Effect of Chemical Pretreatment on Drying Kinetics and Physio-chemical Characteristics of Yellow European Plums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drying of plums to prunes is an important postharvest processing step, as it results in a product with higher nutrient density, increased shelf life, and significantly greater antioxidant and fiber content. However, due to the waxy layer present on the plums surface having low permeability toward moisture, plum dries very slowly which is an energy-demanding process. Therefore, to breakdown waxy layer on the surface and enhancement of skin moisture diffusivity, two genotypes (V91074 and V95141) of Yellow European Plums (YEPs) were dipped in 1% (w/v) of Ascorbic Acid (AA), Citric Acid (CA), and Potassium Meta-bisulfite (KMS) solution for 1 min at 40°C. The pretreated YEPs were dried at three different temperatures (50°C, 60°C, and 70°C) until a final moisture content of approximately 30% (wet basis) was reached. It was observed that treated samples (AA and KMS) dried faster as compared to untreated samples, except for CA treatment where no significant difference in drying time was observed. One model cannot be selected for describing the thin layer drying characteristics of YEPs. Five out of 11 models used were found to be a perfect fit for genotype V91074 and genotype V95141, respectively. Pretreatment had a significant effect on effective moisture diffusivity (Deff). Deff for untreated and treated plum samples ranged between 4.6 × 10−11 to 8.6 × 10−11 (m2/s) and 4.9 × 10−11 to 9.1 × 10−11 (m2/s). The drying temperature had a significant effect on phenolic content and antioxidant activity, whereas no significant effect of pretreatment was observed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".