A spectrophotometric method for determining the amount of folic acid in fortified salt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analytical methods for quantifying and monitoring the degradation of micronutrients added to food are crucial to food fortification programs. In the case of folic acid in fortified salts, there are difficulties in developing an effective analytical method due to interference of salt in the standard HPLC methods, as salt precipitates in the HPLC column. To circumvent the problem, a spectrophotometric method was developed to quantify folic acid and monitor its degradation in salt. A distinct absorption wavelength was selected for folic acid in sodium carbonate solution. Of the three wavelengths where maximum absorption was observed for folic acid, 285 nm was selected as being selective for folic acid in the presence of pteroic acid, glutamic acid, aminobenzoic acid, and other products of degradation of folic acid. The method was calibrated for 1-25 μg/mL folic acid (R2 = 1). The recovery was 100 ± 1.2% and 100 ± 1.8% for folic acid in salt and solution, respectively. The limit of detection and quantification for this method is 0.011 μg/mL and 0.033 μg/mL, respectively. The method is accurate, precise, and selective for folic acid in the presence of potential products of folic acid degradation, and is suitable for monitoring folic acid degradation in fortified salt.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".