Pressurized liquid extraction of oil from soybean seeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the extraction of soybean oil using ethanol under pressurized conditions. The effects of pressure (10 and 20 MPa), temperature (30 to 90 °C), and solvent flow (1 and 3 mL/min) were evaluated applying different extraction times. In addition, the thermodynamics parameters of the process were determined. It was observed that the pressure exerted no influence on the extraction kinetics, while an increase in temperature promoted better yields. The use of the highest solvent flow increased the initial extraction rate, but did not influence the yield under equilibrium conditions. Based on the thermodynamic parameters, the extraction was classified as endothermic (44.11 kJ/mol), irreversible (143.52 J/mol K), and partially spontaneous (0.60 to −8.01 kJ/mol), and an increase in the temperature favoured this spontaneity. Extraction using the classical Soxhlet method was evaluated for comparison purposes using ethanol and n ‐hexane as solvents and ethanol showed a better extraction efficiency. The maximum yield obtained with pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) was 24.42 %, which represents ∼94 % of the yield obtained by classical extraction. Linoleic and oleic acids were the main fatty acids identified in the soybean oil, representing ∼76 % of the fatty acids composition, which was not influenced by the extraction method or the temperature used in the PLE.
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 | 0.001 | 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".