Comparison of the Efficiency of Different Extraction Methods on Antioxidants of Maltease Orange Peel

  • Boudhrioua N
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
64Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

AbstractThe effect of conventional solvent extraction, CSE, ultrasound assisted extraction, UAE, microwave assisted extraction, MAE and supercritical CO 2 extraction, SC-CO 2 on the total phenols content, total flavonoids, individual flavonoids and antioxidant activity of orange peel were compared. Neohesperidin (from 0.624 ± 0.013 for SC-CO 2 extraction to 1.045 ± 0.001 g100 g orange peel powder for MAE) and hesperidin (from 0.407 ± 0.008 for SC-CO 2 extraction to 0.836 ± 0.029 g/100 g orange peel powder for UAE) are the major flavonoids (80% of total flavonoids by MAE and 87% by CSE) of orange peel whatever the used extraction method. The method giving the highest total phenol and flavonoid contents is microwave assisted extraction (2.363 ± 0.014 g GAE/100g orange peel powder), followed by ultrasound assisted extraction, conventional solvent extraction, and supercritical CO 2 extraction. However, antioxidant activity (DPPH method) cannot be correlated to TPC, TFC or individual flavonoids. Orange peel extracted by CSE (ethanol (80%), m/v: 5 g:50 ml, 30 min, 35°C, mechanical stirring at darkness, 3 successive extractions) presents the higher radical scavenging capacity compared to the other extracts obtained by MAE (Ethanol (80%), m/v: 5 g: 50 ml, 10s, 35°C, 170 W, 3 successive extractions) and UAE (ethanol (80%), m/v: 5g:50 ml, 30 min, 35°C, magnetic stirring at darkness, 3 successive extractions, 125W), SC-CO 2 extraction (ethanol (80%), m/v:5 g:50 ml, 30 min, 35°C, 22 MPa, 3 successive extractions). Besides, no additivity on the antioxidant activity is found with the DPPH method.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Boudhrioua, N. (2016). Comparison of the Efficiency of Different Extraction Methods on Antioxidants of Maltease Orange Peel. International Journal of Food and Nutritional Science, 3(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.15436/2377-0619.16.789

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free