| Literature DB >> 36010457 |
Clara Gómez-Urios1, Adriana Viñas-Ospino1, Pablo Puchades-Colera1, Daniel López-Malo2, Ana Frígola1, María José Esteve1, Jesús Blesa1.
Abstract
The citrus industry produces large amounts of waste rich in bioactive compounds that have important effects on human health. Their extraction was performed using organic solvents, and a greener alternative to those solvents are natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES). The present study aimed to obtain and optimize extracts rich in polyphenols and flavonoids from orange peels using NADES and monitor polyphenol stability in the extracts for 30 days. The software COSMOtherm (conductor-like screening model) was used to screen fourteen NADES. The most promising solvents were lactic acid:glucose (LA:Glu) with an extraction yield of 1932 ± 7.83 mgGAE/100 gdw for TPC (total polyphenol content) and 82.7 ± 3.0 mg/100 gdw for TFC (total flavonoid content) and in the case of L-proline:malic acid (LP:MA) was 2164 ± 5.17 mgGAE/100 gdw for TPC and 97.0 ± 1.65 mg/100 gdw for TFC. The extraction process using LA:Glu and LP:MA was optimized, and the results showed that the selected variables (%NADES, solid:liquid ratio, and extraction time) had a significant influence on the extraction of TPC and TFC. Results showed that NADES improve the stability of TPC. These findings revealed that NADES are efficient for the extraction of bioactive compounds from orange by-products, and these extracts can represent an alternative for the food industry to enrich food products with natural ingredients.Entities:
Keywords: COSMOTherm; bioactive compounds; green extraction; natural deep eutectic solvents; orange peels; polyphenols
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010457 PMCID: PMC9407522 DOI: 10.3390/foods11162457
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Used NADES and their physicochemical characteristics.
| Acronym | Hydrogen Bond Acceptor | Hydrogen Bond Donor | Molar Ratio | pH | Polarity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChChl: Glu | Choline chloride | Glucose | 2:1 | 4.14 ± 0.02 | 49.79 ± 0.27 |
| ChChl: Fruc | Choline chloride | Fructose | 1.9:1 | 4.35 ± 0.01 | 51.26 ± 0.30 |
| ChChl: Xy | Choline chloride | Xylose | 2:1 | 4.26 ± 0.01 | 49.21 ± 0.10 |
| ChChl: Gly | Choline chloride | Glycerol | 1:2 | 5.19 ± 0.00 | 49.00 ± 0.17 |
| ChChl: MA | Choline chloride | Malic acid | 1:1 | 1.62 ± 0.03 | 47.85 ± 0.05 |
| ChChl: TA | Choline chloride | Tartaric acid | 2:1 | 1.54 ± 0.02 | 47.98 ± 0.01 |
| ChChl: LA | Choline chloride | Lactic acid | 1:3 | 1.43 ± 0.02 | 47.97 ± 0.01 |
| ChChl: CA | Choline chloride | Citric acid | 2:1 | 1.45 ± 0.02 | 47.81 ± 0.00 |
| ChChl: LP: MA | Choline chloride | L-Proline: Malic acid | 1:1:1 | 2.11 ± 0.00 | 48.87 ± 0.01 |
| LA: Glu | Lactic acid | Glucose | 5:1 | 1.16 ± 0.04 | 47.89 ± 0.04 |
| MA: Glu | Malic acid | Glucose | 1:1 | 1.34 ± 0.02 | 47.57 ± 0.00 |
| LP: MA | L-Proline | Malic acid | 1:1 | 2.22 ± 0.01 | 48.30 ± 0.03 |
| Bet: CA | Betaine | Citric acid | 1:1 | 2.36 ± 0.00 | 47.97 ± 0.02 |
| Bet: MA | Betaine | Malic acid | 1:1 | 2.08 ± 0.01 | 48.79 ± 0.02 |
Polarity and pH were expressed as the means (n = 3) ± SD.
Figure 1(a) Sigma profile of hesperidin (red), water (green), glucose (blue), lactic acid (pink), and hexane (orange). (b) Sigma profile of hesperidin (red), water (green), malic acid (blue), L-proline (pink), and hexane (orange) and their sigma surfaces. H-bond, hydrogen bond.
Predicted ln γsolutes for hesperidin in 70% NADES (v/v) using COSMOtherm.
| Acronym | ln(γ) | ln(γ) | ln(γ) | ln(γ) | ln(γ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EtOH | −1.063 | ||||
| LA: Glu | −4.52 | −4.02 | −3.66 | −3.31 | −2.24 |
| LP: MA | −4.73 | −3.78 | −3.28 | −2.83 | −1.71 |
| MA: Glu | −4.81 | −3.67 | −2.94 | −2.31 | −0.93 |
| ChChl: LA | −2.15 | −1.88 | −1.60 | −1.29 | −0.28 |
| Bet: MA | −3.60 | −2.12 | −1.20 | −0.55 | 0.47 |
| ChChl: LP: MA | −1.44 | −1.11 | −0.75 | −0.30 | 0.61 |
| ChChl: Xyl | −2.49 | −1.73 | −0.87 | 0.00 | 1.78 |
| Bet: CA | −0.53 | −0.26 | −0.12 | 0.06 | 0.70 |
| ChChl: MA | −1.16 | −0.60 | −0.07 | 0.44 | 1.31 |
| ChChl: TA | −2.14 | −1.10 | −0.33 | 0.48 | 1.74 |
| ChChl: Glu | −2.24 | −1.35 | −0.34 | 0.53 | 2.04 |
| ChChl:CA | −1.52 | −0.66 | 0.02 | 0.75 | 1.93 |
| ChChl: Gly | −0.60 | −0.21 | 0.28 | 0.77 | 1.62 |
| ChChl: Fruc | −1.01 | −0.51 | 0.11 | 0.82 | 1.89 |
Gray color, reference; green, better or equivalent solvent than reference; yellow color, slightly worse solvent than reference; red color, worse solvent than reference. ChChl, choline chloride; Glu, glucose; Fruc, fructose; Xyl, xylose; Gly, glycerol; MA, malic acid; TA, tartaric acid; LA, lactic acid; CA, citric acid; LP, L-proline; Bet, betaine.
Figure 2Model validation. (a) Total polyphenol content (mg GAE/100 gdw), (b) total flavonoid content (mg/100 gdw). Results are expressed as the means (n = 3) ± DS. Different lowercase letters (a–c) are significantly different (p < 0.05) as measured by Tukey’s test.
Coded levels and independent variables.
| Independent Variable | Level | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −∞ | −1 | 0 | +1 | +∞ | ||
| Solid:liquid ratio | X1 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 |
| NADES (%, | X2 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 75 | 85 |
| Extraction time | X3 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 30 |
Figure 3Response surface plots showing combined significative effects on TPC (a,b) and TFC (c,d) using LA:Glu as solvent.
Figure 4Response surface plots showing combined effects of solid:liquid ratio, %NADES, and extraction time for TPC (a–c) and TFC (d–f) with LP:MA as solvent.
Figure 5Optimal conditions for the extraction of TPC and TFC simultaneously using LA:Glu and LP:MA as solvent. A: ratio (mL per 1 g of peel); B: NADES in water (%, v/v); C: time extraction (min).
Figure 6Stability of phenols in NADES (La:Glu, LP:MA) and ethanol (50% v/v) extracts at 25 °C (a) and 4 °C (b) during storage for 30 days. Results were expressed as the means (n = 3) ± SD.