Selection of Enzymatic Treatments for Upcycling Lentil Hulls into Ingredients Rich in Oligosaccharides and Free Phenolics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the comprehensive chemical characterization of red lentil hulls obtained from the industrial production of football and split lentils was described. The lentil hulls were rich in dietary fiber (78.43 g/100 g dry weight with an insoluble to soluble fiber ratio of 4:1) and polyphenols (49.3 mg GAE/g dry weight, of which 55% was bound phenolics), which revealed the suitability of this lentil by-product as a source of bioactive compounds with recognized antioxidant and prebiotic properties. The release of oligosaccharides and phenolic compounds was accomplished by enzymatic hydrolysis, microwave treatment and a combination of both technologies. The key role played by the selection of a suitable enzymatic preparation was highlighted to maximize the yield of bioactive compounds and the functional properties of the lentil hull hydrolysates. Out of seven commercial preparations, the one with the most potential for use in a commercial context was Pectinex® Ultra Tropical, which produced the highest yields of oligosaccharides (14 g/100 g lentil hull weight) and free phenolics (45.5 mg GAE/100 g lentil hull weight) and delivered a four-fold increase in terms of the original antioxidant activity. Finally, this enzyme was selected to analyze the effect of a microwave-assisted extraction pretreatment on the yield of enzymatic hydrolysis and the content of free phenolic compounds and oligosaccharides. The integrated microwave and enzymatic hydrolysis method, although it increased the solubilization yield of the lentil hulls (from 25% to 34%), it slightly decreased the content of oligosaccharides and proanthocyanidins and reduced the antioxidant activity. Therefore, the enzymatic hydrolysis treatment alone was more suitable for producing a lentil hull hydrolysate enriched in potential prebiotics and antioxidant compounds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".