## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Colour  
The results of the colour CIELAB coordinates measured for the skin's berries are shown in Table 2. Statistical analysis (Table 3) suggests the treatment had a greater impact (\(p\) = 0.000) on the L* variability than packaging (\(p\) = 0.01). The L* average value at harvest of the control (33.61 \(\pm\) 0.98) was significantly different from the BA-treated grapes (35.09 \(\pm\) 1.01) and after the cold storage did not change and was quite similar in all the packaging conditions, apart from the BA-OP grapes that experienced after 30 days a significant L* value decreasing. Similar results were found by [PERSON] et al. (2019) along with 30 days of passive MA storage of five organically cultured table grapes cultivars that experienced lowering or retaining of L*. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Parameter**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Fresh**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CV\%**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**BD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CV\%**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SP**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CV\%**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**OP**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**CV\%**} \\ \hline Mass Loss (\%) & BA & - & - & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.02  & 17.55 & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.01  & 25.00 & 5.75 \(\pm\) 0.47  & 12.06 & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.01  & 8.83 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Acidity (g/L)} & BA & 7.18 \(\pm\) 0.49  & 2.24 & 6.75 \(\pm\) 0.54  & 6.66 \\  & Control & 6.72 \(\pm\) 0.37  & 3.04 & 6.78 \(\pm\) 0.11  & 6.80 \\ \hline pH & BA & 3.78 \(\pm\) 0.04  & 2.08 & 3.63 \(\pm\) 0.01  & 0.42 \\  & Control & 3.75 \(\pm\) 0.01  & 1.31 & 3.56 \(\pm\) 0.07  & 0.20 \\ \hline SSC (\({}^{\circ}\)Brix) & BA & 20.58 \(\pm\) 0.80  & 6.41 & 18.46 \(\pm\) 1.41  & 3.03 \\  & Control & 21.81 \(\pm\) 2.15 [FOOTContrary to L*, the a* (redness) and b* (yellowness) values vary with characteristics depending mostly on the packaging (\(p\) = 0.000). At harvest, these values were similar both in BA and control grapes, and they increased significantly in both treatments when packaged using BD. Low variations were observed for b* in Control-OP and a* in BA-OP. The higher a* value found in BD may indicate a major proportion of anthocyanins in this condition, which are the main polyphenols found in grapes [34] responsible for red colour intensity. CIRG measured allowed the assessment of the external colour of the berry according to the criteria proposed by [PERSON] et al. [29], suggesting the grapes presented a pink to red skin colour, ranging between 2.57 (BA) and 2.66 (Control) at harvest. _A. pullans_ in-field treatment was responsible for slight CIRG variation at harvest for the control grapes. After the storage, the evolution of the skin colour was influenced by the packaging system used and its interaction with the factor treatment. A shifting from red to pink in both treatments, that is a reduction of initial CIRG, was observed in those bunches packaged with BD, whilst SD and OP retained the initial values. CIRG reduction along with cold storage was observed by [PERSON] et al. [21] in organic cultured Sugarineteen Seedless after several CO\({}_{2}\)- and O\({}_{3}\)-based shock post-harvest treatments, followed by storage in MAP (2%O\({}_{2}\)-5%CO\({}_{2}\)). In that study, only the grapes treated with O\({}_{3}\) at 20 \(\mu\)L L\({}^{-1}\) for 30 min retained CIRG value, confirming that the extent and type of pre-packaging treatment affect the colour. Although the impact of packaging on table grapes quality standards has been extensively studied in the literature, there is a lack of reporting in-field A. pullulans-based treatment influence on berry skin colour. Several authors have, however, evaluated its impact on winemaking. In our experiment, _A. pullulans_-treated grapes had different L* and b* values compared to the control, similar results were found by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [35; 36], who reported higher total anthocyanins, total polyphenols and colour intensity (CI) of Malbec wines produced using _A. pullulans_ GM-R-22, suggesting _A.