Table 1.
Advantages and drawbacks of emerging extraction technologies.
| Emerging Technology | Advantages | Drawbacks |
|---|---|---|
| USAE | ↓ Energy, time and solvent consumption | Can induce oxidation pyrolysis |
| ↑ Solvent penetration into plant material (mixing effect) and extraction yields | Promote free radical formation | |
| Easy to use and low equipment cost | High ultrasound waves has deleterious effects on phytochemicals | |
| Facilitate mass transfer | ↑ Temperature by cavitation | |
| Compatibility with GRAS solvents | Low selective | |
| MWAE | ↓ Time and solvent consumption | High energy consumption |
| ↑ Extraction yields | Excessive temperature (phytochemicals degradation) | |
| Cost-effective equipment | Oxidation reactions | |
| Easily to scale up | Low selective (large number of compounds extracted) | |
| PEFAE | ↓ Energy, time and solvent consumption | Very expensive equipment |
| Very low changes in temperature | Need proper solvent and electrical conductivity | |
| Minimize degradation of thermolabile phytochemicals | ||
| Easily to scale up | ||
| High selectivity | ||
| SFAE | ↓Extraction time | High energy consumption |
| No use toxic solvents | Very expensive and complex equipment | |
| Extracts are pure, and present high quality | Need co-solvent to ensure the correct extraction of polar compounds | |
| Effective (low viscosity and high diffusivity) | Scale up not feasible | |
| ↑ Extraction yields | ||
| Continual process | ||
| Recycling supercritical fluid | ||
| Preserve thermolabile phytochemicals | ||
| Tunable supercritical fluid (solvent) density |