MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800274939 · doi:10.1002/cjce.23236

Extraction of macauba kernel oil using supercritical carbon dioxide and compressed propane

2018· article· en· W2800274939 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline Portilho Trentini, Roberta Pazinato Cuco, Lúcio Cardozo‐Filho, Camila da Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropaneSupercritical fluidSupercritical fluid extractionYield (engineering)Extraction (chemistry)ChemistryLauric acidSolventSupercritical carbon dioxideRaffinateChromatographyMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryFatty acidMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Macauba kernel oil (MKO) was extracted using supercritical CO 2 and compressed propane as the solvent. The influence of temperature (313–353 K for CO 2 and 303–333 K for propane) and pressure (18–22 MPa for CO 2 and 8–12 MPa for propane) on oil yield was investigated, and the results were compared with conventional extraction. A characterization of oil and defatted meal was performed. Temperature and pressure, in the evaluated range, influenced oil yield with the use of CO 2 . For propane, the oil yield was not influenced by the experimental conditions. In the evaluated experimental range, the use of propane and CO 2 provided 100 % and ∼93 % oil yield compared to conventional extraction, respectively. MKO showed a predominance of saturated fatty acids, among which lauric acid was the major constituent. CO 2 presented greater efficiency in the removal of phytosteroids and tocopherols from the macauba kernel, however, the oil extracted with propane presented longer oxidative stability. Defatted meals presented modified physico‐chemical composition and potentiated technological characteristics due to oil removal.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207