Advances in Eco‐Friendly Extraction of Fruit Bioactive Compounds: Technologies, Challenges and Future Directions

ABSTRACT

Fruit bioactive compounds such as polyphenols, carotenoids, vitamins and fibres provide important antioxidant, anti‐inflammatory and disease‐preventive benefits, but their extraction remains difficult due to poor solubility and the limitations of conventional methods that use toxic solvents, require high energy and often result in low yields. This review systematically examines both traditional and advanced extraction technologies, including membrane filtration, supercritical fluid extraction (SFE), pressurized liquid extraction, chromatographic techniques, micro‐ and nano‐separation and enzyme‐assisted processes, drawing on peer‐reviewed English literature from databases like Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed and Google Scholar using terms related to eco‐friendly extraction, fruit bioactive compounds and technologies such as ultrasound‐assisted extraction (UAE), microwave‐assisted extraction (MAE), SFE and natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES), supplemented by screening reference lists. Peer‐reviewed studies on green extraction methods, solvents, optimization strategies and sustainability were included, whereas non‐fruit matrices, insufficiently detailed studies and non‐peer‐reviewed sources were excluded. Publications from January 2017 to October 2025 were retrieved and considered, with key earlier studies added as needed. The search retrieved about 1203 records; after duplicate removal and independent screening by two reviewers, 456 eligible studies were retained for analysis. Emphasis is placed on eco‐friendly methods that maintain compound integrity and enable industrial scalability, alongside discussions of green chemistry, fruit by‐product valorization and circular economy strategies. Technologies are assessed for efficiency, selectivity, environmental impact and cost‐effectiveness, with applications spanning functional foods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and packaging. Despite challenges such as compound stability, regulatory barriers and the need for specialized expertise, emerging hybrid systems and AI‐driven process modelling show promise in optimizing extraction and reducing costs. Future research should focus on developing multifunctional green solvents, real‐time monitoring tools and closed‐loop systems to minimize waste and energy use, ultimately advancing sustainable bioactive extraction and contributing to healthier, more environmentally conscious industries.

Fruit bioactive compounds offer antioxidant, anti‐inflammatory, and preventive benefits, yet extraction is hindered by poor solubility and conventional methods using toxic solvents and high energy. This review evaluates traditional and advanced eco‐friendly technologies, highlighting efficiency, selectivity, and sustainability. Emphasis is placed on green chemistry, by‐product valorization, and circular economy strategies, with emerging hybrid systems and AI‐driven modeling showing promise for scalable, cost‐effective, and environmentally conscious bioactive recovery.

1. Introduction

Growing health awareness has shifted consumer preferences toward foods that offer more than basic nutrition, favouring natural bioactive compounds over synthetic additives [1, 2]. Historically, various parts of plants such as roots, seeds, fruits and flowers have been used for healing and preventing diseases [3, 4]. Fruits are widely valued for their rich supply of vitamins, minerals, fibres and bioactive compounds that promote overall health, whereas medicinal plants remain essential in both traditional and modern healthcare because they contain secondary metabolites such as alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids and phenolic compounds that provide therapeutic effects and support disease prevention and treatment [5, 6].

Global demand for fruit extracts is rapidly increasing, driven by the expanding use of natural ingredients in the nutraceutical, functional food and personal‐care industries. This strong market expansion, with forecasts extending to 2034, is largely fuelled by increasing consumer preference for plant‐based solutions [7]. The overall natural‐extracts industry, which includes fruit extracts, was valued at $12.98 billion in 2024 and is projected to nearly double to $25.52 billion by 2033, corresponding to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.8%, with nutraceuticals serving as a primary growth driver [8]. This trend, mirrored by the continued expansion of the nutraceutical ingredients market, underscores the growing commercial importance of fruit extracts as key natural components in health‐oriented products and dietary supplements [9].

Fruit‐derived bioactive compounds, including polyphenols, carotenoids, vitamins, fibres, phytosterols and terpenes, provide broad health benefits by acting as antioxidants that reduce oxidative stress, exerting anti‐inflammatory effects through inhibition of key enzymes and cytokines, supporting metabolic health by slowing glucose absorption, improving insulin sensitivity and lowering LDL cholesterol and offering neuroprotection by reducing neuroinflammation, enhancing cerebral blood flow and protecting brain cells from oxidative damage, collectively contributing to a reduced risk of chronic and neurodegenerative diseases [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. Regular fruit consumption is associated with reduced risks of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular conditions, cancer, diabetes and cognitive decline. Wild fruits, in particular, are rich in diverse phytochemicals that show potential in treating digestive and urinary tract disorders [16, 17].

The therapeutic potential of plants is largely attributed to secondary metabolites like alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids, phenolics and saponins [18, 19]. Extracting these compounds involves several steps: extraction, screening, isolation, toxicological assessment and clinical evaluation [20, 21]. However, conventional extraction methods often face challenges such as low yield, long processing times and reliance on harmful solvents. Complex fruit matrices and sensitivity to heat and oxidation further complicate the process, limiting commercial scalability and consumer awareness [22, 23].

To meet the rising demand for health‐enhancing foods, the industry is increasingly focused on functional and nutraceutical products, driving interest in fruit‐derived bioactive compounds [11, 22]. Traditional extraction methods struggle with efficiency and sustainability, driving the shift to advanced techniques like ultrasound, enzyme, microwave‐assisted, supercritical fluid and pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) [22, 24, 25]. Advanced extraction techniques such as ultrasound‐assisted extraction (UAE), enzyme‐assisted extraction (EAE) and microwave‐assisted extraction (MAE) provide rapid, eco‐friendly and efficient approaches that enhance yield and purity while maintaining the integrity of bioactive compounds (Table 4). These scalable and safe methods promote innovation in functional food development and expand potential health applications [26, 27].

TABLE 4.

Comparative analysis of conventional and advanced extraction technologies for fruit bioactive compounds.

Extraction method	Extraction efficiency	Selectivity	Scalability	Environmental impact	Energy consumption	Cost‐effectiveness	Key advantages	Major limitations	Ref.
Conventional solvent extraction (CSE)	Low–moderate	Low	High	High (toxic solvents, waste generation)	High	Moderate	Simple operation; widely established	Long extraction time; low yield; solvent toxicity; degradation of heat‐sensitive compounds	[53]
Soxhlet extraction	Moderate	Low	Low–moderate	High	Very high	Low	Thorough extraction	Excessive solvent and energy use; not suitable for thermolabile compounds	[25]
Ultrasound‐assisted extraction (UAE)	High	Moderate	Moderate–high	Low	Low–moderate	High	Short extraction time; improved mass transfer; low solvent use	Limited penetration depth; scale‐up challenges	[133]
Microwave‐assisted extraction (MAE)	High	Moderate–high	Moderate	Low–moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Rapid heating; high yields	Non‐uniform heating; equipment cost	[134]
Enzyme‐assisted extraction (EAE)	High	High	Moderate	Very low	Low	Moderate	High selectivity; mild conditions; preserves bioactivity	Enzyme cost; longer processing time	[126]
Pressurized liquid extraction (PLE)	High	High	High	Moderate	Moderate–high	Moderate	Reduced solvent use; fast extraction; good reproducibility	High‐pressure equipment; thermal sensitivity risks	[71]
Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE)	Very high	Very high	High	Very low	Moderate	Moderate–low	Solvent‐free extracts; excellent selectivity; industrially scalable	High capital cost; limited polarity range without modifiers	[84]
Membrane filtration (MF/UF/NF/RO)	Moderate	High	Very high	Very low	Low	High	No solvents; gentle processing; continuous operation	Fouling issues; limited extraction capability (mainly separation)	[77]
Chromatographic techniques (HPLC, UPLC, CCC, HILIC)	Very high	Very high	Low–moderate	Moderate	High	Low	Exceptional purity and resolution	High cost; solvent use; mainly analytical or polishing step	[135]

The novelty of this review lies in its integrated and systems‐level perspective on emerging eco‐friendly extraction technologies, with particular emphasis on hybrid platforms that combine multiple green techniques to overcome the limitations of conventional methods. Unlike previous reviews that typically examine individual technologies in isolation, this work highlights the synergistic potential of hybrid systems such as ultrasound and microwave, enzyme‐assisted supercritical CO₂ and pulsed electric field (PEF) with ohmic heating to enhance extraction efficiency, reduce energy consumption and improve the recovery of heat‐sensitive fruit bioactive compounds. By emphasizing these synergistic interactions, the review provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how hybrid extraction strategies can shape the next generation of sustainable bioactive recovery.

In addition, the review introduces a forward‐looking dimension by integrating AI‐driven modelling, digital optimization and next‐generation green solvents into the discussion of sustainable extraction. It explores how machine learning, predictive modelling and real‐time process control can enable data‐guided, precision‐driven extraction processes, facilitating optimized solvent selection, improved kinetic prediction, waste minimization and adaptive system design for diverse fruit matrices. Furthermore, the review expands the concept of eco‐friendly extraction through an in‐depth analysis of multifunctional green solvents, including bio‐derived deep eutectic solvents, CO₂‐expanded natural oils and solvent‐stabilizer hybrids. By highlighting their tunable physicochemical properties, biodegradability and compatibility with advanced extraction technologies, the review presents a novel framework that bridges technological innovation, digital transformation and green chemistry within a circular bioeconomy context.

2. Fruit Bioactive Compounds

Fruit bioactive compounds are beneficial compounds present in fruits, recognized for their medicinal value and ability to help prevent various health conditions. These compounds include a broad spectrum of substances such as polyphenols, carotenoids, vitamins, dietary fibres, terpenes and betalains. Polyphenols consist of stilbenes, tannins, flavonoids, phenolic acids and lignans [10, 28]. Flavonoids are further classified into flavanols, flavonols, flavanones, flavones, isoflavones, anthocyanins and proanthocyanidins (Table 1) [29]. Phenolic acids are divided into hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic acids [30]. Carotenoids such as beta‐carotene, lycopene and lutein contribute to antioxidant activity [31]. Fruits are rich in vitamins C, A, and E, dietary fibres like pectin and cellulose, health‐promoting terpenes and antioxidant pigments such as betalains [32, 33].

TABLE 1.

Classification of flavonoids and phenolic acids and their health benefits.

Category	Subclass	Representative compounds	Major health benefits	Refs.
Flavonoids	Flavonols	Quercetin, Kaempferol, Myricetin	Strong antioxidant activity; anti‐inflammatory effects; cardiovascular protection	[34]
	Flavones	Luteolin, Apigenin	Anti‐inflammatory and anticancer properties; neuroprotective effects	[34]
	Flavanones	Hesperidin, Naringenin	Antioxidant and anti‐inflammatory effects; improved vascular function; lipid regulation	[35]
	Flavanols (Catechins)	Catechin, Epicatechin, Epigallocatechin Gallate (EGCG)	Cardiovascular benefits; improved metabolic health; potent antioxidant activity	[36]
	Anthocyanins	Cyanidin, Delphinidin, Malvidin	Antioxidant and anti‐obesity effects; improved cognitive function; reduced oxidative stress	[37]
	Isoflavones	Genistein, Daidzein	Hormone‐modulating effects; bone health support; reduced menopausal symptoms	[38]
Phenolic Acids	Hydroxybenzoic acids	Gallic acid, protocatechuic acid	Antioxidant and antimicrobial properties; anti‐inflammatory effects	[39]
	Hydroxycinnamic acids	Caffeic acid, ferulic acid, p‐coumaric acid	Antioxidant activity; protection against chronic diseases; improved metabolic function	[40]

Fruit bioactive compounds promote health through several key mechanisms: They act as antioxidants by scavenging reactive oxygen species, chelating metal ions and boosting endogenous antioxidant enzymes [41]; exhibit antimicrobial activity by disrupting microbial membranes and inhibiting essential enzymes [42]; and show anticancer potential by modulating cell‐signalling pathways, inducing apoptosis and suppressing cell proliferation and angiogenesis [10]. They also contribute to antidiabetic effects by inhibiting carbohydrate‐digesting enzymes and influencing glucose uptake [43], whereas their anti‐inflammatory action involves reducing pro‐inflammatory cytokines and blocking NF‐κB activation [44]. These combined mechanisms underpin the broad biological benefits associated with fruit‐derived compounds [10, 45]. Bioactive peptides, composed of up to 20 amino acid residues, influence physiological functions depending on their composition and sequence [46]. Phenolic compounds, a key group of plant‐derived secondary metabolites, are recognized for their antioxidant, antihypertensive and antimicrobial properties, along with their potential to prevent carcinogenesis. They are also valuable in food preservation by limiting lipid oxidation and microbial growth and find applications in pharmaceutical and cosmetic products like mouthwashes, eye creams and herbal formulations [47, 48].

Fruit bioactive compounds are found in a wide range of sources, including berries, grapes, apples, citrus fruits (such as oranges, lemons and grapefruits), tropical fruits (like mangoes, pineapples and bananas), pomegranates, cherries and fruit by‐products such as peels, seeds and pomace [49, 50]. These compounds offer various health benefits, including antioxidant activity that neutralizes free radicals and reduces oxidative stress, anti‐inflammatory effects, cardiovascular support, antimicrobial and anticancer properties, neuroprotection, immune enhancement and preservative functions. Their diversity makes them vital for disease prevention and overall wellness. A deeper understanding of fruit bioactive compounds can guide healthier dietary choices and support public health strategies [51, 52].

3. Conventional Extraction and Separation Techniques of Bioactive Compounds

Conventional extraction and separation methods have long been employed to isolate bioactive compounds from fruits (Figure 1; Table 3) [53]. Extraction is vital in phytochemical processing for identifying key plant compounds, but improper methods can degrade bioactive compounds, driving drug developers to refine natural‐source extraction techniques [54]. Traditional methods such as maceration, infusion, Soxhlet extraction and hydro‐distillation (HD) depend on solvent action, heat and homogenization [55]. Despite their widespread use, these approaches often suffer from limitations, including lengthy procedures, low selectivity, degradation of heat‐sensitive compounds and reduced purity. They also tend to require high pressure, substantial energy input and large volumes of high‐grade solvents [21].

FIGURE 1.

Conventional extraction and separation techniques for bioactive compounds.

TABLE 3.

Next‐generation extraction, separation and purification technologies for bioactive compounds.

Category	Technology	Mechanism/Key Feature	Refs.
Key next‐generation extraction technologies	Ultrasound‐assisted extraction (UAE)	Creates cavitation (imploding vacuum bubbles) to rupture cell walls and enhance mass transfer	[26]
	Microwave‐assisted extraction (MAE)	Heats internal moisture to rupture cell walls and release compounds into the solvent	[125]
	Enzyme‐assisted extraction (EAE)	Enzymes (e.g., cellulase, pectinase) hydrolyse cell walls and membrane components	[126]
	Pressurized liquid extraction (PLE)	High pressure keeps solvents in a liquid state above their boiling point to enhance solubility and penetration	[88]
	Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE)	Uses supercritical CO2 (or other fluid) as a solvent, operating at or near its critical point for efficient, selective and solvent‐free extraction	[80]
Membrane‐based key separation and purification technologies	Microfiltration (MF)	Removes larger particles and impurities	[127]
	Ultrafiltration (UF)	Separates molecules 1000–100,000 Da (e.g., proteins, polysaccharides)	[128]
	Nanofiltration (NF)	Separates molecules 200–1000 Da (e.g., polyphenols); operates between UF and RO	[77]
	Reverse osmosis (RO)	Removes ions and concentrates juices by extracting water	[129]
Chromatographic based key separation and purification technologies	High‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)	Widely used for analysis; recent improvements include smaller particle sizes for better efficiency	[130]
	Ultra‐performance liquid chromatography (UPLC)	Operates at higher pressures with smaller particles, offering faster, more sensitive and higher resolution analysis	[131]
	Countercurrent chromatography (CCC)/High‐speed countercurrent chromatography (HSCCC)	Liquid–liquid separation without solid supports, valued for high selectivity and scalability	[132]
	Hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC)	Powerful tool for separating polar and semi‐polar compounds (e.g., carbohydrates and diverse phytochemicals)	[96]

Liquid–liquid extraction, or solvent extraction, uses two immiscible liquids, typically water and an organic solvent, to separate compounds based on solubility. Commonly applied in natural product isolation, the process involves solvent penetration, solute dissolution, diffusion and compound collection. Improving solubility and diffusivity enhances efficiency [56]. Solvent selection is critical, with factors like selectivity, solubility, cost and safety influencing outcomes. Following the ‘like dissolves like’ principle, solvents with similar polarity to the target compound yield better results. Alcohols are widely used for their broad solubility and versatility in phytochemical extraction [57].

Extraction efficiency increases when the particle size of the plant material is reduced, because smaller particles provide a larger surface area for the solvent to interact with, allowing the solvent to penetrate more easily and enabling faster diffusion of solutes into the surrounding liquid [25]. Higher temperatures further enhance this process by improving solubility and accelerating molecular movement, which speeds up mass transfer and increases the rate at which compounds dissolve. However, applying too much heat can be counterproductive: It may cause solvent evaporation, introduce unwanted impurities through thermal reactions and degrade heat‐sensitive bioactive compounds, ultimately reducing both the quality and yield of the extract [58]. Longer extraction times increase yield up to the point of solute equilibrium, beyond which further time has little effect. A higher solvent‐to‐solid ratio generally raises extraction yield, though overly high ratios may result in excessive solvent use and prolonged concentration times [59].

Maceration consists of grinding the sample into smaller particles so as to increase the surface area for a good mixture with the solvent. The agitation in the maceration process makes extraction easier in two ways: by increasing the diffusion and by removing the concentrated solution from the surface of the sample. This process has been used for a long time to obtain essential oils and bioactive compounds. This is a very simple extraction method with the disadvantage of long extraction time and low extraction efficiency. It could be used for the extraction of thermolabile components [21].

The Soxhlet technique uses a small amount of dry sample placed in a chamber through which solvent repeatedly cycles until extraction is complete. Combining principles of reflux and siphoning, it continuously extracts compounds with fresh solvent, offering higher efficiency and reduced time and solvent use compared to maceration or percolation. However, its high temperature and prolonged duration can lead to thermal degradation, and it typically demands significant extraction time and solvent volume [60].

Solid‐phase extraction (SPE) involves separating chemical constituents from a moving liquid by retaining them on a solid sorbent, followed by elution to recover the desired compounds. For effective SPE, the process must consistently capture and fully elute the target solutes. Limitations include restricted sorbent capacity and potential analyte disruption. Filtration is required to remove fine particles. Compared to liquid–liquid extraction, SPE is more solvent‐efficient and cost‐effective [61].

Solid‐phase microextraction (SPME) is a straightforward technique where a solid phase is exposed to a small amount of extracting phase for a set duration. Its simplicity and compatibility with automation make it highly advantageous [62] (Figure 1). SPME is particularly effective for detecting bioactive compounds present in trace amounts in foods and minimizes issues related to solvent removal. It also enables unique applications by allowing the extraction of compounds from extremely small samples, including single cells, where only minute quantities of material are available [25]. This level of sensitivity makes it possible to study cellular metabolism, detect trace bioactive molecules and analyse chemical changes at the microscale, opening opportunities for research in fields such as precision medicine, food chemistry and cellular biology [63].

Distillation is a separation method that purifies bioactive compounds by exploiting differences in boiling points. It involves heating fruit material to vaporize volatile components, which are then condensed into liquid form. HD and steam distillation (SD) are commonly used to extract volatile oils, though some natural compounds may degrade under these conditions [64]. In HD, plant material is mixed with water and heated to release volatiles through condensation, driven by hydro‐diffusion, hydrolysis and thermal decomposition. Although HD can extract both volatile and non‐volatile compounds, volatiles via azeotropic distillation and non‐volatiles through boiling water, it is energy intensive, slow and may damage heat‐sensitive bioactive compounds and pigments [65].

Crystallization purifies solid bioactive compounds by cooling or evaporating a solution to form crystals, making it effective for isolating specific compounds based on solubility. However, it is time‐consuming and limited to compounds with suitable crystallization properties [66]. Adsorption, another separation method, uses solid materials like activated charcoal or resin to selectively bind bioactive compounds from liquid extracts. It is commonly used to purify extracts or remove impurities, though it may result in compound loss and often requires careful optimization for selectivity [67].

The efficiency of conventional extraction methods largely depends on selecting a suitable solvent and matching it to the compound's polarity, as different polarities require different solvents for effective isolation [68]. Due to the wide variation in compound polarities, no single method can extract all bioactive compounds efficiently. An ideal solvent should have low toxicity, a low boiling point, fast mass transfer, preservative properties and avoid dissociating complex extracts. Key factors influencing extraction include solvent type, solvent‐to‐sample ratio, extraction time, temperature, pressure, sample particle size, agitation rate and solution pH [26, 67].

Traditional extraction methods often rely on solvents that pose environmental and safety risks, potentially contaminating the final product. Extraction yield is influenced by factors such as extract type, temperature and duration [69]. Techniques like acid, alkali and solvent extraction disrupt plant cells to release bioactive compounds, but they typically require high temperatures, strong chemicals, long incubation times and may leave residues. These approaches are effective but often result in low yields, thermal degradation and environmental concerns, prompting a shift toward more sustainable and efficient alternatives [26, 70].

4. Next‐Generation Separation Technologies

Next‐generation separation technologies are transforming the extraction of bioactive compounds from fruits by enhancing efficiency, yield and sustainability (Figure 2, Table 2 ) [70]. Limitations of traditional methods such as low purity, costly solvents, long processing times, degradation of heat‐sensitive compounds and poor selectivity have prompted the development of innovative alternatives [71]. Concerns over solvent toxicity and residual contamination have further driven interest in clean or green technologies that reduce or eliminate the use of organic solvents. As a result, a variety of novel and emerging extraction approaches are now being adopted to overcome these challenges [72].

FIGURE 2.

Quantitative comparison of extraction technologies based on average yield ranges, normalized energy consumption and relative solvent use intensity. (a) Average yield ranges of extraction technologies (%). EAE and CCC show the highest recoveries, with SFE also achieving high yields depending on operating conditions. UF and NF provide moderate to high recovery, whereas SPME exhibits low yields due to its analytical‐scale application. (b) Normalized energy consumption across technologies. SFE has the highest energy demand, followed by CCC and NF. UF operates at lower energy levels, EAE shows one of the lowest energy footprints, and SPME requires minimal energy. (c) Relative solvent use intensity across technologies. SFE and CCC display higher solvent use, whereas UF, NF and EAE show low solvent intensity due to water‐ or aqueous ethanol–based systems. SPME effectively eliminates solvent use. CCC, countercurrent chromatography; EAE, enzyme‐assisted extraction; NF, nanofiltration; SFE, supercritical fluid extraction; SPME, solid‐phase microextraction; UF, ultrafiltration.

TABLE 2.

Comparative summary of extraction technologies, solvent systems and bioactive yields from fruit sources.

No.	Fruit source	Extraction technology	Solvent/System	Target bioactive compounds	Key findings	Ref.
1	Pomegranate peel	Ultrasound‐assisted extraction (UAE)	Water–ethanol (50%)	Total phenolics, punicalagins	UAE improved yield by ∼30% vs. conventional extraction; optimal at 45°C, 30 min	[112]
2	Blueberry	Microwave‐assisted extraction (MAE)	Acidified water	Anthocyanins, flavonols	MAE reduced extraction time to <10 min with high antioxidant recovery	[113]
3	Mango peel	Natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES)	Choline chloride–citric acid	Polyphenols, carotenoids	NADES enhanced solubility and stability of carotenoids; greener alternative to organic solvents	[114]
4	Grape pomace	Supercritical CO2 (SFE)	CO2 + ethanol modifier	Resveratrol, catechins	High selectivity for polyphenols; best yield at 250 bar and 50°C	[115]
5	Apple skin	Enzyme‐assisted extraction (EAE)	Pectinase + water	Quercetin glycosides	Enzyme pre‐treatment increased extraction efficiency by 40%	[116]
6	Strawberry	Pressurized liquid extraction (PLE)	Water at subcritical conditions	Anthocyanins	PLE produced stable extracts with minimal thermal degradation	[53]
7	Citrus peel	Pulsed electric field (PEF)	Water	Flavonoids (hesperidin)	PEF enhanced cell disruption, improving yield by ∼25%	[117]
8	Avocado seed	NADES‐assisted UAE	Choline chloride–glycerol	Antioxidant phenolics	Synergistic UAE–NADES system significantly improved extraction kinetics	[118]
9	Cranberry	MAE + enzyme pretreatment	Cellulase + water	Proanthocyanidins	Hybrid system improved polymeric PAC recovery	[119]
10	Watermelon rind	UAE	Citric acid solution	Phenolic acids	Cost‐effective green approach yielding high antioxidant activity	[120]
11	Blackcurrant	SFE	CO2	Anthocyanins	Modified SFE increased pigment recovery without organic solvents	[121]
12	Banana peel	EAE	Xylanase + water	Flavonoids, tannins	Efficient valorization of waste biomass with high bioactive yield	[122]
13	Cherry pomace	PLE	Water–ethanol	Polyphenols	Superior extraction efficiency with lower solvent usage	[73]
14	Papaya seed	NADES‐based MAE	Betaine‐citric acid	Alkaloids, phenolics	Novel multifunctional NADES improved selectivity and antioxidant activity	[123]
15	Orange peel	AI‐optimized UAE (hybrid modelling)	Water–ethanol	Hesperidin, naringin	Machine‐learning model predicted optimal parameters, reducing time and energy use	[124]

Novel extraction techniques such as UAE, EAE and MAE, either used alone or in combination, offer clear advantages over conventional methods by improving yield, reducing cost and time, enhancing product quality and minimizing environmental impact [26]. Technologies like UAE and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE‐CO₂) are especially effective for preserving the integrity of thermolabile compounds such as polyphenols, thanks to improved heat and mass transfer and non‐thermal processing (Table 2). Combinations of these methods are gaining attention for their complementary benefits and greater efficiency. However, successful scale‐up requires thoughtful design and optimization, positioning these innovations as key drivers of sustainable bioactive compound extraction from natural sources [73].

4.1. Membrane‐Based Technologies

Membrane‐based technologies utilize semi‐permeable membranes to extract, separate and purify fruit bioactive compounds based on size, charge or molecular weight. Commonly used in the food industry, these methods offer improved efficiency, faster processing and reduced labour compared to traditional filtration [74]. Membrane filtration is categorized into microfiltration, ultrafiltration (UF) and nanofiltration (NF), depending on membrane pore size. It serves as a valuable tool for concentrating, clarifying and removing impurities in both laboratory and industrial settings. When a single filtration step is insufficient, sequential coupling such as microfiltration followed by UF and NF is employed. For example, in olive leaf extract processing, microfiltration and UF removed impurities larger than 5 kDa, whereas NF concentrated antioxidative and antibacterial polyphenols and flavonoids, increasing oleuropein content nearly tenfold [75].

UF is a membrane‐based process that separates particles ranging from 1000 to 100,000 Da. It effectively retains macromolecules such as proteins, polysaccharides and various bioactive compounds, while allowing smaller molecules and water to pass through. In fruit juice processing, UF removes suspended solids and colloids, producing a clearer product without the need for heat treatment that could degrade sensitive compounds. Additionally, UF is valuable for concentrating polyphenols and other beneficial compounds from fruit extracts, enhancing both nutritional and functional quality [76].

Membrane‐based technologies, including UF, NF and reverse osmosis (RO), are essential for extracting and purifying bioactive compounds from fruit matrices, offering efficient, scalable and environment‐friendly solutions [77]. UF retains macromolecules like proteins and polysaccharides while allowing smaller molecules and water to pass, improving juice clarity and preserving nutritional quality without heat treatment, as demonstrated in apple juice clarification. NF, operating between UF and RO, separates molecules based on size and charge, selectively removing sugars and organic acids while concentrating larger bioactive compounds; its lower energy consumption and success in recovering antioxidant‐rich polyphenols from grape pomace highlight its sustainability and potential for waste valorization. RO, commonly used for desalination, removes ions and concentrates fruit juices by extracting water, enhancing flavour and reducing transport costs, all while preserving sensitive bioactive compounds through low‐temperature operation [76].

4.2. Supercritical Fluid Extraction

SFE is an advanced, eco‐friendly technique that uses supercritical fluids, most commonly carbon dioxide (CO₂), to efficiently and selectively extract bioactive compounds from fruit and plant matrices [78]. Operating near CO₂’s critical temperature (31.2°C) and pressure, SFE merges gas and liquid properties to enable rapid mass transfer and deep penetration into solid materials. The process involves solubilizing compounds in the supercritical phase and separating them by adjusting pressure and temperature, yielding solvent‐free extracts. CO₂ is favoured for its low toxicity, affordability and ability to preserve sensitive compounds by minimizing oxidation and thermal degradation [79].

SFE is especially effective for extracting nonpolar bioactive compounds like carotenoids and lipids. For polar compounds such as flavonoids, co‐solvents like ethanol or methanol are added to adjust CO₂’s polarity. Compared to conventional methods, SFE offers superior recovery, selectivity, speed and energy efficiency [80]. It also integrates well with analytical techniques like gas chromatography (GC) and supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) [81].

Applications include extracting carotenoids such as β‐carotene, lutein and lycopene from sources like carrots, tomatoes and papaya, with high yields and preserved bioactivity. SFE is also widely used for essential oil extraction from fruits, herbs and spices, producing high‐quality oils with intact aroma profiles and potent bioactive content, all without the damaging effects of high‐temperature processing [82].

The limitations of SFE arise largely from its significant economic and operational demands, as the technique requires costly high‐pressure equipment such as pumps, extraction vessels and precise control systems, along with ongoing maintenance and highly trained operators skilled in thermodynamics and high‐pressure safety, making it less accessible for smaller facilities [83, 84]. Technically, SFE is less effective for extracting polar compounds due to the inherently non‐polar nature of CO₂, even when co‐solvents are added, and method development is challenging because extraction efficiency depends on optimizing multiple interacting variables, including pressure, temperature, flow rate and particle size [85]. Scaling up SFE increases costs and complicates maintaining uniform conditions. Operational issues (seal wear, clogging, pump failure) cause expensive downtime, and the high pressures pose inherent safety risks requiring robust protective measures [86].

4.3. Ultrasound‐Assisted Extraction

Ultrasound is a highly advanced extraction technology that operates at sound frequencies above the human hearing range (typically above 18–100 kHz). In the UAE, these high‐frequency waves enhance efficiency by disrupting cell structures and improving mass transfer, leading to the release of targeted bioactive compounds. The process involves applying mechanical energy to the sample, causing cavitation, which are tiny vacuum bubbles in the liquid that collapse upon contact with solid material. This implosion generates localized temperatures around 4500°C and pressures up to 50 MPa, triggering effects such as sonolysis, cell membrane rupture and the release of intracellular substances [87].

4.4. Pressurized Liquid Extraction

PLE, also known as accelerated or high‐pressure solvent extraction, is a highly efficient technique for isolating bioactive compounds using elevated temperature and pressure [88]. By increasing pressure before temperature, PLE maintains solvents in a liquid state above their boiling point, allowing extraction within a controlled range of 50–200°C. This enhances solubility, improves solvent penetration and accelerates the diffusion of lipid‐soluble compounds, resulting in reduced extraction time, lower solvent usage and improved repeatability compared to conventional methods. PLE has been successfully applied to extract a variety of natural products, including saponins, flavonoids, anthocyanins and essential oils [89].

Anthocyanins, water‐soluble pigments responsible for the red, blue and purple hues in fruits like berries and red cabbage, are known for their antioxidant properties and health benefits. PLE enables higher yields of anthocyanins while preserving their stability and bioactivity. Similarly, citrus peels, rich in flavonoids such as hesperidin and naringin, and vitamin C, are effectively processed using PLE. This technique not only recovers valuable compounds from underutilized by‐products but also maintains their integrity. By employing eco‐friendly solvents and optimizing conditions, PLE supports the sustainable development of functional foods and nutraceuticals [90].

Quantitative yield comparisons consistently show that PLE outperforms many conventional extraction methods, often delivering significantly higher recoveries in shorter times [91]. Studies report that PLE can increase extraction yields by 20%–60% compared with Soxhlet extraction and by 15%–40% compared with maceration or sonication, depending on the matrix and target analytes [92, 93]. PLE often delivers 90%–100% recovery of compounds like phenolics or lipids in just 10–20 min, compared with Soxhlet's 60%–80% recovery over 4–8 h, and typically provides 10%–30% higher recovery of environmental analytes such as PAHs or pesticides while using much less solvent, demonstrating its superior efficiency and extraction performance over conventional methods [94, 95].

4.5. Chromatographic Innovations

Chromatography remains a central technique for the separation, identification and quantification of bioactive compounds, with recent technological advances markedly improving its speed, resolution and versatility [96]. High‐performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is widely applied for the analysis of fruit‐derived polyphenols, flavonoids and related phytochemicals. By using high pressure to drive solvents through packed columns, HPLC achieves reliable separations, and innovations such as smaller particle sizes and improved stationary phases have enhanced efficiency while reducing analysis time. HPLC coupled with UV detection remains particularly popular due to its robustness and well‐established spectral libraries for phenolic compounds [97].

Ultra‐performance liquid chromatography (UPLC), an advanced form of HPLC, operates at higher pressures with sub‐2 µm particles, enabling faster, more sensitive and higher resolution analyses. Its high throughput and ability to handle complex matrices make it especially suitable for profiling fruit extracts [98]. In parallel, liquid–liquid techniques such as countercurrent chromatography (CCC) and high‐speed countercurrent chromatography (HSCCC) provide solid‐support‐free separations. These methods minimize irreversible adsorption, improve sample recovery, reduce solvent consumption and are highly scalable, making them effective for purifying diverse bioactive compounds, including alkaloids, flavonoids, terpenoids and essential oils from crude extracts [99].

Modern chromatographic workflows often integrate HPLC or UPLC with advanced detectors such as quadrupole time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (Q‐TOF‐MS), tandem MS and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), following a tiered strategy of screening, confirmation and quantification [100, 101, 102, 103]. Untargeted screening is typically performed using UPLC‐Q‐TOF‐MS, which enables rapid detection of known and unknown compounds through high‐resolution, accurate‐mass measurements. Targeted analyses then confirm compound identities using MS/MS fragmentation patterns and retention‐time matching, whereas final quantification is achieved with validated HPLC/UPLC‐UV or MS/MS methods employing calibration curves and internal standards. NMR is frequently incorporated for structural elucidation of novel or ambiguous compounds, providing orthogonal confirmation and enhancing analytical reliability.

Additional innovations have further expanded chromatographic capabilities. Monolithic columns improve flow rates and reduce back pressure, enabling faster separations, whereas molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) offer selective, reusable and cost‐effective extraction of target analytes from complex fruit matrices [104]. Hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) has also gained prominence for separating polar and semi‐polar compounds, such as carbohydrates and other hydrophilic phytochemicals, and is compatible with a wide range of detectors, including UV, DAD, ELSD and MS‐based systems [96]. Collectively, these advances continue to enhance the resolution, sensitivity and sustainability of chromatographic analysis for bioactive compounds in fruit and plant‐based matrices [105].

4.6. Micro‐ and Nano‐Separation Approaches

Micro‐ and nano‐separation techniques are cutting‐edge methods for isolating and purifying bioactive compounds at extremely small scales, offering high efficiency and selectivity across fields such as food science, pharmaceuticals and environmental analysis [106]. One such technique, SPME, uses a coated fibre to extract volatile and semi‐volatile compounds from liquids and solids. Widely applied in the food industry for analysing fruit juices and essential oils, SPME also serves in environmental monitoring and drug analysis, providing high sensitivity and specificity without complex sample preparation [107].

MAE is another innovative approach, particularly effective for recovering bioactive compounds from fruit waste. It uses microwave energy to rapidly heat moisture within plant samples, generating vapour pressure that ruptures cell walls and releases target compounds into the solvent. MAE's efficiency depends on factors such as microwave power, solvent type, extraction time, temperature and sample composition [108].

Encapsulation techniques further enhance the stability and bioavailability of bioactive compounds by enclosing them in carriers like polymers or lipids. These systems enable controlled release triggered by pH, temperature or enzymes, improving shelf life, flavour delivery and targeted drug administration. By boosting absorption and reducing required dosages, encapsulation minimizes waste and enhances therapeutic outcomes in both functional foods and pharmaceuticals [109].

4.7. Enzyme‐Assisted Extraction

EAE is an eco‐friendly and highly effective method that employs specific enzymes to release bioactive compounds from plant materials. Enzymes like cellulase, α‐amylase and pectinase break down cell walls and intracellular macromolecules, improving extraction yield and selectivity. Unlike conventional techniques that rely on organic solvents, EAE typically uses water, making it a safer and more sustainable option for extracting oils and other bioactive compounds [110].

EAE also serves as a valuable pretreatment step, reducing extraction time, solvent usage and production costs while enhancing product purity and quality. A variety of enzymes, including cellulases, hemicellulases, amylases, proteases and lipases, can be applied in free or immobilized forms, with their performance shaped by factors such as pH, temperature, enzyme concentration, substrate ratio and particle size. As a green technology, EAE enables the recovery of compounds tightly bound to cell walls or proteins, significantly boosting the overall yield of bioactive substances when properly optimized [111].

5. Green Chemistry and Sustainability Considerations

Advancing truly sustainable extraction and separation processes requires moving beyond vague labels such as ‘green’ and instead relying on quantitative, transparent metrics [136]. Indicators like the environmental factor (E‐factor), process mass intensity (PMI), solvent recovery rate and energy consumption per unit of product provide objective measures of waste generation, resource efficiency and overall environmental burden [137]. Applied systematically, these metrics enable meaningful comparisons between technologies, reveal inefficiencies and help distinguish genuine sustainability improvements from simple burden shifting [138].

Solvent choice plays a central role in determining both environmental and operational performance, as solvents differ widely in biodegradability, toxicity, volatility and renewability [139]. Although relatively benign options such as water and ethanol are preferred, many conventional organic solvents introduce risks related to flammability, persistence and ecotoxicity [140]. Using structured solvent selection guides and hazard assessment frameworks is therefore essential to avoid unintended tradeoffs, for example, replacing a hazardous solvent with one that is safer but far more energy intensive to recover [140].

Natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES) have attracted considerable interest for their low volatility, tunable polarity and potential biodegradability, making them appealing for extracting natural products from fruit and other plant matrices [141]. However, a balanced sustainability assessment must also acknowledge their limitations: High viscosity can hinder mass transfer, strong solute‐solvent interactions may complicate downstream purification, and data on recyclability, large‐scale production, cost and regulatory acceptance remain limited. These uncertainties currently restrict their industrial adoption despite their promising performance at the laboratory scale [27].

A comprehensive understanding of environmental impact ultimately requires life cycle assessment (LCA), which evaluates energy use, raw material sourcing, emissions and waste across the entire process chain. LCA frequently reveals important tradeoffs such as reduced solvent toxicity accompanied by higher energy demand, highlighting that sustainability optimization involves balancing environmental, economic and operational considerations rather than maximizing a single parameter [142]. These insights align closely with the principles of green chemistry, which emphasize waste prevention, atom economy and safer solvents as foundations for sustainable innovation in fruit processing. Complementing these principles, circular‐economy and biorefinery strategies that valorise fruit by‐products (peels, seeds, pomace) into functional ingredients, biofuels or bioplastics further enhance resource efficiency and increase the overall environmental and economic value of fruit‐based extraction systems [143].

6. Comparative Evaluation of Technologies

Evaluating fruit bioactive extraction methods involves assessing key factors such as efficiency, selectivity, scalability, environmental impact and cost [144]. Techniques like SFE and EAE are known for their high efficiency, while methods such as MIPs and SPME offer exceptional selectivity for targeting specific compounds [145]. Scalability is crucial for transitioning from laboratory to industrial production; UF and NF scale well, whereas SFE often requires significant investment for large‐scale implementation [146]. Environment‐friendly approaches that use renewable solvents like water or ethanol are preferable to traditional solvent‐based methods, which tend to generate more waste [147]. Though technologies like SFE and UPLC involve high upfront costs, they deliver strong returns through improved yield and process efficiency (Table 5). EAE, in particular, lowers operational costs by reducing energy and solvent use, making it a cost‐effective option for recovering high‐value bioactive compounds such as essential oils and polyphenols [148].

TABLE 5.

Comparison of advanced separation technologies for fruit bioactive extraction and advantages and limitations.

Separation technology	Advantages	Disadvantages	Key quantitative/Performance indicators (typical ranges)	Refs.
Supercritical fluid extraction (SFE)	High efficiency and selectivity Eco‐friendly (CO2) Minimal solvent residue	High capital investment Complexity of equipment	Solvent (CO2): ∼10–40 kg/kg feed; extraction time: 30–180 min; yield: 70%–95%; energy demand: high; cost/ROI: high CAPEX, favourable at large scale	[11, 150]
Ultrafiltration (UF)	Scalable and efficient Low operational costs Retains bioactive compounds	Limited to certain molecular sizes Requires maintenance	Solvent: water‐based (low); processing time: continuous (minutes–hours); recovery: 60%–90%; energy demand: low–moderate; cost/ROI: low OPEX, good scalability	[16, 151]
Nanofiltration (NF)	Effective for separating small molecules Reduces waste	Moderate cost Requires specific membrane maintenance	Solvent: water‐based (low); flux: 10–70 L/m2/h; recovery: 65%–90%; energy demand: moderate; cost/ROI: moderate, membrane‐dependent	[152, 153]
Enzyme‐assisted extraction	Eco‐friendly High yields and selectivity Reduces energy consumption	Requires specific enzymes Potential variations in activity	Solvent: water/ethanol (low); time: 1–24 h; yield: 80%–98%; energy demand: low; cost/ROI: moderate (enzyme cost sensitive)	[126, 154]
Solid‐phase microextraction (SPME)	Minimal sample preparation High sensitivity Versatile applications	Limited to volatile and semi‐volatile compounds Single‐use fibres may be costly	Solvent: none; extraction time: 5–60 min; yield: analytical‐scale; energy demand: very low; cost/ROI: high per sample, analytical use only	[21, 60]
Countercurrent chromatography (CCC)	No solid phase reduces losses High scalability	Potentially high operational costs Complexity in setup	Solvent: moderate–high (liquid–liquid); time: 1–6 h; recovery: >90%; energy demand: moderate; cost/ROI: moderate–high, favourable for high‐value products	[155, 156]

Despite their advantages, novel extraction methods face challenges, including lack of standardization, specialized equipment requirements, scalability limitations and high operational complexity. Limited technical expertise can also hinder adoption. Therefore, selecting the appropriate extraction technology requires a balanced evaluation of performance, sustainability and economic feasibility. By carefully considering these factors, industries can make informed decisions that maximize the recovery and value of fruit‐derived bioactive compounds while supporting environmentally responsible practices [149].

7. Industrial Applications and Case Studies

The extraction and separation of bioactive compounds play a crucial role across industries such as functional foods, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and packaging, enabling the development of high‐quality, sustainable products that meet growing consumer demand for health and wellness [16]. Key bioactives like polyphenols, flavonoids and omega‐3 fatty acids are foundational to nutraceuticals, and advanced techniques like SFE and EAE are revolutionizing their recovery. For example, SFE has been successfully used to isolate curcumin from turmeric, yielding a potent anti‐inflammatory ingredient with enhanced bioavailability and stability for health‐promoting applications [152, 154].

In the pharmaceutical sector, natural extracts serve as essential sources for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). Efficient methods such as PLE and MAE ensure high yield and purity. A notable case is the extraction of paclitaxel from Taxus species using PLE, which improves efficiency and reduces solvent use, supporting sustainable drug production [21, 155]. Similarly, the cosmetic industry increasingly relies on natural extracts for their functional and aesthetic benefits. Techniques like SPME and cold pressing are used to recover volatile compounds and oils, whereas MAE has proven effective in extracting anthocyanins from berries for use as natural colourants and antioxidants in skincare products [157].

In packaging, bioactive‐enriched materials enhance food preservation and safety. UAE is employed to recover essential oils with antimicrobial properties, which are then incorporated into biodegradable films to extend shelf life and reduce spoilage [158, 159]. NF further purifies and concentrates antioxidants for use in protective coatings. SPME has also been applied to integrate essential oils into active packaging, resulting in innovative solutions that reduce food waste and improve product safety. These advancements underscore the importance of sustainable extraction technologies in maximizing the value of natural compounds across diverse applications [159, 160].

8. Challenges and Future Perspectives

Despite significant technological progress, the widespread industrial adoption of eco‐friendly extraction methods for fruit bioactive compounds remains constrained by several persistent challenges. Many green extraction techniques still struggle with process stability, particularly when processing heat‐sensitive or easily oxidized compounds that require tightly controlled conditions to preserve their integrity. The absence of standardized methodologies and reporting practices further limits meaningful comparison across studies, slowing the establishment of universally accepted performance benchmarks. These scientific and technical limitations are compounded by market‐readiness concerns: industries are often hesitant to invest in emerging technologies without robust evidence of scalability, regulatory approval and economic feasibility. Together, these constraints underscore the need for continued technological refinement as well as stronger coordination among researchers, industry stakeholders and regulatory bodies to support the successful transition of eco‐friendly extraction methods from laboratory innovation to commercial reality.

Two major issues underpin current extraction limitations: compound instability and process complexity. Many fruit‐derived bioactive compounds are highly sensitive to heat, light and oxygen, making stabilization strategies such as encapsulation using nanoparticles or liposomes essential to preserve their functionality after extraction. Process complexity further increases when multiple extraction techniques (enzymatic, ultrasonic, solvent‐based) must be combined to achieve high efficiency and selectivity. This has driven the development of hybrid and modular systems designed to protect heat‐sensitive compounds while remaining adaptable across different production scales. At the same time, modern extraction processes generate large volumes of data involving variables such as solvent composition, mass‐transfer behaviour and pressure dynamics. Optimizing these systems increasingly depends on advanced digital tools, including mechanistic modelling, machine learning and predictive simulation, to improve reproducibility and guide process design.

Recent applications of AI and machine learning in green extraction demonstrate clear practical benefits, with models such as Random Forest and XGBoost reducing experimental runs by about 30% and improving yields by 12%–15%, whereas support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural networks (ANNs) optimized solvent use in over 1000 trials, achieving a 20% reduction in solvent intensity and a 10% gain in energy efficiency. Natural language processing (NLP) models like bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) have improved scalability assessments by 25% through technology readiness level (TRL) classification of tens of thousands of patents, and hybrid approaches combining response surface methodology with ANNs have enhanced polyphenol yields from citrus peels by 15%–30% while reducing solvent use by up to 25%. Similar gains were observed in grape pomace and SFE, where machine learning increased recovery by ∼20% and shortened extraction times by nearly 30%. Current AI‐assisted studies largely remain at TRL 3–4, with pilot‐scale demonstrations at TRL 5–6 for membrane and enzymatic processes, while technologies such as supercritical CO₂ extraction and membrane filtration are commercially mature at TRL 8–9, though AI integration at this level is mostly limited to process monitoring and control. These distinctions between lab, pilot and commercial scales provide a clearer picture of scalability and strengthen the practical relevance of AI in sustainable extraction.

A major barrier to industrial translation is the absence of standardized extraction protocols and performance metrics, which makes it difficult to compare results across studies due to variations in raw materials, operating conditions and reporting practices. Many promising techniques remain confined to the laboratory, providing limited insight into long‐term robustness or scalability. This challenge is further compounded by the scarcity of industrial‐scale data and comprehensive sustainability evaluations. LCA and techno‐economic analysis (TEA) are rarely integrated early in development, increasing the risk that technologies labelled ‘green’ may carry hidden economic burdens or inadvertently shift environmental impacts when scaled up.

Regulatory complexity presents additional obstacles, particularly in the highly controlled food, nutraceutical and pharmaceutical sectors where strict safety and quality requirements must be met. Approval processes are often lengthy, costly and heavily dependent on extensive documentation and testing to comply with multiple regulatory standards—a burden that can significantly challenge smaller developers and substantially delay the commercialization of promising new products. Moreover, the lack of harmonized international regulatory pathways and universally standardized safety and quality protocols complicates market entry, reduces incentives for continued research and development and ultimately limits the ability of technically robust, eco‐friendly extraction technologies to achieve their full market potential.

A structured roadmap is essential for accelerating the maturation of eco‐friendly extraction technologies, beginning with short‐term priorities focused on developing standardized methodologies, reporting guidelines and reference materials to ensure reproducibility and meaningful comparison across studies. Medium‐term goals then shift toward scaling promising technologies to the pilot level, generating robust industrial datasets on stability and energy use and systematically integrating LCA and TEA into research workflows, efforts that require strong collaboration among academia, industry and regulatory bodies. Finally, long‐term integration centres on fully embedding these technologies into circular bioeconomy and biorefinery models, with future progress relying on advances in process intensification, hybrid extraction systems and digital tools such as AI and real‐time modelling, supported by clearer regulatory frameworks, sustainability certification schemes and market incentives.

9. Conclusion

The extraction of fruit‐derived bioactive compounds, such as polyphenols, carotenoids and flavonoids, has advanced considerably, moving from traditional methods like conventional solvent extraction and distillation, which are often inefficient and environmentally burdensome, to next‐generation technologies. Modern approaches, including SFE, PLE, EAE, UAE, MAE and PEF techniques, offer higher yields, improved preservation of thermolabile compounds and reduced solvent consumption. Complementary purification methods, such as chromatography and membrane filtration, further enhance targeted recovery, with optimized strategies, for example, SFE for nonpolar carotenoids and EAE or UAE for polar polyphenols, significantly improving both efficiency and product quality.

Despite these technological advances, industrial‐scale implementation remains limited by high equipment costs, the absence of standardized protocols, scalability challenges and gaps in technical expertise. Critical aspects, including compound stability, bioavailability, process reproducibility and comprehensive sustainability assessments, still require deeper investigation. Looking ahead, integrating hybrid extraction systems, encapsulation strategies and digital modelling tools, including AI‐driven process optimization, offers promising opportunities to enhance recovery, functionality and environmental performance. To fully unlock the commercial potential of these innovations, coordinated collaboration among researchers, industry stakeholders and regulatory bodies, supported by standardized comparative studies and robust life cycle and techno‐economic analyses, will be essential for translating promising laboratory‐scale concepts into commercially viable, eco‐friendly solutions for functional foods, nutraceuticals, pharmaceuticals and cosmetic applications.

Author Contributions

Abadi Gebreyesus Hndeya wrote and developed the manuscript. Gebreselema Gebreyohannes provided constructive comments. Abadi Gebreyesus Hndeya and Gebreselema Gebreyohannes edited and finalized the manuscript. Gebreselema Gebreyohannes and Desta Berhe Sbhatu reviewed the manuscript. All authors strongly contribute to enhance the quality of manuscript. Finally, all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.