| Literature DB >> 32906576 |
Yasir Arafat1, Ammar Altemimi2, Salam Adnan Ibrahim3, Laxmikant Shivnath Badwaik1.
Abstract
Essential oils of sweet lime peel, a waste by-product in the juice industry, were extracted using the vacuum assisted solvent free microwave extraction (VASFME) method. The effects of microwave output power (500-1000 W) and extraction time (20-30 min) on the essential oils yield and antimicrobial property were investigated. Optimal conditions were observed at 797.844 W microwave output power and 30 min extraction time. The essential oils yield and antimicrobial property under these conditions were 0.792 ± 0.03% and 18.25 ± 1.45 mm, respectively, which agrees with the predicted values of 0.757% and 16.50 mm. The essential oils were extracted at optimized conditions and analyzed through GCMS for compound identification. A total of 49 compounds were identified, with limonene content (43.47%) being the highest among all sweet lime peel oil compounds. Moreover, the sweet lime peels were subjected to ultrasound pre-treatment before microwave extraction. The ultrasound pre-treatment helped to increase the essential oils yield from 0.84 to 1.06% as the treatment time increased from 30 to 90 min. The increase in yield was 37.66% more compared to VASFME at 90 min treatment time.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial activity; essential oil; microwave extraction; sweet lime peel; ultrasound treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32906576 PMCID: PMC7570843 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25184072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Central composite design (CCD) with observed responses for essential oil.
| Run No. | Uncoded (Coded) Process Variables | Responses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power (X1) | Time (X2) | Yield (%) | Antimicrobial Property (mm) | |
| 1 | 500 (−1) | 20 (−1) | 0.60 ± 0.03 | 33.25 ± 2.94 |
| 2 | 500 (−1) | 30 (+1) | 0.69 ± 0.07 | 38.00 ± 3.11 |
| 3 | 750 (0) | 25 (0) | 0.70 ± 0.06 | 19.45 ± 1.68 |
| 4 | 750 (0) | 20 (−1) | 0.63 ± 0.02 | 23.20 ± 1.91 |
| 5 | 750 (0) | 25 (0) | 0.70 ± 0.09 | 25.10 ± 2.06 |
| 6 | 1000 (+1) | 30 (+1) | 0.79 ± 0.04 | 4.44 ± 0.81 |
| 7 | 750 (0) | 25 (0) | 0.70 ± 0.03 | 24.00 ± 1.99 |
| 8 | 750 (0) | 25 (0) | 0.71 ± 0.06 | 23.15 ± 1.97 |
| 9 | 750 (0) | 30 (+1) | 0.75 ± 0.09 | 14.60 ± 1.08 |
| 10 | 1000 (+1) | 25 (0) | 0.77 ± 0.02 | 7.50 ± 0.96 |
| 11 | 750 (0) | 25 (0) | 0.69 ± 0.05 | 19.25 ± 1.74 |
| 12 | 500 (−1) | 25 (0) | 0.64 ± 0.03 | 29.05 ± 2.31 |
| 13 | 1000 (+1) | 20 (−1) | 0.73 ± 0.01 | 9.64 ± 0.98 |
ANOVA for essential oil yield and antimicrobial property.
| Parameters | Essential Oil Yield | Antimicrobial Property | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df | SS | F Value | SS | F Value | |||
| Model | 2 | 0.037 | 94.64 | <0.0001 | 1080.17 | 40.59 | <0.0001 |
| A-Power | 1 | 0.024 | 125.33 | <0.0001 | 1066.67 | 80.16 | <0.0001 |
| B-Time | 1 | 0.012 | 63.95 | <0.0001 | 13.50 | 1.01 | 0.3376 |
| Residual | 10 | 0.002 | 133.06 | ||||
| Lack of Fit | 6 | 0.002 | 4.17 | 0.0942 | 101.06 | 2.11 | 0.2458 |
| Pure Error | 4 | 0.0002 | 32.00 | ||||
| Cor Total | 12 | 0.039 | 1213.23 | ||||
| R-squared | 0.95 | 0.89 | |||||
| Adj R-squred | 0.94 | 0.87 | |||||
| CV% | 1.99 | 17.76 | |||||
df: degree of freedom; SS: sum of squares; CV: coefficient of variation.
Figure 1Effect of process variable on (a) yield (5) and (b) antimicrobial property (mm) against E. coli of essential oil.
Effect of ultrasound pre-treatment on essential oils yield.
| VASFME | Ultrasound + VASFME | Increase in Yield (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soaking Time | Essential Oil Yield (%) | Ultrasound | EssentialOil Yield | |
| 0 | 0.77 ± 0.04 a | 0 | 0.77 ± 0.02 a | 0 |
| 30 | 0.78 ± 0.02 a | 30 | 0.84 ± 0.03 b | 7.69 |
| 60 | 0.78 ± 0.03 a | 60 | 0.91 ± 0.04 c | 16.67 |
| 90 | 0.77 ± 0.06 a | 90 | 1.06 ± 0.07 d | 37.66 |
| 120 | 0.77 ± 0.05 a | 120 | 0.95 ± 0.06 e | 23.38 |
All data are the mean ± SD of three replicates. Mean followed by different letters (a, b, c, d, e) in the same column differs significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
Composition of the essential oil.
| Sl. No. | Compounds | Retention Time (min) | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | d-limonene | 11.21 | 43.47 |
| 2 | bergamol | 14.39 | 7.26 |
| 3 | β-pinene | 9.18 | 6.84 |
| 4 | linalool | 14.42 | 5.60 |
| 5 | α-pinene | 7.36 | 4.49 |
| 6 | 1,8-cineole | 11.57 | 4.05 |
| 7 | α-terpineol | 14.45 | 3.16 |
Figure 2Schematic diagram and actual picture of microwave extraction set up.