ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Optimizing microwave-assisted extraction of ursolic acid from apple pomace using response surface methodology.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. 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.
- From burden to backbone: the regenerative potential of food waste through digital, biological, and technological innovation.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the optimization of microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) to recover ursolic acid (UA) from Hanfu apple pomace using response surface methodology (RSM). The effects of three key variables-extraction time, sample-to-solvent ratio, and ethanol concentration-on UA yield were studied. A Box-Behnken design was employed to model and optimize these variables. The results showed that extraction time had the most significant effect on UA yield, followed by ethanol concentration and sample-to-solvent ratio. The optimal conditions for UA extraction were 118.25 s for extraction time, a 1:30.86 sample-to-solvent ratio, and 82.23% ethanol concentration, with a predicted maximum UA yield of 89.92%. These results were validated with an actual UA yield of 88.87%, confirming the model's predictive reliability. The study highlights the efficiency of MAE for extracting UA, demonstrating its potential as a green extraction method for bioactive compounds from apple pomace. Further purification using XAD-7 resin improved UA purity significantly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.