| Literature DB >> 28239494 |
Sadaf Nazir1, Idrees Ahmed Wani1, Farooq Ahmad Masoodi1.
Abstract
Aqueous extraction of basil seed mucilage was optimized using response surface methodology. A Central Composite Rotatable Design (CCRD) for modeling of three independent variables: temperature (40-91 °C); extraction time (1.6-3.3 h) and water/seed ratio (18:1-77:1) was used to study the response for yield. Experimental values for extraction yield ranged from 7.86 to 20.5 g/100 g. Extraction yield was significantly (P < 0.05) affected by all the variables. Temperature and water/seed ratio were found to have pronounced effect while the extraction time was found to have minor possible effects. Graphical optimization determined the optimal conditions for the extraction of mucilage. The optimal condition predicted an extraction yield of 20.49 g/100 g at 56.7 °C, 1.6 h, and a water/seed ratio of 66.84:1. Optimal conditions were determined to obtain highest extraction yield. Results indicated that water/seed ratio was the most significant parameter, followed by temperature and time.Entities:
Keywords: Basil; Extraction; Mucilage; Optimization; Seed; Variables
Year: 2017 PMID: 28239494 PMCID: PMC5315439 DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2017.01.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Adv Res ISSN: 2090-1224 Impact factor: 10.479
Proximate composition of basil seeds (n = 3).
| Parameters (g/100 g) | Seed |
|---|---|
| Moisture | 9.4 ± 0.32 |
| Protein | 10.0 ± 0.46 |
| Fat | 33.0 ± 0.61 |
| Ash | 5.6 ± 0.22 |
| Carbohydrate | 43.9 ± 0.22 |
On a dry weight basis.
Central composite arrangement for variables X1 (temperature), X2 (time), X3 (water ratio), and their response (mucilage yield, %).
| Run | Variables | Mucilage yield (g/100 g) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | Time (h) | Water/seed ratio (w/v) | Experimental | Predicted | |||
| 1 | −0.596 (50) | −0.529 (2) | −0.608 (30) | 14.3 | 14.4 | 14.4 | 14.21 |
| 2 | 0.589 (80) | −0.529 (2) | −0.608 (30) | 11.5 | 11.35 | 11.35 | 11.54 |
| 3 | −0.596 (50) | 0.647 (3) | −0.608 (30) | 20.5 | 19.25 | 19.25 | 18.54 |
| 4 | 0.589 (80) | 0.647 (3) | −0.608 (30) | 8.1 | 8.49 | 8.49 | 8.04 |
| 5 | −0.596 (50) | −0.529 (2) | 0.605 (65) | 11.59 | 11.42 | 11.42 | 11.57 |
| 6 | 0.589 (80) | −0.529 (2) | 0.605 (65) | 10.01 | 10 | 10 | 8.96 |
| 7 | −0.596 (50) | 0.647 (3) | 0.605 (65) | 12.10 | 12.07 | 12.07 | 12.03 |
| 8 | 0.589 (80) | 0.647 (3) | 0.605 (65) | 13.40 | 13.41 | 13.40 | 13.68 |
| 9 | −0.991 (40) | 0.059 (2.5) | −0.001 (47.5) | 10.52 | 10.51 | 10.51 | 10.65 |
| 10 | 1.024 (91) | 0.059 (2.5) | −0.001 (47.5) | 11.21 | 11.68 | 11.68 | 11.51 |
| 11 | −0.003 (65) | −1.000 (1.6) | −0.001 (47.5) | 13.86 | 13.54 | 13.54 | 13.67 |
| 12 | −0.003 (65) | 1.000 (3.3) | 0.001 (47.5) | 13.6 | 13.20 | 13.21 | 13.93 |
| 13 | −0.003 (65) | 0.059 (2.5) | −1.024 (18) | 7.97 | 7.86 | 7.86 | 8.95 |
| 14 | −0.003 (65) | 0.059 (2.5) | 1.021 (77) | 13.96 | 14.20 | 14.20 | 14.20 |
| 15 | −0.003 (65) | 0.059 (2.5) | −0.001 (47.5) | 9.91 | 9.86 | 9.86 | 9.54 |
| 16 | 0.589 (80) | −0.529 (2) | −0.261 (40) | 11.04 | 10.59 | 10.59 | 10.73 |
| 17 | −0.596 (50) | 0.647 (3) | 0.085 (50) | 12.61 | 11.99 | 11.99 | 12.51 |
| 18 | −0.596 (50) | 0.647 (3) | −0.261 (40) | 13.10 | 12.99 | 12.99 | 13.21 |
| 19 | 0.589 (80) | −0.529 (2) | 0.085 (50) | 11.40 | 11.49 | 11.49 | 11.83 |
| 20 | −0.003 (65) | 0.059 (2.5) | −0.001 (47.5) | 9.56 | 9.56 | 9.98 | 9.54 |
Y1, Y2, Y3 are the experimental yields of mucilage.
w/v means, weight/volume.
Actual values for X1, X2, X3 are enclosed within brackets.
Fig. 1Comparison of actual and predicted yields for extraction of basil seed mucilage.
Evaluation of polynomial model (Central Composite Rotatable Design).
| Source | DF | SS | MS | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 14 | 367.71 | 26.26 | 115.51 | <0.0001 |
| Residuals | 5 | 9.78 | 0.23 | ||
| Lack of fit | 4 | 9.66 | 0.24 | 6.39 | 0.0751 |
| Pure error | 1 | 0.11 | 0.038 | ||
| Corr total | 19 | 377.64 |
DF, degrees of freedom; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean square; F value; P value.
ANOVA for Response Surface Reduced Cubic Model.
| Source | Sum of squares | Mean square | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DF | Prob > | |||||
| Block | 0.17 | 2 | 0.087 | |||
| Model | 368.42 | 14 | 26.32 | 124.38 | <0.0001 | |
| 3.71 | 1 | 3.71 | 17.52 | 0.0001 | ||
| 2.52 | 1 | 2.52 | 11.91 | 0.0013 | ||
| 11.26 | 1 | 11.26 | 53.20 | <0.0001 | ||
| 8.31 | 1 | 8.31 | 39.28 | <0.0001 | ||
| 53.43 | 1 | 53.43 | 252.55 | <0.0001 | ||
| 1.66 | 1 | 1.66 | 7.86 | 0.0075 | ||
| 6.65 | 1 | 6.65 | 31.41 | <0.0001 | ||
| 60.38 | 1 | 60.38 | 285.39 | <0.0001 | ||
| 12.29 | 1 | 12.29 | 58.10 | <0.0001 | ||
| 46.49 | 1 | 46.49 | 219.73 | <0.0001 | ||
| 7.67 | 1 | 7.67 | 36.26 | <0.0001 | ||
| 15.62 | 1 | 15.62 | 73.84 | <0.0001 | ||
| 52.28 | 1 | 52.28 | 247.12 | <0.0001 | ||
| 7.89 | 1 | 7.89 | 37.31 | <0.0001 | ||
| Residual | 9.10 | 43 | 0.21 | |||
| 8.98 | 40 | 0.22 | 5.94 | 0.0829 | ||
| 0.11 | 3 | 0.038 | ||||
| Cor total | 377.69 | 59 |
Regression results for the Response Surface Cubic Model.
| Source | Results |
|---|---|
| Std. Dev. | 0.46 |
| Mean | 11.94 |
| C.V.% | 3.85 |
| PRESS | 17.64 |
| 0.9759 | |
| Adj | 0.9681 |
| Pred | 0.9533 |
| Adeq precision | 44.942 |
Fig. 2Response surface and contour plot illustration for the effect of temperature and time on extraction yield at water ratio 1:58.
Fig. 3Response surface and contour plot illustration for the effect of water ratio and time on extraction yield at a temperature of 65 °C.
Fig. 4Response surface and contour plot illustration for the effect of water ratio and temperature on extraction yield at 2.42 h.
Fig. 5Graphical illustration showing optimal conditions for the extraction of mucilage.