Development and Characterization of New Green Propolis Extract Formulations as Promising Candidates to Substitute for Green Propolis Hydroalcoholic Extract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The technologies used to produce the different dosage forms of propolis can selectively affect the original propolis compounds and their biological activities. The most common type of propolis extract is hydroethanolic. However, there is considerable demand for ethanol-free propolis presentations, including stable powder forms. Three propolis extract formulations were developed and investigated for chemical composition and antioxidant and antimicrobial activity: polar propolis fraction (PPF), soluble propolis dry extract (PSDE), and microencapsulated propolis extract (MPE). The different technologies used to produce the extracts affected their physical appearance, chemical profile, and biological activity. PPF was found to contain mainly caffeic and p-Coumaric acid, while PSDE and MPE showed a chemical fingerprint closer to the original green propolis hydroalcoholic extract used. MPE, a fine powder (40% propolis in gum Arabic), was readily dispersible in water, and had less intense flavor, taste, and color than PSDE. PSDE, a fine powder (80% propolis) in maltodextrin as a carrier, was perfectly water-soluble and could be used in liquid formulations; it is transparent and has a strong bitter taste. PPF, a purified solid with large amounts of caffeic and p-Coumaric acids, had the highest antioxidant and antimicrobial activity, and therefore merits further study. PSDE and MPE had antioxidant and antimicrobial properties and could be used in products tailored to specific needs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".