Extraction of wax‐like materials from cereals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, a comparison of the wax extraction process from rice, sorghum, and wheat using liquid nitrogen was done with respect to the traditional solvent extraction method using n‐hexane. For this purpose, these cereals were immersed in liquid nitrogen (1–4 cycles with different time intervals and different rest times between cycles). The results showed that waxes could be extracted by liquid nitrogen, but with a lower yield. When compared to the n‐hexane extraction method, the extracted amounts of waxes with liquid nitrogen were 5, 7.5, and 9.3 times lower, but the extraction times were 2.3, 5.5, and 11.25 times shorter for wheat, rice, and sorghum, respectively. No residue was left in wax‐like materials extracted with liquid nitrogen. While SEM depicted that the outer layer of waxes on the grains could be extracted by liquid nitrogen, GC‐MS and GC‐FID showed that the extracted waxes had similar compositions in both cycle extraction methods. These results could point out a novel environmentally‐friendly method to extract waxes from cereals that could be useful for certain applications.
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) | 0.001 | 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".