Improved analysis of sinigrin in Ethiopian mustard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary An ion‐pair reversed‐phase high‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method was developed for the analysis of sinigrin in Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata A. Braun) seed and seed fractions. Separation was compared on several RP‐HPLC columns (Inertsil® ODS‐4 C18 and ZORBAX® Eclipse XDB‐C18) with an isocratic eluent containing 100% aqueous (aq.) tetramethylammonium bromide (10 mm, pH 5.0). Sinigrin retention was affected by HPLC variables including the type of ion‐pair reagent, buffer strength and pH, acetonitrile concentration, column temperature and eluent flow rate. Partial validation demonstrated this optimised chromatographic condition to be linear, accurate and precise. Multistage extraction using 70% (v/v) aq. methanol was more efficient than 50% (v/v) aq. acetonitrile. In addition, the matrix effect and recovery rate as well as processing efficiency of the analytical protocol were determined. This method is suitable for high throughput analysis of sinigrin in Ethiopian mustard seed and seed fractions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".