MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185269935

Lactic acid improves the efficacy of anti-microbial washing solutions for apples

2006· article· en· W2185269935 on OpenAlexaff
H.P. Vasantha Rupasinghe, Jeanine I. Boulter‐Bitzer, Joseph Odumeru, Nova Scotia

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of food, agriculture and environment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicListeria monocytogenes in Food Safety
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactic acidHand sanitizerListeria monocytogenesSodium hypochloriteFood scienceSalmonella entericaChemistryHydrogen peroxideMesophileHuman decontaminationShelf lifeBacteriaMicrobiologyEscherichia coliBiologyBiochemistryWaste managementOrganic chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The market potential of fresh-cut apples is rapidly expanding in the fresh-cut produce industry. The removal of microbial contaminants of apples before processing is an important step in assuring the safety and extending the shelf life of fresh-cut apples. The goal of this study was to identify efficient anti-microbial washing solution(s) utilizing acceptable amounts of generally regarded as safe disinfectants. Ten selected decontaminant solutions were evaluated for the efficacy of removing Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Newport. The most efficient wash treatments consisted of 1% (v/v) lactic acid with 200 ppm sodium hypochlorite and 1.5% (v/v) lactic acid in combination with either 1% (v/v) hydrogen peroxide or 80 ppm peroxyacetic acid. These three wash treatments were also highly effective in reducing the level of total aerobic mesophilic native flora of apples. The hydrogen peroxide and lactic acid combination was identified as the most effective sanitizer for stored apples based on its efficiency in removing L. monocytogenes.

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)0.000
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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of food, agriculture and environmentSame topicListeria monocytogenes in Food SafetyFrench-language works237,207