MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206707091 · doi:10.1002/ffj.3305

pH dependent partitioning behaviour of food and beverage aroma compounds between air‐aqueous and organic‐aqueous matrices

2015· article· en· W2206707091 on OpenAlexaff
Sierra Rayne, Kaya Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueFlavour and Fragrance Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan PolytechnicSaskWater
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAromaAqueous solutionAnalyteVolatility (finance)PhenolsPartition coefficientOrganic chemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aroma compounds in the Flavornet database were screened for ionizable functional groups such as carboxylic acids, aliphatic and aromatic amines, phenols, alcohols and thiols. Of the 738 aroma compounds listed in this database, 101 molecules have ionizable moieties with estimated monomeric aqueous pK a values ranging between 1.75 and 10.97. pH dependent effective air/water partitioning coefficients (K aw,eff ) and n‐octanol/water partitioning coefficients (D ow ) were estimated for all ionizable aroma compounds over the pH range from 0 to 14. The ionizable aroma compounds display a broad range of K aw,eff (1.8 × 10 ‐23 to 6.1 atm M ‐1 ) and log D ow (‐6.2 to +7.2 units) values. For many aroma compounds, pH dependent ionization will have a significant effect on K aw,eff and D ow , leading to variations in these physico‐chemical properties by up to 11 orders of magnitude over the composite pH range of common foods and beverages. Changes in food and beverage pH affect not only the relative contributions of neutral versus charged forms of ionizable aroma compounds (which directly affects analyte volatility and olfactory reception), but also partitioning between freely dissolved and sorbed forms of the analyte in solution (which indirectly affects analyte volatility). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlavour and Fragrance JournalSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207