Thymol and Acetic Acid Vapors Reduce Postharvest Brown Rot of Apricots and Plums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fumigation with 1 mg·L -1 of thymol vapor retarded mycelial growth of Monilinia fructicola (G. Wint.) Honey. Mean colony diameter was reduced from 49 mm in the control to 13 mm when the conidia were cultured on potato dextrose agar. Fumigation of apricots ( Prunus armeniaca L.) with 2 mg·L -1 of thymol vapor reduced the germination of M. fructicola conidia to 2% compared with 98% on untreated fruit. Microscopic observations showed that the spores fumigated with thymol were shrunken and had collapsed protoplasts. In in vivo experiments, surface-sterilized apricots and plums ( Prunus salicina L.) were inoculated with conidia of M. fructicola by applying 20 μL of a spore suspension to wounds on the fruit, and then were fumigated with thymol or acetic acid. The incidence of brown rot was reduced to 3% and 32% when `Manch' apricots were fumigated with thymol or acetic acid at 5 mg·L -1 , respectively, compared with 64% incidence in untreated fruit. Fumigation of `Violette' plums with thymol or acetic acid at 8 mg·L -1 reduced brown rot from 88% in the control to 24% and 25%, respectively. Fumigation of `Veeblue' plums with thymol at 4 mg·L -1 reduced brown rot from 56% in the control to 14%. Fumigation of apricots with thymol resulted in firmer fruit and higher surface browning, but total soluble solids and titratable acidity were not affected. Fumigation of plum with thymol resulted in higher total soluble solids, but firmness and titratable acidity were not affected. Thymol fumigation caused phytotoxicity on apricots but not on plums.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".