Cited by 456Agricultural and Biological ResearchIonic liquids properties and applicationsPhase Equilibria and Thermodynamics

Conventional versus green extraction techniques — a comparative perspective

Picot-Allain, Carene, Mahomoodally, Mohamad Fawzi, Ak, Gunes, Zengin, Gokhan·2021·Current Opinion in Food Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cofs.2021.02.009

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Picot-Allain, C., Mahomoodally, M. F., Ak, G., & Zengin, G.
Affiliations
University of Mauritius (MU)
Venue
Current Opinion in Food Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
40
Pages
144-156
ISSN
2214-7993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3129679051
Cited by
456
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 93 · 2025: 141 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 17
FWCI
5.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Current Opinion in Food Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Biological Research
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Catalysis › Ionic liquids properties and applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Phase Equilibria and Thermodynamics
Keywords
green extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, accelerated solvent extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, ultrasound-assisted extraction, deep eutectic solvents, ionic liquids, green solvents, food industry, extraction costs, health and safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review