Chromatographic Separation of Synthesized Phenolic Lipids from Krill Oil and Dihydroxyphenyl Acetic Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The separation and characterization of novel biomolecules, phenolic lipids, obtained by the enzymatic transesterification in organic solvent‐free media of krill oil with 3,4‐dihydroxyphenylacetic acid were investigated. The experimental findings showed that by increasing the polarity of the gradient eluent and by decreasing the solvent strength of the mobile phase, from methanol to acetonitrile, a higher resolution was obtained. The use of a shorter column and smaller particle packing size resulted in an enhancement of the efficiency, with decreases in both separation time and solvent consumption. Overall, the evaporative light‐scattering detector (ELSD) showed better repeatability of the resolution (R), theoretical plate number (n), plates per meter (N) and the retention time values as compared to that of the UV detection at 210 and 280 nm. In terms of detection and repeatability, ELSD was shown to be a more appropriate tool for the quantitative analysis of the components of krill oil and its esterified phenolic lipids than UV detection. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analysis tentatively confirmed the nature of the separated compounds. In addition, the structural analyses of novel biomolecules by HPLC–MS–APCI/ESI suggested the formation of two phenolic monoacylglycerols.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".