heat · Quality: postharvest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)
10 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Heat Treatment Affects Postharvest Quality of Kale and Collard, but not of Brussels Sprouts (1998)
no changeHeat treatments had no measurable effect on Brussels sprout senescence or storage quality.
934 PB 524 HEAT TREATMENTS EXTEND THE SHELF-LIFE OF FRESH BROCCOLI (1994)decreaseHot water treatment delayed broccoli senescence at 20 C after 3 weeks at 0 C storage.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 6
934 PB 524 HEAT TREATMENTS EXTEND THE SHELF-LIFE OF FRESH BROCCOLI · 1994
- positive
Hot-water Dips Extend the Shelf Life of Fresh Broccoli · 1995
- positive
- positive
Effect of hot water treatment on postharvest shelf life and quality of broccoli. · 2001
- positive
- positive
Study on peroxidase activity and its influence factors in cabbage · 2008
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 3
Heat Treatment Affects Postharvest Quality of Kale and Collard, but not of Brussels Sprouts · 1998
- no effect
Heat Treatment Affects Postharvest Quality of Kale and Collard, but not of Brussels Sprouts · 1999
- no effect
Behaviour of fresh cut broccoli under different modified atmosphere conditions · 2017
- no effect
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.