MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200126254 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2021.2013771

Green extraction and characterization of leaves phenolic compounds: a comprehensive review

2021· review· en· W4200126254 on OpenAlexaff
Nushrat Yeasmen, Valérie Orsat

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemical and Pharmacological Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutraceuticalBiomass (ecology)AgricultureExtraction (chemistry)IngredientBusinessSustainabilityHealth benefitsBiotechnologyEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryWaste managementEngineeringTraditional medicineFood scienceChemistryMedicineAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although containing significant levels of phenolic compounds (PCs), leaves biomass coming from either forest, agriculture, or the processing industry are considered as waste, which upon disposal, brings in environmental issues. As the demand for PCs in functional food, pharmaceutical, nutraceutical and cosmetic sector is escalating day by day, recovering PCs from leaves biomass would solve both the waste disposal problem while ensuring a valuable "societal health" ingredient thus highly contributing to a sustainable food chain from both economic and environmental perspectives. In our search for environmentally benign, efficient, and cost-cutting techniques for the extraction of PCs, green extraction (GE) is presenting itself as the best option in modern industrial processing. This current review aims to highlight the recent progress, constraints, legislative framework, and future directions in GE and characterization of PCs from leaves, concentrating particularly on five plant species (tea, moringa, stevia, sea buckthorn, and pistacia) based on the screened journals that precisely showed improvements in extraction efficiency along with maintaining extract quality. This overview will serve researchers and relevant industries engaged in the development of suitable techniques for the extraction of PCs with increasing yield.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.194
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicPhytochemical and Pharmacological StudiesFrench-language works237,207