eprintid: 17800 rev_number: 7 eprint_status: archive userid: 2 dir: disk0/00/01/78/00 datestamp: 2025-05-29 23:30:10 lastmod: 2025-05-29 23:30:10 status_changed: 2025-05-29 23:30:10 type: article metadata_visibility: show creators_name: Chen, Shengxiong creators_name: Yuan, Yi creators_name: Zhang, Fan creators_name: Lin, Shiye creators_name: Zou, Pengren creators_name: Farag, Mohamed A. creators_name: Simal-Gandara, Jesus creators_name: Cao, Hui creators_name: Xiao, Jianbo title: UPLC-ESI-MS/MS-based chemometric approach for investigating the effect of conventional versus modern extraction methods on polyphenols recovery from grape seed wastes ispublished: pub subjects: uneat_eng subjects: uneat_sn divisions: uneatlantico_produccion_cientifica full_text_status: none abstract: Grape seed wastes are a rich source of bioactive polyphenols. This study compares the recovery efficiency of traditional maceration extraction (ME) with modern extraction techniques (ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), and accelerated solvent extraction (ASE)), revealing the selective extraction of polyphenolic compounds by different methods. UPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis was used to identify and quantify 24 polyphenols. ASE showed the highest efficiency for phenolic acids (e.g., gallic acid, 231.75 μg/g) and proanthocyanidins (e.g., procyanidin B1, 126.18 μg/g), while MAE was optimal for flavonoids recovery (e.g., myricetin, 41.52 μg/g). Multivariate chemometric analysis revealed co-extraction patterns among structurally related compounds (e.g., flavan-3-ols with galloylated derivatives), linking extraction parameters to the selectivity of polyphenols. Integrating UPLC-ESI-MS/MS profiling of 24 polyphenols, we suggest that MAE/ASE is most suitable for antioxidant-rich nutraceuticals, while ME is optimal for thermally labile pharmaceuticals. This study provides practical strategies for the sustainable utilization of grape seed by-products, offering industry-specific solutions to reduce waste and improve the recovery of bioactive compounds. date: 2025-05 publication: Food Chemistry volume: 487 pagerange: 144619 id_number: doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.144619 refereed: TRUE issn: 03088146 official_url: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.144619 access: close language: en citation: Artículo Materias > Ingeniería Materias > Alimentación Universidad Europea del Atlántico > Investigación > Artículos y libros Cerrado Inglés Grape seed wastes are a rich source of bioactive polyphenols. This study compares the recovery efficiency of traditional maceration extraction (ME) with modern extraction techniques (ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), and accelerated solvent extraction (ASE)), revealing the selective extraction of polyphenolic compounds by different methods. UPLC-ESI-MS/MS analysis was used to identify and quantify 24 polyphenols. ASE showed the highest efficiency for phenolic acids (e.g., gallic acid, 231.75 μg/g) and proanthocyanidins (e.g., procyanidin B1, 126.18 μg/g), while MAE was optimal for flavonoids recovery (e.g., myricetin, 41.52 μg/g). Multivariate chemometric analysis revealed co-extraction patterns among structurally related compounds (e.g., flavan-3-ols with galloylated derivatives), linking extraction parameters to the selectivity of polyphenols. Integrating UPLC-ESI-MS/MS profiling of 24 polyphenols, we suggest that MAE/ASE is most suitable for antioxidant-rich nutraceuticals, while ME is optimal for thermally labile pharmaceuticals. This study provides practical strategies for the sustainable utilization of grape seed by-products, offering industry-specific solutions to reduce waste and improve the recovery of bioactive compounds. metadata Chen, Shengxiong; Yuan, Yi; Zhang, Fan; Lin, Shiye; Zou, Pengren; Farag, Mohamed A.; Simal-Gandara, Jesus; Cao, Hui y Xiao, Jianbo mail SIN ESPECIFICAR (2025) UPLC-ESI-MS/MS-based chemometric approach for investigating the effect of conventional versus modern extraction methods on polyphenols recovery from grape seed wastes. Food Chemistry, 487. p. 144619. ISSN 03088146