Macroporous adsorption resins (MARs) are widely used for preparative-scale flavonoid purification, yet rational resin selection remains difficult because flavonoids differ substantially in hydrophobicity, hydrogen-bonding capacity, molecular size, and planarity. This review reorganizes the available literature into a structure-guided and data-supported selection aid rather than a fully predictive model. A systematic search of Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and CNKI (January 2000 to February 2026) identified 55 studies for qualitative synthesis. Because many reports describe total flavonoids or mixed extracts rather than explicit single-compound adsorption data, only the subset with sufficiently clear compound-level or narrowly interpretable adsorption information was used for cautious comparative interpretation. Across the compiled evidence, non-polar resins generally favored less polar aglycones and methoxylated flavonoids, whereas medium-polar and polar resins more often performed well for glycosylated or more hydrophilic targets. On this basis, flavonoids were organized into four operational classes linked to recommended resin polarity, indicative adsorption capacity ranges, and typical ethanol-elution windows. A retrospective comparison with independent literature cases suggests practical value for initial resin prioritization, but the framework should be interpreted primarily as a heuristic, trend-based guide rather than as a strictly predictive model, because mixed-matrix effects, pore accessibility, and competitive adsorption can override simple polarity matching. A generalized operating window for adsorption and desorption is also summarized. Overall, this review provides a mechanism-informed starting point for resin screening while making explicit the conditions under which case-specific experiments remain necessary.

This study comparatively evaluated how solvent polarity affects the chemical antioxidant capacity, preliminary hyaluronidase inhibition, and supportive chemical features of Buddleja officinalis Maxim. Six extracts prepared with petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, n-butanol, water, 60% ethanol, and 95% ethanol were assessed using DPPH·, ABTS⁺·, ferric reducing power, and hyaluronidase inhibition assays, together with total flavonoid and linarin determinations. The 60% ethanol extract showed the strongest overall radical-scavenging activity, reaching 95% DPPH· scavenging and 95% ABTS⁺· scavenging at 2 mg/mL, whereas the 95% ethanol extract showed the highest ferric reducing power under the tested conditions. Total flavonoid and linarin contents were highest in the ethanol-rich fractions, especially the 95% ethanol and 60% ethanol extracts. In the hyaluronidase assay, both the petroleum ether and 60% ethanol extracts showed relatively strong inhibition at 2.5 mg/mL, with inhibition rates of 74% and 68%, respectively, suggesting that different chemical classes may contribute to this endpoint. Supportive ¹H NMR and UPLC–QTOF–MS data indicated clear polarity-dependent compositional differences; the 60% ethanol extract was enriched in phenylethanoid glycosides and flavonoid glycosides, whereas the petroleum ether extract showed predominantly lipophilic features. Overall, medium-polarity phenolic-rich fractions were more closely associated with chemical antioxidant capacity, while hyaluronidase inhibition may involve contributions from both non-polar and medium-polarity constituents. The present extract-level comparison provides a useful basis for fraction selection, extract standardization, and follow-up activity-guided studies.

Water-vapor removal from compressed air is governed by the product pressure dew point (PDP), dynamic bed utilization, hydraulic loss, regeneration demand, and cyclic reliability, yet activated-alumina studies are often interpreted from powder Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) area or equilibrium uptake alone. This critical narrative review evaluates where evidence can and cannot be transferred across material, formed-particle, packed-bed, cycle, and field scales. It distinguishes equilibrium capacity, static test capacity, dynamic breakthrough capacity, and usable cycle capacity; conditionally compares desiccants and regeneration modes; and links PDP-defined breakthrough, mass-transfer-zone (MTZ)/length-of-unused-bed (LUB) measures, non-spherical-particle pressure drop, thermal waves, and regeneration endpoints. The available evidence supports several directional conclusions but not universal design values: alkali modification can increase uptake despite lower surface area; forming and binder chemistry alter accessible pores and strength; wall effects and particle geometry require measured hydrodynamic validation; and reported regeneration savings of approximately 27–40% are architecture-specific relative results rather than matched absolute energy benchmarks. A baseline-normalized diagnostic framework separates reversible regeneration faults and feed contamination from material aging and particle/bed degradation. The review identifies the central evidence gap as the absence of matched datasets reporting formed-body properties, adiabatic breakthrough, segmented pressure drop, regeneration energy, and long-cycle failure for the same material. It concludes with a standards-coverage map, a transparent screening sensitivity analysis, and a prioritized validation agenda.