Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple.
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
Texto Completo: | http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1143800 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.105980 |
Resumo: | Carotenoids are an essential component of cashew and can be used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, natural pigment, food additives, among other applications. The present work focuses on optimizing and comparing conventional and ultrasound-assisted extraction methods. Every optimization step took place with a 1:1 (w:w) mixture of yellow and red cashew apples lyophilized and ground in a cryogenic mill. A Simplex-centroid design was applied for both methods, and the solvents acetone, methanol, ethanol, and petroleum ether were evaluated. After choosing the extractor solvent, a central composite design was applied to optimize the sample mass (59?201 mg) and extraction time (6?34 min). The optimum conditions for the extractor solvent were 38% acetone, 30% ethanol, and 32% petroleum ether for CE and a mixture of 44% acetone and 56% methanol for UAE. The best experimental conditions for UAE were a sonication time of 19 min and a sample mass of 153 mg, while the CE was 23 min and 136 mg. Comparing red and yellow cashews, red cashews showed a higher carotenoid content in both methodologies. The UAE methodology was ca. 21% faster, presented a more straightforward composition of extracting solution, showed an average yield of superior carotenoid content in all samples compared to CE. Therefore, UAE has demonstrated a simple, efficient, fast, low-cost adjustment methodology and a reliable alternative for other applications involving these bioactive compounds in the studied or similar matrix. |
id |
EMBR_bfe1fd0d9f845e0d79ea6ff84f43e9e8 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br:doc/1143800 |
network_acronym_str |
EMBR |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
repository_id_str |
2154 |
spelling |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple.Conventional extractionUltrasound assisted extractionMixture design and response surfaceCashew appleMethodologyCarotenoidsCarotenoids are an essential component of cashew and can be used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, natural pigment, food additives, among other applications. The present work focuses on optimizing and comparing conventional and ultrasound-assisted extraction methods. Every optimization step took place with a 1:1 (w:w) mixture of yellow and red cashew apples lyophilized and ground in a cryogenic mill. A Simplex-centroid design was applied for both methods, and the solvents acetone, methanol, ethanol, and petroleum ether were evaluated. After choosing the extractor solvent, a central composite design was applied to optimize the sample mass (59?201 mg) and extraction time (6?34 min). The optimum conditions for the extractor solvent were 38% acetone, 30% ethanol, and 32% petroleum ether for CE and a mixture of 44% acetone and 56% methanol for UAE. The best experimental conditions for UAE were a sonication time of 19 min and a sample mass of 153 mg, while the CE was 23 min and 136 mg. Comparing red and yellow cashews, red cashews showed a higher carotenoid content in both methodologies. The UAE methodology was ca. 21% faster, presented a more straightforward composition of extracting solution, showed an average yield of superior carotenoid content in all samples compared to CE. Therefore, UAE has demonstrated a simple, efficient, fast, low-cost adjustment methodology and a reliable alternative for other applications involving these bioactive compounds in the studied or similar matrix.TIAGO LINUS SILVA COELHO, UFPI; DARLISSON SLAG NERI SILVA, UFPI; JEDAIAS MARREIROS DOS SANTOS JUNIOR, UFPI; CLECIO DANTAS, UEMA; ANA RITA DE ARAUJO NOGUEIRA, CPPSE; CÍCERO ALVES LOPES JÚNIOR, University of Graz; EDIVAN CARVALHO VIEIRA, UFPI.COELHO, T. L. S.SILVA, D. S. N.SANTOS JUNIOR, J. M. DOSDANTAS, C.NOGUEIRA, A. R. de A.LOPES JÚNIOR, C. A.VIEIRA, E. C.2022-06-07T12:20:04Z2022-06-07T12:20:04Z2022-06-072022info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article9 p.Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, v. 84, 105980, mar. 2022.http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1143800https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.105980enginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice)instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)instacron:EMBRAPA2022-06-07T12:20:15Zoai:www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br:doc/1143800Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/oai/requestopendoar:21542022-06-07T12:20:15falseRepositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/oai/requestcg-riaa@embrapa.bropendoar:21542022-06-07T12:20:15Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. |
title |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. |
spellingShingle |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. COELHO, T. L. S. Conventional extraction Ultrasound assisted extraction Mixture design and response surface Cashew apple Methodology Carotenoids |
title_short |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. |
title_full |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. |
title_fullStr |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. |
title_sort |
Multivariate optimization and comparison between conventional extraction (CE) and ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) of carotenoid extraction from cashew apple. |
author |
COELHO, T. L. S. |
author_facet |
COELHO, T. L. S. SILVA, D. S. N. SANTOS JUNIOR, J. M. DOS DANTAS, C. NOGUEIRA, A. R. de A. LOPES JÚNIOR, C. A. VIEIRA, E. C. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
SILVA, D. S. N. SANTOS JUNIOR, J. M. DOS DANTAS, C. NOGUEIRA, A. R. de A. LOPES JÚNIOR, C. A. VIEIRA, E. C. |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
TIAGO LINUS SILVA COELHO, UFPI; DARLISSON SLAG NERI SILVA, UFPI; JEDAIAS MARREIROS DOS SANTOS JUNIOR, UFPI; CLECIO DANTAS, UEMA; ANA RITA DE ARAUJO NOGUEIRA, CPPSE; CÍCERO ALVES LOPES JÚNIOR, University of Graz; EDIVAN CARVALHO VIEIRA, UFPI. |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
COELHO, T. L. S. SILVA, D. S. N. SANTOS JUNIOR, J. M. DOS DANTAS, C. NOGUEIRA, A. R. de A. LOPES JÚNIOR, C. A. VIEIRA, E. C. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Conventional extraction Ultrasound assisted extraction Mixture design and response surface Cashew apple Methodology Carotenoids |
topic |
Conventional extraction Ultrasound assisted extraction Mixture design and response surface Cashew apple Methodology Carotenoids |
description |
Carotenoids are an essential component of cashew and can be used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, natural pigment, food additives, among other applications. The present work focuses on optimizing and comparing conventional and ultrasound-assisted extraction methods. Every optimization step took place with a 1:1 (w:w) mixture of yellow and red cashew apples lyophilized and ground in a cryogenic mill. A Simplex-centroid design was applied for both methods, and the solvents acetone, methanol, ethanol, and petroleum ether were evaluated. After choosing the extractor solvent, a central composite design was applied to optimize the sample mass (59?201 mg) and extraction time (6?34 min). The optimum conditions for the extractor solvent were 38% acetone, 30% ethanol, and 32% petroleum ether for CE and a mixture of 44% acetone and 56% methanol for UAE. The best experimental conditions for UAE were a sonication time of 19 min and a sample mass of 153 mg, while the CE was 23 min and 136 mg. Comparing red and yellow cashews, red cashews showed a higher carotenoid content in both methodologies. The UAE methodology was ca. 21% faster, presented a more straightforward composition of extracting solution, showed an average yield of superior carotenoid content in all samples compared to CE. Therefore, UAE has demonstrated a simple, efficient, fast, low-cost adjustment methodology and a reliable alternative for other applications involving these bioactive compounds in the studied or similar matrix. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-06-07T12:20:04Z 2022-06-07T12:20:04Z 2022-06-07 2022 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, v. 84, 105980, mar. 2022. http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1143800 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.105980 |
identifier_str_mv |
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, v. 84, 105980, mar. 2022. |
url |
http://www.alice.cnptia.embrapa.br/alice/handle/doc/1143800 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.105980 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
9 p. |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) instacron:EMBRAPA |
instname_str |
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
instacron_str |
EMBRAPA |
institution |
EMBRAPA |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da EMBRAPA (Repository Open Access to Scientific Information from EMBRAPA - Alice) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cg-riaa@embrapa.br |
_version_ |
1794503523950395392 |