Optimization of Physical Force-Assisted Alkaline Extraction of Rice Bran Protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study comparatively evaluated the efficiencies of alkaline extraction, colloid milling-assisted alkaline extraction, ultrasonic-assisted alkaline extraction, and colloid milling, ultrasonic-assisted extraction for the extraction of rice bran protein(RBP) with respect to RBP yield and purity. It was shown that a significantly increased extraction yield and a RBP purity of 74.27% were obtained by the colloid milling, ultrasonic-assisted extraction method. In this method, the extraction parameters ultrasonic power, solid-to-solvent ratio, temperature and extraction time were optimized by response surface methodology using the Design Expert 8.0.6. The optimum extraction conditions for maximizing RBP yield were determined as 40 mesh, 9, 69 W, 4 s, 2 s, 20:1(mL/g), 40 min and 46 ℃ for rice bran granularity, pH, ultrasonic power, working time, intermittent time, solid-to-solvent ratio, ultrasonication time and extraction temperature, respectively. The predicted extraction yield of RBP was 92.14%, agreeing with the experimental value(90.84%). The colloid milling, ultrasonic-assisted extraction method could significantly increase the extraction yield of RBP and shorten the extraction time and thus could provide a foundation for for further study of rice bran protein.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".