MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313260668 · doi:10.3390/molecules28010207

Valorization of Wild-Type Cannabis indica by Supercritical CO2 Extraction and Insights into the Utilization of Raffinate Biomass

2022· article· en· W4313260668 on OpenAlexaff
Falguni Pattnaik, Nidhi Hans, Biswa R. Patra, Sonil Nanda, Vivek Kumar, S.N. Naik, Ajay K. Dalai

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecules · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabidiolExtraction (chemistry)RaffinateCannabisChemistryChromatographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supercritical CO2 extraction (SCCO2) extraction of cannabis oil from Indian cannabis (Cannabis indica) leaves was optimized through a central composite design using CO2 pressure (150–250 bar), temperature (30–50 °C) and time (1–2 h). From the regression model, the optimal CO2 pressure, extraction temperature and time were 250 bar, 43 °C and 1.7 h, respectively resulting in the experimental yield of 4.9 wt% of cannabis oil via SCCO2 extraction. The extract contained cannabidiol, tetrahydrocannabivarin, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol as well as two terpenoids such as cis-caryophyllene and α-humulene. Besides SCCO2 extraction of cannabis oil, the raffinate biomass was utilized to extract polyphenols using water as the extraction medium. Cannabis oil and water extractive were investigated for their half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values, which were found to be 1.3 and 0.6 mg/mL, respectively. This is comparable to the commercially available antioxidant such as butylated hydroxytoluene with an IC50 value of 0.5 mg/mL. This work on SCCO2 extraction of cannabinoids and other valuable bioactive compounds provides an environmentally sustainable technique to valorize cannabis leaves.

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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMoleculesSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207