4.7 Article

Ultrasound-assisted extraction of clove buds using batch- and flow-reactors: A comparative study on a pilot scale

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifset.2013.07.011

关键词

Ultrasound-assisted extraction; Clove buds; Batch reactors; Flow-reactors; Antioxidant properties

资金

  1. ALCOTRA project Eco extraction transfrontaliere
  2. Regione Piemonte (project FILEO, POR-FESR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study will assess the efficiency of both batch and flow ultrasonic reactors (20 L in 45 min) in carrying out the ultrasound-assisted extraction of dry clove buds and compare these more recent methods with classic maceration. Flow ultrasound-assisted extraction was carried out in a new multi-horn reactor working in continuous flow mode (450, 900, 1350 mL/min) and at high power density (about 700 W/L vs 18 W/L in batch). The specific energy input was a slightly lower in flow procedure 47.2 kJ/L vs 48.6 kJ/L in batch reactor. Total phenolic compound content ranged from 191 +/- 1 to 215 +/- 3 mg gallic acid equivalents/L of extract. The best results were obtained under flow ultrasound-assisted extraction operating at 1350 mL/min (highest phenolic content and best radical scavenging activity). Clove bud volatiles from hydroalcoholic extracts were separated and identified using hyphenated headspace gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. We herein show that the development of large-scale multiple transducer flow reactors operating at high power density allows noteworthy process intensification. Industrial relevance: This piece of work was carried out thanks to the investment of Pernod-Richard Italia, an international company worldwide known in the field of liqueurs and wines. Considering the huge amount of plant extracts required by this type of production, only flow systems may be suitable for scaling up. The results of this investigation on pilot reactors pave the road for the set up of an industrial plant. (C) 2013 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