[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Next Article in Journal
Opportunities and Challenges of Multi-Ion, Dual-Ion and Single-Ion Intercalation in Phosphate-Based Polyanionic Cathodes for Zinc-Ion Batteries
Previous Article in Journal
Modification of 316L Stainless Steel, Nickel Titanium, and Cobalt Chromium Surfaces by Irreversible Immobilization of Fibronectin: Towards Improving the Coronary Stent Biocompatibility
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 29
Issue 20
10.3390/molecules29204928
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Saponin Molecules from Quinoa Residues: Exploring Their Surfactant, Emulsifying, and Detergent Properties

by
Kiara A. García Bustos
1,
Salvador Sanchez Muñoz
2,
Silvio S. da Silva
2,
Miguel A. D. Flores Alarcon
2,
Júlio C. dos Santos
2,
Gilberto J. Colina Andrade
1 and
Ruly Terán Hilares
1,*
1
Laboratorio de Bioprocesos, Facultad de Ciencias Farmacéuticas, Bioquímicas y Biotecnológicas, Universidad Católica de Santa María—UCSM, Urb. San José s/n—Umacollo, Arequipa 04000, Peru
2
Department of Biotechnology, Engineering School of Lorena, University of São Paulo (EEL-USP), Lorena 12602-810, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2024, 29(20), 4928; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29204928
Submission received: 25 September 2024 / Revised: 8 October 2024 / Accepted: 15 October 2024 / Published: 18 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Organic Chemistry)
Browse Figures
Graphical abstract
"> Figure 1
<p>Surface tension evaluation at different saponin extract concentrations.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>The emulsification index after 24 h. <sup>a,b,c,d,f</sup> Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05) according to a Duncan test.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Effect of variables on surface tension. (<b>A</b>) pH vs. temperature, (<b>B</b>) pH vs. salinity, and (<b>C</b>) salinity vs. temperature. In each figure, graphic was constructed considering central point of third variable.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Effect variables on emulsification index obtained using saponin extract. (<b>A</b>) Temperature vs. pH, (<b>B</b>) salinity vs. pH, and (<b>C</b>) salinity vs. temperature. In each figure, graphic was constructed considering central point of third variable.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Detergency test. (<b>A</b>) Saponin extract (SE) and commercial detergent in palm oil swatches, and (<b>B</b>) SE and commercial detergent in coffee swatches. <sup>a–j</sup> Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &gt; 0.05) according to Duncan test.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The indiscriminate use of synthetic surfactants, despite their desirable properties, poses significant environmental risks to ecosystems. This study explores saponins extracted from quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) residues as a sustainable alternative. Saponin extract (SE) with 42% purity, obtained through hydrodynamic cavitation and membrane technology, was analyzed to determine its techno-functional properties. The critical micelle concentration (CMC) was 1.2 g/L, reducing the surface tension (ST) from 72.0 mN/m to 50.0 mN/m. The effects of temperature (30–90 °C), pH (2–12), and salinity (10,000–150,000 ppm NaCl) on ST and the emulsification index (EI) were assessed using a Box–Behnken design. Optimized conditions yielded an ST of 49.02 mN/m and an EI of 63%. Given these characteristics, SE was evaluated as a detergent across diverse swatches. This study showcases the attributes of quinoa-derived saponins, highlighting their potential for eco-friendly detergent applications.

Graphical Abstract">

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Surfactants stand as one of the most pressing emerging contaminants, persistently released into the environment via wastewater treatment plants or directly discharged in watercourses, with this last problem particularly prevalent in underdeveloped regions [1,2]. These molecules possess both hydrophilic (polar charged or uncharged head group) and hydrophobic (non-polar hydrocarbon tail) regions, making them amphipathic and capable of reducing interfacial tension and stabilizing foams or emulsions [3,4]. Most surfactants are petroleum-based and chemically synthesized, serving various domestic and industrial purposes such as emulsification, foaming, detergency, wetting, dispersing, or solubilization [5,6,7,8]. However, the persistence of the transformed products in an environment is of great concern to environmental sustainability and healthy ecosystems [9,10,11,12,13].
The global market size of surfactants is currently about USD 42.1 billion, and it is projected to reach USD 52.4 billion by 2025 [13]. An increment in their production involves an increase in their environmental impact, and as a result, there is a high demand for the development of new surfactants based on natural products such as plant extracts [14].
Biosurfactants are amphiphilic biological compounds produced by a variety of microorganisms [15] and plants that can be obtained from various raw materials, including sugars, oils, and wastes, exhibiting tensioactive and emulsifying properties [16]. Patel et al. [17] found that utilizing renewable resources for surfactant synthesis instead of petrochemicals could reduce CO2 emissions by 37% in the European Union. Moreover, biosurfactants present other advantages, like their high biodegradability, low toxicity, thermal stability, resistance to extreme values of pH and ionic strength, and solubility in an alkaline medium [16,18].
One of the most extensively researched sources of surfactants is plants containing saponins. Saponins, natural surface-active molecules, are found in various plant extracts, some of which exhibit high interfacial activity [14]. These natural surfactants consist of hydrophobic aglycones and hydrophilic sugar residues, giving them a heterogeneous amphiphilic structure [19]. Chenopodium quinoa, a valuable food source gaining prominence worldwide, contains diverse bitter-tasting saponins, serving as significant antinutritional factors [20].
Quinoa grains are typically subjected to scarification, a mechanical abrasion process that removes the outer layer and results in a yellowish powder, which constitutes approximately 5–8% (w/w) of the grain. This powder is rich in fiber, phenolic compounds, and saponins. Currently, this bitter residue is often discarded without treatment, leading to environmental pollution due to its high saponin content (exceeding 15% w/w, depending on the variety) and its lack of economic value [21,22,23]. Therefore, there is a significant opportunity to valorize this residue through saponin extraction, creating a sustainable product with potential applications as a biosurfactant, emulsifier, and detergent, and in agriculture for pest and disease control.
In the saponin extraction process, ultrasound technology has typically been employed [24,25,26]; however, this method faces limitations when it comes to scaling up [27,28]. Hydrodynamic cavitation presents a viable alternative, offering low manufacturing costs and high efficiency, as demonstrated in the extraction of bioactive compounds, e.g., flavonoids, phenolics, antioxidants, and pectin [27,29,30,31,32]. For the purification process, membrane technology stands out as a sustainable and scalable option. However, its use is limited to flat membranes with low working volumes.
In this study, with the aim of valorizing quinoa residues, hydrodynamic cavitation and membrane technology were used to recover saponin. Subsequently, the techno-functional properties of the recovered saponin were evaluated, with a focus on its surface tensioactive and emulsifying properties, with the aim of assessing its potential application as an eco-friendly detergent in textiles.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Extraction and Characterization of Quinoa Saponin

In this work, a saponin extraction yield of 56.30% (calculated as the percentage of initial saponin in the powder recovered after the extraction process) was achieved using hydrodynamic cavitation (HC) with only water. This can be attributed to the high turbulence and physicochemical effects generated during the violent collapse of bubbles [32]. After cavitation, the solid was sedimented at pH 4.5, residual particles were removed by ultrafiltration, and the permeate was concentrated by nanofiltration. Subsequently, from the retentate, the saponin was extracted by adding methanol, and the solvent was removed, obtaining an extract free of solvent named saponin extract (SE).
The SE contained a saponin concentration of 178.68 g/L. After drying, the saponin purity was determined to be 42%. The dried extract also contained 3.98 g/L of total phenols, 1.24 g/L of reducing sugars, and 24.77 g/L of soluble proteins. These results are close to the ones previously reported by Lozano et al. [33], which included a purity of 45% (w/w), which was achieved by extracting saponins from Chenopodium quinoa Willd residues using a maceration method for 72 h, but with hydroalcoholic solvent (25% of EtOH), enhancing the extraction yield by increasing the ethanol concentration to 50%. However, in our study, the extraction and purification processes were not extensively evaluated, as our focus was on assessing the techno-functional properties at lower purity levels. It is worth noting that commercial products like Soapnuts Extract, manufactured by Wellgreen Technology Co. (Shaanxi, China), are available at 40% purity.

2.2. Determination of Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC)

The CMC value of the saponin extract was 1.24 ± 0.14 g/L (Figure 1), with a corresponding surface tension of 50 mN/m, which was determined according to the method proposed by Cazals et al. [34], Ramesh et al. [35], and Springer-Verlag et al. [36]. The CMC is one of the most important physical parameters influencing a surfactant’s properties. It is defined as the specific concentration at which spontaneous micelle formation begins. Beyond the CMC, increasing the surfactant concentration does not result in further reductions in interfacial tension [37].
The CMC establishes a concentration threshold for emulsifier efficacy; surfactants with lower CMC values will solubilize hydrophobic solutes at lower surfactant concentrations compared to those with higher CMC values; therefore, applications of industrial surfactants are often based on their CMC values [38].
The CMC obtained in this study was better than the value of 2.4 g/L reported for sodium dodecyl sulfate by Verza et al. [39], and higher than the CMC reported for Chenopodium quinoa saponin extract, with values between 0.39 and 0.37 g/L (purity and extraction process are not available). The variation among these findings can primarily be attributed to the purity of the extract (42% in this study). This relationship is supported by Mitra and Dungan [38], who found that the CMCs of different commercial Quillaja saponins from Sigma Chemical Co, Acros Organics B.V.B.A. (St. Louis, MO, USA), and Penco of Lyndhurst Inc. (Lyndhurst, NJ, USA) were 0.51, 0.70, and 0.72 g/L, respectively. This indicates that a higher-purity saponin fraction corresponds to a lower CMC, whereas lower-grade saponin fractions exhibit higher CMC values [38].
Moreover, the lowest surface tension reached by the SE was 49.10 mN/m, which is higher than that of commercial surfactants such as SDS (35.6 mN/m) and Tween 80 (41.7 mN/m), as reported by Chen et al. [40]. However, in the same study, the authors achieved a reduction in water surface tension from 72 mN/m to 50.0 mN/m by employing saponins extracted from the defatted seed meal of Camellia oleifera with 39.5% purity (CMC: 1 g/L). These results were very similar to those achieved in this study concerning the CMC, purity of the saponin extract, and reduction in surface tension. Based on these findings, the SE studied could have potential in detergent formulation.

2.3. Determination of Emulsifying Index

The emulsifying index (EI) of the SE was evaluated in hydrophobic substrates (sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil) and organic solvents (kerosene, lubricating oil, petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, hexane) at a saponin concentration of 2.79 g/L, considering their good tensioactive activity at this concentration, and the results are shown in Table 1 and Figure 2.
These results indicate that the saponin extract formed efficient and stable emulsions when mixed with kerosene (EI24 = 57.58%), lubricating oil (EI24 = 60.61%), sunflower oil (EI24 = 57.06%), corn oil (EI24 = 57.86%), soybean oil (EI24 = 55.627%), and hexane (EI24 = 51.587%). In all these emulsions, the EI24 values were higher than 50%, which is considered stable. Additionally, a statistical study using the Multiple Range (Duncan) test revealed that there was no significant difference between the EI24 of SE with kerosene, sunflower oil, and corn oil compared to lubricating oil, soybean oil, petroleum ether, and hexane, revealing lubricating oil as the best organic solvent for forming emulsions with the SE at 42% purity. These results indicate the emulsifying ability of SE in its interaction with highly hydrophobic materials such as aliphatic (hexane), mixtures containing long-chain and aromatic hydrocarbons (kerosene and lubricating oil), and some vegetable oils of saturated and unsaturated C18 chains (sunflower, corn, and soybean oil). On the other hand, SE mixtures with petroleum ether and ethyl acetate resulted in EI24 values of 37.04% and 0%, respectively.
Additionally, the EI24 values in the oils were better than those obtained by Bezerra et al. [41] when evaluating the EI24 of Chenopodium quinoa saponins with coconut, sunflower, and grape oil, reaching values between 41% and 51% when evaluated at saponin concentrations of 3.3–6 g/L. The difference between these EI results could be associated with purity. For example, in the study of Sotomayor-Gerding [42], pure saponin from Chenopodium quinoa at 1.9 g/L was used as a natural emulsifier with canola oil, reaching an emulsion index (EI) of around 100% in the first three days.
Nevertheless, EI72 differed from EI24, and the combination of SE with lubricating oil lost stability at 72 h, decreasing to 50.43%. This instability led to kerosene, sunflower oil, corn oil, and soybean oil being identified as the best substrates for emulsification with SE. It is important to note that the EI for kerosene, sunflower oil, corn oil, and soybean oil did not show significant differences at 72 h, as confirmed by the Duncan Test. Our current work highlights the stability of emulsions using saponins from Chenopodium quinoa when working with vegetable oils over time, which directs our focus toward studying saponin extract for detergent applications. Therefore, they represent potential candidates for use in various industries such as petrochemicals, food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics.

2.4. Experimental Design for Optimization of Emulsifying and Tensioactive Properties

The effect of variables such as temperature, pH, and salinity on surface tension and the emulsification index were evaluated through a Box–Behnken design, and the results are shown in Table 2. As observed, the surface tension was in the range of 49.01–51.33 mN/m, reaching the lowest surface tension at the central point (60 °C, salinity of 100,000 ppm, and pH of 7), and the emulsification indexes were in the range of 30–67.5%, with highest value in run 13 (60 °C, salinity of 150,000 ppm, and pH of 12).
The statistical significance of the quadratic empirical model and the effect of each factor on surface tension were assessed by performing an ANOVA test (Table 3). The model was reduced by removing from it insignificant terms (p > 0.05), except if required for model hierarchy. As shown in Table 3, the model (Equation (1)) was significant at a 95% confidence level, and it had a high R-squared value of 0.94. The set of the mathematical model was confirmed by the p-value (<0.0001), F-value (28.85), and non-significant lack-of-fit test (p-value > 0.05) at a confidence level of 95%. For the surface tension, the p-value indicated that both pH and salinity had a significant effect on surface tension, with temperature’s effect represented by a quadratic term in the model (Figure 3).
ST (mN/m) = 50.41 + 0.004A − 0.05B + 0.00002C − 1.43 × 10−6 AC + 0.0004B2
where ST = surface tension, A = pH, B = temperature, and C = salinity.
For the emulsification index, an ANOVA test was also performed, with the results presented in Table 4. As shown in the table, the model (Equation (2)) was significant at a 95% confidence level, and it had an R-squared value of 0.85. The set of the model was also confirmed by the p-value (0.019), F-value (5.54), and non-significant lack-of-fit test (p-value > 0.05) at a confidence level of 95%. In the case of the emulsification index, the p-values for pH, salinity, and temperature were higher than 0.05, and therefore did not have a significant effect on the emulsification index; however, the coefficient for pH (2.52) showed a direct influence on the response variable (EI24). Moreover, the coefficient of the variables suggests that pH had a greater influence on the emulsification index than salinity and temperature (Figure 4A–C).
EI (%)= 62.47 − 1.49A + 0.36B − 1.93 × 10−4 C + 0.10AB − 0.27A² − 8.74 × 10−3 B²
where EI = emulsification index, A = pH, B = temperature, and C = salinity.
The response variables were optimized to maximize the emulsification index and to minimize the surface tension. The optimized conditions were a pH of 9.05, a temperature of 66 °C, and salinity of 10,000 ppm for NaCl. Under these conditions, the quadratic models predicted a surface tension of 48.94 ± 0.24 mN/m and an EI24 of 67.95 ± 5.87% (average ±95% confidence interval). The predicted values were validated experimentally, yielding a surface tension of 49.02 ± 2.45 mN/m and an EI24 of 63 ± 3.15%.
The obtained results are in concordance with those reported in the literature, e.g., the effect of pH on the surface tension properties of saponins from Quillaja saponaria showed that for all concentrations of saponin studied, and at pH values below and above their pKa (pH 3 and 7), a reduction in interfacial tension was achieved, which explains why in our study, we had better results (less surface tension) when we worked with higher pH [43]. Also, the highest reduction in CMC values from Agave sisalana saponins was reached when the values of pH were in the range of 10–11 with temperatures around 55–60 °C and a saline concentration from 20 to 60 ppm [44]. Moreover, the effect of salinity exhibited similar behavior to that reported by Nowrouzi et al. [45], who studied interfacial tension reduction using extracted saponin from the Anabasis Setifera plant. In their work, the surfactant performed effectively at different salinities of injection water, with lower salinity resulting in smaller interfacial tension.
The behavior of the EI concurs with the results reported by Sotomayor-Gerding et al. [42] when they evaluated Quillaja saponaria and Chenopodium quinoa saponins as natural emulsifiers in the formation of astaxanthin-enriched canola oil emulsions; the emulsifications obtained were stable over a wide range of pH values (4–10) but exhibited particle aggregation at lower pH and salt conditions and high temperatures.

2.5. Results of the Detergency Test

A detergency test was performed, and the results are shown in Figure 5. As seen in Figure 5 for palm oil swatches, the maximum washing performance for formulated saponin extract was reached in the wool weave (51.65 ± 3.82%), with a value not significantly different from that denoting the washing performance of commercial detergent for wool weave (44.98 ± 0.23%). Additionally, acetate and acrylic weaves did not present a significant difference between the washing performance of commercial detergent and the saponin extract either. However, for cotton and polyester weaves, there was a significant difference between the commercial detergent and the saponin extract, which showed lower washing performance, although the values were closer. The detergency reached was also similar to that observed by Yang et al. [46] for saponins from the pericarp of Sapindus mukorossi. The authors reported a total saponin content in crude saponin extract of 85% (w/w) and a remotion of sebum using saponin extract of 60%.
For coffee swatches, all the weaves (acetate, cotton, polyester, acrylic, and wool) presented significant differences between the commercial detergent (CD) and the saponin formulate (SED). For the detergency test in coffee swatches, the saponin extract showed a better yield in the acetate weave (98.63 ± 2.07%) than the commercial detergent (93.96 ± 0.13%), with a significant difference. For the other weaves (cotton, polyester, acrylic, and wool), the commercial detergent showed better efficiency in removing coffee stains compared to saponin extract; however, SED exhibited a good percentage of detergency (above 65.15%), indicating the potential of the saponin extract as a detergent.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Material and Chemicals

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) residue powder, containing 26% saponin, was kindly provided by a local company (Arequipa, Peru). This powder was obtained through the mechanical scarification of quinoa grains, with a particular emphasis on grains with high saponin content. All other chemicals utilized were of analytical grade and sourced from Merck & Co., Inc. (New York, NY, USA).

3.2. Saponin Extract from Quinoa Powder

The saponin was extracted from quinoa powder residues using a hydrodynamic cavitation (HC) system with 10 L of volume work. The HC system was equipped with a centrifugal pump, valvules, a cavitation device (based on the combination of an orifice plate and a venturi tube), and a recirculation tank [47]. The experiment of extraction was performed using 800 g of powder with 7 L of water, and the operation conditions were 2 bar of inlet pressure for 15 min, with the temperature maintained below 50 °C. Following the hydrodynamic cavitation (HC) process, solid particles in the extract were precipitated at a pH of 4.5 and adjusted using 0.5 N H2SO4. The supernatant was then recovered and subjected to ultrafiltration using a ceramic crossflow filtration module obtained from Inopor® (Scheßlitz, Germany), equipped with a tubular ceramic membrane with a 30 nm pore size (length of 25 cm, channel diameter of 7 mm, and outer diameter of 10 mm), to obtain a concentrated extract. This concentrated extract was mixed with methanol in a 1:1 ratio, resulting in the precipitation of the insoluble fraction. Subsequently, the liquid fraction was recovered and evaporated using a rotary evaporator, resulting in an extract with a high concentration of saponin, referred to as saponin extract (SE).

3.3. Analysis of Saponin Extract

The saponin extract was analyzed regarding saponin, total phenolic compounds, reducing sugars, and protein content. The saponin content was measured according to the method reported by Hiai et al. [48]. Oleanolic acid (OA) was used as a standard, the absorbance was measured at 531 nm, and the results were expressed in mg of equivalent of OA per g of powder (mg EOA/g of powder). Total phenolic compounds (TPC) were measured following the Folin–Ciocalteu assay described by Singleton and Rossi [49]. Moreover, soluble proteins and reducing sugars were measured according to the procedure reported by Lowry and Miller [50,51], respectively.

3.4. Surface Tension and Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC)

The surface tension (ST) of the crude saponin extract was measured at different concentrations (0.08–178.68 g/L). The analysis was performed at room temperature using a force tensiometer Krüss K20, KRÜSS Scientific (Hamburg, Germany). The critical micelle concentration (CMC) was determined by plotting the ST (mN/m) as a function of the SE concentration (g/L). All tests were performed in triplicate.

3.5. Emulsifying Properties of Saponin Extract

The emulsification index (EI) of the saponin extract (SE) was analyzed following the method proposed by Cooper and Goldenberg [52]. The emulsifying properties of SE, using 1 mL of SE with a saponin concentration of 2.79 g/L and 1 mL of various oils (sunflower oil, corn oil, soy oil) or organic solvents (kerosene, lubricating oil, petroleum ether, ethyl acetate, hexane). The mixtures of SE with hydrophobic substrates or organic solvents were vigorously shaken for 2 min and then allowed to stand for up to 72 h. EI measurements were conducted at 24 h (EI24), 48 h (EI48), and 72 h (EI72). All tests were performed in triplicate.

3.6. Effect of Temperature, pH, and Salinity on Emulsifying and Tensioactive Properties of Saponin Extract

The effects of temperature (30–90 °C), pH (2–12), and salinity (10–150 g/L of NaCl) on the response variables, such as the emulsification index, after 24 h (EI24) and the tensioactive properties (ST) were evaluated using a Box–Behnken design. All experiments were carried out using 10 mL of saponin extract containing 2.79 g/L of saponin. The minimum and maximum values for each parameter were fixed according to the previously reported studies [38,45,53,54].
The emulsifying properties were evaluated using kerosene, and the experiment was performed in triplicate according to the method described in Section 2.5. The surface tension values of the saponin extract in different conditions according to the experimental design were measured at room temperature in a force tensiometer (Kruss K20, Hamburg, Germany) as described in Section 2.4.

3.7. Detergency Test

The washing performance of the SE and a commercial detergent was determined via a detergency test (%) according to the procedure reported by Maurad et al. [55] and Tanthakit et al. [56]. The test was carried out using 25 mL of SE at 2.79 g/L, under pre-optimized conditions (pH 9.05 and 10,000 ppm of NaCl), with a multifiber test #10 comprising six different types of weaves (acetate, cotton, nylon, polyester, acrylic, wool) stained with substances of vegetal origin (coffee) and fat origin (palm oil) under representative washing conditions (300 rpm for 30 min).
To compare the effectiveness of SE in removing stains, controls with a commercial detergent and only water were also evaluated. Moreover, a target containing only the saponin extract with the band of weaves was prepared due to its orange color, which could affect the results obtained. For the commercial detergent, a new band of weaves was analyzed as its target.
Detergency performance was calculated using Equation (3) and it was determined by the reflectance measurement of the samples in a colorimeter (Colormate, Scinco Co., Ltd., São Paulo, Brazil).
D (%) = [(A − B) (C0 − B)] × 100
where C0 = the reflectance measurements of the unsoiled swatches, A = the post-wash soiled swatches’ reflectance, B = the pre-wash soiled swatches’ reflectance, and D = detergency performance.

3.8. AI-Assisted Tool

During the preparation of this work, the authors used ChatGPT 4.0 (https://chatgpt.com/) in order to improve only the readability and language. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

4. Conclusions

The present study evaluated the tensioactive and emulsification properties of saponin extract obtained from residues of a milling process of Chenopodium quinoa before human consumption. Both properties were successfully assessed using a Box–Behnken design (optimized conditions of 66 °C, 10,000 ppm of NaCl, and pH 9.05) and then proven as an effective detergent in the removal of vegetable and fat stains in different weaves, achieving a good percentage of detergency closer or even higher than that reached by a commercial detergent. The results reported here are promising because they show the viability of saponin extract as a biosurfactant and the potential industrial applications of these bio-based products.

Author Contributions

K.A.G.B.: Writing—Original Draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Data Curation, Conceptualization. S.S.M.: Methodology, Investigation, Writing—Review and Editing, Visualization. S.S.d.S.: Writing—Review and Editing, Data Curation. M.A.D.F.A.: Investigation, Formal Analysis, Data Curation. J.C.d.S.: Writing—Review and Editing, Methodology. G.J.C.A.: Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing. R.T.H.: Writing—original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Data Curation, Conceptualization, Writing—Review and Editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica (CONCYTEC) and Programa Nacional de Investigación Científica y Estudios Avanzados (PROCIENCIA)—Perú. Grant N° PE501086190-2024.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The findings of this research are supported by data from the corresponding author, K.A.G.B., which are available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank ChatGPT (https://chatgpt.com/), an AI language model developed by OpenAI, for its assistance in improving only the readability and language of this manuscript. The authors thank Annie Challco Hihui for her support in determining the CMC of the saponin extract.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Camacho-Muñoz, D.; Martín, J.; Santos, J.L.; Aparicio, I.; Alonso, E. Occurrence of Surfactants in Wastewater: Hourly and Seasonal Variations in Urban and Industrial Wastewaters from Seville (Southern Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 977–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bautista-Toledo, M.I.; Rivera-Utrilla, J.; Méndez-Díaz, J.D.; Sánchez-Polo, M.; Carrasco-Marín, F. Removal of the Surfactant Sodium Dodecylbenzenesulfonate from Water by Processes Based on Adsorption/Bioadsorption and Biodegradation. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2014, 418, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mungray, A.K.; Kumar, P. Fate of Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonates in the Environment: A Review. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2009, 63, 981–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moura, A.G.L.; Centurion, V.B.; Okada, D.Y.; Motteran, F.; Delforno, T.P.; Oliveira, V.M.; Varesche, M.B.A. Laundry Wastewater and Domestic Sewage Pilot-Scale Anaerobic Treatment: Microbial Community Resilience Regarding Sulfide Production. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 251, 109495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Makkar, R.S.; Cameotra, S.S.; Banat, I.M. Advances in Utilization of Renewable Substrates for Biosurfactant Production. AMB Express 2011, 1, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Banat, I.M.; Makkar, R.S.; Cameotra, S.S. Potential Commercial Applications of Microbial Surfactants. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2000, 53, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Collivignarelli, M.C.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Baldi, M.; Manzi, S.; Abbà, A.; Bertanza, G. Removal of Non-Ionic and Anionic Surfactants from Real Laundry Wastewater by Means of a Full-Scale Treatment System. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 132, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ramprasad, C.; Philip, L. Surfactants and Personal Care Products Removal in Pilot Scale Horizontal and Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands While Treating Greywater. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 284, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hao, M.; Qiu, M.; Yang, H.; Hu, B.; Wang, X. Recent Advances on Preparation and Environmental Applications of MOF-Derived Carbons in Catalysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 760, 143333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yao, L.; Yang, H.; Chen, Z.; Qiu, M.; Hu, B.; Wang, X. Bismuth Oxychloride-Based Materials for the Removal of Organic Pollutants in Wastewater. Chemosphere 2021, 273, 128576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, Q.; Chen, Z.; Wang, H.; Yang, H.; Wen, T.; Wang, S.; Hu, B.; Wang, X. Removal of Organic Compounds by Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron and Its Composites. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 792, 148546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Liu, X.; Ma, R.; Zhuang, L.; Hu, B.; Chen, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, X. Recent Developments of Doped G-C3N4 Photocatalysts for the Degradation of Organic Pollutants. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 51, 751–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Badmus, S.O.; Amusa, H.K.; Oyehan, T.A.; Saleh, T.A. Environmental Risks and Toxicity of Surfactants: Overview of Analysis, Assessment, and Remediation Techniques. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 62085–62104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jarzębski, M.; Smułek, W.; Siejak, P.; Kobus-Cisowska, J.; Pieczyrak, D.; Baranowska, H.M.; Jakubowicz, J.; Sopata, M.; Białopiotrowicz, T.; Kaczorek, E. Aesculus hippocastanum L. Extract as a Potential Emulsion Stabilizer. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 97, 105237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Clien, S.Y.; Lu, W.B.; Wei, Y.H.; Chen, W.M.; Chang, J.S. Improved Production of Biosurfactant with Newly Isolated Pseudomonas aeruginosa S2. Biotechnol. Prog. 2007, 23, 661–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Santos, D.K.F.; Rufino, R.D.; Luna, J.M.; Santos, V.A.; Sarubbo, L.A. Biosurfactants: Multifunctional Biomolecules of the 21st Century. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Patel, M.K.; Theiß, A.; Worrell, E. Surfactant Production and Use in Germany: Resource Requirements and CO2 Emissions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 1999, 25, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Saravanakumari, P.; Mani, K. Structural Characterization of a Novel Xylolipid Biosurfactant from Lactococcus Lactis and Analysis of Antibacterial Activity against Multi-Drug Resistant Pathogens. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Böttcher, S.; Drusch, S. Interfacial Properties of Saponin Extracts and Their Impact on Foam Characteristics. Food Biophys. 2016, 11, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kuljanabhagavad, T.; Wink, M. Biological Activities and Chemistry of Saponins from Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Phytochem. Rev. 2009, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gordillo-Bastidas, E.; Díaz-Rizzolo, D.A.; Roura, E.; Massanés, T.; Gomis, R. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd), from Nutritional Value to Potential Health Benefits: An Integrative Review. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kimura, E.; Islam, M.A. Seed Scarification Methods and Their Use in Forage Legumes. Res. J. Seed Sci. 2012, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ciaciuch, A.; Wejnerowska, G.; Gozdecka, G. Mechanical Scarification of Quinoa Seeds (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) and Obtaining Oil from the Seed Coat by Supercritical CO2 Extraction. Carpathian J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gavrila, A.I.; Tatia, R.; Seciu-Grama, A.M.; Tarcomnicu, I.; Negrea, C.; Calinescu, I.; Zalaru, C.; Moldovan, L.; Raiciu, A.D.; Popa, I. Ultrasound Assisted Extraction of Saponins from Hedera helix L. and an In Vitro Biocompatibility Evaluation of the Extracts. Pharmaceuticals 2022, 15, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Espinoza, C.R.; Ruiz, C.A.J.; Ramos, O.P.F.; Solano, M.A.Q.; Quiñonez, G.H.; Mallma, N.E.S. Optimization of the Ultrasoud-Assisted Extraction of Saponins from Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild) Using Response Surface Methodology. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2021, 20, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, H.; Zhai, B.; Sun, J.; Fan, Y.; Zou, J.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, X.; Shi, Y.; Guo, D. Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Total Saponins from Aralia Taibaiensis: Process Optimization, Phytochemical Characterization, and Mechanism of α-Glucosidase Inhibition. Drug Des. Devel Ther. 2022, 16, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nuzzo, D.; Cristaldi, L.; Sciortino, M.; Albanese, L.; Scurria, A.; Zabini, F.; Lino, C.; Pagliaro, M.; Meneguzzo, F.; Di Carlo, M.; et al. Exceptional Antioxidant, Non-Cytotoxic Activity of Integral Lemon Pectin from Hydrodynamic Cavitation. ChemistrySelect 2020, 5, 5066–5071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Panda, D.; Manickam, S. Cavitation Technology—The Future of Greener Extraction Method: A Review on the Extraction of Natural Products and Process Intensification Mechanism and Perspectives. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Grillo, G.; Boffa, L.; Binello, A.; Mantegna, S.; Cravotto, G.; Chemat, F.; Dizhbite, T.; Lauberte, L.; Telysheva, G. Cocoa Bean Shell Waste Valorisation; Extraction from Lab to Pilot-Scale Cavitational Reactors. Food Res. Int. 2019, 115, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Meneguzzo, F.; Brunetti, C.; Fidalgo, A.; Ciriminna, R.; Delisi, R.; Albanese, L.; Zabini, F.; Gori, A.; Nascimento, L.B.d.S.; De Carlo, A.; et al. Real-Scale Integral Valorization of Waste Orange Peel via Hydrodynamic Cavitation. Processes 2019, 7, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Terán Hilares, R.; dos Santos, J.G.; Shiguematsu, N.B.; Ahmed, M.A.; da Silva, S.S.; Santos, J.C. Low-Pressure Homogenization of Tomato Juice Using Hydrodynamic Cavitation Technology: Effects on Physical Properties and Stability of Bioactive Compounds. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 54, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Arya, S.S.; More, P.R.; Das, T.; Hilares, R.T.; Pereira, B.; Arantes, V.; da Silva, S.S.; Santos, J.C. dos Effect of Hydrodynamic Cavitation Processing on Orange Juice Physicochemical and Nutritional Properties. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lozano, M.; Tícona, E.; Carrasco, C.; Flores, Y.; Almanza, G.R. Cuantificación de Saponinas en Residuos de Quinua Real Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Rev. Boliv. Química 2012, 29, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cazals, F.; Huguenot, D.; Crampon, M.; Colombano, S.; Betelu, S.; Galopin, N.; Perrault, A.; Simonnot, M.O.; Ignatiadis, I.; Rossano, S. Production of Biosurfactant Using the Endemic Bacterial Community of a PAHs Contaminated Soil, and Its Potential Use for PAHs Remobilization. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 709, 136143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ramesh, M.; Sakthishobana, K. Significance of Biosurfactants in Oil Recovery and Bioremediation of Crude Oil. In Green Sustainable Process for Chemical and Environmental Engineering and Science: Biosurfactants for the Bioremediation of Polluted Environments; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sheppard, J.D.; Mulligan, C.N. The Production of Surfactin by Bacillus Subtilis Grown on Peat Hydrolysate. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1987, 27, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Meshram, P.D.; Shingade, S.; Madankar, C.S. Comparative Study of Saponin for Surfactant Properties and Potential Application in Personal Care Products. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 5010–5013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mitra, S.; Dungan, S.R. Micellar Properties of Quillaja saponin. 1. Effects of Temperature, Salt, and PH on Solution Properties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Verza, S.G.; De Resende, P.E.; Kaiser, S.; Quirici, L.; Teixeira, H.F.; Gosmann, G.; Ferreira, F.; Ortega, G.G. Micellar Aggregates of Saponins from Chenopodium quinoa: Characterization by Dynamic Light Scattering and Transmission Electron Microscopy. Pharmazie 2012, 67, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, Y.F.; Yang, C.H.; Chang, M.S.; Ciou, Y.P.; Huang, Y.C. Foam Properties and Detergent Abilities of the Saponins from Camellia oleifera. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 4417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bezerra, K.G.O.; Durvala, I.J.B.; Silva, I.A.; Almeida, F.C.G.; Melo, Y.T.F.; Rufino, R.D.; Sarubbo, L.A. Emulsifying Capacity of Biosurfactants from Chenopodium quinoa and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Ucp 0992 with Focus of Application in the Cosmetic Industry. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2020, 79, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sotomayor-Gerding, D.; Morales, E.; Rubilar, M. Comparison between Quinoa and Quillaja saponins in the Formation, Stability and Digestibility of Astaxanthin-Canola Oil Emulsions. Colloids Interfaces 2022, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ulaganathan, V.; Del Castillo, L.; Webber, J.L.; Ho, T.T.M.; Ferri, J.K.; Krasowska, M.; Beattie, D.A. The Influence of PH on the Interfacial Behaviour of Quillaja Bark Saponin at the Air-Solution Interface. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2019, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ribeiro, B.D.; Alviano, D.S.; Barreto, D.W.; Coelho, M.A.Z. Functional Properties of Saponins from Sisal (Agave sisalana) and Juá (Ziziphus joazeiro): Critical Micellar Concentration, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activities. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2013, 436, 736–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nowrouzi, I.; Mohammadi, A.H.; Manshad, A.K. Water-Oil Interfacial Tension (IFT) Reduction and Wettability Alteration in Surfactant Flooding Process Using Extracted Saponin from Anabasis Setifera Plant. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yang, C.H.; Huang, Y.C.; Chen, Y.F.; Chang, M.H. Foam Properties, Detergent Abilities and Long-Term Preservative Efficacy of the Saponins from Sapindus mukorossi. J. Food Drug Anal. 2010, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Flores Alarcón, M.A.D.; Arenas Jarro, R.Y.; Ahmed, M.A.; García Bustos, K.A.; Pacheco Tanaka, D.A.; Terán Hilares, R. Intensification of Red-G Dye Degradation Used in the Dyeing of Alpaca Wool by Advanced Oxidation Processes Assisted by Hydrodynamic Cavitation. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2022, 89, 106144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hiai, S.; Oura, H.; Hamanaka, H.; Odaka, Y. A Color Reaction of Panaxadiol with Vanillin and Sulfuric Acid. Planta Med. 1975, 28, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Makkar, H. Quantification of Tannins in Tree Foliage: A Laboratory Manual for the FAO/IAEA Co-Ordinated Research Project on Use of Nuclear and Related Techniques to Develop Simple Tannin Assays for Predicting and Improving the Safety and Efficiency of Feeding Ruminants on the Tanniferous Tree Foliage. Jt. FAO/IAEA Div. Nucl. Tech. Food Agric. 2000, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  50. Miller, G.L. Use of Dinitrosalicylic Acid Reagent for Determination of Reducing Sugar. Anal. Chem. 1959, 31, 426–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lowry, O.H.; Rosebrough, N.J.; Farr, A.L.; Randall, R.J. Assay of Protein. J. Biol. Chem. 1951, 193, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cooper, D.G.; Goldenberg, B.G. Surface-Active Agents from Two Bacillus Species. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1987, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zhuniskenov, Y.; Sabirova, A.; Serikov, G.; Abbas, A.H.; Pourafshary, P. Impact of the Naturally Driven Surfactant in EOR Application: Experimental, Microscopic, and Numerical Analyses. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Azdarpour, A.; Norouzpour, M.; Nabipour, M.; Santos, R.M.; Mohammadian, E. Efficiency of the Green Surfactant Derived from Avena Sativa Plant in the Presence of Different Salts for EOR Purposes. J. GeoEnergy 2023, 9998466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Maurad, Z.A.; Ghazali, R.; Siwayanan, P.; Ismail, Z.; Ahmad, S. Alpha-Sulfonated Methyl Ester as an Active Ingredient in Palm-Based Powder Detergents. J. Surfactants Deterg. 2006, 9, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Tanthakit, P.; Ratchatawetchakul, P.; Chavadej, S.; Scamehorn, J.F.; Sabatini, D.A.; Tongcumpou, C. Palm Oil Removal from Fabric Using Microemulsion-Based Formulations. J. Surfactants Deterg. 2010, 13, 485–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Molecules 29 04928 g001
Figure 1. Surface tension evaluation at different saponin extract concentrations.
Figure 1. Surface tension evaluation at different saponin extract concentrations.
Molecules 29 04928 g001
Molecules 29 04928 g002
Figure 2. The emulsification index after 24 h. a,b,c,d,f Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to a Duncan test.
Figure 2. The emulsification index after 24 h. a,b,c,d,f Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to a Duncan test.
Molecules 29 04928 g002
Molecules 29 04928 g003
Figure 3. Effect of variables on surface tension. (A) pH vs. temperature, (B) pH vs. salinity, and (C) salinity vs. temperature. In each figure, graphic was constructed considering central point of third variable.
Figure 3. Effect of variables on surface tension. (A) pH vs. temperature, (B) pH vs. salinity, and (C) salinity vs. temperature. In each figure, graphic was constructed considering central point of third variable.
Molecules 29 04928 g003
Molecules 29 04928 g004
Figure 4. Effect variables on emulsification index obtained using saponin extract. (A) Temperature vs. pH, (B) salinity vs. pH, and (C) salinity vs. temperature. In each figure, graphic was constructed considering central point of third variable.
Figure 4. Effect variables on emulsification index obtained using saponin extract. (A) Temperature vs. pH, (B) salinity vs. pH, and (C) salinity vs. temperature. In each figure, graphic was constructed considering central point of third variable.
Molecules 29 04928 g004
Molecules 29 04928 g005
Figure 5. Detergency test. (A) Saponin extract (SE) and commercial detergent in palm oil swatches, and (B) SE and commercial detergent in coffee swatches. a–j Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Duncan test.
Figure 5. Detergency test. (A) Saponin extract (SE) and commercial detergent in palm oil swatches, and (B) SE and commercial detergent in coffee swatches. a–j Bars with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to Duncan test.
Molecules 29 04928 g005
Table 1. Emulsification index of saponin extract after 24, 48, and 72 h with different substrates.
Table 1. Emulsification index of saponin extract after 24, 48, and 72 h with different substrates.
SubstrateEmulsification Index After Different Times (h)
244872
Kerosene57.58 ± 2.62 a 54.88 ± 0.58 a53.79 ± 1.31 a
Lubricating oil60.61 ± 2.62 b52.46 ± 2.50 b50.43 ± 0.74 b
Sunflower oil57.07 ± 2.52 a55.48 ± 1.85 c53.12 ± 2.41 a
Corn oil57.86 ± 3.32 a54.25 ± 1.74 a53.49 ± 2.33 a
Soybean oil55.63 ± 1.91 c54.32 ± 0.59 a53.22 ± 1.54 a
Petroleum ether37.04 ± 3.21 d53.82 ± 1.25 a37.52 ± 1.18 c
Ethyl acetate0.00 ± 0.00 e0.00 ± 0.00 d0.00 ± 0.00 d
Hexane51.59 ± 1.36 f49.07 ± 1.60 e58.75 ± 0.72 e
The reported value corresponds to the average of triplicate experiments ± standard deviation (SD). a,b,c,d,e,f Means within a column with the same letter are not significantly different (p > 0.05) according to a Duncan test.
Table 2. Surface tension and emulsification index obtained in experimental runs.
Table 2. Surface tension and emulsification index obtained in experimental runs.
RunExperimental VariablesResponse Variables
pHTemperature
(°C)		Salinity
(ppm) 		Surface Tension (mN/m)Emulsification Index (%)
1129080,00049.5767.50
229080,00050.4234.00
373010,00049.2261.00
476080,00049.4963.50
5790150,00051.0449.50
6730150,00050.966.30
7260150,00051.3353.10
876080,00049.6664.00
976080,00049.7659.00
1079010,00049.0858.70
1123080,00050.5254.70
1226010,00049.3361.00
131260150,00049.0164.70
14123080,00049.6130.00
15126010,00049.0160.80
Table 3. ANOVA for surface tension.
Table 3. ANOVA for surface tension.
SourceSum of SquaresDfMean SquareF-Valuep-Value
Model7.9651.5928.85<0.0001Significant
A—pH2.4212.4243.83<0.0001
B—Temperature0.0110.010.040.838
C—Salinity3.9813.9872.02<0.0001
AC11118.110.002
B²0.5710.5710.250.011
Residual0.5090.06
Lack of Fit0.4670.073.520.239not significant
Pure Error0.0420.02
Table 4. ANOVA for emulsification index (EI24).
Table 4. ANOVA for emulsification index (EI24).
SourceSum of SquaresDfMean SquareF-Valuep-Value
Model1525.759169.534.930.0469significant
A—pH511511.480.2778
B—Temperature0.6610.660.0190.8952
C—Salinity7.817.80.230.6541
AB846.811846.8124.610.0042
A²172.621172.625.020.0752
B²228.251228.256.630.0497
C²111.191111.193.230.1322
Residual172.07534.41
Lack of Fit161.95353.9810.660.087not significant
Pure Error10.1325.06
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bustos, K.A.G.; Muñoz, S.S.; da Silva, S.S.; Alarcon, M.A.D.F.; dos Santos, J.C.; Andrade, G.J.C.; Hilares, R.T. Saponin Molecules from Quinoa Residues: Exploring Their Surfactant, Emulsifying, and Detergent Properties. Molecules 2024, 29, 4928. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29204928

AMA Style

Bustos KAG, Muñoz SS, da Silva SS, Alarcon MADF, dos Santos JC, Andrade GJC, Hilares RT. Saponin Molecules from Quinoa Residues: Exploring Their Surfactant, Emulsifying, and Detergent Properties. Molecules. 2024; 29(20):4928. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29204928

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bustos, Kiara A. García, Salvador Sanchez Muñoz, Silvio S. da Silva, Miguel A. D. Flores Alarcon, Júlio C. dos Santos, Gilberto J. Colina Andrade, and Ruly Terán Hilares. 2024. "Saponin Molecules from Quinoa Residues: Exploring Their Surfactant, Emulsifying, and Detergent Properties" Molecules 29, no. 20: 4928. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29204928

APA Style

Bustos, K. A. G., Muñoz, S. S., da Silva, S. S., Alarcon, M. A. D. F., dos Santos, J. C., Andrade, G. J. C., & Hilares, R. T. (2024). Saponin Molecules from Quinoa Residues: Exploring Their Surfactant, Emulsifying, and Detergent Properties. Molecules, 29(20), 4928. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29204928

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop