Correction: Gómez-Cruz et al. Valorisation of Exhausted Olive Pomace by an Eco-Friendly Solvent Extraction Process of Natural Antioxidants. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1010
by
, , and
Irene Gómez-Cruz
1,2
,
Cristóbal Cara
1,2,
Inmaculada Romero
1,2,*,
Eulogio Castro
1,2 and
Beatriz Gullón
3 1
Centre for Advanced Studies in Earth Sciences, Energy and Environment (CEACTEMA), Campus Las Lagunillas, Universidad de Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain
2
Department of Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, Campus Las Lagunillas, Universidad de Jaén, 23071 Jaén, Spain
3
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Science, University of Vigo (Campus Ourense), As Lagoas, 32004 Ourense, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antioxidants 2021, 10(6), 948; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060948
Submission received: 11 May 2021
/
Revised: 25 May 2021
/
Accepted: 25 May 2021
/
Published: 11 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intensification Technologies to Efficiently Extract Antioxidants from Agro-Food Residues)
The author wishes to make the following correction to this paper [1].
In the original article, there was a mistake in the calculation of the antioxidant activity measured by ABTS assay for runs of the experimental design (Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 and Figure 2b). All values of ABTS corresponding to the experimental design of the aqueous extraction have been corrected by multiplying by 0.626.
The authors apologise for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated.
Reference
- Gómez-Cruz, I.; Cara, C.; Romero, I.; Castro, E.; Gullón, B. Valorisation of Exhausted Olive Pomace by an Eco-Friendly Solvent Extraction Process of Natural Antioxidants. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 2.
Response surfaces for (a) DPPH (b) ABTS, and (c) ferric reducing power (FRAP) assays as a function of temperature and solid loading (extraction time: 60 min).
Figure 2.
Response surfaces for (a) DPPH (b) ABTS, and (c) ferric reducing power (FRAP) assays as a function of temperature and solid loading (extraction time: 60 min).
Table 3.
Box–Benhken experimental design in terms of actual and coded factors applied to the aqueous extraction conditions and experimental values of the response variables.
Table 3.
Box–Benhken experimental design in terms of actual and coded factors applied to the aqueous extraction conditions and experimental values of the response variables.
| Run | T | t | B | Yield (%) | Phenolic Concentration (g/L) | TPC (mg GAE/g EOP) | TFC (mg RE/g EOP) | DPPH (mg TE/g EOP) | ABTS (mg TE/g EOP) | FRAP (mg TE/g EOP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 (−1) | 60 (0) | 25 (1) | 28.7 | 6.7 | 28.8 | 82.7 | 25.8 | 61.63 | 28.7 | |
| 2 | 55 (0) | 60 (0) | 15 (0) | 30.6 | 4.6 | 32.9 | 100.1 | 34.5 | 66.19 | 34.8 |
| 3 | 55 (0) | 30 (−1) | 25 (1) | 28.7 | 6.0 | 25.8 | 78.5 | 26.3 | 58.40 | 29.8 |
| 4 | 85 (1) | 90 (1) | 15 (0) | 34.5 | 5.2 | 37.0 | 106.6 | 42.1 | 89.40 | 43.7 |
| 5 | 55 (0) | 60 (0) | 15 (0) | 32.1 | 4.8 | 34.3 | 97.7 | 35.7 | 71.44 | 38.1 |
| 6 | 85 (1) | 60 (0) | 25 (1) | 33.6 | 7.4 | 31.7 | 94.6 | 26.6 | 73.88 | 39.4 |
| 7 | 85 (1) | 30 (−1) | 15 (0) | 32.0 | 4.7 | 33.4 | 104.5 | 39.7 | 77.87 | 40.9 |
| 8 | 55 (0) | 60 (0) | 15 (0) | 32.9 | 4.9 | 35.2 | 113.4 | 39.7 | 73.88 | 40.7 |
| 9 | 25 (−1) | 60 (0) | 5 (−1) | 27.7 | 1.4 | 38.0 | 148.7 | 44.1 | 72.44 | 37.6 |
| 10 | 55 (0) | 90 (1) | 25 (1) | 31.9 | 7.1 | 30.6 | 86.5 | 26.4 | 65.69 | 29.1 |
| 11 | 25 (−1) | 30 (−1) | 15 (0) | 26.9 | 3.6 | 25.8 | 90.7 | 31.4 | 58.44 | 25.1 |
| 12 | 55 (0) | 90 (1) | 5 (−1) | 35.6 | 2.0 | 43.6 | 155.6 | 46.4 | 81.31 | 41.6 |
| 13 | 55 (0) | 30 (−1) | 5 (−1) | 30.6 | 1.9 | 41.2 | 153.4 | 46.5 | 78.38 | 43.7 |
| 14 | 55 (0) | 60 (0) | 15 (0) | 32.1 | 4.9 | 34.9 | 104.2 | 36.9 | 74.81 | 35.1 |
| 15 | 85 (1) | 60 (0) | 5 (−1) | 33.2 | 1.9 | 41.2 | 157.6 | 49.2 | 87.81 | 42.3 |
| 16 | 25 (−1) | 90 (1) | 15 (0) | 29.9 | 4.2 | 29.7 | 95.6 | 33.6 | 67.69 | 30.9 |
| 17 | 55 (0) | 60 (0) | 15 (0) | 33.0 | 4.9 | 35.0 | 102.7 | 37.8 | 83.06 | 36.5 |
T: temperature (°C); t: extraction time (min); B: solid loading (%, w/v).
Table 4.
Mathematical models and coefficients for the responses using coded values.
| Dependent Variables | Models | CV (%) | R2 | Adjusted R2 | F-Value | Lack of Fit (p-Values) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extraction yield (%) | 31.9 + 2.52∙T + 1.67∙t − 1.07∙T2 (Equation (1)) | 2.63 | 0.902 | 0.875 | 33.71 | 0.762 |
| Phenolic concentration (g GAE/L) | 4.50 + 0.41∙T + 0.28∙t + 2.50∙B (Equation (2)) | 7.74 | 0.970 | 0.964 | 143.30 | 0.020 |
| TPC (mg GAE/g EOP) | 34.83 + 4.03∙T + 1.83∙t − 7.12∙B + 2.35∙T∙B − 3.03∙T2 (Equation (3)) | 2.76 | 0.979 | 0.967 | 83.44 | 0.486 |
| TFC (mg RE/g EOP) | 100.26 + 5.69∙T − 32.95∙B + 20.61∙B2 (Equation (4)) | 2.04 | 0.994 | 0.993 | 644.61 | 0.815 |
| DPPH (mg TE/g EOP) | 36.45 + 2.82∙T − 10.13∙B (Equation (5)) | 4.27 | 0.966 | 0.960 | 182.27 | 0.497 |
| ABTS (mg TE/g EOP) | 73.15 + 8.67∙T + 3.87∙t − 7.49∙B (Equation (6)) | 3.22 | 0.833 | 0.791 | 19.90 | 0.9413 |
| FRAP (mg TE/g EOP) | 37.08 + 5.40∙T − 5.50∙B (Equation (7)) | 5.69 | 0.861 | 0.838 | 37.27 | 0.743 |
Table 5.
Real and predicted values by the mathematical model for the responses.
| Predicted Values | Experimental Values | |
|---|---|---|
| Extraction yield (%) | 35.0 | 40.9 ± 0.54 |
| Phenolic concentration (g GAE/L) | 3.7 | 4.5 ± 0.03 |
| TPC (mg GAE/g EOP) | 40.5 | 44.5 ± 0.25 |
| TFC (mg RE/g EOP) | 132.4 | 114.9 ± 0.39 |
| DPPH (mg TE/g EOP) | 45.2 | 36.1 ± 0.36 |
| ABTS (mg TE/g EOP) | 89.5 | 95.4 ± 0.72 |
| FRAP (mg TE/g EOP) | 45.7 | 47.6 ± 0.24 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Gómez-Cruz, I.; Cara, C.; Romero, I.; Castro, E.; Gullón, B. Correction: Gómez-Cruz et al. Valorisation of Exhausted Olive Pomace by an Eco-Friendly Solvent Extraction Process of Natural Antioxidants. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1010. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060948
AMA Style
Gómez-Cruz I, Cara C, Romero I, Castro E, Gullón B. Correction: Gómez-Cruz et al. Valorisation of Exhausted Olive Pomace by an Eco-Friendly Solvent Extraction Process of Natural Antioxidants. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1010. Antioxidants. 2021; 10(6):948. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060948
Chicago/Turabian StyleGómez-Cruz, Irene, Cristóbal Cara, Inmaculada Romero, Eulogio Castro, and Beatriz Gullón. 2021. "Correction: Gómez-Cruz et al. Valorisation of Exhausted Olive Pomace by an Eco-Friendly Solvent Extraction Process of Natural Antioxidants. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 1010" Antioxidants 10, no. 6: 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10060948
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
