Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26252491›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Determination of Parameters for the Supercritical Extraction of Antioxidant Compounds from Green Propolis Using Carbon Dioxide and Ethanol as Co-Solvent.

Bruna Aparecida Souza Machado, Gabriele de Abreu Barreto, Aline Silva Costa, Samantha Serra Costa, Rejane Pina Dantas Silva, Danielle Figuerêdo da Silva, Hugo Neves Brandão, José Luiz Carneiro da Rocha, Silmar Baptista Nunes, Marcelo Andres Umsza-Guez and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Evaluation of the Skin-Sensitizing Potential of Brazilian Green Propolis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Susceptibility ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2019
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Bruna Aparecida Souza MachadoInstitute of Research and Technology, Tiradentes University, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil; Faculty of Technology, SENAI/CIMATEC, National Service of Industrial Learning-SENAI, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Gabriele de Abreu BarretoFaculty of Technology, SENAI/CIMATEC, National Service of Industrial Learning-SENAI, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Aline Silva CostaFaculty of Technology, SENAI/CIMATEC, National Service of Industrial Learning-SENAI, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Samantha Serra CostaFaculty of Technology, SENAI/CIMATEC, National Service of Industrial Learning-SENAI, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Rejane Pina Dantas SilvaFaculty of Technology, SENAI/CIMATEC, National Service of Industrial Learning-SENAI, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Danielle Figuerêdo da SilvaFaculty of Pharmacy, State University of Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Hugo Neves BrandãoFaculty of Pharmacy, State University of Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
José Luiz Carneiro da RochaFaculty of Pharmacy, State University of Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil.
Silmar Baptista NunesFaculty of Technology, SENAI/CIMATEC, National Service of Industrial Learning-SENAI, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Marcelo Andres Umsza-GuezBiotechnology, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
Francine Ferreira PadilhaInstitute of Research and Technology, Tiradentes University, Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil.
Serviço Nacional de Aprendizagem Industrial · BRUniversidade Estadual de Feira de Santana · BRUniversidade Federal da Bahia · BRUniversidade Tiradentes · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the best processing conditions to extract Brazilian green propolis using a supercritical extraction technology. For this purpose, the influence of different parameters was evaluated such as S/F (solvent mass in relation to solute mass), percentage of co-solvent (1 and 2% ethanol), temperature (40 and 50°C) and pressure (250, 350 and 400 bar) using supercritical carbon dioxide. The Global Yield Isotherms (GYIs) were obtained through the evaluation of the yield, and the chemical composition of the extracts was also obtained in relation to the total phenolic compounds, flavonoids, antioxidant activity and 3,5-diprenyl-4-hydroxicinnamic acid (Artepillin C) and acid 4-hydroxycinnamic (p-coumaric acid). The best results were identified at 50°C, 350 bar, 1% ethanol (co-solvent) and S/F of 110. These conditions, a content of 8.93±0.01 and 0.40±0.05 g/100 g of Artepillin C and p-coumaric acid, respectively, were identified indicating the efficiency of the extraction process. Despite of low yield of the process, the extracts obtained had high contents of relevant compounds, proving the viability of the process to obtain green propolis extracts with important biological applications due to the extracts composition.

Indexed as

AntioxidantsCarbon DioxideChromatography, High Pressure LiquidChromatography, Supercritical FluidCoumaric AcidsEthanolFlavonoidsInhibitory Concentration 50KineticsMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningPhenolsPhenylpropionatesPropionatesPropolisReference StandardsSolventsAntioxidantsartepillin CCarbon DioxideCoumaric AcidsEthanolFlavonoidsp-coumaric acidPhenolsPhenylpropionatesPropionatesPropolisSolvents

Identifiers

PMID26252491
PMCPMC4529176
OpenAlexW1915147666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.