Free fatty acids in sunflower oil soap stock progressed the sophorolipid production by <i>Candida catenulata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sophorolipids are a group of surface‐active glycolipid compounds that can be synthesized by several yeasts, especially the Candida genera. Soap stock is a by‐product of vegetable oils refinery that enriches mono‐unsaturated fatty acids, and its application is interesting as a low‐cost industrial residue in sophorolipid production. In this study, the sophorolipid production was evaluated by Candida catenulate KP324968, using sunflower oil soap stock and glucose as the hydrophobic and hydrophilic carbon sources, respectively. The results indicated the ratio of hydrophobic to a hydrophilic carbon source, initial pH, and type of nitrogen source had significant roles in the performance of the cells. The highest specific biomass growth rate was about 0.0447 ± 0.0013 h −1 and a sophorolipid production rate of 49.96 ± 0.33 mg L −1 h −1 was obtained at a soap stock‐to‐glucose ratio of 1, initial pH of 5.5, and temperature of 30°C. The addition of organic nitrogen sources such as yeast extract and urea obtained a higher sophorolipid production in comparison with ammonium nitrate and potassium nitrate as the mineral nitrogen sources. Usage of both yeast extract and urea increased the sophorolipid production rate by 4.4% and 6.9%, in comparison with separate usage of yeast extract and urea, respectively. The characterization of the sophorolipid confirmed an emulsification index of about 30 ± 2.9% for diesel‐in‐water and 50 ± 3.5% for sunflower oil‐in‐water systems. The critical micelle concentration was determined at 280 mg L −1 . The produced sophorolipid at a concentration of 500 mg L −1 showed an antibacterial capacity about of 95.4 ± 1.1%, and 44.7 ± 0.8% against Bacillus subtilis (Gram‐positive) and Escherichia coli (Gram‐negative) bacteria, respectively.
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".