| Literature DB >> 24663114 |
Fangfang Yang1, Wenzhou Xiang2, Xiumei Sun3, Hualian Wu4, Tao Li5, Lijuan Long6.
Abstract
A novel method using ethanol was proposed for extracting lipids from wet microalga Picochlorum sp. at room temperature and pressure. In this study, Central Composite design (CCD) was applied to investigate the optimum conditions of lipid extraction. The results revealed that the solvent to biomass ratio had the largest effect on lipid extraction efficiency, followed by extraction time and temperature. A high lipid extraction yield (33.04% of the dry weight) was obtained under the following extraction conditions: 5 mL solvents per gram of wet biomass for 37 min with gentle stirring at room temperature. The extraction yield was comparable to that obtained by the widely used Bligh-Dyer method. Furthermore, no significant differences in the distribution of lipid classes and fatty acid composition were observed according to different extraction methods. In conclusion, these results indicated that the proposed procedure using ethanol could extract lipids from wet biomass efficiently and had giant potential for lipid extraction at large scale.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24663114 PMCID: PMC3967208 DOI: 10.3390/md12031258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Levels and variables involved in Central Composite design.
| Variables | Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −α | −1 | 0 | 1 | α | |
| Extraction time (min) | 2.5 | 10 | 25 | 40 | 47.5 |
| Extraction temperature (°C) | 20 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 50 |
| the ratio of solvent to biomass (mL/g) | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 |
Results and experimental layout in Central Composite design.
| NO. | Extraction time (min) | Extraction temperature (°C) | Solvent to biomass ratio (mL/g) | Extraction yield (of the dry weight) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Predicted | ||||
| 1 | 10.00 | 25.00 | 2.00 | 22.62 | 22.26 |
| 2 | 40.00 | 25.00 | 2.00 | 25.20 | 25.01 |
| 3 | 10.00 | 45.00 | 2.00 | 22.77 | 22.57 |
| 4 | 40.00 | 45.00 | 2.00 | 26.26 | 25.87 |
| 5 | 10.00 | 25.00 | 6.00 | 30.84 | 31.36 |
| 6 | 40.00 | 25.00 | 6.00 | 32.81 | 33.14 |
| 7 | 10.00 | 45.00 | 6.00 | 30.35 | 30.67 |
| 8 | 40.00 | 45.00 | 6.00 | 32.51 | 33.00 |
| 9 | 2.50 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 27.73 | 27.60 |
| 10 | 47.50 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 31.51 | 31.41 |
| 11 | 25.00 | 20.00 | 4.00 | 31.90 | 31.76 |
| 12 | 25.00 | 50.00 | 4.00 | 31.96 | 31.88 |
| 13 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 1.00 | 17.97 | 18.79 |
| 14 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 7.00 | 32.01 | 30.96 |
| 15 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 31.29 | 30.98 |
| 16 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 30.11 | 30.98 |
| 17 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 30.56 | 30.98 |
| 18 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 31.28 | 30.98 |
| 19 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 31.64 | 30.98 |
| 20 | 25.00 | 35.00 | 4.00 | 30.83 | 30.98 |
Statistical analysis for experimental results of Central Composite design.
| Source | Sum of squares | Df | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 308.98 | 9 | 34.33 | 76.57 | < 0.0001 |
| Linear | |||||
| X1 | 20.16 | 1 | 20.16 | 44.97 | < 0.0001 |
| X2 | 0.022 | 1 | 0.022 | 0.049 | 0.8301 |
| X3 | 205.72 | 1 | 205.72 | 458.83 | < 0.0001 |
| Quadratic | |||||
| X12 | 0.15 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 0.0105 |
| X22 | 0.47 | 1 | 0.47 | 1.05 | 0.1041 |
| X32 | 0.50 | 1 | 0.50 | 1.12 | < 0.0001 |
| Interaction | |||||
| X1X2 | 4.43 | 1 | 4.43 | 9.87 | 0.5714 |
| X1X3 | 1.43 | 1 | 1.43 | 3.20 | 0.3301 |
| X2X3 | 75.84 | 1 | 75.84 | 169.16 | 0.3148 |
| Residual | 4.48 | 10 | 0.45 | ||
| Lack of fit | 2.91 | 5 | 0.58 | 1.85 | 0.2578 |
| Pure error | 1.57 | 5 | 0.31 | ||
| Cor total | 313.47 | 19 |
R2 = 0.9857; RAdj2 = 0.9728; RPred2 = 0.9223.
Figure 1Response surfaces and contour plots showing the mutual effect of (a) extraction temperature and time; (b) the ratio of solvent to biomass and extraction time; (c) the ratio of solvent to biomass and extraction temperature on the lipid extraction yield.
Fatty acid profile comparison between different extraction methods.
| Extraction method | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bligh-Dyer | Ethanol | |
| Lipid extraction yield (% of the dry weight) | 33.18 ± 0.24 | 33.04 ± 0.16 |
| Fatty acid composition (% of FAME) | ||
| Saturated | ||
| C16:0 | 32.49 ± 1.54 | 29.48 ± 3.12 |
| C18:0 | 2.82 ± 0.43 | 6.00 ± 1.89 |
| Unsaturated | ||
| C16:1 | 2.57 ± 0.62 | 2.05 ± 0.38 |
| C16:2 | 5.76 ± 0.16 | 5.65 ± 0.58 |
| C16:3 | 6.62 ± 0.54 | 6.09 ± 0.11 |
| C18:1 | 8.42 ± 0.01 | 9.06 ± 0.28 |
| C18:2 | 22.25 ± 0.21 | 22.47 ± 2.63 |
| C18:3 | 17.37 ± 0.65 | 17.04 ± 0.93 |
| Others | 1.71 ± 0.35 | 2.16 ± 0.40 |
The lipid class comparison between different extraction methods. Values were given as means of total lipids percentage ± standard deviation.
| Lipid class | Extraction method | |
|---|---|---|
| Bligh-Dyer | Ethanol | |
| Neutral lipid | 54.73 ± 1.47 | 53.49 ± 2.11 |
| Glycolipid | 16.46 ± 0.76 | 15.62 ± 0.54 |
| Phospholipid | 28.81 ± 0.71 | 30.89 ± 1.57 |
Figure 2A scheme illustration of lipid extraction procedure from wet microalga using ethanol.