Continuous and pulsed ultrasound-assisted extractions of antioxidants from pomegranate peel
Abstract
There is a great demand for developing efficient extraction methods in order to reduce extraction time and increase the yield and activity of functional antioxidants. The yields, activities, and extraction kinetics of antioxidants from the dry peel of pomegranate marc were studied using ultrasound-assisted extraction in continuous and pulsed modes and the results were compared with conventional extraction (CE) at a temperature of 25±2 °C and water/peel ratio of 50/1, w/w. The studied factors were intensity level and treatment time for continuous ultrasound-assisted extraction (CUAE), and intensity level, number of pulse repetition, and pulse duration and interval for pulsed ultrasound-assisted extraction (PUAE). The results showed that all factors significantly affected the antioxidant yield, but only treatment time had a significant effect on the antioxidant activity. Compared to CE, PUAE at an intensity level of 59.2 W/cm(2), and a pulse duration of 5s and a resting interval of 5s increased the antioxidant yield by 22% and reduced the extraction time by 87%. Similarly, CUAE at the same intensity level increased the antioxidant yield by 24% and reduced the extraction time by 90%. Since PUAE had 50% energy saving compared to CUAE, we recommend using PUAE for the extraction with antioxidant yield of 14.5% and DPPH scavenging activity of 5.8 g/g. A second-order kinetic model was successfully developed for describing the mechanism of ultrasound-assisted extractions under PUAE and CUAE. This research clearly demonstrated the superiority of PUAE for producing antioxidants from peel of pomegranate marc.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Compared to conventional extraction, pulsed ultrasonic extraction increased antioxidant amount by 22% and shortened extraction time by 87%.
“The findings from the experiment indicated that compared to conventional extraction, the amount of antioxidant extracted by pulsed ultrasonic extraction was increased by 22 % and the extraction time was shortened by 87 %.”
From A comprehensive review of ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE) for bioactive components: Principles, advantages, equipment, and combined technologies (2023) · cites this paper as [113]
Pulsed ultrasonic extraction saves 50% more energy compared to continuous ultrasonic extraction.
“However, pulsed ultrasonic extraction saves 50 % more energy compared to continuous ultrasonic extraction.”
From A comprehensive review of ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE) for bioactive components: Principles, advantages, equipment, and combined technologies (2023) · cites this paper as [113]
Continuous ultrasonic extraction at the same intensity level increased antioxidant yield by 24% and reduced extraction time by 90% compared to conventional extraction.
“Similarly, a 24 % increase in antioxidant yield and a remarkable 90 % reduction in extraction time when utilizing continuous ultrasonic extraction at the same intensity level.”
From A comprehensive review of ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE) for bioactive components: Principles, advantages, equipment, and combined technologies (2023) · cites this paper as [113]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 242
- Authors
- Pan, Z., Qu, W., Ma, H., Atungulu, G. G., & McHugh, T. H.
- Affiliations
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- Jiangsu University (CN)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Western Regional Research Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pan, Zhongli
- Qu, Wenjuan
- Venue
- Ultrasonics Sonochemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 365-372
- ISSN
- 1350-4177 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2155416931
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 7.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ultrasonics Sonochemistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Pomegranate: compositions and health benefits
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Ultrasound and Cavitation Phenomena
- Keywords
- ultrasound-assisted extraction, pulsed ultrasound, continuous ultrasound, pomegranate peel, antioxidants, extraction kinetics, second-order kinetic model, DPPH radical scavenging, energy conservation, extraction yield
- MeSH terms
- Antioxidants, Chemical Fractionation, Fruit, Kinetics, Ultrasonics, Lythraceae
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