Vacuum Infusion of High-Intensity Sweeteners Enhances Quality Attributes of Cherry Tomato

Excessive sugar consumption has emerged as a significant public health concern, leading to growing interest in non-caloric, high-intensity sweeteners (HIS) as alternatives to conventional sugars. Cherry tomatoes, although inherently rich in lycopene, vitamin C, organic acids, and other health-promoting metabolites, are nonetheless perceived as insufficiently sweet by some consumers, particularly younger ones. Hence, sweeter fresh tomato options such as “stevia tomato” have recently gained popularity in Korea. Despite this trend, the effects of infusing HIS into fresh tomatoes on postharvest quality attributes, physiological responses, and sensory perception remain largely unexplored. To address this gap, this study investigated the effects of vacuum infusion of four HIS (glucosyl steviol glycosides (GSG), sucralose (SUC), acesulfame potassium (ACE), and sodium saccharin (SAC)) on the postharvest quality and ripening behavior of ‘TY Nonari’ cherry tomatoes. Fruits were infused under vacuum (0.2 bar, 23 °C) and analyzed for firmness, weight loss, ethylene production and respiration rates, colorimetric attributes, physico-chemical properties (TSS, TA, pH, TSS/TA), sensory quality, and microstructural characteristics using field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Sweetener type significantly influenced tomato performance after vacuum infusion. GSG- and SAC-treated tomatoes exhibited the most rapid softening, with firmness decreasing from 10.25 to 5.66 N and from 9.97 to 5.53 N, respectively, by day 4. In contrast, ACE-treated fruit retained the highest firmness, decreasing from 9.62 to 7.89 N, followed by SUC, which declined from 10.00 to 6.67 N. Weight loss was also the highest in GSG (9.59%) and ACE (7.32%), whereas SUC (2.97%) and SAC (2.36%) showed markedly better water retention. Microstructural analysis corroborated these results: SAC-treated tomatoes exhibited severe cell wall degradation, with thickness decreasing from 8.22 to 4.24 μm, while GSG-treated fruit showed noticeable thinning from 8.33 to 6.39 μm. ACE maintained the thickest cell wall, decreasing from 8.83 to 7.19 μm, with SUC displaying intermediate preservation from 8.43 to 6.63 μm. Overall, ACE was the most effective treatment for preserving sensory quality, micro-structural integrity, and physicochemical attributes. These findings provide a scientific basis for selecting appropriate HIS to develop low-sugar, high-quality fruit products tailored to evolving consumer preferences.