Quantitative Determination of Allergenic 5-Alk(en)ylresorcinols in Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Peel, Pulp, and Fruit Products by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a number of serious case reports of mango dermatitis, no attempts at the identification and quantification of allergenic 5-alk(en)ylresorcinols in mango fruits have so far been made. Therefore, total alk(en)ylresorcinol content and relative homologue composition in 13 mango peel samples and 7 samples of mango pulp were determined by HPLC and LC-MS/MS analyses. Furthermore, mango puree and nectar prepared on pilot plant scale were also analyzed and compared with commercially available thermally preserved products. Depending on cultivar, alk(en)ylresorcinol contents ranged from 79.3 to 1850.5 mg/kg of dry matter (DM) in mango peels and from 4.9 to 187.3 mg/kg of DM in samples of mango pulp. The profile of alk(en)ylresorcinols was found to be highly characteristic, with an average homologue composition of C15:0 (6.1%), C15:1 (1.7%), C17:0 (1.1%), C17:1 (52.5%), C17:2 (33.4%), C17:3 (2.4%), C19:1 (2.1%), and C19:2 (0.8%). Mango puree samples prepared from peeled and unpeeled fruits revealed contents of 3.8 and 12.3 mg/kg of fresh weight, respectively. Content and homologue composition were not significantly affected during puree processing and thermal preservation. In nectar samples prepared from peeled and unpeeled fruits, contents of 1.4 and 4.6 mg/L, respectively, were found.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".