Microwave and Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Capsaicinoids From Chili Peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) in Flavored Olive Oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extraction of flavoring compounds from different plants and aromatic herbs has been using since ancient times in vegetable oils to enhance their aroma and taste, whereas the technology of production has changed over time. Our work aimed to evaluate alternative technologies for the production of aromatized olive oil such as ultrasound- and microwave-assisted extraction in comparison to traditional infusion or maceration of dried red hot chili pepper (10% w/v for 7 days). For the ultrasonic treatment, samples of olive oil were prepared by adding 10% and 20% dried chili pepper and subjected to ultrasound-extraction for 10 or 20 minutes. For microwave extraction, samples were added with 20% chili powder and treated for 10, 30 or 60 seconds. Capsaicinoids were quantified by HPLC-DAD directly in the flavored olive oil and antioxidant activity was evaluated by ABTS+ method. Capsaicinoids analysis in aromatized olive oil treated 20 minutes by ultrasound resulted about 130 ppm (capsaicin and hydroxycapsaicin), when 10% chili powder was used, while it was 250 ppm when 20% chili was used. The content of capsaicinoids extracted by traditional infusion was always higher for both concentrations of chili powder studied. The concentration of capsaicinoids in samples treated by microwaves extraction seem to be dependent on the treatment time, resulting 130 and 230 ppm capsaicinoids for 10 and 60 seconds of treatment, respectively. In conclusion, the production of flavored olive oils by using technologies such as microwave and ultrasound-extraction could allow the production of high quality oils, with fast and cost-effectively methods.
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".