Cargando…

Cold Ethanol Extraction of Cannabinoids and Terpenes from Cannabis Using Response Surface Methodology: Optimization and Comparative Study

Efficient cannabis biomass extraction can increase yield while reducing costs and minimizing waste. Cold ethanol extraction was evaluated to maximize yield and concentrations of cannabinoids and terpenes at different temperatures. Central composite rotatable design was used to optimize two independe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Addo, Philip Wiredu, Sagili, Sai Uday Kumar Reddy, Bilodeau, Samuel Eichhorn, Gladu-Gallant, Frederick-Alexandre, MacKenzie, Douglas A., Bates, Jennifer, McRae, Garnet, MacPherson, Sarah, Paris, Maxime, Raghavan, Vijaya, Orsat, Valérie, Lefsrud, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9786071/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36557913
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27248780
Descripción
Sumario:Efficient cannabis biomass extraction can increase yield while reducing costs and minimizing waste. Cold ethanol extraction was evaluated to maximize yield and concentrations of cannabinoids and terpenes at different temperatures. Central composite rotatable design was used to optimize two independent factors: sample-to-solvent ratio (1:2.9 to 1:17.1) and extraction time (5.7 min–34.1 min). With response surface methodology, predicted optimal conditions at different extraction temperatures were a cannabis-to-ethanol ratio of 1:15 and a 10 min extraction time. With these conditions, yields (g 100 g dry matter(−1)) were 18.2, 19.7, and 18.5 for −20 °C, −40 °C and room temperature, respectively. Compared to the reference ground sample, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid changed from 17.9 (g 100 g dry matter(−1)) to 15, 17.5, and 18.3 with an extraction efficiency of 83.6%, 97.7%, 102.1% for −20 °C, −40 °C, and room temperature, respectively. Terpene content decreased by 54.1% and 32.2% for extraction at −20 °C and room temperature, respectively, compared to extraction at −40 °C. Principal component analysis showed that principal component 1 and principal component 2 account for 88% and 7.31% of total variance, respectively, although no significant differences in cold ethanol extraction at different temperatures were observed.