| Literature DB >> 26593890 |
Gui-Fang Deng1, Dong-Ping Xu2, Sha Li3, Hua-Bin Li4.
Abstract
Sugar apple (Annona squamosa L.) is a popular tropical fruit and its peel is a municipal waste. An ultrasound-assisted extraction method was developed for the recovery of natural antioxidants from sugar apple peel. Central composite design was used to optimize solvent concentration (13.2%-46.8%), ultrasonic time (33.2-66.8 min), and temperature (43.2-76.8 °C) for the recovery of natural antioxidants from sugar apple peel. The second-order polynomial models demonstrated a good fit of the quadratic models with the experimental results in respect to total phenolic content (TPC, R²=0.9524, p<0.0001), FRAP (R²=0.9743, p<0.0001), and TEAC (R²=0.9610, p<0.0001) values. The optimal extraction conditions were 20:1 (mL/g) of solvent-to-solid ratio, 32.68% acetone, and 67.23 °C for 42.54 min under ultrasonic irradiation. Under these conditions, the maximal yield of total phenolic content was 26.81 (mg GA/g FW). The experimental results obtained under optimal conditions agreed well with the predicted results. The application of ultrasound markedly decreased extraction time and improved the extraction efficiency, compared with the conventional methods.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; response surface methodology; sugar apple peel; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26593890 PMCID: PMC6332377 DOI: 10.3390/molecules201119708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effects of solvent type, solvent-to-solid ratio, acetone concentration, ultrasonic time, and temperature on the responses. Extraction conditions: (a) 10:1 mL/g, 25 °C, 30 min; (b) 10:1 mL/g, 25 °C and 30 min; (c) 30% acetone, 25 °C, 30 min; (d) 30% acetone, 20:1 mL/g, 30 min; and (e) 30% acetone, 20:1 mL/g, 60 °C.
Central composite design arrangement in terms of the independent variables (X1, X2, and X3) and their observed responses, including Total Phenol Contents (TPC), Ferric-Reducing Antioxidant Power(FRAP), and Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC).
| Run | TPC (mg GAE/g FW) | FRAP (μmol Fe(II)/g FW) | TEAC (μmol Trolox/g FW) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40 (1) | 60 (1) | 50 (−1) | 21.55 | 232.39 | 81.89 |
| 2 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 26.24 | 255.54 | 121.03 |
| 3 | 20 (−1) | 40 (−1) | 50 (−1) | 22.44 | 180.86 | 73.71 |
| 4 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 76.8 (1.68) | 26.37 | 259.93 | 100.09 |
| 5 | 20 (−1) | 40 (−1) | 70 (1) | 20.72 | 257.57 | 85.88 |
| 6 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 24.88 | 252.64 | 115.63 |
| 7 | 40 (1) | 40 (−1) | 70 (1) | 23.75 | 258.96 | 113.88 |
| 8 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 26.18 | 252.32 | 118.12 |
| 9 | 40 (1) | 40 (−1) | 50 (−1) | 19.27 | 200.68 | 93.77 |
| 10 | 30 (0) | 66.8 (1.68) | 60 (0) | 26.91 | 252.11 | 97.59 |
| 11 | 46.8 (1.68) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 15.96 | 207.75 | 102.42 |
| 12 | 40 (1) | 60 (1) | 70 (1) | 24.44 | 234.43 | 95.68 |
| 13 | 20 (−1) | 60 (1) | 70 (1) | 23.51 | 209.25 | 90.78 |
| 14 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 26.94 | 264.86 | 124.86 |
| 15 | 30 (0) | 33.2 (−1.68) | 60 (0) | 23.01 | 271.93 | 113.64 |
| 16 | 20 (−1) | 60 (1) | 50 (−1) | 24.72 | 179.89 | 93.36 |
| 17 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 25.84 | 247.82 | 122.45 |
| 18 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 26.97 | 251.07 | 113.72 |
| 19 | 13.2 (−1.68) | 50 (0) | 60 (0) | 15.93 | 157.39 | 72.49 |
| 20 | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 43.2 (−1.68) | 21.87 | 152.89 | 77.15 |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the quadratic model and lack of fit.
| Response | Source | Sum of Squares | Mean Squares | DF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | Model | 205.27 | 22.81 | 9 | 22.23 | <0.0001 a |
| Lack of Fit | 7.25 | 1.45 | 5 | 2.41 | 0.1784 b | |
| Residual | 10.26 | 1.03 | 10 | |||
| Pure Error | 3.01 | 0.6 | 5 | |||
| 0.9524 | ||||||
| FRAP | Model | 25,638.96 | 2848.77 | 9 | 42.05 | <0.0001 a |
| Lack of Fit | 505.72 | 101.14 | 5 | 2.94 | 0.1305 b | |
| Residual | 677.47 | 67.75 | 10 | |||
| Pure Error | 171.75 | 34.35 | 5 | |||
| 0.9743 | ||||||
| TEAC | Model | 5185.6 | 576.18 | 9 | 27.36 | <0.0001 a |
| Lack of Fit | 120.8 | 24.16 | 5 | 1.34 | 0.3765 b | |
| Residual | 210.62 | 21.06 | 10 | |||
| Pure Error | 89.83 | 17.97 | 5 | |||
| 0.9610 |
Note: a Significant at 5.0% (p < 0.05); b Non-significant.
Estimated coefficients of the fitted second-order polynomial for the investigated responses and their signification based on analysis of variance (ANOVA).
| Model Parameter | Coefficient | TPC | FRAP | TEAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | β0 | 26.14 | 253.89 | 119.34 |
| Linear | ||||
| β1 | −0.17 | 13.45 a | 6.73 a | |
| β2 | 1.07 c | −5.53 b | −2.38 | |
| β3 | 0.88 c | 25.37 a | 6.01 a | |
| Quadratic | ||||
| β11 | −3.38 a | −24.35 a | −14.91 a | |
| β22 | −0.19 | 3.8 | −5.1 c | |
| β33 | −0.48 | −15.91 a | −11.12 a | |
| Cross product | ||||
| β12 | −0.26 | 7.06 b | −6.83 c | |
| β13 | 1.29 c | −5.72 | 3.04 | |
| β23 | −0.13 | −12.95 c | −2.63 |
Note: a Significant at 0.1% (p < 0.001); b Significant at 5% (p < 0.05); c Significant at 1% (p < 0.01).
Figure 2Response surface plots for the effects of (a) acetone concentration/time; (b) acetone concentration/temperature; and (c) time/temperature on the total phenolic content (TPC).
Figure 3Response surface plots for the effects of (a) acetone concentration/time; (b) acetone concentration/temperature; and (c) time/temperature on the FRAP values.
Figure 4Response surface plots for the effects of (a) acetone concentration/time; (b) acetone concentration/temperature; and (c) time/temperature on the TEAC values.
Comparison of experimental results with predicted results obtained by the fitted model and the results obtained by the conventional method.
| Response Variables | Extraction Methods | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted | Experimental * | Soxhlet ** | Maceration *** | |
| TPC (mg GA/g FW) | 25.70 | 26.81 | 19.59 | 20.67 |
| FRAP (μmol Fe(II)/g FW) | 276.47 | 280.36 | 196.10 | 211.39 |
| TEAC (μmol Trolox/g FW) | 121.16 | 120.95 | 94.69 | 89.62 |
Note: *: time: 42.54 min; temperature: 67.23 °C; **: time: 4 h; temperature: 100 °C; ***: time: 24 h; temperature: 37 °C. Other conditions of the three methods were 32.68% acetone and 20:1 (mL/g) of solvent-to-solid ratio.
Coded and uncoded levels of the independent variables.
| Independent Variables | Code Units | Coded Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.68 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.68 | ||
| Acetone concentration (%, | 13.2 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 46.8 | |
| Ultrasonic time (min) | 33.2 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 66.8 | |
| Ultrasonic temperature (°C) | 43.2 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 76.8 | |