ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF ALMOND SEED EXTRACT AND ITS FRACTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Phenolic compounds were extracted from defatted almond seeds using 80% aqueous acetone. Crude extract was applied onto a Sephadex LH‐20 column. Fraction I consisting of low‐molecular‐weight phenolics was eluted from the column by ethanol. Fraction II consisting of tannins was obtained using water‐acetone (1:1, v/v) as the mobile phases. Phenolic compounds present in the crude extract and its fractions showed antioxidant and antiradical properties as revealed following studies using a β‐carotene‐linoleate model system, total antioxidant activity (TAA) method, 2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity and reducing power evaluation. Results of these assays showed highest values when tannins (fraction II) were tested. For example, TAA of tannin fraction was 3.93 mmol Trolox/g, whereas the crude extract and fraction I showed values of only 0.24 and 0.09 μmol Trolox/mg, respectively. The content of total phenolics in fraction II was the highest (80.4 mg/g). The content of tannins in this fraction determined using the vanillin method and expressed as absorbance units at 500 nm per 1 g was 2436. The high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis of almond seed crude extract showed the presence of phenolic compounds, namely vanillic, caffeic, p‐coumaric, ferulic acids (after basic hydrolysis), quercetin, kaempferol and isorhamnetin (after acidic hydrolysis), delphinidin and cyanidin (after n‐butanol‐HCl hydrolysis) and procyanidin B2 and B3.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".