Effect of Fermentation Time on the Quality of Tea Samples Produced from Sweet Orange Peel Powder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of fermentation time on tea produced from sweet orange peel powder. Orange peels were processed into powder, with a portion fermented for 1 day and another for 2 days. Teas from fermented and unfermented powders were analyzed for proximate composition, phytochemicals, antioxidant activity (DPPH), sensory, and physicochemical properties. Lipton tea served as the control in sensory evaluation. Fermentation increased ash, fat, crude fiber, and protein, while reducing carbohydrate content. Moisture content increased slightly during fermentation compared with unfermented powder and was lowest in Lipton tea. Although some phytochemicals declined, fermentation increased flavonoid content and improved the tea's antioxidant activity, with DPPH values increasing across samples, though the day 2 sample showed a significant decrease. Fermentation also reduced pH and total soluble solids but increased total titratable acidity. Sensory scores for color, flavor, and mouthfeel improved, while taste and overall acceptability decreased with longer fermentation. Significant differences (p<0.05) were found only in taste and overall acceptability, where unfermented tea was preferred. The study concludes that sweet orange peel is suitable for producing fermented and unfermented teas. Tea fermented for 1 day is recommended for its higher phytochemical content and antioxidant activity, as a short fermentation period appears most suitable for balancing nutritional quality, bioactive compounds, and sensory appeal.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".