MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982703347 · doi:10.1007/s11746-013-2366-1

Recovery of Sinapic Acid from the Waste Effluent of Mustard Protein Isolation by Ion Exchange Chromatography

2013· article· en· W1982703347 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Narongechai Prapakornwiriya, Levente L. Diósady

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyAdsorptionAcetic acidEffluentIon exchangeElutionIon-exchange resinIon chromatographyMethanolExtraction (chemistry)WastewaterWaste managementOrganic chemistryIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sinapic acid present in the waste stream of yellow mustard protein isolation was purified by strong base Dowex (1 × 8, Cl−) ion exchange chromatography. The ratio of loading volume to resin bed volume was 19:1. Approximately 80 % of sinapic acid was adsorbed. The column was washed with two bed volumes of water to remove remaining undesirable components. Approximately 75 % of sinapic acid adsorbed by the resins in the column was eluted by ten bed volumes of a solution containing 0.9 M acetic acid and methanol (4:6, v/v). Up to 15 adsorption and regeneration cycles resulted in only a slight, 3–5 %, reduction in ion exchange capacity, indicating that this is a viable approach to the recovery and purification of sinapic acid. The recovery of this valuable nutraceutical ingredient improves the economic viability of an integrated extraction process for this Canadian oilseed crop.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207