| Literature DB >> 36014470 |
Francisco J Barba1, Hiba N Rajha2,3, Espérance Debs4, Anna-Maria Abi-Khattar2, Stéphanie Khabbaz2, Basharat Nabi Dar5, Mario J Simirgiotis6, Juan Manuel Castagnini1, Richard G Maroun2, Nicolas Louka2.
Abstract
An ecofriendly extraction technology using infrared (IR) irradiation Ired-Irrad® was applied to purple corn cobs to enhance polyphenol recovery for the first time. The IR extraction efficiency was compared to that of the water bath (WB) method. Response surface methodology (RSM) using a central composite design was conducted to determine the effect of the experimental conditions (extraction time and treatment temperature) and their interactions on the total polyphenol and anthocyanin yields. Optimal extraction of total phenolic compounds (37 mg GAE/g DM) and total monomeric anthocyanins (14 mg C3G/g DM) were obtained at 63 °C for 77 min using IR as an extraction technique and water as a solvent. HPLC revealed that the recovery of peonidin 3-O-glucoside and cyanidin 3-O-glucoside was enhanced by 26% and 34%, respectively, when using IR. Finally, purple corn cobs' spray-dried extract was proven to be an important natural colorant of pickled turnip. It offers great potential for use as a healthy alternative to the carcinogenic rhodamine B synthetic dye, which was banned.Entities:
Keywords: anthocyanins; infrared-assisted extraction; natural colorant; purple corn cobs; response surface methodology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36014470 PMCID: PMC9416142 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27165222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
TPC and TMA values obtained according to the response surface experimental design by infrared-assisted extraction.
| Trials | Time Coded Value (t) | Temperature Coded Value (T) | TPC | TMA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coded Variables | Decoded | Coded Variables | Decoded | |||
| 1 | −1 | 52 | −1 | 33 | 19.77 | 7.37 |
| 2 | +1 | 158 | −1 | 33 | 25.84 | 9.26 |
| 3 | −1 | 52 | +1 | 72 | 36.27 | 12.7 |
| 4 | +1 | 158 | +1 | 72 | 38.65 | 13.04 |
| 5 | −α | 30 | 0 | 52.5 | 28.18 | 10.48 |
| 6 | +α | 180 | 0 | 52.5 | 33.93 | 10.88 |
| 7 | 0 | 105 | −α | 25 | 15.77 | 7.33 |
| 8 | 0 | 105 | +α | 80 | 37.44 | 12.76 |
| 9 | 0 | 105 | 0 | 52.5 | 33.93 | 12.58 |
| 10 | 0 | 105 | 0 | 52.5 | 33.62 | 12.66 |
| 11 | 0 | 105 | 0 | 52.5 | 33.89 | 12.56 |
| 12 | 0 | 105 | 0 | 52.5 | 33.98 | 12.67 |
Figure 1Infrared radiation instrument setup.
Figure 2(a) Standardized Pareto chart, (b) the corresponding estimated response surface mesh of TPC, and (c) the corresponding estimated response contours for TPC recovery using IR-assisted extraction.
Figure 3(a) Standardized Pareto chart, (b) the corresponding estimated response surface mesh of TMA, and (c) the corresponding estimated response contours for TMA recovery using IR-assisted extraction.
Figure 4Overlap of TPC and TMA contour plots. The blue and red ellipses correspond to TPC and TMA optimal zones respectively.
Figure 5DPPH (a), CUPRAC (b), and FRAP (c) analyses of the WB and the IR extracts. Different letters (a,b) indicate signficant differences.
Figure 6HPLC analyses of peonidin 3-O-glucoside and cyanidin 3-O-glucoside in WB (a) and the IR (b) extracts. Different letters (a,b) indicate signficant differences.
Figure 7Evolution of TMA concentrations remaining in the soaking solution (descending curve) and absorbed by the turnip slices (ascending curve).