Paper · 2008 · Food Science

Study on SO_2 Accumulation on Table Grapes in Storage

Jide Wang

4
claims
20
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SO2 injury threshold of four different varieties table grapes in Xinjiang province at different fumigation level were investigated. And the soluble solid content (SSC), rigidity, pH, SO2 accumulation in pericarp and sarcocarp were determined at the end of the shelf life. Results showed that SSC and rigidity were declined compared with the control. pH was not significantly changed. Results of continuous SO2 fumigation showed that the total sulfur was increased along with the storage time. But the excessively accumulation of sulfite was not appeared both in pericarp and sarcocarp.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SO2 fumigation reduced soluble solids and rigidity relative to control grapes.

Taxon
table grapese0t0e2e3e4
Treatment
SO2 fumigatione0t0e2e3e4
Outcome
SSC and rigiditye0t0e2e3e4
Direction
declinede0t0e2e3e4
Comparator
the controle0t0e2e3e4

Verbatim

e0

“Results showed that SSC and rigidity were declined compared with the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 272–349 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e2

“SO2 injury threshold of four different varieties table grapes in Xinjiang province at different fumigation level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–112 · show in text ↑
e3

“compared with the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–348 · show in text ↑
e4

“continuous SO2 fumigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 395–420 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

SO2 fumigation did not significantly change pH.

Taxon
table grapese0t0e2e3e4
Treatment
SO2 fumigatione0t0e2e3e4
Outcome
pHe0t0e2e3e4
Direction
not significantly changede0t0e2e3e4
Comparator
the controle0t0e2e3e4

Verbatim

e0

“pH was not significantly changed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 350–383 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e2

“SO2 injury threshold of four different varieties table grapes in Xinjiang province at different fumigation level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–112 · show in text ↑
e3

“compared with the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–348 · show in text ↑
e4

“continuous SO2 fumigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 395–420 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total sulfur increased with storage time under continuous SO2 fumigation.

Taxon
table grapese0t0e2e3e4
Organ / stage
storage timee0t0e2e3e4
Treatment
continuous SO2 fumigatione0t0e2e3e4
Outcome
total sulfure0t0e2e3e4
Direction
increasede0t0e2e3e4

Verbatim

e0

“Results of continuous SO2 fumigation showed that the total sulfur was increased along with the storage time.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 384–492 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e2

“SO2 injury threshold of four different varieties table grapes in Xinjiang province at different fumigation level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–112 · show in text ↑
e3

“compared with the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–348 · show in text ↑
e4

“continuous SO2 fumigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 395–420 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Excess sulfite did not accumulate in grape pericarp or sarcocarp.

Taxon
table grapese0t0e2e3e4
Organ / stage
pericarp and sarcocarpe0t0e2e3e4
Outcome
accumulation of sulfitee0t0e2e3e4
Direction
not appearede0t0e2e3e4

Verbatim

e0

“But the excessively accumulation of sulfite was not appeared both in pericarp and sarcocarp.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 493–585 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–42 · show in text ↑
e2

“SO2 injury threshold of four different varieties table grapes in Xinjiang province at different fumigation level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–112 · show in text ↑
e3

“compared with the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 323–348 · show in text ↑
e4

“continuous SO2 fumigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 395–420 · show in text ↑

solarization · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

pollution · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results

7 papers: 3 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

pollution · soil: chemistry · VitisResults agree

3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
  2. negative
See all 3 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.