Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between conventional and ultrasound-assisted extractions of natural antioxidants from walnut green husk

  • Separation Technology, Thermodynamics
  • Published:
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agricultural industries produce substantial quantities of phenolic-rich by-products, which have gained much attention due to their antioxidant properties. Ultrasonic technology was applied for extraction of antioxidants from the walnut green husk using ethanol as a food grade solvent. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to optimize experimental conditions. The responses were total phenolic content (TPC), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), scavenging activity of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical and yield. TPC varied from 6.28 to 7.23mg GA g−1 dry sample. FRAP and DPPH values varied from 0.33 to 0.46 mmol Fe2+ g−1 of dry sample and 33.98% to 56.31% inhibition, respectively. Extraction yields ranged from 33.04% to 38.72%. The optimal conditions were 60% ethanolwater mixture as solvent, temperature of 60 °C and extraction time of 30 min. Comparison of ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) and conventional extraction was shown that TPC, FRAP, DPPH and yield obtained by UAE during 30 min were significantly higher than by conventional extraction during 16 hours. The extract can be used as substitute of synthetic antioxidants for food products, color and oxidative stabilization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H. R. Li, Z.G. Yang, J. Wang and S. Kitanaka, Nat. Prod. Res. Dev., 18, 363 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. A. Pereira, I. Oliveira, A. Sousa, I. C. F. R. Ferreira, A. Bento and L. Estevinho, Food Chem. Toxicol., 46, 2103 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. L. Li, R. Tsao, R. Yang, C.M. Liu, H. H. Zhu and J. C. Young, J. Agric. Food Chem., 54, 8033 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. J. A. Pereira, I. Oliveira, A. Sousa, P. Valentão, P. B. Andrade, I.C. F.R. Ferreira, F. Ferreres, A. Bento, R. Seabra and L. Estevinho, J. Sci. Food Agric., 45, 2287 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. F. Stampar, A. Solar, M. Hudina, R. Veberic and M. Colaric, Food Chem., 95, 627 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. I. Oliveira, S. I. Sousa, C. F. R. Ferreira, A. Bento, L. Estevinho and J. A. Pereira, Food Chem. Toxicol., 46, 2326 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. J. Jakopic, R. Veberic and F. Stamper, Acta Agr. Slov., 93, 11 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. A. Fernandez-Agullo, E. Pereira, M. S. Freire, P. Valentao, P. B. Andrade, J. González-Álvarez and J.A. Pereira, Ind. Crop. Prod., 42, 126 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. T. Finkel and N. J. Holbrook, Nature, 408, 239 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. J.M. Mates, J. A. Segura, F. J. Alonso and J. Marquez, Mini Rev. Med. Chem., 9, 1202 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. M. Valko, D. Leibfritz, J. Moncol, M. T. D. Cronin, M. Mazur and J. Telser, Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol., 39, 44 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. M. I. Bhanger, S. Iqbal, F. Anwar, M. Imran, M. Akhtar and M. Ziaul- Haq, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 43, 779 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. R. S. Farag, E. A. Mohamoud and A. M. Basuny, Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 42, 107 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. K. Vilkhu, R. Mawson, L. Simons and D. Bates, Innov. Food Sci. Emerg., 9, 161 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. M. K. Khan, A.V. Maryline, A. S. Fabiano-Tixier, O. Dangles and F. Chemat, Food Chem., 119, 851 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. F. Chemat, V. Tomao and M. Virot, Ultrasound-assisted extraction in food analysis, in: Semih Otles (Ed.), Handbook of food analysis instruments, CRC Press, USA, 85 (2008).

  17. M. Pinelo, M. Rubilar, M. Jerez, J. Sineiro and M. J. Nunez, J. Agric. Food Chem., 53, 2111 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. D.D. Bartnik, C.M. Mohler and M. Houlihan, US Patent, 20,060,088,627, April 27 (2006).

  19. C. Liyana-Pathirana and F. Shahidi, Food Chem., 93, 47 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. W. Brand-Williams, M. E. Cuvelier and C. Berset, LWT — Food Sci. Technol., 28, 25 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. R. Pulido, L. Bravo and F. Saura-Calixto, J. Agric. Food Chem., 48, 3396 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran

    Reza Tabaraki & Shahrbanoo Rastgoo

Authors
  1. Reza Tabaraki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shahrbanoo Rastgoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Tabaraki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tabaraki, R., Rastgoo, S. Comparison between conventional and ultrasound-assisted extractions of natural antioxidants from walnut green husk. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 31, 676–683 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-013-0279-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-013-0279-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation