4.8 Review

Ionic liquid solutions as extractive solvents for value-added compounds from biomass

期刊

GREEN CHEMISTRY
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 4786-4815

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4gc00236a

关键词

-

资金

  1. FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [EXPL/QEQ-PRS/0224/2013, PEst-C/CTM/LA0011/2013]
  2. FCT [SFRH/BD/85248/2012]
  3. European Research Council (ERC) [ERC-2013-StG-337753]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [EXPL/QEQ-PRS/0224/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past few years, the number of studies regarding the application of ionic liquids (ILs) as alternative solvents to extract value-added compounds from biomass has been growing. Based on an extended compilation and analysis of the data hitherto reported, the main objective of this review is to provide an overview on the use of ILs and their mixtures with molecular solvents for the extraction of value-added compounds present in natural sources. The ILs (or IL solutions) investigated as solvents for the extraction of natural compounds, such as alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids, lipids, among others, are outlined. The extraction techniques employed, namely solid-liquid extraction, and microwave-assisted and ultrasound-assisted extractions, are emphasized and discussed in terms of extraction yields and purification factors. Furthermore, the evaluation of the IL chemical structure and the optimization of the process conditions (IL concentration, temperature, biomass-solvent ratio, etc.) are critically addressed. Major conclusions on the role of the ILs towards the extraction mechanisms and improved extraction yields are additionally provided. The isolation and recovery procedures of the value-added compounds are ascertained as well as some scattered strategies already reported for the IL solvent recovery and reusability. Finally, a critical analysis on the economic impact versus the extraction performance of IL-based methodologies was also carried out and is here presented and discussed.

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

4.8
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