Abstract
This investigation was initiated to study the effect of fumigation treatments after harvest on 'Taify' table grape fruit quality properties during storage periods. Grape was hand harvested in 2007 and stored at 2°C. Fumigation treatments were applied with 30% carbon dioxide (CO2) and 200 ppm. sulfur dioxide (SO2) besides control treatment. Fruits treated with 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2 developed less decay. Firmness was reduced as time of storage increased for all treatments, however, fruit fumigated with 30% CO2 showed high firmness. Juice pH, soluble solid concentration (SSC), and soluble solid concentration to titratable acidity ratio (SSC/TA) increased over the storage periods and was lowest under 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2 treatments. Titratable acidity increased as storage time increased for all treatments. Weight loss varied with time of storage. Fruit appearance score was significantly high for fruit treated with 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2. Fruit exhibited skin toughness score of 4.22 at 7 days of storage at 200 ppm SO2 treatment and was above average for all treatments. Overall acceptance score was significantly high when fruits were treated with 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2.. Fumigation of grape with 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2 had a beneficial effect in preserving fruit quality.
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
Carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide fumigation reduced grape fruit decay.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Fruits treated with 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2 developed less decay.”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit firmness declined with storage time under all treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Firmness was reduced as time of storage increased for all treatments”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit fumigated with 30% CO2 retained high firmness.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“fruit fumigated with 30% CO2 showed high firmness.”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Juice pH, soluble solids, and SSC/TA rose during storage and were lowest under the two fumigants.
Verbatim
e0“Juice pH, soluble solid concentration (SSC), and soluble solid concentration to titratable acidity ratio (SSC/TA) increased over the storage periods and was lowest under 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2 treatments.”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Titratable acidity increased with storage time under every treatment.
Verbatim
e0“Titratable acidity increased as storage time increased for all treatments.”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight loss varied with storage time.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Weight loss varied with time of storage.”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Appearance score was significantly high under both fumigants.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Fruit appearance score was significantly high for fruit treated with 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2.”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
SO2-treated fruit had a skin toughness score of 4.22 after seven days.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit exhibited skin toughness score of 4.22 at 7 days of storage at 200 ppm SO2 treatment”
t0“Grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Overall acceptance was significantly high with both fumigants.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Overall acceptance score was significantly high when fruits were treated with 30% CO2 and 200 ppm SO2.”
t0“Grapes”
The same questions in other papers
pollution · quality: postharvest · VitisResults differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →co2 · quality: postharvest · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →co2 · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →pollution · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.