Potential of chitosan-loaded nanoemulsions to control different Colletotrichum spp. and maintain quality of tropical fruits during cold storage
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the antifungal activity of conventional chitosan and chitosan-loaded nanoemulsions against anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum spp. isolated from different tropical fruits. METHODS AND RESULTS: In vitro results illustrated that conventional chitosan onwards 1·5% concentration inhibited radial mycelial growth, conidial germination, sporulation and dry weight of mycelia for Colletotrichum musae (Berk. & Curt) Arx. isolated from banana, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz and Sacc. isolated from papaya and dragon fruits. For further investigations, chitosan-loaded nanoemulsions were prepared, and chitosan at 2·0% concentration with 200 nm droplet size gave the best results in terms of all the in vitro parameters tested for C. musae and at the same concentration with 600 nm droplet size for both the isolates of C. gloeosporioides. However, the results obtained at 2·0% chitosan concentration with different droplet sizes were nonsignificantly different with 1·0 and 1·5% concentrations. Therefore, for in vivo studies, only 1·0% chitosan with different droplet sizes was used. In terms of fungicidal effects and maintaining postharvest quality of banana, papaya and dragon fruits, chitosan at 1·0% concentration with a droplet size of 200 nm in banana and 600 nm in papaya and dragon fruits showed the best results in delaying the onset of anthracnose and maintaining quality of all the fruits for up to 28 days of cold storage. CONCLUSION: Chitosan used in a conventional form showed good results but not as effective as in the form of nanoemulsions. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: The results of this study suggest that instead of applying chitosan in a conventional form, chitosan in the form of nanoemulsions could be more effective as a biofungicide for controlling anthracnose of fresh fruits. Moreover, it could be cost-effective as the amount of chemical used is reduced when applied in the form of nanoemulsions.
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?
Use of nanoformulation allowed application of lower doses of chitosan (1%) than would normally be applied (1.5 or 2%).
“The use of nanoformulation allowed the authors to apply lower doses of chitosan (1%) than would normally be applied (1.5 or 2%).”
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 Zahid et al., 2012
Applications of chitosan nanoformulations at 1, 1.5, or 2% were similarly effective in controlling growth of Colletotrichum musae and C. gloeosporioides.
“Applications of chitosan nanoformulations at 1, 1.5, or 2% were similarly effective in controlling the growth of Colletotrichum musae and C. gloeosporioides (Zahid et al., 2012).”
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 Zahid et al., 2012
Chitosan nanoformulation at concentration of 1% controlled anthracnose of banana, papaya, and dragonfruit.
“The authors also demonstrated the effectiveness of the chitosan nanoformulation at concentration of 1% in controlling anthracnose of banana, papaya, and dragonfruit.”
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 Zahid et al., 2012
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
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-citation
- Authors
- Zahid, N., Ali, A., Manickam, S., Siddiqui, Y., & Maqbool, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus (MY)
- Universiti Putra Malaysia (MY)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Microbiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-08-10
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 925-939
- ISSN
- 1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2032617944
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 5.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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, nanoemulsions, Colletotrichum, anthracnose, postharvest disease control, cold storage, banana, papaya, dragon fruit, biofungicides, antifungal activity, droplet size, fruit quality
- MeSH terms
- Emulsions, Food Contamination, Food Microbiology, Fruit, Fungicides, Industrial, Spores, Fungal, Colletotrichum, Musa, Carica, Chitosan, Nanostructures
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
