Technical Note: Improved Extraction Method with Hexane for Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Conjugated Linoleic Acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extraction properties of different solvents (chloroform/methanol, hexane/isopropanol, and hexane) were studied for the gas chromatographic analysis of conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) from probiotic bacteria grown in de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe medium. As compared with chloroform/methanol and hexane/isopropanol, hexane showed comparable extraction efficiency for CLA from unspent de Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe medium, but showed minimal extraction of oleic acid originated from the emulsifier in broth. The extraction efficiency of CLA by hexane was influenced by the broth pH, showing the optimal pH of 7.0. Repeated extraction with hexane increased the yield. Extraction with hexane showed excellent recovery of spiked CLA from the spent broth with up to 97.2% (standard deviation of 1.74%). This represents the highest recovery of CLA from culture broth ever reported. The sample size was also successfully reduced to 0.5 mL to analyze CLA from the broth without impairment of analytical data. This smaller sample size in the 1.5-mL microcentrifuge tube using a small bench-top centrifuge reduced analytical time significantly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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".