The Physicochemical Characterization and In Vitro Digestibility of Maple Sugar Sand and Downgraded Maple Syrups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The maple syrup industry generates substandard syrups and sugar sand as by-products, which are underused. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the physicochemical composition of these products to assess their potential for valorization. Using HPLC analysis, we measured sugar and organic acid content as well as total polyphenol content using the Folin-Ciocalteu method. Additionally, we evaluated the in vitro digestibility using the TIM-1 model. We showed that the composition of ropy and buddy downgraded syrups is comparable to that of standard maple syrup, whereas sugar sand's composition is highly variable, with carbohydrate content ranging from 5.01 mg/g to 652.89 mg/g and polyphenol content ranging from 11.30 µg/g to 120.95 µg/g. In vitro bioaccessibility reached 70% of total sugars for all by-products. Organic acid bioaccessibility from sugar sand and syrup reached 76% and 109% relative to standard maple syrup, respectively. Polyphenol bioaccessibility exceeded 100% during digestion. This can be attributed to favorable extraction conditions, the breakdown of complex polyphenol forms and the food matrix. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that sugar sand and downgraded maple syrups exhibit digestibility comparable to that of standard maple syrup. Consequently, they hold potential as a source of polyphenols, sugar or organic acids for applications such as industrial fermentation or livestock feeds.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".