Abstract
SummaryPostharvest heat treatments have been used for many years as alternatives to chemical control of fungal diseases and insect infestation of fruits and vegetables. In this study, the effects of a new hot-water brushing (HWB) treatment on the resistance of red grapefruit (C. paradisi cv. Star Ruby) to green mould decay caused by Penicillium digitatum (Pers.: Fr.) Sacc. and on the development of chilling injury (CI) symptoms during cold storage were examined. The HWB treatment comprises rinsing hot water on the fruits as they move along a belt of brush rollers. A twenty second HWB treatment at 59 or 62° reduced decay, after arti®cial inoculation of wounded fruit, by 52 or 70%, respectively, compared with control unwashed fruit, whereas rinsing and brushing the fruit with tap water (~20°) or with hot water at 53 or 56°, were ineffective. HWB treatments applied 1–3 d prior to inoculation were most effective in enhancing the disease resistance of fruit, but were much less effective when the fruit were inoculated on the same day or 7.d later. HWB treatments at 59 or 62° for 20.s also significantly reduced the CI index and the percentage of fruit displaying CI symptoms by 42 and 58%, respectively, after six weeks' storage at 2° and an additional week at 20°. Furthermore, HWB treatments cleaned the fruit and improved its general appearance without causing any surface damage, and did not influence fruit weight loss, percentage of total soluble solids (TSS) in the juice, juice acidity or fruit colour.
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
Twenty-second hot-water brushing at 59° reduced green mould decay by 52% relative to unwashed fruit.
- Taxon
- grapefruit
_Pompelino_Grapefruit_002.jpg?width=60)
Citrus ×paradisit0 - Treatment
- HWB treatment at 59e0
- Outcome
- decaye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 52e0
- Comparator
- control unwashed fruite0
Not reportedInteractor
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Pompelino_Grapefruit_002.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“A twenty second HWB treatment at 59 or 62° reduced decay, after arti®cial inoculation of wounded fruit, by 52 or 70%, respectively, compared with control unwashed fruit”
t0“grapefruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Twenty-second hot-water brushing at 62° reduced decay by 70% relative to unwashed fruit.
- Taxon
- grapefruitCitrus ×paradisit0
- Treatment
- HWB treatment at 59 or 62°e0
- Outcome
- decaye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 70%e0
- Comparator
- control unwashed fruite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A twenty second HWB treatment at 59 or 62° reduced decay, after arti®cial inoculation of wounded fruit, by 52 or 70%, respectively, compared with control unwashed fruit”
t0“grapefruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Tap-water brushing and hot-water brushing at 53 or 56° were ineffective against decay.
- Taxon
- grapefruitCitrus ×paradisit0
- Treatment
- rinsing and brushing the fruit with tap water (~20°) or with hot water at 53 or 56°e0
- Outcome
- ineffectivee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rinsing and brushing the fruit with tap water (~20°) or with hot water at 53 or 56°, were ineffective”
t0“grapefruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot-water brushing 1–3 days before inoculation was most effective for fruit disease resistance.
- Taxon
- grapefruitCitrus ×paradisit0
- Treatment
- HWB treatments applied 1–3 d prior to inoculatione0
- Outcome
- disease resistance of fruite0
- Direction
- most effectivee0
- Comparator
- inoculated on the same day or 7.d latere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HWB treatments applied 1–3 d prior to inoculation were most effective in enhancing the disease resistance of fruit, but were much less effective when the fruit were inoculated on the same day or 7.d later”
t0“grapefruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot-water brushing reduced the chilling injury index by 42%.
- Taxon
- grapefruitCitrus ×paradisit0
- Treatment
- HWB treatments at 59 or 62° for 20.se0
- Outcome
- CI indexe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 42e0
- Qualifier
- after six weeks' storage at 2° and an additional week at 20°e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HWB treatments at 59 or 62° for 20.s also significantly reduced the CI index and the percentage of fruit displaying CI symptoms by 42 and 58%, respectively, after six weeks' storage at 2° and an additional week at 20°”
t0“grapefruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot-water brushing reduced the share of fruit showing chilling injury by 58%.
- Taxon
- grapefruitCitrus ×paradisit0
- Treatment
- HWB treatments at 59 or 62° for 20.se0
- Outcome
- percentage of fruit displaying CI symptomse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 58%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HWB treatments at 59 or 62° for 20.s also significantly reduced the CI index and the percentage of fruit displaying CI symptoms by 42 and 58%, respectively, after six weeks' storage at 2° and an additional week at 20°”
t0“grapefruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot-water brushing cleaned fruit and improved appearance without surface damage.
- Taxon
- grapefruitCitrus ×paradisit0
- Treatment
- HWB treatmentse0
- Outcome
- cleaned the fruit and improved its general appearance without causing any surface damagee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HWB treatments cleaned the fruit and improved its general appearance without causing any surface damage”
t0“grapefruit”
Claim · model-written summary
Hot-water brushing did not influence weight loss, juice soluble solids, acidity or colour.
- Taxon
- grapefruitCitrus ×paradisit0
- Treatment
- HWB treatmentse1
- Outcome
- fruit weight loss, percentage of total soluble solids (TSS) in the juice, juice acidity or fruit coloure0
- Direction
- did not influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“did not influence fruit weight loss, percentage of total soluble solids (TSS) in the juice, juice acidity or fruit colour”
e1“HWB treatments cleaned the fruit”
t0“grapefruit”
The same questions in other papers
heat · quality: sugar starch · Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
heat · crop injury · Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →heat · disease · Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →inoculation · disease · Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →heat · pest · Citrus x paradisi (grapefruit)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.