Paper · 2015 · Advances in Microbiology

Production and Testing of Biopesticide for Control of Postharvest Mold Infections on Fresh Fruits of Apple and Pear

Yacoub A. Batta

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
4
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The present research aimed at producing a biopesticide with proper formulation of invert emulsion (water-in-oil type) and effective strain of Trichoderma harzianum then, testing it against pathogens of postharvest mold infections(Botrytis cinerea & Penicillium expansum) on fresh fruits of apple and pear. The proper formulation of invert emulsion (IE#3) used for biopesticide production has the following ingredients (100% w/w): soybean oil (28.50%), coconut oil (19.50%), oil-soluble emulsifier: Tween 20 (2.0%), glycerine (4.25%), water-soluble emulsifier: dehymuls k (0.75%), sterile distilled water (22.5%) and conidial suspension of the effective strain ofT. harzianum “TrichoPAL1” in water (22.5%, concentration 1 × 107 conidia/ml). Testing efficacy of the produced biopesticide has indicated a significant reduction in the disease lesion diameter of mold infections on wounded apple and pear fruits stored at 20℃ ± 1℃ compared to the untreated fruits or control (reduction from up to 38.75 to about 7.50 mm, respectively, according to the type of mold infections and fruit type). Also, the treatment with the produced biopesticide has resulted in a long protection period from mold infections on wounded and un-wounded fresh fruits of apple and pear stored under controlled and semi-commercial conditions(up to 2.5 months according to the type of mold infections and fruit type). In conclusion, the overall results have demonstrated the effectiveness of produced biopesticide on stored fruits under controlled and semi-commercial conditions therefore, it is recommended to test this effectiveness on marketed fruits stored under variable conditions before applying it at a large scale.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The biopesticide significantly reduced mold lesion diameter on wounded apple fruits compared with untreated controls.

Organ / stage
fruitse0
Treatment
produced biopesticidee0
Outcome
disease lesion diameter of mold infectionse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
38.75 to about 7.50 mme0
Comparator
untreated fruits or controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Testing efficacy of the produced biopesticide has indicated a significant reduction in the disease lesion diameter of mold infections on wounded apple and pear fruits stored at 20℃ ± 1℃ compared to the untreated fruits or control (reduction from up to 38.75 to about 7.50 mm, respectively, according to the type of mold infections and fruit type)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 740–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The biopesticide significantly reduced mold lesion diameter on wounded pear fruits compared with untreated controls.

Organ / stage
fruitse0
Treatment
produced biopesticidee0
Outcome
disease lesion diameter of mold infectionse0
Direction
reductione0
Value
38.75 to about 7.50 mme0
Comparator
untreated fruits or controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Testing efficacy of the produced biopesticide has indicated a significant reduction in the disease lesion diameter of mold infections on wounded apple and pear fruits stored at 20℃ ± 1℃ compared to the untreated fruits or control (reduction from up to 38.75 to about 7.50 mm, respectively, according to the type of mold infections and fruit type)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 740–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The biopesticide protected apple fruits from mold infections for up to 2.5 months.

Organ / stage
fresh fruitse0
Treatment
produced biopesticidee0
Outcome
protection period from mold infectionse0
Value
up to 2.5 monthse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the treatment with the produced biopesticide has resulted in a long protection period from mold infections on wounded and un-wounded fresh fruits of apple and pear stored under controlled and semi-commercial conditions(up to 2.5 months according to the type of mold infections and fruit type)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1094–1386 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The biopesticide protected pear fruits from mold infections for up to 2.5 months.

Organ / stage
fresh fruitse0
Treatment
produced biopesticidee0
Outcome
protection period from mold infectionse0
Value
up to 2.5 monthse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pyrus communis
Pyrus communis · TaxonDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the treatment with the produced biopesticide has resulted in a long protection period from mold infections on wounded and un-wounded fresh fruits of apple and pear stored under controlled and semi-commercial conditions(up to 2.5 months according to the type of mold infections and fruit type)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1094–1386 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend testing efficacy on marketed fruit under variable conditions before large scale application.

Outcome
test this effectiveness on marketed fruits stored under variable conditionse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it is recommended to test this effectiveness on marketed fruits stored under variable conditions before applying it at a large scale”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1560–1692 · show in text ↑
t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 101–106 · show in text ↑

biocontrol · control · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

biocontrol · disease · Pyrus communis (pear)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

biocontrol · control · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

biocontrol · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

16 papers: 16 positive, 0 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

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.