Enrichment of Commercially-Prepared Juice With Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Peel Extract as a Source of Antioxidants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Ready-to eat foods meet the demands of a modern lifestyle and the number of people seeking food that is convenient and safe is increasing. The extracts of peels from four different fruits were tested as potential value-added foods to offer to consumers. Physical and chemical analyses of the peel extracts were conducted to measure total phenolic compounds, tannins, phytic acid and antioxidant activity using the 1’-1’Diphenyl-2’picrylhydrazyl, and 2,2’-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid methods. The result of screening the antioxidant activity showed that the pomegranate peel had higher activity than the other peels (p&lt;0.05). In addition, flavonoids and vitamin C were measured in the pomegranate peel, and low amounts of these components were found. The pomegranate peel had a high amount of phenolic compounds and high levels of antioxidants, and this peel was used to enrich a commercially-available juice. Furthermore, the sensory evaluation showed no difference between the control and enriched juice. The product was well accepted and feasible from a technological standpoint. Because the waste is rich in bioactive compounds, value is added to the final product, as these antioxidant compounds are known to protect health and improve the quality of life of the consumers.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".