Extraction, purification and characterization of wax from flax (<b><i>Linum usitatissimum</i></b>) straw
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chemical composition and selected physical parameters of wax extracted from flax straw with supercritical CO2 (SC‐CO2) and hexane have been determined. From the GC/MS results, clear variations in composition and component distributions were observed between SC‐CO2‐ and hexane‐extracted samples. The major components of the SC‐CO2 and hexane extracts from three flax cultivars were: fatty acids (36–49%), fatty alcohols (20–26%), aldehydes (10–14%), wax esters (5–12%), sterols (7–9%) and alkanes (4–5%). Purification of SC‐CO2‐extracted wax with silica gel chromatography yielded 0.4–0.5% (dry matter) and was composed primarily of wax esters (C44, C46 and C48) and alkanes (C27, C29 and C31). UV‐Vis scans of the purified wax samples exhibited two main peaks indicating the presence of conjugated dienes and carotenoids or related compounds. Fourier transform infrared results showed prominent peaks at 2918 (‐C‐H), 2849 (‐C‐H), 1745 (‐C=O), 1462 (‐C‐H), 1169 (‐C‐O) and 719 cm–1 (‐(CH2)n‐), with NorLin wax showing a slightly deviating pattern compared to the other samples. Thermal analysis by differential scanning calorimetry revealed a mean melting point of 55–56 °C and oxidation temperatures of 146–153 °C for purified wax from flax straw processed using different procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".