User talk:Surajdmeharwade/sandbox

Phytosanitary Irradiation
Lead Section:

Phytosanitary irradiation (PI) is a treatment that uses ionizing radiation on foods, such as fruits and vegetables to remove pests and insects [1]. This treatment is also used on spices, grains, and non-food items [2,3]. The most commonly used dose it 400 Gy [1]. The Food and Drug Administration regulated the amount of irradiation that can be added to fruits and vegetables in 1986 to 1.0KGy [2]. In 2004 Australia and New Zealand started using phytosanitary irradiation to sanitize food based on the standards that were established by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-animal and plant inspection service (APHIS) and the international plant protection convention (IPPC) [2]. New Zealand limited the produce and amount that was acceptable to mangoes, lychees, tomatoes, and capsicum peppers to 400 Gy [1]. Today, this method is widely used for international food trade as a means to prevent unnecessary risks of diseases through pests and insects [1]. For examples snails and slugs are often found in ceramic tile import to the USA from Italy, the tiles are irradiated to disinfest mollusks from the tiles. This method is measured differently than other phytosanitary methods, in that other methods measure the mortality rates while phytosanitary irradiation measure the rate at which it prevents reproduction [2]. Phytosanitary irradiation has seen a 10% increase every year since 2000 [1]. This is in part due to more restrictions on chemicals, it's compatibility with a multitude of different fruits and vegetables, and an acceptance internationally as well as intra-nationally [1].

Outline:

- Background

a. history b. what is today c. applications

- Commercial Use

a. what is it used for b. The amount (Gy) used c. other areas of interest for use

- Effects on Fruits and Vegetables

a. positive effects b. negative effects

- Regulations

a. Dosage b. Packaging c. Labelling d. Trade

Citations:

1. Hallman, Guy J., and Carl M. Blackburn. “Phytosanitary Irradiation.” Ed. Monique Lacroix. Foods 5.1 (2016): 8. PMC. Web. 9 Apr. 2018. 

2. Hallman, Guy J., and Paisan Loaharanu. “Phytosanitary Irradiation â Development and Application.” Radiation Physics and Chemistry, vol. 129, 2016, pp. 39–45., doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2016.08.003. 

3. Ehlermann, Dieter A.e. “The Early History of Food Irradiation.” Radiation Physics and Chemistry, vol. 129, 2016, pp. 10–12., doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2016.07.024. 

4. Mittendorfer, Josef. “Food Irradiation Facilities: Requirements and Technical Aspects.” Radiation Physics and Chemistry, Pergamon, 19 Sept. 2016, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969806X1630264X. 

5.  Roberts, Peter B. “Food Irradiation: Standards, Regulations and World-Wide Trade.” Radiation Physics and Chemistry, vol. 129, 2016, pp. 30–34., doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2016.06.005. 

6. Han, Jung. “Irradiated Food & Packaging - Packaging for Foods Treated with Ionizing Radiation.” Blackwell Publishing / Food and Drug Administration,Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 7 Oct. 2015. 

7. United States, Congress, “21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 179.” 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 179. 

8. Komolprasert, Vanee, and Kim Matthew. Morehouse. Irradiation of Food and Packaging: Recent Developments. American Chemical Society, 2004. 

Regulations
Draft:

a. Dosage

In the United States of America, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require a label on retail packages with the label "Treated with radiation" or "Treated by irradiation" in combination with the radura symbol.[2] This label also applies to unpackaged food, but the bulk containers will have the statement label in view for the purchaser or processor[2]. Either this or individual food items will have its own label, for instance, the case with irradiated fruit with sticker labels. The FDA and USDA state irradiation for the inhibition of growth and maturation of fresh fruits and vegetables in addition to pest control shall not exceed 1kGy [2]. In the United States under 21 CFR 179.26, the FDA labels the types of foods, purpose of use for irradiation, and dosage requirements/limits; see table below for an example of some applications that the FDA allows for [6].

Table 1. An incomplete list of some foods, purposes, and dosages that the FDA allows the use of irradiation under 21 CFR 179.26 [6,7]

b. Packaging

Packaging that is irradiated is subject to premarket approval as indicated by 21 CFR 179.100 [6]. Within radiation treatments, there are three types that can be used: gamma radiation (Co-60 or Cs-137), electron beam, or X-rays. The FDA found that all three types of treatment produce similar amounts of radiolysis products (RP's) and therefore the regulations include all three treatments. due to the this, all packaging under 21 CFR 179.45(b) was set to have a limit of 10KGy regardless of treatment, unless otherwise noted. Packaging that falls under this regulation is nitrocellulose-coated cellophane such as wax-coated paperboard, glassine paper, kraft paper, polystyrene film, Nylon 11, etc [6].

Table 2. Maximum dosage based on 21 CFR 179.45 sections b,c and d and individual packaging materials [6,7]

c. Labelling

In the United States of America, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) require a label on retail packages with the label "Treated with radiation" or "Treated by irradiation" in combination with the radura symbol [2,8]. This label also applies to unpackaged food, but the bulk containers will have the statement label in view for the purchaser or processor. Either this or individual food items will have its own label, for instance, the case with irradiated fruit with sticker labels. However, if an irradiation ingredient has been added to a non-irradiated ingredient no label is required. The FDA also requires labeling for a products that have been irradiated and will undergo further processing; this is to ensure that a product is not irradiated more than once. The FDA also advises that the reasons for irradiation are added to the label [2,8]. Labeling laws are not uniform across the world. The European Union, New Zealand, and Australia require all whole foods to be labelled with text to inform consumers [5]. Although the European Union does not require the radura logo. New Zealand and Australia text label is suggested, but not mandatory and the radura label is not required [5].

d. Trade

Effects on fruits and vegetables
Draft:

Commercial Use
Draft:

Background
Draft:

Under section 201(s) of the food additives amendment of the food, drugs and cosmetics act of 1958, radiation was classified as a food additive [6]. This means that any product that receives radiation without follow the standard guidelines became an adulterated product and thereby would be illegal to sell [6].

Maria's Peer Review
Following each point in the rubric:

Introductory Sentence (Excellent): Provides a clear and concise definition of phytosanitary irradiation and helps the reader to understand the scope of the article.

Summary (Good): Presents the reader with an overall idea on processing, uses, and regulations. Some information such as New Zealand's take on phytosanitary irradiation and the snails in the ceramic tiles can be a bit too specific for a summary or an introduction.

Context (Good): Not all the information present in the beginning is present throughout the rest of the article.

Organization (Excellent): The article is very well segregated with logical transitions from one part to the other. The ideas flow nicely.

Content (Fair): Some sections such as "Applications" have missing information in the tables, however that is a very interesting section. Another section that can be expanded upon is the Advantages and Disadvantages - maybe separate them into two different sections and flesh them out. Also, not sure about citing a specific author and what he researched (in reference to Yunhee Jo), seeing as one single "opinion" might not be enough to count as a reliable source of information Links and references work and relate to the topic. Also, what equipment is used to do this and what is the process?

Balance (Excellent): Article focuses on all aspects of phytosanitary irradiation and its applications.

Tone (Excellent): Tone is that of an informative article providing information.

Citations (Excellent): All information posted is supported by pertinent citations.

Sources (Excellent): Sources are reliable and links redirect the reader to peer-reviewed articles and academic journals/books.

Completeness (Excellent): All references are completed with information that allows the reader to access the source.

New Sections (Excellent): The article was written from scratch and all sections are relevant and flow nicely)

Re-Organization (Excellent)

Gaps (Good): As mentioned previously, some gaps would be the advantage/disadvantage section. The packaging section is slightly confusing because of long sentences and I feel like a lot of parts in that section can be better explained (in a more clear way).

Smaller Additions (Excellent)

Coverage (Excellent): the article covers a wide range of aspects within phytosanitary irradiation, and I can't think of any new sections to add.

Article Body (Good): Some sections can be better segregated and separated into other sections. Some sections such as Dosage can be more expanded as to the rational behind picking a specific dose. What reduction is to be achieved and what is the final product? Shelf stable? etc...

SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW - Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

The article is very well segregated and the section layout looks very nice to the author. The article does a great job of defining phytosanitary irradiation and its uses, as well as some of the drawbacks in terms of labeling and packaging. This is a very vast field so I feel the article does a good job of covering it without overwhelming the reader. That said, there are some sections that could use a little more clarifications such as advantages, disadvantages, packaging and labeling.

- What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? Check overall for some small spelling mistakes, and maybe add a section on how exactly the irradiation takes place. Flesh out the sections mentioned.

Good job! I love the layout.

Mariakhalil16 (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Marie Millan's Peer Review
Lead Section 7/10

Introductory Sentence: Good

The lead section doesn’t flow very well. It doesn’t introduce phytosanitary irradiation in the first sentence, but it talks about phytosanitation. It might be better to start the lead section with the sentence “Phytosanitary irradiation is a treatment…” for better readability and the reader could access it easily.

Summary: Good

It contains good major points but it can be better if it was separated in paragraphs – separate introductory sentence from the history, regulations, common uses, and future growth. After introducing the main topic, tie in phytosanitation and why it’s important, the conventional treatment and the commonly used dosage, how it compares to other phytosanitary methods.

Context: Good

Specific information that goes better in the usage section is found in the lead (snails and slugs, disinfecting mollusks). A suggestion is fixing the lead section so that it will mention countries that allow irradiation, and maybe countries that don’t allow irradiation, if that information is available.

Article 7/10

Organization: Fair

Information is separated nicely. Advantages and disadvantages of using irradiation can be placed towards the top of the article, with mode of action and applications. irradiation.

Content: Good

The subtopics were relevant to the article, the equipment wasn’t discussed in the article. There’s a sentence in “Commercial Use” that states “Modern times embrace the concept of global.” This might be a typo.

Balance: Excellent

The article doesn’t use biased language.

Tone: Good

Overall, the article doesn’t have good flow because of the various writing voices used. Some parts use encyclopedia language, other parts don’t.

References 10/10

Citations: Excellent

The information was properly supported with a reference.

Sources: Excellent

The sources used were excellent and was comprised of a book, peer-reviewed articles, and the CFR regulation.

''Completeness: Excellent References used are complete and easily accessible to anyone who needs information.

Existing Article 8/10

New Sections: Good

Re-organization: Good

Gaps: Good

Smaller Additions: N/a

This is a new article, so all sections are new.

New Article 8/10

Coverage: Good

Article Body: Good

This is a new article and the topic has been covered well, with the exception of the discussion of the types of equipment used in irradiation.

Additional Questions

1. Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The article provides a good insight on phytosanitary irradiation, its uses, and the regulations that people must adhere to in its use. 2. What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Better flow of paragraphs. Certain paragraphs, especially the lead section, does not flow well. 3. What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article? Check the grammar and sentence construction. Fix the outline for better flow. Mmill016 07:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmill016 (talk • contribs)

Joanna Jacob's Peer Review
Lead Section

1. Introductory Sentences: Good. A precise definition of "Phytosanitary Irradiation" could be formed if the first and third sentences are joined together.

2. Summary: Excellent. All the major points of the article are summarized. 3. Context: Excellent. All information is also included in the body of the article.

Article

1. Organization: Good. After "Commercial Uses" there is a subheading "Other areas of interest for use" that is left hanging, I am not sure if the authors wanted to add something to this or whether it is a continuation for Commercial Uses. There were a couple of grammatical errors in the article. Liked the sectioning of the article. 2. Content: Good. Covers most of the assigned topic area. Felt that there could have been an expansion on equipment.

3. Balance: Excellent. Article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side.

4. Tone: Excellent. Tone is appropriate for an encyclopedic audience.

References

1. Citations: Good. Most of the article was properly linked to its appropriate citation. However, a couple of sentences in a few sections were not backed up with citations as frequently as it should have been.

2. Sources: Excellent. Most sources are best available with regard to discipline/genre. Most of the references pertinent to the sources have been published after 2004, with some recent peer-reviewed articles as well.

3. Completeness: Excellent. References are completely filled out according to citation template.

No Existing Article

New Article

1. Coverage: Good. The article was covered well enough for easy comprehension. Examples of food products commonly irradiated and their dosage could be added. Methods used for irradiation could have have been expanded upon.

2. Article Body: Excellent. Body is divided into relevant, logical sections that follow guidelines for topic.

'''Overall, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?'''

Although this is a new article, it is clear that the authors have put a considerable amount of effort and thought into their article. The organization of the article was done well and there was clear information given for most sections. I liked how packaging was explained with its varieties properly categorized in a table. The layout seems pleasing to the reader.

'''What changes would you suggest the authors apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

Firstly, the authors should make changes to the Advantages and Disadvantages section, by separating it into two sections. I would suggest adding a "Radura" symbol image in the "Labelling" section so that the reader would an easy visualization of what this section explains. Diagrams for different modes of irradiation could also be added, also expanding each of the modes into subsections to add more depth to the topic.

What's the most important thing the authors could do to improve the article?

The most important thing the authors can do is to add to the equipment section as it requires more information. Also a few minor grammatical errors are present in the article that need to be corrected.

Joanna j (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A. Prakash review
This is an extensive article and clearly you have put in a lot of effort. As you edit, I suggest you make the article shorter, but improve the accuracy and specificity. Here are some suggestions.

Include an outline. Some language is too informal. For example, "In this article, we will be speaking more about..." and "electrons to be knocked out of their orbits." Avoid mentioning specific authors.

Lead section Rename to Introduction. What is the difference between "Phytosanitary irradiation" and "Phytosanitation." Also indicate that this is a treatment for postharvest treatment. What do you mean by pests in "pests and insects?" I believe phytosanitary irradiation may be limited to insects, but please confirm. If not, specify which other pests. Too much detail, and also needs to touch on the topics covered in the article. Remove details about use in Australia and New Zealand, sentence about ceramic tiles.

Background No need for that heading. Start with history. I believe irradiation was used for insect disinfestation of grains in Ukraine for several years. Please include that information. Also mention early shipments of irradiated fruit from Hawaii to the mainland. Hallman has a number of papers that detail the history (maybe reference 3), please include major points in brief. End history with current situation.

Mode of Action  You can refer to the Wikipedia article on Irradiation, but in this section very briefly talk about how they inactivate insects, and remove language on regulations. Please review your references and rewrite this section. I can help you word it better.

Applications Not sure this section is needed since you have Commercial Use further down in the article. I suggest you delete this section.

Commercial Use Most of this section refers to doses used for insects. I think this should be titled Regulations. Refer to IPPC guidelines as well as USDA-APHIS regulations (Hallman describes this very well). Remove subheadings (what is it used for and amount used), but not the content. The section under "the amount used" should be edited in a couple of ways. 1. Talk about the concept of generic doses. 2. Include a table to show the generic doses. 3. Delete the details of each dose from that section. Include upper limit as set by FDA (21CFR179.45)

"Other areas of interest to use" Not sure what that is for.

Advantages and Disadvantages: Separate these sections. Under advantages- ergonomic advantages are not a major advantage, and may not be realized depending upon modality. Please delete. Please refer to lecture slides and the GMA reference for key advantages and disadvantages and rewrite. The first advantage should be that because it is a non-thermal treatment, fresh characteristics of fruits and vegetables can be maintained. Please note that pesticides applied at the field level might still remain on the produce, but you can say that chemical fumigants that are harmful for health and the environment can be avoided.

Regulations This section is referring to policies rather than regulation, and also it is too specific to the US. I suggest deleting this.

Facilities This section is also very US centric and refers mainly to locations and US requirements. It does not talk about types of facilities. I would delete this section.

Dosage Combine with regulations. Delete Table 1.

Packaging I suggest only keeping information specific to Phtosanitary Irradiation. Delete the first half of that paragraph and the table. Begin this section with the sentence that starts with, Fruits and vegetables....But, as you know, irradiated fruits are exported not only to the US, so please discuss in general terms, not simply US requirements. Remove reference to the PPQ treatment manual, only the US uses this.

References Please format uniformly and show the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilly2008 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your draft. Some things that still need improvement:
 * You need a proper lead section that summarizes all the major points in the article. It needs to start with a statement of what the topic of the article is, something like your second sentence


 * You need to add links to other Wikipedia articles. Topics and terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be linked the first time they appear in the article.
 * Section headers use sentence capitalization, not title capitalization; only the first word of the title, and proper nouns, should be capitalized.
 * References go after punctuation, not before, and should not have a space before them. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)