Mass Transfer Kinetics of Ultrasound-Assisted Steam Distillation for the Extraction of Cinnamon Oils

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Ultrasound-assisted steam distillation (USD) increased the yield of cinnamon oils extracted from cinnamon leaves by fi tting a mass transfer kinetic model during the distillation process. A response surface optimization experiment was conducted to optimize the experimental conditions, which revealed that the order of factors was particle size, ultrasound power, ultrasound time, and pulse ratio. The optimal conditions were determined to be a 40 mesh particle size, 286 W ultrasound power, 31 min ultrasound time, and 7:3 pulse ratio, resulting in a 2.36% yield of cinnamon oils. The yield of cinnamon oils was 0.57% greater in USD than that of steam distillation (SD). The nonsteady-state diff usion model was the most suitable model for the distillation process. The washing coeffi cient b value of USD was 0.0210, indicating that cinnamon oils were enriched on the particle surface during the initial stages. The diff usion coeffi cient k of the USD was 0.1770, 40.36% higher than that of the SD, indicating a higher mass transfer effi ciency. The main components in cinnamon oils were cinnamaldehyde, coumarin, and 2-methoxycinnamaldehyde. Compared with those of SDs, USDs increased the diff usion coeffi cient k values of these components increased by 48.51%, 77.67%, and 82.43%, respectively. Ultrasound cavitation improved the mass transfer effi ciency of the distillation process, allowing components such as 2-methoxycinnamaldehyde to be more easily enriched in cinnamon oils than in other oils.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 R. Ribeiro-Santos, 62 : 154-, 2017

2 B. Khadhraoui, 53 : 214-, 2019

3 J. Wang, 146 : 104675-, 2020

4 Y. Q. Li, 41 : 269-, 2013

5 Z. Z. Liu, 124 : 353-, 2018

6 C. G. Qian, 13 : 2385-, 2022

7 H. Y. Wong, 30 : 331-, 2016

8 J. Zhang, 1 : 22-, 2022

9 F. L. Chen, 143 : 111908-, 2020

10 C. F. Chiang, 124 : 346-, 2019

11 G. Chen, 36 : 38-, 2021

12 X. Xie, 5 : 2772-, 2022

13 P. I. Modi, 2021

14 K. Hou, 6 : 77-, 2023

15 E. Riera, 50 : 306-, 2010

16 Y. Amini, 54 : 2706-, 2019

17 A. A. G. Khamseh, 13 : 8393-, 2023

18 M. H. Khani, 332 : 3325-, 2023

19 Z. Z. Liu, 147 : 111497-, 2021

20 I. A. A. Meziane, 15 : 100226-, 2019

21 X. J. Peng, 187 : 115418-, 2022

22 D. Tsimogiannis, 9 : 117-, 2018

23 Y. Amini, 140 : 106551-, 2023

24 J. Guo, 147 : 111673-, 2021

25 M. Madhumita, 138 : 111578-, 2019

26 R. Zhao, 372 : 131258-, 2022

27 K. P. Solanki, 49 : 145-, 2018

28 A. P. Udepurkar, 94 : 106323-, 2023

29 Z. L. Pan, 18 : 1249-, 2011

30 D. M. Patil, 37 : 582-, 2017

31 D. Kostrzewa, 160 : 39-, 2020

32 N. Nabet, 129 : 395-, 2019

33 B. Yingngam, 53 : 101138-, 2019

34 Y. Liu, 17 : 664-, 2022

35 J. Siepmann, 161 : 351-, 2012

36 F. L. Chen, 144 : 112052-, 2020

37 J. P. Simonin, 300 : 254-, 2016

38 H. Benmoussa, 51 : 2145-, 2016

39 V. P. Pavicevic, 91 : 883-, 2016

40 A. R. Seadawy, 93 : 1-, 2019

41 X. Guo, 288 : 111100-, 2019

42 J. Carrete, 220 : 351-, 2017

43 S. Milojevie, 67 : 843-, 2013

44 T. P. Dao, 50 : 3251-, 2021

45 M. D. Kostic, 52 : 679-, 2014

46 R. J. Sanchez, 37 : 918-, 2019

47 A. Kate, 43 : 13503-, 2020

48 S. Y. Li, 40 : 644-, 2018

49 J. Xi, 166 : 287-, 2015

50 R. J. Sanchez, 192 : 28-, 2017

51 R. Y. Krishnan, 157 : 169-, 2016

52 F. Chemat, 34 : 540-, 2017

53 B. Khadhraoui, 42 : 482-, 2018

54 X. Liu, 81 : 45-, 2018