Next Article in Journal
A Regional 100 m Soil Grid-Based Geographic Decision Support System to Support the Planning of New Sustainable Vineyards
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Three Entomopathogenic Fungal Isolates on the Growth of Tomato Plants—Ectoapplication to Explore Their Effect on Tetranychus urticae
Previous Article in Journal
Tobacco/Salvia miltiorrhiza Intercropping Improves Soil Quality and Increases Total Production Value
Previous Article in Special Issue
Smilax aspera L. Leaf and Fruit Extracts as Antibacterial Agents for Crop Protection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy14030597
agronomy-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

Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water in Controlling Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in Tomato Crops

by
Lilia Mexicano
1,2,
Tarsicio Medina
2,
Adriana Mexicano
3,* and
Jesús-Carlos Carmona
3
1
Division of Graduate Studies and Research, Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Roque, Km. 8 Carretera Celaya-Juventino Rosas, Celaya 38110, Mexico
2
Department of Agroindustrial Engineering, Universidad de Guanajuato, Privada Arteaga s/n, Col. Centro, Salvatierra 38900, Mexico
3
Division of Graduate Studies and Research, Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Victoria, Boulevard Emilio Portes Gil, Victoria 87010, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(3), 597; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030597
Submission received: 29 January 2024 / Revised: 28 February 2024 / Accepted: 2 March 2024 / Published: 16 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Strategies for the Control of Crop Diseases and Pests to Reduce Pesticides)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bacterial speck disease in tomato crops is caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. Chemical control is mainly used for the control of phytopathogens, which carries a risk for both human health and the environment, making it necessary to search for environmentally friendly alternatives, such as the use of electrolyzed water. In the present study, preventive treatments were applied to tomato plants of the saladette variety. The treatments employed were electrolyzed oxidizing water (EOW), electrolyzed reduced water (ERW), a commercial bactericide (Kasumin), and untreated plants as the base control. During the vegetative stage, the disease severity, stem diameter, number of leaves, and number of clusters were determined. In addition, the soluble solids (°Brix), titratable acidity (TA), pH, color, polar and equatorial diameter, weight, and weight loss of the harvested fruit were determined. According to the results, the lowest severity was obtained in the plants treated with oxidizing water, achieving results similar to those achieved with the commercial bactericide Kasumin. It can be concluded that oxidizing water can be applied to tomato crops since its effect is similar to that of Kasumin, but without affecting the growth and development of the crop. Moreover, it is environmentally friendly.

1. Introduction

In Mexico, the tomato is a crop of great economic importance because the production of this vegetable is primarily for export [1]. According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, in 2021, Mexico accounted for 24.9% of the world’s exports of this vegetable, with the United States being its main importer [2]. A large number of microorganisms, which include potential pathogens, constantly surround crops. The tomato crop is susceptible to various diseases, such as bacterial speck caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato [3]. Pseudomonas is a Gram-negative aerobic bacterium [4] and a hemibiotrophic phytopathogen that infects tomato crops and Arabidopsis thaliana, mainly in the aerial parts, such as the leaves and fruits [3]. It contains multiple protein secretion systems (i.e., types I, II, III, IV, V, and VI), with the most important one being the type III secretion system (T3SS) pathway [5], which suppresses the defense responses by salicylic acid of host plants [6]. It can be transmitted via seeds and infected seedlings, as well as through cultural work in the field [7]. Once it enters the plant, it multiplies endophytically and asymptomatically [4]. In the final phase of the infection, symptoms are characterized by necrosis surrounded by chlorosis appearing on the leaves [3]. On the fruit, it appears as small spots or visible lesions 3 mm in diameter [7]. This disease affects the stems, leaves, and fruits of the plants, reducing their quality [8]. In infected seedlings, up to a 75% reduction in yield has been reported [9]. Controlling this phytopathogen primarily involves adequate cultural practices, using healthy seeds, crop rotation, and balanced fertilization and designing irrigation systems [10]. Although genotypes resistant to Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato are available on the market, this phytopathogen can still overcome the plant’s resistance [11]. Therefore, the use of pesticides, such as aluminum sulfate and copper compounds, is the primary method that has been used to control these phytopathogenic agents [12], mainly comprising formulations of cupric salts both in conventional and organic agriculture [11,13]. However, there is great concern over the adverse effects they may have on both the environment and human health [14]. Due to this, new alternatives that contribute to reducing diseases in crop areas without affecting the growth and development of plantations must be generated. In this regard, electrolyzed water has been widely used in various research studies, and it has been shown to have a positive effect on reducing microorganisms such as fungi and bacteria [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. It has been applied in different fields such as medicine, the livestock sector, hospitals, agriculture, and the food industry [22,23]. Electrolyzed water is synthesized in an electrolysis cell divided by a diaphragmatic membrane, to which a saline solution is added, and a voltage is induced [18,19]. At the end of the electrolysis process, two types of water are obtained: In the anode terminal, electrolyzed oxidizing water is produced with a pH of 2–3, a redox potential (Eredox) >1100 mV, and a free chlorine concentration of 10–90 ppm [19,24], and in the cathode terminal, electrolyzed reduced water is generated [20,21]. Reduced electrolyzed water has a pH of 10–11.5 and an Eredox from −800 to −900 mV [23,24,25,26].
Oxidizing electrolyzed water has been shown to have a bactericidal effect on many pathogenic bacteria under in vitro conditions [27,28], as well as an effect on fungi [17,18]. Its strong antimicrobial activity is due to its high Eredox, its low pH, and the chlorine species (HClO, Cl2, and ClO−) present in water. In addition, it has been reported that reducing electrolyzed water has a bactericidal effect due to its high Eredox, which allows it to reduce free bacterial radicals [29,30], cause changes in metabolic flow and the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and damage bacterial membranes [30].
This research aimed to apply electrolyzed water to tomato crops and evaluate its effect on controlling Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato while also evaluating the quality of the harvested fruits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Electrolyzed Water Treatments for Tomato Plants

In a previous experiment carried out under in vitro conditions, where oxidizing (EOW) and reducing (ERW) electrolyzed water treatments were applied to cells in suspensions of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 (Pst DC3000), 100% inhibition of the bacterial populations was achieved when applying EOW in a treatment time of one minute. A reduction of 4.45 × 107 CFU/mL was achieved when applying ERW [31]. Due to the positive effect on the growth inhibition of the Pst DC3000 phytopathogen, it was decided to apply the treatments under in vivo conditions. The CFU/mL values were calculated as follows: CFU/mL = (number of colonies × total dilution factor)/volume of culture plated in mL.
The in vivo experiment was carried out in a greenhouse of the Department of Agroindustrial Engineering of the University of Guanajuato in Mexico (20°12′45.5″ N, 100°52′31.1″ W) from August 2021 to February 2022. The seedling used during these experiments was the saladette variety of the Galilea genotype, which was transplanted into soil under greenhouse conditions. Two weeks after transplantation, treatments were applied in a foliar manner, as proposed by Abbasi and Lazarovits [32], for which, with the help of a manual sprayer, 48 h before inoculation, the plants were saturated with freshly prepared electrolyzed water. The following treatments were applied: electrolyzed reduced water (ERW) and electrolyzed oxidizing water (EOW), which were synthesized using a Leveluck SD 501 machine (acquired from Agua Kangen E, Monterrey N.L., Mexico); the commercial bactericide Kasumin, the active substance of which is kasugamycin (Arysta lifeScience); and untreated plants, which were used as the control. Each treatment was replicated three times, and each experimental unit was composed of six plants. These treatments were foliarly applied once a week, during both the vegetative and reproductive stages of the plants. Forty-eight hours after the application of the treatments, the plants were inoculated with a bacterial suspension of Pst DC3000 at a concentration of 108 CFU/mL. The bacterial suspension was obtained according to the protocol described by Ovissipour et al. [33] under certain modifications. In brief, 50 mL of King broth (KB) culture medium was inoculated with the Pst DC3000 strain and incubated at 28 °C for 24 h to obtain a pre-inoculum. From the pre-inoculum, 50 mL of KB medium was inoculated at OD600 = 0.05 and incubated at 28 °C for 24 h at 180 rpm. At the end of the incubation time, 10 mL of the culture medium was taken and centrifuged at 22 °C at 7000 rpm for 15 min. The supernatant was decanted, and the cell pellet was resuspended in 10 mL of sterile deionized water and centrifuged at 22 °C at 7000 rpm for 15 min. The supernatant was discarded, and the cell pellet was resuspended in 10 mL of sterile deionized water. From this bacterial suspension, dilutions were produced until a concentration of 108 CFU/mL was obtained. During the vegetative stage, the severity of the disease was determined in the plants, as well as the following variables: number of leaves (NL), stem diameter (SD), and number of clusters (NC).
In order to determine the severity of the disease, a diagrammatic scale consisting of the following values was used: 1: plant with no disease symptoms; 2: plant with 15% of leaves with symptoms; 3: plant with 15–35% of leaves with symptoms; 4: plant with 35–70% of leaves with symptoms; 5: plant with 70–100% of leaves with symptoms; and 6: death of the plant [34].

2.2. Quality Tests on the Fruit

Healthy and disease-free fruits were harvested to evaluate fruit quality. The harvested fruits were immediately transported to the laboratory and then hydrocooled. A total of 30 fruits per treatment were randomly selected (10 fruits per repetition), and the following variables were evaluated: polar diameter, equatorial diameter, weight, weight loss, °Brix (using a SPECTRONIC 334610 digital refractometer; ANTOELI Bajio, El Carmen, Queretaro, Mexico), titratable acidity (obtained according to AOAC (2000)), pH (using a HANNA HI98127 potentiometer, Industrial KEM, Leon Guanajuato, Mexico), and color (using a Minolta CR-400 colorimeter; Industrial KEM, Leon Guanajuato, Mexico). The color index was determined using Equation (1).
C I = 2000 a ∗ L ∗ a ∗ 2 + b ∗ 2
where:
CI: color index;
L*: luminosity;
a*: red/green coordinate (+a indicates red, −a indicates green);
b*: yellow/blue coordinate (+b indicates yellow, −b indicates blue).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The data corresponding to weight, polar diameter, and equatorial diameter were analyzed using an ANOVA (α = 0.05), and Tukey’s test was employed to compare means. For the analysis of severity, °Brix, pH, titratable acidity, firmness, color, and weight loss, a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was used, followed by a Dunn’s test, utilizing GraphPad Prism 7 software.

3. Results

Table 1 shows the values of stem diameter (SD), number of leaves (NL), and number of clusters (NC) of plants treated with ERW, EOW, and Kasumin. The table shows that the biggest stem thickness was found in plants treated with ERW (p > 0.05) and that there were no significant statistical differences between the EOW and Kasumin treatments, as well as untreated plants (p < 0.05). As for NL and NC, no significant statistical differences were found between treatments (p < 0.05). This suggests that the application of treatments in tomato plants does not affect their growth and that the application of reducing electrolyzed water could contribute to biomass production because a larger stem diameter was obtained compared to the other treatments. However, more experiments are required to evaluate the effect of EWR on the increase in biomass in plants.
Figure 1 shows the severity of the disease caused by Pst DC3000 on tomato plants, where it can be observed that the lowest severity was observed in plants treated with either EOW or Kasumin, with no statistically significant differences observed between these treatments (p < 0.05). However, the highest severity of the disease was observed in those plants that did not receive any treatment, followed by those that were treated with ERW. Therefore, the results show that the best treatments to reduce the severity of the disease were EOW and Kasumin.
In the present study, the highest severity was observed in the control plants and those treated with ERW (35–70% of the infected leaves). The lowest severity was observed in plants treated with EOW and Kasumin (15–30% of the infected leaves). These results show that EOW has a similar effect to the commercial Kasumin bactericide, which suggests it could be used during the production of tomato crops and that ERW has a lesser antibacterial effect (Figure 2). This reduction in the plants’ disease severity could be due to the fact that electrolyzed oxidizing water activates the plant defense system through the priming phenomenon. This activation leads to a favorable reduction in the severity of the disease caused by Pst DC3000.

Fruit Quality

Table 2 shows the weight of the harvested fruits, as well as their polar diameter (PD) and equatorial diameter (ED). This table shows that the highest weight was obtained in fruits harvested from plants treated with ERW (p > 0.0001) in comparison to the other treatments. The fruits had 14.35% and 13.15% more weight in comparison to the EOW and Kasumin treatments, respectively. With respect to the polar diameter, no statistically significant differences were observed between the ERW, EOW, and control treatments (p < 0.0001); however, the fruits with lower PDs were those from plants treated with Kasumin. Finally, the largest equatorial diameter was observed in the fruits of plants treated with ERW (p > 0.0001), and no statistically significant differences were found with respect to the equatorial diameter in fruits of plants treated with EOW, Kasumin, and the control (p < 0.0001). According to the obtained results, it can be concluded that infection with Pst DC3000 did not affect the weight of tomato fruits. According to the technical data sheet of the seed (Hazera Seeds), the average weight of the fruits is in the range of 150–220 g, and the obtained fruits are within this range. It was also observed that treatment with ERW had a positive effect, with these fruits exhibiting greater weight and equatorial diameter (p > 0.0001). For polar diameter, the lowest value was obtained in the fruits of plants treated with Kasumin (p > 0.0001).
Although no differences were observed between the aforementioned variables, differences were observed in the yield per plant, as mentioned above. The highest yield was obtained in those plants treated with EOW (7.72 ± 2.27 kg) compared to the control (5.59 ± 1.89).
Table 3 shows the values of °Brix, titratable acidity (presented as a percentage of citric acid), pH, and firmness, in which it is shown that the highest brix degrees were found in the fruit of plants treated with EOW (3.58 ± 0.49) when compared to those treated with ERW or Kasumin and the control (p > 0.0001).
For titratable acidity values, no statistically significant differences were found among the fruits evaluated (p < 0.0001).
As for the pH, the highest value (4.60 ± 0.31) was observed in the control group, which was statistically different from the EOW (4.44 ± 0.26) and Kasumin (4.51 ± 0.07) treatments (p > 0.0001). The fruits of plants treated with ERW and Kasumin showed a slight increase in pH values compared to those treated with EOW; however, no statistically significant differences were found between these treatments (p < 0.0001).
Finally, the firmness value did not show statistically significant differences among the fruits evaluated (p < 0.0001).
In the present study, weight loss was evaluated over a 7-day storage period, with fruit stored at ambient temperature (20 °C) and a relative humidity (%RH) of 40–45%. Figure 3 shows that from days 1 to 6, no statistically significant differences were observed among fruits (p < 0.0001). However, on day 7, it was observed that fruits with greater physiological weight loss were those from plants treated with Kasumin and EOW (p > 0.0001).
Table 4 shows the color coordinates (L*, a*, and b*), the ratio (a*/b*), and the color index (CI) of the fruits. The results show no statistically significant differences in fruit brightness, regardless of the treatment applied to the plants in the field (p < 0.0001). However, the lowest values in the a* and b* coordinates were present in the fruits harvested from plants treated with Kasumin (p > 0.0001).
The maturity of the tomato fruits can be reflected in the values of the a* coordinate, as it has been reported that the coordinates for the green color are L* = +50, a* = −60, b* = 0 and those for the red color are L* = +50, a* = +60, b* = 0, according to Thole et al. [36].
As for the CI values and the a*/b* ratio, no statistically significant differences were observed between treatments (p < 0.0001), and positive values were observed for all fruits, indicating that they are mature fruits. These values indicate that the fruits present a red coloration known as ripening stage 5 (light red) according to the USDA maturity scale (Figure 4), which is due to the degradation of chlorophyll and the synthesis of lycopene [37]. From the obtained results, it can be concluded that the treatments did not affect the quality of tomato fruits. All fruits were visibly marketable, as shown in Figure 4. Regarding the control fruits, despite the fact that the plant showed high disease severity, the fruits did not present symptoms of the disease on their surfaces. While the results showed that the yields per plant were higher in those treated with Kasumin and EOW (6.37 ± 1.9 kg/plant and 6.32 ± 1.04 kg/plant, respectively), the yields of those treated with ERW and the control were 4.81 ± 1.89 kg/plant and 4.65 ± 2.62 kg/plant, respectively.

4. Discussion

According to Kim and Hung [38], electrolyzed water exerts antimicrobial activity, which is related to pH parameters, free chlorine concentration, and Eredox. The strong antimicrobial activity of electrolyzed oxidizing water is due to its high Eredox, low pH, and the chlorine species present (HClO, Cl2, and ClO−). McCarthy et al. [27] and Al-Qadiri et al. [28] mentioned that electrolyzed water with a pH below 3 has been shown to have a bactericidal effect on many pathogenic bacteria under in vitro conditions. However, it is known that electrolyzed reducing water has a pH greater than 11 [39]. It has been reported that it has a bactericidal effect due to its high Eredox, which allows it to reduce free bacterial radicals, thus causing changes in metabolic flow and the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). In 2020, Ramírez and Cano [30] reported that electrolyzed reducing water interrupts protein synthesis while damaging bacterial membranes. The application of electrolyzed water in crops has gained great interest due to the need to reduce the use of pesticides in agriculture. In 2003, Buck et al. reported a phytotoxic effect associated with the frequent application of electrolyzed oxidizing water (pH = 2.8–2.9; Eredox= 1071–1079 mV; FCC = 54–56 mg/L and 71 mg/L) on the foliage and flowers of twelve species of ornamental plants [40]. Guentzel et al. comment that the application of electrolyzed water containing chlorine concentrations of 50 and 100 ppm causes high phytotoxicity in strawberry plants, which can affect plant growth [17]. Nonetheless, in the present study, no phytotoxicity was observed in the plants after the application of the treatments, such that their development and growth remained unaffected.
Hirayama et al. [41] report a lower incidence of Colletotrichum fructicola in plants treated with electrolyzed water (8.3%) in comparison to plants treated with a fungicide (27%) and plants used as the control (85%). Muller et al. [42] determined the effect of oxidizing electrolyzed water in controlling powdery mildew caused by Botrytis cinerea in gerbera daisy, comparing it against treatments with fungicides. The work determined the effect of oxidizing electrolyzed water alone and the compatibility of oxidizing electrolyzed water with pesticides in an in vitro model. The authors observed that electrolyzed water is most effective when applied twice a week or when applied in combination with the fungicides piperalin and triadimefon. Zarattini et al. [43] reported that the application of electrochemically activated solutions can induce the defense system in tobacco plants and apple trees by inducing the expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) genes and increasing salicylic acid levels. They also observed that microorganisms present on the surface of the leaves can be eliminated with this type of treatment, without affecting the vigor of the plant or the quality of the fruit. In the present study, the highest severity was observed in the control plants and those treated with ERW (35–70% of the infected leaves). The lowest severity was observed in plants treated with EOW and Kasumin (15–30% of the infected leaves). Abbasi and Lazarovitz highlighted that foliarly spraying acid-electrolyzed water on tomato plants under greenhouse and open field conditions reduced Xanthomonas campestris populations and leaf speck severity [32]. In 2009, Fujiwara et al. observed a decrease in disease severity when applying acid-electrolyzed water to control downy mildew in hydroponic cucumber plants. The decrease in severity occurred after the first application of acid-electrolyzed water [18]. According to the abovementioned study, the electrolyzed oxidizing water could activate the plant’s defense system through the priming phenomenon, the activation of which leads to a favorable reduction in the severity of the disease caused by Pst DC3000. Finally, it is suggested that electrolyzed oxidizing water may serve as an alternative to the use of pesticides in agriculture since it has been proven to have a similar effect to the commercial bactericide Kasumin.
Tomato fruit quality is influenced by several pre- and post-harvest factors. Pre-harvest factors include crop genotype, environmental conditions during production, irrigation, and harvest management. In addition, the maturity stage of the fruits at the time of harvesting influences their quality [44]. Regarding the size of the fruits, Nassiri et al. [45] commented that tomatoes are classified as small (5.50–5.79 cm), medium (5.72–6.43 cm), large (6.35–7.06 cm), and extra large (more than 7 cm). According to this classification, the fruits obtained in this study were extra large since their size was greater than 7 cm. Although extra-large fruits were obtained in all treatments, the highest yield was obtained with the EOW treatment (7.72 ± 2.27 kg), as mentioned above. There are studies, such as that of Sugiharta et al. [46], that have reported that the application of electrolyzed water using Fe electrodes influences the weight, number of leaves, and stem thickness in spinach grown under a hydroponic system. In addition, Zhou et al. [47] mention that slightly acidic electrolyzed water (pH = 5.0) can improve plant growth and photosynthetic efficiency in lettuce. According to the aforementioned study, it is suggested that water properties, such as pH and CCL, could influence biomass production and fruit size. In the present work, the EOW had a pH of 2.4 ± 0.13 and a CCL of 18 ppm, unlike ERW, which did not contain CCL and had a pH of 10.2 ± 0.26.
Regarding °Brix, Yeshiwas and Tolessa [48] reported values of 3–4.2 in tomato fruits grown under greenhouse conditions and of 4.1–4.56 under open-field conditions. Cantwell et al. [49] reported an average °Brix value of 3.4–5.5 for different cultivars, while Okolie and Sanni [50] observed °Brix values in the range of 4.17 and 4.37 in tomatoes stored for seven days at ambient temperature and mentioned that this value may increase with the ripening and storage time of the fruit due to the hydrolysis of polysaccharides to simple sugars. In this work, the highest °Brix values were found in the fruit of plants treated with EOW (3.58 ± 0.49) when compared to ERW, Kasumin, and control treatments (p > 0.0001).
For titratable acidity, Yeshiwas and Tolessa [51] reported a value of 0.55–0.78 for freshly harvested fruit. Sinha et al. [50] reported a value of 0.41 for Roma tomatoes and 0.46 for Sofol tomatoes. Cantwell et al. [49] stated that the average value in different varieties is in the range of 0.22 to 0.40%. In the present study, values within the range of 0.30–0.35 were obtained, which is in accordance with the range reported by Cantwell et al. in 2007 [49].
With regard to pH, Yeshiwas and Tolessa [48] obtained a pH value of 3.87 in freshly harvested fruit, which increased after seven days of storage (4.08). Sinha et al. [50] reported values of 4.33 for Roma tomatoes and 4.15 for Sofol tomatoes; additionally, the authors also mention that the pH in tomato fruits can vary, depending on the genotype, between the values of 3.78 and 5.25. In 2015, Arah et al. [44] stated that the optimum pH for tomatoes is 4.25 and that the maximum value is 4.4. According to the above, the fruits of plants treated with EOW obtained an optimal pH, as reported by Arah et al. [44]; however, the highest pH was obtained in the control (plants inoculated with Pseudomonas), which suggests that the applied treatment could influence the final pH of the fruit, as plants that received any treatment exhibited a lower pH compared to the control.
In this work, the firmness value did not show statistically significant differences among the fruits evaluated (p < 0.0001). Cardona et al. [52], when evaluating foliar fertilization with calcium, found that the obtained fruits had a firmness of 3.06 and 3.19 kg/0.505 cm2. Urrieta-Velazquez et al. [53] mentioned that saladette tomatoes may exhibit a firmness of 1.187 kg/cm2, up to 1.598 kg/cm2. In 2017, Cruz-Crespo et al. [54], when evaluating the effect of substrates on tomato fruit quality, reported average values of 2.36 kg/cm2 for fruits of plants grown in tezontle plus a nutrient solution and 2.73 kg/cm2 for plants grown in tezontle with vermicompost and irrigated with a nutrient solution; the authors commented that the addition of vermicompost can increase fruit firmness and that this increase depends on the concentration applied, as well as on the variety of tomato used. Therefore, it is suggested that the organic fertilizer applied to the soil contributed to the firmness of the fruits.
Roberts et al. [55] observed a weight loss of 16% in tomato fruits stored at 22 °C and of 3.18% in those stored at 10 °C during a storage period of twelve days. In 2019, Sinha et al. [51] reported weight losses of 2.87% for Roma tomatoes and 3.36% for Sofol tomatoes. Casierra-Posada and Aguilar-Avendaño [34] mention that weight loss is due to the loss of water in the fruit, which reduces turgor and causes fruit softening. Yeshiwas and Tolessa [48] comment that weight loss is also influenced by the variety and the storage period. As the number of storage days increases, fruit weight loss also increases. In addition, Arah et al. [44] report that for long-term storage, tomatoes should be stored at a temperature between 10 °C and 15 °C and at a relative humidity of 85–95%, confirming that these conditions contribute to maintaining the quality of fruit. Okolie and Sanni [50] mention that weight loss is mainly due to the respiration and transpiration of the fruit. Hence, it is suggested that the weight loss in the present study was mainly due to fruit transpiration caused by low relative humidity in the storage environment after a seven-day storage period.
In terms of tomato fruit maturity, Camelo and Gómez [56] report L* coordinate values close to 50, for a* at 18, and for b* at 30, indicating that these values correspond to light-red maturation during the ripening process.
The present work shows that electrolyzed water could be applied as a measure to control diseases that occur during tomato cultivation. According to the obtained results, the EOW treatment contributes to reducing disease severity in the crop, does not affect the development and growth of the plants, does not exhibit a phytotoxic effect on them, and does not affect fruit quality.
This work suggests that applying electrolyzed water to tomato crops represents an alternative for disease management, resulting in crop benefits and field sustainability. However, there is a need to evaluate the effect of electrolyzed water on the plant in relation to stimulating the activation of the plant’s defense system. In future work, it would be advisable to evaluate a combination of the different treatments (ERW, EOW, and Kasumin) to verify possible synergies for better control of crop disease. This combination could contribute to greater control of the disease, as previously mentioned in a study conducted by Mueller et al. [43], in which oxidizing water was combined with fungicides. In the case of combining ERW and EOW, ERW could contribute to removing dirt from plants due to its cleaning effect. It has been reported to remove dirt and grease from surfaces [22], and it has also been reported that it can be used as a pre-wash agent for vegetables [25]. Taken together, these results suggest that ERW could be used as a pre-wash agent that promotes the interaction of EOW with microbial populations.

5. Conclusions

The application of electrolyzed oxidizing water is a viable option in tomato cultivation, as it managed to reduce disease severity in tomato plants, exhibiting an effect similar to the bactericide Kasumin. In addition, it did not affect the growth or yield of the crops, as the evaluated variables were not affected, and the fruits obtained were commercially viable and did not present disease symptoms. In addition, the application of ERW may contribute to increased biomass production in the crop. When applied to the plants, its application resulted in greater stem diameters and heavier fruits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M. and T.M.; methodology, L.M.; software, A.M. and J.-C.C.; validation, L.M., T.M. and J.-C.C.; formal analysis, L.M. and T.M.; investigation, L.M., T.M., A.M. and J.-C.C.; resources, L.M., T.M., A.M. and J.-C.C.; data curation, L.M., A.M. and J.-C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M., T.M., A.M. and J.-C.C.; writing—review and editing, L.M., T.M., A.M. and J.-C.C.; visualization, A.M. and J.-C.C.; supervision, T.M.; project administration, L.M. and T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. SADER—Secretaria de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, México, Referente Mundial en el Cultivo y Exportación de Jitomate: Agricultura, March 2022. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/agricultura/prensa/mexico-referente-mundial-en-el-cultivo-y-exportacion-de-jitomate-agricultura#:~:text=M%C3%A9xico%20se%20ha%20constituido%20como,y%20Singapur%2C%20entre%20otros%20mercados%2C (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  2. The Observatory of Economic Complexity: OEC. Available online: https://oec.world/es/profile/hs92/tomatoes?redirect=true (accessed on 25 May 2023).
  3. Morán-Diez, M.E.; Tranque, X.F.; He, S.Y. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000: A Model Pathogen for Probing Disease Susceptibility and Hormone Signaling in Plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2013, 51, 473–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Preston, G.M. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato: The right pathogen, of the right plant, at the right time. Mol. Plan Pathol. 2000, 1, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cunnac, S.; Lindeberg, M.; Collmer, A. Pseudomonas syringae type III secretion system effectors: Repertoires in search of functions. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2009, 12, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ishiga, Y.; Ichinose, Y. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato OxyR Is Required for Virulence in Tomato and Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2016, 29, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Uppalapati, S.R.; Ishiga, Y.; Wangdi, T.; Urbanczyk-Wochniak, E.; Ishiga, T.; Mysore, K.S.; Bender, C.L. Pathogenicity of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato on tomato seedlings: Phenotypic and gene expression analyses of the virulence function of coronatine. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2008, 21, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Morán-Diez, M.E.; Tranque, E.; Bettiol, W.; Monte, E.; Hermosa, R. Differential Response of Tomato Plants to the Application of Three Trichoderma Species When Evaluating the Control of Pseudomonas syringae Populations. Plants 2020, 9, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Elsharkawy, M.; Derbalah, A.; Hamza, A.; El-Shaer, A. Zinc oxide nanostructures as a control strategy of bacterial speck of tomato caused by Pseudomonas syringae in Egypt. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 19049–19057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Quattrucci, A.; Balestra, G.M. Antibacterial activity of natural extracts in Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato control. Acta Hortic. 2009, 808, 339–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Quaglia, M.; Bocchini, M.; Orfei, B.; D’Amato, R.; Famiani, F.; Moretti, C.; Buonaurio, R. Zinc phosphate protects tomato plants against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2021, 128, 989–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Carvalho, F.P. Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2006, 9, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Canzoniere, P.; Francesconi, S.; Giovando, S.; Balestra, G.M. Antibacterial activity of tannins towards Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato, and their potential as biostimulants on tomato plants. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2021, 60, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aktar, M.W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2009, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vásquez-López, A.; Villarreal-Barajas, T.; Rodríguez-Ortiz, G. Effectiveness of neutral electrolyzed water on incidence of fungal rot on tomato fruits (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1802–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Li, X.; Yue, H.; Xu, S.; Tian, J.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, J. The effect of electrolyzed water on fresh-cut eggplant in storage period. LWT. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 123, 109080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Guentzel, J.L.; Callan, M.A.; Liang Lam, K.; Emmons, S.A.; Dunham, V.L. Evaluation of electrolyzed oxidizing water for phytotoxic effects and pre-harvest management of gray mold disease on strawberry plants. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 1274–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fujiwara, K.; Fujii, T.; Park, J. Successive spraying efficacy of acidic electrolyzed oxidizing water and alkalic electrolyzed reducing water on controlling powdery mildew infection and suppressing visible physiological disorder on cucumber leaves. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2011, 52, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, C.; Li, B.; Jadeja, R.; Hung, Y. Effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on inactivation of bacillus subtilis and bacillus cereus spores in suspension and on carriers. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, M144–M149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pangloli, P.; Hung, Y. Efficacy of slightly acidic electrolyzed water in killing or Reducing Escherichia coli O157:H7 on iceberg lettuce and tomatoes under simulated food service operation conditions. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, M361–M366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Shiroodi, S.G.; Ovissipour, M. Electrolyzed Water Application in Fresh Produce Sanitation. In Postharvest Disinfection of Fruits and Vegetables, 1st ed.; Mohammed, W.S., Ed.; Academic Press: Kolkata, India, 2018; pp. 67–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huang, Y.; Hung, Y.; Hsu, S.; Huang, Y.; Hwang, D. Application of electrolyzed water in the food industry. Food Control 2008, 19, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rahman, S.M.E.; Khan, I.; Oh, D.H. Electrolyzed water as a novel sanitizer in the food industry: Current trends and future perspective. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2016, 15, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ovissipour, M.; Al-Qadiri, H.M.; Sablani, S.S.; Govindan, B.N.; Al-Alami, N.; Rasco, B. Efficacy of acidic and alkaline electrolyzed water for inactivating Escherichia coli O104:H4, Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus in cell suspensions. Food Control 2015, 53, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hao, J.; Li, H.; Wan, Y.; Liu, H. Effect of slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) treatment on the microbial reduction and storage quality of Fresh-Cut cilantro. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2015, 39, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Arya, R.; Bryant, M.; Degala, H.L.; Mahapatra, A.K.; Kannan, G. Effectiveness of a low-cost household electrolyzed water generator in reducing the populations of Escherichia coli K12 on inoculated beef, chevon, and pork surfaces. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. McCarthy, S.; Burkhardt, W. Efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water against Listeria monocytogenes and Morganella morganii on conveyor belt and raw fish surfaces. Food Control 2012, 24, 214–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Al-Qadiri, H.M.; Smith, S.; Sielaff, A.C.; Govindan, B.N.; Ziyaina, M.; Al-Alami, N.; Rasco, B. Bactericidal activity of neutral electrolyzed water against Bacillus cereus and Clostridium perfringens in cell suspensions and artificially inoculated onto the surface of selected fresh produce and polypropylene cutting boards. Food Control 2019, 96, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Joshi, K.; Mahendran, R.; Alagusundaram, K.; Norton, T.; Tiwari, B.K. Novel disinfectants for fresh produce. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 34, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ramírez-Orejel, J.C.; Cano-Buendía, J.A. Applications of Electrolyzed Water as a Sanitizer in the Food and Animal-By Products Industry. Processes 2020, 8, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Santoyo, L.M.; Saavedra, T.M.; Elos, M.M.; García, U.M.L.; López, M.A.C.; Martínez, T.O.M. Antibacterial activity of electrolyzed water on Pseudomonas syringae and Clavibacter michiganensis and its effect on seed germination. Cienc. Rural 2024, 54, e20220416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Abbasi, P.A.; Lazarovits, G. Effect of acidic electrolyzed water on the viability of bacterial and fungal plant pathogens and on bacterial spot disease of tomato. Can. J. Microbiol. 2006, 52, 915–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Aires, A.; Dias, C.; Carvalho, R.; Oliveira, M.; Monteiro, A.; Simões, M.; Rosa, E.; Bennett, R.; Saavedra, M. Correlations between disease severity, glucosinolate profiles and total phenolics and Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris inoculation of different Brassicaceae. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 129, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Casierra-Posada, F.; Aguilar-Avendaño, Ó.E. Calidad en frutos de tomate (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cosechados en diferentes estados de madurez. Agron. Colomb. 2008, 26, 300–307. [Google Scholar]
  35. Peñaloza-Vázquez, A.; Preston, G.M.; Collmer, A.; Bender, C.L. Regulatory interactions between the Hrp type III protein secretion system and coronatine biosynthesis in Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000. Microbiology 2000, 146, 2447–2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Arah, I.K.; Ahorbo, G.K.; Anku, E.K.; Kumah, E.K.; Amaglo, H. Postharvest Handling Practices and Treatment Methods for Tomato Handlers in Developing Countries: A Mini Review. Adv. Agric. 2016, 2016, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Thole, V.; Vain, P.; Yang, R.; Almeida Barros da Silva, J.; Enfissi, E.M.A.; Nogueira, M.; Martin, C. Analysis of Tomato Post-Harvest Properties: Fruit Color, Shelf Life, and Fungal Susceptibility. Curr. Protoc. Plant Biol. 2020, 5, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ilahy, R.; Tlili, I.; Siddiqui, M.W.; Hdider, C.; Lenucci, M.S. Inside and Beyond Color: Comparative Overview of Functional Quality of Tomato and Watermelon Fruits. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kim, C.; Hung, Y. Inactivation of E. coli O157:H7 on blueberries by electrolyzed water, ultraviolet light, and ozone. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, M206–M211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Sun, J.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J.; Han, B. Efficacy of acidic and basic electrolyzed water in eradicating staphylococcus aureus biofilm. Can. J. Microbiol. 2012, 58, 448–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Buck, J.W.; Van-Iersel, M.W.; Oetting, R.D.; Hung, Y. Evaluation of acidic electrolyzed water for phytotoxic symptoms on foliage and flowers of bedding plants. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hirayama, Y.; Asano, S.; Watanabe, K.; Sakamoto, Y.; Ozaki, M.; Okayama, K.; Tojo, M. Control of Colletotrichum fructicola on strawberry with a foliar spray of neutral electrolyzed water through an overhead irrigation system. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2016, 82, 186–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mueller, D.S.; Hung, Y.; Oetting, R.D.; Van Iersel, M.W.; Buck, J.W. Evaluation of electrolyzed oxidizing water for management of powdery mildew on gerbera daisy. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 965–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zarattini, M.; De Bastiani, M.; Bernacchia, G.; Ferro, S.; De Battisti, A. The use of ECAS in plant protection: A green and efficient antimicrobial approach that primes selected defense genes. Ecotoxicology 2015, 24, 1996–2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nassiri, S.M.; Tahavoor, A.; Jafari, A. Fuzzy logic classification of mature tomatoes based on physical properties fusion. Inf. Process. Agric. 2022, 9, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sugiharta, L.; Maretta, G.; Pawhestri, S.; Eka, A. Electrolysis of Water Using Iron Electrode to Boost the Growth of Hydroponic Plant of Water Spinach. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1155, 012054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhou, C.; Pei, L.; Zhao, J.; Gao, W.; Qi, F.; Ye, Z.; Zhu, S. Effect of Irrigating with Slightly Acidic Electrolyzed Water on Lettuce Photosynthesis under Mild Water Stress. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2014, 30, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yeshiwas, Y.; Tolessa, K. Postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) varieties grown under greenhouse and open field conditions. Int. J. Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. Res. 2018, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cantwell, M.; Stoddard, S.; LeStrange, M.; Aegerter, B. Report to the California Tomato Commission. Tomato Variety Trials: Postharvest Evaluations for 2006; UCCE Fresh Market Tomato Variety Trial 2006 Postharvest Evaluation; UC Davis: Davis, CA, USA, 2006; 16p. [Google Scholar]
  50. Okolie, N.; Sanni, T. Effect of post harvest treatments on quality of whole tomatoes. Afr. J. Food Sci. 2012, 6, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sinha, S.R.; Singha, A.; Faruquee, M.; Jiku, M.A.S.; Rahaman, M.A.; Alam, M.A.; Kader, M.A. Post-harvest assessment of fruit quality and shelf life of two elite tomato varieties cultivated in Bangladesh. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cardona, C.; Arjona, H.; Araméndiz-Tatis, H. Influencia de la fertilización foliar con Ca sobre la pudrición apical en tomate (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Agron. Colomb. 2005, 23, 223–229. [Google Scholar]
  53. Urrieta-Velázquez, J.A.; Rodríguez-Mendoza, M.; Ramírez-Vallejo, P.; Baca-Castillo, G.A.; Ruiz-Posadas, L.; Cueto-Wong, J.A. Production and Quality Variables of Three Selections of Ribbed Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. 2012, 18, 371–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cruz-Crespo, E.; Martínez-Rodríguez, O.G.; García-Paredes, J.D.; Can-Chulim, A. Influencia del riego y sustrato en el rendimiento y calidad de tomate. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 2017, 8, 51–63. [Google Scholar]
  55. Roberts, K.P.; Sargent, S.A.; Fox, A.J. Effect of Storage Temperature on Ripening and Postharvest Quality of Grape and Mini-Pear Tomatoes. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 2002, 11, 80–84. [Google Scholar]
  56. Camelo, A.; Gómez, P. Comparison of color indexes for tomato ripening. Hortic. Bras. 2004, 22, 534–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 00597 g001
Figure 1. Severity of disease caused by Pst DC3000 in plants treated with Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water (EOW), Electrolyzed Reducing Water (ERW), and Kasumin as a preventive treatment. Different letters in the bars mean statistical differences between treatments.
Figure 1. Severity of disease caused by Pst DC3000 in plants treated with Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water (EOW), Electrolyzed Reducing Water (ERW), and Kasumin as a preventive treatment. Different letters in the bars mean statistical differences between treatments.
Agronomy 14 00597 g001
Agronomy 14 00597 g002
Figure 2. Severity of disease caused by Pst DC3000 in tomato plants with different preventive treatments: (a) EOW, (b) ERW, (c) Kasumin, and (d) control. The symptoms were presented as chlorosis and necrotic spots, similar to those reported by Peñaloza-Vazquez et al. [35].
Figure 2. Severity of disease caused by Pst DC3000 in tomato plants with different preventive treatments: (a) EOW, (b) ERW, (c) Kasumin, and (d) control. The symptoms were presented as chlorosis and necrotic spots, similar to those reported by Peñaloza-Vazquez et al. [35].
Agronomy 14 00597 g002
Agronomy 14 00597 g003
Figure 3. Weight loss over seven days in fruits under different treatments. The letter a in the figure means that from day 1 to 6 there were no statistical differences between treatments. On the seventh day, different letters in the bars (a and b) indicate significant differences between treatments.
Figure 3. Weight loss over seven days in fruits under different treatments. The letter a in the figure means that from day 1 to 6 there were no statistical differences between treatments. On the seventh day, different letters in the bars (a and b) indicate significant differences between treatments.
Agronomy 14 00597 g003
Agronomy 14 00597 g004
Figure 4. Fruits harvested from tomato plants infected with Pst DC3000 and treated with EOW, ERW, and Kasumin.
Figure 4. Fruits harvested from tomato plants infected with Pst DC3000 and treated with EOW, ERW, and Kasumin.
Agronomy 14 00597 g004
Table 1. Agronomic parameters in tomato plants treated with electrolyzed water as a preventive treatment for bacterial speck caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato.
Table 1. Agronomic parameters in tomato plants treated with electrolyzed water as a preventive treatment for bacterial speck caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato.
TreatmentSD (cm)NLNC
EOW1.91 ± 0.12 ab14.22 ± 1.08 a6.78 ± 0.48 a
ERW2.07 ± 0.51 a14.78 ± 0.51 a6.50 ± 0.17 a
Kasumin1.74 ± 0.12 b14.67 ± 0.88 a7.39 ± 0.26 a
Control1.72 ± 0.10 b13.78 ± 0.25 a7.22 ±0.09 a
Values correspond to the mean of three repetitions + the standard deviation. Values with the same letters in the same column are statistically equal. SD—stem diameter, NL—number of leaves, NC—number of clusters.
Table 2. Weight, polar diameter (PD), and equatorial diameter (ED) of fruits with different preventive treatments.
Table 2. Weight, polar diameter (PD), and equatorial diameter (ED) of fruits with different preventive treatments.
TreatmentWeight (g)PD (cm)ED (cm)
EOW202.27 ± 49.39 a8.36 ± 0.74 ab6.50 ± 0.58 ab
ERW236.16 ± 42.86 b8.16 ± 1.53 ab6.92 ± 0.44 b
Kasumin205.11 ± 36.85 a8.15 ± 0.59 b6.67 ± 0.45 ab
Control223.27 ± 35.62 ab8.65 ± 0.67 a6.80 ± 0.48 a
Values correspond to the mean ± standard deviation. Values with the same letters within the same column are statistically equal.
Table 3. Physicochemical analysis of fruits under different treatments.
Table 3. Physicochemical analysis of fruits under different treatments.
Treatment°BrixTA (% Citric Acid)pHFirmness (kg/cm2)
EOW3.58 ± 0.49 a0.323 ± 0.003 a4.44 ± 0.26 a2.38 ± 0.53 a
ERW3.44 ± 0.58 ab0.358 ± 0.003 ab4.53 ± 0.19 ab2.39 ± 0.55 a
Kasumin2.97 ± 0.49 b0.352 ± 0.004 abc4.51 ± 0.07 a2.33 ± 0.47 a
Control3.10 ± 0.53 b0.308 ± 0.004 ad4.60 ± 0.31 b2.55 ± 0.47 a
Values correspond to the mean ± the standard deviation. Values with the same letters within the same column are statistically equal.
Table 4. L*, a*, b* coordinates, CI, and a*/b* ratio in fruits of plants under different treatments.
Table 4. L*, a*, b* coordinates, CI, and a*/b* ratio in fruits of plants under different treatments.
TreatmentL*a*b*a*/b*CI
EOW38.10 ± 1.19 a26.09 ± 3.01 a26.13 ± 1.72 a1.00 ± 0.12 a37.03 ± 3.04 a
ERW38.36 ± 1.26 a24.34 ± 2.47 ab25.59 ± 1.51 a0.95 ± 0.07 a35.92 ± 2.13 a
Kasumin38.34 ± 1.17 a23.72 ± 2.68 b24.32 ± 4.28 b0.99 ± 0.13 a36.49 ± 3.41 a
Control38.57 ± 1.32 a26.27 ± 1.91 ac26.42 ± 1.61 ac1.00 ± 0.06 a36.58 ± 1.84 a
Values correspond to the mean ± the standard deviation. Values with the same letters within the same column are statistically equal. L*: luminosity; a*: red/green coordinate (+a indicates red, −a indicates green); b*: yellow/blue coordinate (+b indicates yellow, −b indicates blue); a*/b* ratio; CI: color index.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mexicano, L.; Medina, T.; Mexicano, A.; Carmona, J.-C. Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water in Controlling Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in Tomato Crops. Agronomy 2024, 14, 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030597

AMA Style

Mexicano L, Medina T, Mexicano A, Carmona J-C. Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water in Controlling Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in Tomato Crops. Agronomy. 2024; 14(3):597. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030597

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mexicano, Lilia, Tarsicio Medina, Adriana Mexicano, and Jesús-Carlos Carmona. 2024. "Electrolyzed Oxidizing Water in Controlling Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato in Tomato Crops" Agronomy 14, no. 3: 597. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030597

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