| Literature DB >> 25972881 |
Ivan M Savic1, Vesna D Nikolic1, Ivana M Savic-Gajic1, Ljubisa B Nikolic1, Svetlana R Ibric2, Dragoljub G Gajic3.
Abstract
The process of amygdalin extraction from plum seeds was optimized using central composite design (CCD) and multilayer perceptron (MLP). The effect of time, ethanol concentration, solid-to-liquid ratio, and temperature on the amygdalin content in the extracts was estimated using both mathematical models. The MLP 4-3-1 with exponential function in hidden layer and linear function in output layer was used for describing the extraction process. MLP model was more superior compared with CCD model due to better prediction ability. According to MLP model, the suggested optimal conditions are: time of 120 min, 100% (v/v) ethanol, solid-to liquid ratio of 1:25 (m/v) and temperature of 34.4°C. The predicted value of amygdalin content in the dried extract (25.42 g per 100 g) at these conditions was experimentally confirmed (25.30 g per 100 g of dried extract). Amygdalin (>90%) was isolated from the complex extraction mixture and structurally characterized by FT-IR, UV, and MS methods.Entities:
Keywords: amygdalin; central composite design; extraction; isolation; multilayer perceptron; plum seeds; structural characterization
Year: 2015 PMID: 25972881 PMCID: PMC4411975 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00276
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Experimental range and levels of the input variables used in the CCD model in terms of actual and coded factors.
| Time, min | 10 | 37.5 | 65 | 92.5 | 120 | ||
| Ethanol concentration, % | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | ||
| Solid-to-liquid ratio, m/v | 1:5 | 1:10 | 1:15 | 1:20 | 1:25 | ||
| Temperature, °C | 22 | 36 | 50 | 64 | 78 | ||
Central composite design matrix of independent variables and their corresponding experimental and predicted values of the amygdalin content in the extracts.
| τ | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1train | 24 | 65.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 78 | 6.51 | 6.45 | 6.26 |
| 2train | 7 | 37.5 | 80 | 1:20 | 36 | 10.38 | 10.50 | 10.58 |
| 3train | 16 | 92.5 | 80 | 1:20 | 64 | 12.29 | 12.26 | 12.33 |
| 4train | 17 | 10.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 6.85 | 6.47 | 6.54 |
| 5train | 19 | 65.0 | 20 | 1:15 | 50 | 7.83 | 7.55 | 7.64 |
| 6train | 6 | 92.5 | 40 | 1:20 | 36 | 11.57 | 11.22 | 11.20 |
| 7train | 22 | 65.0 | 60 | 1:25 | 50 | 11.09 | 10.64 | 10.67 |
| 8train | 11 | 37.5 | 80 | 1:10 | 64 | 4.15 | 4.80 | 4.84 |
| 9train | 8 | 92.5 | 80 | 1:20 | 36 | 14.83 | 14.93 | 14.77 |
| 10train | 30 (C) | 65.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 8.35 | 8.50 | 8.15 |
| 10train | 27 (C) | 65 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 8.10 | 8.50 | 8.15 |
| 11train | 1 | 37.5 | 40 | 1:10 | 36 | 9.35 | 9.27 | 9.43 |
| 12train | 2 | 92.5 | 40 | 1:10 | 36 | 9.65 | 9.97 | 10.0 |
| 13train | 3 | 37.5 | 80 | 1:10 | 36 | 9.30 | 8.92 | 9.30 |
| 10train | 29 (C) | 65.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 8.42 | 8.50 | 8.15 |
| 14train | 13 | 37.5 | 40 | 1:20 | 64 | 6.82 | 6.91 | 6.77 |
| 10train | 28 (C) | 65.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 8.26 | 8.50 | 8.15 |
| 15train | 5 | 37.5 | 40 | 1:20 | 36 | 9.15 | 9.58 | 9.48 |
| 16train | 23 | 65.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 22 | 13.37 | 13.24 | 13.23 |
| 17train | 14 | 92.5 | 40 | 1:20 | 64 | 8.27 | 8.55 | 8.91 |
| 10train | 26 (C) | 65.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 8.88 | 8.50 | 8.15 |
| 18train | 9 | 37.5 | 40 | 1:10 | 64 | 4.94 | 5.15 | 4.89 |
| 19train | 10 | 92.5 | 40 | 1:10 | 64 | 5.99 | 5.85 | 6.23 |
| 20train | 18 | 120.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 11.41 | 11.59 | 11.73 |
| 21train | 21 | 65.0 | 60 | 1:5 | 50 | 6.66 | 6.36 | 6.34 |
| 22train | 12 | 92.5 | 80 | 1:10 | 64 | 8.92 | 8.29 | 8.26 |
| 23train | 15 | 37.5 | 80 | 1:20 | 64 | 7.93 | 7.83 | 7.87 |
| 24train | 20 | 65.0 | 100 | 1:15 | 50 | 10.82 | 10.91 | 11.09 |
| 10train | 25 (C) | 65.0 | 60 | 1:15 | 50 | 8.45 | 8.50 | 8.15 |
| 25train | 4 | 92.5 | 80 | 1:10 | 36 | 12.10 | 12.40 | 12.08 |
τ, extraction time; Ce, ethanol concentration; ω, solid-to-liquid ratio; t, extraction temperature; Y.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the experimental results of the CCD model.
| Model | 169.13 | 11 | 15.38 | 105.04 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 39.32 | 1 | 39.32 | 268.64 | <0.0001 |
| X21 | 0.49 | 1 | 0.49 | 3.37 | 0.0831 |
| X2 | 16.90 | 1 | 16.90 | 115.46 | <0.0001 |
| X22 | 0.92 | 1 | 0.92 | 6.30 | 0.0219 |
| X3 | 27.52 | 1 | 27.52 | 188.02 | <0.0001 |
| X4 | 69.16 | 1 | 69.16 | 472.47 | <0.0001 |
| X24 | 3.15 | 1 | 3.15 | 21.49 | 0.0002 |
| X1 X2 | 7.78 | 1 | 7.78 | 53.18 | <0.0001 |
| X1 X3 | 0.88 | 1 | 0.88 | 6.04 | 0.0244 |
| X2 X3 | 1.61 | 1 | 1.61 | 11.02 | 0.0038 |
| X3 X4 | 2.09 | 1 | 2.09 | 14.27 | 0.0014 |
| Residual | 2.63 | 18 | 0.15 | ||
| Lack of fit | 2.29 | 13 | 0.18 | 2.55 | 0.1540 |
| Pure error | 0.34 | 5 | 0.07 | ||
| Total SS | 171.76 | 29 |
SS, sum of squares; df, degree of freedom; MS, mean square; X.
Additional set of data for testing and validation of MLP predictive models.
| 26test | 10 | 30 | 1:12 | 36 | 9.900 | 9.808 |
| 27test | 40 | 60 | 1:18 | 45 | 8.550 | 8.338 |
| 28test | 50 | 70 | 1:20 | 30 | 11.790 | 11.642 |
| 29test | 60 | 80 | 1:22 | 50 | 11.000 | 11.005 |
| 30test | 80 | 90 | 1:25 | 60 | 14.630 | 14.717 |
| 31validation | 100 | 96 | 1:5 | 25 | 16.530 | 16.705 |
| 32validation | 110 | 100 | 1:20 | 30 | 21.300 | 21.805 |
| 33validation | 120 | 100 | 1:25 | 40 | 24.830 | 24.808 |
| 34validation | 60 | 40 | 1:20 | 70 | 7.210 | 7.204 |
| 35validation | 45 | 80 | 1:21 | 22 | 13.500 | 13.697 |
τ, extraction time; Ce, ethanol concentration; ω, solid-to-liquid ratio; t, extraction temperature; Y.
Figure 1The effect of extraction time and ethanol concentration on the amygdalin content in the extracts at 1:15 (m/v) and 50°C for model: (A) CCD and (B) MLP.
Figure 2The effect of extraction time and solid-to-liquid ratio on the amygdalin content in the extracts using 60% (v/v) ethanol at 50°C for model: (A) CCD and (B) MLP.
Figure 3The effect of extraction time and temperature on the amygdalin content in the extracts using 60% (v/v) ethanol at 1:15 (m/v) for model: (A) CCD and (B) MLP.
Figure 4The effect of ethanol concentration and solid-to-liquid ratio on the amygdalin content in the extracts for 65 min at 50°C for model: (A) CCD and (B) MLP.
Figure 5The effect of ethanol concentration and extraction temperature on the amygdalin content in the extracts for 65 min at 1:15 (m/v) for model: (A) CCD and (B) MLP.
Figure 6The effect of solid-to-liquid ratio on the amygdalin content in the extracts for 65 min using 60% (v/v) ethanol for model: (A) CCD and (B) MLP.
The values of correlation coefficients and errors for CCD and MLP models.
RMSE, root mean square error; MSE, mean square error; MAE, mean absolute error.