The effect of Pulsed Electric Field as a pre-treatment step in Ultrasound Assisted Extraction of phenolic compounds from fresh rosemary and thyme by-products
Open accessAbstract
Emerging extraction techniques, including pulsed electric field (PEF) and ultrasound (US), are attracting considerable interest in the recovery of bioactives. Though, limited work has focused on PEF application as pre-treatment for US assisted extraction to enhance the release of phenolics from herbs. Hence, the present study investigated the use of an optimized PEF pre-treatment to enhance the recovery of phenolics from fresh rosemary and thyme by-products in a subsequent US assisted extraction step. Total phenolic content (TPC), 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) were assessed as an index of extraction efficacy. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed through liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses to evaluate the influence of the methods on individual phenolic compounds and the formation of potential derivatives. The results indicated that in a number of cases PEF pre-treatment enhanced (p < 0.05) the recovery of phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity compared to US individually.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Antioxidant capacity of phenolic compounds pretreated with PEF (593 mg TE 100 g-1 FW) was 1.3 times higher than UAE alone (445 mg TE 100 g-1 FW).
“the antioxidant capacity of phenolic compounds pretreated with PEF (593 mg TE 100 g-1 FW) was 1.3 times higher than that treated with UAE alone (445 mg TE 100 g-1 FW).”
From A comprehensive review of ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE) for bioactive components: Principles, advantages, equipment, and combined technologies (2023) · cites this paper as [68]
Content of phenolic compounds pretreated with PEF (297 mg GAE 100 g-1 FW) was 1.5 times higher than UAE alone (196 mg GAE 100 g-1 FW).
“The content of phenolic compounds pretreated with PEF (297 mg GAE 100 g-1 FW) was 1.5 times higher than that treated with UAE alone (196 mg GAE 100 g-1 FW).”
From A comprehensive review of ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE) for bioactive components: Principles, advantages, equipment, and combined technologies (2023) · cites this paper as [68]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 70 · Cited by 106
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Baysal, T., & Demirdoven, A. (2011). Ultrasound in food technology. In D. Chen, S. K. Sharma, & A. Mudhoo (Eds.), Handbook of applications of ultrasound: Sonochemistry for sustainability (pp. 163-182). Boca Randon, Florida: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Publishing Group.
- Goupy, P., Hugues, M., Boivin, P., & Amiot, M. J. (1999). Antioxidant composition and activity of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and malt extracts and of isolated phenolic compounds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 79(12), 1625-1634.
- Singh, B., & Sharma, R. A. (2020). Thymus species. In Secondary metabolites of medicinal plants, 4 volume set: Ethnopharmacological properties, biological activity and production strategies (pp. 1164-1178). Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH & Co.
- Authors
- Tzima, K., Brunton, N. P., Lyng, J. G., Frontuto, D., & Rai, D. K.
- Affiliations
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Brunton, Nigel P.
- Venue
- Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 69
- Pages
- 102644
- ISSN
- 1466-8564 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3129619255
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17
- FWCI
- 10.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- T-Stór (Teagasc) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- TEAGASC
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Biological Research
- Keywords
- pulsed electric field, ultrasound-assisted extraction, phenolic compounds, pretreatment, antioxidant capacity, DPPH radical scavenging, FRAP, food by-product valorization
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
