Optimizing and predicting degree of hydrolysis of ultrasound assisted sodium hydroxide extraction of protein from tea (Camellia sinensis L.) residue using response surface methodology
- 7 Downloads
Response surface methodology was employed to investigate the effect of sodium hydroxide concentration (X1: 0.05–0.15 M), sonication time (X2: 5–15 min), ultrasonic power (X3: 150–450 W/L), and solid–liquid ratio (X4: 20–60 g/L) on the optimization of protein extraction from tea residue. Single frequency countercurrent ultrasound (SFCU) was employed to assist the extraction and subsequent hydrolysis of the protein. Optimal extraction conditions were established and response surfaces were generated using mathematical models. There were positive linear and negative quadratic effects of extraction variables on protein yield. The optimal predicted protein yield of 138.9 mg/g was obtained under the optimum conditions of concentration of 0.13 M, extraction time of 13 min, ultrasonic power of 377 W/L and solid–liquid ratio of 51.5 g/L. A model for the degree of hydrolysis of the extraction process was also obtained which gave a predicted and experimental value of 8.4% and 7.5% respectively. Essential amino acid content of 36.7% was obtained under optimal conditions.
KeywordsBox–Behnken Sonication Amino acids Hydrolysis Alkali
This research was supported by grants from the 863 Research Program of China (No. 2013AA100203), Key Technology R & D Program of Jiangsu (No. BE2013404) and the Key University Science Research Project of Jiangsu Province (No. 16KJA550003). We acknowledge the contribution of Professor Wang Zhenbin who was not fully available for the completion of this work due to ill-health until his sudden demise.
- AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis. In: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 15th (edn) Washington D.C, pp 805–845Google Scholar
- Csapó J, Kiss-Csapó Z, Albert C, Lóki K (2008) Hydrolysis of proteins performed at high temperatures and for short times with reduced racemization, in order to determine the enantiomers of D- and L-amino acids. Acta Univ Sapientiae Aliment 1:31–48Google Scholar