MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1685685253 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n9p129

Evaluation of Household Cleaning Methods for Reducing Chlorantraniliprole Residues on Cowpea Fruits

2015· article· en· W1685685253 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaojun Chen, Zhiyuan Meng, Ping Wang, Chunliang Lu, Yang Yi-zhong, Li Zhang, Li Liu, Si Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceGovernment of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsTap waterPesticide residuePesticideChemistryFood safetyToxicologyFood sciencePulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceAgronomyEnvironmental engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All pesticide residues are toxic by design and pose seriously health dangers to people. We explored an effective cleaning technique of food safety and handling guidelines. Chlorantraniliprole residues on cowpea fruits were determined by LC-MS/MS (liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry) after different cleaning methods. Both soaking the cowpea fruits in water for 15 min and soaking in 0.1% edible vinegar for 15 min followed by rinsing with running tap water for 2 min could effectively remove the chlorantraniliprole residues on cowpea fruits. Cleaning with running tap water for 2 min was the worst cleaning method. Both the treatments of soaking in acidic and neutral pH cleaning solution could generate good removal efficiency of chlorantraniliprole residues on cowpea. Different cleaning solution concentration did not give significant difference removal efficiency. Our research provided the inherent relationship between pesticide residues and cleaning approaches, also the important theoretical basis for risk assessments of food.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyFrench-language works237,207