| Literature DB >> 25470598 |
Xingchu Gong1, Ying Zhang1, Jianyang Pan1, Haibin Qu1.
Abstract
A solvent recycling reflux extraction process for Panax notoginseng was optimized using a design space approach to improve the batch-to-batch consistency of the extract. Saponin yields, total saponin purity, and pigment yield were defined as the process critical quality attributes (CQAs). Ethanol content, extraction time, and the ratio of the recycling ethanol flow rate and initial solvent volume in the extraction tank (RES) were identified as the critical process parameters (CPPs) via quantitative risk assessment. Box-Behnken design experiments were performed. Quadratic models between CPPs and process CQAs were developed, with determination coefficients higher than 0.88. As the ethanol concentration decreases, saponin yields first increase and then decrease. A longer extraction time leads to higher yields of the ginsenosides Rb1 and Rd. The total saponin purity increases as the ethanol concentration increases. The pigment yield increases as the ethanol concentration decreases or extraction time increases. The design space was calculated using a Monte-Carlo simulation method with an acceptable probability of 0.90. Normal operation ranges to attain process CQA criteria with a probability of more than 0.914 are recommended as follows: ethanol content of 79-82%, extraction time of 6.1-7.1 h, and RES of 0.039-0.040 min-1. Most of the results of the verification experiments agreed well with the predictions. The verification experiment results showed that the selection of proper operating ethanol content, extraction time, and RES within the design space can ensure that the CQA criteria are met.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25470598 PMCID: PMC4255001 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114300
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Schematic chart of the experimental setup.
Coded and uncoded values of factors.
| Parameters | Symbols | Coded values | ||
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Ethanol concentration (v/v, %) | X1 | 70 | 80 | 90 |
| Extraction time (h) | X2 | 4 | 7 | 10 |
| RES (min−1) | X3 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.04 |
Box-Behnken design experiments and results.
| Run order | X1 | X2 | X3 | Saponin yield(mg/g | TSP (%) | Pigment yield (mg/g | |||
| R1 | Rg1 | Rb1 | Rd | ||||||
| 1 | 70 | 7 | 0.04 | 13.56 | 43.96 | 45.06 | 10.16 | 25.34 | 2.64 |
| 2 | 70 | 7 | 0 | 11.39 | 42.01 | 41.10 | 8.65 | 29.89 | 0.39 |
| 3 | 90 | 7 | 0 | 10.14 | 33.17 | 30.42 | 6.84 | 29.78 | 0.14 |
| 4 | 70 | 10 | 0.02 | 11.19 | 38.24 | 42.69 | 9.24 | 23.11 | 7.87 |
| 5 | 80 | 4 | 0 | 11.04 | 38.18 | 35.93 | 7.99 | 28.96 | 0.23 |
| 6 | 80 | 4 | 0.04 | 12.39 | 44.03 | 43.04 | 9.53 | 27.29 | 1.81 |
| 7 | 80 | 7 | 0.02 | 13.26 | 46.34 | 44.41 | 9.54 | 27.34 | 2.92 |
| 8 | 80 | 7 | 0.02 | 13.27 | 45.60 | 45.39 | 9.40 | 27.23 | 2.88 |
| 9 | 80 | 10 | 0.04 | 14.91 | 48.14 | 50.71 | 10.45 | 27.25 | 3.68 |
| 10 | 90 | 4 | 0.02 | 10.81 | 35.58 | 33.42 | 7.65 | 25.68 | 0.75 |
| 11 | 90 | 10 | 0.02 | 11.15 | 37.46 | 35.17 | 7.72 | 25.89 | 3.02 |
| 12 | 80 | 10 | 0 | 11.47 | 43.46 | 43.09 | 9.53 | 32.55 | 0.35 |
| 13 | 80 | 7 | 0.02 | 14.40 | 47.00 | 47.75 | 9.67 | 27.61 | 3.41 |
| 14 | 90 | 7 | 0.04 | 10.82 | 37.79 | 36.27 | 8.02 | 32.03 | 1.13 |
| 15 | 70 | 4 | 0.02 | 11.80 | 42.99 | 43.52 | 8.97 | 25.11 | 4.86 |
| 16 | 80 | 7 | 0.02 | 13.77 | 46.11 | 47.36 | 9.28 | 27.32 | 3.11 |
Conditions and results of verification experiments.
| Verification experiment No. | V1 | V2 | |
| Ethanol concentration (%) | 80 | 90 | |
| Extraction time (h) | 7 | 4 | |
| RES (min−1) | 0.04 | 0.04 | |
| Probability | 0.97 | 0 | |
| Within design space | Yes | No | |
| Notoginsenoside R1 yield (mg/g | EV | 14.04±0.20 | 11.01±0.32 |
| PV | 14.14 | 9.60 | |
| RD (%) | 0.73 | 12.76 | |
| Ginsenoside Rg1 yield (mg/g | EV | 46.45±0.77 | 36.54±1.16 |
| PV | 47.33 | 35.22 | |
| RD (%) | 1.89 | 3.61 | |
| Ginsenoside Rb1 yield(mg/g | EV | 47.23±0.17 | 33.77±0.82 |
| PV | 47.53 | 33.10 | |
| RD (%) | 0.64 | 1.98 | |
| Ginsenoside Rd yield(mg/g | EV | 9.94±0.17 | 7.53±0.14 |
| PV | 10.08 | 7.92 | |
| RD (%) | 1.40 | 5.22 | |
| TSP (%) | EV | 28.68±0.26 | 30.57±0.53 |
| PV | 29.19 | 29.84 | |
| RD (%) | 1.79 | 2.40 | |
| Pigment yield(mg/g | EV | 1.85±0.20 | 0.57±0.05 |
| PV | 2.12 | 0.62 | |
| RD (%) | 14.57 | 8.40 |
EV: Experimental value
PV: Predicted value.
Figure 2Chromatogram of Panax notoginseng extract.
Upper and lower limits of the desirable ranges of CQAs.
| CQA | Desirable Range | |
| Low | High | |
| R1 yield (mg/g | 13.0 | 15.0 |
| Rg1 yield (mg/g | 42.0 | 48.0 |
| Rb1 yield (mg/g | 43.0 | 51.0 |
| Rd yield (mg/g | 9.0 | 11.0 |
| TSP (%) | 27.0 | 33.0 |
| Pigment yield (equivalent of tartrazine, mg/g | 0.15 | 2.98 |
Figure 3Ishikawa diagram analysis for the ethanol recycling extraction process.
Risk assessment using FMEA for the factors of ethanol recycling extraction process.
| Cause | Factors | Severity | Occurrence | Detectability | RPN |
| Material |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Particle size distribution | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| Particle shape | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| Extraction | Extraction Temperature | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Extraction Time | 4 | 2 | 1 | 8 | |
| Reflux rate of ethanol | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 | |
| Solvent | Ethanol consumption | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Ethanol concentration | 4 | 2 | 2 | 16 | |
| Environment | Temperature | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Pressure | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Humidity | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Equipment | Mix condition | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Heat capacity | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
Severity: 1, no impact; 2, small impact; 3, moderate impact; 4, remarkable impact.
Occurrence: 1, seldom occur; 2, sometimes occur.
Detection: 1, can be detected easily; 2, can be detected with difficulty.
Model fitting results and ANOVA results.
| Model terms | Saponins yield (mg/g | TSP (%) | Pigment yield (ln(µg/g | |||||||||
| R1 | Rg1 | Rb1 | Rd | |||||||||
| Estimate | Prob>|t| | Estimate | Prob>|t| | Estimate | Prob>|t| | Estimate | Prob>|t| | Estimate | Prob>|t| | Estimate | Prob>|t| | |
| Constant | 13.6768 | —— | 46.2633 | —— | 46.2281 | —— | 9.4700 | —— | 27.3738 | —— | 8.0307 | —— |
| X1 | −0.6278 | 0.0651 | −2.9012 | 0.0087 | −4.6364 | 0.0016 | −0.8498 | 0.0006 | 1.2403 | 0.0211 | −0.5855 | 0.0002 |
| X2 | 0.3367 | 0.2723 | 0.8127 | 0.3251 | 1.9695 | 0.0612 | 0.3506 | 0.0360 | 0.2196 | 0.6027 | 0.3729 | 0.0017 |
| X3 | 0.9555 | 0.0140 | 2.1364 | 0.0305 | 3.0673 | 0.0116 | 0.6434 | 0.0026 | −1.1593 | 0.0274 | 1.0467 | <0.0001 |
| X1 X2 | 0.2365 | 0.5702 | 1.6575 | 0.1732 | 0.6454 | 0.6134 | −0.0487 | 0.8002 | 0.5534 | 0.3655 | 0.2267 | 0.0604 |
| X1 X3 | −0.3715 | 0.3821 | 0.6669 | 0.5569 | 0.4740 | 0.7092 | −0.0805 | 0.6777 | 1.6996 | 0.0238 | 0.0399 | 0.6985 |
| X2 X3 | 0.5233 | 0.2324 | −0.2902 | 0.7958 | 0.1268 | 0.9201 | −0.1566 | 0.4280 | −0.9062 | 0.1601 | 0.0765 | 0.4653 |
| X1 2 | −1.7090 | 0.0049 | −5.9570 | 0.0014 | −6.2568 | 0.0021 | −1.0188 | 0.0015 | −1.0889 | 0.1024 | −0.1484 | 0.1816 |
| X2 2 | −0.7323 | 0.1124 | −1.7398 | 0.1559 | −1.2746 | 0.3334 | −0.0591 | 0.7594 | −1.3371 | 0.0559 | 0.1414 | 0.2000 |
| X3 2 | −0.4902 | 0.2598 | −1.0717 | 0.3563 | −1.7609 | 0.1964 | −0.0353 | 0.8544 | 2.9760 | 0.0019 | −1.4191 | <0.0001 |
| Model P value | 0.0315 | 0.0151 | 0.0081 | 0.0036 | 0.0115 | <0.0001 | ||||||
| R2 | 0.8827 | 0.9105 | 0.9283 | 0.9463 | 0.9188 | 0.9891 | ||||||
*p<0.05
**p<0.01.
Figure 4Contour plot of R1 yield.
Figure 7Contour plot of Rd yield.
Figure 8Contour plot of TSP.
Figure 9Contour plot of pigment yield.
Figure 10Design space and verification experiments.