| Literature DB >> 33142600 |
Rohan Sarkar1, Arpan Bhowmik2, Aditi Kundu1, Anirban Dutta1, Lata Nain3, Gautam Chawla4, Supradip Saha5.
Abstract
Production of inulin from yam bean tubers by ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE) was optimized by using response surface methodology (RSM) and genetic algorithms (GA). Yield of inulin was obtained between 11.97%-12.15% for UAE and 11.21%-11.38% for microwave assisted extraction (MAE) using both the methodologies, significantly higher than conventional method (9.9 %) using optimized conditions. Under such optimized condition, SEM image of root tissues before and extraction showed disruption and microfractures over surface. UAE provided a shade better purity of extracted inulin than other two techniques. Degree of polymerization in inulin was also recorded to be better, might be due lesser degradation during extraction. Significant prebiotic activity was recorded while evaluation using Lactobacillus fermentum and it was 36 % more than glucose treatment. Energy density by UAE was few fold lesser than MAE. Carbon emission was far more less in both these methods than the conventional one.Entities:
Keywords: Genetic algorithm; Inulin; Microwave; Pachyrhizus erosus; Prebiotic; Ultrasound
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33142600 PMCID: PMC7480738 DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.117042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Carbohydr Polym ISSN: 0144-8617 Impact factor: 9.381
Variables (actual and coded) used for the experimental design for UAE experiment (A) and MAE experiment (B).
| Coded variable levels | Independent variable | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | −1 | |
| 100 | 80 | 60 | Amplitude (%) |
| 180 | 150 | 120 | Time (Sec.) |
| 5.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | Solvent/solute ratio |
| 900 | 600 | 300 | Power (W) |
| 180 | 150 | 120 | Time (Sec.) |
| 5.5 | 4.5 | 3.5 | Solvent/solute ratio |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the BBD fitted model for optimization of inulin by UAE optimization experiment.
| Source | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 4.37 | 11 | 0.40 | 17876.73** |
| Frequency (A) | 0.30 | 1 | 0.30 | 13412.46** |
| Time (B) | 5.559E-003 | 1 | 5.559E-003 | 250.17** |
| Solvent (C) | 1.106E-003 | 1 | 1.106E-003 | 49.77** |
| AB | 2.500E-003 | 1 | 2.500E-003 | 112.50** |
| AC | 1.225E-003 | 1 | 1.225E-003 | 55.12** |
| BC | 2.250E-004 | 1 | 2.250E-004 | 10.12* |
| A2 | 0.27 | 1 | 0.27 | 12262.62** |
| B2 | 1.026E-003 | 1 | 1.026E-003 | 46.15** |
| C2 | 1.097E-003 | 1 | 1.097E-003 | 49.37** |
| AC2 | 1.012E-003 | 1 | 1.012E-003 | 45.56** |
| BC2 | 0.023 | 1 | 0.023 | 1040.06** |
| Residual | 6.667E-005 | 3 | 2.222E-005 | |
| Cor Total | 4.37 | 14 |
*, ** significance at 5 % and 1 % respectively.
Comparison between optimum conditions predicted by BBD and GA models for UAE and MAE.
| Approach | Inulin (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Predicted | Experimental | |
| UAEBBD | 12.23 | 11.97 |
| UAEGA | 12.24 | 12.15 |
| MAEBBD | 11.57 | 11.21 |
| MAEGA | 11.53 | 11.38 |
average of three analysis.
Fig. 1Contour (A, B, C) and response surface plots (D, E, F) for the interaction between amplitude and time, amplitude and solvent, solvent and time in UAE optimization experiment.
Fig. 2Contour (A, B, C) and response surface plots (D, E, F) for the interaction between power and time, power and solvent, solvent and time in MAE optimization experiment.
Fig. 3Best fitness value vs. no. of generations in the GA experiment of UAE (a) and MAE (b) experiment.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the BBD fitted model for optimization of inulin by MAE optimization experiment.
| Source | Sum of square | df | Mean square | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1.81 | 11 | 0.16 | 1559.52*** |
| Frequency (A) | 0.62 | 1 | 0.62 | 5912.53*** |
| Time (B) | 0.30 | 1 | 0.30 | 2865.79*** |
| Solvent (C) | 1.800E-003 | 1 | 1.800E-003 | 17.05** |
| AB | 0.044 | 1 | 0.044 | 417.79*** |
| AC | 2.500E-005 | 1 | 2.500E-005 | 0.24 |
| BC | 2.500E-005 | 1 | 2.500E-005 | 0.24 |
| A2 | 0.011 | 1 | 0.011 | 99.50*** |
| B2 | 5.026E-004 | 1 | 5.026E-004 | 4.76 |
| C2 | 3.103E-004 | 1 | 3.103E-004 | 2.94 |
| AC2 | 1.513E-003 | 1 | 1.513E-003 | 14.33** |
| BC2 | 0.023 | 1 | 0.023 | 218.96*** |
| Residual | 3.167E-004 | 3 | 1.056E-004 | |
| Cor Total | 1.81 | 14 |
*significance at 10 %, ** significance at 5 %, *** significance at 1 %.
Fig. 5O.D values (A) and bacterial count (B) in samples of culture media with no carbon source (without glucose), with glucose and with inulin.
ANOVA of the non-linear model of GA for optimization of inulin by UAE and MAE.
| Source | DF | Sum of Squares | Mean Square | F Value | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 10 | 1874.0 | 187.4 | 4351.16 | <.0001 |
| Error | 5 | 0.2153 | 0.0431 | ||
| Uncorrected Total | 15 | 1874.2 | |||
| Model | 10 | 1741.9 | 174.2 | 37754.6 | <.0001 |
| Error | 5 | 0.0231 | 0.00461 | ||
| Uncorrected Total | 15 | 1741.9 | |||
Fig. 4SEM images of raw (A), UAE (B), MAE (C) and conventionally (D) extracted residual material of Pachyrhizus erosus tuberous root.
Purity (%) and effect of UAE/MAE on the degree of polymerization of inulin.
| Sample | Total fructose(%) | Free fructose(%) | Total glucose(%) | Inulin (%purity) | Degree of Polymerisation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M300T120 | 68.54 | 1.26 | 4.61 | 66.94 | 15.87 |
| M900T180 | 66.75 | 1.24 | 4.52 | 65.18 | 15.77 |
| U60T120 | 76.34 | 1.27 | 4.82 | 74.69 | 16.84 |
| U100T120 | 73.31 | 1.25 | 4.78 | 71.70 | 16.34 |
| Conventional method | 58.3 | 1.32 | 3.98 | 56.70 | 15.65 |
M300T120 and M900T180 represents inulin extracted by microwave with power of 300 MHz for 120 s and 900 MHz for 180 s. U60T120 and U100T120 represents ultrasound amplitude of 60 % for 120 s and 100 % for 180 s.
Comparison of energy consumption.
| Approach | Total energy consumption (KJ) | Energy density | Energy/biomass | Carbon emission |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UAEBBD | 90 | 18.61 | 90 | 20.00 |
| UAEGA | 90 | 18.61 | 90 | 20.00 |
| MAEBBD | 162 | 55.83 | 162 | 36.00 |
| MAEGA | 162 | 44.29 | 162 | 20.00 |
| Conventional | 180 | – | 180 | 40.00 |
| Type | Real valued | ||
| Population size | 50 | ||
| Number of generations | 1000 | ||
| Elitism | 2 | ||
| Crossover probability | 0.8 | ||
| Mutation probability | 0.1 | ||
| Search domain | |||
| A | B | C | |
| Lower | 60 | 120 | 3.5 |
| Upper | 100 | 180 | 5.5 |
| Iterations | 1000 | ||
| Type | Real valued | ||
| Population size | 50 | ||
| Number of generations | 1000 | ||
| Elitism | 2 | ||
| Crossover probability | 0.8 | ||
| Mutation probability | 0.1 | ||
| Search domain | |||
| A1 | B1 | C1 | |
| Lower | 300 | 120 | 3.5 |
| Upper | 900 | 180 | 5.5 |
| Iterations | 1000 | ||