Abstract
Commercially packed Fuji and Granny Smith apples and Anjou and Bosc pears were exposed to irradiation treatments using a gamma beam 650 source containing cobalt-60 at doses of 150, 300, 600 and 900 Gy. After irradiation, apples were stored for 30, 60 and 90 days, while pears were stored for 30 and 90 days in ambient atmosphere at 1C. Analysis of carbohydrate concentrations of the fruit flesh were conducted during and after each storage period. Irradiation treatment did not influence the total carbohydrate or individual sucrose, glucose, fructose, or sorbitol concentrations in either apples or pears, regardless of the cultivar. Carbohydrate concentrations changed in both apples and pears as storage time progressed and these changes were cultivar dependent. Total carbohydrates and glucose, fructose and sorbitol concentrations increased, and sucrose decreased in apples as storage progressed. Total carbohydrates and fructose increased; whereas, sucrose, glucose and sorbitol concentrations decreased in Anjou pears as storage progressed. Total and individual carbohydrate concentrations decreased in Bosc pears as storage progressed from 30 to 90 days.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation did not influence total carbohydrate concentration in apples.
- Taxon
- apples
Malus domesticae1 - Treatment
- Irradiation treatmente1
- Outcome
- total carbohydratee1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
- Qualifier
- regardless of the cultivare1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Irradiation treatment did not influence the total carbohydrate or individual sucrose, glucose, fructose, or sorbitol concentrations in either apples or pears, regardless of the cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation did not influence sucrose, glucose and fructose concentrations in apples.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- Irradiation treatmente1
- Outcome
- sucrose, glucose, fructosee1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
- Qualifier
- regardless of the cultivare1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Irradiation treatment did not influence the total carbohydrate or individual sucrose, glucose, fructose, or sorbitol concentrations in either apples or pears, regardless of the cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation did not influence sorbitol concentration in apples.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- Irradiation treatmente1
- Outcome
- sorbitole1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
- Qualifier
- regardless of the cultivare1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Irradiation treatment did not influence the total carbohydrate or individual sucrose, glucose, fructose, or sorbitol concentrations in either apples or pears, regardless of the cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation did not influence total carbohydrate concentration in pears.
- Treatment
- Irradiation treatmente1
- Outcome
- total carbohydratee1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
- Qualifier
- regardless of the cultivare1
PyrusNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Irradiation treatment did not influence the total carbohydrate or individual sucrose, glucose, fructose, or sorbitol concentrations in either apples or pears, regardless of the cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation did not influence sucrose, glucose and fructose concentrations in pears.
- Treatment
- Irradiation treatmente1
- Outcome
- sucrose, glucose, fructosee1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
- Qualifier
- regardless of the cultivare1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Irradiation treatment did not influence the total carbohydrate or individual sucrose, glucose, fructose, or sorbitol concentrations in either apples or pears, regardless of the cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation did not influence sorbitol concentration in pears.
- Treatment
- Irradiation treatmente1
- Outcome
- sorbitole1
- Direction
- did not influencee1
- Qualifier
- regardless of the cultivare1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Irradiation treatment did not influence the total carbohydrate or individual sucrose, glucose, fructose, or sorbitol concentrations in either apples or pears, regardless of the cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Total carbohydrates and glucose and fructose concentrations increased in apples as storage progressed.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae2
- Treatment
- storagee2
- Outcome
- Total carbohydrates and glucose, fructosee2
- Direction
- increasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Total carbohydrates and glucose, fructose and sorbitol concentrations increased, and sucrose decreased in apples as storage progressed”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorbitol concentration increased in apples as storage progressed.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae2
- Treatment
- storagee2
- Outcome
- sorbitol concentrationse2
- Direction
- increasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Total carbohydrates and glucose, fructose and sorbitol concentrations increased, and sucrose decreased in apples as storage progressed”
Claim · model-written summary
Sucrose concentration decreased in apples as storage progressed.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae2
- Treatment
- storagee2
- Outcome
- sucrosee2
- Direction
- decreasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Total carbohydrates and glucose, fructose and sorbitol concentrations increased, and sucrose decreased in apples as storage progressed”
Claim · model-written summary
Total carbohydrates and fructose increased in Anjou pears as storage progressed.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Total carbohydrates and fructose increased; whereas, sucrose, glucose and sorbitol concentrations decreased in Anjou pears as storage progressed”
Claim · model-written summary
Sucrose, glucose and sorbitol concentrations decreased in Anjou pears as storage progressed.
- Material
- Anjoue3
- Treatment
- storagee3
- Outcome
- sucrose, glucose and sorbitol concentrationse3
- Direction
- decreasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Total carbohydrates and fructose increased; whereas, sucrose, glucose and sorbitol concentrations decreased in Anjou pears as storage progressed”
Claim · model-written summary
Total and individual carbohydrate concentrations decreased in Bosc pears as storage progressed from 30 to 90 days.
- Material
- Bosce4
- Treatment
- storagee4
- Outcome
- Total and individual carbohydrate concentrationse4
- Direction
- decreasede4
- Qualifier
- from 30 to 90 dayse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Total and individual carbohydrate concentrations decreased in Bosc pears as storage progressed from 30 to 90 days”
The same questions in other papers
radiation · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →radiation · quality: sugar starch · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →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.