Effect of different drying methods on the amino acids, α-dicarbonyls and volatile compounds of rape bee pollen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significant demand for high quality food has motivated us to adopt appropriate processing methods to improve the food nutritional quality and flavors. In this study, the effects of five drying methods, namely, pulsed vacuum drying (PVD), freeze drying (FD), infrared drying (IRD), hot-air drying (HAD) and sun drying (SD) on free amino acids (FAAs), α-dicarbonyl compounds (α-DCs) and volatile compounds (VOCs) in rape bee pollen (RBP) were determined. The results showed that FD significantly released the essential amino acids (EAAs) compared with fresh samples while SD caused the highest loss. Glucosone was the dominant α-DCs in RBP and the highest loss was observed after PVD. Aldehydes were the dominant volatiles of RBP and SD samples contained more new volatile substances (especially aldehydes) than the other four drying methods. Comprehensively, FD and PVD would be potential methods to effectively reduce the quality deterioration of RBP in the drying process.
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) | 0.001 | 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".