MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785893638 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v7n2p68

Effect of Drying on Quality and Sensory Attributes of Lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) Tea

2018· article· en· W2785893638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phumudzo Mabai, Adewale Olusegun OMOLOLA, Afam I. O. Jideani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCymbopogon citratusAromaSignificant differenceFood scienceMathematicsBitter tasteChemistryTasteSensory analysisHorticultureEssential oilBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of drying on quality and sensory attributes of lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus) tea. Lemongrass (C. citratus) leaves were dried using four different drying methods: sun, solar, oven (40, 50, and 60°C), and microwave (50 W). Teas made from the grass were analyzed for colour, pH and sensory attribute. Data obtained were statistically analyzed using SPSS Version 23 one way analysis of variance and means were compared using Duncan multiple comparison test (p ˂ 0.05). Results obtained indicate that after drying the moisture content were significantly reduced. Ash content results showed no significant difference amongst lemongrass samples dried under difference drying methods. However, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the pH of tea made from the lemongrass dried under different drying methods. Results indicate that drying temperature and time are the main factors affecting the colour of dried lemongrass leaves for tea. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the colour profile of the dried leaves. Sensory evaluation results showed that the colour, aroma, taste, and overall acceptability scores of tea from lemongrass dried with oven at 40°C was highest. The study revealed that oven drying at 40°C for 15 hours was found to be most suitable for drying of lemongrass leaves for tea production in order to retain appreciable sensory attributes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207