Chemical and enzymatic interesterification of tristearin/triolein‐rich blends: Microstructure and polymorphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mixtures of fully hydrogenated canola oil and high‐oleic sunflower oil were interesterified chemically and enzymatically with sodium methoxide and Candida antarctica lipase, respectively. Polymorphic behavior and crystal morphology of the10–100% blends before and after interesterification were studied using powder X‐ray diffraction spectroscopy and polarized light microscopy. X‐ray analysis revealed a predominance of the β' form in the IE‐blends (interesterified, both chemical and enzymatic) and the β form crystals in the NI‐blends (non‐interesterified). Dilution and crystallization at 20, 30, 40 and 50 °C did not change the polymorphism of the NI‐blends, but did in the IE‐blends. Small changes in the long spacings of the blends after interesterification were observed. Small‐angle reflections centered at 45 Å suggested the presence of a 2L lamellar crystalline structure. Needle‐like crystals were predominant in the IE‐blends while large symmetrical spherulites were observed in the NI‐blends crystallized at 30 °C for 24 h. Over 75% of the structural elements had areas between 1 and 20 µm2 in the NI‐ and IE‐blends, and the NI‐blends showed a higher percentage of crystals in this range compared to the IE‐samples. The box counting dimension (Db) increased as a function of crystalline area fraction in polarized light micrographs of the samples. Moreover, a higher Db in the chemically interesterified sample relative to the enzymatically interesterified sample at an equivalent area fraction, was attributed to the homogeneity in the distribution of crystalline mass.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".