Evolutia continutului in polifenolipe parcursul fluxului tehnologic de fabricare a compotului de caise

Apricots are seasonal fruits andcompote fabrication is a method to prolongthe periodof their consumption. In the present research is studied the extent to which the main processes involved inthe compote fabrication reducethe content of some antioxidants, namelypolyphenols andflavonoids,and influence the main enzymes’activities. Only the thermal processes seriously decreased the total polyphenols and flavonoids contentand flavonoids weremore sensitives than non-flavonoidic polyphenols. In the apricot compote the total polyphenols decreased by 27.40%-34.54%and the flavonoidsby 46.49%-49.02%, compared to the initial fruits

Evaluarea conţinutului de 5-hidroximetilfurfural al unor vinuri albe seci şi îndulcite

5-Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) is a water-soluble compound resulting from heating monosaccharides in acidic conditions (e.g. wine pasteurisation), potentially carcinogenic to humans. White wines obtained through classical winemaking technologies and subsequently pasteurised were assessed for their HMF content by UV-vis spectrometry. Different volumes of oversulfited and concentrated musts were added to increase the concentration of sugars in wines (10 to 50 g/L). Samples were subjected to heat treatment (45- 100°C) in time intervals correlated with temperature (<120 min). Pasteurised dry wines showed low HMF levels of 1.09-3.14 mg/L. HMF content of traditionally “mulled” wine was the highest in samples sweetened to 100 g/L sugars boiled for 10 minutes (>181mg/L). The HMF content in dry and sweetened white wines was correlated with high sugar content, high acidity, high temperature and a long heating time, normal pasteurisation (75°C, 1-2 min) leading to lower HMF amounts

Compare and Contrast: How to Assess the Completeness of Mechanistic Explanation

Opponents of the new mechanistic account of scientific explanation argue that the new mechanists are committed to a ‘More Details Are Better’ claim: adding details about the mechanism always improves an explanation. Due to this commitment, the mechanistic account cannot be descriptively adequate as actual scientific explanations usually leave out details about the mechanism. In reply to this objection, defenders of the new mechanistic account have highlighted that only adding relevant mechanistic details improves an explanation and that relevance is to be determined relative to the phenomenon-to-be-explained. Craver and Kaplan (B J Philos Sci 71:287–319, 2020) provide a thorough reply along these lines specifying that the phenomena at issue are contrasts. In this paper, we will discuss Craver and Kaplan’s reply. We will argue that it needs to be modified in order to avoid three problems, i.e., what we will call the Odd Ontology Problem, the Multiplication of Mechanisms Problem, and the Ontic Completeness Problem. However, even this modification is confronted with two challenges: First, it remains unclear how explanatory relevance is to be determined for contrastive explananda within the mechanistic framework. Second, it remains to be shown as to how the new mechanistic account can avoid what we will call the ‘Vertical More Details are Better’ objection. We will provide answers to both challenges

Has classical gene position been practically reduced?

One of the defining features of the classical gene was its position (a band in the chromosome). In molecular genetics, positions are defined instead as nucleotide numbers and there is no clear correspondence with its classical counterpart. However, the classical gene position did not simply disappear with the development of the molecular approach, but survived in the lab associated to different genetic practices. The survival of classical gene position would illustrate Waters’ view about the practical persistence of the genetic approach beyond reductionism and anti-reductionist claims. We show instead that at the level of laboratory practices there are also reductive processes, operating through the rise and fall of different techniques. Molecular markers made the concept of classical gene position practically dispensable, leading us to rethink whether it had any causal role or was just a mere heuristi

How interventionist accounts of causation work in experimental practice and why there is no need to worry about supervenience

It has been argued that supervenience generates unavoidable confounding problems for interventionist accounts of causation, to the point that we must choose between interventionism and supervenience. According to one solution, the dilemma can be defused by excluding non-causal determinants of an outcome as potential confounders. I argue that this solution undermines the methodological validity of causal tests. Moreover, we don’t have to choose between interventionism and supervenience in the first place. Some confounding problems are effectively circumvented by experimental designs routinely employed in science. The remaining confounding issues concern the physical interpretation of variables and cannot be solved by choosing between interventionism and supervenience

Causal inference in biomedical research

Causation can be inferred by two distinct patterns of reasoning, each requiring a distinct experi-mental design. Common, non-statistical causal inference is associated with controlled experi-ments in basic biomedical research. Statistical inference is associated with Randomized Con-trolled Trials in clinical research. The main difference between the two patterns of inference hinges on the satisfaction of a comparability requirement, which is in turn dictated by the nature of the objects of study, namely homogeneous vs. heterogeneous populations of biological sys-tems. This distinction entails that the objection according to which randomized experiments fail to provide better evidence for causation because randomization cannot guarantee comparability is mistaken. As far as the validity of the statistical inference is concerned, randomization is not re-quired in order to ensure comparability, but rather to prevent systematic bias which may com-promise the accuracy of the intervention