MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133791651 · doi:10.3390/en14051329

Effect of Ultrasound on Henna Leaves Drying and Extraction of Lawsone: Experimental and Modeling Study

2021· article· en· W3133791651 on OpenAlexaff
Said Bennaceur, B.E. Abdel-Aziz, Lyes Bennamoun, A. Mulet, Belkacem Draoui, Mostafa Abid, Juan A. Cárcel

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawsoneExtraction (chemistry)UltrasoundArrhenius equationChemistryYield (engineering)Activation energyMaterials scienceChromatographyOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of drying temperature and the application of ultrasound on drying kinetics of Lawsonia inermis (henna) leaves and the extraction of lawsone from the dried samples was addressed. Indeed, henna leaves were dried with and without the application of ultrasound (21.7 kHz, 30.8 kW/m3) at 40, 50 and 60 °C with a constant air velocity (1 m/s). As expected, both the increase of temperature and the application of ultrasound decreased the drying time and increased the rate of extraction of the lawsone. The values of the effective diffusion coefficients obtained were used to quantify this influence showing the value increases with higher drying temperature and the application of ultrasound. Moreover, the influence of temperature was quantified by the estimation of the activation energy from an Arrhenius-type equation (46.25 kJ/mol in the case of drying without ultrasound application and 44.06 kJ/mol in the case of ultrasonically-assisted drying). Regarding the influence of studied variables on lawsone extraction yield, the higher is the temperature, the lower is the yield, probably linked with lawsone degradation reaction due to thermal treatment. On the contrary, the application of ultrasound improved the extraction yield mainly at the lower drying temperature tested of 40 °C.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207