## 3 Results and Discussion
### Total Sugars  
The packaging had a significant (\(p<0.001\)) effect on the changes in the total sugar concentration of the tomatoes. The unpackaged tomatoes (Control) showed a rapid decline in total sugars, compared to the packaged tomatoes. Ref. [21] reported similar results on the effects of different packaging systems, where the total sugars gradually decreased as the ripening progressed during the tomato fruit lifespan. The EPS Tray + PVC wrap had the minimum loss in total sugars (6.90 g\(\cdot\)100\({}^{-1}\) g FW), followed by the SP Tray + Flow wrap (6.56 mg\(\cdot\)100\({}^{-1}\) g FW), the EPS Tray + Flow wrap (6.25 mg\(\cdot\)100\({}^{-1}\) g FW) and the SP Tray + PVC wrap (6.40 mg\(\cdot\)100\({}^{-1}\) g FW). The Old PP plastic (6.23 mg\(\cdot\)100\({}^{-1}\) g FW) did poorly and was only exceeded by the unpackaged tomatoes (5.76 mg\(\cdot\)100\({}^{-1}\) g of FW). The packaging potentially creates a modified atmosphere around the tomatoes, which helps to regulate the gaseous exchange influxes [37]. With the fruit respiring inside the packaging, the O\({}_{2}\) concentration levels decrease, while the CO\({}_{2}\) increases [23]. The interplay of these gases lessens the utilization of respiratory substrates, such as sugars; hence, the quality of the fruit is maintained [29]. Similarly, as reported by [22] the permeable \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Packaging Treatment** & **Storage Condition** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Storage Period (Days)**} \\  & **0** & **7** & **14** & **21** & **28** \\ \hline SP Tray + PVC wrap & Cold & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{r}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{k-a}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{g}\) & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{a+c}\) \\  & Ambient & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{m}\)q & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{h-k}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{e-g}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{a}\) \\ EPS Tray + PVC wrap & Cold & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{m}\)p & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{i-1}\) & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{e-1}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{g}\) \\  & Ambient & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{k-a}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{e-h}\) & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{d}\) & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{h-k}\) \\ SP Tray + Flow wrap & Cold & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{m}\)q & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{e-r}\) & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{e-1}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{e-g}\) \\  & Ambient & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{m}\)q & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{e-i}\) & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{d}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{a}\) \\ EPS Tray + Flow wrap & Cold & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{m}\)q & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{k-a}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{g}\) & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{d}\) \\  & Ambient & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{k-a}\) & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{k}\) & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{d}\) & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{e-g}\) \\  & Cold & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{m}\)p & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{e-i}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{e-g}\) & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{d-i}\) \\  & Ambient & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{m}\)p & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{g}\) & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{h-k}\) & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{h-k}\) \\ Unpackaged (Control) & Cold & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{o-r}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{k-a}\) & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{i-1}\) & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{e-g}\) \\  & Ambient & 0.51 \({}^{r}\) & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{m-o}\) & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{i-1}\) & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{h-c}\) & 0.25 \(\pm\)0.02 \({}^{h-k}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are means of three replications \(\pm\) standard deviation. Means followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significant. [PERSON]’s multiple range test (\(p<0.05\)). SP = stamped paper tray: EPS = expandable polystyrene: PVC = polyvinyl chloride; PT = polypropylene.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Titratable acidity (%) of the tomatoes is influenced by the packaging and storage conditions and storage conditions (\(n=3\)).