Efficacy of Sprayable 1-MCP on Apple Quality at Harvest and after Storage: The Ontario Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sprayable formulation of 250 μL·L -1 1-MCP and 1% oil adjuvant was applied to mature `McIntosh', `Empire', and `Delicious' apple trees 1 week prior to anticipated optimum harvest. Other spray treatments included: none, 1% oil adjuvant alone, and a formulation of 125 μL·L -1 1-MCP and adjuvant (`Empire' only). Unsprayed fruit were treated postharvest with or without gaseous 1-MCP (1 μL·L -1 ). At harvest, internal ethylene concentration (IEC), starch index, firmness, and soluble solids concentration were measured, as well as CO 2 , ethylene, and total volatile production of fruit samples over a 14-day period at 22 °C. Additional fruit samples for all preharvest and postharvest 1-MCP treatments were held 14 days at 22 °C and IEC and firmness measured for treatment efficacy. Fruit quality was assessed at 3 and 6 month storage intervals and over a 2-week ripening period at 22 °C. For all cultivars, the production rates of CO 2 , ethylene, and volatiles, as well as increases of IEC and decreases in firmness were inhibited or delayed by sprayable 1-MCP treatment. These effects were comparable to the postharvest 1-MCP treatment and were maintained during storage. The results of these experiments suggest that sprayable 1-MCP could be an additionaal tool for maintaining apple fruit quality. However, the sprayable formulation used in this study caused 100% incidence of skin damage to `McIntosh' and a slight amount to `Empire' (<5%). Lesions were halo-like, centered around lenticels, and tended to be more severe near the calyx. No skin damage was observed in `Delicious' or in fruit treated with the adjuvant only or postharvest 1-MCP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".