Preservative effect of pomegranate-based marination with β-resorcylic acid and cinnamaldehyde on the microbial quality of chicken liver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chicken liver is considered a delicacy in the Middle East where pomegranate molass is commonly used as a salad dressing and in marinade recipes. Marinated chicken liver is a common entrée and represents a value-added product compared to the otherwise unmarinated liver which commands a lower price. The aim of this study was to investigate the inhibitory effects of a pomegranate-based marinade alone or following the addition of cinnamaldehyde or β-resorcylic acid on the spoilage microorganisms present in chicken liver during storage for 14 d at 4°C or under mild temperature abuse conditions (10°C). The pH and microbial populations of Total Plate Count (TPC), Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB), Pseudomonas spp. (PS), Yeast and Mold (YM) and Enterobacteriaceae (EN) were tested during the storage period and the shelf life was determined (defined as 107 log cfu/g). Sensory analysis was also conducted. The pH increased by a greater extent in unmarinated samples as compared to marinated samples (with or without antimicrobials) upon storage. The initial TPC, LAB, PS, YM and EN microbial populations in the chicken liver were 3.85 ± 0.79, 3.73 ± 0.85, 3.85 ± 0.79, 3.73 ± 0.87 and 3.69 ± 0.23 log cfu/g, respectively. The marinade decreased the microbial populations by 2 – 4 log cfu/g. The marinade and antimicrobial mixture decreased the microbial populations by 3 – 4 log cfu/g. Except for one sample, none of the marinated chicken liver samples with or without antimicrobials reached the end of shelf life even up to 14 d storage at both 4 and 10°C. The overall sensory score was rated around 6/9 for the treated 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".