Reusable plastic crates vs. wooden crates: Comparing microbial contamination and costs during long-distance transportation of tomatoes in Ethiopia

Postharvest losses and food safety challenges in fresh produce supply chains remain a critical issue in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In Ethiopia, tomatoes are frequently transported over long distances in wooden crates, a practice that contributes to both mechanical damage, food wastage, and microbial contamination. This study assessed the effectiveness of using reusable plastic crates (RPCs) compared to traditional wooden crates considering tomato quality, microbial contamination and profitability. Nine experimental transport trials were performed. During each trial tomatoes were packed into 1) overfilled wooden crates (standard practice), 2) regular-filled wooden crates, and 3) RPCs with all three types of crates then transported together on a pick-up truck from the Central Rift Valley to Harar (∼600 km). Post-transport evaluations included assessment of tomato quality (i.e., fruit integrity) and contamination with Escherichia coli and non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica. Tomatoes transported in RPCs arrived with a significantly higher proportion of intact fruit compared to wooden crates. Across all crate types, damaged tomatoes showed markedly higher E. coli prevalence and concentration than intact tomatoes, although Salmonella were not detected in any samples. Tomatoes transported by RPCs had improved tomato quality and reduced microbiological contamination, however, for most of the year RPCs were less profitable than using overfilled or regularly filled wooden crates, which transported more tomatoes per shipment. But during the off-season, when there is lower production and higher retail prices, RPCs were more profitable than regularly filled wooden crates due to RPCs having less product and quality loss. However, this economic analysis did not consider the reduction in foodborne disease burden that would result from RPC use. These findings underscore the potential of RPCs to enhance food safety and reduce postharvest losses, while highlighting the need for public health–driven incentives or policy measures to facilitate their wider adoption.