Radiofrequency heating for powder pasteurization of barley grass: antioxidant substances, sensory quality, microbial load and energy consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Young barley grass powder contains abundant nutrition and its antioxidant substances are severely impaired by radiation (60Co) sterilization. To overcome product quality degradation, radiofrequency pasteurization was conducted using pilot‐scale radiofrequency equipment (27 MHz, 6 kW) with electrode gaps of 12, 14 and 16 cm, while hot‐air (80 °C) pasteurization was used for comparison. RESULTS Assessment suggested that uneven radiofrequency heating was improved for the 14 cm electrode gap. With an increase of electrode gap, microbial inactivation needs more energy consumption. A minimum energy consumption of 970 J g−1 was required for 1 log‐reduction of colonies. Radiofrequency pasteurization retained better antioxidant substances, lightness (L*), green color (a*) and odors in barley grass powder, compared with hot‐air sterilization. Contents of flavonoid and chlorophyll were 5.82 and 4.87 g kg−1 respectively, using the 14 cm electrode gap. Additionally, radiofrequency pasteurization led to an improvement in sourness, bitterness and umami tastes. CONCLUSIONS Radiofrequency pasteurization would be a superior alternative for the pasteurization of barley grass powder. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry
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".