| Literature DB >> 29570683 |
Ramiro A Carciochi1,2, Carlos A Sologubik3, María B Fernández4,5, Guillermo D Manrique6, Leandro Galván D'Alessandro7.
Abstract
The kinetics of polyphenol extraction from brewer's spent grain (BSG), using a batch system, ultrasound assistance, and microwave assistance and the evolution of antioxidant capacity of these extracts over time, were studied. The main parameters of extraction employed in the batch system were evaluated, and, by applying response surface analysis, the following optimal conditions were obtained: Liquid/solid ratio of 30:1 mL/g at 80 °C, using 72% (v/v) ethanol:water as the solvent system. Under these optimized conditions, ultrasound assistance demonstrated the highest extraction rate and equilibrium yield, as well as shortest extraction times, followed by microwave assistance. Among the mathematical models used, Patricelli's model proved the most suitable for describing the extraction kinetics for each method tested, and is therefore able to predict the response values and estimate the extraction rates and potential maximum yields in each case.Entities:
Keywords: brewer’s spent grain; extraction; modeling; optimization; polyphenols
Year: 2018 PMID: 29570683 PMCID: PMC5946111 DOI: 10.3390/antiox7040045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Experimental design of three tested variables with the observed responses values for total phenolic content (TPC) and DPPH radical scavenging.
| Run | Temperature (°C; X1) | Ethanol Concentration (%; | Liquid/Solid Ratio (mL/g; X3) | TPC (mg GAE/g DW) | DPPH Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 40 (−1) | 60 (−1) | 10:1 (−1) | 2.15 | 1.86 |
| 2 | 80 (+1) | 60 (−1) | 10:1 (−1) | 2.33 | 2.23 |
| 3 | 40 (−1) | 80 (+1) | 10:1 (−1) | 1.59 | 3.17 |
| 4 | 80 (+1) | 80 (+1) | 10:1 (−1) | 2.34 | 5.68 |
| 5 | 40 (−1) | 60 (−1) | 30:1 (+1) | 2.67 | 8.40 |
| 6 | 80 (+1) | 60 (−1) | 30:1 (+1) | 3.57 | 10.99 |
| 7 | 40 (−1) | 80 (+1) | 30:1 (+1) | 2.02 | 7.40 |
| 8 | 80 (+1) | 80 (+1) | 30:1 (+1) | 3.16 | 11.93 |
| 9 | 40 (−1) | 70 (0) | 20:1 (0) | 2.41 | 6.50 |
| 10 | 80 (+1) | 70 (0) | 20:1 (0) | 3.19 | 7.59 |
| 11 | 60 (0) | 60 (−1) | 20:1 (0) | 2.85 | 5.70 |
| 12 | 60 (0) | 80 (+1) | 20:1 (0) | 2.28 | 7.85 |
| 13 | 60 (0) | 70 (0) | 10:1 (−1) | 2.59 | 2.61 |
| 14 | 60 (0) | 70 (0) | 30:1 (+1) | 3.07 | 9.87 |
| 15 | 60 (0) | 70 (0) | 20:1 (0) | 2.74 | 7.11 |
| 16 | 60 (0) | 70 (0) | 20:1 (0) | 2.89 | 6.95 |
| 17 | 60 (0) | 70 (0) | 20:1 (0) | 2.83 | 6.56 |
| 18 | 60 (0) | 70 (0) | 20:1 (0) | 2.89 | 6.56 |
Equations of mathematical models employed.
| Name | Model | Equation |
|---|---|---|
| Peleg | (1) | |
| Page | (2) | |
| Patricelli | (3) |
C(t) is the concentration of polyphenols (mg GAE/g DW) at t time (min); k1, and k2 are constants; C1 and C2 are the yields at equilibrium for washing and diffusion steps, respectively.
Equations of statistical parameters employed.
| Statistical Parameters | Equation |
|---|---|
| (4) | |
| (5) | |
| (6) | |
| (7) |
Y and Ŷ are the experimental and calculated values of yield, respectively; Ȳ is the arithmetic average value of the experimental points; n is the number of the experimental points; m is the number of parameters of the regression model.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the fitted quadratic polynomial model for optimization of extraction parameters.
| Source | TPC ( | DPPH ( | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DF | SS | MS | DF | SS | MS | |||||
| Model | 6 | 3.83 | 0.64 | 59.49 | <0.0001 | 7 | 134.34 | 19.19 | 103.33 | <0.0001 |
| Lack of Fit | 8 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 2.62 | 0.2300 | 7 | 1.62 | 0.23 | 2.90 | 0.2056 |
| Pure Error | 3 | 0.015 | 0.005 | 3 | 0.239 | 0.080 | ||||
DF, degree of freedom; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean square.
Predictive model equations of the experimental response variables.
| Response | Polynomial Equation | |
|---|---|---|
| TPC (mg GAE/g DW) | (8) | |
| DPPH radical scavenging (%) | (9) | |
Figure 1Response surface plots showing the effects of ethanol concentration and liquid/solid ratio (A), extraction temperature and liquid/solid ratio (B), and extraction temperature and ethanol concentration (C) on the extraction yield of TPC in BSG extracts. The missed variable in each graph was kept at the centre point.
Figure 2Response surface plots showing the effects of ethanol concentration and liquid/solid ratio (A), extraction temperature and liquid/solid ratio (B), and extraction temperature and ethanol concentration (C) on DPPH inhibition (%) of BSG extracts. The missed variable in each graph was kept at the center point.
Figure 3Kinetics profiles of polyphenols extraction (A) and antioxidant activity (B) of extracts obtained by three tested methods (batch system, ultrasound and microwave assistance) from brewer’s spent grain (BSG) fitted by patricelli’s model. Symbols: Experimental data; lines: Model fitting curves.
Coefficients and statistical parameters of extraction modelling for all models (p < 0.05).
| Response Variable | Model | Extraction Method | Coefficient | Statistical Parameter | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K1 | K2 | C1 | C2 | RMSE | adj | %AARD | ||||
| TPC | Peleg | BE | 1.28 | 0.27 | - | - | 0.168 | 0.939 | 0.936 | 2.389 |
| UAE | 0.68 | 0.23 | - | - | 0.298 | 0.825 | 0.817 | 7.520 | ||
| MAE | 0.84 | 0.25 | - | - | 0.193 | 0.919 | 0.916 | 3.147 | ||
| Page | BE | −0.62 | 0.17 | - | - | 0.330 | 0.796 | 0.788 | 9.216 | |
| UAE | −0.90 | 0.11 | - | - | 0.310 | 0.808 | 0.800 | 8.120 | ||
| MAE | −0.78 | 0.13 | - | - | 0.278 | 0.836 | 0.829 | 6.539 | ||
| Patricelli | BE | 0.53 | 0.06 | 1.64 | 1.98 | 0.115 | 0.968 | 0.967 | 0.915 | |
| UAE | 1.34 | 0.10 | 1.63 | 2.48 | 0.100 | 0.954 | 0.952 | 0.689 | ||
| MAE | 0.79 | 0.06 | 1.95 | 1.96 | 0.105 | 0.970 | 0.968 | 0.770 | ||
| DPPH | Peleg | BE | 0.33 | 0.07 | - | - | 0.210 | 0.993 | 0.993 | 3.718 |
| UAE | 0.15 | 0.07 | - | - | 0.221 | 0.988 | 0.987 | 4.131 | ||
| MAE | 0.20 | 0.07 | - | - | 0.243 | 0.988 | 0.987 | 5.017 | ||
| Page | BE | −1.85 | 0.08 | - | - | 0.275 | 0.988 | 0.987 | 6.411 | |
| UAE | −2.13 | 0.05 | - | - | 0.226 | 0.987 | 0.987 | 4.323 | ||
| MAE | −2.01 | 0.06 | - | - | 0.218 | 0.990 | 0.989 | 4.029 | ||
| Patricelli | BE | 0.61 | 0.05 | 6.56 | 6.93 | 0.125 | 0.997 | 0.996 | 1.076 | |
| UAE | 1.47 | 0.07 | 7.72 | 6.40 | 0.083 | 0.997 | 0.996 | 0.478 | ||
| MAE | 1.15 | 0.05 | 7.34 | 6.56 | 0.070 | 0.996 | 0.996 | 0.342 | ||