3.8 Article

Ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenols from avocado residues: Modeling and optimization using response surface methodology and artificial neural networks

期刊

SCIENTIA AGROPECUARIA
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 33-40

出版社

UNIV NACL TRUJILLO, FAC CIENCIAS AGROPECUARIAS
DOI: 10.17268/sci.agropecu.2021.004

关键词

Avocado residues; ultrasound-assisted extraction; phenolic components; response surface methodology; artificial neural network

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study optimized the conditions of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolics from avocado residues using RSM and ANN models, obtaining significant results with high correlation and low prediction error. This approach allows for the design of efficient and eco-friendly extraction procedures in industry for obtaining bioactive metabolites from avocado residues.
Seed and peel avocado (Persea Americana) are agro-industrial residues whose structure presents an important quantity of source of polyphenolic components which can be obtained by various extraction methods. Response surface methodology (RSM) and the artificial neural network (ANN) were used to model and optimize the conditions of ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) (25 W/L) with respect to temperature (40 - 60 degrees C), concentration of ethanol/water (30% - 60%) and extraction time (40 - 80 min) in obtaining phenolic from avocado residues. RSM and ANN allowed finding an optimal phenolic content for seeds (145.170 - 146.569 mg GAE/g; 49 degrees C, 41.2% and 65.5 - 65.1 min) and peels (124.050 - 125.187 mg GAE/g; 50.9 degrees C, 49.5% and 61.8 min). The models estimated between predicted and experimental values were significant (p < 0.05), presenting a high correlation (R-2 > 0.9907) and a low root mean square error for the prediction of phenolics (RMSE < 0.9437 mg GAE/g). The results of this study allow the design of efficient, economic and ecologically friendly extraction procedures in the industry for obtaining bioactive metabolites from avocado residues.

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

3.8
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