ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Development of High-Pressure Extraction and Automatic Steam Distillation Methods for
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sample preparation is the most time-consuming part of phytochemical, agricultural chemical, and food science studies and is constantly being improved. This includes the development of modern extraction methods, such as high-pressure extraction and automatic steam distillation. These methods feature high reproducibility, low time consumption, and the ability to run several parallel samples. However, the ideal parameters for processing plant materials using these methods have not been fully explored. These parameters include those that produce the highest yield and those that produce yields comparable to less modern extraction techniques, which would allow for a comparison of data to a wide range of preexisting data obtained from plant materials in different growing locations and climates. As such, this study examined extracts produced by reflux extraction, high-pressure extraction, and traditional and automatic steam distillation for three plants: aronia, holy basil, and juvenile ginger. High-pressure extraction methods were developed to produce extracts similar to those produced by reflux extraction, while automatic distillation methods were developed to produce high essential oil yields. The automatic steam distillation yields were 55.81 ± 1.97 mg/g of holy basil, 61.52 ± 0.61 mg/g of ginger, and 45.79 ± 1.38 mg/g of aronia. The high-pressure extraction yields were 11.09 ± 1.46 mg GAE/g of holy basil, 154.50 ± 17.10 mg of anthocyanins/mL of aronia, 6.60 ± 0.55 mg GAE/g of ginger, and 3.27 ± 0.25 mg GAE/g of ginger. These were compared to reflux yields of 32.71 ± 5.22 mg GAE/g of holy basil, 253.00 ± 39.56 mg of anthocyanin/mL of aronia, and 3.34 ± 2.07 mg GAE/g of ginger.
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.