Aqueous ozone can extend vase-life in cut rose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SummaryIn order to quantify the shelf-life response of cut roses when stored in aqueous ozone solutions, cut ‘Pascha’ roses were stored in either de-ionised water or aqueous ozone solutions containing an initial dissolved ozone residual of 5.5 mg l−1. The results showed that storing cut roses in aqueous ozone solutions (5.5 mg l−1; renewed daily) can extend vase-life approx. three-fold, from 5 d to 13 d, with a corresponding improvement in their aesthetic appearance throughout the vase-life of the cut rose stem. Results suggest that vase-life improvements are achieved through a reduction in bacterial populations present in the storage solution. Bacteria accumulate on the cut surface of the stems, thereby reducing their water uptake capacity. Microbial accumulation was reduced by 1.15 log10 CFU g−1 FW when stems were stored in holding solutions containing 5.5 mg l−1 dissolved ozone, with a corresponding increase in water uptake. Roses stored in ozonated water exhibited higher numbers of functional xylem vessels, water uptake, relative water content, relative fresh weight, acid fuchsin uptake rate, leaf stomatal conductance, and net CO2 assimilation rate, compared to those stored in de-ionised water. The results suggest that ozone can extend cut rose vase-life.
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".