MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123774528 · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12698

UV treatment for degradation of chemical contaminants in food: A review

2021· review· en· W3123774528 on OpenAlexaff
Jiang He, Natasha M. Evans, Huaizhi Liu, Yan Zhu, Ting Zhou, Suqin Shao

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatulinContaminationEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceDegradation (telecommunications)AflatoxinMycotoxinPesticideChemistryBiochemical engineeringPulp and paper industryFood scienceComputer scienceBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Application of ultraviolet (UV) irradiation for the degradation of chemical contaminants in food products has gained more and more interest in the past two decades. The majority of the research in this field was on mycotoxins, especially aflatoxins and patulin, with limited studies on pesticide residues and other chemical contaminants in food. These studies have been focused on identifying the structure and toxicity of degradation products, investigating the influence of UV treatment factors on the degradation efficiency, determining the impact of UV treatment on the quality of food products, and developing updated UV treatment methods such as TiO 2 induced photocatalytic degradation. The summary of published literatures provided insights into future research opportunities in this area, which include determining a standard for the UV treatment description, working with naturally contaminated samples rather than artificially spiked samples, conducting pilot plant or industrial scale studies, examining more targets and conducting multi‐targets studies, and developing more innovative methods for UV treatment.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food SafetySame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207