| Literature DB >> 34206325 |
Itziar Egüés1,2, Fabio Hernandez-Ramos2, Iván Rivilla1,3, Jalel Labidi1,2.
Abstract
In the present work, the optimization of the extraction of antioxidant compounds from apple pomace using ultrasound technology as an environmentally friendly and intensification process was developed. Different sonication powers, extraction temperatures and extraction times were studied and their influence on extraction yield and characteristics of the extracted samples (total phenolic compounds, flavonoid content and antioxidant capacity) are presented. The elaborated experimental design and the analysis of Pareto and response surface diagrams allowed us to determine the optimal extraction conditions. The conditions that allow the maximum extraction of phenolic compounds were found at 20 min, 90 °C and 50% ultrasound amplitude. Nevertheless, at these conditions, the antioxidant capacity measured by DPPH decreased in the extracted samples.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant capacity; apple pomace; optimization; ultrasound
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34206325 PMCID: PMC8270251 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26133783
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Content of phenolic compounds (TPC), total flavonoids (TFC) and antioxidant capacity (using DPPH assays) for different extraction times and ultrasound power.
| Amplitude | Time | TPC | TFC | AC (DPPH) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 5 | 3.07 ± 0.16 | 2.20 ± 1.12 | 1.29 ± 0.32 |
| 10 | 3.51 ± 0.22 | 1.66 ± 0.21 | 1.39 ± 0.13 | |
| 15 | 3.10 ± 0.70 | 1.92 ± 0.12 | 1.36 ± 0.27 | |
| 20 | 3.29 ± 0.43 | 1.88 ± 0.15 | 1.36 ± 0.13 | |
| 70 | 5 | 2.88 ± 0.14 | 1.60 ± 0.30 | 1.09 ± 0.27 |
| 10 | 3.00 ± 0.30 | 1.76 ± 0.18 | 1.29 ± 0.20 | |
| 15 | 3.54 ± 0.33 | 2.37 ± 0.31 | 1.11 ± 0.14 | |
| 20 | 3.61 ± 0.57 | 2.34 ± 0.17 | 0.92 ± 0.23 |
* Values presented are the average of triplicate measurements.
Figure 1Standardized Pareto diagram of the screening for (a) TPC, (b) TFC, and (c) DPPH.
Adequacy of the model through the analysis of F-ratio and p-value.
| TPC | TFC | DPPH | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-Ratio | F-Ratio | F-Ratio | ||||
| Amplitude (A) | 0.01 | 0.9303 | 0.35 | 0.5951 | 19.72 | 0.0212 |
| Time (B) | 4.45 | 0.1255 | 1.9 | 0.2622 | 1.05 | 0.3816 |
| AB | 3.08 | 0.1775 | 5.21 | 0.1067 | 3.05 | 0.1793 |
| BB | 0.23 | 0.6674 | 0.2 | 0.6844 | 4.83 | 0.1154 |
Experimental variables of the experimental design.
| Variable | Designation | Units | Nomenclature | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed | Amplitude | (%) | 50 | |
| Solid-liquid ratio | ( | 1:40 | ||
| Solvent | water | |||
| Particle size | µm | <250 | ||
| Independent | Temperature | (°C) | Temp | 65–90 |
| Time | (min) | t | 10–20 | |
| Dependent | Total phenolic content | (mg GAE/g) | TPC | YTPC |
| Total flavonoid content | (mg CE/g) | TFC | YTFC | |
| Antioxidant capacity | (mg TE/g) | DPPH | YDPPH |
Set of experiments and experimental results.
| Exp. | Independent Variables | Normalized Variables | Dependent Variables | Yield | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature(°C) | Time | X1 | X2 | YTPC | YTFC | YDPPH | ||
| 1 | 40 | 10 | −1 | −1 | 3.51 ± 0.22 | 1.66 ± 0.21 | 1.39 ± 0.13 | 24.8 ± 0.07 |
| 2 | 40 | 15 | −1 | 0 | 3.10 ± 0.70 | 1.92 ± 0.12 | 1.36 ± 0.27 | 28.6 ± 0.10 |
| 3 | 40 | 20 | −1 | 1 | 3.29 ± 0.44 | 1.88 ± 0.15 | 1.36 ± 0.13 | 29.5 ± 1.10 |
| 4 | 65 | 10 | 0 | −1 | 4.68 ± 0.36 | 3.16 ±1.08 | 0.69 ± 0.38 | 39.5 ± 0.05 |
| 5 | 65 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 4.74 ± 1.84 | 4.30 ± 1.05 | 0.65 ± 0.27 | 55.1 ± 0.10 |
| 6 | 65 | 20 | 0 | 1 | 5.50 ± 0.95 | 4.00 ± 1.87 | 0.71 ± 0.16 | 50.6 ± 1.03 |
| 7 | 90 | 10 | 1 | −1 | 5.75 ± 0.72 | 4.59 ± 0.23 | 0.61 ± 0.11 | 50.6 ± 0.05 |
| 8 | 90 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 6.02 ± 0.28 | 4.40 ± 0.72 | 0.53 ± 0.17 | 58.4 ± 1.15 |
| 9 | 90 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 6.02 ± 0.29 | 3.53 ± 0.82 | 0.68 ± 0.14 | 38.7 ± 1.50 |
* Values presented are the average of triplicate measurements.
Regression coefficients and statistical parameters of the experimental design.
| Regresion Coefficients | YTPC | YTFC | YDPPH |
|---|---|---|---|
| b0 | 4.86 a | 3.83 a | 0.64 a |
| b1 | 1.31 a | 1.18 a | −0.38 a |
| b2 | 0.15 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| b12 | 0.12 | −0.32 | 0.02 |
| b11 | −0.36 | −0.67 | 0.31 a |
| b22 | 0.17 | −0.25 | 0.06 b |
| R2 | 0.9731 | 0.9400 | 0.9900 |
| R2 fitted | 0.9284 | 0.8600 | 0.9900 |
| F-exp | 21.7720 | 10.8585 | 187.0543 |
| F-critical | 0.0145 | 0.0387 | 0.0006 |
| Significance level | 98.54 | 96.12 | 99.94 |
a Significant coefficients at the 99% confidence level. b Significant coefficients from the 90% to 95% confidence level.
Figure 2Standardized Pareto diagram for (a) TPC, (b) TFC, and (c) DPPH.
Figure 3Response surface diagrams showing optimal extraction time conditions and temperature against (a) TPC, (b) TFC, and (c) antioxidant properties.
Figure 4Correlation between (a) TPC and (b) flavonoid content with antioxidant activity tested by DPPH assay.
The quality (represented as Trolox equivalent/GAE) and % of inhibition capacity of apple pomace extracted samples against the radical DPPH (after 15 min) and commercial antioxidant Trolox at 0.05 g/L of concentration.
| Time | Temperature | Quality | Inhibition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0.40 | 43.84 | |
| 15 | 40 | 0.44 | 42.94 |
| 20 | 0.41 | 42.99 | |
| 10 | 0.15 | 22.62 | |
| 15 | 65 | 0.14 | 21.22 |
| 20 | 0.13 | 23.35 | |
| 10 | 0.11 | 20.52 | |
| 15 | 90 | 0.09 | 17.70 |
| 20 | 0.011 | 22.97 | |
| Trolox | 65.27 |
Sugar and by-product analysis of the obtained samples at different temperatures and extraction times (at 50% of amplitude).
| Temperature (°C) | Time (min) | Glucose (ppm) | Fructose (ppm) | Citric Acid (ppm) | HMF (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | 10 | 1353.92 | 4217.60 | 94.83 | 2.24 |
| 15 | 1287.18 | 4000.80 | 98.69 | 10.13 | |
| 20 | 1020.23 | 3215.00 | 58.07 | - | |
| 65 | 10 | 1383.80 | 4431.30 | 51.48 | 449.40 |
| 15 | 1398.80 | 4494.20 | 24.03 | - | |
| 20 | 1467.30 | 4749.00 | 21.03 | - | |
| 90 | 10 | 1475.80 | 4754.30 | - | - |
| 15 | 1430.80 | 4524.80 | 5.75 | - | |
| 20 | 1423.80 | 4609.60 | - | - |