Antioxidant activity of crude tannins of canola and rapeseed hulls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The antioxidant activity of crude tannins of canola and rapeseed hulls was evaluated by β‐carotene‐linoleate, α,α‐diphenyl‐β‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical, and reducing power assays. Crude tannins were extracted from three samples of Cyclone canola (high‐tannin) hulls and Kolner, Ligaret, and Leo Polish rapeseed (low‐tannin) hulls with 70% (vol/vol) acetone. The total phenolic content in crude tannin extracts ranged between 128 and 296 mg of sinapic acid equivalents per 1 g of extract. The ultraviolet spectra of methanolic solution of canola extracts showed two absorption maxima (282 and 309 nm), whereas those of rapeseed extracts exhibited a single maximum (326 nm). Crude tannins isolated from canola hulls exerted significantly (P<0.025) greater antioxidant activity than those from rapeseed in all three assays. The scavenging effect of all crude tannins, at a dose of 1 mg, on the DPPH radical ranged from 35.2 to 50.5%. The reducing power of Cyclone canola hull extracts on potassium ferricyanide was significantly (P≤0.0025) greater than that of rapeseed hull extracts, and the observed data correlated well (r=0.966; P=0.002) with the total content of phenolics present.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".