Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-018-9974-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Optimization of polyphenols extraction from orange peel

S. Haya1 · F. Bentahar1 · M. Trari2

Received: 11 May 2018 / Accepted: 8 November 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The aim of the present study was to optimize the phenolic recovery from orange peel by investigating the effect of several
parameters on the extraction yield. The phenols were extracted in a batch reactor and the effects of the concentration and
the nature of the solvent (methanol, ethanol and hexane: 0–100% V/V), were studied. The Folin–Ciocalteau reagent (FCR)
was used for the determination of the total phenolic content (TPC) and the antioxidant activity was investigated using the
stable free radical: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH). TPC corresponds to the gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g dry weight
(DW) and its value (115.52 mg) was obtained at 25 °C with a stirring speed of 400 rpm in neutral medium (pH ~ 6) and a
particle size of 605 µm. The results indicated that the polyphenols content varies considerably with the solvent polarity and
the highest extraction yield was obtained with aqueous organic solvent. The inhibitory concentration ­(IC50) obtained for
DPPH inhibition was found to be 0.5%, while the DPPH inhibition showed a noticeable inhibitory activity of orange peel
with a percentage of 97%; such high value constitutes an originality of the present study.

Keywords Orange peel · Inhibitory concentration ­(IC50) · Total phenol content (TPC) · 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl
(DPPH)

Introduction C is an important water-soluble antioxidant, which protects

compounds in extracellular and intracellular spaces in most
Phenolic compounds are ubiquitously present in vegetables, biological systems and reduces the copherol radicals [4].
fruits, pips, tea and juices, thus highlighting their impor- The extraction process is a widely used unit operation in
tance in the human diet. These compounds are known to the food industry to obtain desired components in the food
display a wide range of physiological activities related matrices [5, 6]. The extracted molecules may be used as food
to the protection against various forms of environmental additives or exert peculiar effects on the human health [7,
stress [1]. Fruits and vegetables intake have long been asso- 8]. For the extraction of phenolic compounds, conventional
ciated with a reduced risk of chronic diseases, especially methods based on the solid–liquid extraction using organic
cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer. Among solvents have been used. However, these techniques require
the dietary sources of polyphenols, orange is of particular long extraction time, resulting in low yields. Therefore, sev-
interest. This staple crop is widely consumed all over the eral studies devoted to the extraction of antioxidant have
world and is therefore an ideal source of health-promoting explored the effect of different techniques for the recovery
antioxidants for the human diet [2, 3]. Oranges are a main of phenolic compounds from orange peel [9]. The highest
source of vitamin C and polyphenolic compounds; vitamin content of total polyphenol (PT) was obtained by solvent
extraction in batch mode followed by ultrasound-assisted
extraction after extraction by microwave, fourth extraction
* M. Trari in the presence of supercritical fluid ­(CO2), and finally a high
solarchemistry@gmail.com; mtrari@usthb.dz pressure extraction.
1
Other works aiming to optimize the process parameters
Laboratoire “Phenomenes de Transfert”, Faculté de Génie
Mécanique et Génie des Procédés, USTHB, El Alia,
for the extraction of phenolic compounds on the pectin from
16111 Algiers, Algeria orange peel [10]. The treatment the authors have chosen was
2
Laboratory of Storage and Valorization of Renewable
the extraction by microwave at 25 °C at different powers in
Energies, Faculty of Chemistry, USTHB, El Alia,
16111 Algiers, Algeria

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 S. Haya et al.

acidic media, the extraction yield increased from 6.7 to 9.2% Preparation of extracts
with increasing the S–L ratio.
It is well known that the natural antioxidants extracted One gram of powdered orange peel was extracted with
from herbs, wastes and spices have high activity and are used 100 mL of distilled water; the mixture was then shaken at
in many food applications. Among these substances, the phe- 25 °C, natural pH ~ 6.8 (not adjusted) and a stirring speed
nolic compounds are widely distributed in the plants with of 400 rpm/10 min, this time corresponds to the extraction
the ability to scavenge free radicals by single electron trans- period. After completing the extraction process, the orange
fer [11]. The nature of the solvent can affect the extraction peel extract was filtered (pore diameter: 0.45 µm) in order
rates through the equilibrium-solvent that can be explained to get clear crude extract solution. Subsequently, the crude
on the basis of the transition state theory. To our knowledge, extract was subjected to antioxidant assays for analysis, done
the experimental design for optimizing the physical param- in triplicate.
eters has not been reported in the literature, compared to
different varieties of the extracted materials. The originality Determination of total phenol content
of the present study is to extract a product rich in phenolic
compounds with a high extraction yield in short time. It TPC of orange peel extracts was determined with FCR
also concerns the evaluation of the recovered polyphenols [12]; the sample (0.5 mL) was mixed with 2.5 mL of FCR.
to reduce DPPH with a degradation percentage of 97%. Then, 2.5 mL of saturated ­Na2CO3 solution was added,
The influences of binary and ternary solvents systems as followed by incubation at 45 °C for 15 min. GA was used
well as the solvent polarity constitute a first approach to the to calibrate the
( standard) curve by using the equation:
work in the composition of the mixture between methanol; y = 0.0076 × R2 = 0.997 and the results were expressed
ethanol and hexane. The parametric study and the effects of in mg of GAE/g of DW. The absorbance was measured at
the solid–liquid ratio, agitation speed, temperature, pH and 765 nm with a Perkin Elmer Lambda 1 UV–Vis Spectropho-
granulometry on the yield of extracted polyphenols were tometer; TPC was calculated from the following formula:
also undertaken. Hence, the objective of the present study { / }
TPC = VTE × CGAE DW
was to evaluate the effect of some physico-chemical param-
eters, namely, the solid–liquid (S–L) ratio, temperature, pH, where TPC is total phenolic content, ­VTE the total volume
agitation speed and particle size on the extraction yield of extract, ­CGAE the concentration in mg gallic acid equivalent
PT and TPC from orange peel, along with the antioxidant and DW the dry weight.
activity.

Statistical design of experiments

Materials and methods Full factorial design
Chemicals A common experimental design is one with all input factors
set at two levels namely high (+ 1) and low (−1). A design
Na2CO3 (purity ≥ 99.9%), Folin–Ciocalteu phenol reagent
with all possible high/low combinations of all input factors
(FCR), gallic acid (purity 98%), Absolute ethanol (≥ 99.4%
is called a full factorial design in two levels. If there are k
V/V), Hexane (99% V/V) and Methanol (99% V/V) were
factors, each at two levels, a full factorial design has ­2k runs.
purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical. All other chemi-
The amount of extracted polyphenol (y) from orange
cals were of analytical grade and the stock solutions were
peels depends on the solid/liquid ratio, agitation speed (N),
prepared with distilled water.
temperature and pH. A full 24 factorial design is given in
Table 1 and the factor levels are coded as − 1 (low), 0 (cen-
Sample materials tral point) and 1 (high).
To determine the influence of each factor, the experi-
“Valencia” orange fruit was collected from the experimen- ments were carried out by systematically varying the
tal field in Algeria, during the period September–December studied factors, keeping the others parameters con-
2011. The orange Peels were dried in a free area to avoid stant. A suitable experimentation technique should be
their transformation and degradation and powdered by a selected to assess possible interactions with a minimum
blender. The dried powder was ground, stored in hermetic of experiments [13, 14]. In the statistical design, the
boxes at ambient temperature, immediately packed, pro- factors involved in an experiment were simultaneously
tected from light to avoid the reactions of transformations changed. The advantage was that not only the effects of
and stored until their use. individual parameters but also their relative importance

13
Optimization of polyphenols extraction from orange peel

Table 1  Levels of different Experiments S/L N (rpm) T (°C) pH X1 X2 X3 X4 Concentration

process variables in coded and (g/100 mL) (mg GAE/L)
non-coded for the extraction of
polyphenol Y

1 1 100 25 2 −1 −1 −1 −1 14.40
2 5 100 25 2 +1 −1 −1 −1 115.52
3 1 400 25 2 −1 +1 −1 −1 42.5
4 5 400 25 2 +1 +1 −1 −1 103.94
5 1 100 85 2 −1 −1 +1 −1 11.38
6 5 100 85 2 +1 −1 +1 −1 14.01
7 1 400 85 2 −1 +1 +1 −1 12.63
8 5 400 85 2 +1 +1 +1 −1 11.84
9 1 100 25 10 −1 −1 −1 +1 13.35
10 5 100 25 10 +1 −1 −1 +1 75.26
11 1 400 25 10 −1 +1 −1 +1 35.69
12 5 400 25 10 +1 +1 −1 +1 110.78
13 1 100 85 10 −1 −1 +1 +1 23.94
14 5 100 85 10 +1 −1 +1 +1 27.23
15 1 400 85 10 −1 +1 +1 +1 26.57
16 5 400 85 10 +1 +1 +1 +1 26.84
17 3 250 55 6 0 0 0 0 47.36

The Test No. 17 was imposed by the design experiment is the average speed (250 rpm) between the max-
ima (400 rpm) and minima (100 rpm)

Table 2  Analysis of variance (ANOVA) DPPH radical scavenging activity

Source DF Sum of squares Mean squares F. ratio
The antioxidant activity of the extract was measured by
Model 15 21207.704 1413.85 the DPPH method [15]. DPPH solution (~ 6×10−5 mol)
Error 0 0.000 Prob > F was freshly prepared, 77 µL of sample extract was added
C. total 15 21207.704 to 3 mL of DPPH reagent and the test tube was incubated
in the dark at room temperature. The absorbance was
measured at 517 nm, by UV–Vis spectrophotometry. The
percentage inhibition of radicals was calculated from the
in a given process where the interactions of two or more formula:
variables can be derived. The regression analysis was
performed to estimate the response function as a second Radical scavenging activity (%)
order polynomial: {( )/ }
= 100 × Acontrol − Asample Acontrol
∑ ∑∑ ∑∑∑
Y = a0 + ai Xi + aij Xi Xj + aijk Xi Xj Xk
∑∑∑∑ Acontrol is the absorbance of DPPH solution without extract
+ aijkl Xi Xj Xk Xl and ­Asample the absorbance with DPPH. The inhibitory con-
centration ­(IC50) was taken as the amount of antioxidant
where Y is the predicted response and a­ 0, ­ai, ­aij, ­aijk, ­aijkl required to decrease the initial DPPH concentration by 50%.
the coefficients estimated by regression, which represent the
linear, quadratic and cross products of ­Xi, ­Xj, ­Xk and ­X1 on
the response. A statistical program JMP.8 was used for the Results and discussion
regression analysis of data and the equations were validated
by the ANOVA statistical test (Table 2). The significance of Determination of the total polyphenols content
each term in the equation is to estimate the goodness of the
fit in every case. The effect of physical parameters on the extraction of phe-
All experiments were realized with particles of mean nolic compounds from orange peel was determined on the
diameter of 231 µm, determined during the characteriza- base of single factor experiment.
tion of the solid (Table 1).

13
 S. Haya et al.

Solid–liquid (S–L) ratio because a high mass of solid causes a saturation of the
medium. So, it is necessary to search a compromise between
The S–L ratio is important during the mass transfer between the efficiency and the installation of technological limitation.
the solid and the solvent. The effect on the extraction yield
(Fig. 1) shows that the quantity of extracted phenol increases Effect of temperature
with raising the mass of the solid. Since the volume of the
solvent used in each experiment is constant, the extraction The thermal effect on the polyphenols extraction from
rate increases with the mass of the solid. The maximal TPC orange peel (Fig. 2) shows that the yields extract increases
(42 mg GAE/g DW) is obtained for S–L ratio of 4 g/100 mL, significantly in the temperature range (25–30 °C) and tends
and this could be explained by the fact that higher the mass to saturation at 70 °C while the extract mass increases. The
of solid, greater the offered contact area. A decrease in the decreased extraction rate at 85 °C is mainly due to the deg-
quantity of extracted matter is noticed beyond this value, radation of phenols to phenolic acids, (chlorogenic and neo-
due to the insufficiency of solvent to wet the solid particles, chlorogenic acid) [16]. However, the increase of PT above
80 °C (52.8 mg GAE/g DW), is caused by a fast mass trans-
fer between both phases, due to the increased intraparticle
600
S/L (%) distribution of the solid, and higher solubility of phenolic
1 compounds [12, 17].
2
500
3
4 Effect of pH
Concentration(mg GA/l)

400 5

pH is a crucial parameter for controlling the separation

300 between the solid and aqueous phases, and acts on both
the solubility and ionization state of the solid [18]. It was
200 studied in the range (2–10) and its effect shows that the
better extraction of the phenolic compounds occurs at
100
pH ~ 6, because of their solubility under the working con-
ditions (Fig. 3). By contrast, the rate does not change sig-
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
nificantly in acid medium as confirmed by the TPC (38.8 g
Time (min) extract/100 g DW). On the other hand, a notable improve-
ment in the extraction yield was obtained at higher pHs
Fig. 1  Extraction yield as a function of time at different solid–liquid (> 6), caused by interaction forces, which are appreciably
ratios brought up between ­H+ and ­OH− ions on the solid surface,

Fig. 2  Effect of temperature on 12 55

the yield of phenolic extraction
from orange peel
10
50
Yield (gGA/100gDW)

Yield (gextract/100gDW)
8

45
6

4 40

2
35

0
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Temperature (°C)

13
Optimization of polyphenols extraction from orange peel

Fig. 3  Effect of pH on the yield 12

of phenolic extraction from 48
orange peel
10 46

Yield (gGA/100gDW)

Yield (gextract/100gDW)
44
8
42

6 40

38
4
36

2 34

32
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

pH

thus favouring the phenols extraction [19]. The results are The high amount of polyphenols extracted at equilibrium
expressed in mg gallic acid equivalent; the comparison of (48.33 mg GAE/g DW) is obtained at a speed 400 rpm,
the extract and gallic Acid (mg Equivalent) is made after which assures a good diffusion of ions toward orange peel
the antioxidant activity. particles [20, 21]. The sorption of the malachite green from
potato peel also showed that a speed of 400 rpm gives a good
Effect of agitation speed sorption performance [22].

The effect of the agitation speed (100, 200, 300 and

400 rpm) on the extraction of polyphenols from orange Effect of particle size
peels was also studied, keeping the other parameters con-
stant. Figure 4 shows that the amount of phenols increases The granulometry of the particles also influences the het-
with the agitation speed, due to the diffusion rate of the solid erogeneous reaction kinetics through the exposed surface
from the bulk liquid toward the solid particles because of the area and the maximal capacity of particles depends on the
enhanced turbulence and decreased liquid boundary layer. specific surface area of the solid. Figure 5 shows that TPC

Fig. 4  Effect of stirring speed 12 50

on the yield of phenolic extrac-
tion from orange peel
48
10
Yield (gGA/100gDW)

Yield (gextract/100gDW)
46
8

44
6
42

4
40

2
38

0 36
0 100 200 300 400

stirring speed(r.p.m)

13
 S. Haya et al.

Fig. 5  Effect of particle size on 3,0

the yield of phenolic extraction 1,2
orange peel, D is the average
diameter 2,5
1,0

Yield (gGA/100gDW)

Yield (gextract/100gDW)
2,0
0,8

1,5
0,6

1,0
0,4

0,5 0,2

0,0 0,0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
D(µm )

does not vary significantly with the diameter; this could be effects of four extracting solvents (Table 3). The solu-
explained by the adherence of the particles between them bility of phenolic compounds depends on their chemi-
that prevents the penetration of the solvent and therefore cal nature and varies from simple to highly polymerized
decreases the surface of the mass transfer. According to compounds. This structural diversity is responsible for
Khan et al. lower yields observed with particles of smaller the great variability of the physicochemical properties,
sizes were due to the remaining particles on the solvent sur- influencing the polyphenols extraction [26]. Moreover,
face during the extraction process [23]; the yield decreases the solubility of phenols depends on the polarity of the
as the particle size decreases and for sizes greater than solvent and methanol and hexane give the best extrac-
605 µm, the extraction yield reaches 272.36 mg GAE/g DW, tion yields with a preference for hexane whereas the
due to the interfacial resistance. Consequently, the particles low yield is observed with ethanol [27, 28]. The major-
with large diameter induce a lower diffusion and decrease ity of chemical groups, like phenols, are extractable by
the extraction rate [24, 25]. water, in agreement with the literature data [8, 29] and
the extraction efficiency is attributed to the high solu-
Effects of the solvent on the extraction yield bility of phenols in the polar methanol. Water, aqueous
and polyphenol content mixtures of ethanol, hexane and methanol are generally
used for the extraction of phenolic compounds [30]. We
The nature of solvent affects the equilibrium constants also tested the influence of binary and ternary systems
of reactions by differential stabilization of the reactants/ on TPC obtained from orange peel (Table 3). The mix-
products. The equilibrium is shifted toward the sub- ture water/solvent can facilitate the chemicals extraction
stance that is preferentially stabilized, demonstrating the and this may be the reason why the yields of aqueous

Table 3  Extraction total phenol Solvent Extraction yield (%) TPC (mg GAE/mL)
content (TPC) yield of orange
peel Water 34.44 ± 0.25 111.84 ± 0.25
100% (Ethanol) 0.20 ± 0.01 17.5 ± 0.23
Water–ethanol (30%–70%) 0.25 ± 0.01 241.44 ± 1.97
100% (Methanol) 2.78 ± 0.08 79.34±0.93
Water–methanol (90–10%) 3.277 ± 0.02 253.34 ± 2.29
100%(Hexane) 1.76 ± 0.02 105.13±0.2
Water–hexane (70%–%30) 2.9 ± 0.48 185.52± 1.11
Hexane–water–ethanol (25–50%–25%) 0.074 ± 0.17 130.26± 3.28
Ethanol–water–methanol (25–50%–25%) 16.55 ± 1.11 235.52±1.31
Methanol–water–hexane (25–50%–25%) 3.87 ± 1.89 44.078 ±1.97

13
Optimization of polyphenols extraction from orange peel

methanol, ethanol, and hexane extracts are higher than Table 4  Evaluation of IC50, anti-radical power and stoichiometry
those of water, methanol and ethanol used separately. value
TPC of the water extract is 111.84 mg GAE/L and Compound IC 50 (%) Anti-radical power Stoichiometry
decreases in the order given in Table 3. The addition (per g/GAE g DPPH)
of water to the extraction system improves the yield of
Orange peel 0.5 ± 0.01 4.10−3 10
phenolic glycolyses and phenols with a higher degree
Gallic acid 0.3 ± 0.02 7.8.10−3 6
of polymerization. On the other hand, the increase of
the volume of water in the solvent can polymerize the
non-phenolic compounds like carbohydrates and pro-
teins, with the phenolic compounds, thus increaing the amount of the antioxidant required to decrease the DPPH
extracted amount [31]. concentration by 50% [33]. ­IC50 is obtained by interpolation
from a linear regression analysis; values lower than ­IC50
indicates a high antioxidant activity (Table 4). So, one can
conclude that the orange peel is an efficient antioxidant with
Experimental design a significant anti-radical power and ­IC50 value of 4×10−3 g−1
GAE/g DPPH.
To examine the combined effect of four independent vari-
ables, the experiments on the extraction yield of polyphe-
nol were performed. Equation represents the mathematical Conclusion
model relating the polyphenol concentration with the inde-
pendent variables: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of
y = 41.61625 + 19.06625X1 + 4.72375X2 − 22.3075X3 physical parameters on the extraction yields of phenolic
+ 0.835X4 − 2.05125X1 X2 − 18.3925X1 X3 + 4.56X2 X3 compounds. The main novelty concerns the extraction of
phenolic compounds with a high yield in short time and
+ 1.485X1 X4 + 2.775X2 X4 + 6.00875X3 X4 + 1.245X1 X2 X3
the recovery of polyphenols with reduce 2,2-diphenyl-1-pic-
+ 3.335X1 X2 X4 + 1.69875X1 X3 X4 − 2.38125X2 X3 X4 rylhydrazyl. The duration that ensures an optimal extrac-
− 3.28625X1 X2 X3 X4 tion rate was found to be 10 min and the yields of poly-
phenols extraction increased significantly with raising the
The experimental and predicted values of the polyphenol temperature from 25 to 30 °C, in neutral medium leading
concentration are given in Table 1. According to the last to a high amount of polyphenols at equilibrium (115.52 mg
equation, the agitation speed and the S–L ratio has a posi- GAE/L). Furthermore, an increase in the total phenolic
tive effect on the polyphenols extraction. By contrast, the content (272.36 mg GAE/L) was recorded with particles
temperature has a negative effect while a negligible effect is size of 605 µm. Solvents with different polarities (ethanol,
observed in acidic medium in the ranges of each selected var- methanol and hexane) at various concentrations showed
iable. Both the mass transfer and the concentration of poly- a significant effect on the extraction yields. Antioxidants
phenol increase with raising the agitation speed. The number extractions were improved by combined solvents. In addi-
of active sites on the solvent produces more ·OH radicals and tion, the obtained extracts with the solvent–water mixtures
increases the extraction efficiency. The negative sign for the were distinguished from those obtained with pure organic
thermal effect is due to the fact that an increased tempera- solvents. However, water remains the best extraction solvent.
ture causes a degradation of phenols, and a transformation The extraction yields increased with increasing the water
of phenolic acids. The maximal concentration of extracted content in ethanol, methanol, and hexane. The peel extract
polyphenol is equal to 115.52 mg GAE/L under the optimal is rich in polyphenols and the results of DPPH tests were in
conditions: 100 rpm, 5 g/100 mL, at pH ~ 2 and 25 °C. accordance with those obtained in TPC determination. The
DPPH method was applied for evaluating the antioxidant
Antioxidant activity activity. Orange peel constitutes an important source of anti-
oxidant which can find various applications in the food, and
DPPH is a stable organic radical with an absorption band cosmetics industries.
at 517 nm [32]. Through this study it was concluded that
at concentration 5%, DPPH is almost completely degraded,
with an elimination percentage of 97%, showing the good References
antioxidant power of orange peel with ­IC50 of ~ 0.5% and
this constitutes originality in this work. I­ C50 is inversely 1. I. Klimczak, M. Maecka, M. Szlachta, A. Gliszczyn, S. Swigo, J.
Food Compos. Anal. 20, 313–322 (2007)
proportional to the antioxidant capacity, as it expresses the

13
 S. Haya et al.

2. A.L.K. Faller, E. Fialho, Food Res. Int. 42, 210–215 (2009) 18. J. Theurich, M. Lindner, D.W. Bahnemann, Langmuir 12(26),
3. M. Gomes, M. Catalano, Riv Ital Sostanze Gr. 56, 361–365 (1979) 6368–6376 (1996)
4. C.H. Kaur, H.C. Kapoor, Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 36, 703–725 19. A. Khalfaoui, Ph.D Thesis (Algiers) (2012)
(2001) 20. E. Guyon, J.P. Hulin, Sciences 249, 70–77 (1998)
5. M.A. Ebrahimzdeh, S.F. Nabavi, S.M. Nabavi, M. Mahmoudi, 21. I. Ghodbane, L. Nouri, O. Hamdaoui, M. Chiha, J. Hazard. Mater.
B. Eslami, A.A. Dehpour, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 9(34), 5542–5549 152, 148–158 (2008)
(2010) 22. E.K. Guechi, O. Hamdaoui, Arab. J. Chem. 9, 416–424 (2011)
6. A. Moure, J.M. Cruz, D. Franco, J.M. Dominguez, J. Sineiro, M.J. 23. M.K. Khan, M. Abert-Vian, A.S. Fabiano-Tixier, O. Dangles,
Nunez, J.C. Parajo, Food Chem. 72, 145–171 (2001) Food Chem. 119, 851–858 (2009)
7. B.M. Ames, Science 221, 1256–1264 (1983) 24. A. Shukla, Y.H. Zhang, P. Dubey, J.L. Margrave, S.S. Shukla, J.
8. P.P. Singh, D.A. Marleny, A. Saldaña, Food Res. Int. 44, 2452– Hazard. Mater. 95, 137–152 (2002)
2458 (2011) 25. O. Ahmet, O. Mahmut, S. Ayhan, Biochem. Eng. J. 37, 192–200
9. N. M’hiria, I. Ioannoub, M. Boudreau, M. Ghoulba, Food Bio- (2007)
prod. Process 96, 161–170 (2015) 26. T. Koffi, Y. Sea, M. Dodehe, S. Soro, J. Anim. Plant Sci. 5, 550–
10. S.S. Hosseini, F. Khodaiyan, M.S. Yarmand, Carbohyd. Polym. 558 (2010)
140, 59–65 (2016) 27. H. Shiba, K. Kondo, R. Katsuyama, Alkyl Gallates, Antimicrob.
11. R. Scherer, H.T. Godoy, Rev Bras Plantas Med. 16, 41–46(2014) Agents CH. 49, 549–555 (2005)
12. M. Dehkharghanian, M.A. Vijayalakshmi, Food Chem. 121, 863– 28. J. Gangoue-Pieboji, D.E. Pegnyemb, D. Niyitegeka, Ann. Trop.
870 (2004) Med. Parasitol. 100, 237–243 (2006)
13. J.T. Batalon, P.S. Madamba, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 78, 167–175 29. A.A.A. Mohdaly, M.A. Sarhan, A. Mahmoud, A. Ramadan, I.
(2001) Smetanska, J. Sci. Food. Agric. 90, 218–226 (2010)
14. P. Bhunia, M.M. Ghangrekar, Bioresour. Technol 99, 4229–4238 30. N. Turkmen, Y.S. Velioglu, F. Sari, G. Polat, Molecules. 12, 484–
(2008) 496 (2007)
15. V. Bondet, W. Brand-Williams, C. Berset, Lebensm Wiss. U-Tech- 31. C. Poncet-Legrand, D. Cartalade, J.L. Putaux, V. Cheynier, A.
nol. 30, 609–615 (1997) Vernhet, Langmuir 19(25), 10563–10572 (2003)
16. M.A. Madrau, A. Piscopo, A.M. Sanguinetti, A. Del Caro, M. Poi- 32. C. Hseu, W.H. Chang, C.S. Chen, Food Chem. Toxicol. 46, 105–
ana. V.R. Flora, V. Romeo, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 228, 441–448 114 (2008)
(2009) 33. S.C. Liu, J.T. Lin, C.K. Wang, H.Y. Chen, D.J. Yang, Food Chem.
17. T. Wu, J. Yan, R. Liu, M.F. Marcone, H.A. Aisa, R. Tsao, Food 114, 577–581 (2009)
Chem. 133(4), 1292–1298 (2012)

13