Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Improved Method For The Extract Pectin From Grapefruit Peel
Improved Method For The Extract Pectin From Grapefruit Peel
centration were established. Selection of the at the final pH adjustment of 1.6 prior to filtra
resin was then based on these same parameters tion. Moreover, since the yields and gel grades
to ensure the right conditions for each batch. have all been improved considerably, the quality
The best procedure and resin selected were then factor which determines the overall quality of the
adopted for comparison of the yields with that product has to be enhanced.
of mineral acid method. The yields of pectins The gel strength and the yields of the ex
were 25.0%, 21.5%, and 20.5% for Amberlite tracted pectin varied with the acidic concentra
IR-120+ resin extraction of lemon, grapefruit, tion have been observed. The resin—HC1 extrac
and orange peel respectively at a comparable tion method was broadened to include a wide pH
experimental conditions. range and to involve many resins. It then became
Gel grade (12) comparison of the resin ex evident that a final pH adjustment between 1.35-
tracted pactins with those of HC1 extracted 1.60 gave better yields and gel grades than either
indicated that the latter have higher gel grades higher or lower pH's. The quality factor of the
than those of resin extracted. The HC1 extracted extracted pectin is strongly dependent upon the
pectin from lemon peel, for example, has a grade pH of the solution. A pH—quality factor curve
of 176 in, comparison with 106 from IR-120+ shows a maximum of pH 1.6 using Amberlite
resin and 119 from MB-1 resin. The ester con IR-120 -f as extractant.
tents of the resin extracted pectins were found
to be ten-fold higher than those of acid extracted. Literature Cited
A second series of extractions were studied using 1. Z. I. Kertesz. 1958. The pectic substances. Interscience
the previous extraction procedure except the pH Publishers, Inc.
2. G. L. Baker and E. E. Karr. 1946. Fruit Prod. J.
of the slurry at the end was adjusted with cone. 25:292.
3. M. Manabe, et. al. 1966. Chem. Abstracts. 65:10786e.
HC1 to 1.6-2.6. The results of these extractions 4. P. B. Myers, et. al. 1934. Univ. Delaware Agr. Expt.
indicate that the yields obtained were better, and Sta. Bull. No. 187.
5. B. S. Lewandowska. 1965. Chem. Abstract. 60:2179.
the gel grades of these produces were improved. 6. R. M. McCready, et. al. 1947. Fruit Prod. J. 27:36.
7. M. A. Joslyn and H. Deuel. 1963. J. Food Sci. 28 :65.
For example, a grade of 187, 186, and 159 and a 8. P. B. Myers and A. H. Rouse. 1943. U.S. Pat. 2,323,484.
yield of 30.0%, 27.5%, and 23.3% were found for 9. M. Bailly. 1956. Chem. Abstract. 50:3670e.
10. P. Banov, et. al. 1958. Chem. Abstract. 53.9507i.
pectins extracted from lemon, grapefruit, and 11. K. Steiner, H. Neukom, and H. Deuel. 1958. Chem.
Abstract. 52:18230.
orange peels respectively using IR-120 + resin 12. Final Report of IFT. 1959. Food Technology. 13:496.