| Literature DB >> 32457916 |
Lucia Panzella1, Federica Moccia1, Rita Nasti2, Stefania Marzorati2, Luisella Verotta2, Alessandra Napolitano1.
Abstract
Phenolic compounds are broadly represented in plant kingdom, and their occurrence in easily accessible low-cost sources like wastes from agri-food processing have led in the last decade to an increase of interest in their recovery and further exploitation. Indeed, most of these compounds are endowed with beneficial properties to human health (e.g., in the prevention of cancer and cardiovascular diseases), that may be largely ascribed to their potent antioxidant and scavenging activity against reactive oxygen species generated in settings of oxidative stress and responsible for the onset of several inflammatory and degenerative diseases. Apart from their use as food supplements or as additives in functional foods, natural phenolic compounds have become increasingly attractive also from a technological point of view, due to their possible exploitation in materials science. Several extraction methodologies have been reported for the recovery of phenolic compounds from agri-food wastes mostly based on the use of organic solvents such as methanol, ethanol, or acetone. However, there is an increasing need for green and sustainable approaches leading to phenolic-rich extracts with low environmental impact. This review addresses the most promising and innovative methodologies for the recovery of functional phenolic compounds from waste materials that have appeared in the recent literature. In particular, extraction procedures based on the use of green technologies (supercritical fluid, microwaves, ultrasounds) as well as of green solvents such as deep eutectic solvents (DES) are surveyed.Entities:
Keywords: Naviglio extractor; agri-food wastes; deep eutectic solvents; microwave assisted extraction; phenolic compounds; supercritical fluid extraction; sustainability; ultrasound assisted extraction
Year: 2020 PMID: 32457916 PMCID: PMC7221145 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2020.00060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Main fruit byproducts and their most prominent phenolic constituents with reported bioactivities.
Figure 2Main vegetable and lignocellulosic byproducts. Shown are the most abundant phenolic components and the reported bioactivities.
Figure 3Schematic representation of MAE equipment and characteristics.
Figure 4Schematic representation of UAE equipment and characteristics.
Figure 5Schematic representation of SFE equipment and characteristics.
Figure 6Schematic representation of extraction of phenolic compounds with DES.
Figure 7Representative examples of phenolic compounds recovered from grape byproducts.
Figure 8Representative examples of phenolic compounds recovered from olive byproducts.
Figure 9Representative examples of phenolic compounds recovered from orange byproducts.
Figure 10Representative examples of phenolic compounds recovered from lignocellulosic byproducts.
MAE extraction of phenolic compounds from various agri-food wastes.
| Microwave assisted extraction (MAE) | Pineapple waste | solid-to-liquid ratio (S/L) | TPC 12.4 mg GAE/g | ( |
| Banana peel | S/L 28.5 g/L, H2O:ethanol 1:1 v/v, 100 s, 380 W | 2.2% polyphenols | ( | |
| S/L 20 g/L, pH 1, 6 min, 960 W | TPC 53.8 mg GAE/g | ( | ||
| Xoconostle | S/L 100 g/L, H2O, 5.5 min, 297 W | TPC 12.9 mg GAE/g TFC 5.6 mg CE/g | ( | |
| S/L 50 g/L, H2O, 4.5 min, 360 W | TPC 45 mg GAE/g | ( | ||
| S/L 30 g/L, 41% ethanol,37 min, 67°C, 700 W. | TPC 3.7 mg GAE/g | ( | ||
| Peanut shells | Irradiation for 2.6 min, followed by incubation with 0.81% w/w cellulase, pH 5.5, 66°C, 120 min. | 1.8% polyphenols | ( | |
| Apricot kernel skin | S/L 25 g/L, 43% ethanol, 80°C, 20 min, 400 W | TPC 22 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Tobacco waste | S/L 25 g/L, acetone:H2O 3:7 v/v, 4 min, 400 W | 7.8–12.9 mg CA/g | ( | |
| Pequi and jucara waste | S/L 20 g/L, 94% ethanol, 100 s, 670 W | TPC 3.8 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Dragon fruit peel | S/L 24 g/L, H2O, 45°C, 20 min, 400 W | TPC 58 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Cabbage outer leaves | S/L 100 g/L, ethanol, 5 min, 100 W | TPC 14.9–19.2 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Yarrow dust | S/L 25 g/L, 70% ethanol, 33 s, 170 W. | TPC 238 mg GAE/g TFC 43 mg QE/g | ( | |
| Horsetail | S/L 22 g/L, 55% ethanol, 80 s, 170 W. | TPC 162 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Tea residues | 230°C, H2O, 2 min | 74 % polyphenols | ( | |
| S/L 100 g/L, 80% ethanol, 15 min. | TFC 12.8 mg RE/g | ( |
UAE, SFE, MHG, and DES extraction of phenolic compounds from various agri-food wastes.
| Ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE) | Artichoke waste | Solid-to-liquid ratio (S/L) | TPC 0.8–1.4 mg GAE/g | ( |
| S/L 100 g/L, 50% ethanol, 25°C, 60 min, 240. | 0.02–14.8 mg chlorogenic acid/g | ( | ||
| Cauliflower waste | S/L 50 g/L, 2 M NaOH, 60°C, 15 min, 37 kHz, 180 W | TPC 7.3 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Tobacco waste | S/L 20-100 g/L, ethanol-H2O 60:40–20:80 v/v, 30–70°C, 15–45 min, 37 kHz, 50 W | 3.6–804.2 μg/mL of chlorogenic acid | ( | |
| Mustard seed meal | S/L 25 g/L, 70% ethanol, 40°C, 30 min, 60 W | TPC 13.8 mg sinapic acid equivalents/g | ( | |
| Microwave hydrodiffusion and gravity (MHG) | Broccoli waste | 43 min, 500 W, under atmospheric pressure, in the absence of solvents | 317 μg GAE/mL | ( |
| Sea buckthorn pomace | 15 min, 400 W | 1147 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) | Blueberry waste | Flow rate 0.5 kg/h | TPC 134 mg GAE/g | ( |
| Deep eutectic solvent (DES) extraction | S/L 95 g/L, ChCl/malonic acid 1:2 mol/mol + 55% H2O, 65°C, 53 min | 22.2 mg proanthocyanidins/g | ( | |
| S/L 50 g/L, glycerol/sodium acetate 6:1 mol/mol + 20% H2O, 50°C, 180 min | TPC 53.8 mg GAE/g | ( | ||
| Peanut roots | S/L 33 g/L, ChCl/1,4-butanediol 1:3 mol/mol + 40% H2O, 55°C, 40 min | 38.9 mg of resveratrol/kg of sample | ( | |
| Rue leaves | S/L 50 g/L, ChCl/citric acid 2:1 mol/mol + 20% H2O,30°C, 90 min. | 38.2 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Mango waste | S/L 17 g/L, lactic acid/sodium acetate/ H2O 3:1:4 mol/mol/mol, 20 min, 436 W | 56.2 mg GAE/g | ( |
Figure 11Schematic representation and examples of extraction of bioactive compounds with (A) Naviglio Extractor®, (B) PEF, and (C) steam explosion.
Main advantages and disadvantages of the extraction techniques reviewed in this paper.
| MAE | • Fast extraction | • High equipment cost |
| UAE | • High extraction efficiency | • Filtration required |
| SFE | • Fast extraction | • High equipment cost |
| DES | • Low price | • Filtration is required |
UAE extraction of phenolic compounds from various agri-food wastes.
| Ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE) | Walnut green husks | solid-to-liquid ratio (S/L) 50 g/L, 60% ethanol, 60°C, 30 min | TPC 6.9 mg GAE/g | ( |
| S/L 77 g/L, n-hexane, 5 min, 261 W/cm2 | TPC 0.7 mg GAE/g | ( | ||
| Lettuce leaves | S/L 20 g/L, 50–75% ethanol, 120 s, 400 W, 24 kHz | 81 μg polyphenols/mL extract | ( | |
| Acerola residues | S/L 115 g/L, 46% ethanol, 49 min, 50 kHz, 250 W | TPC 10.7 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| Capsicum and cabbage waste | S/L 50 g/L, 60% methanol, 37°C, 30 min, 40 kHz. | - | ( | |
| Bamboo leaves | S/L 50–100 g/L, 60–90% ethanol, 30–40 min, 150–250 W | TFC 1.5 mg RE/g | ( | |
| S/L 10 g/L, 60% methanol, 30 min | TPC 12.8 mg GAE/g | ( | ||
| Kudzu roots | S/L 50 g/L, H2O/ethanol 2:8 v/v, 80° C, 6 h | 7.3 g isoflavones/100 g sample | ( | |
| Coconut shell | S/L 20 g/L, 50% ethanol, 30°C, 15 min, 0.487 W/cm2 | 22.4 mg of phenolics/g of sample | ( | |
| S/L 25 g/L, 0–50% ethanol, 20–70°C, 0–240 min, 0–100W | TPC >70 mg GAE/g | ( | ||
| Purple corn cob and husks | S/L 100 g/L, 20 min, 100 W, ethanol/H2O/lactic acid 80:19:1 | TPC 44-47 mg GAE/g | ( | |
| S/L 37 g/L, 62% ethanol, 40°C, 38 min | TAC 2.8 mg/g | ( | ||
| Litchi pericarp | Incubation for 90 min with 0.12 mg/mL 1:1 cellulase/pectinase, S/L 67 g/L, 20% ethanol, 50°C, 80 min, 300 W | 89.6% procyanidin content | ( | |
| S/L 100 g/L, phosphate buffer + 68% ethanol, 8.4 mg cellulase, 40°C, 20 min, 218 W | 25.4% flavonoids and 12.4% ginkgolides | ( | ||
| Star anis residues | S/L 49 g/L, 51 % ethanol, pH 5.3, 45°C, 70 mg/g enzyme, 120 min + 60 min sonication time | 14.8% flavonoids | ( |