4.7 Article

Revalorization of Coffee Husk: Modeling and Optimizing the Green Sustainable Extraction of Phenolic Compounds

期刊

FOODS
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10030653

关键词

coffee by-products; phenolic compounds; antioxidant capacity; response surface methodology; artificial neural networks

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [AGL2014-57239-R, RTI 2018-097504-B-I00]
  2. Community of Madrid
  3. FPU program of the Ministry of Universities [FPU15/04238]
  4. UAM Agreement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduced a green sustainable method for extracting phenolic compounds from coffee husk and used RSM and ANNs to model the impact of extraction variables on phenolic compound recovery. Experimental results validated the model's accuracy, demonstrating the potential of phenolic substances in coffee husk.
This study aimed to model and optimize a green sustainable extraction method of phenolic compounds from the coffee husk. Response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) were used to model the impact of extraction variables (temperature, time, acidity, and solid-to-liquid ratio) on the recovery of phenolic compounds. All responses were fitted to the RSM and ANN model, which revealed high estimation capabilities. The main factors affecting phenolic extraction were temperature, followed by solid-to-liquid ratio, and acidity. The optimal extraction conditions were 100 degrees C, 90 min, 0% citric acid, and 0.02 g coffee husk mL(-1). Under these conditions, experimental values for total phenolic compounds, flavonoids, flavanols, proanthocyanidins, phenolic acids, o-diphenols, and in vitro antioxidant capacity matched with predicted ones, therefore, validating the model. The presence of chlorogenic, protocatechuic, caffeic, and gallic acids and kaemferol-3-O-galactoside was confirmed by UPLC-ESI-MS/MS. The phenolic aqueous extracts from the coffee husk could be used as sustainable food ingredients and nutraceutical products.

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