MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Investigation of Benzoic Acid Amounts in Some Foodstuffs Consumed in Ankara Region

2013· article· en· W2158521183 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Buket Er Demirhan, Burak Demirhan, Gülderen Yentür, Aysel Bayhan Öktem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenzoic acidPreservativeChemistryFood scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Benzoic acid and its salts are commonly used as a preservatives in food products. Excess amounts of benzoic acid can be harmful to human health. Therefore, the determination of benzoic acid is important in routine analysis of foods. The aim of this study was to determine amounts ofbenzoic acids in some foodstuffs and to evaluate whether these amounts were within the Turkish Food Codex (TFC) values or not. For this purpose, total number of 80 samples consisting of 20 ketchup (A, B firms), 20 sauce (C, D firms) and 40 jam samples (E, F, G, H, I, J, K firms) were collected from supermarkets, Ankara Region. In this research, spectrophotometric method was used for the quantitative determination of benzoic acid in ketchup, sauce and jam samples. Mean amounts (X± S.E) of benzoic acidin ketchupsamples of A and B firm were found as 152.32±18.41 and 1008.21±30.74 mg/kg, respectively. Mean amounts (X± S.E) of benzoic acidin sauce samples of C and D firm were determined as 990.85±26.00 and 1148.19±43.62 mg/kg, respectively. Also, mean amounts (X± S.E) of benzoic acidwere found as 435.27±26.07mg/kg in 8 jam samples of E firm. Our data revealed that while mean amounts of benzoic acid of A and C firms were found within TFC values, benzoic acid amounts of B and D firms samples were higher than the TFC values. Furthermore, some jam samples of firm E was not found appropriate to TFC.

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)0.001
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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy and Nutrition SciencesSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207