Paper · 2015 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Influence Of Pre And Post Harvest Treatments On Shelf LifeAnd Fruit Quality Of Mango Cv Amrapali

Banerjeee, Shipra; Sengupta, Subhranshu; Das, Bikash

4
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · other-oa

Abstract

The present investigation was carried out to evaluate the response of various pre-harvest (GA3 and thiophenate methyl) application followed by postharvest treatments 9salicylic acid, 1-MCP and hot water) with the objective to find out suitable treatments which could preserve physical, bio-chemical and organoleptic properties of Amrapali mango. The physical parameters of fruits viz. minimum PLW (Physiological Loss in Weight) i.e. 14.65% and spoilage percentage (28.89% upto 17th day) was recorded with T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP) closely followed by T1 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + salicylic acid). The chemical composition of the fruits viz., minimum reduction in TSS (5.490 Brix), maximum retentionof acidity (0.07828), were also recorded with the application of same during 17 days of storage. This record was migrated from the OpenDepot repository service in June, 2017 before shutting down.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mango cv. Amrapali fruit treated with T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1-MCP) had the minimum physiological loss in weight, 14.65%.

Material
Amrapalit0
Treatment
T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)e1
Outcome
PLW (Physiological Loss in Weight)e0
Direction
minimume0
Value
14.65%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Mango Cv Amrapali”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–96 · show in text ↑
e0

“minimum PLW (Physiological Loss in Weight) i.e. 14.65%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 385–439 · show in text ↑
e1

“T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–555 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mango cv. Amrapali fruit treated with T2 had a spoilage percentage of 28.89% up to the 17th day.

Material
Amrapalit0
Treatment
T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)e1
Outcome
spoilage percentagee0
Value
28.89%e0
Qualifier
upto 17th daye0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Mango Cv Amrapali”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–96 · show in text ↑
e0

“spoilage percentage (28.89% upto 17th day)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 444–486 · show in text ↑
e1

“T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–555 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mango cv. Amrapali fruit given T2 showed the minimum reduction in TSS, 5.490 Brix, during 17 days of storage.

Material
Amrapalit0
Treatment
T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)e1
Outcome
TSSe0
Direction
minimum reductione0
Value
5.490 Brixe0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Mango Cv Amrapali”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–96 · show in text ↑
e0

“minimum reduction in TSS (5.490 Brix)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 681–718 · show in text ↑
e1

“T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–555 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mango cv. Amrapali fruit given T2 showed the maximum retention of acidity, 0.07828, during 17 days of storage.

Material
Amrapalit0
Treatment
T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)e1
Outcome
aciditye0
Direction
maximume0
Value
0.07828e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Mango Cv Amrapali”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–96 · show in text ↑
e0

“maximum retentionof acidity (0.07828)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 720–757 · show in text ↑
e1

“T2 (GA3 + thiophenate methyl + hot water + 1- MCP)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–555 · show in text ↑

Gibberellic acid · quality: sugar starch · Mangifera indica (mango)Results differ

10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

1-methylcyclopropene · quality: sugar starch · Mangifera indica (mango)Results differ

24 papers: 21 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

1-methylcyclopropene · quality: postharvest · Mangifera indica (mango)Results differ

36 papers: 35 positive, 1 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

methyl · quality: sugar starch · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Gibberellic acid · quality: postharvest · Mangifera indica (mango)Results agree

11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

heat · quality: postharvest · Mangifera indica (mango)Results differ

40 papers: 33 positive, 7 negative or no effect

32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

36 papers more in this group

See all 40 papers →

heat · quality: sugar starch · Mangifera indica (mango)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 13 positive, 4 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 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.