MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161015895 · doi:10.1002/cjce.24196

Characterization and optimization of hydrothermal extraction of quercetin from <scp> <i>Quercus</i> </scp> leaves using response surface methodology

2021· article· en· W3161015895 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haoling Shen, Jiaojiao Zhang, Chensi Guo, Xiangyu Gao, Junying Chen, Chun Chang, Xiuli Han, Lijun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraction (chemistry)QuercetinYield (engineering)ChromatographyResponse surface methodologyEthanolSolventChemistryNuclear chemistryHigh-performance liquid chromatographyHydrothermal circulationMaterials scienceBiochemistryChemical engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A hydrothermal process using subcritical water and ethanol as an extraction solvent has been studied to extract high‐value flavonoid compounds from Quercus leaves. The univariate analysis showed that the maximum quercetin yield was 34.6 mg/g obtained at the liquid–solid ratio of 30:1 ml/g, concentration of ethanol 60% (V/V), extraction temperature of 180°C, and extraction duration of 5 h. Based on the Box–Behnken experiment design, the response surface methodology (RSM) was used to optimize the liquid‐to‐solid ratio, extraction time, extraction temperature, ethanol concentration, and other operating conditions of hydrothermal extraction of quercetin. The regression equation showed that the maximum yield of quercetin was 36.1 mg/g under the conditions of solvent ethanol concentration of 65% (V/V), liquid–solid ratio of 40:1 ml/g, extraction temperature of 189°C, and extraction duration of 5.5 h. The quercetin yield of 36.1 mg/g obtained by the hydrothermal method was 5.6 times the 6.4 mg/g obtained by the traditional ethanol reflux extraction at the same concentration of ethanol 65% (V/V), liquid–solid ratio of 40:1 ml/g, and extraction duration of 5.5 h, but at the boiling point of the solvent.

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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicPhase Equilibria and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207