rezaie 2014

8/10/2019 Rezaie 2014

1/7

Ultrasonic-assisted extraction of antioxidative compounds from Bene

(Pistacia atlantica subsp. mutica) hull using various solvents

of different physicochemical properties

Mitra Rezaie a, Reza Farhoosh a,, Mehrdad Iranshahi b, Ali Sharifa, Shiva Golmohamadzadeh c

a Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Food Science and Technology, P.O. Box: 91775-1163, Mashhad, Iranb Biotechnology Research Center, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iranc Nanotechnology Research Center, School of Pharmacy, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 28 July 2014

Received in revised form 8 October 2014

Accepted 14 October 2014

Available online 22 October 2014

Keywords:

Antioxidant activity

Bene

Solvent extraction

Ultrasound

a b s t r a c t

Extraction yield, phenolics content, and antioxidant activities of the materials extracted conventionally

and/or ultrasonically from Bene hull by a number of aqueous and organic solvents were investigated.

Higher extraction yields in general were obtained by the less polar solvents (12.147.5%). Polar protic sol-

vents exhibited the highest content of total phenolics extracted (110150 mg/g), followed by polar apro-

tic (30.043.5 mg/g) and non-polar solvents (3.35.2 mg/g). Good correlation (R2 = 0.9721) was obtained

between the DPPH radical-scavenging activities and total phenolics contents. Many similarities were

observed between the results of the DPPH (EC50= 0.61105.3lg/ml) and FRAP (0.18.5 mmol/g) assays.

The highest oxidative stability index (OSI) value belonged to the methanol and water extracts, respec-

tively. All the extraction factors significantly improved by 30 min sonication, especially in polar protic

solvents. A 10-min sonication in water extraction could provide the same achievements as those of the

24-h conventional method.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Bene trees,Pistacia atlantica subsp.mutica, from Anacardiaceae

family have been distributed throughout the western, central, and

eastern parts of Iran. Bene fruit has historically been used for a

variety of medicinal and nutritional purposes (Pourreza, Shaw, &

Zangeneh, 2008). Its gum, which is known as saqez in Iran, is still

a principal commodity and is used to produce chewing gum. The

fruits consist of 24% dark green hull containing a highly stable

and antioxidative oil (Farhoosh, Khodaparast, & Sharif, 2009). It

has shown higher antioxidant activity than sesame and rice bran

oils during frying of sunflower oil (Farhoosh, Tavassoli-Kafrani, &Sharif, 2011). Methanol extract of Bene hull has been considered

to be a potent and novel natural anticancer agent (Rezaei,

Fouladdel, Ghaffari, Amin, & Azizi, 2012).

Natural antioxidants are critical for human health because they

reduce risk of chronic diseases, diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascu-

lar and neurodegenerative diseases. Accordingly, natural sources

of antioxidants have nowadays attracted considerable amount of

attention and growing studies have been carried out to find natural

substitutes for synthetic antioxidants suspected to have potentially

toxic effects (Sahreen, Khan, & Khan, 2010).

Antioxidants can be extracted by various solvents and extrac-

tion methods. Solvent extraction is the most common method used

for isolating natural antioxidants. Solvent properties will undoubt-

edly play a key role in the extraction of antioxidative compounds.

The type and yield of antioxidant extracted have been found to

vary as affected by the solvent properties such as polarity, viscosity

and vapour pressure (Wijekoon, Bhat, & Karim, 2011). Therefore, it

is difficult to develop a unified standard method for the extraction

of antioxidants from all plant materials.

Nowadays, different novel extraction techniques have beendeveloped for the extraction of antioxidative compounds from

plant sources. Among the non-conventional extraction methods,

ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) is one of the upcoming extrac-

tion techniques that can offer high reproducibility in short times,

simplified manipulation, reduced solvent consumption and tem-

perature, and lower energy input (Khan, Abert-Vian, Fabiano-

Tixier, Dangles, & Chemat, 2010). Ultrasonic cavitations create

shear forces that disrupt cell walls mechanically and increase mass

transfer processes. Moreover, there is no chemical reaction in UAE,

which can prevent probable chemical degradation of target com-

pounds (Wang et al., 2008). It has been claimed that ultrasonic-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.081

0308-8146/2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 511 38795620; fax: +98 511 38787430.

E-mail address: [email protected](R. Farhoosh).

Food Chemistry 173 (2015) 577583

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Chemistry

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / f o o d c h e m
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.081mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.081http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03088146http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchemhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchemhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03088146http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.081mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.081http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.081&domain=pdfhttp://-/?-

8/10/2019 Rezaie 2014

2/7

assisted extraction methods may reduce the dependence on the

solvents of different physicochemical properties and enable us to

use alternative solvents which may provide more economical,

environmental, and safety benefits (Vilkhu, Mawson, Simons, &

Bates, 2008). Nevertheless, decisive reasons are not available to

prove this belief, thus further studies are required in this respect.

The objectives of this research were (1) to study the effects of

various polar protic or aprotic and non-polar solvents of different

physicochemical properties on the extraction of antioxidative com-

pounds from the Bene hull, (2) to analyse the solvents effectiveness

under the conditions of UAE, and (3) to compare the efficiencies of

ultrasonic-assisted and conventional extraction methods.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

The ripe fruits of Bene were collected from the fields of Marv-

dasht in the Fars province, Iran. After drying in the shade at ambi-

ent temperature for 48 h, the dark green soft hulls of Bene fruits

were separated from dark brown hard shells with an electric mill

with a steel brush. The Bene hull was stored at

18

C until use.All chemicals and solvents used in this study were analytical

reagent grade and was supplied by Merck (Darmstadt, Germany)

and Sigma Chemical Companies (St. Louis, MO, USA).

2.2. Conventional solvent extraction

Ten grams of Bene hull were separately extracted by 200 ml of

ultrapure water (WE), methanol (ME), ethanol (EE), acetone (AE),

ethyl acetate (EAE), petroleum ether (PEE), and hexane (HE) at

room temperature for 24 h. After filtering through the Whatman

paper #3 and removing the solvents (using a rotary evaporator,

BUCHI V-850) and water (using a freeze dryer, OPERON, FDB-

5503, Korea), the dried extracts were stored at 80 C prior to fur-

ther analysis. The yield of extraction was calculated asYield%= (We/Wt) 100, where We is the mass of Bene hull

extracted from the solvents (g) and Wt is the mass of sample (g).

2.3. Ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE)

Samples were weighed precisely (5 g) and mixed with 100 ml of

the extraction solvents into a volumetric flask. The bottles were

then closed and placed in the ultrasonic bath with temperature

maintained at 0 C for 10, 30 and 60 min (35 kHz, DT 102H, BAN-

DELIN, Germany). Afterwards, the extracts were prepared accord-

ing to the procedure mentioned at Section 2.2.

2.4. Total phenolics content

Total phenols content of the extracts was determined by the

method described by Singleton, Orthofer, and Lamuela-Raventos

(1999) with some modifications. Briefly, 0.5 ml of the extracts

was mixed with 0.5 ml of FolinCiocalteus reagent. After 3 min,

2.5 ml of sodium carbonate solution (1 N) was added to the mix-

ture and adjusted to 10 ml with distilled water. After 2 h incuba-

tion period, absorbance was read at 725 nm. The content of

phenolics was calculated as a gallic acid equivalent from the cali-

bration curve of gallic acid standard solutions (00.1 mg/ml) and

expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents per g of dried plant.

2.5. DPPH radical scavenging activity

The radical scavenging ability of the extracts was carried outusing the stable free radical DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl).

DPPH assay involves the reaction of antioxidants with the DPPH

radical, changing the complex from a deep violet colour to a yellow

complex. The degree of discolouration indicates the scavenging

potential of the different concentrations of extracts. Hexane and

petroleum ether extracts were solved in dichloromethane and

other extracts were solved in methanol. Extract solutions were

mixed with freshly prepared DPPH solution. The mixture was sha-

ken drastically and left to stand at room temperature for 60 min.

The reduction of DPPH radical was measured by monitoring the

decrease of absorption at 517 nm. DPPH radical scavenging efficacy

was calculated as the percentage of DPPH discolouration using the

following equation: Percentage scavenging effect = [(ADPPH AS)/

ADPPH] 100, where AS is the absorbance of the solution when

the sample extract has been added at a particular level and ADPPHis the absorbance of the DPPH solution. The extract concentration

providing 50% inhibition (EC50) was calculated from the graph of

scavenging effect percentage against extract concentration in the

solution (Fernandez-Agullo et al., 2013).

2.6. Ferric reducing/antioxidant power (FRAP) assay

FRAP assay uses antioxidants as reductants in a redox-linked

colourimetric reaction, reducing a ferric-tripyridyltriazine, Fe

(III)-TPTZ, complex to ferrous, Fe (II), form, forming an intense blue

colour complex which can be measured colourimetrically.

Reagents for this assay consisted of 300 mM acetate buffer,

10 mM TPTZ in 40 mM of HCl and 20 mM FeCl36H2O. The respec-

tive solutions were mixed in a ratio of 10:1:1 as needed. The fresh

solution was warmed (37 C) for 5 min. After taking a blank read-

ing, plant extract or standard and water were added to the FRAP

reagent. Absorbances were taken at 0 and 4 min after the start of

the reaction. The differences between the two absorbance readings

were measured and compared to the standard graph. Iron (II) sul-

phate was used as the standard and analysed as above (Razali, Mat-

Junit, Abdul-Muthalib, Subramaniam, & Abdul-Aziz, 2012).

2.7. Purification and preparation of the sunflower oil (SFO)

For the removal of naturally occurring antioxidant from the SFO,

200 g of the oil was passed through 150 g aluminium oxide (activ-

ity degree 1, neutral), which had been activated at 200 C for 3 h

immediately before use. The alumina column (252.5 cm i.d.)

and collection vessels were wrapped in aluminium foil, and the

oil was drawn through the column by suction without solvent. This

procedure was repeated twice to ensure complete elimination of

antioxidants (Yoshida, Kondo, & Kajimoto, 1992). The purified

SFO (PSFO) was mixed with antioxidant extracts and then was

exposed to the following stability tests.

2.8. Rancimat test

A Metrohm Rancimat model 743 (Herisau, Switzerland) was

used for the oxidative stability index (OSI) measurement. The tests

were done with 3 g of the PSFO containing different concentrations

of extracts (250, 500, 1000 and 2000 mg/kg) at 110 C and an air-

flow rate of 15 l/h (Farhoosh, 2007). Protection factors (PF) were

calculated as the ratio between the OSI of the purified oil sample

containing the solvent extract and the oil with no added solvent

extract.

2.9. Statistical analysis

All experiments and measurements were carried out in tripli-

cate, and data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA).

ANOVA and regression analyses were performed according to thePrism 5 and Excel software. Significant differences between means

578 M. Rezaie et al./ Food Chemistry 173 (2015) 577583

8/10/2019 Rezaie 2014

3/7

were determined by Duncans multiple range tests. P values less

than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Solvents properties

Efficiency of the different solvent extraction methods strongly

depends on the matrix of plant materials as well as the type of

extractable compounds. The correct choice of solvent can consider-

ably improve the extraction yield of antioxidants from plants

matrices. For this reason, in the present study a wide range of sol-

vents of different physicochemical properties were used to extract

antioxidative compounds from the Bene hull (Table 1).

The solvents were selected among three polarity-based classes:

polar protic, polar aprotic, and non-polar. Polar protic solvents are

hydrogen bond donors mostly containing hydroxyl groups, e.g.,

water, low molecular weight alcohols such as ethanol and metha-

nol, and the solutions of low molecular-weight carboxylic acids.

Polar aprotic solvents have dipoles due to polar bonds but do not

have hydrogen atoms, bonded with an atom of high electronegativ-

ity that can be donated into a hydrogen bond. Most polar aproticsolvents contain a carbonyl group, e.g., acetone and ethyl acetate.

Non-polar solvents are those possessing bonds between atoms

with roughly similar electronegativities, such as carbon and hydro-

gen. Alkanes like hexane and petroleum ether are quite well-

known examples of these (Reichardt & Welton, 2011).

Beside of these classes,Snyder (1978) proposed one of the most

popular and widely used solvent classifications on the basis of

polarity index, P0 value, and selectivity or relative ability to take

part in hydrogen bonding or dipole interactions (Xe, proton accep-

tor;Xd, proton donor;Xn, strong dipole) (Table 1). The classification

separates solvents into eight groups based on the similarity of the

X-parameters. Solvents with the same P0 value will show the same

action only if they are in a similar group (Snyder, 1978).

Solvent viscosity is among the physical properties that affects

the extractability of bioactive constituents from plant materials.

Low-viscosity solvents have high diffusivity that allows them to

easily diffuse into the pores of the plant matrices to leach out the

bioactive compounds (Wijekoon et al., 2011). Ultrasonic behaviour

of solvents is considerably affected by their viscosity and also

vapour pressure. Cavitational bubbles are produced more easily

in less viscous solvents because the ultrasonic intensity applied

can more easily exceed the molecular forces of the solvent. Ultra-

sonication in solvents with low-vapour pressures creates few cavi-

tational bubbles as a result of high cavitation thresholds; however,

the bubbles implode with relatively greater force, which enhances

plant tissue disruption during extraction. On the other hand, high-

vapour pressure solvents shows lower effectiveness because they

create more bubbles but collapsing with less intensity due to a

smaller internal/external pressure difference (Hemwimol,

Pavasant, & Shotipruk, 2006).

3.2. Extraction yield

The solvents used for the extraction of Bene hull showed statis-

tically significant different yields (Table 2). The extraction yield

decreased in the following order: PEE > HE> EAE> AE> WE > -

ME > EE. Differences in the extraction efficiency of various solvents

has been attributed to their polarities (Fernandez-Agullo et al.,

2013). With respect to the P0 values shown in Table 1, higher

extraction yields in general were obtained by the less polar sol-

vents.Farhoosh et al. (2009) showed that the chemical composi-

tion of Bene hull consists of large amounts of lipid compounds.

Table 1

Physicochemical propertiesa of the solvents used for the extraction of antioxidative compounds from Bene hull.

Solvent Chemical structure Selectivity groupd P0d Xed Xd

d Xnd

ge PV

f

Water H2O VIII 10.2 0.37 0.37 0.25 0.89 17.5

Methanol CH3OH II 5.1 0.48 0.22 0.31 0.54 96

Ethanol CH3CH2OH II 4.3 0.52 0.19 0.29 1.07 44

Acetone CH3COCH3 VI 5.1 0.35 0.23 0.42 0.31 180

Ethyl acetate CH3COOCH2CH3 VI 4.4 0.34 0.23 0.43 0.42 73

Petroleum ether b c 0.1

Hexane CH3(CH2)4CH3 c 0.1 0.30 124

a P0, polarity index;Xe, proton acceptor parameter; Xd, proton donor parameter;Xn, strong dipole parameter; g, viscosity at 20(cP);PV, vapour pressure at 20 C (mmHg).b Composed of a variety of hydrocarbons with different solubilisation capabilities for various non-polar constituents.c Selectivity group irrelevant, because of low P0 value.d Snyder (1978).e Gu, Li, Gandhi, and Raghavan (2004).f Hayes (2007).

Table 2

Extraction yield (%), total phenolics content (TP, mg gallic acid/g dried plant), DPPH radical-scavenging activity (EC 50, lg/ml), and ferric reducing activity (FRAP, mmol/g) of the

conventional extracts of Bene hull.a

Antioxidative extract Yield TP EC50 FRAP

Water 17.62 0.01e 110.10 0.02b 0.72 0.00d 4.60 0.00c

Methanol 13.48 0.01f 149.00 0.00a 0.69 0.01b 6.57 0.00b

Ethanol 12.05 0.02g 149.92 0.00a 0.60 0.01c 8.50 0.00a

Acetone 25.30 0.01d 43.50 0.01c 4.20 0.01e 6.60 0.00b

Ethyl acetate 36.68 0.03c 30.01 0.00d 3.70 0.01f 2.80 0.01d

Petroleum ether 47.48 0.01a 3.30 0.00f 1105.34 0.02g Tracef

Hexane 37.55 0.01b 5.22 0.01e 526.11 0.03h 0.10 0.00g

Controlb 0.38 0.01a 2.30 0.00e

a

Means SD (standard deviation) within a column with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different atP< 0.05.b Alpha-toccopherol.

M. Rezaie et al./ Food Chemistry 173 (2015) 577583 579
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/10/2019 Rezaie 2014

4/7

8/10/2019 Rezaie 2014

5/7

centration of the extracts than by a-tocopherol, so that the meth-

anol extract at the high concentrations showed the same stabiliz-

ing effect as a-tocopherol. In fact, the low concentrations of the

extracts may not have been high enough to control oxidation,

whereas a-tocopherol at the high concentrations may not have

considerably inhibited lipid oxidation due to the possibility of phe-

nolic antioxidants to exhibit prooxidant activity at high concentra-

tions (Frankel, 1998). Despite containing the lower amount of

phenolic compounds and better inhibitory effect in the aqueoussystems of the DPPH and FRAP assays (Table 2), the water extract

stabilized the sunflower oil better than the ethanol extract, which

possessed the lowest PF value among the solvent extracts experi-

mented. Oilair interface is the site where oxidation occurs and

also relatively polar hydroperoxides are condensed (McClements

& Decker, 2000). Polar paradox theory denotes that more polar

antioxidants with stronger interfacial properties are able to play

more effective roles in retarding oxidation compared to the antiox-

idants that are diffused throughout the oil (Porter, Black, & Drolet,

1989). In addition, better performance of antioxidants may be

attributed to their higher resistance to being destroyed by heat

and/or lost through volatilisation, known so-called as carry-

through property (Fennema, 1996). Therefore, it is expected that

the methanol and water extracts contain higher contributions ofphenolic compounds that their chemical structures allow them to

be incorporated more to the oilair interface of the bulk oil system

and/or to be more carry-through. In contrast to the non-polar sol-

vents, the aprotic solvents provided the antioxidative extracts that

their activity did not markedly increased as their concentration

increased.

3.5. Ultrasonic-assisted extraction (UAE) method

Simplicity, high efficiency, and inexpensiveness are among the

main factors that have made the UAE method to be one of the most

industrially used processes to leach out the cellular extracts.

Exploiting the mechanical, cavitational, and thermal mechanisms,

the UAE method lead to cell wall disruption, decrease in particlesize, and enhancement of mass transfer across cell membranes

(Pan, Qu, Ma, Atungulu, & McHugh, 2011). In this study, the ultra-

sonic-assisted and conventional (24 h at room temperature) meth-

ods were compared by evaluating the extraction yield, phenolics

content, and antioxidant activity. A wide range of solvents of dif-

ferent polarity (P0 = 0.110), viscosity (0.301.07 cP), and vapour

pressure (17.5180 mmHg) during the UAE times of 1060 min

at 0 C were used for the evaluation purposes.

The yield, total phenolics content, and antioxidant activity of

the conventionally produced extracts significantly improved byusing the ultrasonic waves but the best results in general was

observed when using a 30-min sonication process (Table 3). The

extraction yield of the polar protic solvents ethanol, methanol,

and water, respectively was most affected by the ultrasonic-

assisted process. As can be seen, the increase in the extraction yield

did not lead to marked increases in the content of phenolic com-

pounds, and even caused the extraction of phenolics by ethanol

to decrease significantly. This was accompanied by the results from

the DPPH radical-scavenging and FRAP assays. The ethanol extract

was undergone the highest significant decreases in the DPPH rad-

ical-scavenging activity. According to the results obtained from the

FRAP assay, the UAE method had no influence on the reducing

power of the water extraction but led to decreases of 816% and

4477% in the reducing power of the methanol and ethanol extrac-tions, respectively. Accordingly, ultrasound in ethanol has just

been able to increase the extractability of non-phenolic com-

pounds with no antioxidant activity or to chemically decompose

antioxidative compounds (Huang, Xue, Niu, Jia, & Wang, 2009).

However, it should be noticed that a 10-min ultrasonication in

the safer aqueous system, with the suitable antioxidant activity

in the oil medium (Fig. 1), than the organic solvents has been able

to provide almost the same achievements as those of the 24-h con-

ventional method (Table 2). This may have been due to the lower

vapour pressure (known to be the most conductive to ultrasound

activity) of water, which cause more intensed ultrasonic cavita-

tions (Table 1) (Hemwimol et al., 2006). Moreover, water can be

helpful to increase the rate of swelling of plant materials, which

is appropriate to develop the contact surface between the solventand plant matrix (Wijekoon et al., 2011).

d

d

d

c a

d d

d

c

c

c

ba

c c

c

b

b

b

a

a

b

b

b

a

a

a

aa

a

a

a

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Protection

facto

r,

PF

250 ppm

500 ppm

1000 ppm

2000 ppm

Fig. 1. Protection factor, PF, of differentconcentrations of thesolvent extracts (250,500, 1000,and 2000 ppm) added to thepurified sunflower oil(PSFO) with theOSI value of

1.46 h in Rancimat test. Means within each column set with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different atP< 0.5. All values are means of three determination

with coefficient of variations (CV = SD 100/mean) 6 2.2.

http://-/?-http://-/?-

8/10/2019 Rezaie 2014

6/7

Compared to the polar protic solvents, the extraction yield of

the polar aprotic solvents was less affected by the UAE process.

Similarly, the increase in the extraction yield was accompanied

by approximately no improvement in the extraction of phenolic

compounds and also in the results of DPPH radical-scavenging

assay, although the reducing power of the resulted extracts pro-

moted considerably during 30 min sonication. As can be seen in

Table 3, despite having the lesser amount of the phenolics ultra-

sonically extracted (ratios: 0.900.94 vs. 0.941.08), acetone

extract represented DPPH radical-scavenging activities much bet-

ter than those of ethyl acetate extract (ratios: 0.941.24 vs. 1.41

2.22). In contrast, the ethyl acetate extract exerted better perfor-

mances in inhibiting ferric cation (ratios: 2.07 vs. 1.20 at 30 min

sonication). It seems that the UAE process has been able to provide

conditions under which ethyl acetate extracts higher amounts of

reducing phenolics whereas acetone extracts a greater contribu-tion of phenolics of higher ability in scavenging DPPH radical.

On average, greater improvements were observed in the extrac-

tion yield of non-polar than polar aprotic solvents as affected by

the UAE process. It was interesting to find that the highest rate

of increase in the phenolic compounds and also antioxidant activ-

ities among all the solvents used was obtained for these solvents

after 30 min sonication (Table 3). However, it should be regarded

that despite considerable improving of these ratios for the non-

polar than polar protic solvents, the absolute quantities of total

phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities as affected by the

UAE process were still much better for the polar protic solvents

(Tables 2 and 3). It was in contrast to Vilkhu et al. (2008) who

claimed that ultrasonication may decrease the dependence on a

solvent and allow use of alternative solvents.

4. Conclusion

The results of the present study indicated that polarity, selectiv-

ity, viscosity, and vapour pressure are important physicochemical

properties that should be considered when selecting a suitable sol-

vent for the extraction of bioactive compounds from plant materi-

als. Polar protic solvents, methanol and water, were the most

effective solvents to extract phenolic compounds possessing anti-

oxidant activity in aqueous, alcoholic, and oily media. Ultrasonic-

assisted extraction had the highest positive effect on the efficiency

of non-polar solvents but could not provide the same performance

as that of polar protic solvents under the conventional conditions.Besides, the same performance of the conventional aqueous

extraction was obtained when employing ultrasound waves but

in an extremely shorter time (a time loss of 99.3%). It seems that

the combinations of water as a less expensive and safe liquid and

the other organic solvents, especially methanol, can provide better

results to extract plant materials. In continuation, further studies

should be performed in order to identify the chemical structure

of main antioxidants in Bene hull.

References

Farhoosh, R. (2007). The effect of operational parametersof the Rancimatmethod on

the determination of the oxidative stabilitymeasures andshelf-life prediction of

soybean oil.Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, 84 , 205209.Farhoosh, R., Khodaparast, M. H. H., & Sharif, A. (2009). Bene hull oil as a highly

stable and antioxidative vegetable oil. European Journal of Lipid Science andTechnology, 111, 12591265.

Farhoosh, R., Tavassoli-Kafrani, M. H., & Sharif, A. (2011). Antioxidant activity of

sesame, rice bran and Bene hull oils and their unsaponifiable matters.EuropeanJournal of Lipid Science and Technology, 113, 506512.

Fennema, O. R. (1996). Food chemistry. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Fernandez-Agullo, A., Pereira, E., Freire, M., Valentao, P., Andrade, P., Gonzalez-

Alvarez, J., et al. (2013). Influence of solvent on the antioxidant and

antimicrobial properties of walnut (Juglans regia L.) green husk extracts.Industrial Crops and Products, 42, 126132.

Frankel, E. N. (1998).Lipid oxidation. Dundee: The Oily Press.Galanakis, C. M., Goulas, V., Tsakona, S., Manganaris, G. A., & Gekas, V. (2013). A

knowledge base for the recovery of natural phenols with different solvents.

International Journal of Food Properties, 16, 382396.Gu, C. H., Li, H., Gandhi, R. B., & Raghavan, K. (2004). Groupingsolvents by statistical

analysis of solvent property parameters: Implication to polymorph screening.

International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 283, 117125.Hayes, A. W. (2007). Principles and methods of toxicology. CRC Press.Hemwimol, S., Pavasant, P., & Shotipruk, A. (2006). Ultrasound-assisted extraction

of anthraquinones from roots ofMorinda citrifolia.Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 13,543548.

Houghton, P., & Amala, R. (1988). Laboratory handbook for the fractionation of naturalextracts. Springer.Huang, W., Xue, A., Niu, H., Jia, Z., & Wang, J. (2009). Optimised ultrasonic-assisted

extraction of flavonoids from Folium eucommiae and evaluation of antioxidantactivity in multi-test systems in vitro.Food Chemistry, 114, 11471154.

Khan, M. K., Abert-Vian, M., Fabiano-Tixier, A. S., Dangles, O., & Chemat, F. (2010).

Ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenols (flavanone glycosides) from

orange (Citrus sinensisL.) peel.Food Chemistry, 119, 851858.McClements, D., & Decker, E. (2000). Lipid oxidation in oil-in-water emulsions:

Impact of molecular environment on chemical reactions in heterogeneous food

systems. Journal of Food Science, 65 , 12701282.Naczk, M., & Shahidi, F. (2004). Extraction and analysis of phenolics in food. Journal

of Chromatography A, 1054, 95111.Pan, Z., Qu, W., Ma, H., Atungulu, G. G., & McHugh, T. H. (2011). Continuous and

pulsed ultrasound-assisted extractions of antioxidants from pomegranate peel.

Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 18, 12491257.Philip, S., & Christina, A. (2000). Organic chemistry. California: Prentice Hall.Porter, W. L., Black, E. D., & Drolet, A. M. (1989). Use of polyamide oxidative

fluorescence test on lipid emulsions: Contrast in relative effectiveness of

antioxidants in bulk versus dispersed systems. Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry, 37, 615624.

Table 3

Comparative effect of the conventional (24 h at room temperature) and ultrasonic-assisted (UAE; 10, 30, and 60 min at 0 C) extraction methods on the extraction yield (%w/w),

total phenolics content (TP, mg gallic acid/g dried plant), DPPH radical-scavenging activity (EC50, lg/ml) and ferric reducing power (FRAP, mmol/g) of Bene hull using various

solvents of different physicochemical properties.a

Time (min) Water Methanol Ethanol Acetone Ethyl acetate Petroleum ether Hexane

Yield 10 1.41cB 1.22cD 2.68cA 1.11cE 1.30bC 1.22bD 1.21cD

30 1.50bC 2.39bB 2.99bA 1.16aG 1.30bE 1.24bF 1.47aD

60 1.59aC 2.51aB 3.14aA 1.14bG 1.35aE 1.31aF 1.43bD

TP 10 1.04cA 0.93cD 0.59cF 0.94aC 0.94cC 0.97cB 0.80cE

30 1.06bC 1.05aD 0.63bG 0.91bF 1.03bE 1.55aB 1.58aA

60 1.08aA 1.01bC 0.69aF 0.90cD 1.08aA 1.03bB 0.82bE

EC50 10 0.96cE 1.25aC 3.43aA 0.95bE 1.41cB 0.76bF 1.19cD

30 1.10aC 0.87cD 1.83bB 0.94cD 1.89bA 0.38aF 0.47aE

60 1.01bE 1.04bD 3.47aA 1.24aC 2.22aB 0.77cF 0.76bF

FRAP 10 1.00aA 0.88bB 0.23cD 0.88cB 0.43cC TraceaE TracebF

30 1.00aD 0.84cE 0.33bF 1.20aC 2.07aB TraceaG 5.00aA

60 1.00aC 0.92aD 0.46aE 1.03bB 1.07bA TraceaF TracebG

a All values (the ratio between the UAE and conventional method quantities) are means of three determination with coefficient of variation (CV = SD 100/mean) 6 1.7.

Means within a column for each property with the same lowercase letters are not significantly different at P< 0.05. Means within a row with the same uppercase letters are

not significantly different atP < 0.05.

582 M. Rezaie et al./ Food Chemistry 173 (2015) 577583
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0005

8/10/2019 Rezaie 2014

7/7

Pourreza, M., Shaw, J. D., & Zangeneh, H. (2008). Sustainability of wild pistachio

(Pistacia atlantica Desf.) in Zagros forests, Iran. Forest Ecology and Management,255, 36673671.

Razali,N., Mat-Junit, S., Abdul-Muthalib,A. F., Subramaniam, S., & Abdul-Aziz,A. (2012).

Effects of various solvents on the extraction of antioxidant phenolics from the

leaves,seeds, veinsand skins ofTamarindus indica L. FoodChemistry, 131, 441448.Reichardt, C., & Welton, T. (2011). Solvents and solvent effects in organic chemistry.

John Wiley & Sons.

Rezaei, P. F.,Fouladdel,S., Ghaffari, S. M., Amin, G.,& Azizi, E. (2012). Inductionof G1

cell cycle arrest and cyclin D1 down-regulation in response to pericarp extract

of Baneh in human breast cancer T47D cells. DARU Journal of PharmaceuticalSciences, 20, 101106.

Sahreen, S., Khan, M. R., & Khan, R. A. (2010). Evaluation of antioxidant activities of

various solvent extracts ofCarissa opacafruits.Food Chemistry, 122, 12051211.Singleton, V. L., Orthofer, R., & Lamuela-Raventos, R. M. (1999). Analysis of total

phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin

Ciocalteu reagent.Methods in Enzymology, 299, 152178.

Snyder, L. (1978). Classificationof the solvent properties of commonliquids.Journalof Chromatographic Science, 16, 223234.

Vilkhu, K., Mawson, R., Simons, L., & Bates, D. (2008). Applicationsand opportunities

for ultrasound-assisted extraction in the food industry A review. InnovativeFood Science and Emerging Technologies, 9, 161169.

Wang, L., Li, D., Bao, C., You, J., Wang, Z., Shi, Y., et al. (2008). Ultrasonic extraction

and separation of anthraquinones from Rheum palmatum L. UltrasonicsSonochemistry, 15, 738746.

Wijekoon, M., Bhat, R., & Karim, A. A. (2011). Effect of extraction solvents on the

phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of bunga kantan (Etlingera

elatior Jack.) inflorescence. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 24,615619.

Yoshida, H., Kondo, I., & Kajimoto, G. (1992). Participation of free fatty acids in the

oxidation of purified soybean oil during microwave heating. Journal of theAmerican Oil Chemists Society, 69, 11361140.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0120http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0115http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0110http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0105http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0100http://-/?-http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0308-8146(14)01643-4/h0095http://-/?-

rezaie 2014

Documents