Effect of acidic electrolyzed water on the viability of bacterial and fungal plant pathogens and on bacterial spot disease of tomato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acidic electrolyzed water (AEW), known to have germicidal activity, was obtained after electrolysis of 0.045% aqueous solution of sodium chloride. Freshly prepared AEW (pH 2.3-2.6, oxidation-reduction potential 1007-1025 mV, and free active chlorine concentration 27-35 ppm) was tested in vitro and (or) on tomato foliage and seed surfaces for its effects on the viability of plant pathogen propagules that could be potential seed contaminants. Foliar sprays of AEW were tested against bacterial spot disease of tomato under greenhouse and field conditions. The viability of propagules of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria (bacterial spot pathogen), Streptomyces scabies (potato scab pathogen), and Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici (root rot pathogen) was significantly reduced 4-8 log units within 2 min of exposure to AEW. Immersion of tomato seed from infected fruit in AEW for 1 and 3 min significantly reduced the populations of X. campestris pv. vesicatoria from the surface of the seed without affecting seed germination. Foliar sprays of AEW reduced X. campestris pv. vesicatoria populations and leaf spot severity on tomato foliage in the greenhouse. In the field, multiple sprays of AEW consistently reduced bacterial spot severity on tomato foliage. Disease incidence and severity was also reduced on fruit, but only in 2003. Fruit yield was either enhanced or not affected by the AEW sprays. These results indicate a potential use of AEW as a seed surface disinfectant or contact bactericide.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".