Effect of the year and storage on ascorbic acid content and total polyphenol content in three apple varieties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascorbic acid (AA) and total polyphenol content (TP) are important plant antioxidants with many healthy effects, such as ”scavengers of free radicals”, they inhibit oxidation of low-density lipoproteins, lower cholesterol levels, decrease fragility of blood vessels and increase their permeability, decrease heart coronary risk, etc. One of important sources of these compounds in human nutrition are apples. In two years (1997 and 1998) was investigated ascorbic acid content (AA) and total polyphenol content (TP) in three apple varieties (Idared, Gloster and Ontario) cultivated under equal conditions on the experimental plot of Czech University of Agriculture in Prague-Suchdol. AA content was determined by titration method with 2,6-dichlorphenolindophenol and TP content spectrophotometrically with Folin-Ciocalteau’s reagent. In two years’ trials AA and TP contents were estimated immediately after harvest in September and then monthly during storage for six months at +5°C. Statistically high significant differences were determined both in AA and TP contents during storage period – there was observed meaningful AA and TP decrease. The highest antioxidant content showed in both years early variety Ontario (in average 12.05 mg/kg AA, 2011.5 mg/kg TP), the lowest semi-early variety Gloster (in average 5.45 mg/kg AA, 1738.0 mg/kg TP). In this context the variety Ontario is the most favourable. The highest decrease of AA content was in variety Ontario (–30.05 %rel), the lowest in variety Gloster (–22.93 %rel ); in TP contents were differences negligible (–27.14 and –27.82 %rel). In spite of this decrease were in Ontario variety both values after six months storage the most favourable (8.45 mg/kg AA, 1466.5 mg/kg TP). Results were statistically evaluated with F-test and t-test. There could be seen differences among varieties and years of cultivation, but these differences were under the level of statistical significance showing only apparent tendencies. While varietal differences in decreasing of AA content during storage were greater (in interval from –22.93 %rel in Gloster variety to –30.05 %rel in Ontario variety), decreasing of TP contents during storage was nearly the same (about –27 %rel of original content
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".