4.7 Article

Subcritical water extraction, UPLC-Triple-TOF/MS analysis and antioxidant activity of anthocyanins from Lycium ruthenicum Murr.

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 249, 期 -, 页码 119-126

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.12.078

关键词

Subcritical water extraction (SWE); Lycium ruthenicum Murr.; Anthocyanin; Antioxidant activity

资金

  1. Qinghai Provincial Science Foundation [2016-ZJ-928Q, 2015-NK-509, 2015-SF-120, 2015-NK-A2]
  2. CAS Light of West China Program
  3. Development Project of Qinghai Key Laboratory [2017-ZJ-Y10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, it has been developed an efficient method for extraction of anthocyanin from Lycium ruthenicum Murr. and the antioxidative activities research. Subcritical water extraction was investigated as a green technology for the extraction of anthocyanin from L. ruthenicum. Several key parameters affecting extraction efficiency were investigated and optimized by response surface methodology (RSM) combined with Box-Behnken design (BBD). The optimum extraction conditions and the desirability of model were the time of extraction=55 min and the flow rate was 3 mL/min at 170 degrees C. At this operating condition, the content of anthocyanin was high to 26.33%. Subcritical water extraction was more efficient than using hot water or methyl alcohol for the extraction of anthocyanin. The composition of anthocyanins from L. ruthenicum has been investigated by high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detector (HPLC-DAD) and Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Triple-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometer (UPLC-Triple-TOF/MS). Seven anthocyanins have been detected, all of which were identified and quantified. Furthermore, the anthocyanins extracted by SWE showed significantly better antioxidant activity than the anthocyanins extracted by hot water or methyl alcohol according to DPPH and ABTS assay. SWE with significantly higher anthocyanin and antioxidant activity were achieved compared to conventional methods.

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