MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023270414 · doi:10.1021/jf025614x

Extraction of Anthocyanins and Other Phenolics from Black Currants with Sulfured Water

2002· article· en· W2023270414 on OpenAlexaff
J.E. Cacace, Giuseppe Mazza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryExtraction (chemistry)AntioxidantWineSolventFood scienceAnthocyaninChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health benefits of fruits, vegetables, and red wine are attributed to anthocyanins and other phytochemicals. In this research, the extraction of phenolics from black currants was optimized using different SO(2) concentrations (28, 300, 700, 1100, and 1372 ppm), temperatures (6, 20, 40, 60, and 74 degrees C), and solvent to solid ratios (S/S) (6, 20, 40, 60, and 74 mL/g). Surface response methodology was used to optimize yields of anthocyanins and total phenolics, as well as their antiradical and antioxidant activities. The extraction of phenolics varied with the SO(2) concentration, S/S, and temperature. Maximum yields of total phenolics and anthocyanins were obtained at an SO(2) concentration of 1000-1200 ppm and 19 L of solvent/kg of milled frozen berries. The increase of extraction temperature increased the rate of extraction and, thus, times to reach equilibrium for the extraction of total phenolics and anthocyanins were reduced. However, for the extraction of anthocyanins it is recommended that temperatures of 30-35 degrees C be used, as higher temperatures will degrade these compounds. Antioxidant activity was affected by all three experimental variables evaluated; however, the main variable affecting it was S/S. The higher the S/S, the lower the antioxidant index.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations187
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207