Accelerated, Microwave‐Assisted, and Conventional Solvent Extraction Methods Affect Anthocyanin Composition from Colored Grains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthocyanins are important dietary components with diverse positive functions in human health. This study investigates effects of accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) on anthocyanin composition and extraction efficiency from blue wheat, purple corn, and black rice in comparison with the commonly used solvent extraction (CSE). Factorial experimental design was employed to study effects of ASE and MAE variables, and anthocyanin extracts were analyzed by spectrophotometry, high-performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector (DAD), and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry chromatography. The extraction efficiency of ASE and MAE was comparable with CSE at the optimal conditions. The greatest extraction by ASE was achieved at 50 °C, 2500 psi, 10 min using 5 cycles, and 100% flush. For MAE, a combination of 70 °C, 300 W, and 10 min in MAE was the most effective in extracting anthocyanins from blue wheat and purple corn compared with 50 °C, 1200 W, and 20 min for black rice. The anthocyanin composition of grain extracts was influenced by the extraction method. The ASE extraction method seems to be more appropriate in extracting anthocyanins from the colored grains as being comparable with the CSE method based on changes in anthocyanin composition. The method caused lower structural changes in anthocaynins compared with the MAE method. Changes in blue wheat anthocyanins were lower in comparison with purple corn or black rice perhaps due to the absence of acylated anthocyanin compounds in blue wheat. The results show significant differences in anthocyanins among the 3 extraction methods, which indicate a need to standardize a method for valid comparisons among studies and for quality assurance purposes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".