Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31975709›Full record

ArticleJournal of food science and technology2020

Comparative evaluation of maceration, microwave and ultrasonic-assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from propolis.

Mircea Oroian, Florina Dranca, Florin Ursachi

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of food science and technology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Unveiling Cytotoxic Bioactive Compounds fromPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Potential Antidiabetic Activity ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mircea OroianFaculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Suceava, Romania.
Florina DrancaFaculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Suceava, Romania.
Florin UrsachiFaculty of Food Engineering, Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Suceava, Romania.
Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare different techniques in order to achieve a high extraction of phenolic compounds from propolis. For this purpose, it was investigated the use of double maceration (24 h at room temperature with continuous agitation at 250 rpm), double microwave treatments (1 min at 140 W) and double ultrasound-assisted extraction (15 min at 20 kHz) using 70% ethanol. The extraction efficiency was measured based on extraction yield, total phenolic content, flavones and flavonol content, and flavanone and dihydroflavonol content. The ultrasonic extraction had an extraction yield higher than microwave extraction and maceration. The yield of the propolis ranged between samples and between the years of propolis harvesting. Of the twelve quantified phenolic compounds,

Indexed as

ExtractionMacerationMicrowavePropolisUltrasound-assisted

Identifiers

PMID31975709
PMCPMC6952488
OpenAlexW2966914482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.