MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Hexanal Vapor on Spore Viability of <i>Penicillium expansum</i> , Lesion Development on Whole Apples and Fruit Volatile Biosynthesis

2006· article· en· W2093413071 on OpenAlexaff
Lihua Fan, Jun Song, Randolph M. Beaudry, P.D. Hildebrand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant Pathogens and Fungal Diseases
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHexanalPenicillium expansumSporeLesionInoculationChemistryFood scienceFlavorHorticultureBotanyBiologyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: The effects of hexanal vapor on spore viability of Penicillium expansum , lesion development on whole apple fruit, and flavor volatile biosynthesis were investigated. Spore viability was reduced by 94% after exposure to a hexanal concentration of 40 μmol/L for 24 h, compared with 50% at 18 μmol/L and 20% at 9 μmol/L. Decay on whole apple fruit inoculated with 5 × 10 4 spores/mL of P. expansum was reduced with exposure to hexanal vapor for 48 h. Although almost all of the fruit treated with 8 to 12 jmiol/L developed decay lesions, lesion size was reduced compared with the controls. At concentrations of 15 to 19 μmol/L, and 25 to 29 μmol/L, the incidence of fruit with lesions was 44% and 24%, respectively, compared with 100% and 98% in the inoculated control apples and lesion size was further reduced. Apples treated at 4°C with only 5 to 7 jimol/L hexanal vapor also showed a marked reduction in lesion incidence. Hexanal was rapidly converted to high levels of the aroma volatiles hexanol, hexylacetate, hexylbutanoate, and hexylhexanoate, but these decreased to levels similar to the control after 4 to 7 d of being held in air. There was no detectable hexanal after holding fruit in air for 5 h.

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicPlant Pathogens and Fungal DiseasesFrench-language works237,207