| Literature DB >> 32837663 |
Maria Cinta Roda-Serrat1, Thalles Allan Andrade1, Janus Rindom1, Peter Brilner Lund1, Birgir Norddahl1, Massimiliano Errico1.
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The recovery efficiency of waste valorization processes depends on an interplay of different conditions that are sometimes overlooked. Process optimization by the means of establishing mathematical relations between the process parameters and outputs is a strong tool to identify optimal operating conditions based on experimental data. In this study, the extraction of anthocyanins from chokeberry (Aronia melancocarpa) juice pomace using homogenization in acidified water was selected as a case study for process optimization using response surface methodology. The parameters studied were the citric acid content in the water, the temperature and the liquid-solid ratio. The optimal conditions to maximize both anthocyanin concentration and total anthocyanin content extracted were 1.5 wt% citric acid, 45 °C and 34 g solvent/g fresh pomace. Furthermore, the model developed predicted satisfactorily the overall anthocyanin content and anthocyanin concentration in the extract, as well as the final pH and total dissolved solids. The process optimization performed in this study sets the ground for further process design targeting the production of high-value products from byproducts or biowaste to be used in food ingredients or supplements. © Springer Nature B.V. 2020.Entities:
Keywords: Aronia melanocarpa; Bioactive; By-product; Extraction; Polyphenol; Valorization
Year: 2020 PMID: 32837663 PMCID: PMC7305859 DOI: 10.1007/s12649-020-01127-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Waste Biomass Valorization ISSN: 1877-2641 Impact factor: 3.703
Methodologies for extraction of anthocyanins from chokeberry juice pomace
| Juice production method | Pomace extraction method | Extraction solvent | Acidity modifier | Temperature | Solid/liquid | Duration | Anthocyanin yielda | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressing (cold) | Ultrasound-assisted | Methanol | HCl (1%) | N.r | 2.5 g/60 mL | 3 × 20 min | 1.14 mg/g FW | [ |
| Enzymatic + pressing (hot) | Ultrasound-assisted | Methanol | HCl (1%) | N.r | 2.5 g/60 mL | 3 × 20 min | 1.86 mg/g FW | [ |
| Crushing + pressing | Ultrasound-assisted | Methanol | Formic acid (2%) | N.r | 2 g/50 mL | 2 × 20 min | 66.5 mg/g DW | [ |
| Pressing | Ultrasound-assisted | Methanol | Formic acid (2%) | N.r | 2 g/50 mL | 2 × 20 min | 115.7 mg/g DW | [ |
| Enzymatic + pressing | Ultrasound-assisted | Methanol | HCl (0.1%) | N.r | 1 g/N.r | 20 min | 18.36 mg/g DW | [ |
| Pressing | Ultrasound-assisted | 34% Ethanol | N.r | 70 °C | 7.5 g/300 mL | 17 min | 12.00 mg CGE/g DW | [ |
| Pressing | Ultrasound-assisted | 65% Ethanol | N.r | 25 °C | 5 g/50 mL | 13 min | 89.3 mg CGE/g DW | [ |
| N.r | Ultrasound-assisted | 50% Methanol | Formic acid (2%) | N.r | 0.5 g/25 mL | 4 × 5 min | 6.16 – 12.39 mg/g DW | [ |
| N.r | Ultrasound-assisted | 75% Methanol | Formic acid (0.1%) | Cold | 2 g/15 mL | 4 × 15 min | 10 ± 0.4 mg/g DW | [ |
| N.r | Ultrasound-assisted | 80% Methanol | HCl (1%) | 40 °C | 1 g/20 mL | 30 min | 5.01 mg CGE/g DW | [ |
| Centrifugation | Ultrasound-assisted | 50% Ethanol | N.r | Cold | 1/10 | 10 min | 631 ± 13 mg CGE/L | [ |
| Enzymatic + pressing | Homogenization | Methanol | HCl (1%) | N.r | N.r | N.r | 18.12 mg CGE/g | [ |
| Enzymatic + pressing | Stirring | 50% Ethanol | N.r | 50 °C | 25 g/25 g | 60 min | 2.45 mg CGE/g | [ |
| Enzymatic + pressing | Supercritical | CO2/Ethanol 20/80 (w/w) | N.r | 35 °C | 10 g/150 g | 60 min | 10.02 mg CGE/g | [ |
FW fresh weight basis, DW dry weight basis, CGE cyanidin-3-O-glucoside equivalents, N.r. not reported
aAll yields are expressed per g of pomace unless otherwise specified
Fig. 1Median particle size of the suspension during homogenization (full line). The dashed lines illustrate the interval of particle diameters where 80% of the particles are found. Operating conditions: CA: 0.75%; T: 50 °C; LSR 50 g/g
Experimental design for the 3-level-3-factor response surface analysis
| Factor | Abbreviation | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Center | High | ||
| Temperature (°C) | T | 30 | 50 | 70 |
| Liquid–solid ratio (g/g) | LSR | 20 | 50 | 80 |
| Citric acid (wt%) | CA | 0.25 | 0.75 | 1.5 |
Fig. 2Total anthocyanin content (TAC) extracted with and without homogenization, with respect to time. Operating conditions: CA: 0.75 wt%; T: 50 °C; LSR 50 g/g
Experimental design, independent factors, levels and measured experimental outputs
| Exp | Independent factors | Experimental outputs | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | CA ( wt%) | T (°C) | LSR (g/g) | TAC (mg/g DW) | [AC] (mg/L) | TDS (°Brix) | pHfinal |
| 1 | 0.25 | 30 | 20 | 23.6 ± 1.3 | 413.1 ± 24 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 2.93 ± 0.02 |
| 2 | 0.25 | 30 | 80 | 41.8 ± 1.4 | 182.9 ± 6.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 2.77 ± 0.04 |
| 3 | 0.25 | 50 | 50 | 41.9 ± 1.7 | 288.8 ± 9.7 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 2.75 ± 0.02 |
| 4 | 0.25 | 70 | 20 | 18.1 ± 0.2 | 315.3 ± 3.6 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 2.96 ± 0.01 |
| 5 | 0.25 | 70 | 80 | 42.6 ± 2.0 | 186.6 ± 8.9 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 2.76 ± 0.04 |
| 6 | 0.75 | 30 | 50 | 41.9 ± 1.4 | 295.2 ± 7.4 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 2.43 ± 0.03 |
| 7 | 0.75 | 50 | 20 | 37.8 ± 2.4 | 663.2 ± 41 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | 2.58 ± 0.01 |
| 8 | 0.75 | 50 | 50 | 41.8 ± 2.5 | 293.3 ± 17 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 2.44 ± 0.01 |
| 9 | 0.75 | 50 | 80 | 45.7 ± 0.3 | 200.1 ± 1.8 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 2.41 ± 0.01 |
| 10 | 0.75 | 70 | 50 | 43.8 ± 1.4 | 304.8 ± 13 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 2.44 ± 0.02 |
| 11 | 1.5 | 30 | 20 | 41.0 ± 2.9 | 717.9 ± 51 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 2.38 ± 0.05 |
| 12 | 1.5 | 30 | 80 | 51.0 ± 1.2 | 222.6 ± 5.4 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 2.26 ± 0.04 |
| 13 | 1.5 | 50 | 50 | 46.0 ± 1.0 | 322.7 ± 6.5 | 1.5 ± 0.0 | 2.28 ± 0.00 |
| 14 | 1.5 | 70 | 20 | 39.8 ± 2.9 | 696.1 ± 50 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 2.33 ± 0.02 |
| 15 | 1.5 | 70 | 80 | 47.7 ± 1.6 | 209.0 ± 7.5 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 2.29 ± 0.00 |
LSR liquid–solid ratio, TAC total anthocyanin content, [AC] anthocyanin concentration, TDS total dissolved solids
Fig. 3Variation of the percentages of (a) cyanidin-3-O-galactoside and (b) cyanidin-3-O-arabinoside in chokeberry extracts produced at 30 and 70 °C
Fig. 4Response-surface plots showing the effect of the independent factors (T, °C; CA, wt%; and LSR, g/g) on TAC, % and [AC], mg/L
Fig. 5Variation of the predicted value of TAC and normalized [AC]Norm for different liquid–solid ratios (LSR). Constant parameters: T: 45 °C; CA: 1.5 wt%
Fig. 6Variation of the predicted value for total dissolved solids (TDS) and the final pH of the extract for different liquid–solid ratios (LSR). Constant parameters: T: 45 °C; CA: 1.5 wt%
Overview of the observed and predicted responses for the set of conditions CA: 1.5 wt%; T: 45 °C, LSR: 34 g/g
| Output | Experimental responsea | Predicted valueb | Rel. error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| TAC, % | 70.62 ± 2.99 | 73.03 ± 4.03 | 3 |
| [AC], mg/L | 456.7 ± 19.3 | 539.2 ± 40.4 | 18 |
| TDS, Brix | 1.7 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.12 | 5 |
| pHfinal | 2.19 ± 0.02 | 2.30 ± 0.02 | 7 |
aThe result is expressed as the value ± the standard deviation of three individual replicates
bThe result is expressed as the predicted value ± the standard error of the prediction