Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectroscopy (GC-MS) Analysis of Hibiscus Sabdariffa L. Calyx Extract and It’s Antimicrobial Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During current investigation, GC-MS analysis was performed to identify various phytochemicals present in various Hibiscus sabdariffa L. calyx extracts e.g. hydroethanolic, ethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts. In hydroethanolic extract 33 phytochemicals were identified from which 2-Hexenedioic acid, 2,4-dichloro-5-oxo- (28.19%), Ethyne, fluoro- (19.11%), Nitrous oxide (10.71%), 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural (8.41%), 1H-Pyrazole-3-carboxylic acid, 2,5-dihydro-5-oxo- (4.67%), Carbon dioxide (4.62%), 3-Pentenoic acid, 3-ethyl-, methyl ester (4.29%), (2-Aziridinylethyl)amine (3.68%) and Ethane, 1-chloro-1-fluoro-(2.75%) were major compounds. In ethanolic extract 53 compounds were found, from which Acetic acid (39.93%), Hexanedioic acid (14.63%), 3-Pentenoic acid, 3-ethyl-, methyl ester (6.34%), Ethyne, fluoro- (5.99%), l-Alanine ethylamide were major compounds,, whereas in ethyl acetate extract total 21 compounds were identified from which Tetracontane (20.32%), n-Hexadecanoic acid (16.32%), Lup-20(29)-en-3-ol, acetate, (3.beta.)- (11.28%), 9,12,15-Octadecatrienoic acid, (Z,Z,Z)- (6.09%) and 9,12-Octadecadienoic acid (Z,Z)-(5.60%) were major compounds. All of the extracts showed antibacterial activities against Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".