| Literature DB >> 31390772 |
Beatriz Martín-García1, Federica Pasini2, Vito Verardo3,4, Elixabet Díaz-de-Cerio5, Urszula Tylewicz2, Ana María Gómez-Caravaca1, Maria Fiorenza Caboni2,6.
Abstract
Brewing spent grains (BSGs) are the main by-product from breweries and they are rich of proanthocyanidins, among other phenolic compounds. However, literature on these compounds in BSGs is scarce. Thus, this research focuses on the establishment of ultrasound-assisted extraction of proanthocyanidin compounds in brewing spent grains using a sonotrode. To set the sonotrode extraction up, response surface methodology (RSM) was used to study the effects of three factors, namely, solvent composition, time of extraction, and ultrasound power. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of proanthocyanidin compounds were performed using HPLC coupled to fluorometric and mass spectrometer detectors. The highest content of proanthocyanidins was obtained using 80/20 acetone/water (v/v), 55 min, and 400 W. The established method allows the extraction of 1.01 mg/g dry weight (d.w.) of pronthocyanidins from BSGs; this value is more than two times higher than conventional extraction.Entities:
Keywords: Box–Behnken design; Brewers’ spent grains; HPLC-fluorometric detector (FLD)–MS; proanthocyanidins; sonotrode ultrasonic-assisted extraction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31390772 PMCID: PMC6721779 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8080282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Box-Behnken design (BBD) with the values of the sonotrode ultrasound (US) parameters with the experimental values for the dependent response of proanthocyanins (PCs) quantified by HPLC-fluorometric detector (FLD) in brewers’ spent grain (BSG) extracts; d.w.—dry weight.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X3 | Total (µg∙g−1 d.w.) | |
| 1 | 50 | 5 | 240 | 540.04 |
| 2 | 100 | 5 | 240 | 548.25 |
| 3 | 50 | 55 | 240 | 690.90 |
| 4 | 100 | 55 | 240 | 802.25 |
| 5 | 50 | 30 | 80 | 547.91 |
| 6 | 100 | 30 | 80 | 849.32 |
| 7 | 50 | 30 | 400 | 601.43 |
| 8 | 100 | 30 | 400 | 792.07 |
| 9 | 75 | 5 | 80 | 796.40 |
| 10 | 75 | 55 | 80 | 977.69 |
| 11 | 75 | 5 | 400 | 993.15 |
| 12 | 75 | 55 | 400 | 1002.31 |
| 13 | 75 | 30 | 240 | 832.04 |
| 14 | 75 | 30 | 240 | 857.04 |
| 15 | 75 | 30 | 240 | 752.68 |
X1: acetone/water, X2: time, and X3: US power.
Table of identification of proanthocyanidins from brewers’ spent grain extracts by HPLC-MS; Rt—retention time.
| Peak | Rt (min) | Compound | [M-H]- |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.7 | Catechin/epicatechin | 289 |
| 2 | 17.6 | Procyanidin dimer | 577 |
| 3 | 19.0 | Prodelphinidin dimer | 593 |
| 4 | 21.2 | Prodelphinidin dimer II | 593 |
| 5 | 24.4 | Procyanidin trimer | 865 |
| 6 | 26.8 | Prodelphinidin trimer I (monogalloylated) | 881 |
| 7 | 29.5 | Prodelphinidin trimer II (digalloylated) | 897 |
| 8 | 32.8 | Procyanidin tetramer | 1153 |
| 9 | 33.9 | Prodelphinidin tetramer (digalloylated) | 1457 |
| 10 | 36 | Procyanidin pentamer | 1441 |
| 11 | 51.7 | Polymers (degree of polymerization >5) |
Table of quantification of proanthocyanidins from brewers’ spent grain extracts by HPLC-FLD expressed as µg∙g−1 d.w. UAE—ultrasound-assisted extraction; LOQ—limit of quantitation.
| Proanthocyanidin Compounds | UAE 1 | UAE 2 | UAE 3 | UAE 4 | UAE 5 | UAE 6 | UAE 7 | UAE 8 | UAE 9 | UAE 10 | UAE 11 | UAE 12 | UAE 13 | UAE 14 | UAE 15 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Catechin/epicatechin | 8.34 | 9.17 | 10.16 | 9.71 | 8.05 | 10.03 | 10.07 | 10.37 | 9.59 | 10.33 | 10.41 | 8.41 | 9.62 | 9.53 | 8.89 |
| Procyanidin dimer | 50.08 | 70.49 | 52.50 | 85.90 | 40.06 | 73.45 | 44.02 | 82.34 | 57.47 | 76.36 | 100.92 | 64.17 | 98.56 | 88.97 | 73.94 |
| Prodelphinidin dimer | 22.68 | 33.01 | 26.09 | 25.96 | 30.44 | 38.86 | 31.93 | 43.95 | 49.16 | 57.03 | 38.74 | 25.68 | 31.04 | 33.97 | 31.60 |
| Prodelphinidin dimer II | 25.69 | 35.62 | 51.16 | 66.60 | 38.16 | 78.03 | 37.09 | 79.55 | 59.02 | 72.00 | 74.00 | 79.08 | 64.73 | 76.73 | 60.15 |
| Procyanidin trimer | 73.11 | 28.69 | 61.50 | 54.93 | 54.45 | 67.35 | 37.20 | 64.29 | 88.65 | 92.85 | 103.78 | 52.06 | 103.23 | 97.27 | 95.05 |
| Prodelphinidin trimer I (monogalloylated) | 35.58 | 73.86 | 56.78 | 97.85 | 49.08 | 101.98 | 45.60 | 95.27 | 92.53 | 122.39 | 121.94 | 81.68 | 98.98 | 107.81 | 83.69 |
| Prodelphinidin trimer II (digalloylated) | <LOQ | 48.58 | <LOQ | 82.52 | <LOQ | 80.67 | <LOQ | 71.26 | 79.53 | 92.77 | 83.62 | 75.12 | 65.34 | 78.03 | 59.54 |
| Procyanidin tetramer | <LOQ | 29.46 | <LOQ | 46.57 | <LOQ | 51.15 | <LOQ | 44.52 | 45.68 | 56.49 | 55.10 | 45.12 | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Prodelphinidin tetramer (digalloylated) | <LOQ | 32.70 | <LOQ | 52.06 | <LOQ | 58.55 | <LOQ | 51.20 | 50.76 | 64.87 | 68.59 | 63.57 | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Procyanidin pentamer | <LOQ | 17.64 | <LOQ | 26.50 | <LOQ | 28.01 | <LOQ | 19.34 | 24.84 | 35.28 | 30.44 | 42.78 | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Polymers | 324.57 | 169.04 | 432.71 | 253.66 | 327.67 | 261.23 | 395.52 | 229.98 | 239.17 | 297.31 | 305.60 | 464.64 | 360.52 | 364.73 | 339.83 |
| Total | 540.04 | 548.25 | 690.90 | 802.25 | 547.91 | 849.32 | 601.43 | 792.07 | 796.40 | 977.69 | 993.15 | 1002.31 | 832.04 | 857.04 | 752.68 |
Regression coefficients and ANOVA table.
| Regression Coefficients | Total Proanthocyanidins |
|---|---|
| β0 | −1256.27 * |
| Linear | |
| β1 | 53.07 ** |
| β2 | −1.19 ** |
| β3 | −0.68 |
| Cross product | |
| β12 | 0.04 |
| β13 | −0.01 |
| β23 | −0.01 |
| Quadratic | |
| β11 | −0.33 * |
| β22 | 0.06 |
| β33 | 0.00 ** |
|
| 0.8999 |
| 0.0074 | |
| 0.3420 |
* Significant at α ≤ 0.05, ** significant at α ≤ 0.1; β1: acetone/water ratio, β2: time, β3: US power, β0: regression coefficient of mean.
Figure 1Response surface plots showing the combined effects of process variables for total proanthocyanidins: (A) acetone/water (% (v/v)) vs. time (min); (B) acetone/water (% (v/v)) vs. ultrasound (US) power (W); (C) time (min) vs. US power (W).
Optimal conditions for sonotrode UAE.
| Optimal Conditions | Sum of Proanthocyanidins (µg∙g−1 d.w.) |
|---|---|
| Acetone/ water ratio (% ( | 80 |
| Time (min) | 55 |
| US power | 400 |
| Predicted (µg∙g−1 d.w.) | 1012.7 ± 15.1 |
| Obtained value (µg∙g−1 d.w.) | 1023.0 ± 8.9 |
| Significant differences between predicted and obtained value | N.S. |
N.S.: non-significant difference.
Comparison of proanthocyanidin content using sonotrode and conventional extractions (µg/g d.w.).
| Proanthocyanidin Compounds | Sonotrode Extraction | Conventional Extraction |
|---|---|---|
| Catechin/epicatechin | 8.96 ± 0.23 | 3.89 ± 0.36 |
| Procyanidin dimer | 66.21 ± 1.10 | 21.34 ± 1.04 |
| Prodelphinidin dimer | 26.08 ± 0.29 | 10.25 ± 0.92 |
| Prodelphinidin dimer II | 80.43 ± 1.62 | 39.41 ± 1.37 |
| Procyanidin trimer | 53.19 ± 1.06 | 18.69 ± 2.06 |
| Prodelphinidin trimer I (monogalloylated) | 83.70 ± 2.12 | 42.16 ± 1.89 |
| Prodelphinidin trimer II (digalloylated) | 76.14 ± 0.98 | 35.47 ± 1.25 |
| Procyanidin tetramer | 47.09 ± 0.63 | 19.36 ± 0.47 |
| Prodelphinidin tetramer (digalloylated) | 65.22 ± 1.52 | 20.93 ± 1.12 |
| Procyanidin pentamer | 46.81 ± 1.70 | 18.71 ± 0.43 |
| Polymers | 469.21 ± 6.69 | 200.36 ± 2.89 |
| Total | 1023.04 ± 8.9 | 430.57 ± 3.62 |