Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40339330›Full record

ReviewUltrasonics sonochemistry2025

Ultrasound technology and tomato industry: A review.

Amir Shafaei Fallah, Fateme Asadi Touranlou, Mitra Rezaie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amir Shafaei FallahDepartment of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Fateme Asadi TouranlouDepartment of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
Mitra RezaieDepartment of Nutrition, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran. Electronic address: RezaeiGM@mums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research emphasizes the potential of ultrasound technology in the food industry, particularly in tomato processing. Ultrasound's non-invasive nature has made it a preferred choice for researchers seeking extraction and cavitation power without significantly altering sample properties. The concept of waste valorization, which involves transforming waste materials into valuable resources, is gaining traction worldwide as it helps reduce carbon footprints and pollution. Tomato processing yields significant waste, such as peels and seeds, which contain high levels of antioxidants and fiber, making them valuable resources for the food industry. This review examines the diverse applications of ultrasound technology in the tomato industry, focusing on its effects on the extraction of bioactive compounds, inhibition of microbial growth, enhancement of tomato germination, and removal of agrochemicals. Findings show that ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) increases yields of pectin and lycopene by 34-77% compared to conventional methods, reduces pesticide residues by up to 97%, and enhances germination rates by up to 43% when combined with technologies like plasma-activated water or ozone. Ultrasound significantly reduces bacteria, phytoviruses, yeasts, and molds, with reductions of 1.5-3.4 log CFU/g in tomato products. However, ultrasound treatment may affect seedling vigor due to reactive oxygen species generation. Further research is needed to optimize ultrasound parameters for diverse crops and integrate it with emerging technologies to maximize industrial scalability.

Indexed as

Food IndustrySolanum lycopersicumUltrasonic WavesAgrochemicalsBio-compoundExtractionGerminationSonicationTomatoUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID40339330
PMCPMC12134545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.