Oxidative Stability of Algal Oils As Affected by Their Minor Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Algal oils, namely, arachidonic acid single-cell oil (ARASCO), docosahexaenoic acid single-cell oil (DHASCO), and a single-cell oil rich in both docosahexaenoic acid and docosapentaenoic acid (OMEGA-GOLD oil), were evaluated for their oxidative stability, as such and after stripping of their minor components, in the dark at 60 °C and under fluorescent light at 27 °C. Several analytical methods were used to assess the oxidative stability of these oils. Oil extracts were also investigated for their scavenging of 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical by a spectrophotometric method and by measuring their total phenolic contents. The results indicated that minor oil constituents play a major role in their oxidative stability in the dark as well as under fluorescent light. The stability of the oils was dictated by their fatty acid composition, total tocopherols, and the type of pigment present. DHASCO contained a significant level of natural radical scavengers and phenolic compounds that contributed to its higher stability compared to the ARASCO and OMEGA-GOLD oils. Thus, the importance of minor components in the stability of the oils examined was demonstrated. Keywords: Algal oils; autoxidation; conjugated dienes; 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical; headspace volatiles; high-performance liquid chromatography; photooxidation; oxidative stability; tocopherol content; thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".