| Literature DB >> 32108167 |
Xiaoxia Peng1,2,3, Guang Yang2, Yun Shi2, Yifa Zhou2, Mengshan Zhang4, Shanshan Li5.
Abstract
A natural low-methoxyl pectin (LAHP), was extracted with oxalic acid solution from dried heads of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). The single-factor experiments and response surface methodology (RSM) were used to optimize LAHP extraction conditions. The extraction yield of LAHP was 18.83 ± 0.21%, and the uronic acid content was 85.43 ± 2.9% obtained under the optimized conditions (temperature of 96 °C, time of 1.64 h, oxalic acid concentration of 0.21%). Experimentally obtained values were in agreement with those predicted by RSM model, indicating suitability of the employed model and the success of RSM in optimizing the extraction conditions. LAHP has been characterized by ash content, degree of esterification (DE), galacturonic acid (GalA) content, molecular weight and intrinsic viscosity meanwhile commercial low-methoxyl pectin (CLMP) as comparison. This study finds out a potential source of natural LMP which expands the application scope of sunflower heads. It is an efficient reuse of waste resources and provides a novel thought to explore the natural resources for food and pharmaceutical applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32108167 PMCID: PMC7046776 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60339-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Box-Behnken experimental design and response values for extraction yield and uronic acid content of LAHP.
| Run | X1a | X2b | X3c | Yield (%) | Uronic acid content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 14.23 | 66.51 |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 17.28 | 70.27 |
| 3 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 10.74 | 59.62 |
| 4 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 10.31 | 57.09 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.46 | 83.86 |
| 6 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 9.42 | 61.13 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.82 | 85.63 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.65 | 85.02 |
| 9 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 11.39 | 67.08 |
| 10 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 13.02 | 61.44 |
| 11 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 15.37 | 69.77 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 18.47 | 75.01 |
| 13 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 19.18 | 78.12 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.42 | 85.36 |
| 15 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 17.78 | 75.38 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 15.91 | 74.02 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16.54 | 84.25 |
aThe three levels (−1, 0 and 1) of factor X1 (extraction temperature) represented 70, 85 and 100 °C, respectively.
bThe three levels (−1, 0 and 1) of factor X2 (extraction time) represented 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 h, respectively.
cThe three levels (−1, 0 and 1) of factor X3 (oxalic acid concentration) represented 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3%, respectively.
Figure 1Effect of (a) extraction temperature, (b) extraction time, (c) oxalic acid concentration on the yield and uronic acid content of LAHP (-□- yield, -●- uronic acid content).
Results of ANOVA for extraction yield and uronic acid content of LAHP.
| Source | Sum of squares | DF | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 144.30 | 9 | 16.03 | 265.05 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 118.97 | 1 | 118.97 | 1966.58 | <0.0001 |
| X2 | 6.85 | 1 | 6.85 | 113.15 | <0.0001 |
| X3 | 1.42 | 1 | 1.42 | 23.47 | 0.0019 |
| X1 X2 | 0.081 | 1 | 0.081 | 1.34 | 0.2846 |
| X1 X3 | 0.14 | 1 | 0.14 | 2.39 | 0.1663 |
| X2 X3 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 1.86 | 0.2154 |
| X12 | 6.94 | 1 | 6.94 | 114.75 | <0.0001 |
| X22 | 3.05 | 1 | 3.05 | 50.47 | 0.0002 |
| X32 | 5.04 | 1 | 5.04 | 83.30 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 0.42 | 7 | 0.060 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 0.32 | 3 | 0.11 | 4.09 | 0.1035 |
| Pure error | 0.10 | 4 | 0.026 | ||
| Total | 144.73 | 16 | |||
| R2 = 0.9971, adj-R2 = 0.9933, CV = 1.63 | |||||
| Model | 1529.35 | 9 | 169.93 | 113.34 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 362.61 | 1 | 362.61 | 241.87 | <0.0001 |
| X2 | 75.22 | 1 | 75.22 | 50.17 | 0.0002 |
| X3 | 34.40 | 1 | 34.40 | 22.95 | 0.0020 |
| X1 X2 | 2.58 | 1 | 2.58 | 1.72 | 0.2313 |
| X1 X3 | 1.22 | 1 | 1.22 | 0.81 | 0.3968 |
| X2 X3 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.7475 |
| X12 | 298.30 | 1 | 298.30 | 198.97 | <0.0001 |
| X22 | 150.54 | 1 | 150.54 | 100.42 | <0.0001 |
| X32 | 501.13 | 1 | 501.13 | 334.26 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 10.49 | 7 | 1.50 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 8.26 | 3 | 2.75 | 4.93 | 0.0787 |
| Pure error | 2.23 | 4 | 0.56 | ||
| Total | 1539.84 | 16 | |||
| R2 = 0.9932, adj-R2 = 0.9844, CV = 1.68 | |||||
Figure 2Response surface and contour plots showing the effect of the extraction temperature (X1), extraction time (X2) and oxalic acid concentration (X3) on the yield of LAHP. (a) Response surface and contour plots of yield as a function of X1 and X2. (b) Response surface and contour plots of yield as a function of X1 and X3. (c) Response surface and contour plots of yield as a function of X2 and X3.
Figure 3Response surface plots and contour plots showing the effect of the extraction temperature (X1), extraction time (X2) and oxalic acid concentration (X3) on the uronic acid content of LAHP. (a) Response surface and contour plots of the uronic acid content as a function of X1 and X2. (b) Response surface and contour plots of the uronic acid content as a function of X1 and X3. (c) Response surface and contour plots of the uronic acid content as a function of X2 and X3.
Chemical analysis of LAHP and CLMP.
| Samples | Ash (%) | Uronic acid (%) | DE (%) | Sugar composition (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GalA | Rha | Gal | Ara | Glc | |||||
| LAHP | 3.0 | 86.3 | 23.9 | 84.6 | 6.5 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 2.8 | 257.5 |
| CLMP | 2.8 | 76.8* | 33.8 | 70.4 | 2.9 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 18.9 | 463.4 |
Figure 4Huggins plot of LAHP and CLMP in deionized water (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01).
The comparison of the gel textural properties between LAHP and CLMP.
| Sample | Firmness (g) | Consistency (g.s) | Cohesiveness (g) | Viscosity index (g.s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAHP | 8.0 ± 0.2 | 713.8 ± 8.5 | −3.00 ± 0.1 | −129.3 ± 8.7 |
| CLMP | 10.1 ± 0.5** | 869.9 ± 55.5** | −1.27 ± 0.1*** | −32.9 ± 3.1*** |
**p < 0.01,***p < 0.001.