Spectrophotometric Determinations of Chloroplastidic Pigments in Physalis angulata L. Leaves Using Different Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare different protocols for extraction and quantification of photosynthetic pigments, considering different solvents, extraction time and temperature, to determine the best methodology for Physalis angulata L. leaves. The efficiency of immersion of leaf discs in 95% ethanol, 80% acetone and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was evaluated for 24, 48 and 72 hours. The effect of temperature on extraction with DMSO was also evaluated, with the samples incubated at room temperature and in a water bath at 65 °C. These protocols were compared with the classical methods of plant tissue maceration in 80% acetone followed by filtration, which proved to be the most efficient for Physalis angulata plants and indicated for use in the laboratory. The use of high temperatures (65 °C) is not necessary for the chlorophyll extraction process with DMSO, the room temperature is most efficient in the extraction of carotenoids. Considering the total chlorophyll content, the leaf discs immersion technique in a solvent is acceptable, with 95% ethanol and 24 hours incubation and the most economically viable alternative.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".