EFFECT OF ETHANOL VAPOR ON GROWTH AND TOXIN PRODUCTION BY <i>CLOSTRIDIUM BOTULINUM</i> IN A HIGH MOISTURE BAKERY PRODUCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT To determine the effect of ethanol vapor on toxin production by Clostridium botulinum, studies were done in English style crumpets (aw 0.990, pH 6.5) challenged with 500 spores/g C. botulinum types A and proteolytic B and packaged in high gas barrier bags [ethanol transmission rate (ETR) 0.21 g/m2/day @ 25 C]. Crumpets were packaged in air with either commercially available ethanol vapor generators (Ethicap® 2, 4 or 6G) or cotton wool pads saturated with 2, 4 or 6 g of 95% food grade ethanol and stored at 25C. Toxin was detected in all inoculated control crumpets (0% ethanol) after 5 days at ambient temperature (25C). Ethicap® 2G delayed toxicity for 10 days while complete inhibition (>21 days) was observed in all crumpets packaged with 4 or 6G Ethicap® or with 2, 4 or 6 g of ethanol per pad. However, all crumpets were overtly spoiled by this time. Both headspace ethanol and absorption of ethanol by crumpets increased as a function of Ethicap® size/weight of ethanol. Based on these preliminary studies, ethanol vapor would appear to be an effective additional barrier to control the growth and toxin production by C. botulinum in high moisture bakery products and ensure the safety of these products at ambient temperature.
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".