4.5 Article

Extraction of phenolic fraction from guava seeds (Psidium guajava L.) using supercritical carbon dioxide and co-solvents

期刊

JOURNAL OF SUPERCRITICAL FLUIDS
卷 51, 期 3, 页码 319-324

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2009.10.012

关键词

Guava seeds; Psidium guajava L.; Supercritical fluids; Total phenolic content; Antioxidant activity

资金

  1. Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural-MADR
  2. Asociacion Hortifruticola de Colombia-ASOHOFRUCOL
  3. Direccion Nacional de Investigacion-Universidad Nacional de Colombia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work the supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) with carbon dioxide (CO2) and with ethyl acetate (EtAc) and ethanol (EtOH) as co-solvents was applied to obtain the phenolic fraction from guava seeds (Psidium guajava L). The extraction was explored at various operating conditions, using 10, 20 and 30 MPa and 40, 50 and 60 degrees C. The use of EtAc and EtOH as co-solvents in SFE was also studied. The supercritical process was compared with traditional techniques such as Soxhlet extraction using EtAc and EtOH as solvents. The quality of the different extracts, obtained using SFE and Soxhlet methods and different solvents, was evaluated through the antioxidant activity, obtained by the collection methods of scavenging DPPH and bleaching of beta-carotene, and also through the total phenolic content (TPC) of the samples, by the Folin-Ciocalteu method.The antioxidant potential indicates the use of ethanol as co-solvent as the best modifier in SFE, used in concentration of 10% (w/w) at 50 degrees C and 30 MPa. The quality of the extracts obtained by SFE with EtOH varied with the operating conditions of temperature and pressure, with higher values obtained at 10 and 20 MPa for TPC results and also antioxidant methods. The process yield of the phenolic fraction was also evaluated for all the extraction procedures studied (SFE and Soxhlet), with results varying from 0.380 to 1.738% (w/w). (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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