4.7 Article

Ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic acids, flavonols, and flavan-3-ols from muscadine grape skins and seeds using natural deep eutectic solvents and predictive modelling by artificial neural networking

期刊

ULTRASONICS SONOCHEMISTRY
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2021.105773

关键词

NDES; Extraction; Ultrasound; Ellagic; Grape; ANN

资金

  1. Qassim University, KSA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study optimized the extraction conditions of natural deep eutectic solvents (NDES) using artificial neural networking for extracting polyphenols from muscadine grape skins and seeds, demonstrating the high extraction efficiency of selected NDES under optimized conditions.
The objective of this study was to investigate the extraction efficiency of 9 natural deep eutectic solvents (NDES) with the assistance of ultrasound for phenolic acids, flavonols, and flavan-3-ols in muscadine grape (Carlos) skins and seeds in comparison to 75% ethanol. Artificial neural networking (ANN) was applied to optimize NDES water content, ultrasonication time, solid-to-solvent ratio, and extraction temperature to achieve the highest extraction yields for ellagic acid, catechin and epicatechin. A newly formulated NDES (#1) consists of choline chloride: levulinic acid: ethylene glycol 1:1:2 and 20% water extracted the highest amount of ellagic acid in the skin at 22.1 mg/g. This yield was 1.73-fold of that by 75% ethanol. A modified NDES (#3) consisting of choline chloride: proline: malic acid 1:1:1 and 30% water extracted the highest amount of catechin (0.61 mg/g) and epicatechin (0.89 mg/g) in the skin, and 2.77 mg/g and 0.37 mg/g in the seed, respectively. The optimal yield of ellagic acid in the skin using NDES #1 was 25.3 mg/g (observed) and 25.3 mg/g (predicted). The optimal yield of (catechin + epicatechin) in seed using NDES #3 was 9.8 mg/g (observed) and 9.6 mg/g (predicted). This study showed the high extraction efficiency of selected NDES for polyphenols under optimized conditions.

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