MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344162145 · doi:10.1002/ffj.3327

Carboxylic acid ester hydrolysis rate constants for food and beverage aroma compounds

2016· article· en· W2344162145 on OpenAlexaff
Sierra Rayne, Kaya Forest

Bibliographic record

VenueFlavour and Fragrance Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicFree Radicals and Antioxidants
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan PolytechnicSaskWater
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryAromaHydrolysisCarboxylic acidOrganic chemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aroma compounds in the Flavornet database were screened for potentially hydrolysable carboxylic acid ester functionalities. Of 738 aroma compounds listed in this database, 140 molecules contain carboxylic acid ester groups that may be amenable to hydrolysis in various food and beverage products. Acid‐ (k A ) and base‐ (k B ) catalysed and neutral (k N ) hydrolysis rate constants in pure water at 25°C were calculated for these aroma compounds. Where available, good agreement between theoretical and experimental hydrolytic half‐lives was obtained at various pH values. Wide ranges and broad frequency distributions for k A , k B , and k N are expected among the various hydrolyzable aroma compounds, with calculated k A ranging from 3.7 × 10 ‐8 to 4.7 × 10 ‐4 M ‐1 s ‐1 , calculated k B ranging from 4.3 × 10 ‐4 to 43 M ‐1 s ‐1 , and calculated k N ranging from 4.2 × 10 ‐17 to 7.6 × 10 ‐9 M ‐1 s ‐1 . The resulting hydrolytic half‐lives also range widely, from 10 days to 370 years at pH 2.8, 18 days to 4,900 years at pH 4.0, 1.8 days to 470 years at pH 7.0, and 26 minutes to 5.1 years at pH 9.0. The findings illustrate the importance of considering abiotic hydrolysis and matrix pH when modelling the evolution of sensory characteristics for foods and beverages with carboxylic acid ester based aroma compounds. Copyright © 2016 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFlavour and Fragrance JournalSame topicFree Radicals and AntioxidantsFrench-language works237,207