Maltodextrin Moderated Microwave Osmotic Dehydration of Mango Cubes with Finish Air-Drying: Optimum Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The microwave osmotic dehydration of mango cubes under the continuous flow of maltodextrin moderated sucrose solution spray (MWODS) was evaluated based on the quality of the finish air-dried product. Experiments were designed according to a central composite rotatable design to evaluate the effect of maltodextrin moderated sucrose solution [sucrose + maltodextrin (10DE) at a proportion of 85:15] on the finish air-dried product. The process variables were temperature (30 to 70 °C), solute concentration (30 to 70%), contact time (10 to 50 min) and flow rate (0.8 to 3.8 L/min). The optimum processing conditions were determined based on several processes and product-related quality parameters such as moisture loss (ML), solids gain (SG), weight gain, ML/SG, color, texture, rehydration capacity (RHC), bulk density and drying time. The MWODS contact time was the largest significant contributor with respect to most of the parameters, followed by temperature. The optimum values found were an osmotic treatment temperature of 51.7 °C, a solute concentration of 58.5%, a contact time of 30.6 min and a solution flow rate of 1.8 L/min. Finally, these optimized processing conditions were used to compare three different solute mixtures [sucrose only, sucrose + dextrose and sucrose + maltodextrin (10DE) at a ratio of 85:15%] to understand the effect of various solutes on the quality of the finished dried product. Based on the color and textural parameters, along with the RHC, of the finished product, the sucrose + maltodextrin mixture was shown to result in the most desirable quality and the air-dried product without MWODS pretreatment (control) resulted in the least desirable. Overall, the results suggest that the sucrose + maltodextrin combination offered an advantage in terms of quality for the MWODS air-drying of mango cubes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".