Comparison of Chromatographic and Titrimetric Methods for the Determination of the a-amino Nitrogen in Standard Solution and Fish Protein Hydrolysates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two analytical methods, reverse phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) and formol titration, were compared for their accuracy and precision for the determination of a-amino nitrogen (a-AN) concentration in fish protein hydrolysates. The result showed that, when tested with pure amino acid solutions, RP-HPLC method had a better standard deviation (S. D.), coefficient of variation (C. V.), and standard error (S. E.) but a poorer recovery rate compared with formol titration technique. The observed a-AN value by RP-HPLC has good coincidence with the actual a-AN value and their correlation coefficient (r) is 0.9981, which was close to the r value (0.9995) between the a-AN by formol titration and the actual a-AN. However, when tested with protein hydrolysates, the a-AN obtained from RP-HPLC technique were significantly (p<0.05) lower than that from formol titration for the same sample. Therefore, the formol titration method can be used as a quick screening method to assess the quality fish hydrolystaes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".