Microencapsulation of Hibiscus sabdariffa (Roselle) Extracts by Spray Drying Using Maltodextrin and Gum Arabic as Carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microencapsulation by spray drying is one of the most common methods used to obtain food material powders. In this study, different gums (maltodextrin [MD], gum arabic [GA], and mixtures of MD:GA [60:40] at various concentrations [0–10% w/w]) were used to microencapsulate Hibiscus sabdariffa (Roselle) extracts by spray drying. The yield, physicochemical properties, and antioxidant characteristics (total monomeric anthocyanins [TMAs], total phenolic compounds [TPCs], and antioxidant capacity [AC]) of the microencapsulated Roselle powders (RP) were evaluated. The highest RP yield (73.3 ± 3.3%) was obtained with the 3% MD:GA blend. The red color (a*) average for all powders (39.9 ± 2.0) decreased as the gum concentration increased. The 3% MD:GA RP showed the highest amount of TMAs (539.19 ± 13.27 mg cyaniding-3-glucoside equivalents/100 g) and TPCs (3,801.6 ± 125.9 mg of gallic acid equivalents/100 g of powder). The highest AC was observed with a 5% GA RP (1498.5 ± 44.0 mg of Trolox equivalents/100 g of powder).
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) | 0.000 | 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".