Next Article in Journal
Study of Solidifying Surplus Sludge as Building Material Using Ordinary Portland Cement
Previous Article in Journal
Inactivation of Clostridium Spores in Honey with Supercritical CO2 and in Combination with Essential Oils
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Plant Extraction in Water: Towards Highly Efficient Industrial Applications

Dipartimento di Scienza e Tecnologia del Farmaco, University of Turin, Via P. Giuria 9, 10125 Turin, Italy
GREEN Extraction Team, INRAE, UMR 408, Avignon University, 84000 Avignon, France
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2022, 10(11), 2233;
Received: 2 October 2022 / Revised: 25 October 2022 / Accepted: 28 October 2022 / Published: 31 October 2022


Since the beginning of this century, the world has experienced a growing need for enabling techniques and more environmentally friendly protocols that can facilitate more rational industrial production. Scientists are faced with the major challenges of global warming and safeguarding water and food quality. Organic solvents are still widely used and seem to be hard to replace, despite their enormous environmental and toxicological impact. The development of water-based strategies for the extraction of primary and secondary metabolites from plants on a laboratory scale is well documented, with several intensified processes being able to maximize the extraction power of water. Technologies, such as ultrasound, hydrodynamic cavitation, microwaves and pressurized reactors that achieve subcritical water conditions can dramatically increase extraction rates and yields. In addition, significant synergistic effects have been observed when using combined techniques. Due to the limited penetration depth of microwaves and ultrasonic waves, scaling up entails changes to reactor design. Nevertheless, the rich academic literature from laboratory-scale investigations may contribute to the engineering work involved in maximizing mass/energy transfer. In this article, we provide an overview of current and innovative techniques for solid-liquid extraction in water for industrial applications, where continuous and semi-continuous processes can meet the high demands for productivity, profitability and quality.

1. Introduction

Conventional hydroalcoholic extraction systems based on maceration and percolation are usually time- and energy-consuming. In addition, the rising price of ethanol has led to an increase in production costs. Other organic solvents are commonly used in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries for extraction processes but do not meet the requirements for the environmental and economic sustainability of the ecological transition. The need to improve process safety and product quality and the growing interest in preserving the environment have led R&D groups to explore more environmentally friendly methods [1]. While the literature is replete with excellent results achieved with new technologies on a laboratory scale [2,3], industrial implementation remains a complicated task [4]. The possibilities of saving energy (e.g., reducing extraction time) and avoiding toxic and flammable solvents have led researchers to develop new technological solutions. In addition, cold extraction using techniques such as cavitation reactors and pulsed electric fields (PEF) allows heat-sensitive compounds to be preserved from degradation. Our consolidated experience in the application of extraction technologies, such as microwaves (MW), ultrasound (US), hydrodynamic cavitation (HC), pressurized reactors for subcritical water extractions (SWE), PEF and enzymatic treatments, have paved the way for the expansion of studies and the development of new pilot and semi-industrial reactors.

2. Plant Material Pretreatment

Due to the influence of particle size, suitable milling and controlled size screening processes are the first steps toward efficient extraction [5]. The parts of a plant differ in hardness, fiber structure and chemical composition. The particle fractions isolated by sieving and cyclone treatment have different physicochemical properties in addition to their size [6]. In the extraction of vegetal matrices, a partially-damaged cell wall significantly improves solvent accessibility for both intracellular solutes and cell-wall constituents [7]. Hydrolytic enzymes, often used as a mixture, can selectively depolymerize and degrade certain cell wall components [8,9]. Enzymatic pretreatment induces hydrolysis of cell-wall biopolymers (pectin, cellulose and hemicellulose), resulting in structural disruption of the cell wall that facilitates mass transfer and matrix dissolution. This means that several enzymes (cellulases, hemicellulose, pectinases, etc.) are currently used in industrial extractions. In water-based extraction processes, the incubation with the enzymes can take place simultaneously with the mixing phase. The mild operating conditions favor the recovery of thermolabile products, and further processing of the solid fraction can be proposed as part of a biorefinery concept for the integral use of biomass. The enzymatic pre-treatment leads to a reduction in solvent consumption and extraction time. The effectiveness of enzymatic pretreatment and enzyme-assisted extraction has been extensively documented in the literature [10,11]. Pretreatment under intense cavitation using US (Figure 1) and hydrodynamic rotor/stator units or with high cutting power in high-shear homogenizers strongly promotes rehydration and solvation of the plants [12], (Figure 2).
This effect has been exploited in biomass conversion, where the delignification process is promoted by cavitation pretreatment, leading to higher conversion rates in the subsequent fermentation and extraction processes [13,14]. Cavitation pretreatments also affect the matrix surface and increase the surface area of the material [15]. PEF can be used both as pretreatment and directly for extraction as it can cause electroporation, which opens pores in cell membranes, and cell rupture, both of which mechanisms greatly enhance the recovery of intracellular compounds [16,17]. PEF extraction and pretreatment processes are mainly studied on a laboratory scale [18,19]. Their application on the pilot and semi-industrial scales is documented in Figure 3, with a sequential process in which PEF follows US treatment.

3. Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction

Cavitation is the formation, growth and decay of gaseous bubbles in a liquid. This process can be triggered by acoustic or mechanical waves that create a cycle of compression and expansion. When the negative pressure created in the expansion phase is sufficient to overcome the intramolecular forces of the liquid, a cavity, or bubble, forms. Through the cycles of expansion and compression, a bubble can reach its critical size and then collapse, releasing a large amount of energy and creating a microenvironment that reaches up to 5000 K and 1000 bar [20,21].
The parameters affecting the cavitation process and its mechanisms of action have been extensively discussed over the years. Cavitation affects the matrix and improves extraction yield and recovery of metabolites. The mechanisms of action are erosion, fragmentation, sonoporation and the so-called ultrasonic capillary effect. The erosion and fragmentation of the matrix are phenomena resulting from the mechanical effect of cavitation, as the jet streams and shear forces generated by the bubble collapse have a destructive effect on the matrix. These effects greatly increase the contact area with the solvent, which enables better mass transfer. Also worth mentioning is the effect on oil glands and similar structures, which can be ruptured so that their contents pass directly into the extraction medium. As shown in the literature, these changes can be detected by SEM analysis [22,23]. Reduction in particle size is another effect that cavitation has on a matrix, and this effect can be observed both for larger fragments visible to the eye and for smaller, micrometric fragments. Again, the main benefit of reducing particle size is to increase the surface area of the matrix and its exposure to the extraction solvent [24,25]. Sonoporation is the formation of pores in cell membranes and can be reversible or irreversible [26,27,28]. This process has been studied using various methods, such as fluorescence imaging, the voltage clamp technique and optical observations of cells exposed to sonoporation [29,30,31]. The pores formed by sonoporation allow solutes to penetrate the membrane and enhance mass transfer by removing a physical barrier. This phenomenon also has applications in various other fields, such as gene transfer and drug delivery [32,33,34,35,36]. The mechanism behind the ultrasonic-capillary effect is still unclear. It consists in increasing the penetration of fluids into the channels and pores of a matrix, both in-depth and at high speed [37]. This mechanism promotes the swelling of the matrix and improves mass transfer through enhanced diffusion [38]. The choice of solvent is influenced by its physical properties, e.g., viscosity and vapor pressure, and its suitability for the particular extraction process based on the target molecules and their solubility in the chosen medium. To trigger cavitation, the intramolecular forces in the liquid must be overcome by the negative pressure generated during the expansion phase [39]. Water is the preferred solvent for cavitation because it generates a high acoustic pressure, which leads to a stronger collapse of the bubbles [40]. Vapour pressure affects the cavitation process by changing the composition of the bubbles, where an increase in vapor pressure means that more solvent vapor enters the bubble cavities, which are more stable and collapse less violently [37]. The vapor pressure in a given solvent is mainly influenced by temperature, and an increase in temperature is reflected in an increase in vapor pressure; when using water, optimal cavitation can be achieved in a temperature range between 20 and 35 °C [41,42]. Cavitation can be generated by ultrasonic (US) or hydrodynamic (HC) reactors. US reactors can be either bath or probe systems (horn and cup horn). Probe systems (also called horn or sonotrode systems) usually have higher power because they emit US intensity only over the small surface area of their tips, while bath systems emit less powerful and less uniform acoustic waves because of their design (since their transducers are embedded in the bath walls) [23,43]. HC devices produce cavitation either by forcing a fluid through a constricted channel (orifices or Venturi tubes) or by exerting a force on the fluid using fast-moving parts, such as rotor-stator cavitators [44].
While acoustic cavitation has a localized cavitation effect due to the poor penetration of the pressure wave through solid-liquid mixtures, HC cavitation affects the entire mixture. Both technologies are already partly used on a pilot and industrial scale. The up-scaling of these two technologies is associated with different difficulties and technical considerations [44,45]. The main issues in HC scaling-up are related to the distance between the rotor and stator, their surface shapes, dimension and optimal rotation speed aiming to limit maintenance stops. US scaling-up efforts are focused on the uniform distribution and intensity of cavitation bubbles. The main strategy is moving from batch to flow and deploying more transducers or wide areas of cavitation to ensure optimal mass transfer and uniform bubble generation [46] (Figure 4).
Several studies have been published on laboratory-scale extractions with acoustic and hydrodynamic cavitations [37,38,48,49]. However, there are currently few papers reporting on the application of these technologies on a pilot or semi-industrial scale. Only a few studies address the up-scaling of these techniques, which are listed in Table 1 below.
As can be seen from Table 1, there are few published studies on cavitation-assisted extraction on a pilot or semi-industrial scale. Moreover, few of the published studies have thoroughly analyzed the effects of various parameters on the extraction process. Further research on cavitation processes is therefore essential if this promising technology is to be effectively applied in real industrial processes.
The studies listed in Table 1 show how US can be effectively applied in flow processes such as olive oil extraction, resulting in higher recovery of oil richer in phenolic compounds [51]. Grillo et al. [50] developed a method to intensify the water extraction of grape stems using a US system with recirculating flow (Figure 5). The extract was subjected to nanofiltration after centrifugation to obtain a concentrated final product with strong antioxidant activity.
Similar systems were used for the extraction of several other matrices, such as Spirulina [26], Undaria pinnatifida [52], and sesame oil cake [53]. Extraction of Spirulina with US resulted in increased protein yield. In addition, microscopic observations showed the effects of acoustic cavitation on Spirulina filaments caused by fragmentation, sonoporation and deconstruction mechanisms. This effect facilitates the extraction, release and solubilization of bioactive Spirulina compounds [26].
Extraction with US of Undaria pinnatifida and sesame oil cake showed an increase in extraction yield of 111% and 193% compared to the corresponding conventional methods. Moreover, high-intensity US can produce a fine emulsion of lipids in water, as reported in the case of solvent-free extraction of fatty alcohols from rice bran [57].
Encouraging results have been obtained by using pilot-scale HC cavitation systems with recirculating flow, for example for orange peels [55] and silver fir needles [56].
The truly new paradigm in extraction is the shift from batch to continuous flow processes. Suspensions of plant material in water or aqueous-alcoholic mixtures can be rapidly processed in high-intensity multi-transducer ultrasonic units in flow-through treatments and/or rotor/stator hydrodynamic cavitation reactors. These processes are at the forefront of extraction systems due to a significant increase in extraction efficiency and the potential application on an industrial scale.

4. Microwave-Assisted Extraction

Microwaves (MWs) are electromagnetic waves ranging from 300 to 300,000 MHz. The energy associated with MWs is not enough to break chemical bonds (from 0.004 to 0.4 meV, while bond strengths are usually a few eV), classifying them as non-ionizing [58].
MWs are mainly used for selective and rapid heating and provide reduced energy consumption compared to conventional technologies [59,60,61]. Based on the interactions with MW, materials can be classified as reflective, transparent, or absorptive [62].
Reflective materials, such as metals, interact with the MWs by reflecting them. Transparent materials transmit MWs, which pass through them with little to no interaction: examples of transparent materials include but are not limited to quartz, PTFE and PFA. Absorptive materials interact with the MWs and absorb them partially or entirely, depending on the material characteristics; polar liquids are an example of such materials.
Two main processes determine the absorption of MWs in a liquid medium: ionic conduction and dipole rotation. The ionic conduction mechanism is based on the interaction between ions and the oscillating electric field generated by MWs, resulting in an ion flow. Localized heating is then produced by the resistance opposing ion movement inside the liquid. Dipole rotation is a phenomenon generated by the oscillating electric field and affects dipolar molecules. These molecules will align themselves with the electric field and then return to a disordered state billions of times per second (ca. 5 billion times per second for an instrument working at 2450 MHz).
While there is no lack of studies on microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) on a laboratory scale [63,64,65,66,67], process scalability is limited by a need for technological advancement. Nevertheless, MW reactors are used in various industrial processes [66,67,68], despite extraction-system scalability still being a major challenge; the problems in up-scaling are not only technical but are also related to the nature of the biomass to be processed. MWs have limited penetration depth, which limits the volume that can be processed in batch reactors [68]. Switching to continuous systems can overcome the disadvantages of batch processes, but the design of MW flow reactors raises other issues that need to be addressed. Moreover, the addition of carbonaceous material (such as biochar) can directly improve MW energy transmission in batch reactors, while moving from single-mode to multimode systems can provide an indirect way to overcome this challenge [4,69].
An efficient process is microwave-assisted hydrodistillation (MAHD), which is used for the extraction of essential oils (EO). The principles of this process are similar to those of conventional hydrodistillation, but with improved heating and distillation efficiency. These aspects enable a reduction in energy consumption and operating time (Figure 6). In addition, microwave hydrodiffusion and gravity (MHG) has shown promise as an extraction technique for the simultaneous recovery of EO and other compounds such as pec-tins, pigments and polyphenols [68].
As shown in Table 2, most of the few available results on MW-assisted extraction on a pilot scale are hydrodistillation processes.
Table 2 shows that MAE requires further investigation on a pilot scale but has already shown promising results. Garcia-Garcia et al. [74] analyzed the life cycle assessment (LCA) of the pectin production process using MW and compared it to a conventional process. Their results showed a reduction in the environmental impact of about 75%, mainly due to the higher energy efficiency of the MW process. Research in this area requires further investigation for effective industrial implementation.

5. Subcritical Water Extraction

Water is the most environmentally friendly solvent as it is non-flammable, non-toxic and readily available. Although the dielectric properties of water mean that only polar products can be extracted from plant matrices, limiting its use, water can be used in a subcritical state to overcome these limitations. In the temperature range between 100 °C and its critical temperature (374 °C), the properties of water can be modified as long as it is kept in the liquid state by a suitable pressure. As the temperature rises, the dielectric constant of water decreases, reaching values similar to ethanol at 250 °C, allowing the extraction of less polar compounds. The viscosity also decreases, allowing better penetration into matrices, while the ionic product increases above 10−11, favoring the depolymerization of complex structures.
By varying the temperature, these properties can be adjusted to optimize product yield while avoiding thermal degradation. Thermal degradation can also be avoided due to the shorter extraction times required under subcritical conditions compared to conventional extractions. Both temperature and water flow rate play an important role in subcritical water extraction (SWE) [75,76,77,78]. SWE of plants varies greatly depending on the technology and scale of use. Common laboratory-scale SWE uses high-pressure pumps for water supply and a heated cell loaded with biomass [2]. SWE can also be combined with MW heating to reduce operating times [66,79,80].
So far SWE scaling up is focusing on reactor dimensions and unit replication besides a higher water flow. Due to higher costs and technical complexity flow, SWE reactors still present technical issues that need to be addressed.
Only a few pilot-scale studies on SWE have been published, which are listed in Table 3.
In the studies listed in Table 3, SWE was compared at laboratory and pilot scales, with promising results. Different reactor types were used for the extraction of bioactive compounds and all tests were performed in batch mode. Rudjito et al. [83] used a PEG-filled autoclave for the extraction of arabinoxylans from wheat bran pretreated by deamidation processes. Cravotto et al. [84] performed polyphenol extraction from chestnut hulls by moving from MAE-SWE on a laboratory scale to SWE on a pilot scale using a double vessel reactor with a total maximum capacity of 60 kg of plant material, and a maximum water flow rate of 1000 L/h (Figure 7). The extract was then rapidly concentrated by flash evaporation under a mild vacuum and steam condenser (Figure 8). Both dry extract and polyphenol yields were comparable to those obtained in the laboratory, demonstrating efficient up-scaling of the process.
The research group of Amir et al. [82] used a batch reactor for direct extraction of Zingiber zerumbet on a pilot scale and investigated the different parameters and their influence on the yield. Wang et al. [81] studied Miscanthus hot water extraction (at 160 °C) at three different scales: laboratory, intermediate and pilot scale. On a pilot scale, the authors extracted about 150 kg of biomass in a fermenter, with a yield loss of only 17% compared to laboratory-scale experiments.
The results described are promising and indicate the great potential and multiple applications of SWE on an industrial scale. However, much work is still needed to translate the numerous laboratory-scale studies into viable industrial applications.

6. Pulsed Electric Field Extraction

Pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment consists of the application of an external electric field with very short pulses, favoring its permeabilization (Figure 9). Since the typical field intensity ranges from 10 to 80 kV cm−1 with pulse durations of micro- or milliseconds, PEF treatments have low energetic requirements that classify PEF as a green technology [85].
Permeabilization of the cell occurs by polarization and reorientation of membrane components, inducing the formation of hydrophilic pores in the cellular membrane. Depending on the applied electric field intensity, the formation of pores can be reversible or irreversible, potentially leading to cell disruption [86].
Although PEF extraction treatments are widely explored at the lab scale, their use in scaled-up systems is limited, being more common in food processing. To the best of our knowledge, only two research papers on scaled-up PEF-assisted extraction of plant materials in water have been published between 2017 and 2022, and are reported in Table 4.
Andres Maza et al. [86] described the application of PEF to grape mass to reduce the maceration time in red wine making while improving polyphenols concentration under PEF treatment. Comuzzo et al. [87] also processed grapes for winemaking. Focusing on white wine production, authors could increase the number of varietal aroma precursors in wine, while avoiding undesired changes in the final product, such as a darker color.
Both studies validate a specific industrial application of PEF but the results also show the valuable effects on the extraction of natural products from plant materials.

7. Conclusions

This review highlighted the state of the art in the industrial scaling up of new technologies for water extraction of plant matrices. Despite the large gap between academia and industry, recent advances in the development of unconventional industrial reactors offer interesting new opportunities. Although extraction yields achieved in very small units for analytical purposes are hardly reproducible, the solid/liquid ratio can be dramatically improved on a larger scale, bringing remarkable benefits to the process downstream. The general trend of extractions in ultrasonic and hydrodynamic reactors is to work in continuous flow. Dielectric heating in microwave extraction and especially new reactors for subcritical water extraction will expand water extraction capabilities like never before. All of these technologies can greatly expand the use of water as a nearly universal solvent.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.C., L.G. and G.G.; writing—original draft preparation, L.G., G.C. (Giorgio Capaldi) and C.C.; writing—review and editing, G.C. (Giancarlo Cravotto); supervision, G.C. (Giancarlo Cravotto) and G.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Chemat, F.; Vian, M.A.; Cravotto, G. Green Extraction of Natural Products: Concept and Principles. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 8615–8627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  2. Chemat, F.; Abert-Vian, M.; Fabiano-Tixier, A.S.; Strube, J.; Uhlenbrock, L.; Gunjevic, V.; Cravotto, G. Green Extraction of Natural Products. Origins, Current Status, and Future Challenges. TrAC—Trends Anal. Chem. 2019, 118, 248–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mariatti, F.; Gunjević, V.; Boffa, L.; Cravotto, G. Process Intensification Technologies for the Recovery of Valuable Compounds from Cocoa By-Products. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2021, 68, 102601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Belwal, T.; Chemat, F.; Venskutonis, P.R.; Cravotto, G.; Jaiswal, D.K.; Bhatt, I.D.; Devkota, H.P.; Luo, Z. Recent Advances in Scaling-up of Non-Conventional Extraction Techniques: Learning from Successes and Failures. TrAC—Trends Anal. Chem. 2020, 127, 115895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Deli, M.; Ndjantou, E.B.; Ngatchic Metsagang, J.T.; Petit, J.; Njintang Yanou, N.; Scher, J. Successive Grinding and Sieving as a New Tool to Fractionate Polyphenols and Antioxidants of Plants Powders: Application to Boscia senegalensis Seeds, Dichrostachys glomerata Fruits, and Hibiscus sabdariffa Calyx Powders. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 7, 1795–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  6. Becker, L.; Zaiter, A.; Petit, J.; Zimmer, D.; Karam, M.C.; Baudelaire, E.; Scher, J.; Dicko, A. Improvement of Antioxidant Activity and Polyphenol Content of Hypericum perforatum and Achillea millefolium Powders Using Successive Grinding and Sieving. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 87, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Krakowska-Sieprawska, A.; Kiełbasa, A.; Rafińska, K.; Ligor, M.; Buszewski, B. Modern Methods of Pre-Treatment of Plant Material for the Extraction of Bioactive Compounds. Molecules 2022, 27, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Demuez, M.; Mahdy, A.; Tomas-Pej, E.; Gonzalez-Fernandez, C.; Ballesteros, M. Enzymatic Cell Disruption of Microalgae Biomass in Biorefinery Processes. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2015, 112, 1955–1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Giovannoni, M.; Gramegna, G.; Benedetti, M.; Mattei, B. Industrial Use of Cell Wall Degrading Enzymes: The Fine Line between Production Strategy and Economic Feasibility. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zou, L.; Wan, Y.; Zhang, S.; Luo, J.; Li, Y.Y.; Liu, J. Valorization of Food Waste to Multiple Bio-Energies Based on Enzymatic Pretreatment: A Critical Review and Blueprint for the Future. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 124091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Puri, M.; Sharma, D.; Barrow, C.J. Enzyme-Assisted Extraction of Bioactives from Plants. Trends Biotechnol. 2012, 30, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Cravotto, G.; Mariatti, F.; Gunjevic, V.; Secondo, M.; Villa, M.; Parolin, J.; Cavaglià, G. Pilot Scale Cavitational Reactors and Other Enabling Technologies to Design the Industrial Recovery of Polyphenols from Agro-Food By-Products, a Technical and Economical Overview. Foods 2018, 7, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Calcio Gaudino, E.; Tabasso, S.; Grillo, G.; Cravotto, G.; Dreyer, T.; Schories, G.; Altenberg, S.; Jashina, L.; Telysheva, G. Wheat Straw Lignin Extraction with Bio-Based Solvents Using Enabling Technologies. Comptes Rendus Chim. 2018, 21, 563–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lauberte, L.; Telysheva, G.; Cravotto, G.; Andersone, A.; Janceva, S.; Dizhbite, T.; Arshanitsa, A.; Jurkjane, V.; Vevere, L.; Grillo, G.; et al. Lignin—Derived Antioxidants as Value-Added Products Obtained under Cavitation Treatments of the Wheat Straw Processing for Sugar Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 126369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Elmi Kashtiban, A.; Esmaiili, M. Extraction of Phenolic Compounds from Siah-Sardasht Grape Skin Using Subcritical Water and Ultrasound Pretreatment. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e14071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boussetta, N.; Grimi, N.; Vorobiev, E. Pulsed Electrical Technologies Assisted Polyphenols Extraction from Agricultural Plants and Bioresources: A Review. Int. J. Food Process. Technol. 2015, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Salgado-Ramos, M.; Martí-Quijal, F.J.; Huertas-Alonso, A.J.; Sánchez-Verdú, M.P.; Barba, F.J.; Moreno, A. Almond Hull Biomass: Preliminary Characterization and Development of Two Alternative Valorization Routes by Applying Innovative and Sustainable Technologies. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 179, 114697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arshad, R.N.; Abdul-Malek, Z.; Roobab, U.; Qureshi, M.I.; Khan, N.; Ahmad, M.H.; Liu, Z.W.; Aadil, R.M. Effective Valorization of Food Wastes and By-Products through Pulsed Electric Field: A Systematic Review. J. Food Process. Eng. 2021, 44, e13629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Naliyadhara, N.; Kumar, A.; Girisa, S.; Daimary, U.D.; Hegde, M.; Kunnumakkara, A.B. Pulsed Electric Field (PEF): Avant-Garde Extraction Escalation Technology in Food Industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 122, 238–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fu, X.; Belwal, T.; Cravotto, G.; Luo, Z. Sono-Physical and Sono-Chemical Effects of Ultrasound: Primary Applications in Extraction and Freezing Operations and Influence on Food Components. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 60, 104726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Suslick, K.S. The Chemical Effects of Ultrasound. JSTOR 1989, 260, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chemat, S.; Lagha, A.; AitAmar, H.; Bartels, P.V.; Chemat, F. Comparison of Conventional and Ultrasound-Assissted Extraction of Carvone and Limonene from Caraway Seeds. Flavour Fragr. J. 2004, 19, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Machado, I.; Faccio, R.; Pistón, M. Characterization of the Effects Involved in Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Trace Elements from Artichoke Leaves and Soybean Seeds. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 59, 104752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Alexandra Pătrăuanu, O.; Lazăr, L.; Popa, V.I.; Volf, I. Influence of Particle Size and Size Distribution on Kinetic Mechanism of Spruce Bark Polyphenols Extraction. Cellul. Chem. Technol. 2019, 53, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Budiastra, I.W.; Damanik, A.P.; Akbar, M.T.F. Effect of Particle Size of White Pepper to Yield and Quality of Oleoresin Produced by Using an Ultrasonic-Assisted Extraction Method. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Bogor, Indonesia, 14–15 October 2019; Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; Volume 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vernès, L.; Abert-Vian, M.; el Maâtaoui, M.; Tao, Y.; Bornard, I.; Chemat, F. Application of Ultrasound for Green Extraction of Proteins from Spirulina. Mechanism, Optimization, Modeling, and Industrial Prospects. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 54, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Meullemiestre, A.; Breil, C.; Abert-Vian, M.; Chemat, F. Microwave, Ultrasound, Thermal Treatments, and Bead Milling as Intensification Techniques for Extraction of Lipids from Oleaginous Yarrowia Lipolytica Yeast for a Biojetfuel Application. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 211, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ruzgys, P.; Tamošiūnas, M.; Lukinsone, V.; Šatkauskas, S. FRET-Based Method for Evaluation of the Efficiency of Reversible and Irreversible Sonoporation. J. Biomed. Opt. 2017, 22, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fan, Z.; Liu, H.; Mayer, M.; Deng, C.X. Spatiotemporally Controlled Single Cell Sonoporation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 16486–16491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Fan, Z.; Kumon, R.E.; Deng, C.X. Mechanisms of Microbubble-Facilitated Sonoporation for Drug and Gene Delivery. Ther. Deliv. 2014, 5, 467–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Prentice, P.; Cuschieri, A.; Dholakia, K.; Prausnitz, M.; Campbell, P. Membrane Disruption by Optically Controlled Microbubble Cavitation. Nat. Phys. 2005, 1, 107–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  32. Yu, H.; Xu, L. Cell Experimental Studies on Sonoporation: State of the Art and Remaining Problems. J. Control Release 2014, 174, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Mehier-Humbert, S.; Bettinger, T.; Yan, F.; Guy, R.H. Plasma Membrane Poration Induced by Ultrasound Exposure: Implication for Drug Delivery. J. Control Release 2005, 104, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lentacker, I.; de Cock, I.; Deckers, R.; de Smedt, S.C.; Moonen, C.T.W. Understanding Ultrasound Induced Sonoporation: Definitions and Underlying Mechanisms. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2014, 72, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  35. ter Haar, G. Therapeutic Applications of Ultrasound. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007, 93, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Delalande, A.; Kotopoulis, S.; Postema, M.; Midoux, P.; Pichon, C. Sonoporation: Mechanistic Insights and Ongoing Challenges for Gene Transfer. Gene 2013, 525, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chemat, F.; Rombaut, N.; Sicaire, A.G.; Meullemiestre, A.; Fabiano-Tixier, A.S.; Abert-Vian, M. Ultrasound Assisted Extraction of Food and Natural Products. Mechanisms, Techniques, Combinations, Protocols and Applications. A Review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2017, 34, 540–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vinatoru, M. An Overview of the Ultrasonically Assisted Extraction of Bioactive Principles from Herbs. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2001, 8, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mason, T.J.; Lorimer, J.P. Applied Sonochemistry: The Uses of Power Ultrasound in Chemistry and Processing; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2001; ISBN 978-3-527-30205-5. [Google Scholar]
  40. Cravotto, G.; Cravotto, C.; Veselov, V.V. Ultrasound- and Hydrodynamic-Cavitation Assisted Extraction in Food Processing. In Innovative Food Processing Technologies: A Comprehensive Review; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 359–366. ISBN 9780128157824. [Google Scholar]
  41. Peng, K.; Qin, F.G.F.; Jiang, R.; Kang, S. Interpreting the Influence of Liquid Temperature on Cavitation Collapse Intensity through Bubble Dynamic Analysis. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 69, 105253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Niemczewski, B. Observations of Water Cavitation Intensity under Practical Ultrasonic Cleaning Conditions. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2007, 14, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Del Delgado-Povedano, M.M.; Luque de Castro, M.D. Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Food Components. In Reference Module in Food Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 978-0-08-100596-5. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wu, Z.; Ferreira, D.F.; Crudo, D.; Bosco, V.; Stevanato, L.; Costale, A.; Cravotto, G. Plant and Biomass Extraction and Valorisation under Hydrodynamic Cavitation. Processes 2019, 7, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Panda, D.; Saharan, V.K.; Manickam, S. Controlled Hydrodynamic Cavitation: A Review of Recent Advances and Perspectives for Greener Processing. Processes 2020, 8, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  46. Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V.; María Pastore, G.; Candoğan, K.; Medina Meza, I.G.; Caetano da Silva Lannes, S.; Buckle, K.; Yada, R.Y.; Rosenthal, A. Global Food Security and Wellness; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-4939-6494-9. [Google Scholar]
  47. Verdini, F.; Calcio Gaudino, E.; Grillo, G.; Tabasso, S.; Cravotto, G. Cellulose Recovery from Agri-Food Residues by Effective Cavitational Treatments. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kumar, K.; Srivastav, S.; Sharanagat, V.S. Ultrasound Assisted Extraction (UAE) of Bioactive Compounds from Fruit and Vegetable Processing By-Products: A Review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2021, 70, 105325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chatel, G.; de Oliveira Vigier, K.; Jérôme, F. Sonochemistry: What Potential for Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass into Platform Chemicals? ChemSusChem 2014, 7, 2774–2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Grillo, G.; Boffa, L.; Talarico, S.; Solarino, R.; Binello, A.; Cavaglià, G.; Bensaid, S.; Telysheva, G.; Cravotto, G. Batch and Flow Ultrasound-assisted Extraction of Grape Stalks: Process Intensification Design up to a Multi-kilo Scale. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Taticchi, A.; Selvaggini, R.; Esposto, S.; Sordini, B.; Veneziani, G.; Servili, M. Physicochemical Characterization of Virgin Olive Oil Obtained Using an Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction at an Industrial Scale: Influence of Olive Maturity Index and Malaxation Time. Food Chem. 2019, 289, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Eom, S.J.; Kim, Y.E.; Kim, J.E.; Park, J.; Kim, Y.H.; Song, K.M.; Lee, N.H. Production of Undaria Pinnatifida Sporophyll Extract Using Pilot-Scale Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction: Extract Characteristics and Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Activities. Algal. Res. 2020, 51, 102039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eom, S.J.; Zu, H.D.; Lee, J.; Kang, M.C.; Park, J.; Song, K.M.; Lee, N.H. Development of an Ultrasonic System for Industrial Extraction of Unheated Sesame Oil Cake. Food Chem. 2021, 354, 129582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Preece, K.E.; Hooshyar, N.; Krijgsman, A.J.; Fryer, P.J.; Zuidam, N.J. Intensification of Protein Extraction from Soybean Processing Materials Using Hydrodynamic Cavitation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2017, 41, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Meneguzzo, F.; Brunetti, C.; Fidalgo, A.; Ciriminna, R.; Delisi, R.; Albanese, L.; Zabini, F.; Gori, A.; dos Nascimento, L.B.S.; de Carlo, A.; et al. Real-Scale Integral Valorization of Waste Orange Peel via Hydrodynamic Cavitation. Processes 2019, 7, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Albanese, L.; Bonetti, A.; D’Acqui, L.P.; Meneguzzo, F.; Zabini, F. Affordable Production of Antioxidant Aqueous Solutions by Hydrodynamic Cavitation Processing of Silver Fir (Abies alba Mill.) Needles. Foods 2019, 8, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  57. Cravotto, G.; Binello, A.; Merizzi, G.; Avogadro, M. Improving Solvent-Free Extraction of Policosanol from Rice Bran by High-Intensity Ultrasound Treatment. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2004, 106, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Vinatoru, M.; Mason, T.J.; Calinescu, I. Ultrasonically Assisted Extraction (UAE) and Microwave Assisted Extraction (MAE) of Functional Compounds from Plant Materials. TrAC—Trends Anal. Chem. 2017, 97, 159–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cravotto, G.; Carnaroglio, D. Microwave Chemistry; Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG: Berlin, Germany, 2017; ISBN 978-3-11-047993-5. [Google Scholar]
  60. Acciardo, E.; Tabasso, S.; Cravotto, G.; Bensaid, S. Process Intensification Strategies for Lignin Valorization. Chem. Eng. Process.—Process Intensif. 2022, 171, 108732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Salgado-Ramos, M.; Mariatti, F.; Tabasso, S.; Sánchez-Verdú, M.P.; Moreno, A.; Cravotto, G. Sustainable and Non-Conventional Protocols for the Three-Way Valorisation of Lignin from Grape Stalks. Chem. Eng. Process.—Process Intensif. 2022, 178, 109027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mello, P.A.; Barin, J.S.; Guarnieri, R.A. Chapter 2—Microwave Heating, Microwave-Assisted Sample Preparation for Trace Element Analysis; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; ISBN 978-0-444-59420-4. [Google Scholar]
  63. Routray, W.; Orsat, V. Microwave-Assisted Extraction of Flavonoids: A Review. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012, 5, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bagade, S.B.; Patil, M. Recent Advances in Microwave Assisted Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Complex Herbal Samples: A Review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2021, 51, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chan, C.H.; Yusoff, R.; Ngoh, G.C.; Kung, F.W.L. Microwave-Assisted Extractions of Active Ingredients from Plants. J. Chromatogr. A 2011, 1218, 6213–6225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Flórez, N.; Conde, E.; Domínguez, H. Microwave Assisted Water Extraction of Plant Compounds. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2015, 90, 590–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Leonelli, C.; Mason, T.J. Microwave and Ultrasonic Processing: Now a Realistic Option for Industry. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 2010, 49, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Calcio Gaudino, E.; Cravotto, G.; Manzoli, M.; Tabasso, S. From Waste Biomass to Chemicals and Energy: Via Microwave-Assisted Processes. Green Chem. 2019, 21, 1202–1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Siddique, I.J.; Salema, A.A.; Antunes, E.; Vinu, R. Technical Challenges in Scaling up the Microwave Technology for Biomass Processing. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 153, 111767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ciriminna, R.; Fidalgo, A.M.; Carnaroglio, D.; Tamburino, A.; Cravotto, G.; Ilharco, L.M.; Pagliaro, M. Lemon Essential Oil of Variable Composition by Changing the Conditions of the Extraction from Lemon Peel via Microwave Hydrodiffusion and Gravity. ChemistrySelect 2017, 2, 7123–7127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gunjević, V.; Grillo, G.; Carnaroglio, D.; Binello, A.; Barge, A.; Cravotto, G. Selective Recovery of Terpenes, Polyphenols and Cannabinoids from Cannabis sativa L. Inflorescences under Microwaves. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 162, 113247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ciriminna, R.; Fidalgo, A.; Avellone, G.; Danzì, C.; Timpanaro, G.; Locatelli, M.; Carnaroglio, D.; Meneguzzo, F.; Ilharco, L.M.; Pagliaro, M. Integral Extraction of 69 Ficus-Indica Peel Bioproducts via Microwave-Assisted Hydrodiffusion and Hydrodistillation. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 7884–7891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lamberti, L.; Grillo, G.; Gallina, L.; Carnaroglio, D.; Chemat, F.; Cravotto, G. Microwave-Assisted Hydrodistillation of Hop (Humulus lupulus L.) Terpenes: A Pilot-Scale Study. Foods 2021, 10, 2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Garcia-Garcia, G.; Rahimifard, S.; Matharu, A.S.; Dugmore, T.I.J. Life-Cycle Assessment of Microwave-Assisted Pectin Extraction at Pilot Scale. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 5167–5175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  75. Plaza, M.; Turner, C. Pressurized Hot Water Extraction of Bioactives. TrAC—Trends Anal. Chem. 2015, 71, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  76. Zhang, J.; Wen, C.; Zhang, H.; Duan, Y.; Ma, H. Recent Advances in the Extraction of Bioactive Compounds with Subcritical Water: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 95, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Álvarez-Viñas, M.; Rodríguez-Seoane, P.; Flórez-Fernández, N.; Torres, M.D.; Díaz-Reinoso, B.; Moure, A.; Domínguez, H. Subcritical Water for the Extraction and Hydrolysis of Protein and Other Fractions in Biorefineries from Agro-Food Wastes and Algae: A Review. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2021, 14, 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cheng, Y.; Xue, F.; Yu, S.; Du, S.; Yang, Y. Subcritical Water Extraction of Natural Products. Molecules 2021, 26, 4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Cova, C.M.; Boffa, L.; Pistocchi, M.; Giorgini, S.; Luque, R.; Cravotto, G. Technology and Process Design for Phenols Recovery from Industrial Chicory (Chicorium intybus) Leftovers. Molecules 2019, 24, 2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  80. Yang, Z.; Uhler, B.; Lipkie, T. Microwave-Assisted Subcritical Water Extraction of Steviol Glycosides from Stevia rebaudiana Leaves. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2019, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  81. Wang, K.T.; Jing, C.; Wood, C.; Nagardeolekar, A.; Kohan, N.; Dongre, P.; Amidon, T.E.; Bujanovic, B.M. Toward Complete Utilization of Miscanthus in a Hot-Water Extraction-Based Biorefinery. Energies 2018, 11, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  82. Amir, S.N.K.M.; Nordin, M.F.M.; Shameli, K.; Wahab, I.M.A.; Hamid, M.A. Modeling and Optimization of Pilot-Scale Subcritical Water Extraction on Zingiber Zerumbet by Central Composite Design. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 778, 012077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rudjito, R.C.; Ruthes, A.C.; Jiménez-Quero, A.; Vilaplana, F. Feruloylated Arabinoxylans from Wheat Bran: Optimization of Extraction Process and Validation at Pilot Scale. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 13167–13177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cravotto, C.; Grillo, G.; Binello, A.; Gallina, L.; Olivares-vicente, M.; Herranz-López, M.; Micol, V.; Barrajón-Catalán, E.; Cravotto, G. Bioactive Antioxidant Compounds from Chestnut Peels through Semi-Industrial Subcritical Water Extraction. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chemat, F.; Rombaut, N.; Meullemiestre, A.; Turk, M.; Perino, S.; Fabiano-Tixier, A.; Abert-Vian, M. Review of green food processing techniques. Preservation, transfortmation, and extraction. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2017, 41, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Andrés Maza, M.; Martínez, J.M.; Hernández-Orte, P.; Cebrián, G.; Sánchez-Gimeno, A.C.; Álvarez, I.; Raso, J. Influence of pulsed electric fields on aroma and polyphenolic compounds of Garnacha wine. Food Bioprod. Process. 2019, 119, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Comuzzo, P.; Marconi, M.; Zanella, G.; Querzè, M. Pulsed Electric Field Processing of White Grapes (cv. Garganega): Effects on Wine Composition and Volatile Compounds. Food Chem. 2018, 264, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Semi-industrial US flow reactor (Weber Ultrasonics AG) for biomass pretreatment.
Figure 1. Semi-industrial US flow reactor (Weber Ultrasonics AG) for biomass pretreatment.
Processes 10 02233 g001
Figure 2. Rotor/stator HC reactor (EPIC Srl) at DSTF—University of Turin.
Figure 2. Rotor/stator HC reactor (EPIC Srl) at DSTF—University of Turin.
Processes 10 02233 g002
Figure 3. Continuous-flow extraction under combined US (C2FUT Srl) and PEF (Energy Pulse Systems), DSTF—University of Turin.
Figure 3. Continuous-flow extraction under combined US (C2FUT Srl) and PEF (Energy Pulse Systems), DSTF—University of Turin.
Processes 10 02233 g003
Figure 4. Hydrodynamic cavitation phenomenon in a fluid: Venturi effect and rotor-stator system [47].
Figure 4. Hydrodynamic cavitation phenomenon in a fluid: Venturi effect and rotor-stator system [47].
Processes 10 02233 g004
Figure 5. Recirculating flow system used in Grillo et al. [50]. Left: set-up scheme (1: mixed tank; 2: US flow-through cell); and right: facility picture.
Figure 5. Recirculating flow system used in Grillo et al. [50]. Left: set-up scheme (1: mixed tank; 2: US flow-through cell); and right: facility picture.
Processes 10 02233 g005
Figure 6. Ethos XL and Ethos X (Milestone Srl), DSTF—University of Turin.
Figure 6. Ethos XL and Ethos X (Milestone Srl), DSTF—University of Turin.
Processes 10 02233 g006
Figure 7. Pressure-resistant reactors for SWE (C2FUT Srl.). Left: plant photo; right: reactor tank and loading vessel scheme, DSTF—University of Turin.
Figure 7. Pressure-resistant reactors for SWE (C2FUT Srl.). Left: plant photo; right: reactor tank and loading vessel scheme, DSTF—University of Turin.
Processes 10 02233 g007
Figure 8. Flash evaporation unit (C2FUT Srl.) DSTF—University of Turin.
Figure 8. Flash evaporation unit (C2FUT Srl.) DSTF—University of Turin.
Processes 10 02233 g008
Figure 9. PEF unit by EnergyPulse Systems, Lisbon, Portugal.
Figure 9. PEF unit by EnergyPulse Systems, Lisbon, Portugal.
Processes 10 02233 g009
Table 1. Pilot and semi-industrial scale US extraction studies, from 2017 to 2022.
Table 1. Pilot and semi-industrial scale US extraction studies, from 2017 to 2022.
MatrixTechnologyScaleOther ParametersResultsRef.
Grape stalksUS; recirculating flow2 kg/60 LWater; 1 h; S/L 1:30; 30 L/min; RT; 29 kHz; 2 kWEfficient process scaling-up in terms of extraction yield and antioxidant power of the extract[50]
OlivesUS; continuous flow2 tons/hRT; 20 kHz; 2.8 kW22.7% increase in oil yield and 10.1% increase in oil phenolic compounds[51]
SpirulinaUS; recirculating flow1.5 kg/30 LWater (Phosphate buffer); 40 min; S/L 1:20; 20 kHz127% increase in protein yield compared to the conventional method[26]
Undaria pinnatifidaUS; recirculating flow200 g/20 LWater; 3 h; S/L 1:100; 30 °C; 20 kHz; 960 W111% increase in extraction yield compared to the conventional method[52]
Sesame oil cakeUS; recirculating flow33 kg/1000 LWater; 4 h; S/L 1:30; 25 °C; 20 kHz; 900 W193% increase in extraction yield compared to conventional method[53]
SoybeanHC; high-pressure homogenizer9 L/hWater; S/L 1:7; 100 MPaProtein yield increase of 82%; a single step was optimal[54]
Orange peelHC (reactor with Venturi cross-section); recirculating flow42 kg/120 L (1° test)
6.38 kg/147 L (2° test)
Water; S/L 1:2.85; 330 L/min; 0.62 kWh/kg matrix (1° test)
Water; S/L 1:23.04; 330 L/min; 2.20 kWh/kg matrix (2° test)
No optimal extraction parameters are given. Efficient and rapid extraction of flavones and monoterpenes; isolation of high-quality pectin.[55]
Silver fir needlesHC (reactor with Venturi cross-section); recirculating flow0.529 kg/120 LWater; S/L 1:227; 330 L/min; 4.8 kWhNo optimal extraction parameters are given. The ORAC/ TPC ratio increased as a function of cavitation time, reaching a maximum at 60 min of extraction.[56]
Table 2. Studies on pilot scale MAE, from 2017 to 2022.
Table 2. Studies on pilot scale MAE, from 2017 to 2022.
MatrixTechnologyScaleOther ParametersResultsRef.
Lemon peelMHG20 kgS/L 1:1.8; no fixed time0.025% w/w EO[70]
CannabisMAHD2.6 kgS/L 1:1; 1 h 50 min0.35% w/w EO[71]
Opuntia ficus-indica peelMAHD; MHG1–2 kgS/L 1:0.067; 1 h; 1.5 kW (MAHD)
S/L 1:0.121; 70 °C; 40 min; 1.2 kW (MHG)
About 128 mL extract/kg matrix (MAHD)
About 342 mL extract/kg matrix (MHG)
HopsMAHD2–8 kgS/L 2:1; 1 h 50 minIncreased extraction yield: 4 times higher (pellets), 2 times higher (dry matrix) than on a laboratory scale[73]
Orange peelMAE3 kgS/L 1:5; 1 h 30 min64% increase in pectin yield[74]
Table 3. Studies on pilot scale SWE, from 2017 to 2022.
Table 3. Studies on pilot scale SWE, from 2017 to 2022.
MatrixScaleOther ParametersYield %Ref.
Miscanthus150 kg/1200 L160 °C; 2 h; S/L 1:833.05%[81]
Zingiber zerumbet0.25 kg/5 L170 °C; 20 min; S/L 1:2020.70%[82]
Wheat bran0.1 kg/1 L160 °C; 60 min; S/L 1:1015.82%[83]
Chestnut peel60 kg/180 L150 °C; 30 min; S/L 1:339.42%[84]
Table 4. Studies on pilot scale PEF, from 2017 to 2022.
Table 4. Studies on pilot scale PEF, from 2017 to 2022.
MatrixTechnologyScaleOther ParametersResultsRef.
GrapesPEF, flow mode.2500 kg/h0.09 s residence time; 3.7 pulses of 4 kV cm−1Reduced maceration time, improved polyphenols concentration (up to 35% increase).86
GrapesPEF, flow mode.200 L/h0.09 s residence time; pulse duration of 8–16 µsIncreased varietal aroma precursors extraction, limited impact on wine color.87
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gallina, L.; Cravotto, C.; Capaldi, G.; Grillo, G.; Cravotto, G. Plant Extraction in Water: Towards Highly Efficient Industrial Applications. Processes 2022, 10, 2233.

AMA Style

Gallina L, Cravotto C, Capaldi G, Grillo G, Cravotto G. Plant Extraction in Water: Towards Highly Efficient Industrial Applications. Processes. 2022; 10(11):2233.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gallina, Lorenzo, Christian Cravotto, Giorgio Capaldi, Giorgio Grillo, and Giancarlo Cravotto. 2022. "Plant Extraction in Water: Towards Highly Efficient Industrial Applications" Processes 10, no. 11: 2233.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop