Retention of Caffeic Acid Derivatives in Dried<i>Echinacea purpurea</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different drying methods were applied to fresh Canadian-grown Echinacea purpurea flowers to determine optimal drying procedures for preserving caffeic acid derivatives. Fresh flowers of E. purpurea were dried by freeze-drying (FD), vacuum microwave drying with full vacuum (VMD), and air-drying (AD) at 25, 40, and 70 degrees C. Using HPLC, chicoric acid and caftaric acid levels were quantitated in dried flowers. These acids were significantly affected by the drying method conditions used. Although significant (p < 0.05) loss of chicoric acid was observed when flowers were stored at high moisture, VMD flowers with a low moisture content retained the highest levels of chicoric acid and caftaric acid similar to FD flowers. Flowers that were AD at 25 degrees C retained about 50%, while those dried by AD at 70 degrees C resulted in the lowest retention of these acids. Although flowers dried by AD at 40 degrees C retained relatively high amounts of chicoric acid and caftaric acid, the time (55 h) required to reach optimal drying was considerably longer than that (47 min) for VMD.
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".