| Literature DB >> 29724043 |
Jiao-Jiao Zhang1, Ya Li2, Sheng-Jun Lin3, Hua-Bin Li4,5.
Abstract
The waste of Sterculia nobilis fruit was massively produced during food processing, which contains lots of natural antioxidants. In this study, antioxidants in the Sterculia nobilis fruit waste were extracted using the green microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) technique. The effects of five independent variables (ethanol concentration, solvent/material ratio, extraction time, temperature, and microwave power) on extraction efficiency were explored, and three major factors (ethanol concentration, extraction time, and temperature) showing great influences were chosen to study their interactions by response surface methodology. The optimal conditions were as follows: 40.96% ethanol concentration, 30 mL/g solvent/material ratio, 37.37 min extraction time at 66.76 °C, and 700 W microwave power. The Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity value obtained in optimal conditions was in agreement with the predicted value. Besides, MAE improved the extraction efficiency compared with maceration and Soxhlet extraction methods. Additionally, the phenolic profile in the extract was analyzed by UPLC-MS/MS, and eight kinds of phenolic compounds were identified and quantified, including epicatechin, protocatechuic acid, ferulic acid, gallic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, quercetin, and p-hydroxycinnamic acid. This study could contribute to the value-added utilization of the waste from Sterculia nobilis fruit, and the extract could be developed as food additive or functional food.Entities:
Keywords: Sterculia nobilis; antioxidant; fruit; microwave-assisted extraction; phenolic compounds; waste
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29724043 PMCID: PMC6100383 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23051059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The influence of ethanol concentration (a), solvent/material ratio (b), extraction time (c), temperature (d), and microwave power (e) on extraction efficiency.
The experimental design and results of RSM.
| Run | X1 (Ethanol Concentration, %) | X2 (Extraction Time, min) | X3 (Temperature, °C) | Y (TEAC Value, μmol Trolox/g DW) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Value | Predicted Value | ||||
| 1 | 40 | 55.23 | 60 | 80.50 | 82.38 |
| 2 | 40 | 30 | 60 | 92.64 | 89.16 |
| 3 | 30 | 45 | 70 | 88.26 | 85.23 |
| 4 | 30 | 15 | 50 | 46.08 | 46.38 |
| 5 | 30 | 15 | 70 | 76.50 | 71.37 |
| 6 | 40 | 30 | 76.82 | 80.73 | 86.10 |
| 7 | 40 | 30 | 60 | 94.25 | 89.16 |
| 8 | 23.18 | 40 | 60 | 65.21 | 70.08 |
| 9 | 30 | 45 | 50 | 67.75 | 65.55 |
| 10 | 40 | 30 | 60 | 93.10 | 89.16 |
| 11 | 50 | 45 | 70 | 89.64 | 87.01 |
| 12 | 40 | 30 | 60 | 90.79 | 89.16 |
| 13 | 40 | 4.77 | 60 | 54.38 | 55.78 |
| 14 | 50 | 45 | 50 | 65.44 | 68.25 |
| 15 | 40 | 30 | 60 | 92.41 | 89.16 |
| 16 | 50 | 15 | 70 | 74.66 | 74.54 |
| 17 | 40 | 30 | 43.18 | 51.39 | 49.31 |
| 18 | 40 | 30 | 60 | 72.36 | 89.16 |
| 19 | 56.82 | 30 | 60 | 76.60 | 75.02 |
| 20 | 50 | 15 | 50 | 49.77 | 50.48 |
ANOVA for the response surface model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F Value | Significant | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 4252.35 | 9 | 472.48 | 10.06 | 0.0006 | significant |
| X1 | 29.51 | 1 | 29.51 | 0.63 | 0.4463 | |
| X2 | 854.21 | 1 | 854.21 | 18.19 | 0.0016 | |
| X3 | 1633.58 | 1 | 1633.58 | 34.79 | 0.0002 | |
| X1X2 | 0.97 | 1 | 0.97 | 0.021 | 0.8888 | |
| X1X3 | 0.42 | 1 | 0.42 | 0.009 | 0.9262 | |
| X2X3 | 14.04 | 1 | 14.04 | 0.30 | 0.5964 | |
| X12 | 497.42 | 1 | 497.42 | 10.59 | 0.0087 | |
| X22 | 726.50 | 1 | 726.50 | 15.47 | 0.0028 | |
| X32 | 829.77 | 1 | 829.77 | 17.67 | 0.0018 | |
| Residual | 469.59 | 10 | 46.96 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 120.65 | 5 | 24.13 | 0.35 | 0.8657 | not significant |
| Pure Error | 348.94 | 5 | 69.79 | |||
| Cor Total | 4721.94 | 19 | ||||
| R-Squared | 0.9006 | |||||
| Adj R-Squared | 0.8110 |
Figure 2Interaction effects of ethanol concentration (%) and extraction time (min) (a); ethanol concentration and temperature (°C) (b); and extraction time and temperature (c) on TEAC value (μmol Trolox/g DW).
The comparison of MAE with maceration and Soxhlet extraction.
| Extraction Methods | Ethanol Conc. (%) | Extraction Time (min) | Temp. (°C) | TEAC (μmol Trolox/g DW) | TPC (mg GAE/g DW) | TFC (mg QE/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maceration | 40.96 | 24 h | 25 | 41.92 ± 1.96 | 2.74 ± 0.69 | 0.30 ± 0.17 |
| Soxhlet | 40.96 | 4 h | 95 | 23.84 ± 3.06 | 2.56 ± 0.64 | 0.24 ± 0.10 |
| MAE | 40.96 | 37.37 | 66.76 | 93.72 ± 1.05 | 3.67 ± 0.80 | 0.45 ± 0.13 |
Figure 3The total ion chromatograms of standard phenolic components (a) and the extract acquired under the optimal conditions (b).
The contents of phenolic compounds in the extract acquired under the optimal condition.
| Number | Phenolic Compounds | Retention Time (tR, min) | Paront Ion ( | Product Ion ( | Contents (μg/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Epicatechin | 12.3 | 289 | 203 | 56.63 ± 0.58 |
| 2 | Protocatechuic acid | 8.08 | 153.1 | 109 | 21.09 ± 0.16 |
| 3 | Ferulic acid | 14.3 | 193.1 | 134 | 0.84 ± 0.003 |
| 4 | Gallic acid | 4.79 | 169.1 | 125 | 0.53 ± 0.008 |
| 5 | 15.4 | 162.7 | 119 | 0.45 ± 0.003 | |
| 6 | Caffeic acid | 12.4 | 179.1 | 135 | 0.35 ± 0.010 |
| 7 | Quercetin | 16.5 | 301 | 179 | 0.041 ± 0.001 |
| 8 | 14 | 163.1 | 119 | 0.027 ± 0.001 |
Five variables and their levels of CCRD.
| Variable | Units | Symbol | Code Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.68 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.68 | |||
| Ethanol concentration | % ( | X1 | 23.18 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 56.82 |
| Extraction time | min | X2 | 4.77 | 15 | 30 | 45 | 55.23 |
| Temperature | °C | X3 | 43.18 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 76.82 |