Microwave–osmotic–vacuum combination drying of mango cubes with maltodextrin moderated sucrose solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A microwave–osmotic–vacuum combination drying technique was used to evaluate the effect of processing factors such as temperature and concentration with 15% inclusion of maltodetrin (dextrose equivalent, DE 10) during the microwave osmotic drying under continuous medium spray flow (MWODS) and power level during finish microwave vacuum drying (MVD). Moisture loss (ML), solids gain (SG), ML/SG ratio, weight reduction (WR), bulk density (BD), rehydration capacity (RC), drying times, and quality parameters, total color difference (ΔE), texture (hardness and chewiness) were evaluated during the process to assess the product quality. Drying conditions were optimized to maximize ML, ML/SG, WR, BD, RC and minimize ΔE, hardness, chewiness, and drying times. Optimum levels were found at 58.5 °C temperature, 50.0% concentration, and 30 min contact time during MWODS and 20% initial power up to 50% moisture content and 10% final power level to the final moisture content of 20% (32 min). In addition to MVD, freeze drying, vacuum and air drying were also used for comparison for finish drying. Overall, the MWODS with maltodextrin moderated sucrose as solute and MVD for finished drying resulted in better product quality and remained closest to the freeze dried samples.
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".