| Literature DB >> 35885296 |
Ying Li1,2, Xiaoci Zhuang1, Xinrui Wu2, Chaoying Qiu1,3, Yong Wang1,2.
Abstract
Litsea cubeba is an ethnic woody oil plant, in which essential oil rather than oil has been the main foreign trade product through the decades. Concerning large amounts of residue generated from L. cubeba essential oil processing, a sustainable valorization pathway of these biowastes is proposed in this study. First, such biowastes have been systematically investigated for the first time regarding their oils extracted by three extraction methods, where ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) could significantly improve the extraction rate of traditional pressing and solvent extraction without any changes in oil quality. Moreover, the composition of acylglycerols and fatty acids in L. cubeba fruit, kernel, and peel oils were also first identified, which further proved that peels with abundant free fatty acids could lead to high acid value of L. cubeba fruit oils. Compared to virgin coconut oils, L. cubeba kernel oils have a more balanced fatty acid composition with a high lauric acid level, which could be applied as a promising lauric oil resource. Considering the high acid value in L. cubeba kernel oils, both decoloration using activated clay and alkali deacidification were attempted, where the combination of alkali deacidification and 10% of activated clay performed the best considering both quality and cost.Entities:
Keywords: Litsea cubeba; green extraction; lauric oils; lipid extraction; oil refining; sustainable valorization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885296 PMCID: PMC9324626 DOI: 10.3390/foods11142047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Sustainable valorization pathway proposed for Litsea cubeba.
Figure 2Schematic experimental design.
Figure 3Single factor effect on the extraction rate of ultrasound-assisted extraction of Litsea cubeba kernel oils: (A) ultrasonic power, (B) solid–liquid ratio, and (C) extraction time. Columns marked by the same letter are not significantly at p < 0.05.
Figure 4(A) The effect of extraction methods on the extraction rate of Litsea cubeba oils, columns marked by the same letter are not significant at p < 0.05. (B) Kinetics comparison of conventional solid–liquid extraction and ultrasound-assisted extraction as the function of extraction time, (C) the appearance of Litsea cubeba oils extracted from different methods.
The effect of different extraction methods on the composition of acylglycerols and fatty acids in Litsea cubeba oils.
|
| Kernel | Fruit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional Solvent Extraction | Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction | Cold Pressing | Cold Pressing | Virgin Coconut Oil | |
| Acylglycerols (%) | |||||
| TAG | 86.55 ± 0.09 a | 86.08 ± 0.06 a | 89.10 ± 0.10 a | 69.44 ± 1.50 b | 94.52 ± 0.28 |
| C10C12C12 | 31.66 ± 0.05 a | 31.45 ± 0.03 a | 29.69 ± 0.05 b | 21.60 ± 0.24 c | 17.07 ± 0.11 |
| C12C12C12 | 31.50 ± 0.05 b | 31.31 ± 0.17 b | 33.14 ± 0.01 a | 24.17 ± 0.58 c | 19.91 ± 0.01 |
| DAG | 10.00 ± 0.40 a | 10.38 ± 0.04 a | 7.77 ± 0.03 b | 6.41 ± 0.01 c | 13.92 ± 0.07 |
| MAG | 0.73 ± 0.19 ab | 0.83 ± 0.01 a | 0.32 ± 0.11 b | 0.83 ± 0.04 a | - |
| FFA | 2.72 ± 0.31 b | 2.71 ± 0.02 b | 2.81 ± 0.17 b | 23.32 ± 1.55 a | 0.08 ± 0.03 |
| Fatty acids (%) | |||||
| Saturated | |||||
| Octanoic acid (C8:0) | - | - | - | - | 5.07 ± 0.02 |
| Capric acid (C10:0) | 15.28 ± 2.68 a | 13.37 ± 1.40 a | 11.26 ± 0.82 a | 7.03 ± 0.51 b | 5.54 ± 0.11 |
| Lauric acid (C12:0) | 55.34 ± 3.15 a | 57.16 ± 0.20 a | 57.39 ± 0.84 a | 31.92 ± 1.20 b | 50.60 ± 0.19 |
| Myristic acid (C14:0) | 2.97 ± 0.77 a | 3.15 ± 0.59 a | 2.47 ± 0.42 a | 1.71 ± 0.31 a | 19.88 ± 0.43 |
| Palmitic acid (C16:0) | 2.68 ± 0.27 b | 2.54 ± 0.22 b | 3.61 ± 0.52 b | 14.55 ± 1.36 a | 9.18 ± 0.30 |
| Stearic acid (C18:0) | - | - | - | - | 4.13 ± 0.74 |
| Mono-unsaturated | |||||
| Caproleic acid (C10:1) | 1.09 ± 0.37 ab | 0.49 ± 0.05 b | 1.40 ± 0.52 a | 0.72 ± 0.21 ab | - |
| Lauroleic acid (C12:1) | 6.62 ± 0.29 a | 7.05 ± 0.62 a | 5.89 ± 1.07 a | 3.69 ± 0.31 b | - |
| Myristoleic acid (C14:1) | 1.21 ± 0.06 a | 1.36 ± 0.31 a | 1.30 ± 0.38 a | 1.15 ± 0.59 a | - |
| Palmitoleic acid (C16:1) | - | - | - | 1.77 ± 0.30 | - |
| Oleic acid (C18:1) | 9.59 ± 1.07 b | 9.57 ± 0.48 b | 10.90 ± 0.69 b | 19.07 ± 1.31 a | 5.61 ± 0.05 |
| Poly-unsaturated | |||||
| Linoleic acid (C18:2) | 5.23 ± 0.45 b | 5.31 ± 0.62 b | 5.78 ± 0.20 b | 18.40 ± 0.52 a | - |
| ∑SFAs | 76.27 ± 1.29 a | 76.21 ± 0.94 a | 74.73 ± 1.05 a | 55.21 ± 1.81 b | 94.39 ± 0.05 |
| ∑UFAs | 23.74 ± 1.46 b | 23.79 ± 1.44 b | 25.27 ± 1.06 b | 44.80 ± 2.17 a | 5.61 ± 0.05 |
| ∑EFAs | 5.23 ± 0.45 b | 5.31 ± 0.62 b | 5.78 ± 0.20 b | 18.40 ± 0.52 a | - |
SFAs: saturated fatty acids, UFAs: unsaturated fatty acids, EFAs: essential fatty acids. Values followed by the same letter in the same row are not significant at p < 0.05, which are presented as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate.
The effect of different extraction methods on the physicochemical properties of Litsea cubeba oils.
|
| Kernel | Fruit | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conventional Solvent Extraction | Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction | Cold Pressing | Cold Pressing | Virgin Coconut Oil | |
| Density (g/cm3) | 0.92 ± 0.00 b | 0.92 ± 0.00 b | 0.94 ± 0.01 a | 0.95 ± 0.00 a | 0.91 ± 0.01 |
| Refractive index (20 °C) | 1.46 ± 0.00 c | 1.46 ± 0.00 c | 1.47 ± 0.00 b | 1.48 ± 0.00 a | 1.43 ± 0.00 |
| Acid value (mg KOH/g) | 9.93 ± 0.16 c | 9.62 ± 0.09 c | 12.13 ± 0.35 b | 58.76 ± 0.39 a | 0.43 ± 0.02 |
| Peroxide value (meq O2/kg) | 1.31 ± 0.02 a | 1.32 ± 0.25 a | 0.54 ± 0.01 b | 0.18 ± 0.02 c | 0.11 ± 0.01 |
| Saponification value (mg KOH/g) | 297.55 ± 5.81 a | 295.90 ± 4.67 a | 287.71 ± 6.13 a | 268.42 ± 5.35 b | 299.64 ± 4.74 |
| Melting point (°C) | 28.60 ± 0.27 a | 28.29 ± 0.18 a | 28.49 ± 0.11 a | 23.40 ± 0.53 b | 25.17 ± 0.64 |
| Crystallization onset temperature (°C) | −1.73 ± 0.24 ab | −1.69 ± 0.14 a | −2.40 ± 0.06 b | −1.29 ± 0.33 a | 3.81 ± 0.40 |
| Total △Hc (J/g) | 54.14 ± 4.57 a | 54.56 ± 2.73 a | 53.41 ± 4.92 a | 25.50 ± 0.95 b | 39.10 ± 1.58 |
| Color (Lovibond units) | |||||
| a* (red/green value) | 6 | 6.1 | 10.9 | 6 | |
| b* (yellow/blue value) | 40 | 40 | 70 | 60 | |
| L* (brightness value) | - | - | - | 13 | |
| Total phenolic content (mg GAE/100 g) | 43.22 ± 1.94 c | 43.37 ± 1.77 c | 72.79 ± 1.04 b | 176.14 ± 4.81 a | 15.91 ± 3.85 d |
Values followed by the same letter in the same row are not significantly at p < 0.05, which are presented as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate.
Figure 5The recovery yield of Litsea cubeba fruit and kernel oils after decoloration using (A) activated clay only and (B) alkali deacidification combined with using activated clay.
The effect of different refining methods on the basic physicochemical properties of Litsea cubeba kernel and fruit oils.
| The Effect of Decoloration Using Activated Clay on the Acid Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Centrifugation | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% |
| Fruit oil | 58.76 ± 0.39 c | 58.02 ± 0.05 c | 58.97 ± 0.28 bc | 60.09 ± 0.41 ab | 60.60 ± 0.41 a |
| Kernel oil | 11.68 ± 0.15 a | 11.60 ± 0.11 a | 11.55 ± 0.03 ab | 11.20 ± 0.07 c | 11.35 ± 0.10 bc |
| Basic physicochemical properties of | |||||
| Refining methods | Acid value (mg KOH/g) | Peroxide value (meq O2/kg) | Total phenolic content(mg GAE/100 g) | ||
| Centrifugation | 11.68 ± 0.15 a | 0.64 ± 0.18 c | 81.29 ± 5.06 a | ||
| 5% | 11.60 ± 0.11 a | 1.27 ± 0.44 ab | 49.50 ± 3.97 b | ||
| 10% | 11.55 ± 0.03 ab | 1.82 ± 0.30 a | 36.67 ± 2.37 c | ||
| 15% | 11.20 ± 0.07 c | 1.72 ± 0.09 a | 22.73 ± 5.61 d | ||
| 20% | 11.35 ± 0.10 bc | 1.51 ± 0.03 ab | 17.21 ± 5.03 d | ||
| Deacidification | 0.86 ± 0.01 e | 0.93 ± 0.15 bc | 36.17 ± 6.01 c | ||
| Deacidification + 5% | 1.53 ± 0.10 d | 1.71 ± 0.05 a | 19.00 ± 4.04 d | ||
| Deacidification + 10% | 1.57 ± 0.06 d | 1.57 ± 0.05 a | 11.10 ± 1.26 d | ||
Values followed by the same letter in the same row are not significantly at p < 0.05, which are presented as mean ± standard deviation of triplicate.
Figure 6The decoloring effect of different refining methods on Litsea cubeba kernel oils.