MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789674178 · doi:10.5539/jas.v10n4p96

Influence of Drying in Hyptis pectinata Essential Oil

2018· article· en· W2789674178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Núbia Angélica de Ávila Branquinho, Fabiano Guimarães Silva, Osvaldo Resende, Luiz C. A. Barbosa, Daniel Emanuel Cabral de Oliveira, Rita Cássia Nascimento Pedroso

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEssential oilChemistrySesquiterpeneGas chromatographyChromatographySolventDichloromethaneOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study assessed the effects of drying at different temperatures (35, 45 and 55 °C) and air velocities (1 and 2 m s-1) on the content and chemical characteristics of Hyptis pectinata essential oil. Drying was conducted in a fixed-bed dryer, and the temperatures and air velocities were controlled and recorded by an automated system. A 350±0.12 g quantity of fresh leaves was used for each of the four repetitions in each dryer. From the material obtained after drying, 60 g of each repetition was used to extract essential oil by the hydrodistillation method. Dichloromethane was used as the solvent, and anhydrous sodium sulfate was used as the desiccating agent. Gas chromatography in the forms of GC-MS and GC-FID were used for the chemical characterization of the essential oil compounds. Decreasing drying times and decreasing concentrations of essential oils were observed with increasing temperatures. A GC-MS analysis of the essential oil from H. pectinata leaves led to the identification of 19 compounds. A sesquiterpene called caryophyllene oxide was the most abundant compound under all drying conditions, with the highest concentration at a temperature of 55 °C, ranging from approximately 42 to 53%.

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)0.001
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 score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicEssential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityFrench-language works237,207