| Literature DB >> 31426546 |
Florina Dranca1, Mircea Oroian2.
Abstract
Grape pomace from a red grape variety (Vitis vinifera Moldova) cultivated in the northeastern region of Romania has been studied as a source for the extraction of total monomeric anthocyanin (TMA) and total phenolic content (TPC) using ultrasonic treatment. The method of extraction described here uses two different solvents, namely 2-propanol and methanol. For each of the extraction solvents, we evaluated the singular influence and the impact of interactions between process parameters (solvent concentration, ultrasonic frequency, temperature, and extraction time) on the extraction yields of anthocyanins and phenolic compounds. Response surface methodology was implemented via a Box-Behnken design to optimize the extraction of TMA and TPC from grape pomace. According to the optimization, in order to achieve the highest yield of TPC (62.487 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g (d = 1.0)), the following conditions are necessary: solvent-2 propanol, solvent concentration 50%, temperature -50 °C and extraction time 29.6 min.Entities:
Keywords: extraction; grape pomace; total monomeric anthocyanin; total phenolic content
Year: 2019 PMID: 31426546 PMCID: PMC6723148 DOI: 10.3390/foods8080353
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Levels in full factorial experiments for TMA and TPC from grape pomace.
| Factor | −1 | 0 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (%), C | 50 | 70 | 90 |
| Ultrasonic frequency (kHz), U | 12.5 | 25 | 37.5 |
| Temperature (°C), T | 50 | 60 | 70 |
| Time (min), t | 15 | 30 | 45 |
Analysis of variance of TMA and TPC as functions of ultrasonic frequency, solvent type, concentrations, temperatures and times.
| Parameter | TMA (mg/g)–Mean Values | TPC (mg/g)–Mean Values | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solvent type | 2-Propanol | 5.37 | 42.54 |
| Methanol | 4.58 | 46.53 | |
| ANOVA F-ratio | 215.32*** | 158.92*** | |
| Solvent concentration (%) | 50 | 5.40 | 45.72 |
| 70 | 5.01 | 44.65 | |
| 90 | 4.51 | 43.24 | |
| ANOVA F-ratio | 92.78*** | 20.72*** | |
| Ultrasonic frequency (kHz) | 12.5 | 4.92 | 43.52 |
| 25.0 | 6.03 | 48.92 | |
| 37.5 | 3.97 | 41.17 | |
| ANOVA F-ratio | 493.90*** | 210.32*** | |
| Temperature (°C) | 50 | 5.08 | 48.76 |
| 60 | 5.17 | 45.05 | |
| 70 | 4.68 | 39.80 | |
| ANOVA F-ratio | 31.88*** | 269.92*** | |
| Time (min) | 15 | 4.84 | 43.38 |
| 30 | 5.24 | 48.18 | |
| 45 | 4.84 | 42.05 | |
| ANOVA F-ratio | 24.73*** | 138.47*** |
*** p< 0.001.
Interactions between process parameters and their statistical significance.
| Process Parameters Interactions | TMA (mg/g) | TPC (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|
| Solvent type × concentration | 2.92ns | 0.08ns |
| Solvent type × ultrasonic frequency | 27.74*** | 71.76*** |
| Solvent type × temperature | 4.40* | 21.54*** |
| Solvent type × time | 0.31ns | 0.45ns |
| Concentration × ultrasonic frequency | 12.80*** | 3.37* |
| Concentration × temperature | 0.68ns | 6.58*** |
| Concentration × time | 0.24ns | 0.38ns |
| Ultrasonic frequency × temperature | 5.82*** | 1.17ns |
| Ultrasonic frequency × time | 0.62ns | 1.15ns |
| Temperature × time | 1.12ns | 0.47ns |
ns p > 0.05, * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Experimental and coded values for RSM.
| Run | Standard Order | Ultrasonic Frequency, | Temperature, | Solvent Concentration, | Time, | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coded | Experimental (kHz) | Coded | Experimental (°C) | Coded | Experimental (%) | Coded | Experimental (min) | ||
| 1 | 1 | −1 | 12.5 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 2 | 10 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 3 | 7 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | −1 | 50 | 1 | 45 |
| 4 | 4 | 1 | 37.5 | 1 | 70 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 5 | 5 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | −1 | 50 | −1 | 15 |
| 6 | 2 | 1 | 37.5 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 7 | 9 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 8 | 6 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 1 | 90 | −1 | 15 |
| 9 | 3 | −1 | 12.5 | 1 | 70 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 10 | 8 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 1 | 90 | 1 | 45 |
| 11 | 18 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 70 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 30 |
| 12 | 13 | −1 | 12.5 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 1 | 45 |
| 13 | 15 | 0 | 25 | −1 | 50 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 30 |
| 14 | 11 | −1 | 12.5 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | −1 | 15 |
| 15 | 20 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 16 | 19 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 17 | 16 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 70 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 30 |
| 18 | 12 | 1 | 37.5 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | −1 | 15 |
| 19 | 14 | 1 | 37.5 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 1 | 45 |
| 20 | 17 | 0 | 25 | −1 | 50 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 30 |
| 21 | 29 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 22 | 28 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 70 | 0 | 70 | 1 | 45 |
| 23 | 21 | −1 | 12.5 | 0 | 60 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 30 |
| 24 | 27 | 0 | 25 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 70 | 1 | 45 |
| 25 | 23 | −1 | 12.5 | 0 | 60 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 30 |
| 26 | 30 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 60 | 0 | 70 | 0 | 30 |
| 27 | 22 | 1 | 37.5 | 0 | 60 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 30 |
| 28 | 26 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 70 | 0 | 70 | −1 | 15 |
| 29 | 25 | 0 | 25 | −1 | 50 | 0 | 70 | −1 | 15 |
| 30 | 24 | 1 | 37.5 | 0 | 60 | 1 | 90 | 0 | 30 |
Polynomial equations describing the effect of the independent variables considered on the responses (TMA and TPC), for each extraction solvent (2-propanol and methanol).
| Response | Polynomial Equation |
|---|---|
| Total Monomeric Anthocyanin Content | |
| TMA2-p (mg/g) | 7.104 − 0.282 · |
| TMAm (mg/g) | 6.169 − 0.814 · |
| Total Phenolic Content | |
| TPC2-p (mg/g) | 49315.79 − 763.15 · |
| TPCm (mg/g) | 53105.26 − 1027.19 · |
Parameters calculated after implementation of the Box–Behnken design.
| Response | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F-Value | R2 | Lack of Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMA2-p (mg/g) | 21.38 | 1.53 | 7.95*** | 0.8954 | 2.50 |
| TMAm (mg/g) | 34.94 | 2.50 | 16.75*** | 0.9475 | 1.94 |
| TPC2-p (mg/g) | 1254.03 | 89.57 | 17.99*** | 0.8981 | 64.72 |
| TPCm (mg/g) | 399.26 | 28.52 | 19.94*** | 0.9555 | 18.59 |
*** p < 0.0001.
Figure 1RSM graphs of TMA extraction evolution using 2-propanol as solvent. RSM: Response Surface Methodology, TMA: total monomeric anthocyanin.
Figure 2RSM graphs of TMA extraction evolution using methanol as solvent.
Figure 3RSM graphs of TPC extraction evolution using 2-propanol as solvent. TPC: total phenolic content.
Figure 4RSM graphs of TPC extraction evolution using methanol as solvent.
Figure 5Raman spectra of extracts with 2-propanol (A) and methanol (B).