4.5 Article

Extraction of bioactive compounds from black-footed abalone (Haliotis iris) using subcritical water extraction

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jctb.7212

关键词

bioactive compounds; antioxidant; subcritical water extraction; Haliotis iris; phenolic compounds; glycogen content

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water-soluble bioactive compounds were extracted from New Zealand black-footed abalone (Haliotis iris) using subcritical water extraction technique. The study found that the extraction temperature significantly influenced the extraction performance and bioactivity of the extracts.
BACKGROUND Owing to their biodiversity, many valuable natural compounds have been extracted from marine resources and used in the development of pharmaceutical, nutraceutical and cosmeceutical products. The New Zealand black-footed abalone (Haliotis iris) is known to host a variety of bioactive compounds in its flesh. RESULTS Water-soluble bioactive compounds were extracted from H. iris by subcritical water extraction technique, and the effect of subcritical water temperature (110-280 degrees C) on the extraction performance was studied. The highest antioxidant activity and subsequently glycogen and phenolic content, as well as concentration of bioactives, were found at temperatures between 220 and 250 degrees C. The carbohydrate content of the extracts peaked at 110 degrees C, which was then degraded at higher temperatures. Protein and amino acid contents of H. iris extracts were also decreased as the temperature increased above 160 degrees C. Furthermore, the H. iris extracts were found to be non-toxic. CONCLUSION The results indicate that extraction temperature has a significant impact on the bioactivity of H. iris extracts. Subcritical water extraction can be used in place of more traditional techniques to create high-quality abalone extracts. (c) 2022 The Authors. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry (SCI).

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

4.5
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