MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968714470 · doi:10.3109/07388551.2012.717217

Green synthesis approach: extraction of chitosan from fungus mycelia

2012· review· en· W1968714470 on OpenAlexaff
Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Surinder Kaur, Satinder Kaur Brar, Mausam Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biotechnology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanocomposite Films for Food Packaging
Canadian institutionsInstitut de Recherche et de Développement en AgroenvironnementInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChitosanChitinContext (archaeology)BiopolymerGlucosamineExtraction (chemistry)Biomass (ecology)MyceliumBiotechnologyFood scienceChemistryPulp and paper industryBiologyBotanyChromatographyAgronomyOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chitosan, copolymer of glucosamine and N-acetyl glucosamine is mainly derived from chitin, which is present in cell walls of crustaceans and some other microorganisms, such as fungi. Chitosan is emerging as an important biopolymer having a broad range of applications in different fields. On a commercial scale, chitosan is mainly obtained from crustacean shells rather than from the fungal sources. The methods used for extraction of chitosan are laden with many disadvantages. Alternative options of producing chitosan from fungal biomass exist, in fact with superior physico-chemical properties. Researchers around the globe are attempting to commercialize chitosan production and extraction from fungal sources. Chitosan extracted from fungal sources has the potential to completely replace crustacean-derived chitosan. In this context, the present review discusses the potential of fungal biomass resulting from various biotechnological industries or grown on negative/low cost agricultural and industrial wastes and their by-products as an inexpensive source of chitosan. Biologically derived fungal chitosan offers promising advantages over the chitosan obtained from crustacean shells with respect to different physico-chemical attributes. The different aspects of fungal chitosan extraction methods and various parameters having an effect on the yield of chitosan are discussed in detail. This review also deals with essential attributes of chitosan for high value-added applications in different fields.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations273
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in BiotechnologySame topicNanocomposite Films for Food PackagingFrench-language works237,207