Pulsed Electric Field Effect Pretreatment on the Behavior of Microwave-assisted Pomegranate Arils (Punica granatum L.) Hot air Drying
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> Pulsed electric field treatment is a new, non-thermal pretreatment method that preserves foods forexcellent sensory, nutritional and long-life quality. In this study, the impact of pulsed electric field pretreatment on drying kinetics and the quality of dried pomegranate arils was evaluated. The pomegranate arils samples were subjected to pulsed electric field treatment at different intensities of the electric field of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 kV/cm with application of exponentialpulses of 700 µsduration followed by Microwave-assisted Hot air drying. the samplesweredried at 50, 60 and 70°C with a drying times varying from 65 to 190 minutes, while, for untreated arils, the drying time was varying from 90 to 250 minutes. The highest water diffusion coefficient of 8.25 × 10<sup>− 8</sup> m<sup>2</sup>/s was calculated for samples subjected to electric field intensity of 1.5 kV/cm and 70°C treatment temperature. The greatest Hardness was 39.35 ± 4.81 N. The pulsed electric field arils treatments resulted in better electroporation ofthe tissues. The Pulsed electric field -treated dried arils had higher red (a*) and yellow (b*) and (L*) values compare to untreated dried arils.These dried arils are characterized by a high content of total polyphenols 3350.28 mg GAE/kg DM and high antioxidant capacity (0.6 mg eqTrolox g<sup>− 1</sup>).The drying kinetics were modeled by different models. The models that best fit the drying data was Midilli et <italic>al</italic>., followed by Logarithmic and modified logistic model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it