MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414602891 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.70572

Comparative Evaluation of Ultrasonic, High Pressure, and Pulsed Electric Field Processing on the Extraction and Storage Stability of Betalains From Red Beet By‐Products

2025· article· en· W4414602891 on OpenAlexaff
Nushrat Yeasmen, Md. Hafizur Rahman Bhuiyan, Yvan Gariépy, Ali R. Taherian, Marie‐Josée Dumont, Hosahalli S. Ramaswamy, Valérie Orsat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's HospitalMcGill UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtraction (chemistry)PigmentSonicationDegradation (telecommunications)Electric fieldNutraceuticalYield (engineering)Antioxidant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the potential of red beet peel (RBP) and red beet stalk (RBS), often underutilized by-products, as rich sources of natural pigments and bioactive compounds. Three non-thermal green extraction methods, namely, high-pressure processing, ultrasound, and pulsed electric field treatment, were evaluated for their efficiency in extracting betalains, total phenolics, flavonoids, and antioxidant activity (AOX). Among these, sonication at 300 W for 10 min proved most effective for both RBP and RBS, yielding the highest concentrations of bioactives. Crucially, this work goes beyond conventional yield assessments by addressing the post-extraction storage stability of these compounds over 120 days under refrigeration. Kinetic modeling revealed that betalains and phenolics degraded following first-order kinetics, whereas AOX increased over time and followed a zero-order model. Sonicated samples demonstrated superior pigment stability, with betaxanthins more stable than betacyanins. This study highlights the importance of integrating degradation kinetics with extraction optimization and offers a novel perspective on the valorization of red beet by-products. The findings are particularly relevant for food and nutraceutical industries seeking to develop shelf-stable, functional plant-based ingredients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207