Postharvest Decay Risk Associated with Hydrocooling Tomatoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tomatoes (breaker stage) hydrocooled with a cell suspension of Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora containing 50 to 200 mg of free chlorine per liter (ppm) (10°C, pH 7) remained decay free during a 10-day storage at 20°C. Sporadic disease appeared during storage of tomatoes similarly cooled with chlorinated water containing spores of Rhizopus stolonifer. In contrast, when chlorine was omitted from the pathogen suspensions, 50 to 100% of the fruit became diseased. A laboratory-scale shower hydrocooler reduced fruit temperatures from 35 to 15°C within 13.3 min, whereas a flume cooler produced the same temperature reduction in 10.5 min. In both systems, tomatoes increased in weight during cooling, evidence for water uptake. Larger weight increases occurred among tomatoes cooled in the shower than in the flume. An upward instead of downward orientation of stem scars under the shower streams led to significantly larger weight increases, presumably because pores in the stem scar were continuously flooded with water. Tomatoes intermittently submerged in cold water (10 2-min immersions followed by 30-s pauses) absorbed significantly less water than those continuously submerged for 20 min. Hydrocooling appears to be a viable method for rapid cooling of tomatoes. Technical refinements in the hydrocooling process that prevent continuous coverage of fruit surfaces by water should reduce water uptake and the associated risk of pathogen internalization. Maintenance of free chlorine at up to 200 ppm in the cooling water and prevention of direct water pressure on fruit should minimize decay risks. No evidence of phytotoxicity was observed among fruit infiltrated with 200 ppm of chlorine. These tomatoes ripened similarly to those that were not cooled or were cooled in tap water.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".