| Title |
Quality evaluation of Alpinia oxyphylla after Aspergillus flavus infection for storage conditions optimization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AMB Express, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13568-017-0450-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiangsheng Zhao, Jianhe Wei, Yakui Zhou, Weijun Kong, Meihua Yang |
| Abstract |
In the storage of Alpinia oxyphylla, growth of mildew (especially toxic fungi, such as Aspergillus flavus) is a potential safety risk. Few reports have investigated how A. oxyphylla storage conditions impact mold growth or how mold growth impacts the bioactive components of A. oxyphylla. In this study, sterilized A. oxyphylla samples were contaminated by artificial inoculation of A. flavus spores. The main chemical components and aflatoxin levels in the infected A. oxyphylla samples were characterized. Central composite design-response surface methodology was used to study the effects of different temperature and humidity of storage conditions on the fungal growth in A. oxyphylla and accumulation of aflatoxins. The results showed that aflatoxins levels can be minimized by storing samples at temperatures below 25 °C and with humidity less than 85%. Additionally, we found that the yield and composition of volatile oil in A. oxyphylla exhibited small changes due to mold growth. However, polysaccharide content reduced remarkably. Temperatures below 25 °C and humidity below 85% were the best storage conditions to preventing A. oxyphylla from becoming moldy. Our results provide the theoretical basis for future studies the effects of storage conditions and mold growth on the quality and safety of traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs). |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 25% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,469,838
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from AMB Express
#446
of 1,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,612
of 312,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMB Express
#29
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,239 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 312,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.