title: Treatments with gras compounds to keep fig fruit (Ficus carica L.) quality during cold storage.
abstract: The trade of fresh fig fruit is restricted by its high perishability and numerous attempts have been done to extend the postharvest life. The main difficulties can be found in the fast ripening and the easiness of pathogen spread. Although the ripening can be slowed by low storage temperatures (close to 0 degrees C) the control of pathogens remains still unsolved since no pesticide treatments are allowed. Generally Recognized As Save Compounds (G.R.A.S.) are possible candidates to fulfil this void. Sodium carbonate (SC) solutions (0.5, 1, 2 and 3%) and acetic acid (AAC) vapours (25, 50 and 100 ppm) have been used as postharvest treatments to control Botrytis cinerea on black (Craxiou de Porcu) and white (Rampelina) fig varieties. Fruit was subsequently stored at 2 or 8 degrees C and 90% relative humidity for two weeks. At the end of the experiment decay, weight loss, pH, acidity, total soluble solids and visual assessment were performed. SC treatment at 1% reduced significantly the decay while, lower and higher concentrations did not. Between the two studied varieties the lowest decay percentage (9.8%) was found for the Craxiou de Porcu. Using AAC a good efficacy was achieved only with 100 ppm, this treatment decrease to 2.4% the incidence of decay irrespective to storage temperature. Lower concentrations were lesser effective and the efficacy was strictly dependent on the storage temperature, being higher at 2 degrees C. No treatment damages were observed following SC or AAC applications. Regarding fruit weight loss all treatments did not affect this parameter that was 10.1% and 16.9% at 2 and 8 degrees C, respectively. Chemical analyses performed at the end of the storage period did not evidenced differences among the treatments and slight ones if compared to initial values. Visual score of the fruit at the end of storage evidenced a better keeping quality for Craxiou de Porcu especially when stored at 2 degrees C. Both G.R.A.S. compounds are promising, but in the reported experiments AAC was the most effective.
authors.affiliation: C.N.R. Istituto di Scienze delle produzioni Alimentari, Sez. di Sassari Via Dei Mille 48, I-07100 Sassari, Italy.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Venditti
authors.forename: M G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Molinu
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Dore
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: D'Hallewin
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Fiori
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tedde
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Agabbio
mesh_terms: D019342:Acetic Acid / Q000494:pharmacology; D020171:Botrytis / Q000187:drug effects / Q000254:growth & development*; D002254:Carbonates / Q000494:pharmacology; D003080:Cold Temperature; D003257:Consumer Product Safety; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D030681:Ficus; D005511:Food Handling / Q000379:methods*; D005516:Food Microbiology; D005519:Food Preservation / Q000379:methods*; D005520:Food Preservatives / Q000494:pharmacology*; D006813:Humidity; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D002254:Carbonates; D005520:Food Preservatives; C005686:sodium carbonate; D019342:Acetic Acid