Pressurized liquid extraction of macauba pulp oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate the extraction of oil from macauba pulp using ethanol and isopropanol as pressurized solvents. Experiments were carried out in a semi‐continuous extractor system at various temperatures (40, 60, and 80 °C) maintaining the pressure fixed at 10 000 kPa and the solvent flow at 3 mL/min and also using conventional extraction (in a Soxhlet). For both methods assessed, higher yields were obtained with the use of ethanol as the solvent. In the pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), an increase in temperature from 40 to 60 °C provided higher yields at 72 min of extraction, which was not influenced by the extraction carried out at 80 °C. This temperature effect was also observed in the extraction kinetics data. The maximum yields obtained by PLE were 44.78 % and 37.12 % with ethanol and isopropanol, respectively, which represents ∼77 % of the yield obtained by conventional extraction. Oleic and palmitic acids are the main fatty acids identified in macauba pulp oil, representing ∼88 % of the fatty acids composition, which was not influenced by the extraction method and solvent used. PLE with ethanol provides oils with higher levels of β‐carotene. The flavonoid content was higher with the use of isopropanol; however, it was not influenced by the method used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".