Antioxidant and Physicochemical Properties of Hibiscus Sabdariffa Extracts from Two Particle Sizes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The effect of average particle sizes (APS: 0.45 and 1.01 mm), solvent types (ST: distilled water, 2% citric acid solution, and 50% ethanol), and extraction times (ET: 40, 50, and 60 min) on the physicochemical properties, antioxidant capacity, and half maximal effective concentration (EC50) in calyces of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa) was analyzed. The extracts obtained with distilled water and 2% citric acid solution had an intense red color which purities (C) were 78.5 ± 2.3 and 79.8 ± 2.2, respectively. The alcoholic extracts showed a dark red color (C = 75.9 ± 1.8). The alcoholic (820.2 ± 73.7 mg Trolox equivalents (TE)/100 g dry calyces) and acid extracts (773.34 ± 53.0 mg TE/100 g dry calyces) showed higher antioxidant capacity than the aqueous extracts (673.24 ± 116.0 mg TE/100 g dry calyces). The EC50 value was better for the alcoholic extracts, followed by the 2% citric acid extracts and finally by the aqueous extracts (13.4 ± 1.0, 14.9 ± 1.0, and 17.2 ± 1.2 mg of extract, respectively). According to results, the best antioxidant properties were achieved using an APS of 0.45 mm, 50:50% ethanol:water ratio, and ETs of 30 or 45 min.</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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it