ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Ozone-Microbubble-Washing with Domestic Equipment: Effects on the Microstructure, and Lipid and Protein Oxidation of Muscle Foods.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Microbubble Technologies for Food Sanitization: A Comprehensive Review.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare ozone-microbubble-washing (OM) performed by domestic equipment with conventional water-washing (CW) regarding resultant quality attributes of muscle foods. For this purpose, muscle microstructure and lipid and protein oxidation were evaluated in pork and fish samples after OM and CW treatments. The assessment of muscle microstructure showed that OM treatment did not damage the microstructure of muscle fibers in both pork and fish samples. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) values were not detected in both treatment groups, and they were substantially below the generally acceptable threshold (1 mg MDA/kg). The methylglyoxal (MGO) level of OM-treated fish samples was significantly higher than that of CW-treated fish samples. However, glyoxal (GO) and MGO levels of OM-treated pork samples were significantly lower than that of CW-treated pork samples. Similar types and sites of oxidative modification and similar numbers of modified peptides, as well as no significant difference in the concentration of total and most of the free amino acids (FAA) between treatment groups, indicated that OM treatment did not accelerate protein oxidation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.