4.7 Article

Pilot scale supercritical CO2 extraction of carotenoids from sweet paprika (Capsicum annuum L.): Influence of particle size and moisture content of plant material

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 136, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110345

关键词

Sweet paprika (Capsicum annuum L.); Carotenoids; Supercritical carbon dioxide; Particle size; Moisture content

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discussed the extraction of carotenoids from sweet paprika using supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO2). Factors such as particle size, moisture content, and raw material composition were shown to affect extraction efficiency and carotenoid recovery. Optimal working parameters for high extract yield and carotenoid recovery were identified as extraction of paprika with a moisture content of 7.5 g/100 g and particle size of <0.2 mm using SC-CO2 at 45 MPa and 50 degrees C.
The extraction of important phytochemicals such as carotenoids from sweet paprika using supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) was discussed in this paper. The effect of particle size, moisture content, and composition of raw material on extraction efficiency, the content of camtenoid in the paprika extract and recovery of carotenoid were demonstrated. Results of SC-CO2 extraction were compared to extraction using n-hexane. It was observed that increasing lipid content and reducing particle size led to an increase in extraction efficiency and also the increase in camtenoids recovery. The moisture content of paprika below 7.5 g/100 g did not have an effect on process efficiency and carotenoid extraction. However, higher content of water in paprika has an impact on the decrease of carotenoid recovery, and it necessitated the additional separation of water from the paprika extract. The optimal working parameters with respect to the extract yield and recovery of carotenoid was the extraction of paprika with the moisture content of 7.5 g/100 g and particle size of <0.2 mm using SC-CO2 at 45 MPa and 50 degrees C.

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