Determination of citric acid pretreatment effect on nutrient content, bioactive components, and total antioxidant capacity of dried sweet potato flour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Orange flashed sweet potatoes are rich and inexpensive source of diet and antioxidants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of CA pretreatments and convective hot air drying temperature on proximate composition, bioactive components, and total antioxidant capacity of flour of five orange flashed sweet potato varieties. Moisture, protein, ether extract, ash, carbohydrate, fiber, β‐carotene, total phenolic compounds, and total antioxidant capacity in the dried flour samples were evaluated and reported in the range of 4.1–7.4%, 2.4–4.2%, 1.2–1.1.8%, 2.2–3.2%, 82.7–87.1%, 1.3–1.8%, 35.5–91.6 mg/100 g, 49.8–107.9 mg GAE /100 g, and 27.3–85.4%, respectively. The interaction effects of varieties, drying temperature, and CA concentration were significant ( p ˂ 0.05) except for fiber. Kulto and SPK 006/6/6 performed better for most of the parameters studied followed by SPK 00/06. For almost all varieties, samples dried at 55°C and after treated in 3% CA solution had the highest percentage in terms of proximate composition, bioactive components, and total antioxidant capacities.
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".