4.7 Article

Microwave-assisted extraction of lycopene in tomato peels: Effect of extraction conditions on all-trans and cis-isomer yields

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 62, 期 1, 页码 160-168

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.12.061

关键词

All-trans-lycopene; Cis-isomers; Microwave-assisted extraction; Response surface methodology

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1333468]
  2. Purdue Department of Food Science Industry Fellows Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lycopene is the primary carotenoid in tomato peels, a processing byproduct, and can be used as a natural color or bioactive ingredient. Unfortunately, extractions are inefficient as lycopene is extremely nonpolar and susceptible to degradation. As a rapid technique, microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) potentially offers efficient lycopene recovery. Thus, the objectives of this research were to: 1) optimize MAE of lycopene from tomato peels and 2) evaluate the effect of treatment on all-trans and isomer yields. Response surface methodology (RSM) was employed to optimize lycopene extraction with solvent ratio solid liquid ratios, microwave power, and delivered energy equivalents as factors. High performance liquid chromatography with a diode array detector (HPLC-DAD) was used for isomer separation and quantification. Optimum MAE conditions were determined as: 0:10 solvent ratio at 400W with a yield of 13.592 mg/100 g of extracted all-trans-lycopene. RSM suggested that ethyl acetate was a better MAE solvent for lycopene recovery as compared to hexane, which overall extracted less lycopene. HPLC-DAD indicated that MAE significantly improved all-trans and total lycopene yields, while conventional extraction demonstrated higher proportions of cis-isomer yields. Additionally, electron micrographs showed that significant structural disruption occurred in MAE-treated samples, possibly allowing for the improved lycopene extraction. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据