Abstract
A combination radio frequency-hot water dip method was examined as a potential quarantine treatment against fifth instars of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in apples, Malus sylvestris (L.) var. domestica (Borkh.) Mansf., which were intended for export to Japan. The apples were initially exposed to 27.12-MHz radio frequency energy at 12 kW for 2.75 min and were then submerged in a range of hot water dips (48–50C) for different durations. Efficacious tests were at 48C for >2 h, at 49C for >50 min and at 50C for >40 min. Fruit quality tests indicated that the best hot water parameters were at 50C for 40 min. Fruit quality after 2 weeks was cultivar dependent where “Fuji” apples tolerated heat treatment better than “Delicious” and “Gala” apples. None of the treated fruits were acceptable after 60 days. Regardless of cultivar, heat treatment resulted in loss of both peel and fresh colors, coupled with reduced firmness and increased external and internal damage.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
A 48C dip for more than two hours was efficacious against codling moth fifth instars.
- Taxon
- apples
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- 48C for >2 he0
- Interactor
- codling moth
Cydia pomonellat0pest - Outcome
- Efficacious testse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Efficacious tests were at 48C for >2 h, at 49C for >50 min and at 50C for >40 min.”
t0“CODLING MOTH CONTROL IN APPLES”
Claim · model-written summary
A 49C dip for more than 50 minutes was efficacious.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- 49C for >50 mine0
- Interactor
- codling mothCydia pomonellat0pest
- Outcome
- Efficacious testse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Efficacious tests were at 48C for >2 h, at 49C for >50 min and at 50C for >40 min.”
t0“CODLING MOTH CONTROL IN APPLES”
Claim · model-written summary
A 50C dip for more than 40 minutes was efficacious.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- 50C for >40 mine0
- Interactor
- codling mothCydia pomonellat0pest
- Outcome
- Efficacious testse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Efficacious tests were at 48C for >2 h, at 49C for >50 min and at 50C for >40 min.”
t0“CODLING MOTH CONTROL IN APPLES”
Claim · model-written summary
The best hot water treatment for fruit quality was 50C for 40 minutes.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- 50C for 40 mine0
- Outcome
- Fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- beste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit quality tests indicated that the best hot water parameters were at 50C for 40 min.”
t0“IN APPLES”
Claim · model-written summary
After two weeks, Fuji apples tolerated heat treatment better than Delicious and Gala apples.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Material
- “Fuji”e0
- Outcome
- tolerated heat treatmente0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- after 2 weekse0
- Comparator
- “Delicious” and “Gala”e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit quality after 2 weeks was cultivar dependent where “Fuji” apples tolerated heat treatment better than “Delicious” and “Gala” apples.”
Claim · model-written summary
No treated fruit remained acceptable after 60 days.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- acceptablee0
- Qualifier
- after 60 dayse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“None of the treated fruits were acceptable after 60 days.”
t0“IN APPLES”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat treatment caused loss of peel and fresh colors.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- heat treatmente0
- Outcome
- peel and fresh colorse0
- Direction
- losse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of cultivar, heat treatment resulted in loss of both peel and fresh colors, coupled with reduced firmness and increased external and internal damage.”
t0“IN APPLES”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat treatment reduced firmness.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- heat treatmente0
- Outcome
- firmnesse0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of cultivar, heat treatment resulted in loss of both peel and fresh colors, coupled with reduced firmness and increased external and internal damage.”
t0“IN APPLES”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat treatment increased external and internal damage.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- heat treatmente0
- Outcome
- external and internal damagee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Regardless of cultivar, heat treatment resulted in loss of both peel and fresh colors, coupled with reduced firmness and increased external and internal damage.”
t0“IN APPLES”
The same questions in other papers
heat · quality: postharvest · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →heat · pest · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
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.