MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121287880 · doi:10.3390/foods10020213

Impact of the Persistence of Three Essential Oils with Antifungal Activities on Stored Wheat Grains, Flour, and Baked Products

2021· article· en· W3121287880 on OpenAlexaff
Zaida Nelly Juárez, Horacio Bach, Maria Eugenia Barcenas-Pozos, Luis R. Hernández

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFungicidePersistence (discontinuity)AntifungalMycotoxinFood scienceBiologyFungal growthFood productsToxicologyHorticultureBotanyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat grains are exposed to several plagues after harvesting and during storage. These plagues include bacteria, fungi, and insects with detrimental outcomes to their quality and heavy losses to the farmers. Fungi are of special interest because of their ability to produce mycotoxins with health concerns. Once grains are harvested, synthetic fungicides, which are sprayed before long-term storage, normally control fungi; however, these synthetic products represent a health concern because of their toxicities. Previously, we reported the antifungal activity of the essential oils extracted from Porophyllum linaria, Agastache mexicana, and Buddleja perfoliata against fungal strains isolated from stored wheat. In this study, we sprayed wheat grains with the same essential oils to measure their persistence interval and to prepare baked products to assess potential changes in their physical properties. The persistence interval of the essential oils in grains indicated that it takes between 63 and 134 days to eliminate 90% of the original compounds. This extended time of the compounds in the grains together with a lack of physical properties modifications of the flour and baked products (post-treatment) suggest that the presence of oils in the grains is potentially safe to use. The solid data denote the technological feasibility of the treatment and the possible management of residues through adequate safety intervals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207