Effect of the microwave and thermosonic vacuum concentration methods on quality parameters of hibiscus (hibiscus sabdariffa L.) extract and mathematical modeling of concentration
Source abstract
Abstract
This study investigates the modeling of the concentration of hibiscus extracts and the effect of the concentration process on some quality properties of hibiscus extracts. Absolute pressure was applied as 250 mbar in all concentration processes. Thermal vacuum concentration process was applied at 75 °C and 80 °C, thermosonic vacuum concentration process was applied at 75 °C and 0.02 W/mL AED, and microwave vacuum concentration treatment was applied at 180 and 300 W. The shortest processing time was achieved with the microwave vacuum concentration process at 300 W. Among the 13 models used, Midilli was the most successful model (R 2 ≥ 0.9951, χ2 ≤ 1.0185 and RMSE ≤ 1.0092)) in describing the concentration data. No significant change was determined in the physicochemical properties of the concentrated samples. However, a significant increase was determined in the turbidity values of the concentrated hibiscus samples, while a significant decrease was noted in the anthocyanin content and composition and antioxidant activity values of the concentrated samples compared to the initial sample.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Hibiscus Plant Research Studies · Polysaccharides Composition and Applications · Food Science and Nutritional Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Food Safety and Agricultural Research Center, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye
Finike Vocational School, Department of Food Processing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye
Department of Chemistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye
Rose and Rose Products Research and Application Center, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Türkiye
Funding
Akdeniz University Scientific Research
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. AOAC · 2002
2. Assawarachan R · Int J Food Agric Dev · 2008 · 6 · 47
3. 10.1111/j.1745-4530.2009.00536.x10.1111/j.1745-4530.2009.00536.x ↗
4. 10.1111/jfpe.1253510.1111/jfpe.12535 ↗
5. 10.1111/jfpp.1590210.1111/jfpp.15902 ↗
6. 10.1007/s13197-015-1800-910.1007/s13197-015-1800-9 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ifset.2011.02.00910.1016/j.ifset.2011.02.009 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.05.00210.1016/j.foodchem.2014.05.002 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.11.00810.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.11.008 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.foodres.2013.11.04310.1016/j.foodres.2013.11.043 ↗
11. 10.1080/08327823.2021.195283710.1080/08327823.2021.1952837 ↗
12. 10.1111/jfpp.1240610.1111/jfpp.12406 ↗
13. Dinçer C · Gıda · 2020 · 45 · 409
14. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.10.01210.1016/j.foodcont.2012.10.012 ↗
15. 10.1515/ijfe-2014-001610.1515/ijfe-2014-0016 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.tifs.2003.12.00110.1016/j.tifs.2003.12.001 ↗
17. 10.1007/s13399-020-00606-310.1007/s13399-020-00606-3 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.01.03710.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.01.037 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.10521910.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105219 ↗
20. 10.1007/s10068-010-0147-210.1007/s10068-010-0147-2 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.fct.2018.01.05310.1016/j.fct.2018.01.053 ↗
22. 10.1081/DRT-12000586410.1081/DRT-120005864 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.06110.1016/j.memsci.2013.03.061 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.11095310.1016/j.lwt.2021.110953 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.02310.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.023 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.06.00410.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.06.004 ↗
27. Saelee L · Food Appl Biosci J · 2021 · 9 · 53
28. 10.1007/s10068-012-0127-910.1007/s10068-012-0127-9 ↗
29. 10.1016/S0963-9969(00)00188-510.1016/S0963-9969(00)00188-5 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.lwt.2007.11.01610.1016/j.lwt.2007.11.016 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.seppur.2014.05.03910.1016/j.seppur.2014.05.039 ↗
32. 10.1111/jfpp.1202410.1111/jfpp.12024 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.01.01810.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.01.018 ↗
34. 10.1002/fsn3.264510.1002/fsn3.2645 ↗
35. 10.1108/0034665021041699410.1108/00346650210416994 ↗
36. 10.1007/s11947-011-0603-x10.1007/s11947-011-0603-x ↗