| Literature DB >> 36080471 |
Miriam Granados-Vallejo1, Enrique Arriola-Guevara2, Rosa Isela Corona-González2, David Antonio Flores-Méndez2, José Daniel Padilla-de la Rosa3, Hugo Esquivel-Solis1, Carlos Pelayo-Ortiz4, Guadalupe María Guatemala-Morales1.
Abstract
To take advantage of the residues generated in the production of products from green coffee and due to the special interest in the compounds contained in the bean, a by-product obtained after the extraction of the oil was studied. The physical characterization of the green-coffee-bean by-product was carried out. Subsequently, the extraction of compound 5-CQA was carried out via leaching using central composition design 24 and evaluating factors such as temperature, time, solid/solvent ratio, and ethanol percentage, and its yield was quantified using HPLC. In addition, the response-surface methodology was used to maximize the efficiency of 5-CQA extraction and to perform the kinetic study. Yields of 59 ± 2 mg of 5-CQA/g from the by-product were obtained, and by selecting the best leaching conditions, the kinetic study was performed at 45, 60, and 75 °C, increasing the yield to a total of 61.8 ± 3 mg of 5-CQA/g. By applying the kinetic model of mass transfer, a fit of R2 > 0.97 was obtained, with KLa values between 0.266 and 0.320 min-1. This study showed an approach to optimize the 5-CQA extraction conditions, resulting in a simple, fast, reproducible, accurate, and low-cost method.Entities:
Keywords: 5-CQA; extraction; green-coffee by-product; kinetic; optimization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36080471 PMCID: PMC9457640 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27175704
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Green-coffee by-product before and after grinding.
Central composite design matrix and results obtained in the study of 5-CQA extraction yield from green-coffee by-product.
| Run | Variables a | 5-CQA Extraction Yield (mg/g) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | Experimental Data b | RSM-Predicted | |
| 1 | 30 | 15 | 75 | 0 | 22.56 ± 0.61 | 23.71 |
| 2 | 45 | 30 | 50 | 35 | 49.49 ± 2.27 | 43.33 |
| 3 | 45 | 30 | 75 | 35 | 38.8 ± 1.68 | 36.47 |
| 4 | 60 | 45 | 75 | 0 | 23.32 ± 0.06 | 20.71 |
| 5 | 45 | 30 | 50 | 35 | 43.60 ± 0.22 | 43.33 |
| 6 | 30 | 45 | 75 | 0 | 15.11 ± 1.23 | 17.43 |
| 7 | 45 | 15 | 50 | 35 | 39.47 ± 3.60 | 40.92 |
| 8 | 45 | 30 | 25 | 35 | 46.58 ± 2.39 | 50.51 |
| 9 | 45 | 30 | 50 | 35 | 43.61 ± 1.46 | 43.33 |
| 10 | 30 | 15 | 25 | 70 | 39.04 ± 0.85 | 39.02 |
| 11 | 30 | 45 | 25 | 70 | 39.78 ± 2.40 | 42.76 |
| 12 | 60 | 45 | 25 | 70 | 59.62 ± 2.36 | 55.85 |
| 13 | 45 | 30 | 50 | 70 | 43.8 ± 1.83 | 42.49 |
| 14 | 30 | 30 | 50 | 35 | 42.28 ± 2.62 | 41.29 |
| 15 | 60 | 30 | 50 | 35 | 44.31 ± 0.51 | 46.90 |
| 16 | 45 | 30 | 50 | 0 | 28.4 ± 3.69 | 31.31 |
| 17 | 60 | 15 | 75 | 0 | 22.58 ± 0.09 | 21.83 |
| 18 | 30 | 45 | 75 | 70 | 34.94 ± 0.24 | 33.21 |
| 19 | 30 | 15 | 25 | 0 | 39.8 ± 0.06 | 38.52 |
| 20 | 30 | 45 | 25 | 0 | 39.94 ± 3.12 | 37.19 |
| 21 | 60 | 15 | 25 | 70 | 47.06 ± 0.68 | 46.96 |
| 22 | 60 | 45 | 75 | 70 | 39.07 ± 1.84 | 42.57 |
| 23 | 60 | 45 | 25 | 0 | 42.28 ± 2.47 | 44.19 |
| 24 | 45 | 30 | 50 | 35 | 41.43 ± 0.14 | 43.33 |
| 25 | 60 | 15 | 75 | 70 | 38.50 ± 1.28 | 38.63 |
| 26 | 30 | 15 | 75 | 70 | 34.11 ± 0.84 | 34.42 |
| 27 | 60 | 15 | 25 | 0 | 41.27 ± 0.44 | 40.37 |
| 28 | 45 | 45 | 50 | 35 | 42.08 ± 0.71 | 42.23 |
a Independent variables: X1, temperature (°C); X2, time (min); X3, solid/solvent ratio (mg/mL); X4, ethanol (%v/v). b Average values of the determinations (±SDs; n = 2).
ANOVA results from CCD for extraction yields of 5-CQA.
| Source | Sum of Squares | DF | Mean Square | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 2153.36 | 14 | 153.81 | 13.43 | <0.0001 |
| X1 a | 141.40 | 1 | 141.40 | 12.35 | 0.0038 |
| X2 a | 7.67 | 1 | 7.67 | 0.6698 | 0.4279 |
| X3 a | 887.33 | 1 | 887.33 | 77.48 | <0.0001 |
| X4 a | 562.91 | 1 | 562.91 | 49.15 | <0.0001 |
| X1X2 | 26.57 | 1 | 26.57 | 2.32 | 0.1516 |
| X1X3 | 13.91 | 1 | 13.91 | 1.21 | 0.2904 |
| X1X4 | 37.03 | 1 | 37.03 | 3.23 | 0.0954 |
| X2X3 | 24.40 | 1 | 24.40 | 2.13 | 0.1681 |
| X2X4 | 25.65 | 1 | 25.65 | 2.24 | 0.1583 |
| X3X4 | 104.24 | 1 | 104.24 | 9.10 | 0.0099 |
| X12 | 1.53 | 1 | 1.53 | 0.1333 | 0.7209 |
| X22 | 7.91 | 1 | 7.91 | 0.6903 | 0.4211 |
| X32 | 0.0697 | 1 | 0.0697 | 0.0061 | 0.9390 |
| X42 | 106.50 | 1 | 106.50 | 9.30 | 0.0093 |
| Residual | 148.88 | 13 | 11.45 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 112.95 | 10 | 11.30 | 0.9433 | 0.5912 |
| Pure Error | 35.92 | 3 | 11.97 | ||
| Cor Total | 2302.24 | 27 |
a Independent variables: X1, temperature (°C); X2, time (min); X3, solid/solvent ratio (mg/mL); X4, ethanol (%v/v). DF: Degree of freedom; F-Value: Fisher distribution value; p-Value: Significance.
Analysis of variance for the fitted models (Fit statistics).
| Fit Statistics | Yield (mg/g) |
|---|---|
| R2 | 0.9353 |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.8657 |
| Predicted R2 | 0.6690 |
| C.V. % | 8.75 |
| Adeq Precision | 15.5083 |
Figure 2Response-surface representations for the yield of 5-CQA: (a) varying temperature and time; (b) varying temperature and solid/solvent ratio; (c) varying temperature and % ethanol; (d) varying time and solid/solvent ratio; (e) varying time and % ethanol; (f) varying solid/solvent ratio and % ethanol.
Figure 3Extraction kinetics at different temperatures: model prediction versus experimental data at 45 °C (Δ), 60 °C (o), and 75 °C (□).
Estimated values, equilibrium yields, and correlation coefficients at different temperatures.
| T (°C) | T (K) |
|
| R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45 | 318.15 | 0.266 | 46.0356 | 0.978 |
| 60 | 333.15 | 0.289 | 61.8535 | 0.987 |
| 75 | 348.15 | 0.320 | 71.1760 | 0.976 |
Figure 4Activation energy calculation from plot of Ln versus 1/T (*).
Figure 5Yields of 5-CQA per extraction stage.
Figure 6Optimization algorithm for the solution of the differential equation and the estimation of .