Paper · 2023 · Advances in Horticultural Science

Effect of microwave mild heat treatment on postharvest quality of table grapes

Maria Lucia Valeria De Chiara; Nicola De Simone; Giuseppe Spano; et al.

8
claims
14
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Table grapes are characterized by high susceptibility to mold development during post-harvest, mostly due to Botrytis cinerea. Microwave application on ready-to-eat product can represent an alternative to antifungal treatment. With the aim of identifying the maximum energy that can be applied on grape without detrimental effects a Central Composite Design was developed testing the application of 10 combinations of treatment time (seconds) and microwave power (Watt). As a result, energies above 8000 kJ negatively affected the sensorial quality of fresh product, both in the presence and absence of B. cinerea inoculum (106 log CFU g-1). The physico-chemical parameters did not show significant differences, but two time/power combinations improved sensory quality of table grape, being selected for the subsequent packaging trial: 14 s/100 W and 80 s/100 W. Treatments were applied before or after packaging in polypropylene bags. At the end of storage period, 100 W applied for 80 seconds before packaging led to a better external appearance of the product than the other treatments, maintaining an intermediate level of mesophilic bacterial load and no significant differences in terms of nutritional quality. 80 seconds at 100 Watt combined with packaging can represent a valuable starting point for further experiments.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Microwave energies above 8000 kJ harmed fresh grape sensory quality with or without Botrytis inoculum.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
energies above 8000 kJe0
Interactor
B. cinereaBotrytis cinereae0pathogen
Outcome
sensorial quality of fresh producte0
Direction
negatively affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Botrytis cinerea
Botrytis cinerea · InteractorRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“energies above 8000 kJ negatively affected the sensorial quality of fresh product, both in the presence and absence of B. cinerea inoculum (106 log CFU g-1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 484–641 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The tested microwave combinations did not significantly change physicochemical parameters.

Taxon
table grapest0
Outcome
physico-chemical parameterse0
Direction
did not show significant differencese0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The physico-chemical parameters did not show significant differences”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 642–710 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Microwave treatment at 14 s/100 W improved sensory quality.

Taxon
table grapee0
Treatment
14 s/100 We0
Outcome
sensory qualitye0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“two time/power combinations improved sensory quality of table grape, being selected for the subsequent packaging trial: 14 s/100 W and 80 s/100 W.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–862 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Microwave treatment at 80 s/100 W improved sensory quality.

Taxon
table grapee0
Treatment
80 s/100 We0
Outcome
sensory qualitye0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“two time/power combinations improved sensory quality of table grape, being selected for the subsequent packaging trial: 14 s/100 W and 80 s/100 W.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–862 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying 100 W for 80 seconds before packaging gave better external appearance than other treatments after storage.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
100 W applied for 80 seconds before packaginge0
Outcome
external appearancee0
Direction
bettere0
Qualifier
At the end of storage periode0
Comparator
the other treatmentse0

Verbatim

e0

“At the end of storage period, 100 W applied for 80 seconds before packaging led to a better external appearance of the product than the other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 936–1088 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 100 W, 80 second prepackaging treatment maintained an intermediate mesophilic bacterial load.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
100 W applied for 80 seconds before packaginge0
Outcome
mesophilic bacterial loade0
Direction
intermediate levele0

Verbatim

e0

“100 W applied for 80 seconds before packaging led to a better external appearance of the product than the other treatments, maintaining an intermediate level of mesophilic bacterial load”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1152 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 100 W, 80 second prepackaging treatment produced no significant nutritional quality difference.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
100 W applied for 80 seconds before packaginge0
Outcome
nutritional qualitye0
Direction
no significant differencese0
Comparator
the other treatmentse0

Verbatim

e0

“100 W applied for 80 seconds before packaging led to a better external appearance of the product than the other treatments, maintaining an intermediate level of mesophilic bacterial load and no significant differences in terms of nutritional quality.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1216 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–78 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose 80 seconds at 100 Watt combined with packaging as a starting point for further experiments.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
80 seconds at 100 Watt combined with packaginge0
Outcome
starting point for further experimentse0

Verbatim

e0

“80 seconds at 100 Watt combined with packaging can represent a valuable starting point for further experiments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1217–1328 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 66–78 · show in text ↑

storage · quality: grain · VitisPositive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

storage · quality: postharvest · VitisResults agree

22 papers: 22 positive, 0 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 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.