Nutritional, Physicochemical and Microbial Quality of Ultrasound-Treated Apple-Carrot Juice Blends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three different apple-carrot juice blends (60:40, 75:25 and 90:10, v/v) were prepared and treated with ultrasound with comparison to the conventional thermal pasteurization. Total aerobic viable count (TAC) were significantly lower in juice blends with lower pH (apple-carrot ratio of 90:10, v/v) than the blends with higher pH after one month storage at 4?C. TAC were similar in ultrasound-treated and thermal pasteurized juice blends. Changes of turbidity of juice during storage followed the same pattern of TAC. Other juice quality parameters such as color, pH, titratable acid, total soluble solids, antioxidant capacity and beta-carotene did not change significantly during the storage period. The results suggest that ultrasound treatment has a potential to use as an alternative non-thermal technique for traditional thermal pasteurization process for maintaining the quality of beverages prepared from fruit and vegetable juices.
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".