4.7 Article

Continuous and pulsed ultrasound-assisted extraction of carob's antioxidants: Processing parameters optimization and identification of polyphenolic composition

期刊

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2021.105630

关键词

Polyphenols; Carobs; Polyphenol extraction; Ultrasound-assisted extraction; Response surface methodology

资金

  1. European Regional Development Fund
  2. Republic of Cyprus through the Research & Innovation Foundation, Cyprus [BlackGold INTEGRATED/0916/0019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study optimized ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenols from carob pulp, resulting in higher antioxidant yield and shorter processing time compared to conventional extraction techniques. Solid-phase extraction was used as a clean-up strategy, revealing the importance of gallic acid in carob and the significant influence of ripening stage on carob composition.
Polyphenols in carobs have recently attracted great attention due to their wide range of biological and health promoting effects. A comprehensive study was conducted to find an optimum method for the extraction, purification and characterization of these valuable bioactive substances. Under this framework, the ultrasoundassisted extraction (UAE) of polyphenols from carob pulp was optimized by the maximization of the yield in total phenolics using response surface methodology. In particular, the effects of solid-solvent ratio, solvent concentration, extraction time, sonication amplitude, and sonication mode were investigated and optimized using a complete experimental design. In comparison to conventional extraction techniques, UAE offered a higher yield of antioxidants and a shorter processing time. Solid-phase extraction was evaluated as a clean-up strategy prior to the electrophoretic analysis of extracts. The results from the analysis of real samples revealed the predominance of gallic acid and highlighted the great influence of the ripening stage on carobs composition.

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