| Literature DB >> 23322066 |
Mandana Bimakr1, Russly Abdul Rahman, Farah Saleena Taip, Noranizan Mohd Adzahan, Md Zaidul Islam Sarker, Ali Ganjloo.
Abstract
In the present study, supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO(2)) extraction of seed oil from winter melon (Benincasa hispida) was investigated. The effects of process variables namely pressure (150-300 bar), temperature (40-50 °C) and dynamic extraction time (60-120 min) on crude extraction yield (CEY) were studied through response surface methodology (RSM). The SC-CO(2) extraction process was modified using ethanol (99.9%) as co-solvent. Perturbation plot revealed the significant effect of all process variables on the CEY. A central composite design (CCD) was used to optimize the process conditions to achieve maximum CEY. The optimum conditions were 244 bar pressure, 46 °C temperature and 97 min dynamic extraction time. Under these optimal conditions, the CEY was predicted to be 176.30 mg-extract/g-dried sample. The validation experiment results agreed with the predicted value. The antioxidant activity and fatty acid composition of crude oil obtained under optimized conditions were determined and compared with published results using Soxhlet extraction (SE) and ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE). It was found that the antioxidant activity of the extract obtained by SC-CO(2) extraction was strongly higher than those obtained by SE and UAE. Identification of fatty acid composition using gas chromatography (GC) showed that all the extracts were rich in unsaturated fatty acids with the most being linoleic acid. In contrast, the amount of saturated fatty acids extracted by SE was higher than that extracted under optimized SC-CO(2) extraction conditions.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23322066 PMCID: PMC6270624 DOI: 10.3390/molecules18010997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Perturbation graph showing the effect of process variables on crude extract yield.
Experimental design (coded and uncoded levels) and results of response variable.
| Run | Block | Process variables | CEY (mg-extract/g-dried sample) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressure (bar) | Temperature (°C) | Dynamic extraction time (min) | |||
| 1 | 1 | 271 (+1) | 48 (+1) | 72 (−1) | 159.24 |
| 2 | 1 | 271 (+1) | 48 (+1) | 108 (+1) | 161.88 |
| 3 (Cp) | 1 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 172.43 |
| 4 (Cp) | 1 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 172.85 |
| 5 | 1 | 179 (-1) | 48 (+1) | 72 (−1) | 132.73 |
| 6 | 1 | 179 (-1) | 42(−1) | 108 (+1) | 128.18 |
| 7 (Cp) | 1 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 173.22 |
| 8 | 1 | 179 (-1) | 42 (−1) | 72 (−1) | 125.62 |
| 9 | 1 | 179 (-1) | 48 (+1) | 108 (+1) | 140.00 |
| 10 (Cp) | 1 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 171.87 |
| 11 | 1 | 271 (+1) | 42 (−1) | 72 (−1) | 161.12 |
| 12 | 1 | 271 (+1) | 42 (−1) | 108 (+1) | 161.20 |
| 13 | 2 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 120 (+1.63) | 173.10 |
| 14 (Cp) | 2 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 173.33 |
| 15 | 2 | 225 (0) | 50 (+1.63) | 90 (0) | 137.50 |
| 16 (Cp) | 2 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 173.87 |
| 17 | 2 | 150 (−1.63) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 119.11 |
| 18 | 2 | 225 (0) | 40 (−1.63) | 90 (0) | 127.00 |
| 19 | 2 | 300 (+1.63) | 45 (0) | 90 (0) | 168.53 |
| 20 | 2 | 225 (0) | 45 (0) | 60 (−1.63) | 166.70 |
(Cp), Centre point.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and coefficients of the final reduced regression equation.
| Source | df a | CEY(mg-extract/g-dried sample) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Sum of squares | |||
| Model | 9 | 172.88 | 7,392.83 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 1 | 14.82 | 2,928.80 | <0.0001 |
| X2 | 1 | 2.62 | 91.23 | <0.0001 |
| X3 | 1 | 1.73 | 39.68 | 0.0001 |
| X12 | 1 | −10.77 | 1,532.34 | <0.0001 |
| X22 | 1 | −15.11 | 3,015.37 | <0.0001 |
| X32 | 1 | −0.99 | 12.99 | 0.0052 |
| X1X2 | 1 | −2.52 | 50.65 | <0.0001 |
| X1X3 | 1 | −0.89 | 6.32 | 0.0307 |
| X2X3 | 1 | 0.91 | 6.61 | 0.0280 |
| Residual | 9 | 8.68 | ||
| Lack of fit | 5 | 7.53 | 0.0673 | |
| Pure error | 4 | 1.15 | ||
| Total | 19 | 7,401.60 | ||
| R2 | 0.998 | |||
| Adjusted- R2 | 0.997 | |||
| C.V.% | 0.630 | |||
| E (%) | 0.350 | |||
a Degree of freedom.
Figure 2Plot of predicted crude extraction yield related with experimental values.
Figure 3Response surface plots for CEY (mg-extract/g-dried sample) as a function of: (a) pressure (bar) and temperature (°C), (b) pressure (bar) and dynamic extraction time (min), (c) temperature (°C) and dynamic extraction time (min).
Figure 4Antioxidant activity of extract determined by (a) DPPH˙ radical scavenging assay (b) ABTS˙ radical scavenging assay (standard deviation bars are smaller than the symbol size).
Comparison between different extraction methods.
| Extraction Mode | CEY (mg-extract/g-dried sample) | Antioxidant activity | Fatty acid composition * | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %DPPHsc | %ABTSsc | C14:00 a | C16:00 b | C16:01 c | C18:00 d | C18:01 e | C18:02 f | C18:03 g | ΣSFA h | ΣUFA i | ||
| CSE (EtOH, 99.5%) | 250.00 ± 1.30 | 28.70 ± 0.70 | 27.00 ± 0.90 | 1.60 ± 0.11 | 15.30 ± 0.15 | 0.68 ± 0.27 | 7.40 ± 0.18 | 14.10 ± 0.15 | 60.60 ± 0.13 | - | 24.30 | 75.38 |
| UAE (EtOH, 99.5%) | 108.62 ± 0.78 | 35.84 ± 0.42 | 43.10 ± 0.63 | 1.30 ± 0.11 | 10.80 ± 0.25 | 0.80 ± 0.33 | 5.70 ± 0.14 | 14.40 ± 0.22 | 66.20 ± 0.10 | 0.60 ± 0.12 | 17.80 | 82.00 |
| SCE (SC-CO2+EtOH) | 175.60 ± 0.33 | 53.20 ± 0.54 | 62.22 ± 0.25 | 1.07 ± 0.18 | 9.83 ± 0.33 | 0.95 ± 0.13 | 5.07 ± 0.21 | 14.73 ± 0.10 | 67.17 ± 0.15 | 0.68 ± 0.12 | 15.97 | 83.53 |
* The results of fatty acids are expressed as % of total fatty acids; a Myristic acid; b Palmitic acid; c Palmitoleic acid; d Stearic acid; e Oleic acid; f Linoleic acid; g α-linolenic acid; h Total saturated fatty acid; i Total unsaturated fatty acid.
Figure 5Scheme of experimental set-up for supercritical fluid extractor.