| Literature DB >> 32858782 |
M Samadi1, Z Zainal Abidin1, H Yoshida1, R Yunus1, D R Awang Biak1.
Abstract
A method that delivers a high yield and excellent quality of essential oil, which retains most of its value-added compounds, and undergoes least change after the extraction process, is greatly sought after. Although chemical free methods are acceptable, they call for an extensive processing time, while the yield and quality from these methods are often disappointing. This work utilizes subcritical water technology to address these issues. In this undertaking, essential oil was extracted from Aquilaria malaccensis wood by way of subcritical conditions, and characterized through gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS). Optimization through response surface methodology revealed temperature to be the most critical factor for the extraction process, while the optimum conditions for temperature, sample-to-solvent ratio, and time for subcritical water extraction was revealed as 225 °C, 0.2 gr/mL, and 17 min, respectively. The subcritical water extraction technique involves two simultaneous processes, which are based on good fitting to the two-site kinetic and second order model. In comparison to the hydrodistillation method, GC/MS results indicated that the quality of A. malaccensis' wood oils, derived through the subcritical water technique, are of significantly better quality, while containing many constructive value-added compounds, such as furfural and guaiacol, which are useful for the production of pesticides and medicines. Pore size, functional groups, and morphology analysis revealed the occurrence of substantial damage to the samples, which facilitated an improved extraction of bio-products. In comparison to conventional methods, the use of the subcritical method not only involves a shorter processing time, but also delivers a higher oil yield and quality.Entities:
Keywords: Aquilaria malaccensis; essential oil; gaharu; subcritical water extraction; wood
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32858782 PMCID: PMC7503260 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25173872
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Extraction of essential oil from Aquilaria malaccensis by the subcritical water method: (a) stainless steel reactor; (b) subcritical water process and product recovery steps depiction.
Central Composite Design (CCD) for the extraction of essential oils from A. malaccensis wood, by way of the Subcritical Water (SCW) method.
| Run | X1 (°C) | X2 (gr/mL) | X3 (min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 115 | 0.1 | 5 |
| 2 | 115 | 0.1 | 5 |
| 3 | 250 | 0.1 | 5 |
| 4 | 250 | 0.1 | 5 |
| 5 | 115 | 0.2 | 5 |
| 6 | 115 | 0.2 | 5 |
| 7 | 250 | 0.2 | 5 |
| 8 | 250 | 0.2 | 5 |
| 9 | 115 | 0.1 | 30 |
| 10 | 115 | 0.1 | 30 |
| 11 | 250 | 0.1 | 30 |
| 12 | 250 | 0.1 | 30 |
| 13 | 115 | 0.2 | 30 |
| 14 | 115 | 0.2 | 30 |
| 15 | 250 | 0.2 | 30 |
| 16 | 250 | 0.2 | 30 |
| 17 | 93.67 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
| 18 | 271.33 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
| 19 | 182.5 | 0.08 | 17.5 |
| 20 | 182.5 | 0.22 | 17.5 |
| 21 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 1.05 |
| 22 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 33.95 |
| 23 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
| 24 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
| 25 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
| 26 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
| 27 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
| 28 | 182.5 | 0.15 | 17.5 |
Note: X1 (temperature, °C), X2 (sample to water ratio, gr/mL), X3 (time, min).
Statistical parameters of the polynomial models.
| Model | ||
|---|---|---|
| Linear | 18.198 | <0.0001 |
| 2-Factor interaction | 2.876 | 0.0604 |
| Quadratic | 87.562 | <0.0001 |
| Cubic | 0.407 | 0.8004 |
Note: (a) Model F-value is significant at “Prob > F” less than 0.05.
Figure 2Scatter plot of predicted value versus actual value, from the central composite design for yield of A. malaccensis wood essential oil.
ANOVA and regression coefficient for the reduced quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 809.679 | 9 | 89.964 | 142.108 | <0.0001 a |
| A—Temperature; B—Solid to Solvent Ratio; C—Time | |||||
| A a | 518.955 | 1 | 518.955 | 819.746 | <0.0001 |
| B b | 15.256 | 1 | 15.256 | 24.098 | 0.0001 |
| C c | 36.140 | 1 | 36.140 | 57.087 | <0.0001 |
| AB | 0.302 | 1 | 0.302 | 0.477 | 0.4982 |
| AC | 71.402 | 1 | 71.402 | 112.787 | <0.0001 |
| BC | 1.322 | 1 | 1.322 | 2.089 | 0.1655 |
| A2 | 97.454 | 1 | 97.454 | 153.93 | <0.0001 |
| B2 | 14.775 | 1 | 14.775 | 23.338 | 0.0001 |
| C2 | 1.218 | 1 | 1.218 | 1.924 | 0.1823 |
| Residual | 11.395 | 18 | 0.633 | ||
| Lack of fit | 5.681 | 5 | 1.136 | 2.585 | 0.0778 b |
| Pure error | 5.713 | 13 | 0.439 | ||
| Corrected total | 821.074 | 27 | |||
| R2 | 0.986 | Standard Deviation | 0.795 | ||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.979 | Mean | 11.414 | ||
| Predicted R2 | 0.963 | Coefficient of variation % | 6.970 | ||
| Adequate Precision | 33.118 | PRESS c | 30.185 | ||
Note: a Model F-value is significant at “Prob > F” less than 0.05, b lack of fit value is not significant relative to pure error, c PRESS is predicted residual error of sum of squares.
Figure 33D response surfaces for investigations on the interactive effect of variables with (a) denoting the temperature versus sample-to-solvent ratio, (b) denoting the time versus temperature ratio, and (c) denoting the time versus sample-to-solvent ratio, with regards to the extraction of essential oil from A. malaccensis wood.
Figure 4GC/MS chromatogram of A. malaccensis wood essential oil extracted by (A) SCWE and (B) Hydrodistillation.
Chemical composition of essential oil from Aquilaria malaccensis’ wood.
| Component Name | %Presence | R.t (min) | RI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HD | SCWE | |||
| Butanal, 2-methyl- | 2.531 | 643 | ||
| 2-Pentanone | 2.733 | 666 | ||
| 2,3-Pentanedione/(Acetylpropionyl) | 0.64 | 2.781 | 676 | |
| Oxiran, tetramethyl- | 3.980 | 686 | ||
| Acetylbutyryl | 0.49 | 4.228 | 755 | |
| Cyclopentanone | 0.402 | 4.330 | 780 | |
| Furfural | 14.36 | 5.153 | 830 | |
| Acetoxyacetone | 0.391 | 5.985 | 840 | |
| 2-Methyl-2-cyclopentenone | 0.32 | 7.224 | 880 | |
| Valerolactone<gamma-> | 2.041 | 7.333 | 886 | |
| 2-Acetylfuran | 1.516 | 7.499 | 890 | |
| 2,4-Pentanedione, 3-methyl- | 0.706 | 7.971 | 897 | |
| 2-furylacetone | 1.066 | 8.830 | 919 | |
| Furfural <5methyl-> | 4.011 | 9.312 | 960 | |
| Benzaldehyde | 0.923 | 2.019 | 9.531 | 995 |
| 2-Cyclopenten-1-one, 2,3-dimethyl- | 0.527 | 10.630 | 1001 | |
| Cyclotene | 1.423 | 11.850 | 1006 | |
| 2-Acetyl-5-methylfuran | 0.569 | 12.244 | 1010 | |
| Pyrazole-4-carboxaldehyde, 1,5-dimethyl- | 0.618 | 12.690 | 1047 | |
| Phenylacetaldehyde | 0.552 | 12.926 | 1049 | |
| 1-(5-Methyl-2-furyl)-2-propanone | 0.336 | 13.805 | 1056 | |
| Acetophenone | 0.852 | 13.976 | 1029 | |
| Guaiacol | 13.504 | 14.722 | 1063 | |
| Benzaldehyde dimethyl acetal | 0.748 | 15.670 | 1080 | |
| Mequinol | 0.64 | 16.047 | 1180 | |
| Creosol | 0.709 | 19.573 | 1181 | |
| Verbenone, (L) | 0.4 | 20.586 | 1199 | |
| 2-Butanone, 4-phenyl- | 10.732 | 12.042 | 22.563 | 1228 |
| 4-phenyl-2-butanol | 0.871 | 23.148 | 1254 | |
| Guaiacol <4-ethyl-> | 0.881 | 23.556 | 1245 | |
| Benzene, 1-chloro-2-dimethoxymethyl- | 0.784 | 24.649 | 1260 | |
| Guaiacol <4-vinyl-> | 0.922 | 25.493 | 1277 | |
| Syringol | 4.02 | 27.215 | 1309 | |
| 4-Ethylphenyl acetate | 4.713 | 1.11 | 29.361 | 1273 |
| Lactic acid, 3-phenyl-, methyl ester | 1.281 | 29.558 | 1421 | |
| Vanillin | 1.386 | 29.681 | 1357 | |
| Guaiene Alpha | 0.925 | 1.248 | 30.686 | 1426 |
| gamma Elemene | 0.844 | 31.054 | 1430 | |
| beta-Selinene | 1.053 | 0.308 | 31.375 | 1454 |
| Isoeugenol | 0.204 | 1.158 | 31.694 | 1439 |
| Humulene alpha | 0.198 | 0.12 | 31.721 | 1470 |
| 5-Hydroxy-5-isopropenyl-2-methylcyclohexyl acetate | 0.536 | 32.155 | 1474 | |
| beta agarofuran | 2.845 | 32.384 | 1474 | |
| Anisylacetone | 0.138 | 0.716 | 32.410 | 1462 |
| Guaiene delta | 3.355 | 1.427 | 33.689 | 1490 |
| Bicyclogermacrene | 0.531 | 33.910 | 1494 | |
| gamma.-Himachalene | 0.288 | 0.122 | 34.966 | 1499 |
| 4a-Methyldecahydro-1-naphthalenyl acetate | 0.612 | 35.297 | 1503 | |
| Caryophyllene oxide | 0.523 | 0.34 | 36.770 | 1507 |
| Spathulenol | 0.844 | 0.72 | 37.328 | 1536 |
| Eugenol <methoxy-> | 0.121 | 0.381 | 37.880 | 1600 |
| Rosifoliol | 2.287 | 38.320 | 1595 | |
| 10-epi-gama-eudesmol | 3.298 | 2.312 | 38.556 | 1599 |
| gamma.-Eudesmol | 1.974 | 0 | 38.743 | 1626 |
| Valerianol | 0.979 | 0.29 | 38.941 | 1633 |
| viridiflorol | 1.015 | 0.61 | 39.099 | 1636 |
| beta-Eudesmol | 1.594 | 0.421 | 39.486 | 1637 |
| Agarospirol | 7.618 | 3.52 | 40.184 | 1639 |
| Postogol | 1.405 | 40.454 | 1651 | |
| α-Eudesmol | 1.887 | 0 | 40.723 | 1652 |
| Eudesmol<dihydro-> | 3.067 | 0 | 41.051 | 1661 |
| Bulnesol | 4.882 | 2.103 | 41.410 | 1666 |
| 2,2,7,7-Tetramethyltricyclo [6.2.1.0(1,6)]undec-4-en-3-one | 0.995 | 42.170 | 1730 | |
| Glaucyl alcohol | 0.836 | 42.336 | 1732 | |
| Aristolone | 0.775 | 42.602 | 1746 | |
| γ-costol | 2.635 | 1.104 | 42.862 | 1752 |
| Oxo-agarospirol | 1.542 | 0.491 | 44.680 | 1822 |
| valerenic acid | 1.606 | 0.522 | 49.278 | 1843 |
| Hexadecanoic acid | 17.238 | 10.104 | 51.752 | 1935 |
| 9-Octadecenal, (Z)- | 1.356 | 0.56 | 52.415 | 1977 |
| Octadecanal | 1.249 | 0.44 | 57.269 | 2000 |
| Unidentified | 7.841 | 3.382 | ||
| Total | 92.159 | 96.618 | ||
Figure 5Micrographs of A. malaccensis wood (a) before, (b) after HD, and (c) after SCWE.
Figure 6FTIR result for A. malaccensis wood before and after extraction by HD and SCWE.
Figure 7(a) Pore size and (b) isotherm linear plot of A. malaccensis wood before and after extraction by HD and SCWE.