Comparison of volatile components in Australia mint obtained by supercritical and subcritical extraction

Authors

ZHANG Si, State Key Laboratory of Sub-health Intervention Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China; College of Horticulture and Landscape, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China
XIE Hongqi, State Key Laboratory of Sub-health Intervention Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China; College of Horticulture and Landscape, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China; Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Crop Germplasm Innovation an
LIU Xuehui, State Key Laboratory of Sub-health Intervention Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China; College of Horticulture and Landscape, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China
WANG Jing, State Key Laboratory of Sub-health Intervention Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China; College of Horticulture and Landscape, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China
LIU Dongbo, State Key Laboratory of Sub-health Intervention Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China; College of Horticulture and Landscape, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan 410128, China; Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Crop Germplasm Innovation an

Abstract

In this study, the volatile components in Australia mint were extracted, using supercritical CO₂ and subcritical butane, and then the extractives were analyzed by GC—MS. The results showed that the extraction rate of supercritical CO₂ was 2.5%, and that of the subcritical butane was 1.4%. Through the analysis of GC—MS, 21 components were identified in the supercritical CO₂ extraction, and the relative content of menthol was 70.33%. However, 11 components were identified in the subcritical butane extraction, and the relative content of menthol was 60.83%. Our results showed that the supercritical CO₂ extraction of volatile components in Australian mint was better than the subcritical butane one.

Publication Date

10-28-2016

First Page

137

Last Page

139

DOI

10.13652/j.issn.1003-5788.2016.10.033

Recommended Citation

Si, ZHANG; Hongqi, XIE; Xuehui, LIU; Jing, WANG; and Dongbo, LIU (2016) "Comparison of volatile components in Australia mint obtained by supercritical and subcritical extraction," Food and Machinery: Vol. 32: Iss. 10, Article 32.
DOI: 10.13652/j.issn.1003-5788.2016.10.033
Available at: https://www.ifoodmm.cn/journal/vol32/iss10/32

References

[1] 陈智坤, 梁呈元, 任冰如, 等. 薄荷属植物挥发性成分及药理作用研究进展[J]. 天然产物研究与开发, 2013, 25(6): 856-861.
[2] 梁呈元, 佟海英, 赵志强, 等. 水蒸气蒸馏法与超临界CO₂萃取法提取薄荷油的化学成分比较[J]. 林产化学与工业, 2007, 27(1): 81-84.
[3] TANG Kitty S C, KONCZAK Izabela, ZHAO Jian. Identification and quantification of phenolics in Australian native mint (Mentha australis R. Br.)[J]. Food Chemistry, 2016, 192: 698-705.
[4] 刘雪辉, 谢红旗, 张思, 等. 高速逆流色谱法分离澳洲薄荷中香叶木苷[J]. 中国农学通报, 2016, 32(27): 109-113.
[5] 张志军, 刘西亮, 李会珍, 等. 植物挥发油提取方法及应用研究进展[J]. 中国粮油学报, 2011, 26(4): 118-120.
[6] 于清跃, 朱新宝. 薄荷种植与薄荷精油提取研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2012, 40(13): 7 91l-7 913.
[7] 彭维, 刘丽, 刘飞, 等. 紫苏籽油超临界与亚临界萃取方法的比较研究[J]. 食品工业, 2014, 35(8): 22-26.
[8] WANG Juan, YU Rui, ZHANG Jun-yan, et al. Comparison of Volatile components in tea blossom obtained by supercritical CO₂, subcritical CO₂, and petroleum ether extractions[J]. Modern Food Science and Technology, 2015, 31(2): 240-248.
[9] 任健, 郑喜群, 杨勇, 等. 超临界CO₂流体萃取技术提取南瓜籽油的研究[J]. 食品与机械, 2006, 22(6): 34-36.
[10] 常大伟, 孙娇娇, 刘树兴. 利用亚临界萃取技术提取生姜中的姜油[J]. 食品与机械, 2015, 31(1): 159-163.
[11] 靳有才, 庆易薇, 郭珍. 青海野生薄荷挥发油成分GC—MS分析[J]. 中国实验方剂学杂志, 2013, 19(23): 143-145.
[12] 叶兰荣, 姚雷, 徐勇, 等. 四种薄荷植物学性状和精油成分的比较[J]. 上海交通大学学报: 农业科学版, 2006, 24(5): 435-440.