Application of Moso Bamboo Vinegar with Different Collection Temperature to Evaluate Fungi Resistance of Moso Bamboo Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine if the original bamboo vinegar, collected from six different temperatures (80-150, over 80, 90-92, 99-102, 120-123 and 145-150 C), obtained from Moso bamboo (Phyllostachys heterocycla), combined with a specific duration of soaking or vacuum treatment, could be used to increase the fungi resistance of bamboo. The results indicated that the absorption of bamboo vinegar was between 0.89 to 23.38 mg/cm 3 . Also, the amount of bamboo vinegar absorptions by the different bamboo specimens increased with the amount of treatment time, regardless of the type of treatment or the pre-processed bamboo material. From the results of SEM and Marco-observations, the growth rate of Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus niger and airborne fungi particles for the collected bamboo vinegar at 120-123 C was about the range of 0-10% after being inoculated for over 70 days, but it was ineffective, 100% of fungal colony growth, for the control specimens after 5 days. For the bamboo vinegar collected at a temperature of 80-150 C, the airborne fungi particles and Trichoderma viride were 10-30% and 50-90% respectively. However, after 70 days the growth rate of Aspergillus flavus days was higher than any of the others, except for the bamboo vinegar collected at 120-123 C. The above results show that the fungi resistance of bamboo materials is influenced by the temperature of the bamboo vinegar.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".