Enzyme‐assisted aqueous extraction of oil and protein from canola (<b><i>Brassica napus </i></b>L.) seeds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The emphasis of this study was to investigate the effect of enzymes on aqueous extraction of canola ( Brassica napus L.) seed oil and protein. Four enzymes, Protex 7L, Multifect Pectinase FE, Multifect CX 13L, and Natuzyme, were tested for their effectiveness in releasing oil and protein during aqueous extraction. The enzyme‐extracted oil content of canola seeds (22.2–26.0%) was found to be significantly ( p <0.05) higher than that of the control (without enzyme) (16.48%). An appreciable amount of protein (3.5–5.9%) originally present in the seed was extracted into the aqueous and creamy phases during aqueous extraction of oil. The physicochemical properties of oils extracted from canola seed by conventional solvent extraction, and aqueous extraction, with or without enzyme addition were compared. Significant ( p <0.05) differences were observed in free fatty acid content, specific extinctions at 232 and 270 nm, peroxide value, color (1‐inch cell) and concentration of tocopherols (α, γ, and δ). However, no significant variation ( p <0.05) was observed in iodine value, refractive index (40 °C), density (24 °C), saponification value, unsaponifiable matter and fatty acid composition. A better oil quality was obtained with aqueous extraction (with and without enzyme) than with solvent extraction. While the enzymes enhanced the oil extraction, the oil yield was still significantly ( p <0.05) lower than that obtained by solvent (hexane) extraction.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it