| Literature DB >> 35327307 |
Gabriela Nunes Mattos1, Manuela Cristina Pessanha de Araújo Santiago2, Ana Carolina Sampaio Doria Chaves2, Amauri Rosenthal2, Renata Valeriano Tonon2, Lourdes Maria Correa Cabral2.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of different extraction technologies and conditions in order to obtain jaboticaba skin extracts. Firstly, the skins were extracted by conventional extraction, according to a rotatable central composite design, varying ethanol concentration, solid:liquid ratio, and temperature. Next, ultrasound-assisted extraction was performed using different power densities and times. Finally, high-pressure extractions were performed with varying pressures and times. For agitated bed extraction, the highest anthocyanin content was observed for ethanol concentrations varying between 60% and 80%. Thus, the independent variables which more influenced anthocyanin content were ethanol concentration and solid:liquid ratio. Folin-Ciocalteu reducing capacity was linearly affected by the increase in temperature. Ethanol concentration was the variable that most influenced ABTS+. On the other hand, the increase in ethanol concentration decreased the antioxidant capacity by ABTS+. Considering the ultrasound extraction, increasing its power did not affect total monomeric anthocyanins content, while the increase in process time had better yields. The highest antioxidant capacity and total monomeric anthocyanins were found for the highest extraction time. Similarly, with ultrasound, the increase in high hydrostatic-assisted extraction time positively influenced anthocyanin content and antioxidant capacity. As a result, the ultrasound-assisted method was found to be the best extraction technology for anthocyanins recovery.Entities:
Keywords: anthocyanins; bioactive compounds; by-product; high hydrostatic pressure-assisted extraction; jaboticaba skin; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327307 PMCID: PMC8954074 DOI: 10.3390/foods11060885
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Results found from 17 tests using agitated bed extraction.
| Independent Variables | Responses | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tests | Temperature (°C) | Ethanol Concentration (%) | Solid: Liquid Ratio | Anthocyanins | Folin–Ciocalteu Reducing Capacity (mg GAE 100 g−1 dw) | ABTS+ Assay |
| 1 | 30 | 26 | 1:7 | 87 ± 3 | 3100 ± 13 | 270 ± 9 |
| 2 | 50 | 26 | 1:7 | 113 ± 5 | 3500 ± 74 | 280 ± 12 |
| 3 | 30 | 74 | 1:7 | 232 ± 6 | 4400 ± 62 | 339 ± 17 |
| 4 | 50 | 74 | 1:7 | 249 ± 8 | 5900 ± 153 | 374 ± 29 |
| 5 | 30 | 26 | 1:13 | 125 ± 3 | 3400 ± 112 | 238 ± 17 |
| 6 | 50 | 26 | 1:13 | 143 ± 3 | 4700 ± 398 | 329 ± 23 |
| 7 | 30 | 74 | 1:13 | 246 ± 7 | 5100 ± 324 | 397 ± 31 |
| 8 | 50 | 74 | 1:13 | 284 ± 5 | 7000 ± 209 | 502 ± 25 |
| 9 | 23 | 50 | 1:10 | 192 ± 1 | 7000 ± 135 | 407 ± 7 |
| 10 | 57 | 50 | 1:10 | 225 ± 9 | 10,600 ± 474 | 666 ± 50 |
| 11 | 40 | 10 | 1:10 | 59 ± 1 | 5300 ± 96 | 1600 ± 143 |
| 12 | 40 | 90 | 1:10 | 192 ± 2 | 2900 ± 93 | 185 ± 16 |
| 13 | 40 | 50 | 1:5 | 169 ± 3 | 7300 ± 279 | 238 ± 2 |
| 14 | 40 | 50 | 1:15 | 258 ± 4 | 8100 ± 218 | 595 ± 45 |
| 15 | 40 | 50 | 1:10 | 223 ± 8 | 6900 ± 315 | 563 ± 38 |
| 16 | 40 | 50 | 1:10 | 228 ± 7 | 7400 ± 222 | 518 ± 14 |
| 17 | 40 | 50 | 1:10 | 224 ± 7 | 6300 ± 27 | 480 ± 19 |
Coefficient second-order regression for total anthocyanins monomeric content, Folin–Ciocalteu reducing capacity and ABTS+ assay.
| Coefficient | Anthocyanins (mg c3g 100 g−1 dw) | Folin–Ciocalteu Reducing Capacity (mg GAE 100 g−1) | ABTS+ Assay (μmol Trolox g−1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| β0 | 224.41 | 7005.03 | 539.04 |
| β1 | 11.26 | 830.08 | 49.57 |
| β2 | 56.19 | 277.72 | −132.77 |
| β3 | 19.53 | 336.77 | 58.79 |
| β11 | −4.58 | N.S | −52.86 |
| β22 | −34.08 | −1501.22 | 63.97 |
| β33 | N.S | N.S | 100.42 |
| β12 | N.S | N.S | N.S |
| β13 | N.S | N.S | N.S |
| β23 | N.S | N.S | N.S |
| R2 predicted | 0.9490 | 0.6170 | 0.3620 |
| R2 adjusted | 0.8880 | 0.1419 | 0 |
| Lack of fit | 109.29 | 16.76 | 116.60 |
N.S: Non-significant (p > 0.05).
Figure 1Response surfaces for total monomeric anthocyanins content: (a) Ethanol (%) × Temperature (°C) for S:L of 1:10; (b) S:L ratio × Temperature (°C) for ethanol concentration of 50%; (c) S:L ratio × Ethanol (%) for a temperature of 40 °C.
Figure 2Effect of independent variables on Folin–Ciocalteu reducing capacity assay, where temperature (T) and solid:liquid ratio (S:L).
Figure 3Effect of independent variables on ABTS+ cationic radical scavenging activity, where temperature (T) and solid:liquid ratio (S:L).
Figure 4Total monomeric anthocyanins content (a), ABTS+ (b), and Folin–Ciocalteu reducing capacity (c) of jaboticaba skin extracted by UAE.
Figure 5Total monomeric anthocyanins content (a), ABTS+ (b), and Folin–Ciocalteu reducing capacity (c) from jaboticaba skin extracted by HHE.
Anthocyanins, Folin–Ciocalteu reducing capacity, ABTS+ from extracts obtained by conventional and non-conventional methods.
| Method | Condition | Anthcyanins 1 | Folin–Ciocalteu 2 | ABTS+ 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional | 1 h | 284 ± 5 c | 7000 ± 209 c | 502 ± 25 b |
| High Hydrostatic Pressure | 200 MPa | 187 ± 8 b | 9200 ± 481 b | 628 ± 25 b |
| Ultrasound | 150 W/L | 407 ± 91 a | 11,300 ± 428 a | 1300 ± 216 a |
1 The anthocyanin content was expressed as mg of cyanidin-3-O-glucoside equivalent per 100 g of dry weight (mg c3g. 100 g−1 dw); 2 Folin–Ciocalteu reducing capacity was expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalent per 100 g of dry weight (mg GAE 100 g−1 dw); 3 ABTS+ cationic radical scavenging activity was expressed as μmol Trolox equivalent per grams of dry weight (μmol Trolox g-). Different letter indicates significant difference between extracts obtained by different methods (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6Monomeric anthocyanin chromatogram of jaboticaba extract by UAE, at 520 nm, where peak 1 is delphinidin-3-O-glucoside and peak 2 is cyanidin-3-O-glucoside.