PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF TWO MEDIA DURING STARCH–PROTEIN SEPARATION OF CHICKPEA FLOUR USING A HYDROCYCLONE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Chickpea flour was suspended in isopropyl alcohol or deionized water at three concentrations and fractionated to the underflow (starch fraction) and the overflow (protein fraction) using a hydrocyclone. The separation using deionized water resulted in higher starch content in the underflow and higher protein content in the overflow than using isopropyl alcohol. Deionized water resulted in a greater starch separation efficiency (96.3–97.8%) and slightly lower protein separation efficiency (70.4–73.3%) than did isopropyl alcohol. The geometric mean diameter (GMD) of the overflow and underflow increased with a decrease in inlet pressure. The GMD of the underflow fraction in deionized water (26.27–31.28 µm) was greater than that in isopropyl alcohol (17.09–21.12 µm). In both media, the estimated centrifugal and drag forces increased with a decrease of inlet pressure. The centrifugal force applied to the particles in deionized water (1.32 × 10−6–1.67 × 10−6 N) was greater than that in isopropyl alcohol (0.54 × 10−6–0.76 × 10−6 N). Therefore, deionized water resulted in markedly higher starch separation efficiency. However, in isopropyl alcohol, a higher drag force was applied to the particles, and the protein separation efficiency was slightly greater than in deionized water. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The separation of starch and protein from chickpea flour in suspension of isopropyl alcohol or deionized water using a hydrocyclone was investigated. Fractionation from the deionized water suspension resulted in higher starch content in the underflow and higher protein content in the overflow than from isopropyl alcohol. The method using deionized water resulted in higher starch separation efficiency; the separation using isopropyl alcohol resulted in slightly higher protein separation efficiency. The differences in the separation efficiencies of the two media were related to the variations in forces applied to the particles in the hydrocyclone. The magnitude of forces applied to the starch granules and protein particles was estimated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".