Retention of Antioxidant Capacity of Vacuum Microwave Dried Cranberry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, cranberries were dried by vacuum-microwave drying (VMD), freeze-drying (FD), or hot air-drying (AD), to compare the effects of different drying processes on both physical changes as well as the retention of bioactive components in dried samples. Total porosity (%) and average pore radius of dehydrated cranberries were greater using VMD compared to FD and AD (P < 0.05). Crude methanol cranberry powdered extracts were fractionated by solid phase extraction (SPE) into organic acid-, total phenolics-, anthocyanin-, or proanthocyanidin-enriched extracts, respectively. The chemical composition of the 60% acidified methanol fractions contained cyanidin-3-galactoside, cyanidin-3-arabinoside, peonidin-3-galactoside, and peonidin-3-arabinoside, as assessed by HPLC. Antioxidant activities of cranberry fractions were measured using chemical ORAC and ABTS methods. The 60% acidified methanol fraction had a significantly higher (P < 0.05) antioxidant potential than the other chemical fractions, which was largely attributed to the relatively higher anthocyanin content. In general, vacuum-microwave drying and freeze-drying resulted in similar retention of anthocyanins and antioxidant activity, which were both relatively higher (P < 0.05) than that recovered from cranberries dried by hot air drying.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".