Lyophilized Powder of Hibiscus sabdariffa (Roselle) Extracts using Gum Arabic and Maltodextrin as Carrier Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freeze-drying is a process for drying foods without heat application. The physical, chemical and sensory properties of the food remain without significant changes. In this work, maltodextrin (MD), gum arabic (GA), and a blend of MD:GA (60:40) were used as encapsulating agents of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa) calyces extracts. Lyophilized powders were obtained at different concentrations of encapsulating agent (0, 3, 5, and 10%, w/w). Powders were analyzed in yield and physicochemical (average size diameter (d50), moisture content, water activity (aw), bulk and compacted densities, and color), and antioxidants (anthocyanins content, total phenolic compounds, antioxidant capacity) characteristics. The yields of freeze-drying powders from different encapsulating agents ranged 82 to 95%. The average diameter (d50) was higher for powders without gum (139.5±25.6 μm) than for powders with encapsulating agents (35 to 89 μm). The moisture content and aw of the powders were in the ranges 5.3-11.2% and 0.20-0.29, respectively. The value of the red (a*) color parameter of all powders was 37.0±2.8, decreasing as increasing the gums concentration. Powders with 3% GA and MD showed the highest amount of anthocyanins: 560.93±10.13 and 543.46±15.68 mg/100 g of powder, respectively. The highest total phenolic compounds content was observed in the powder with the 3% MD:GA blend (4,705.70±140.54 mg/100 g of powder). Powder with 3% MD showed the highest antioxidant capacity (1,766.30±31.15 mg of Trolox equivalents/100 g 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".