MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131137907 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.12322

Release of Allyl Isothiocyanate from Mustard Seed Meal Powder

2013· article· en· W2131137907 on OpenAlexaff
Ruyan Dai, Loong‐Tak Lim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllyl isothiocyanateMustard seedChemistryMealIsothiocyanatePhenethyl isothiocyanateBrassicaFood scienceAgronomyOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) is a wide-spectrum antimicrobial compound found in mustard seeds, produced when their tissues are disrupted. The formation of AITC in mustard seed is mediated by the myrosinase enzyme which catalyzes the release of volatile AITC from a glucosinolate-sinigrin. Since water is a substrate in the reaction, humidity from the air can be used to activate the release of AITC from mustard seed. In this study, defatted and partially defatted mustard seed meals were ground into powders with particle size ranging from 5 to 300 μm. The mustard seed meal powder (MSMP) samples were enclosed within hermetically sealed glass jars wherein the headspace air was adjusted to 85% or 100% relative humidity at 5, 20, or 35 °C. Data from gas chromatography analysis showed that AITC release rate and amount increased with increasing relative humidity and temperature. Moreover, the release rate can be manipulated by particle size and lipid content of the MSMP samples. The amount of AITC released ranged from 2 to 17 mg/g MSMP within 24 h under the experimental conditions tested. In view of the antimicrobial properties of AITC, the mustard meal powder may be used as a natural antimicrobial material for extending the shelf life of food products.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations66
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stressFrench-language works237,207