4.6 Article

Aqueous Extraction of Seed Oil from Mamey Sapote (Pouteria sapota) after Viscozyme L Treatment

期刊

CATALYSTS
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/catal11060748

关键词

mamey sapote seed oil; Viscozyme L; fatty acid composition; oxidative stability

资金

  1. Programa para el Desarrollo Profesional Docente (PRODEP) from Mexican Government
  2. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion-Spanish Government [CTQ2017-86170-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the aqueous enzymatic extraction method for obtaining oil from mamey sapote seed, finding that the oil obtained by AEE had higher oxidative stability compared to conventional solvent extraction. The optimal conditions for AEE were determined, leading to a higher quality oil with enhanced oxidative stability.
In this study, aqueous enzymatic extraction (AEE) was evaluated during the process of obtaining oil from mamey sapote seed (OMSS). Viscozyme L enzyme complex was used at pH 4 and 50 degrees C during the optimization of the extraction process by central composite design and response surface methodology. Optimal conditions were: 3.5% (w/w) of enzyme (regarding the seed weight), 5.5 h of incubation time, 235 rpm of agitation rate, and 1:3.5 of solid-to-liquid ratio. These conditions enabled us to obtain an OMSS yield of 66%. No statistically significant differences were found in the fatty acid profile and physicochemical properties, such as the acid and iodine values and the percentage of free fatty acids, between the oil obtained by AEE or by the conventional solvent extraction (SE). However, the oxidative stability of the oil obtained by AEE (11 h) was higher than that obtained by SE (9.33 h), therefore, AEE, in addition to being an environmentally friendly method, produces a superior quality oil in terms of oxidative stability. Finally, the high oil content in mamey sapote seed, and the high percentage of oleic acid (around 50% of the total fatty acid) found in this oil, make it a useful edible vegetable oil.

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

4.6
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