| Literature DB >> 30380729 |
Daniela Lanari1, Maria Carla Marcotullio2, Andrea Neri3.
Abstract
The effect of the addition of ionic liquids (ILs) during the hydrodistillation of Myristica fragrans Houtt. (nutmeg) essential oil was studied. The essential oil of M. fragrans is characterized by the presence of terpenes, terpenoids, and of phenylpropanoids, such as methyl eugenol and safrole, that are regarded as genotoxic and carcinogenic. The aim of the work was to determine the best ionic liquid to improve the yield of the extraction of M. fragrans essential oil and decrease the extraction of toxic phenylpropanoids. Six ILs, namely 1,3-dimethylimidazolium chloride (1), 1,3-dimethylimidazolium dimethylphosphate (2), 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-3-methylimidazolium chloride (3), 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-3-methylimidazolium dimethylphosphate (4), 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (5), and 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium dimethylphosphate (6), were prepared by previously reported, innovative methods and then tested. An experimental design was used to optimize the extraction yield and to decrease the phenylpropanoids percentage using the synthesized ILs. The influence of the molarity of ILs was also studied. MODDE 12 software established 0.5 M 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride as the best co-solvent for the hydrodistillation of M. fragrans essential oil.Entities:
Keywords: MODDE experimental design; Myristica fragrans; essential oil; hydrodistillation; ionic liquids; nutmeg
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30380729 PMCID: PMC6278261 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23112817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Tested 1-alkyl-3-methyl imidazolium (MIM)-based ionic liquids (ILs).
Scheme 1Preparation of ionic liquids (ILs). DMC: dimethyl carbonate, TMP: trimethylphosphate.
Factor level and design matrix for extraction yield and phenylpropanoids percentage.
| Exp No. | Run Order | Cation a | Anion b | IL c | IL-[M] d | Yield % e | Phenylpropanoids % f |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11 | [1,3-diMIM] | DMP |
| 0.3 | 0.87 | 63.57 |
| 2 | 18 | [1,3-diMIM] | DMP |
| 0.5 | 1.13 | 60.68 |
| 3 | 15 | [1-But-3-MIM] | DMP |
| 0.5 | 1.36 | 52.14 |
| 4 | 16 | [1-But-3-MIM] | DMP |
| 0.3 | 1.26 | 54.74 |
| 5 | 12 | [1,3-diMIM] | DMP |
| 0.3 | 0.87 | 64.07 |
| 6 | 3 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | DMP |
| 0.3 | 1.02 | 55.65 |
| 7 | 8 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | DMP |
| 0.5 | 1.40 | 56.38 |
| 8 | 7 | [1,3-diMIM] | Cl |
| 0.3 | 1.13 | 68.95 |
| 9 | 14 | [1,3-diMIM] | Cl |
| 0.5 | 1.17 | 75.23 |
| 10 | 5 | [1,3-diMIM] | Cl |
| 0.5 | 1.18 | 76.41 |
| 11 | 17 | [1-But-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.3 | 1.33 | 54.01 |
| 12 | 10 | [1-But-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.5 | 1.33 | 48.61 |
| 13 | 13 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.3 | 1.12 | 50.90 |
| 14 | 9 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.3 | 1.10 | 55.88 |
| 15 | 6 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.5 | 1.38 | 55.16 |
| 16 | 4 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.4 | 1.33 | 55.21 |
| 17 | 1 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.4 | 1.27 | 55.18 |
| 18 | 2 | [1-EtOH-3-MIM] | Cl |
| 0.4 | 1.22 | 55.24 |
a Cation: [1,3-diMIM]: 1,3-dimethylimidazolium, [1-But-3-MIM]: 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium, [1-EtOH-3-MIM]: 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-3-imidazolium; b Cl: chloride, DMP: dimethyl phosphate; c IL: see Figure 1; d IL-[M]: Molarity of ILs’ aqueous solutions; e Yields are the mean of two extractions; f Percentage obtained by FID peak-area normalization. Values are the mean of two analyses.
Figure 2Summary of fit for the model of extraction yield and phenylpropanoids percentage. PLS: partial least squares fitting.
Figure 3Plot of observed values versus predicted values for both responses.
ANOVA test for the model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total corrected | 17 | 1063.38 | 62.5519 | 7.90898 | ||
| Regression | 9 | 1020.05 | 113.339 | 20.9267 | 0.000 | 10.6461 |
| Residual | 8 | 43.3281 | 5.41601 | 2.32723 | ||
| Lack of Fit (Model error) | 3 | 30.1049 | 10.035 | 3.79445 | 0.093 | 3.1678 |
| Pure error (Replicate error) | 5 | 13.2232 | 2.64464 | 1.62623 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total corrected | 17 | 0.434362 | 0.0255507 | 0.159846 | ||
| Regression | 9 | 0.423497 | 0.0470552 | 34.6453 |
| 0.216922 |
| Residual | 8 | 0.0108656 | 0.0013582 | 0.0368538 | ||
| Lack of Fit (Model error) | 3 | 0.00454893 | 0.00151631 | 1.20025 |
| 0.0389398 |
| Pure error (Replicate error) | 5 | 0.00631667 | 0.00126333 | 0.0355434 |
DF: degrees of freedom, SS: sums of squares, MS: mean squares, F: F-value, p: p-value, SD: standard deviation.
Figure 4Plot of coefficient values for centered and scaled factors, which was obtained from partial least squares fitting (PLS) for the two response variables studied.
Figure 5Prediction plot obtained by MODDE optimizer.
Figure 6Comparison of essential oil composition extracted by water (blue) and by water–IL 5 (orange).
Recycling experiments using ionic liquid 5 0.5 M.
| Exp No | Yield % | Phenylpropanoids % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.48 | 48.46 |
| 2 | 1.52 | 48.68 |
| 3 | 1.47 | 49.02 |
| 4 | 1.47 | 48.60 |