Abstract
Hard mature green Kensington Pride mango fruit were fumigated with 0, 5, 10, 20 and 40 µL.L−1 NO gas for 2 h and allowed to ripen at ambient temperature (21±1°C) to evaluate its effects on fruit ripening. NO-fumigation treatments significantly (P ≤ 0.05) suppressed ethylene production and respiration rates during fruit ripening. NO treatments (20 and 40 µL.L−1) retarded fruit softening (hand firmness) and delayed fruit ripening by 2-days as compared to all other treatments. NO-fumigated (40 µL.L−1) ripe fruit exhibited significantly higher pulp cohesiveness, springiness and chewiness as compared to all other treatments. NO fumigation retarded fruit color development (visual colour, L*, a*, b*, C*) and delayed the reduction of h° during fruit ripening. The concentrations of SSC, total sugars, glucose and fructose in the ripe fruit were significantly reduced in response to NO treatments. In conclusion, the postharvest fumigation of NO (20 µL.L−1) suppressed climacteric ethylene production, respiration rate, retarded colour development, softening consequently delayed mango fruit ripening.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
NO fumigation significantly suppressed ethylene production and respiration during ripening.
- Taxon
- MANGO
_from_India.jpg?width=60)
Mangifera indicat0 - Organ / stage
- fruit ripeninge0
- Treatment
- NO-fumigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- ethylene production and respiration ratese0
- Direction
- suppressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_from_India.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“NO-fumigation treatments significantly (P ≤ 0.05) suppressed ethylene production and respiration rates during fruit ripening.”
t0“MANGO”
Claim · model-written summary
NO at 20 and 40 µL.L−1 retarded fruit softening relative to other treatments.
- Taxon
- MANGOMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- NO treatments (20 and 40 µL.L−1)e0
- Outcome
- fruit softening (hand firmness)e0
- Direction
- retardede0
- Comparator
- all other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NO treatments (20 and 40 µL.L−1) retarded fruit softening (hand firmness) and delayed fruit ripening by 2-days as compared to all other treatments.”
t0“MANGO”
Claim · model-written summary
NO at 20 and 40 µL.L−1 delayed ripening by two days relative to other treatments.
- Taxon
- MANGOMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- NO treatments (20 and 40 µL.L−1)e0
- Outcome
- fruit ripeninge0
- Direction
- delayede0
- Value
- 2-dayse0
- Comparator
- all other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NO treatments (20 and 40 µL.L−1) retarded fruit softening (hand firmness) and delayed fruit ripening by 2-days as compared to all other treatments.”
t0“MANGO”
Claim · model-written summary
NO at 40 µL.L−1 increased ripe fruit pulp cohesiveness, springiness and chewiness.
- Taxon
- MANGOMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- NO-fumigated (40 µL.L−1)e0
- Outcome
- pulp cohesiveness, springiness and chewinesse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- all other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NO-fumigated (40 µL.L−1) ripe fruit exhibited significantly higher pulp cohesiveness, springiness and chewiness as compared to all other treatments.”
t0“MANGO”
Claim · model-written summary
NO fumigation retarded fruit colour development.
- Taxon
- MANGOMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- NO fumigatione0
- Outcome
- fruit color development (visual colour, L*, a*, b*, C*)e0
- Direction
- retardede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NO fumigation retarded fruit color development (visual colour, L*, a*, b*, C*) and delayed the reduction of h° during fruit ripening.”
t0“MANGO”
Claim · model-written summary
NO fumigation delayed the decline of hue angle during ripening.
- Taxon
- MANGOMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- NO fumigatione0
- Outcome
- reduction of h°e0
- Direction
- delayede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NO fumigation retarded fruit color development (visual colour, L*, a*, b*, C*) and delayed the reduction of h° during fruit ripening.”
t0“MANGO”
Claim · model-written summary
NO significantly reduced SSC and total sugars in ripe fruit.
- Taxon
- MANGOMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- NO treatmentse0
- Outcome
- concentrations of SSC, total sugarse0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The concentrations of SSC, total sugars, glucose and fructose in the ripe fruit were significantly reduced in response to NO treatments.”
t0“MANGO”
Claim · model-written summary
NO significantly reduced glucose and fructose in ripe fruit.
- Taxon
- MANGOMangifera indicat0
- Treatment
- NO treatmentse0
- Outcome
- glucose and fructosee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The concentrations of SSC, total sugars, glucose and fructose in the ripe fruit were significantly reduced in response to NO treatments.”
t0“MANGO”
The same questions in other papers
nitric oxide · quality: postharvest · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →solarization · quality: postharvest · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.