MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405781778 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.4c09065

Development of a Specific Fluorescence Post-column Derivatization Method Coupled with Ion-Pair Chromatography for Phytate Analysis in Food

2024· article· en· W4405781778 on OpenAlexaff
Lorène Akissoé, Pascale Sautot, Christian Mertz, Gilles Morel, Maxime C. Bohin, Sylvie Avallone, Adrien Servent

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytase and its Applications
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsDerivatizationChromatographyChemistryHigh-performance liquid chromatographyDetection limitExtraction (chemistry)Phytic acidFluorescenceIon chromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phytate in plants (inositol phosphates, InsPs) affects mineral bioavailability. However, methods for their quantification may lead to variable results, and some are nonspecific (spectrophotometric techniques). In this study, ion-pair high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was coupled with post-column derivatization to allow fluorescence detection (FLD, λ excitation 324/λ emission 364 nm) of InsPs. The fluorescence derivatization reaction, the main input of this study, was based on a ternary complex among phytate, iron(III), and 1,10-phenanthroline. Phytic acid (InsP 6 ) and three other InsPs (InsP 3–5 ) were analyzed in peanuts and soybean products after extraction in HCl 0.66 M, followed by purification on strong anion exchange cartridges. The novel method, named IP-HPLC–FLD, selectively separated InsP 3–6 with linear ranges between 600 and 2000 mg 100 g –1 ( R 2 > 0.99). The limits of detection and quantification were between 120–180 and 340–540 mg 100 g –1, respectively. As the relative standard deviations were under 10%, the IP-HPLC–FLD method is suitable for phytate analysis.

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 score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicPhytase and its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207