Impact of supercritical CO2 and traditional solvent extraction systems on the extractability of alkylresorcinols, phenolic profile and their antioxidant activity in wheat bran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SC-CO2 and traditional solvent methods were used to extract alkylresorcinols (ARs) in wheat bran (WB) cultivars. WB soluble free, soluble conjugated and bound phenolics were separated by alkaline hydrolysis. Also, the effects of extraction solvents on antioxidant activity were investigated by using three different solvents. The HPLC results showed that the AR content was higher in acetone extracts compared to the SC-CO2. Using ethanol as a co-solvent yielded higher ARs, especially in collector-2 for hard red WB (HRWB) (57.8 mg/100g) and soft red WB (SRWB) (37.8 mg/100g). Ten phenolic acids and six flavonoids were detected in phenolic fractions which ferulic acid was the predominant and mostly found in bound fractions. Two-way ANOVA showed that cultivar, solvent and their interactions had significantly (P < 0.05) different effects on TPC, DPPH, and ORAC values. The best solvents for ORAC, DPPH, and TPC assays were acidified ethanol, 100% acetone, and 50% acetone, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".