Fumigation of sweet cherries with thymol and acetic acid to reduce postharvest brown rot and blue mold rot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Sweet cherries are susceptible to postharvest decay. The use of synthetic fungicides is discouraged in postharvest handling because they can leave a residue and present a safety risk. Therefore, naturally occurring compounds have been considered as an alternative. Fumigation of short-chain organic acids and essential oils has shown promise in controlling fungal activities. This study reports their effects on sweet cherries. Materials and method. `Hedelfingen' sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.) were inoculated with conidia of Monilinia fructicola and Penicillium expansum, then fumigated with three levels of thymol or acetic acid for 10 min before cold storage. Results and discussion. After 13 d at 10°C, sweet cherries fumigated with 10 mg × L-1 of thymol significantly reduced brown rot from 21% to 12%, but had no effect on reducing blue mold rot. Fumigation with 6 or 10 mg × L-1 acetic acid significantly reduced blue mold rot from 16% to 2%, but had no effect on reducing brown rot. Fumigation did not have any effect on the firmness, total soluble solids and titratable acid of the sweet cherries. Fumigation with 2 or 6 mg × L-1 of thymol did not accelerate stem browning compared with the control, but fumigation with 10 mg Yen L-1 of thymol caused almost total stem browning. Fumigation with acetic acid showed no impact on discoloration of the stems. Conclusion. Thus, fumigation with acetic acid or thymol at low concentrations has a potential use for postharvest decay control without adverse effects on fruit quality.
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".