Abstract
Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) are highly perishable due to postharvest fungal decay and softening. The effects of pre-harvest calcium chloride (CC) (at 1 or 2 %) and ethanol (at 10 or 20 %) spray at 30 and 7 days before harvest on quality of 'El-Bayadi' table grapes during cold storage at 0 °C ± 1 plus 1 day of shelf life at 20 °C were evaluated. Pre-harvest spray of CC and ethanol at both low and high concentrations significantly decreased berry decay percentage during storage compared to control. The combination between CC and ethanol also decreased decay compared to control but was less effective than each one alone. In this respect, there were no significant differences between low and high concentration of CC and ethanol. In all treatments, decay was recorded after 30 days of storage and significantly increased to reach 26.3 % after 50 days. CC spray alone, at both concentrations, increased weight loss percentage compared to control and most other treatments. However ethanol spray especially at 20 % decreased weight loss compared to other treatments except for 10 % ethanol spray. The combination between CC and ethanol, however, increased weight loss compared to control except for, 1 % CC plus 20 % ethanol and 2 % CC plus 10 % ethanol. Weight loss percentage increased during storage to reach 2.30 % after 50 days of storage. However, the overall quality characteristics of berries as firmness, TSS, acidity, TSS/acid ratio, pH, vitamin C, total phenols and soluble tannins were not negatively affected by both CC and ethanol spray treatments. Also, both CC and ethanol spray caused neither foliar damage on the vines nor significant changes in berry quality. It is concluded that pre-harvest spray of 1 % CC or 20 % ethanol could be suggested as practical alternatives to synthetic fungicides and SO2 to decrease postharvest decay and improve quality of 'El-Bayadi' table grapes.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium chloride sprays at both concentrations significantly reduced berry decay versus control.
Verbatim
e0“Pre-harvest spray of CC and ethanol at both low and high concentrations significantly decreased berry decay percentage during storage compared to control”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethanol sprays at both concentrations significantly reduced berry decay versus control.
Verbatim
e0“Pre-harvest spray of CC and ethanol at both low and high concentrations significantly decreased berry decay percentage during storage compared to control”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined CC and ethanol reduced decay versus control but was less effective than either alone.
Verbatim
e0“The combination between CC and ethanol also decreased decay compared to control but was less effective than each one alone”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Low and high CC and ethanol concentrations did not differ significantly in decay.
Verbatim
e0“there were no significant differences between low and high concentration of CC and ethanol”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Decay appeared after 30 days and rose to 26.3% by 50 days.
Verbatim
e0“decay was recorded after 30 days of storage and significantly increased to reach 26.3 % after 50 days”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
CC alone increased berry weight loss versus control and most other treatments.
Verbatim
e0“CC spray alone, at both concentrations, increased weight loss percentage compared to control and most other treatments”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethanol, especially 20%, decreased weight loss relative to other treatments except 10% ethanol.
Verbatim
e0“ethanol spray especially at 20 % decreased weight loss compared to other treatments except for 10 % ethanol spray”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined CC and ethanol increased weight loss versus control, except for two stated combinations.
Verbatim
e0“The combination between CC and ethanol, however, increased weight loss compared to control except for, 1 % CC plus 20 % ethanol and 2 % CC plus 10 % ethanol”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight loss rose to 2.30% after 50 days of storage.
Verbatim
e0“Weight loss percentage increased during storage to reach 2.30 % after 50 days of storage”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprays did not negatively affect berry firmness, TSS and acidity.
- Taxon
- Grapese1
- Treatment
- both CC and ethanol spray treatmentse0
- Outcome
- firmness, TSS, aciditye0
- Direction
- not negatively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the overall quality characteristics of berries as firmness, TSS, acidity, TSS/acid ratio, pH, vitamin C, total phenols and soluble tannins were not negatively affected by both CC and ethanol spray treatments”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprays did not negatively affect berry TSS/acid ratio, pH or vitamin C.
- Taxon
- Grapese1
- Treatment
- both CC and ethanol spray treatmentse0
- Outcome
- TSS/acid ratio, pH, vitamin Ce0
- Direction
- not negatively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the overall quality characteristics of berries as firmness, TSS, acidity, TSS/acid ratio, pH, vitamin C, total phenols and soluble tannins were not negatively affected by both CC and ethanol spray treatments”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sprays did not negatively affect total phenols or soluble tannins.
- Taxon
- Grapese1
- Treatment
- both CC and ethanol spray treatmentse0
- Outcome
- total phenols and soluble tanninse0
- Direction
- not negatively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the overall quality characteristics of berries as firmness, TSS, acidity, TSS/acid ratio, pH, vitamin C, total phenols and soluble tannins were not negatively affected by both CC and ethanol spray treatments”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither spray caused foliar damage on the vines.
- Taxon
- Grapese1
- Treatment
- both CC and ethanol spraye0
- Outcome
- foliar damage on the vinese0
- Direction
- neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“both CC and ethanol spray caused neither foliar damage on the vines nor significant changes in berry quality”
e1“Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 1% CC spray as an alternative to synthetic fungicides and SO2.
Verbatim
e0“pre-harvest spray of 1 % CC or 20 % ethanol could be suggested as practical alternatives to synthetic fungicides and SO2 to decrease postharvest decay and improve quality of 'El-Bayadi' table grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 20% ethanol spray as an alternative to synthetic fungicides and SO2.
Verbatim
e0“pre-harvest spray of 1 % CC or 20 % ethanol could be suggested as practical alternatives to synthetic fungicides and SO2 to decrease postharvest decay and improve quality of 'El-Bayadi' table grapes”
The same questions in other papers
calcium chloride dihydrate · quality: postharvest · VitisResults differ
5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →calcium chloride dihydrate · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
ethanol · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
ethanol · quality: postharvest · VitisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
calcium chloride dihydrate · disease · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
ethanol · disease · VitisResults agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →application · pest · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →application · quality: phytochemicals · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.