Cited by 44Phytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesAgricultural and Biological ResearchEdible Oils Quality and Analysis

Optimization of microwave-assisted extraction of hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidants from a surplus tomato crop by response surface methodology

Open access
Pinela, José, Prieto, M.A., Barreiro, Maria Filomena, Carvalho, Ana Maria, Oliveira, M. Beatriz P.P., Vázquez, J.A., Ferreira, Isabel C.F.R.·2016·Food and Bioproducts Processing

Abstract

Tomato is the second most important vegetable crop worldwide and a rich source of industrially interesting antioxidants. Hence, the microwave-assisted extraction of hydrophilic (H) and lipophilic (L) antioxidants from a surplus tomato crop was optimized using response surface methodology. The relevant independent variables were temperature (T), extraction time (t), ethanol concentration (Et) and solid/liquid ratio (S/L). The concentration-time response methods of crocin and β-carotene bleaching were applied, since they are suitable in vitro assays to evaluate the antioxidant activity of H and L matrices, respectively. The optimum operating conditions that maximized the extraction were as follows: t, 2.25min;T, 149.2°C; Et, 99.1%; and S/L, 45.0g/L for H antioxidants; and t, 15.4min;T, 60.0°C; Et, 33.0%; and S/L, 15.0g/L for L antioxidants. This industrial approach indicated that surplus tomatoes possess a high content of antioxidants, offering an alternative source for obtaining natural value-added compounds. Additionally, by testing the relationship between the polarity of the extraction solvent and the antioxidant activity of the extracts in H and L media (polarity–activity relationship), useful information for the study of complex natural extracts containing components with variable degrees of polarity was obtained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fbp.2016.02.002

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinela, J., Prieto, M. A., Barreiro, M. F., Carvalho, A. M., Oliveira, M. B. P. P., Vázquez, J. A., & Ferreira, I. C. F. R.
Affiliations
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • Universidade Politécnica de Bragança (PT)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Corresponding author
  • Prieto, M.A.
  • Ferreira, Isabel C.F.R.
Venue
Food and Bioproducts Processing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
98
Pages
283-298
ISSN
0960-3085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2292424347
Cited by
44
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food and Bioproducts Processing (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Foundation for Science and Technology
  • FCT/MEC
  • FEDER
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Biological Research
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Edible Oils Quality and Analysis
Keywords
microwave-assisted extraction, tomato, antioxidants, hydrophilic antioxidants, lipophilic antioxidants, extraction optimization, ethanol concentration, solid-to-liquid ratio, extraction temperature, extraction time, crocin, beta-carotene, antioxidant activity, value-added compounds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review