↓ Skip to main content

In silico Logistic Model for Table Olive Related Microorganisms As a Function of Sodium Metabisulphite, Cinnamaldehyde, pH, and Type of Acidifying Agent

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
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.
Title
In silico Logistic Model for Table Olive Related Microorganisms As a Function of Sodium Metabisulphite, Cinnamaldehyde, pH, and Type of Acidifying Agent
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01370
Pubmed ID
Authors

Verónica Romero-Gil, Antonio Garrido-Fernández, Francisco N. Arroyo-López

Abstract

A probabilistic/logistic model, based on binary data (growth/no growth), was used to assess the effects of sodium metabisulphite (SM) and cinnamaldehyde (CIN; 0-1000 mg/L) against the main microbial groups found in table olive environment [lactic acid bacteria (LAB), yeasts, and Enterobacteriaceae], according to pH (range 3.5-5.0), and type of acidifying agent (HCl or pyruvic acid). The inhibitory effect of SM depended on the pH while that of CIN was scarcely influenced by it (except for LAB). LAB were more sensitive to SM, while yeasts were to CIN. The use of pyruvic acid for correction of pH always produced a reduction (compared to HCl) of the inhibitory power of both preservatives. The in silico models for HCl showed that, at pH 4.0, and growth probability 0.01, the LAB population might be inhibited by the presence in the medium of 150 mg/L SM or 1000 mg/L CIN, while in the case of yeasts, 450 mg/L SM, or 150 mg/L CIN are required. No growth of Enterobacteriaceae was observed at this (or lower) pH level. The results obtained may contribute to the stabilization of non-thermally treated table olive packaging.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Student > Master 2 25%
Professor 1 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 25%
Chemistry 1 13%
Unknown 5 63%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,341,859
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#22,527
of 24,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,488
of 337,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#346
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 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 24,933 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 337,470 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 423 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.