk of investment.
Ⓒ ISERD

155

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Reducing postharvest losses is context specific, and strategies to developing competitive andsustainable value chains have to be tailored to the socioeconomic and ecological environment inwhich the value chain operates. The root causes of postharvest losses can be generalizable; however,
the magnitude and causes of losses and the measures to reduce losses will differ with supply chain.
Attempting one-size-fits-all approaches can create more challenges than they address. In improving
value chains, PHM measures need to be tested before commercialization. For example, in thecabbage supply chain in Central Philippines, postharvest loss in the traditional chain was estimatedat 34% and introduction of 3-4 wrapper leaf retention and plastic crate packaging at the farm level;2-3 wrapper leaf retention, 15% alum treatment for bacterial soft rot control and plastic crate
packaging prior to transport to market; and 15% alum treatment prior to retail reduced losses to 3%,
6% and 11%, respectively, or a total loss of 20% (Gonzales and Acedo 2016). In the modern chain
involving supermarkets, total loss was 25%, and introduction of 3-4 wrapper leaf retention and plastic
crate packaging at the farm level; 2-3 wrapper leaf retention, 15% alum treatment and plastic crate
packaging prior to transport to market; and 15% alum treatment and individual plastic film wrapping
prior to supermarket display reduced losses to 3%, 7% and 6%, respectively, or a total loss of 16%.
With the introduction of the different PHM measures, net income and return on investment increased.
In Cambodia’s tomato traditional chain in Kandal province, improved packaging (20 kg capacity
plastic crate with modified atmosphere packaging or MAP using 50 μm-thick low density
polyethylene or LDPE), precooling (5 min dip in 5oC water) and sanitizing (2 min dip in 200 ppm
chlorine solution) at the farm level decreased fruit damage at the wholesale and retail stages andreduced weight loss at the retail stage by about two-fold compared to that of fruit conventionally
packed in 20 kg capacity 50 μm-thick high density polyethylene (HDPE) and without precooling andchlorine treatments (Buntong et al., 2013). In the tomato modern chain in Kampong Speu province
wherein only one intermediary (collector-wholesaler) was involved between farmers andsupermarkets, MAP was only required, with 11 μm-thick film overwrap being more effective thanLDPE in reducing weight loss and retarding fruit ripening.
In the present study, the existing value chain of tomato in Siem Reap province was improvedby introducing selected PHM techniques in two scenarios, with and without storage options tosimulate temporary holding prior to marketing and immediate marketing after harvest, respectively.
Postharvest loss was quantified and fruit quality (physicochemical and food safety attributes) was
determined.
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of selected PHM techniques in improved value chain
in reducing postharvest loss and enhancing physicochemical quality of tomato and assess thecomparative advantage of improved value chain over the existing value chain with and without astorage component.
METHODOLOGY
Tomato fruits cv. Mongal at the breaker to turning stage were sourced from local farms of farmermembers of a cooperative in Siem Reap. The harvested fruit were placed in plastic crates and hauledeither to the farmers’ house representing the existing value chain (EVC) or to the cooperative’s simple
packhouse located nearby representing the improved value chain (IVC). Ten kg fruit were used foreach treatment per replicate. Three replications were used.
Experimental Trials Without Storage Component
In the EVC, after arrival at the farmers’ house, tomatoes were packed in ordinary plastic bags at 10kg fruit per bag without sorting or grading as usually practiced. The bags of fruit were thentransported to Siem Reap city wet market using ‘TukTuk’ (motorcycle-driven rickshaw) about 12 km
away or 30-45 min travel time. After the usual half day marketing period, the fruit were assessed forⒸ ISERD

156

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

losses and quality attributes.
In the IVC, after arrival at the simple packhouse, the fruit were sorted and only defect-free fruit
were used. The sorted fruit were sanitized by dipping for 3 min in 0.01% (100 ppm) calcinatedcalcium (CCa) solution which was followed by rinsing in clean water and air-drying. The fruit werethen packed in MAP (50 μm-thick LDPE) at 10 kg fruit per bag and placed in 25-kg (30 x 30 x 40cm) Styrofoam box with 1 kg ice (ice box) for transport to Siem Reap in dedicated ‘TukTuk’ for
direct retailing and after half day, the fruit were assessed for losses and quality attributes. All
treatments were replicated three times.
Experimental Trials with Storage Options
The same procedure as in trials without storage component was followed except that a 3-day storage
period was included prior to transport to Siem Reap market to simulate temporary holding before
marketing. In the EVC, the 3-day storage period was done at ordinary ambient condition. In the IVC,
three storage options were tested; low-cost cold storage using the Coolbot chamber, storage inevaporative cooler, and storage in 25-kg ice box with 1 kg ice per box per day. All treatments werereplicated three times.
Data Gathered
Postharvest loss: This was determined as the sum of percent outright volume loss, percent weightloss and percent loss of damaged fruit which were still marketable. After the half day marketing
period and storage (for trials with storage component), non-marketable fruit due to rotting, breakage
and/or over-ripening were weighed and expressed as percentage of the initial weight to represent theoutright volume losses. Weight loss was also taken as percentage of the initial weight. For damaged
fruit that were still marketable, they were subjected to evaluation of price reduction by 5 trained
panelists. The magnitude of price reduction was expressed as percentage of the price of sound or
undamaged fruit to represent equivalent loss of damaged but still marketable fruit.
Fruit quality attributes: Red-ripe fruit were counted and expressed as percentage of the total
number of fruit samples per replicate. Firmness was measured non-destructively using the Fruit
Hardness Tester (TR Turoni, Italy). Total soluble solids of the fruit juice was determined using a
digital refractometer while juice pH was measured using an electronic pH meter (Hanna Instruments).
Vitamin C was analyzed following the 2, 6-Dichloroindophenol Titrimetric method and the result
reported as mg/100g of tomato fruit (AOAC, 2006).
Food safety attributes: Pesticide residue analysis was performed using the GT Rapid Pesticide Test
Kit (Bangkok, Thailand). Microbial analysis determined the total bacteria (total plate count),
coliform and E. coli counts. Triplicate 25g fruit samples were placed in Stomacher for 2 min and thensubjected to serial dilution using sterile distilled water under aseptic condition in a laminar flow
cabinet. Triplicate aliquot of 0.1 ml was aseptically micropipette and placed in a petri dish with plate
count agar. The petri dishes were then placed in an incubator at 35oC for 24 hours and colony forming
units (CFU) were counted. For coliform enumeration, violet red bile agar (VRBA) was used. The
plates were incubated in 35 ± 2 ∘C for 24 hours and red colonies were counted. For E. coli analysis,
25g fruit samples were mixed with 225 ml saline water and placed in Stomacher for 2 min and addedwith 9 ml EC broth before serial dilution. Aliquots of 0.1 ml were aseptically pipetted out and placedin E. coli agar plates followed by incubation at 44oC for 24 hours. Microbial counts were determinedusing dilution plates with 15–300 colonies expressed as colony forming units per ml (CFUml−1).
When CFU exceeded 300 per plate, counts were taken from four 1-cm squares per plate. Logarithmicvalues of counts (logCFUml−1) were computed for every plate.
Storage conditions: Temperature and relative humidity (RH) during storage were measured using
an Infrared Temperature-RH meter.
Statistical AnalysisⒸ ISERD

157

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

All experimental trials were conducted in completely randomized design with three replications. Data
were subjected to analysis of variance and treatment mean comparison by least significant difference(LSD) test using the SAS Statistical Package.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Value Chains without Storage Component
Postharvest loss: Postharvest loss in both EVC and IVC was due to the combination of weight loss,
outright volume loss and equivalent loss of price reduction of damaged but still marketable fruit(Table 1). However, EVC had much higher weight loss (3.7%), outright volume loss (4.8%) andequivalent loss of damaged fruit (5.1%) compared to that of IVC (1.6%, 1% and 0.9%, respectively).
Overall, the total postharvest loss in the EVC was 13.6%, which was about four times higher thanthat in the IVC (3.5%). Several factors contribute to the reduction of postharvest loss in the IVC. The
temperature of the ice box (21oC) used during transport of tomatoes to market was much lower while
RH (100%) was much higher than that in the EVC (ambient, 29oC and 60% RH). Low temperatureand high humidity are known to reduce water loss which is mainly responsible for weight loss (Nunes,
2008; Holcroft, 2015). The ice box in the IVC may have also protected the fruit from damage more
effectively being a more rigid container than the plastic bag in the EVC during transport andmarketing. In addition, sorting, CCa sanitizing and MAP in IVC may have contributed to postharvest
loss reduction as previous reports indicated (Kumar et al, 2015; Arah et al., 2016). Specifically intomato, MAP has been found to be very effective in reducing weight loss (Gautam et al., 2017;
Rahman et al., 2017; Seng et al., 2017).
Table 1 Postharvest loss of tomato in existing value chain (EVC) and improved value
chain (IVC) without storage component
Parameter
A. Weight loss, %B. Outright volume loss, %

EVC
3.7
4.8

IVC
1.6
1.0

ANOVA1****

C. Damaged fruit, %D. Price reduction of damaged fruit, %E. Equivalent loss of damaged fruit, %F. Total postharvest loss (A+B+E), %

23.8
21.0
5.1
13.6

4.2
21.0
0.9
3.5

**
**
**

Fruit quality: No fruit turned full ripe in both EVC and IVC as transport and marketing were doneon the same day of harvest (Table 2). Vitamin C content and pH were also statistically similar
between EVC and IVC fruit. However, IVC fruit were significantly firmer than EVC fruit. Total
soluble solids content was also significantly higher in IVC fruit than in EVC fruit. These responses
suggest slowed metabolic activity in the IVC fruit which could have been induced by low temperaturein the ice box and MAP as also found in earlier studies (Beckles, 2012; Facundes et al., 2015; Gautam
et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2017; Seng et al., 2017).
Food safety: No pesticide residue was detected in both EVC and IVC fruit (Table 2). However,microbial load was remarkably reduced in IVC fruit with aerobic bacteria (total plate count) of 2.95
log CFU/g and non-detectable level of coliform bacteria and E.coli. In contrast, EVC fruit had 4.02
log CFU/g aerobic bacteria, 2.85 log CFU/g coliform bacteria and 1.48 log CFU/g E. coli. Acceptablelevels for food safety include <4.0 log CFU/g aerobic bacteria, <2.0 log CFU/g coliform and no E.
coli. IVC fruit met these acceptable microbial levels for food safety while EVC fruit did not. This
result can be attributed to the CCa sanitizing treatment in the IVC fruit. The effectiveness of CCa
sanitizing in reducing the microbial load on tomato and other vegetables was obtained in previous
studies (Ahmed et al, 2017a, 2017b; Rahman et al., 2017).

Ⓒ ISERD

158

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Table 2 Quality attributes of tomato in existing value chain (EVC) and improved value chain(IVC) without storage component
Parameter
Full-ripe fruit, % of total
Firmness, nondestructive, Shore
Total soluble solids, %pH
Vitamin C content, mg/100g FW
Microbial load
Total plate count, log CFU/g
Coliform, log CFU/g
E. coli, log CFU/g
Pesticide residue, GT Rapid Test

EVC
0
122
5.2
4.3
9.3

IVC
0
133
5.8
4.4
9.3

4.02
2.85
1.48
negative

2.95<1.0 (0)<1.0 (0)negative

ANOVA1
*
**
ns
ns
**
**
**

Value Chains with Storage Options
Postharvest losses: Total postharvest loss was very high in the EVC (21.6%) due to high weightloss (11.1%), outright volume loss (7%) and equivalent loss of damaged fruit (3.5%) (Table 3). In
the IVC, total loss was comparable among the three storage options and ranged from 2.5-6.1%
consisting of 1.9-2.8% weight loss, 0-2.8% outright volume loss and 0.6-0.9% equivalent loss ofdamaged fruit.
Table 3 Postharvest loss of tomato in existing value chain (EVC) with 3-day ambient storageand improved value chain (IVC) with 3-day storage in ice box, Coolbot chamber or
evaporative cooler (EC)Parameter
A. Weight loss, %B. Outright volume loss, %C. Damaged fruit, %D. Price reduction of damaged fruit, %E. Equivalent loss of damaged fruit, %F. Total postharvest loss (A+B+E), %EVC-

IVC-iceambient
11.1a
7.0a
17.4a
21.0
3.5
21.6a

box
2.4b
2.8b
4.7b
21.0
0.9
6.1b

IVC-Coolbot
1.9b
0.0b
3.2b
21.0
0.6
2.5b

IVC-EC
2.8b
0.0b
3.0b
21.0
0.6
3.4b

Table 4 Temperature and relative humidity (RH) during 3-day storage at ambient inexisting value chain (EVC) and in ice box, Coolbot chamber or evaporative cooler(EC) in improved value chain (IVC)
Value chain and storage option
EVC – ambient storage
IVC – ice box storage
IVC – Coolbot storage
IVC – EC storage

Temperature (oC)
28-33
20-23
14-17
21-26

RH (%)
58-78
85-10073-10079-100Weight loss reduction in the IVC can again be attributed to the use of MAP as well as the lower
temperature and higher RH in the three storage options (Table 4), which are conducive to fruit water
retention as water loss is the primary cause of weight loss of fruit and vegetables. Other metabolic
activities, particularly respiration rate are also reduced under MAP and low temperature conditions.
Earlier, MAP and Coolbot storage were found to reduce weight loss of tomatoes (Gautam et al.,2017a; Rahman et al., 2017; Seng et al., 2017). The reduced outright volume loss and damage
incidence in IVC fruit were due to fewer fruit that turned overripe and diseased during storage andlower incidence of mechanical damage compared to that of EVC fruit.
Ⓒ ISERD

159

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Fruit quality: The three storage options in IVC slowed the rate of ripening depicted as much lower
number of fruit that fully ripened after storage (3.9-10.5%) as compared to EVC fruit (40.9%) (Table5). Fruit firmness was higher in IVC with Coolbot or EC storage relative to that of EVC fruit and
IVC with ice box storage. High firmness indicates lower degree of ripening in which softening is amajor indicator. Total soluble solids, pH and vitamin C content did not significantly differ with value
chain and storage option (Table 5). Total soluble solids ranged from 3.8-4.4%, pH from 4.3-4.4, andvitamin C content from 17.7-23.4 mg/100g fresh weight. The results show the remarkable effect of
IVC with storage options was on the retardation of fruit ripening. Earlier studies showed that MAP
in combination with Coolbot storage delayed ripening of tomatoes (Seng et al., 2017). MAP
atmosphere of low oxygen and high carbon dioxide together with low temperature are known to
inhibit physiological process including ripening in harvested produce.
Table 5 Quality attributes of tomato in existing value chain (EVC) with 3-day ambientstorage and improved value chain (IVC) with 3-day storage in ice box, Coolbot
chamber or evaporative cooler (EC)Parameter
Full-ripe fruit, % of total
Firmness, nondestructive, Shore
Total soluble solids, %pH
Vitamin C content, mg/100g FW

EVCambient
40.9a
83.3b
3.8
4.3
17.7

IVC-ice
box
3.9b
96.9b
4.0
4.4
20.7

IVC-Coolbot

IVC-EC

3.9b
113.7a
3.9
4.3
23.4

10.5b
114.2a
4.4
4.4
21.9

CONCLUSION
Improving tomato value chains with the infusion of postharvest technologies and best practices, suchas sorting, non-chlorine sanitizing using CCa, MAP, storage techniques, and cold packing fortransport and marketing, proved to be highly promising in reducing postharvest losses and enhancing
fruit quality and food safety. Considering that postharvest loss reduction is context specific, it isimportant to examine existing value chains and know the deficiencies in order to identify, test andadopt postharvest management measures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research is made possible by the generous support of the American People provided to theCenter of Excellence on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and Nutrition (CE SAIN) of theRoyal University of Agriculture through the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative
Research on Sustainable Intensification at Kansas State University funded by the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-L14-00006. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of USAID or the United States Government. Many thanks also go to The World Vegetable
Center-USAID Packehouse project for research site support.
REFERENCES
Acedo, A.L. Jr. and Easdown, W. 2015. Postharvest losses of vegetables in South Asia. UNESCAP-CAPSA
Palawija Newsletter, 32 (2), 1-5.
Acedo A.L. Jr., Rahman, M.A., Buntong, B. and Gautam, D.M. 2016. Establishing and managing smallholder
vegetable packhouses to link farms and markets. AVRDC Publication, 16-801, 46.
Ahmed, S., Bari, M.L., Rahman, M.A., Goffar, M.A., Acedo, A.L., Easdown, W., Hughes, J.A. and Keatinge,
J.D.H. 2017a. Development of novel sanitizers for fresh vegetables. Acta Hort, 1179, 143-148.
Ahmed, S., Zaman, S., Ahmed, R., Uddin, M.N., Acedo, A. Jr. and Bari, M.L. 2017b. Effectiveness of nonⒸ ISERD160

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

chlorine sanitizers in improving the safety and quality of fresh betel leaf. LWT - Food Science andTechnology, 78, 77-81.
AOAC. 2006. Official methods of analysis (15th Edn). Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Washington D.C. Ascorbic Acid in Vitamin Preparation and Juices, 2,6- Dichloroindophenol Titrimetric
Method, Vitamins and Other Nutrients Chapter, 45, 19.
Arah, R.K., Ahorbo, G.K., Anku, E.K., Kumah, E.K. and Amaglo, H. 2016. Postharvest handling practices andtreatment methods for tomato handlers in developing countries: A mini review. Advances in Agriculture,
2016, 1-8.
AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center. 2016. Assessment of postharvest loss on vegetable value chains in
Cambodia. AVRDC-USAID Postharvest Project Report.
Batt, P.J. and Cadilhon, J.J. 2007. Fresh produce supply chain management: Overview of the proceedings andpolicy recommendations. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fresh Produce Supply Chain
Management, Bangkok, Thailand, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO-RAP), Publication No. 2007/21, 8-22.
Beckles, D.M. 2012. Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum
lycopersicun L.) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 63, 129-140.
Bin, L. 2016. Case study methodology to find the causes of food loss and develop solutions. Contribution in a
Workshop of the FAO/UNEP Programme on Sustainable Food Systems (Sustainable value chains forsustainable food systems), 8-9 June 2016, FAO Rome.
Buntong, B., Acedo, A.L. Jr. and Kanlayanarat, S. 2012. Current supply chains of tomato in Cambodia. Acta
Horticulturae, 943, 259-263.
Buntong, B., Srilaong, V., Wasusri, T., Kanlayanarat, S. and Acedo, A.L. Jr. 2013. Reducing postharvest lossesof tomato in traditional and modern supply chains in Cambodia. International Food Research Journal, 20(1), 233-238.
Chan, K. 2009. Integration of small farmers into horticultural chains in Asia and the Pacific region. In
Kanlayanarat, S., Rolle, R. and Acedo, A. (Eds), Horticultural Chain Management for Countries of Asiaand the Pacific Region, FAO-RAP, Publication No. 2009/06, 37-45, Thailand.
Fagundes, C., Moraes, K., Perez-Gago, M.B., Palou, L., Maraschin, M. and Monteiro, A.R. 2015. Effect ofactive modified atmosphere and cold storage on the postharvest quality of cherry tomatoes. Postharvest
Biology and Technology, 109, 73-81.
FAO. 2013. Food wastage footprint; Impacts on natural resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org /docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf
FAO. 2016. Report of the 2015 series of international conferences on food loss and waste reduction Recommendations in improving policies and strategies for food loss and waste reduction. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bc345e.pdf
Gautam, D.M., Joshi, S., Tripathi, K.M., Acedo, A.L., Easdown, W., Hughes, J.A. and Keatinge, J.D.H. 2017a.
Effects of modified atmosphere packaging on the quality and shelf life of tomatoes in Nepal. Acta Hort,
1179, 183-188.
Gautam, D.M., Tripathi, K.M., Mouylin, C., Buntong, B., Rahman, M.A., Bari, M.L., Acedo, A.L., Easdown,W., Hughes, J.A. and Keatinge, J.D.H. 2017b. Effectiveness of non-chlorine sanitizers in enhancing quality
and shelf life of tomato in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal. Acta Hort, 1179, 149-156.
Genova, C., Weinberger, K., Sokhom, S., Vanndy, M. and Yarith, E.C. 2006, Postharvest loss in the supply
chain for vegetables - The case of tomato, yardlong bean, cucumber and Chinese kale in Cambodia.
AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan.
Gonzales, L.M. and Acedo, A.L. Jr. 2016. Reducing losses of cabbage in traditional and modern chain in Cebu
Philippines. International Journal of Food Engineering, 2 (1), 48-54.
HLPE. 2014. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. Report by the High Level Panelof Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome. http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i3901e.pdf
Holcroft, D. 2015. Water relations in harvested fresh produce. Postharvest Education Foundation White Paper,
15-01.
Kumar, V. Shankar, R. and Kumar, G. 2015. Strategies used for reducing postharvest losses in fruits andvegetables. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 6 (5), 130-137.
Millar, P. 2017. The future of Cambodia: Agriculture. Retrived from https://southeastasiaglobe.com/
cambodia-future-rice
Nunex, M.C. 2008 Impact of environmental conditions on fruit and vegetable quality. Stewart Postharvest
Review, 4 (4), 1-14.
Royal Government of Cambodia. 2018. Rectangular strategy (Phase IV) for growth, employment, equity andefficiency: Building the foundation toward realizing the Cambodia Vision 2050. Royal Government ofⒸ ISERD

161

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Cambodia.
Rahman, M.A., Goffar, M.A., Islam, M.N., Acedo, A.L., Easdown, W., Hughes, J.A. and Keatinge, J.D.H.
2017. Efficacy of non-chlorine sanitizer, precooling and modified atmosphere packaging in improving
shelf life of tomato during evaporative cooling and CoolBot cold storage. Acta Hort, 1179, 157-164.
Seng, M., Buntong, B., Acedo, A.L., Easdown, W., Hughes, J.A. and Keatinge, J.D.H. 2017. Low-cost cold
storage of tomato in modified atmosphere packaging. Acta Hort, 1179, 197-200.
Van der Meer, C.L. 2006. Exclusion of small-scale farmers from coordinated supply chains: Market failure,policy failure or just economies of scale? In Ruben, R., Slingerland, M. and Nijhoff, H. (Eds), Agro-Food
Chains and Networks for Development, Springer, 209-217, Netherlands.
Van Gogh, B., Boerrigter, H., Noordam, M., Ruben, R. and Timmermans, T. 2017. Postharvest loss reduction- A value chain perspective on the impact of postharvest management in attaining economically andenvironmentally sustainable food chains. Wageningen, Netherlands. Wageningen Food & Biobased
Research. 35.
Weinberger, K. and Acedo, A.L. Jr. 2011. Development and diffusion of vegetable postharvest and processing
technologies in the Greater Mekong Subregion of Asia. In Da Silva, C.A. and Mhlanga, N. (Eds.).
Innovative Policies and Institutions to Support Agro-Industries Development. FAO, 353-373, Rome, Italy.

Ⓒ ISERD

162