4.5 Article

Extraction of antioxidant compounds from blackberry (Rubus sp.) bagasse using supercritical CO2 assisted by ultrasound

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUPERCRITICAL FLUIDS
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 223-233

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2014.07.019

关键词

Blackberry; Food wastes; Supercritical fluid extraction; Ultrasound; Scanning electron microscopy

资金

  1. CAPES [2952/2011]
  2. FAPESP [2012/22119-7, 2013/02203-6]
  3. CNPq [473342/2011-1]
  4. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [13/02203-6] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction (SFE) was performed to recover bioactive components from blackberry (Rubus sp.) industrial residues. Ultrasound was applied during the extractions in order to enhance rate and yield. Moreover, water and ethanol at different proportions were used as cosolvents to improve the extraction of polar compounds from the residues. The extraction global yields were measured at all performed conditions (pressure, temperature, ultrasound power and cosolvent). The extracts were evaluated in terms of their antioxidant activity, measured using two methods, phenolic content, monomeric anthocyanins, and anthocyanin profile. The application of ultrasound in SFE helped increasing the extraction rate at the beginning of the process, which could be observed on the extraction curves at 15 MPa, the lowest pressure applied. Scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) was used to analyze the blackberry bagasse undergoing SFE with and without ultrasounds and showed that ultrasound disturbs the cell walls, enhancing the release of the extractable compounds. The extracts have shown high antioxidant activity and phenolic contents when obtained at higher temperatures. Regarding anthocyanins, the use of water as cosolvent resulted in a significant increase. Four major anthocyanins were identified and quantified by ultra performance liquid chromatography (UPLC). (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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