| Literature DB >> 35159554 |
Celeste Lazzarini1, Enrico Casadei1, Enrico Valli1,2, Matilde Tura3, Luigi Ragni1,2, Alessandra Bendini1,2, Tullia Gallina Toschi2,3.
Abstract
The extraction of molecules with high added value plays an important role in the recovery of food waste. This work aimed to valorize tomato pomace, a by-product composed of skin and seeds, through extraction of carotenoids, especially lycopene and β-carotene. The tomato pomace was dried using three different methods (freeze-drying, heat drying, and non-thermal air-drying) to reduce its weight, volume, and water activity and to concentrate the carotenoid fraction. These drying approaches were compared considering the extractive potential. Three solvent mixtures were compared, a traditional one (n-hexane:acetone) and two green deep eutectic solvent mixtures (ethyl acetate:ethyl lactate and menthol:lactic acid) in combination with different drying procedures. The extract obtained using ethyl acetate:ethyl lactate with non-thermal air-drying showed the highest contents of lycopene and β-carotene (75.86 and 3950.08 µg/g of dried sample, respectively) compared with the other procedures.Entities:
Keywords: deep eutectic solvents; extraction; food by-products; lycopene; non-thermal drying; sustainability; tomato pomace; β-carotene
Year: 2022 PMID: 35159554 PMCID: PMC8834280 DOI: 10.3390/foods11030405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Mean (±SD) moisture content (%) and mean aw for each tomato by-product, both raw and treated, as described in Section 2.3. By-product: raw (P), freeze-dried (L), non-thermal air-dried (E), and heat-dried (S).
| Sample | Mean Moisture Content% ± SD | Mean aw |
|---|---|---|
| Raw (P) | 63.4 ± 1.7 | 0.99 |
| Freeze-dried (L) | 3.5 ± 0.1 | 0.30 |
| Air-dried (E) | 9.9 ± 0.2 | 0.67 |
| Heat-dried (S) | 20.3 ± 0.2 | 0.69 |
Carotenoid content in the extract obtained with the three different solvent solutions in combination with the three drying methods. The samples were named using the combination of codes, identifying the different solvent solution, acetone:n-hexane (1:1 % v/v) (T), ethyl acetate:ethyl lactate (30:70 %v/v) (G), and DL-menthol:lactic acid (8:1 mol/mol) (ML), and the three drying techniques, freeze-drying (L), non-thermal air-drying (E), and heat drying (S) (e.g., MLL: extract obtained from the use of DL-menthol:lactic acid from the freeze-dried by-product).
| Extract | Lycopene Content (µg/g) ± SD | β-Carotene Content (µg/g) ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| T | 34.11 a;B ± 1.11 | 2117.64 a;B ± 100.46 |
| G | 27.44 b;C ± 2.50 | 1510.19 b;B ± 79.51 |
| ML | 12.32 c;C ± 1.78 | 492.46 c;B ± 87.88 |
| TL | 96.55 a;A ± 10.39 | 5717.46 a;A ± 710.70 |
| GL | 56.28 b;B ± 6.07 | 3000.45 b;B,C ± 26.58 |
| MLL | 48.89 b;B ± 1.89 | 2273.87 b;A ± 92.58 |
| TE | 81.20 a;A ± 4.20 | 4777.59 a;A ± 256.04 |
| GE | 75.86 a;A ± 10.94 | 3950.08 a,b;A ± 597.49 |
| MLE | 82.86 a;A ± 11.18 | 2923.02 b;A± 583.24 |
| TS | 15.87 a;B ± 0.21 | 507.29 a;C ± 48.56 |
| GS | 1.80 c;D ± 0.83 | ND |
| MLS | 11.22 b;C ± 0.45 | 78.27 b;B ± 21.61 |
| Solvent mixture | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Drying method (treatment) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Solvent mixture * Drying method (treatment) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.05) among the extracts obtained by the raw and differently treated by-products using the same solvent mixtures. Different capital letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.05) among the extracts, obtained by the raw and the treated by-product with the same drying technology, or non-treatment, using different solvent mixtures. * ND: not detected.
CIE coordinates of the color space regarding the different samples of tomato by-product extracts. L* indicated the lightness, a* the red/green coordinate, and b* the yellow/blue. Higher values of a* are redder, while higher values of b are more yellow rather than blue.
| Sample | a* | b* | L* |
|---|---|---|---|
| T | −6.01 b;C | 22.28 a;A | 95.31 b;A |
| TL | −4.85 b;B,C | 25.85 a;A | 91.82 b;B |
| TE | −4.32 b;B | 22.48 a;A | 93.43 a;B |
| TS | −2.22 a;A | 7.91 a;B | 96.20 a;A |
| G | −5.17 a,b;C | 18.74 a;A | 95.23 b;A |
| GL | −2.32 a;A,B | 7.72 b;B,C | 95.27 a;A |
| GE | −3.17 a;B | 9.73 b;B | 95.14 a;A |
| GS | −1.34 a;A | 3.10 b;C | 95.51 a;A |
| ML | −4.16 a;C | 10.42 b;A | 96.23 a;A |
| MLL | −3.00 a;B | 9.17 b;A | 95.66 a;B |
| MLE | −3.15 a;B | 9.71 b;A | 95.35 a;B |
| MLS | −1.38 a;A | 3.86 b;B | 96.44 a;A |
| Solvent mixture | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Drying method (treatment) | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Solvent mixture * Drying method (treatment) | <0.0001 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD, p < 0.05) among the extracts obtained by the raw and the differently treated by-products using the same solvent mixtures. Different capital letters indicate significant differences among the extracts, obtained by the raw and the treated by-product with the same drying technology using different solvent mixtures. * ND: not detected.
Figure 1PCA biplot built with the results of the color analysis and the lycopene and β-carotene content for all the samples under consideration.