4.4 Article

Combination of hot water, Bacillus subtilis CPA-8 and sodium bicarbonate treatments to control postharvest brown rot on peaches and nectarines

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 128, 期 1, 页码 51-63

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10658-010-9628-7

关键词

Bacillus subtilis; Food additives; Heat treatments; Integrated disease management; Monilinia spp.; Stone fruit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of hot water (HW), antagonists and sodium bicarbonate (SBC) treatments applied separately or in combination to control Monilinia spp. during the postharvest storage of stone fruit. Firstly, we investigated the effect of HW temperatures (55-70A degrees C) and exposure times (20-60 s), seven antagonists at two concentrations (10(7) or 10(8) cfu ml(-1)) and four SBC concentrations (1-4%). The selected treatments for brown rot control without affecting fruit quality were HW at 60A degrees C for 40 s, SBC at 2% for 40 s and the antagonist CPA-8 (Bacillus subtilis species complex) at 10(7) cfu ml(-1). The combinations of these treatments were evaluated in three varieties of peaches and nectarines artificially inoculated with M. laxa. When fruit were incubated for 5 d at 20A degrees C, a significant additional effect to control M. laxa was detected with the combination of HW followed by antagonist CPA-8. Only 8% of the fruit treated with this combination were infected, compared to 84%, 52% or 24% among the control, CPA-8, and HW treatments, respectively. However, the other combinations tested did not show a significant improvement in effectiveness to control brown rot in comparison with applying the treatments separately. When fruit were incubated for 21 d at 0A degrees C plus 5 d at 20A degrees C, the significant differences between separated or combined treatments were reduced and generally the incidence of brown rot was higher than when fruit were incubated for 5 d at 20A degrees C. Similar results were observed testing fruit with natural inoculum.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据