Physico‐Chemical Characteristics of Citrus Seeds and Seed Oils from Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The physico‐chemical characteristics of the seeds and seed oils of four citrus species, Mitha (Citrus limetta), Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), Mussami (Citrus sinensis), and Kinnow (Citrus reticulata) were investigated. The hexane‐extracted oil content of citrus seeds ranged from 27.0 to 36.5%. The protein, fiber and ash contents were found to be 3.9–9.6%, 5.0–8.5%, and 4.6–5.6%, respectively. The extracted oils exhibited an iodine value of 99.9–110.0; refractive index (40 °C), 1.4639–1.4670; density (24 °C), 0.920–0.941 mg/mL; saponification value, 180.9–198.9; unsaponifiable matter, 0.3–0.5%; acid value (mg KOH/g of oil), 0.5–2.2 and color (1‐in. cell) 1.4–3.0R + 15.0–30.0Y. The oils revealed a good oxidative stability as indicated by the determinations of specific extinctions at 232 and 270 nm (2.3–4.4 and 0.6–0.9, respectively), p‐anisidine value (2.2–3.2) and peroxide value (1.6–2.4 mequiv/kg of oil). The citrus seed oils mainly consisted of linoleic acid (36.1–39.8%). Other prominent fatty acids were palmitic acid (25.8–32.2%), oleic acid (21.9–24.1%), linolenic acid (3.4–4.4%), and stearic acid (2.8–4.4%). The contents of tocopherols (α, γ, and δ) in the oil were 26.4–557.8, 27.7–84.1, and 9.1–20.0 mg/kg, respectively. The results of the present study demonstrated that the seeds of citrus species investigated are a potential source of valuable oil which might be utilized for edible and other industrial applications.
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".