Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 314

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Revisiting the Polar Paradox Theory: A Critical Overview

Shahidi, Fereidoon, Zhong, Ying·2011·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
DOI 10.1021/jf104750m
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The polar paradox is a theory that illustrates the paradoxical behavior of antioxidants in different media and rationalizes the fact that polar antioxidants are more effective in less polar media, such as bulk oils, while nonpolar antioxidants are more effective in relatively more polar media, such as oil-in-water emulsions or liposomes. For 2 decades since it was proposed, the theory has been used to interpret results in antioxidant efficiency studies. However, more recently, new evidence from more comprehensive assessments has emerged that contradicts the polar paradox theory, hence necessitating its re-evaluation. More complex factors in addition to polarity must be taken into account to explain antioxidant efficacy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jf104750m

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shahidi, F., & Zhong, Y.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2011-03-04
Volume
59
Issue
8
Pages
3499-3504
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
DOI
10.1021/jf104750m
OpenAlex
W2330140924
Cited by
314
References
0
FWCI
12.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.