4.5 Review

Advances of non-conventional green technologies for phyto-saccharides extraction: current status and future perspectives

期刊

PHYTOCHEMISTRY REVIEWS
卷 22, 期 4, 页码 1067-1088

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11101-022-09831-2

关键词

Microwave-assisted extraction; Ultrasound-assisted extraction; Enzyme-assisted extraction; Supercritical fluid extraction; Pressurized liquid extraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focuses on the application of five advanced non-conventional green techniques in the extraction of saccharides. It introduces the principles, advantages, limitations, and operating parameters of these techniques, and discusses the recent progress and trends in the field. The review also comments on the modifications and integration aspects of extraction techniques, and highlights the challenges and future research prospects for lignocellulosic biomass extraction.
Saccharides play a vital role in the human diet due to their beneficial biological and functional properties. The adverse limitations of conventional extraction methods for plant saccharides have led to the search for advanced, ecofriendly, and cost-effective extraction techniques. This review focuses on the five major emerging advanced non-conventional green techniques: ultrasound-assisted, microwave-assisted, enzyme-assisted, supercritical fluid, and pressurized liquid extractions. The review briefly describes the extraction principle and mechanism, advantages and limitations, and the influential operating parameters for each technique. In addition, recent trends and progress in these advanced extraction methods are discussed with a critical comparison of these techniques. Furthermore, the various process modifications and integration aspects of extraction techniques are scientifically commented upon. Challenges and future research prospects for these emerging green technologies for lignocellulosic biomass extraction are also pointed out, emphasizing the industrial realization of these techniques.

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