| Literature DB >> 22408458 |
Wen-Juan Pan1, Ai-Mei Liao1,2, Jian-Guo Zhang1, Zeng Dong1, Zhao-Jun Wei1.
Abstract
Supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO(2)) extraction of oil from oak silkworm pupae was performed in the present research. Response surface methodology (RSM) was applied to optimize the parameters of SC-CO(2) extraction, including extraction pressure, temperature, time and CO(2) flow rate on the yield of oak silkworm pupal oil (OSPO). The optimal extraction condition for oil yield within the experimental range of the variables researched was at 28.03 MPa, 1.83 h, 35.31 °C and 20.26 L/h as flow rate of CO(2). Under this condition, the oil yield was predicted to be 26.18%. The oak silkworm pupal oil contains eight fatty acids, and is rich in unsaturated fatty acids and α-linolenic acid (ALA), accounting for 77.29% and 34.27% in the total oil respectively.Entities:
Keywords: oak silkworm pupal oil; response surface methodology; supercritical carbon dioxide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22408458 PMCID: PMC3292027 DOI: 10.3390/ijms13022354
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Uncoded and coded levels of independent variables used in the RSM design.
| Independent Variables | Symbols | Variable Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Pressure (MPa) | X1 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 35 |
| Temperature (°C) | X2 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 40 | 45 |
| Extraction time (h) | X3 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 2.5 |
| CO2 flow rate (L/h) | X4 | 11 | 16 | 21 | 26 | 31 |
Central composite rotatable design for the optimization of Supercritical Fluid Extractor (SFE) oak silkworm pupal oil and the values of observed responses.
| Coded Variable | Process Variable | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design Point | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | Pressure (MPa) | Temperature (°C) | Time (h) | CO2 Flow Rate (L/h) | Oil Yield (Y, %) |
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 20 | 30 | 1.0 | 16 | 22.38 ± 0.20 |
| 2 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 20 | 30 | 1.0 | 26 | 24.34 ± 0.33 |
| 3 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 30 | 2.0 | 16 | 23.73 ± 0.18 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 30 | 2.0 | 26 | 24.25 ± 0.45 |
| 5 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 20 | 40 | 1.0 | 16 | 24.19 ± 0.26 |
| 6 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 20 | 40 | 1.0 | 26 | 24.00 ± 0.34 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 20 | 40 | 2.0 | 16 | 24.75 ± 0.15 |
| 8 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 40 | 2.0 | 26 | 24.62 ± 0.38 |
| 9 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 30 | 30 | 1.0 | 16 | 24.65 ± 0.22 |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 30 | 30 | 1.0 | 26 | 24.98 ± 0.51 |
| 11 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 30 | 30 | 2.0 | 16 | 25.09 ± 0.16 |
| 12 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 30 | 2.0 | 26 | 26.04 ± 0.32 |
| 13 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 30 | 40 | 1.0 | 16 | 24.54 ± 0.21 |
| 14 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 30 | 40 | 1.0 | 26 | 23.33 ± 0.43 |
| 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 30 | 40 | 2.0 | 16 | 25.87 ± 0.18 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 40 | 2.0 | 26 | 24.67 ± 0.15 |
| 17 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 23.01 ± 0.20 |
| 18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 24.98 ± 0.32 |
| 19 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 | 1.5 | 21 | 22.68 ± 0.66 |
| 20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 45 | 1.5 | 21 | 24.37 ± 0.19 |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 0.5 | 21 | 23.36 ± 0.48 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 2.5 | 21 | 25.09 ± 0.13 |
| 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 11 | 24.58 ± 0.27 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 31 | 25.68 ± 0.37 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 26.00 ± 0.10 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 25.98 ± 0.17 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 25.19 ± 0.15 |
| 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 26.09 ± 0.09 |
| 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 26.01 ± 0.20 |
| 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 26.18 ± 0.12 |
| 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 35 | 1.5 | 21 | 25.95 ± 0.17 |
ANOVA table for the fitted quadratic polynomial model of SFE extraction conditions.
| Source | Degrees of Freedom | Sum of Square | Mean Square | Probability (p) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 14 | 30.9368 | 2.2098 | 12.7669 | 0.0001 |
| Lack of fit | 10 | 2.1212 | 0.2121 | 1.9636 | 0.2112 |
| Pure error | 6 | 0.6482 | 0.1080 | ||
| Cor total | 30 | 33.7062 |
R2 = 0.9178; Adj. R2 = 0.8459.
Regression coefficient of polynomial function of response surface of oil yield.
| Source | Degrees of Freedom | Sum of Square | Mean Square | F-value | Probability (p) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | 1 | 4.9051 | 4.9051 | 28.3391 | 0.0001 |
| X2 | 1 | 0.6305 | 0.6305 | 3.6427 | 0.07442 |
| X3 | 1 | 4.2252 | 4.2252 | 24.4110 | 0.000148 |
| X4 | 1 | 0.4347 | 0.4347 | 2.51149 | 0.1326 |
| X1 × X1 | 1 | 5.5081 | 5.5081 | 31.8228 | 0.0001 |
| X1 × X2 | 1 | 1.6965 | 1.6965 | 9.8015 | 0.006451 |
| X1 × X3 | 1 | 0.1871 | 0.1871 | 1.0807 | 0.3140 |
| X1 × X4 | 1 | 0.6765 | 0.6765 | 3.9085 | 0.06554 |
| X2 × X2 | 1 | 8.8522 | 8.8522 | 51.1432 | 0.0001 |
| X2 × X3 | 1 | 0.07426 | 0.07426 | 0.4290 | 0.5218 |
| X2 × X4 | 1 | 2.6325 | 2.6325 | 15.2092 | 0.001274 |
| X3 × X3 | 1 | 4.1594 | 4.1594 | 24.0306 | 0.00016 |
| X3 × X4 | 1 | 0.03516 | 0.03516 | 0.2031 | 0.6583 |
| X4 × X4 | 1 | 0.6882 | 0.6882 | 3.9761 | 0.06348 |
Figure 1Response surface plots showing the effects of different factors on oil yield. X1: Pressure (MPa); X2: Temperature (°C); X3: Extraction time (h); X4: CO2 flow rate (L/h); Y: Oil yield (%).
Figure 2GC chromatogram of FAME of two kind of silkworm pupal oil. A: the Oak silkworm pupal oil; B: the mulberry silkworm pupal oil.
Fatty acid composition of two kinds of silkworm pupae oil.
| Composition | Relative Content/% | |
|---|---|---|
| Oak Silkworm Pupal Oil | Mulberry Silkworm Pupal Oil | |
| Palmitic acid | 19.92 | 22.77 |
| Palmitoleic acid | 4.77 | 0.60 |
| Heptadecanoic acid | 0.60 | ND |
| Stearic acid | 1.99 | 6.69 |
| Oleic acid | 30.97 | 26.01 |
| Linoleic acid | 6.89 | 5.90 |
| α-linolenic acid | 34.27 | 38.02 |
| 0( | 0.39 | ND |
ND: Not detected.