| Literature DB >> 23528996 |
Lourdes Casas Cardoso1, Casimiro Mantell Serrano, Edwin Torrez Quintero, Clara Pereyra López, Ruder Medrano Antezana, Enrique J Martínez de la Ossa.
Abstract
In the work described here, two techniques for the recovery of anthocyanins from potato peel were studied and compared. One of the techniques employed was supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) with pure CO2 or with CO2 and ethanol as cosolvent and the other technique was pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), where the solvent used was ethanol in water acidified to pH 2.6. The effects of pressure and temperature were studied and the anthocyanin contents obtained were statistically analyzed. In SFE the use of low pressure (100 bar) and high temperature (65 °C) was desirable for the anthocyanin extraction. With PLE the anthocyanin contents are increased considerably, and the best yields were obtained at 100 bar and 80 °C. This result is in correspondence with antioxidant activity index values (1.66) obtained in a DPPH antioxidant activity assay. In the extracts obtained with PLE the phenolic compounds were also determined, but the main compounds presented in the extract are anthocyanins.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23528996 PMCID: PMC6270048 DOI: 10.3390/molecules18033137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Extraction yield (%) of extracts obtained by SFE at different pressures and temperatures.
Figure 2Anthocyanin concentration of extracts obtained by SFE at different pressures and temperatures.
ANOVA for the effect of pressure (P) and temperature (T) on anthocyanin contents.
| Source | SS | DF | MS | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | 0.0153125 | 1 | 0.0153125 | 23.71 | 0.0165 |
| T | 0.446512 | 1 | 0.446512 | 691.37 | 0.0001 |
| PT | 0.0861125 | 1 | 0.0861125 | 133.34 | 0.0014 |
| Blok | 0.0003125 | 1 | 0.0003125 | 0.48 | 0.5367 |
| Total error | 0.0019375 | 3 | 0.000645833 | ||
| Total (corr.) | 0.550188 | 7 |
Figure 3Pareto diagram and response surface for the SFE of anthocyanins with respect to extraction temperatures and pressures.
Figure 4Extraction yield of extracts obtained by PLE at different pressures and temperatures.
Figure 5Anthocyanin and phenolic concentration of extracts obtained by PLE at different pressures and temperatures.
ANOVA for the effect of pressure (P) and temperature (T) on anthocyanin contents.
| Source | SS | DF | MS | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | 0.154133 | 1 | 0.154133 | 8,61 | 0.0261 |
| T | 0.292613 | 1 | 0.292613 | 16,35 | 0.0068 |
| PT | 0.0091125 | 1 | 0.0091125 | 0,51 | 0.5023 |
| T2 | 0.0570375 | 1 | 0.0570375 | 3.19 | 0.1245 |
| Blok | 0.0003 | 1 | 0.0003 | 0.02 | 0.9012 |
| Total error | 0.107404 | 6 | 0.0179007 | ||
| Total (corr.) | 0.6206 | 11 |
Figure 6Pareto diagram and response surface for the PLE of anthocyanins with respect to extraction temperatures and pressures.
Antioxidant activity expressed as AAI of extracts obtained by PLE under different extraction conditions.
| Pressure | 60 °C | 80 °C | 100 °C |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 bar | 0.91 | 1.66 | 0.72 |
| 200 bar | 1.05 | 1.53 | 0.80 |
Physical values in the experimental design.
| Extraction method | Experimental variable | Factor | Levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFE | Pressure | P | 100 bar | 400 bar | ||
| Temperatue | T | 35 °C | 65 °C | |||
| PLE | Pressure | P | 100 bar | 200 bar | ||
| Temperatue | T | 60 °C | 80°C | 100 °C | ||