ArticlePlanta2024
A spectrophotometric analysis of extracted water-soluble phenolic metabolites of lichens.
Article in Planta, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MAIN
conclusionRainwater most probably constitutes a relatively effective solvent for lichen substances in nature which have the potential to provide for human and environmental needs in the future. The aims were (i) to test the hypothesis on the potential solubility of lichen phenolic compounds using rainwater under conditions that partly reflect the natural environment and (ii) to propose new and effective methods for the water extraction of lichen substances. The results of spectrophotometric analyses of total phenolic metabolites in rainwater-based extracts from epigeic and epiphytic lichens, employing the Folin-Ciocalteu (F.-C.) method, are presented. The water solvent was tested at three pH levels: natural, 3, and 9. Extraction methods were undertaken from two perspectives: the partial imitation of natural environmental conditions and the potential use of extraction for economic purposes. From an ecological perspective, room-temperature water extraction ('cold' method) was used for 10-, 60-, and 120-min extraction periods. A variant of water extraction at analogous time intervals was an 'insolation' with a 100W light bulb to simulate the heat energy of the sun. For economic purposes, the water extraction method used the Soxhlet apparatus and its modified version, the 'tea-extraction' method ('hot' ones). The results showed that those extractions without an external heat source were almost ineffective, but insolation over 60- and 120-min periods proved to be more effective. Both tested 'hot' methods also proved to be effective, especially the 'tea-extraction' one. Generally, an increase in the concentration of phenolic compounds in water extracts resulted from an increasing solvent pH. The results show the probable involvement of lichen substances in biogeochemical processes in nature and their promising use for a variety of human necessities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.