Effects of Ultraviolet Light and High‐Pressure Processing on Quality and Health‐Related Constituents of Fresh Juice Products
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fresh juices are highly popular beverages in the global food market. They are perceived as wholesome, nutritious, all-day beverages. For a fast growing category of premium juice products such as cold-pressed juices, minimal-processing nonthermal techniques such as ultraviolet (UV) light and high-pressure processing (HPP) are expected to be used to extend shelf-life while retaining physicochemical, nutritional, and sensory characteristics with reduced microbial loads. Also, UV light and HPP are approved by regulatory agencies and recognized as one of the simplest and very environmentally friendly ways to destroy pathogenic organisms. One of the limitations to their more extensive commercial application lies in the lack of comparative effects on nutritional and quality-related compounds in juice products. This review provides a comparative analysis using 92 studies (UV light: 42, HPP: 50) mostly published between 2004 and 2015 to evaluate the effects of reported UV light and HPP processing conditions on the residual content or activity of bioactive compounds such as vitamins, polyphenols, antioxidants, and oxidative enzymes in 45 different fresh fruit and vegetable juices (low-acid, acid, and high-acid categories). Also, the effects of UV light and HPP on color and sensory characteristics of juices are summarized and discussed.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it