Effects of 0.5% carbon monoxide in modified atmosphere packagings on selected quality attributes of <i><scp>M</scp>. <scp>L</scp>ongissimus dorsi</i> beef steaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated the effects of the periods of 0.5% CO exposure in two modified atmosphere packagings (MAP) with gas composition of 0.5% CO, 30% CO2 and 69.5% N2, as compared with conventional vacuum packaging (Vac) on the quality of packaged beef steaks (M. longissimus dorsi) stored for 21 days at 2 °C. In the first MAP solution, the beef steaks were packed in the MAP for 48 hr and then repacked in vacuum packaging (CO‐Vac), while beef steaks were packed in the MAP (CO‐MAP) in the second solution. Results indicated that using CO significantly increased the brightness and the redness of beef steaks in both CO‐Vac and CO‐MAP packaging systems during storage for 21 days and Polish consumers preferred beef steaks in CO‐Vac with a cherry/dark red and purple red. Our result proved that CO‐Vac should have wider applications than MAP on the market. Practical applications The use of 0.5% carbon monoxide for packaging fresh meat has been recognized by the European Scientific Committee on Food as safe for humans; however, the application of the gas in the EU member states is prohibited. On the other hand, in some other countries, such as the USA, Canada and New Zealand, low concentrations of carbon monoxide are used for meat packing. This study evaluated the effects of the periods of 0.5% CO exposure in two modified atmosphere packagings with gas composition of 0.5% CO, 30% CO2, and 69.5% N2, as compared with conventional vacuum packaging on the quality of packaged beef steaks (M. longissimus dorsi) stored for 21 days at 2 °C. The study confirmed that Polish consumers have the greatest desire to purchase the vacuum packed steaks after exposure in carbon monoxide and thus the decision to ban the use of this gas in the EU should be reconsidered.
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".