Optimization of Extraction Parameters of Ethanol Extracts of Propolis Samples Using Artificial Neural Network and Moth-Flame Optimization Algorithm

Previous study	Input variables	Output variables	Optimization method
Yingjuan et al. (2007)	Ethanol concentration Extracting time Extracting power Ratio of liquid to propolis	Flavones	Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
Wang et al. (2009)	Ethanol concentration Ratio of liquid The holding time of pressure Pressure to propolis	Flavones	RSM
Kim et al. (2009)	Ethanol concentration Extraction time	Total polyphenol content (TPC) Total flavonoid content (TFC)	RSM
Li et al. (2012)	Microwave treatment time Microwave power Ethanol concentration Temperature Time Solvent-to-solid	Total flavonoid yield	RSM
Yuan et al. (2013)	Ratio of lipid to drug Ratio of soybean phospholipid to cholesterol Speed of injection	Propolis flavonoids liposome (PFL)	RSM
Zhao et al. (2012)	Extraction time Ethanol concentration Solid-liquid ratio Distilling frequency Distilling temperature	Extraction ratio TFC	RSM
Oldoni et al. (2015)	Ethanol ratio Temperature Time	TPC DPPH	2³ factorial design
Nichitoi et al. (2019)	Particle size Solvent type (ethanolic aqueous) Extraction duration	TPC TFC Antioxidant capacity	Partial Least Squares Regression
Our study	Ethanol content Extraction time	TPC (Single objective) FRAP activities (Single objective) TPC and FRAP (Multi-objective)	ANN and MFO

Spiral flying path around close light sources (Mirjalili, 2015).

Table 2

MFO algorithm architecture

Parameters	Value
Number of search agents	20
Maximum number of iterations	30
Run Number	100

Euclidean distance approach of this study.

Table 3

TPC and FRAP activities of propolis ethanol extracts

Experiment number	Ethanol content (%)	Extraction time (h)	TPC (mg GAE/g)	FRAP (μmol FeSO₄·7H₂O/g)
1	40	8	27.56±1.82^a	239.85±6.83^a
2	40	10	32.69±0.87^b	239.76±3.82^a
3	40	12	24.19±0.68^a	233.80±0.65^a
4	40	16	24.85±0.90^a	227.25±2.33^a
5	40	20	34.39±0.82^b	277.01±1.21^b
6	40	24	47.20±0.24^c	311.79±2.83^c
7	50	8	61.64±0.82^def	353.72±0.00^d
8	50	10	57.83±0.45^d	306.93±0.72^c
9	50	12	64.51±2.50^fgh	359.25±3.75^d
10	50	16	59.33±0.19^de	350.92±0.68^d
11	50	20	66.42±0.72^ghi	346.92±3.30^d
12	50	24	68.32±1.42^hij	430.37±38.90^e
13	60	8	83.95±3.61^no	646.89±10.04^no
14	60	10	62.53±3.87^efg	462.13±5.16^f
15	60	12	85.35±0.90^o	578.34±1.92^jk
16	60	16	70.07±1.60^ij	587.76±3.89^kl
17	60	20	81.14±0.09^no	512.79±9.11^gh
18	60	24	74.95±0.69^kl	568.41±2.03^j
19	70	8	82.06±4.46^no	657.25±2.44^o
20	70	10	64.04±4.32^fgh	527.87±17.85^hi
21	70	12	59.28±1.28^de	501.61±3.76^g
22	70	16	85.31±3.33^o	632.80±1.34^mn
23	70	20	75.49±3.02^kl	587.75±7.73^kl
24	70	24	76.44±1.73^lm	597.94±5.31^l
25	80	8	80.01±2.09^mn	617.95±0.00^m
26	80	10	64.34±0.18^fgh	618.87±13.44^m
27	80	12	71.56±0.47^jk	495.96±11.87^g
28	80	16	64.45±3.01^fgh	591.99±11.57^kl
29	80	20	64.28±6.16^fgh	543.13±9.23ⁱ
30	80	24	85.25±2.24^o	623.19±14.57^m

[i] Means followed by different letter(s) differ significantly at p<0.05 (Duncan’s multiple range test)

Table 4

Performance of the best models

Studied assay	Performance of model	Training	Validation	Test	All
TPC	MAPE	4.51	4.48	8.19	5.12
	MSE	17.02	6.46	51.67	21.74
	R²	0.97	0.99	0.96	0.96
FRAP activity	MAPE	1.41	0.69	9.23	2.45
	MSE	81.91	12.73	3929.23	624.12
	R²	0.99	0.99	0.96	0.98

Table 5

The optimum extraction parameters obtained from single objective optimization

Assay	Ethanol content (%)	Extraction time (h)	Estimated value	Unit
TPC	57.50	13.96	91.19	mg GAE/g
FRAP	72.03	18.04	673.05	μmol FeSO₄7H₂O/g

Table 6

The optimum extraction parameters obtained from multi-objective optimization

Objective	Ethanol content (%)	Extraction time (h)	TPC (mg GAE/g)	FRAP (μmol FeSO₄7H₂O/g)
Max. TPC Max. FRAP	70.03	16.93	83.35	667.26

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jas-2021-0018 | Journal eISSN: 2299-4831 | Journal ISSN: 1643-4439 (formerly 2299-4831)

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 229 - 241

Submitted on: Jun 16, 2020

Accepted on: Jul 8, 2021

Published on: Oct 26, 2021

Published by: The National Institute of Horticultural Research and Apicultural Research Association

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

artificial neural network,

extraction parameters,

Related subjects:

© 2021 Ayşenur Gurgen, Huseyin Serencam, Yakup Kara, Zehra Can, Sibel Yıldız, published by The National Institute of Horticultural Research and Apicultural Research Association
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 65 (2021): Issue 2 (December 2021)

Optimization of Extraction Parameters of Ethanol Extracts of Propolis Samples Using Artificial Neural Network and Moth-Flame Optimization Algorithm

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Table 2

Fig. 3

Table 3

Table 4

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Table 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Table 6

Paradigm

My account