Supercritical fluid extraction of Eucalyptus globulus leaves. Experimental and modelling studies of the influence of operating conditions and biomass pretreatment upon yields and kinetics
authors Rodrigues, VH; de Melo, MMR; Portugal, I; Silva, CM
nationality International
journal SEPARATION AND PURIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
author keywords Cosolvent; Design of experiments; Eucalyptus globulus leaves; Response surface methodology; Supercritical CO2 extraction; Triterpenic acids
keywords RESPONSE-SURFACE METHODOLOGY; TRITERPENIC ACIDS; BARK; OIL; OPTIMIZATION; SOLUBILITY; MATRICES; CURVES; CO2
abstract Supercritical fluid extraction of Eucalyptus globulus leaves was accomplished using carbon dioxide at different pressures (200, 250 and 300 bar) and ethanol contents (0.0, 2.5 and 5.0 wt%), with and without biomass pretreatment (grinding or dewaxing), with the objective to study total (eta(Total)) and triterpenic acids (eta(TTA)) extraction yields. A factorial design of experiments and response surface methodology was performed to assess and optimize the impact of both operating conditions at 40 degrees C and 12 g(CO2) min(-1). The best results were obtained for 250 bar and 5.0 wt% ethanol, for which eta(Total) = 3.95% and eta(TTA) = 0.67%. Three kinetic extraction curves were measured and modeled, in order to quantify the influence of both biomass pretreatments, being concluded that grinding favors the total extraction yield while dewaxing enhances the TTAs concentration in the extract. The Broken plus Intact Cells model disclosed kinetic and structural differences between the three biomass samples (natural, ground and dewaxed leaves), being able to explain the distinct trends of the various removal curves.
publisher ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
issn 1383-5866
year published 2018
volume 191
beginning page 173
ending page 181
digital object identifier (doi) 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.09.026
web of science category Engineering, Chemical
subject category Engineering
unique article identifier WOS:000417664900019
  ciceco authors
  impact metrics
journal impact factor (jcr 2016): 3.359
5 year journal impact factor (jcr 2016): 3.843
category normalized journal impact factor percentile (jcr 2016): 84.815
dimensions (citation analysis):
altmetrics (social interaction):



 


Sponsors

1suponsers_list_ciceco.jpg