4.7 Article

Phenolic Compounds Recovery from Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) By-Products of Pressurized Liquid Extraction

期刊

FOODS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11081070

关键词

pomegranate by-products; phenolic compounds; ellagic acid; punicalagin; PLE

资金

  1. CONCYTEC-PROCIENCIA [127-2018 FONDECYT-BM-IADT-AV]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the extraction of phenolic compounds from pomegranate residues using lower temperatures and pressures in pressurized liquid extraction (PLE). The results showed that PLE under low pressure and low temperature conditions could effectively extract phenolic compounds from pomegranate residues, making this process more competitive and sustainable for the pomegranate industry.
This study aimed to valorize pomegranate by-products (peel and carpelar membranes- PPCM) through their high biological potential for phenolic compounds recovery. The influence of lower temperatures (40 and 60 degrees C) and pressures (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 bar) than those generally used in pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) was evaluated through global extraction yield (X-0), and qualitative and quantitative composition of the phenolic compounds. Chromatographic techniques were used to analyze the two treatments with the highest X-0. Temperature, pressure, and their interaction had a significant influence on X-0. The best phenolic compounds extraction conditions were using pressurized ethanol at 60 degrees C and 40 bar (extract 1-E1, 37% on d.b.) and 60 degrees C and 80 bar (extract 2-E2, 45% on d.b.). Nevertheless, E1 presented a significantly higher content of alpha, beta punicalagin, and ellagic acid (48 +/- 2, 146 +/- 11, and 25.6 +/- 0.3 mg/100 g, respectively) than E2 (40 +/- 2, 126 +/- 4, and 22.7 +/- 0.3 mg/100 g). Therefore, this study could validate the use of low pressures and temperatures in PLE to recover phenolic compounds from pomegranate residues, making this process more competitive and sustainable for the pomegranate industry.

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