Effects of pre and postharvest chitosan treatments to control storage grey mold of table grapes
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The effectiveness of pre‐ and postharvest treatments with chitosan (0.1, 0.5, and 1.0%) to control Botrytis cinerea on table grapes was investigated. In postharvest treatments, small bunches dipped in chitosan solutions and inoculated with the pathogen showed a reduction of incidence, severity, and nesting of grey mold, in comparison with the control. Single berries artificially wounded, treated with the polymer, and inoculated with B. cinerea showed a reduced percentage of infected berries and lesion dia. Higher chitosan concentrations demonstrated greater decay reduction. All preharvest treatments significantly reduced the incidence of grey mold, as compared to the control. Table grapes treated with 1.0% chitosan showed a significant increase of phenylalanine ammonia‐lyase (PAL) activity. Consequently, besides a direct activity against B. cinerea , chitosan produces other effects contributing to reduce decay.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In trials where chitosan was applied once 21 days before harvest or twice 21 and 5 days before harvest, no differences in decay development on table grapes were observed after 30 days of cold storage and 4 days of shelf life.
“In trials in which it was applied once, 21 days before harvest, or twice, 21 and 5 days before harvest, no differences in decay development on table grapes were observed after 30 days of cold storage and 4 days of shelf life (Romanazzi et al., 2002).”
From GRAS, plant- and animal-derived compounds as alternatives to conventional fungicides for the control of postharvest diseases of fresh horticultural produce (2016) · cites this paper as Romanazzi et al., 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
El Hadrami, A., Adam, L. R., El Hadrami, I., & Daayf, F. (2010) · Marine Drugs · doi:10.3390/md8040968 · Cited by 783 · see citing works
Palou, L., Ali, A., Fallik, E., & Romanazzi, G. (2016) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2016.04.017 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Self-citationWaewthongrak, W., Pisuchpen, S., & Leelasuphakul, W. (2015) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2014.07.016 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Use of chitosan for the control of postharvest anthracnose and quality in avocados
Marques, K. M., Galati, V. C., Fernandes, J. D. R., Guimarães, J. E. R., Silva, J. P., Mattiuz, B. H., & Mattiuz, C. F. M. (2016) · Acta Horticulturae · doi:10.17660/actahortic.2016.1120.34 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Romanazzi, G., Nigro, F., Ippolito, A., DiVenere, D., & Salerno, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
- Venue
- Journal of Food Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1862-1867
- ISSN
- 0022-1147 (ISSN-L)
- 1750-3841
- OpenAlex
- W2098148512
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 7.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Food Science (publishedVersion)
- CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
- Keywords
- chitosan, Botrytis cinerea, gray mold, table grapes, postharvest treatment, preharvest treatment, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, wound inoculation, antifungal therapy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
