Microencapsulation of fish oil rich in EPA and DHA using mixture of Arabic gum and Persian gum through spray‐drying technique
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The microencapsulation of fish oil by the spray‐drying technique was conducted using Arabic gum (AG) and Persian gum (PG) as wall materials. AG‐to‐PG ratios, including 29:1, 28:2, 27:3, 26:4, and 25:5 (%w/w), wall‐to‐oil ratios, including 5:1, 4:1, 3:1, 2;1, and 1:1, drying temperature (180, 190, 200, 210, and 220°C), and feed flow rate at high and low states were optimized using response surface methodology. Microencapsulation efficiency (MEE), moisture content (MC), peroxide value (PV), and particle size (PS) were determined. Results showed that the highest MEE and the lowest MC, PV, and PS were attained when 26:4, 4:1, 210°C, and high speed were considered, respectively. At this point, the MEE, MC, PV, and PS were 79.49%, 3.39%, 10.98 meq O 2 /kg oil, and 39.05 µm, respectively. The microstructure of optimum microencapsulated powder exhibited no observable cracks, fissures, or pores while having a typical spherical and smooth surface. Microencapsulation of fish oil using a mixture of AG and PG showed higher oxidative stability associated with high MEE, low MC, and low PV at the final product. Moreover, the optimized emulsion formulation and drying conditions increased the storage stability.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it