The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A comparative study of infrared and microwave heating for microbial decontamination of paprika powder
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01071 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lovisa Eliasson, Sven Isaksson, Maria Lövenklev, Lilia Ahrné |
| Abstract |
There is currently a need in developing new decontamination technologies for spices due to limitations of existing technologies, mainly regarding their effects on spices' sensory quality. In the search of new decontamination solutions, it is of interest to compare different technologies, to provide the industry with knowledge for taking decisions concerning appropriate decontamination technologies for spices. The present study compares infrared (IR) and microwave decontamination of naturally contaminated paprika powder after adjustment of water activity to 0.88. IR respectively microwave heating was applied to quickly heat up paprika powder to 98°C, after which the paprika sample was transferred to a conventional oven set at 98°C to keep the temperature constant during a holding time up to 20 min. In the present experimental set-up microwave treatment at 98°C for 20 min resulted in a reduction of 4.8 log units of the total number of mesophilic bacteria, while the IR treatment showed a 1 log unit lower reduction for the corresponding temperature and treatment time. Microwave and IR heating created different temperature profiles and moisture distribution within the paprika sample during the heating up part of the process, which is likely to have influenced the decontamination efficiency. The results of this study are used to discuss the difficulties in comparing two thermal technologies on equal conditions due to differences in their heating mechanisms. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 24% |
| Engineering | 10 | 17% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,292,660
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,397
of 24,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,064
of 274,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#344
of 430 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 430 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.