Response Surface Optimization of Enzymatic Extraction of Active Substances from Tamarind Pulp Based on Entropy Weight Method

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.05.023

Abstract

Abstract:

The study was aimed to optimize the extraction process of tamarind pulp. The polysaccharide extraction rate, raw material utilization rate, total phenolics extraction rate and flavonoids extraction rate were used as the response value, and the entropy weight method was used to optimize the cellulase extraction process. The antioxidant activity of the extract during the extraction process was studied. The results showed that the tamarind extract had strong OH? scavenging ability, and both were more than 190 mg/100 mL. The OH? scavenging ability and ABTS free radical scavenging ability were sensitive to the changes of extraction conditions. Considering the actual situation, the optimal extraction process was 51 min, the ratio of material to liquid 1:10.9, and the amount of cellulase 1.5‰. Under this condition, the extraction rate of tamarind pulp polysaccharide was 12.66%, the yield was 88.24%, the total phenolics extraction rate was 4.79‰ and the total flavonoid, extraction rate was 4.38‰, which was close to the theoretical prediction. The model could well predict the extraction process of tamarind pulp, which could be used in health beverage processing.

Key words: Tamarindus, response surface, entropy weight method, antioxidant

CLC Number:

TS255.44

LIU Xiaoping,LIU Lu,ZOU Yuke,LU Xuanchi,CHEN Anjun. Response Surface Optimization of Enzymatic Extraction of Active Substances from Tamarind Pulp Based on Entropy Weight Method[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(5): 1013-1021.

Figures/Tables 11

References 22

[1]	廖礼彬. 甜酸角谱系地理学研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2016.
[2]	罗会英, 赵琼玲, 代建菊, 等. 云南罗望子种质资源植物学性状比较研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2015,36(6):1067-1077.
[3]	蒲彪, 邓继尧, 蒋华曾, 等. 罗望子果肉的营养成分分析[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 1994(4):455-457.
[4]	Bhadoriva S S, Ganeshpurkar A, Narwaria J, et al. Tamarindus indica: Extent of explored potential[J]. Pharmacognosy Reviews, 2011,5(9):73-81. DOI URL
[5]	Martinello F, Soares S M, Franco J J, et al. Hypolipemic and antioxidant activities from Tamarindus indica L. pulp fruit extract in hypercholesterolemic hamsters[J]. Food and Chemical Toxicolog, 2006,44(6):810-818. DOI URL
[6]	Tril U, Fernández-López J, Álvarez J Á P, et al. Chemical, physicochemical, technological, antibacterial and antioxidant properties of rich-fibre powder extract obtained from tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.)[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2014,55:155-162. DOI URL
[7]	Sharma R, Kamboj S, Khurana R, et al. Physicochemical and functional performance of pectin extracted by QbD approach from Tamarindus indica L. pulp[J]. Carbohydrate Polymers, 2015,134(10):364-374. DOI URL
[8]	朱紫烨, 田彦芳, 张迁, 等. BP神经网络结合熵权法优化甘草皂苷提取工艺[J]. 中成药, 2017,39(9):1830-1834.
[9]	赵云川, 邹泉, 高辉, 等. 膨胀烟梗陈化过程中致香物质含量的变化趋势[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2016,31(4):725-732.
[10]	Tian S, Zhou X, Gong H, et al. Orthogonal test design for optimization of the extraction of polysaccharide from Paeonia sinjiangensis K.Y. Pan[J]. Pharmacognosy Magazine, 2011,7(25):4-8. DOI URL
[11]	张志君, 孙伟, 李永亮, 等. 3,5-二硝基水杨酸法联合苯酚-浓硫酸法测定不同产地黄精中多糖含量[J]. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2012,18(6):106-109.
[12]	杨江涛, 杨娟, 谢红, 等. 刺梨多糖粗品与纯品体外抗氧化作用[J]. 食品工业科技, 2008(2):94-96.
[13]	Razali N, Mat-Junit S, Abdul-Muthalib A F, et al. Effects of various solvents on the extraction of antioxidant phenolics from the leaves, seeds, veins and skins of Tamarindus indica L.[J]. Food Chemistry, 2012,131(2):441-448. DOI URL
[14]	曾慧婷, 宿树兰, 沙秀秀, 等. 丹参茎叶提取物抗氧化活性物质基础与量效关系研究[J]. 中草药, 2017,48(22):4688-4694.
[15]	Qin Y, Yuan Q, Zhang Y, et al. Enzyme-Assisted extraction optimization, characterization and antioxidant activity of polysaccharides from sea cucumber Phyllophorus proteus[J]. Molecules, 2018,23(3):590. DOI URL
[16]	孙玉林, 文菁, 赵娟, 等. 响应面优化酶法提取虎斑乌贼肌肉多糖的工艺及抗氧化活性测定[J]. 食品科学, 2017,38(22):246-255.
[17]	左龙亚, 滕左, 王孝仕, 等. 不同溶剂柠檬果皮提取物抗氧化、抑菌活性比较及其与多酚组成的关系[J]. 园艺学报, 2017,44(4):743-754.
[18]	翟龙飞, 李田叶, 李雪丹, 等. 利用回归正交旋转实验优化提取枣中总黄酮的提取工艺[J]. 食品工业科技, 2014,35(5):201-205.
[19]	涂宗财, 张秋婷, 王辉, 等. 酸角果肉多糖的提取工艺优化研究[J]. 食品工业科技, 2010,31(10):303-305.
[20]	谢君, 周白雪, 闵婷, 等. 莲藕不同极性酚类物质组成分析及抗氧化活性评价[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2017,45(17):189-192.
[21]	王继龙, 魏舒畅, 刘永琦, 等. 基于G1-熵权法和正交设计优选黄芪百合颗粒的提取纯化工艺[J]. 中草药, 2018,49(3):596-603.
[22]	田彦芳, 万海同, 朱紫烨, 等. 基于熵权法的多目标筛选甘草黄酮类成分纯化工艺[J]. 中草药, 2016,47(7):1118-1125.

相关系数 Correlation coefficient	多糖提取率 Polysaccharide extraction rate	总酚提取率 Extraction rate of total phenolics	总黄酮提取率 Extraction rate of total flavonoids	OH?清除能力 OH? scavenging activity	ABTS⁺?清除能力 ABTS⁺? scavenging activity	DPPH?清除能力 DPPH? scavenging activity
多糖提取率	1
总酚提取率	0.767^**	1
黄酮提取率	0.853^**	0.973^**	1
OH?清除能力	0.856^**	0.947^**	0.979^**	1
ABTS⁺?清除能力	0.908^**	0.901^**	0.962^**	0.958^**	1
DPPH?清除能力	0.415	0.811^**	0.752^**	0.748^**	0.630^*	1

相关系数 Correlation coefficient	多糖提取率 Polysaccharide extraction rate	总酚提取率 Extraction rate of total phenolics	总黄酮提取率 Extraction rate of total flavonoids	OH?清除能力 OH? scavenging activity	ABTS⁺?清除能力 ABTS⁺? scavenging activity	DPPH?清除能力 DPPH? scavenging activity
多糖提取率	1
总酚提取率	0.767^**	1
黄酮提取率	0.853^**	0.973^**	1
OH?清除能力	0.856^**	0.947^**	0.979^**	1
ABTS⁺?清除能力	0.908^**	0.901^**	0.962^**	0.958^**	1
DPPH?清除能力	0.415	0.811^**	0.752^**	0.748^**	0.630^*	1

水平 Level	（X₁）提取时间 Extracting time/min	（X₂）料液比 Solid-liquid ratio/(g·mL^-1)	（X₃）酶添加量 Cellulase content/‰
1.682	73.64	1:14.05	2.21
1	60	1:12	1.80
0	40	1:9	1.20
-1	20	1:6	0.60
-1.682	6.36	1:3.95	0.19

水平 Level	（X₁）提取时间 Extracting time/min	（X₂）料液比 Solid-liquid ratio/(g·mL^-1)	（X₃）酶添加量 Cellulase content/‰
1.682	73.64	1:14.05	2.21
1	60	1:12	1.80
0	40	1:9	1.20
-1	20	1:6	0.60
-1.682	6.36	1:3.95	0.19

序号 Number	X₁	X₂	X₃	Y₁	Y₂	Y₃	Y₄
1	1	1	1	12.52	88.45	4.72	3.75
2	1	1	-1	11.11	86.75	4.04	3.03
3	1	-1	1	10.99	82.45	3.45	3.14
4	1	-1	-1	10.18	79.44	3.13	2.23
5	-1	1	1	11.79	83.38	4.03	3.11
6	-1	1	-1	10.43	84.76	3.48	2.32
7	-1	-1	1	10.23	85.73	3.07	2.84
8	-1	-1	-1	8.99	79.39	2.84	1.88
9	1.682	0	0	12.69	85.27	4.14	3.35
10	-1.682	0	0	11.26	83.35	3.34	2.89
11	0	1.682	0	10.64	89.72	4.17	3.55
12	0	-1.682	0	8.52	78.16	2.86	1.91
13	0	0	1.682	12.03	88.48	4.00	3.44
14	0	0	-1.682	9.85	84.34	3.26	2.22
15	0	0	0	11.70	86.69	4.46	4.23
16	0	0	0	12.23	86.85	4.41	3.95
17	0	0	0	12.39	86.62	4.47	3.88
18	0	0	0	12.11	86.44	4.37	4.06
19	0	0	0	12.34	85.62	4.44	4.48
20	0	0	0	12.22	87.49	4.32	4.10
21	0	0	0	11.67	87.06	4.37	4.20
22	0	0	0	12.98	87.18	4.39	4.10
23	0	0	0	12.56	83.90	4.41	4.34