MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414266387 · doi:10.1155/jfbc/9746960

Eco‐Friendly Extraction and Characterization of Terpenoids From Plants as Functional Food Ingredients: A Review

2025· review· en· W4414266387 on OpenAlexafffund
Ameen Hammed, Nushrat Yeasmen, Valérie Orsat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Biochemistry · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTerpenoidFunctional foodFood industryHealth foodHuman healthExtraction (chemistry)Characterization (materials science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Terpenoids have emerged as essential ingredients in the functional food industry due to their diverse bioactivities and potential health benefits. This review examines recent advances in green extraction techniques and characterization methods for terpenoids from plants, with further focus on their applications as functional food ingredients. The study explores novel extraction methods, including supercritical fluid, ultrasound‐assisted, high‐pressure, and microwave‐assisted extraction, detailing their underlying extraction mechanisms, operating conditions, and compatibility for extracting terpenoids. It also evaluates various qualitative and quantitative characterization techniques, including chromatographic, spectroscopic, and computational methods. Additionally, the review discusses the current and potential applications of terpenoids in functional foods, highlighting their roles in food preservation, flavoring, coloring, packaging, and health promotion. By synthesizing recent research, this work offers insights into the efficient extraction, accurate characterization, and innovative utilization of terpenoids in the functional food sector.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food BiochemistrySame topicPlant biochemistry and biosynthesisFrench-language works237,207