MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of washing on physicochemical changes in packaged, sliced green peppers

2004· article· en· W2001297862 on OpenAlexaff
P.M.A. Toivonen, S. Stan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistilled waterChemistryAcetaldehydePepperChlorineFood sciencePhenolsHorticultureChromatographyEthanolBiochemistryOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Whole green bell peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) were obtained through a local fresh-cut company. They were washed in a 100 ppm chlorine solution, dried and then sliced into 0.5-cm wide strips. A bulk sample of slices was divided into four treatments: (1) no wash, (2) one wash in fresh distilled water, (3) two sequential washes in fresh distilled water, and (4) three sequential washes in fresh distilled water. Retention of firmness of the pepper slices during storage at 7 °C improved with the number of washes after cutting. The modification of package atmosphere was less in all wash treatments than in the ‘no wash’ control. The sliced tissues of ‘no wash’ controls had higher levels of acetaldehyde and ethyl acetate. Analysis of the wash water revealed that sequential washes with water removed incremental amounts of acetaldehyde and soluble phenols from the cut surfaces of the tissue. These results show that washing has a dramatic effect on physicochemical measures of quality in green pepper slices, and it is likely that this effect is mediated by the removal of stress-related compounds produced during the cutting operation. While acetaldehyde and total phenolics were the two stress-related compounds measured in the wash water, it may be that other compounds removed in the wash water could have contributed to the beneficial effects on quality reported in this study.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations33
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicPostharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementFrench-language works237,207