Potential of chitosan coating in delaying the postharvest anthracnose (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz.) of Eksotika II papaya
Abstract
Summary The in vitro and in vivo fungicidal activity of chitosan was studied against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, the causal agent of anthracnose in papaya fruits. Chitosan at 1.5% and 2.0% concentrations showed a fungistatic effect with 90–100% inhibition (significant at P ≤ 0.05) of the fungal mycelial growth. Changes in the conidial morphology were also observed with the higher chitosan concentrations after 7‐ h incubation. In vivo studies showed that 1.5% and 2.0% chitosan coatings on papaya not only controlled the fruit decay but also delayed the onset of disease symptoms by 3–4 weeks during 5 weeks storage at 12 ± 1 °C and slowed down the subsequent disease development. However, when leaving the fruits to ripen at ambient temperature (28 ± 2 °C), 2.0% chitosan was less effective than 1.5% in controlling the disease development. Chitosan coatings also delayed the ripening process by maintaining the firmness levels, soluble solids concentration and titratable acidity values during and after storage.
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?
Higher chitosan concentrations may adversely affect fruit ripening by restricting gas exchange and causing physiological disorders.
“However, higher concentrations may adversely impact fruit ripening by restricting gas exchange and causing physiological disorders (Ali et al. 2010).”
From Antifungal Potential of Chitosan and Phenyllactic Acid against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, the Anthracnose Pathogen in Avocados (2025) · cites this paper as Ali et al. 2010
Prior findings that CHI works as a postharvest fruit coating justify the CHI concentration chosen.
“The selected concentration of CHI is supported by previous findings suggesting its effectiveness as a postharvest fruit coating (Ali et al. 2010;Weir et al. 2012;Obianom et al. 2019).”
From Antifungal Potential of Chitosan and Phenyllactic Acid against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, the Anthracnose Pathogen in Avocados (2025) · cites this paper as Ali et al. 2010
Ali et al. (2010) also observed morphological changes in conidia 7 h after treatment with those CHI concentrations.
“The study also noted morphological changes in conidia following treatment with these CHI concentrations 7 h post incubation.”
From Antifungal Potential of Chitosan and Phenyllactic Acid against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, the Anthracnose Pathogen in Avocados (2025) · cites this paper as Ali et al. 2010
Ali et al. (2010) found that 15 mg/mL CHI inhibited radial mycelial growth by 90% and conidia germination by 80%, with complete inhibition at 20 mg/mL.
“Similarly, Ali et al. (2010) observed 90% inhibition of radial mycelia growth and 80% inhibition of conidia germination at 15 mg/mL of CHI, with complete inhibition achieved at 20 mg/mL.”
From Antifungal Potential of Chitosan and Phenyllactic Acid against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, the Anthracnose Pathogen in Avocados (2025) · cites this paper as Ali et al. 2010
Cites
Effect of ammonium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate on anthracnose of papaya
Sivakumar, D., Hewarathgamagae, N. K., Wilson Wijeratnam, R. S., & Wijesundera, R. L. C. (2002) · Phytoparasitica · doi:10.1007/bf02979753 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
de Oliveira, K. Á. R., Berger, L. R. R., de Araújo, S. A., Câmara, M. P. S., & de Souza, E. L. (2017) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2017.04.012 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Bautista-Baños, S., Sivakumar, D., Bello-Pérez, A., Villanueva-Arce, R., & Hernández-López, M. (2013) · Crop Protection · doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2013.02.011 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Peralta-Ruiz, Y., Grande Tovar, C., Sinning-Mangonez, A., Bermont, D., Pérez Cordero, A., Paparella, A., & Chaves-López, C. (2020) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108649 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Hamidou, H. A. (2025) · International Journal of Agriculture and Biology · doi:10.17957/ijab/15.2384 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ali, A., Muhammad, M. T. M., Sijam, K., & Siddiqui, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus (MY)
- Universiti Putra Malaysia (MY)
- Corresponding author
- Ali, Asgar
- Venue
- International Journal of Food Science & Technology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-09-24
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2134-2140
- ISSN
- 0950-5423 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2621
- OpenAlex
- W1958589153
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Food Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
- Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository (Universiti Putra Malaysia) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
- Keywords
- chitosan coating, anthracnose, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, postharvest disease control, fungicidal activity, fruit decay, cold storage, fruit ripening, fruit firmness, soluble solids, titratable acidity, edible coatings
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
