| Literature DB >> 34822488 |
Qiong Xiao1,2,3,4, Xinyi Wang1,2,3, Jiabin Zhang1,2,3, Yonghui Zhang1,2,3,4, Jun Chen1,2,3,4, Fuquan Chen1,2,3, Anfeng Xiao1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Optimizing the alkali treatment process alone without tracking the changes of algae and agar quality with each pretreatment process will not achieve the optimal agar yield and final quality. In this study, we monitored the changes of the morphology and weight of algae with each treatment process, and comprehensively analyzed the effects of each pretreatment process on the quality of agar by combining the changes of the physicochemical properties of agar. In conventional alkali-extraction technology, alkali treatment (7%, w/v) alone significantly reduced the weight of algae (52%), but hindered the dissolution of algae, resulting in a lower yield (4%). Acidification could solve the problem of algal hardening after alkali treatment to improve the yield (12%). In enzymatic extraction technology, agar with high purity cannot be obtained by enzyme treatment alone, but low gel strength (405 g/cm2) and high sulfate content (3.4%) can be obtained by subsequent acidification and bleaching. In enzyme-assisted extraction technology, enzyme damage to the surface fiber of algae promoted the penetration of low-concentration alkali (3%, w/v), which ensured a high desulfurization efficiency and a low gel degradation rate, thus improving yield (24.7%) and gel strength (706 g/cm2), which has the potential to replace the traditional alkali-extraction technology.Entities:
Keywords: agar; extraction technology; pretreatment technique; quality change process
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34822488 PMCID: PMC8619328 DOI: 10.3390/md19110617
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Figure 1Experimental scheme for agar extraction. Note: numeric character represents agar obtained from algae treated by various processes.
Figure 2SEM of G. lemaneiformis during alkali extraction, (A) surface structure of untreated G. lemaneiformis; (B) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after alkali treatment; (C) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after acid treatment; (D) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after bleaching treatment. Scale bar in photos represent 1 mm (left), 100 μm (center), and10 μm (right), respectively.
Figure 3SEM of G. lemaneiformis during enzymatic-extraction process. (A) surface structure of untreated G. lemaneiformis; (B) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after enzyme treatment; (C) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after acid treatment; (D) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after bleaching treatment. Scale bar in photos represent 1 mm (left), 100 μm (center), and10 μm (right), respectively.
Figure 4SEM of G. lemaneiformis during enzyme-assisted extraction. (A) surface structure of untreated G. lemaneiformis; (B) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after enzyme treatment; (C) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after alkali treatment; (D) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after acid treatment; (E) surface structure of G. lemaneiformis after bleaching treatment. Scale bar in photos represent 1 mm (left), 100 μm (center), and10 μm (right), respectively.
Figure 5Effect of pretreatment techniques and green extraction technologies on the physicochemical properties of agar. (A,A) alkali extraction process; (B,B) enzymatic-extraction process; (C,C) enzyme-assisted alkali extraction process; (D,D) comparison of three extraction technologies; nature: a sample extracted without pretreatment; note: different lowercase superscripts within the same column indicate the significant differences (p < 0.05).
Effect of different extraction processes on physicochemical properties of agar.
| PP | Nature | Alkali Extraction | Enzymatic-Extraction | Enzyme-Assisted Extraction | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alkali | Acid | Bleaching | Extraction | Enzyme | Acid | Bleaching | Extraction | Enzyme | Alkali | Acid | Bleaching | Extraction | ||
| WH (%) | 35.6 ± 0.3 | 45.7 ± 0.2 b | 43.1 ± 1.1 c | 61.3 ± 0.5 a | 62.9 ± 0.5 a | 42.9 ± 0.8 b | 32.9 ± 0.9 c | 46.8 ± 0.5 a | 44.4 ± 0.4 c | 36.5 ± 0.4 b | 34.3 ± 0.1 c | 34.8 ± 0.2 b | 42.4 ± 0.3 a | 50.2 ± 0.6 b |
| GC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TR (%) | 49.8 ± 0.5 | 44.4 ± 0.5 c | 54.8 ± 0.8 b | 59.9 ± 0.8 a | 62.0 ± 0.2 a | 52.6 ± 0.5 b | 34.6 ± 0.3 c | 59.0 ± 1.2 a | 58.0 ± 0.3 b | 52.9 ± 0.9 d | 56.3 ± 0.4 c | 57.6 ± 0.4 b | 60.8 ± 0.6 a | 61.9 ± 0.1 a |
| VI (cP) | 9.3 ± 0.2 | 19.5 ± 0.6 c | 28.1 ± 1.6 a | 24.5 ± 1.1 b | 20.0 ± 0.4 a | 12.5 ± 0.0 b | 3.8 ± 0.2 c | 18.2 ± 0.8 a | 18.8 ± 0.3 b | 8.7 ± 1.1 c | 12.4 ± 0.4 b | 13.6 ± 0.9 b | 17.7 ± 0.6 a | 18.1 ± 0.5 b |
| DT (°C) | 93.1 ± 1.0 | 91.1 ± 0.1 b | 92.4 ± 1.2 ab | 93.1 ± 0.1 a | 89.2 ± 0.0 b | 86.3 ± 0.0 b | 84.9 ± 0.6 c | 87.2 ± 0.0 a | 87.4 ± 1.0 c | 85.9 ± 0.2 b | 87.1 ± 0.5 a | 86.4 ± 0.0 b | 87.4 ± 0.1 a | 89.3 ± 0.1 b |
| MT (°C) | 82.8 ± 0.1 | 86.4 ± 0.1 b | 89.6 ± 0.2 a | 89.5 ± 0.6 a | 89.5 ± 0.0 a | 82.9 ± 0.1 a | 71.9 ± 0.1 b | 82.5 ± 0.5 a | 82.2 ± 0.4 a | 79.2 ± 0.1 c | 84.4 ± 0.1 b | 84.5 ± 0.0 b | 85.5 ± 0.2 a | 85.9 ± 0.1 a |
| GT (°C) | 34.0 ± 0.2 | 42.4 ± 0.4 a | 41.6 ± 1.0 b | 41.1 ± 0.3 ab | 36.0 ± 0.7 b | 35.1 ± 0.2 b | 32.9 ± 0.5 c | 36.9 ± 0.2 a | 32.8 ± 0.5 c | 33.6 ± 0.2 c | 34.8 ± 0.3 b | 33.9 ± 0.1 c | 35.8 ± 0.4 a | 35.8 ± 0.5 b |
Note: Different lowercase superscripts within the same column indicate the significant differences (p < 0.05). PP: physicochemical property; WH: whiteness; GA: G. tenuistipitata color; AC: agar color; VI: viscosity; TR: transparency; DT: dissolving temperature; MT: melting temperature; GT: gelling temperature. Nature: a sample extracted without pretreatment.
Figure 6FTIR of agar from different extraction processes. (A) alkali extraction; (B) enzymatic-extraction; (C) enzyme-assisted extraction; (D) comparison of three extraction technologies.