Received: 13 March 2018 Revised: 22 July 2018 Accepted: 23 July 2018

DOI: 10.1111/jfpe.12880

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimization of high-pressure processing in extraction of

astaxanthin from Penaeus monodon carapace using response
surface methodology
Cicy Irna1 | Irwandi Jaswir1,2 | Rashidi Othman2,3 | Dzun Noraini Jimat1

1
Department of Biotechnology Engineering,
Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic Abstract
University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Penaeus monodon is a species of shrimp with astaxanthin content that prevents various diseases
Malaysia
and enhances immune system. High-pressure processing (HPP) is capable of achieving higher
2
International Institute for Halal Research and
extraction astaxanthin yield within short processing time. The aim of this research was to opti-
Training (INHART), International Islamic
University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, mize the extraction condition of astaxanthin from P. monodon using HPP using response surface
Malaysia methodology (RSM). The investigation was carried out using variables: pressure (150–250 MPa),
3
Herbarium Unit, Department of Landscape holding time (10–20 min), and amount of acetone-methanol mixture, 7:3, vol/vol (3–7 ml). The
Architecture, Kulliyyah of Architecture and optimum condition was achieved at the pressure of 238.54 MPa, 16.29 min of holding time,
Environmental Design, International Islamic
University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
and 6.59 ml of solvent mixture. The optimum yield of astaxanthin was 95.17 μg/gdw. The R2
Malaysia value was 0.9836 and the adjusted-R2 value was 0.9688. These values indicate that the applica-
Correspondence tion of RSM to optimize the yield of astaxanthin with HPP has a significant impact in enhancing
Irwandi Jaswir, Department of Biotechnology the yield of astaxanthin.
Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering,
International Islamic University of Malaysia,
Jalan Gombak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email: irwandi@iium.edu.my
Funding information
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, Grant/
Award Number: MIRGS13-01-001-0002;
International Islamic University Malaysia;
Ministry of Higher Education

1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N such as UV-light damage, oxidative stress, cancer, inflammatory, as

According to the fisheries statistics of the Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation, shrimp carapace consists of the head, exoskeleton, and tail that
account for 50–60% of the total raw weight (Kim, Rajapaske, & Shahidi,
2008). It indicates that shrimp carapace produces an exorbitant amount
of exoskeleton as a waste. This component plays an important role in
pollution, as well as odor generation in the environment (Mahata,
Dharma, Ryanto, & Rizal, 2008; Patria, 2013). A previous study (Du, He,
Yu, Zhu, & Li, 2013) reported an alternative method to reduce carapace
waste, which can be done by extracting astaxanthin.
One of the sources of astaxanthin is shrimp carapace. The use of
shrimp carapace offers a low-cost raw material source for producing
astaxanthin (Jeddi, Khaniki, & Sadighara, 2013). Astaxanthin is a die-
tary reddish-orange pigment with incredible natural antioxidant prop-
erties (Capelli & Cysewski, 2007; Yue, Bohkyung, & Ji-Young, 2013). It
has potential health benefits in preventing various diseases and
enhancing immune system. Several conditions may be preventable,
well as cardiovascular and skin problems (Chang-hwan, Tao, & Kyung-
ho, 2012; Guerin, Huntley, & Olaizola, 2003; Hussein, Sankawa, Goto,
Matsumoto, & Watanabe, 2006; Zhang, Sun, Sun, Chen, & Chen,
2014). A study has proven that astaxanthin is the best antioxidant
compared to other antioxidants although in general, vitamin E has
been touted for its cosmetic properties. It is also interesting to note
that although β-carotene has a similar structure to astaxanthin, the
antioxidant power is different (Yamashita, 2013).
In astaxanthin production, high-pressure processing (HPP) is an
advanced method that is proven safe. There are concerns about good
quality food products in the aspects of flavor, freshly preserved, natu-
ral, and clean during preparation and processing (Lerfall & Birkeland,
2014; Omar & Jaafar, 2011). The utilization of this method has also
proven to be an efficient extraction method of astaxanthin due to less
time required, high yield, and environmentally friendly (Du et al.,
2013; Li et al., 2017). Furthermore, this innovative technology is a
powerful way to extract bioactive compounds, leaving less structural

J Food Process Eng. 2018;41:e12880. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfpe © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1 of 8

https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.12880
2 of 8
TABLE 1 Experimental range and levels of independent process variables
Range and level
Variables α − 1.68179 Low (−1)
Holding time (min) 6.59 10
Pressure (MPa) 115.91 150
Amount of solvents (ml) 1.64 3 5
damage and color changes, as well as higher stability of substrates
(Gamlath & Wakeling, 2011; Kaur & Rao, 2017).
HPP system consists of four important components. These
include a pressure vessel, a pressurization fluid, an intensifier, and a
pump (Ferstl & Ferstl, 2013). The machine needs to be handled with
caution as the sensors are crucial and sensitive components. It will be
maintained at the present pressure by controlling a valve (Niu, Zhao, &
Tian, 2014). The principle of HPP is twofolds: Pascal’s and isobaric
principles. Pascal’s principle is based on the application of a static fluid
of external power in a sealed container, resulting in the transmission
of an equal pressure change to all parts of the fluid. The isobaric prin-
ciple states that there is no size or shape effect of pressure on a liquid
medium in a closed environment since the applied pressure is identical
from all directions (Huang, Hsu, Yang, & Wang, 2014). In addition,
HPP method depends on various operating variables to obtain the
optimum condition (Theodore, 2011).
Factors, responses, and levels are three important terms in the
optimization of design. Factors are independent variables, responses
are dependent variables, and levels involve the factor variables
selected (Myers, Montgomery, & Anderson-Cook, 2009). In the
current study, three independent variables were considered to
increase the effects of dissolving astaxanthin: pressure, holding time,
and amount of solvents. These variables are the factors used to
increase the yield of astaxanthin (Du et al., 2013).
The optimized condition is designed using design of experiment
(DOE) in order to obtain the optimum condition and yield (Anthony,
2008). Quantitative data of response surface method is used to solve
multi-variable equations using response surface methodology (RSM)
as a statistical method to illustrate the response graphically. RSM is an
effective tool to evaluate the effect of factors for developing and
improving optimization using statistical and mathematical techniques
(Dey, Mitra, Banerjee, & Maiti, 2001; Jiménez-Contreras, Torres-Sali-
nas, Moreno, Baños, & López-Cózar, 2008).
A previous study investigated the comparison of astaxanthin con-
tent using two different methods, namely HPP and chemical extraction
for six types of shrimp waste (Irna, Jaswir, Othman, & Jimat, 2018).
Black tiger (P. monodon) was the species that contained the highest
yield of astaxanthin for both extraction methods. Therefore, the aim of
this study was to optimize the extraction condition of astaxanthin with
HPP from P. monodon in order to achieve an optimum yield using RSM.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Sample preparation
Black tiger (P. monodon) species was purchased from a local market
(Pasar Besar Selayang, Selangor, Malaysia). The shell, tail, head, and
IRNA ET AL.
Central (0) High (+1) α + 1.68179
15 20 23.41
200 250 284.09
7 8.36
meat were separated from the samples and then stored directly in a
freezer for 2 days at −21
C. Next, the samples were dried using a
freeze dryer (Tokyo Rikakikai Co., Japan) for 3 days, crushed using a
blender to form a powder, and stored in a freezer at −21
C for
further treatment.
2.2 | Extraction of astaxanthin using HPP
The extraction procedure was relevant to the previous work (Othman,
2009) and modified using the HPP method (Du et al., 2013). The HPP
equipment (Toyokoatsu Co., Ltd., Japan) has capability up to 400 MPa
with one liter volume container. The conditions (Table 1) were set up
with holding time (10–20 min), pressure (150–250 MPa), and amount
of acetone-methanol mixture (3–7 ml). The equipment works under
room temperature with manual set up. In this experiment, all samples
were run in triplicate at room temperature throughout the experimen-
tal design (Table 2) and well packaged using plastic bag. One gram of
the sample was added into a plastic bag with a mixture of acetone and
methanol (7:3, vol/vol). The headspaces in the plastic bag were
removed before it sealed and then it loaded into the container. The
equipment was required to be pumped manually until the pressure
reached 90 MPa, hence, the pressure raised up automatically and run
based on the setting. The extracted then centrifuged at 10,000 × g
for 10 min. Its supernatant was added with an equal volume of
distilled water and hexane (1:1, vol/vol). After the upper layer was
collected and dried under oxygen-free nitrogen, it was immediately
stored in a freezer at −80
C for further analysis.
2.3 | Experimental design
Three variables (holding time, pressure, and amount of solvents) were
selected in order to achieve the optimum yield of astaxanthin. The
central, axial, and factorial runs numbers of these variables were
selected based on previous studies (Du et al., 2013) which were inves-
tigated in the preliminary study (Irna et al., 2018). The central numbers
of holding time and pressure were selected (Table 1) referred to the
result of Du et al. (2013) as the aim of using HPP is to shorten the
processing time. In addition, astaxanthin is easy to oxidize, therefore,
higher pressure and longer time processing will affect the astaxanthin
yield. The amount of solvents used was less because of the purpose
of using HPP was also to be environmentally friendly, hence the use
of organic solvents should be decreased.
The central composite design (CCD) was used for optimization
using RSM because it is able to establish new extreme for the low and
high setting for all variables. The axial, lowest, and highest values
including the central number were listed in Table 1, completed with
independent variables of optimization investigated in the extraction of
astaxanthin.
IRNA ET AL. 3 of 8

TABLE 2 Experimental design for optimization

Process variables
Run Holding time (min) Pressure (MPa) Amount of solvents (ml) Astaxanthin (μg/gdw) (experiment) Astaxanthin (μg/gdw) (predicted)
1 20.00 150.00 3.00 23.52  1.14 26.88
2 15.00 200.00 5.00 72.15  1.07 74.93
3 6.59 200.00 5.00 37.92  1.42 32.22
4 15.00 284.09 5.00 55.06  0.70 53.28
5 15.00 115.91 5.00 32.85  1.12 27.54
6 15.00 200.00 5.00 75.58  0.88 74.93
7 15.00 200.00 8.36 58.39  0.81 55.40
8 15.00 200.00 5.00 77.25  1.04 74.93
9 15.00 200.00 5.00 70.63  0.79 74.93
10 10.00 150.00 3.00 12.56  0.48 16.17
11 15.00 200.00 5.00 75.86  0.94 74.93
12 23.41 200.00 5.00 42.56  0.95 41.18
13 10.00 250.00 7.00 64.56  1.26 66.21
14 20.00 250.00 7.00 64.76  1.65 66.16
15 10.00 150.00 3.00 9.98  0.78 13.67
16 20.00 250.00 7.00 31.74  0.52 33.06
17 20.00 200.00 3.00 18.56  0.77 18.86
18 15.00 200.00 1.64 10.12  0.78 6.02
19 15.00 200.00 5.00 76.89  0.85 74.93
20 10.00 150.00 7.00 22.89  1.02 27.59

Table 1 lists the values of independent variables of optimization each other. This value indicates that the variables contributed positively
investigated in the extraction of astaxanthin. CCD was used for to the response (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2013).
optimization using RSM in Design Expert software v.7.0.0.

2.5 | Determination of astaxanthin yield

2.4 | Statistical analysis
The optimization using CCD was analyzed for statistical significance
(p < .05) and carried out with three process conditions: holding time,
pressure, and amount of solvents. Each variable comprised of five
different levels. All experimental data were observed in triplicate and
reported in means  standard deviations (SD). For three variables sys-
tems (process condition), the model equation was as shown below:
Y ¼ β0 + β1 A + β2 B + β3 C + β11 A2 + β22 B2
ð1Þ
+ β33 C2 + β12 AB + β13 AC + β23 BC,
where A is holding time (min), B is pressure (MPa), C is the amount of
solvent (ml), and Y is the astaxanthin yield (μg/gdw). Predict response
(β0) is intercept while β1, β2, β3 are linear coefficients; β11, β22, β33 are
squared coefficients; and β12, β13, β23 are interaction coefficients.
The t-distribution and corresponding p value of the experiment
were evaluated. The larger of t value and smaller p value indicate the
highest significance of the corresponding coefficient. The significance
of coefficients has been reported to be directly proportional to t value
and inverse to p value (Akhnazorova & Katarao, 1982). Nonsignificant
lack of fit indicates excellent due to implying the model fits the data
(Rasdi et al., 2009). The model terms are significant if the Prob. > F is
less than 0.05. The not significant Lack of Fit value implies that the Lack
of Fit is not significant relative to the pure error. The relationship
between response variables and parameters variables is evaluated using
2
regression coefficient (R ) and its values between 0 (0%) and 1 (100%).
The R2 approaching 1 expressed that both factors and responses fit
2.5.1 | Spectrophotometric analysis
The experimental results of astaxanthin using CCD were determined
at an absorbance of 468 nm using a spectrophotometer as described
by Simpson and Haard (1985)). The extracted samples were diluted in
3 ml of petroleum ether and the yield of astaxanthin was calculated
using the following equation:
 
μg A468 : V
Astaxanthin ¼ , ð2Þ
g 0:192: W
where A468 is the absorbance at 468 nm, V is volume. Extract is the
volume of extract (ml), 0.192 is the absorbance at 468 nm of 1 μg/ml
of astaxanthin standard, and W is mass of sample.
2.5.2 | High-performance liquid chromatography analysis
The optimum condition was validated using high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC). The qualitative analysis of astaxanthin yield
in shrimp carapace was carried out using HPLC based on the compari-
son of the retention time between the samples and astaxanthin stan-
dard ≥97% (SIGMA) as depicted in Figure 1.
HPLC analysis of astaxanthin was carried out according to the
works of Rashidi Othman and Wayne Morris (Morris et al., 2004; Oth-
man, 2009). An HPLC (Agilent) 2100 series model (Agilent Technologies,
Santa Clara, CA, United States) was used, which consists of a binary
pump, an auto-sampler injector, micro vacuum degassers, a thermostat
column compartment, and a diode array detector. The column used was
ZORBAX Eclipse SB-C18, 250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm particle size, and
4 of 8 IRNA ET AL.

FIGURE 1 Chromatogram of astaxanthin standard (1.0 μg/μl)

end capped. The solvents used as the mobile phases were acetonitrile
and distilled water at the ratio of 9:1 (vol/vol) (mobile phase A) and ethyl
acetate (mobile phase B). The gradient elution used was 60–40% sol-
vent A–B (0–20 min), 40–60% solvent A–B (20–25 min), 0–100% sol-
vent A–B (25–25.1 min), 100–0% solvent A–B (25.1–35 min), and
100–0% solvent B (35–35.1 min) at a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min. The col-
umn temperature was 20
C. The detection range was set at
350–550 nm with the volume injection of 10 μl. The quantitative analy-
sis of astaxanthin yield was calculated using Microsoft Excel by referring
to the linear regression of the astaxanthin standard curve prepared with
correlation coefficient of 0.98 and in the range of 0.5–2.5 μg/ml.
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 | Optimization of astaxanthin yield by RSM
The significance of the interaction of three variables (holding time,
pressure, and amount of solvents) and two levels can be represented
by the model in the optimization using RSM. RSM is able to control
the variables of the optimum setting in order to obtain maximum
FIGURE 2 Normal probability plot of residuals
response (Khuri & Mukhopadhyay, 2010). The range was chosen based
on the optimum point of a previous study (Du et al., 2013). Holding
time was investigated because HPP is functioning to shorten the pro-
cessing time while organic solvents may lead to environmental pollu-
tion (Du et al., 2013; Muntean et al., 2016). Pressure is an important
parameter in HPP since it helps to open the pore of cells and therefore
solvents to enter the cells of shrimp carapace, hence it helps hasten
the biochemical reaction involving solvents (Uhm & Yoon, 2011). How-
ever, a temperature is not selected as a variable in the optimization
study because astaxanthin is susceptible to oxidation when stimulated
by heat. The nutritional value also will be reduced due to the thermola-
bile characteristic (Handayani, Indraswati, & Ismadji, 2008). Hence,
HPP is the most relevant method to be used in order to extract astax-
anthin since it is a nonthermal processing technology (Armenta &
Guerrero-Legarreta, 2009; Barbosa-Cánovas & Juliano, 2008).
The normal probability plot of residuals is shown in Figure 2. It is
clear that most residuals are on the straight line shown in the figure.
The SD of studentized residuals was estimated to measure the studen-
tized residuals, which are the quotient resulting from the division of a

TABLE 3 ANOVA for response surface quadratic model

Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom (df ) Mean square F value Prob > F
Model 11,664.31 9 1,296.03 66.55 <0.0001 Significant
A 96.98 1 96.98 4.98 0.0497 *
B 799.66 1 799.66 41.06 <0.0001 **
C 2,943.89 1 2,943.89 151.16 <0.0001 **
AB 15.21 1 15.21 0.78 0.3976
AC 13.76 1 13.76 0.71 0.4203
BC 845.22 1 845.22 43.40 <0.0001 **
A2 2,633.03 1 2,633.03 135.19 <0.0001 **
B2 2,146.19 1 2,146.19 110.20 <0.0001 **
C2 3,521.94 1 3,521.94 180.84 <0.0001 **
Residual 194.76 10 19.48
Lack of fit 158.28 5 31.66 4.34 0.0666 Not significant
Pure error 36.48 5 7.30
Cor. Total 11,859.07 19

*Significant.
**Highly significant.
IRNA ET AL. 5 of 8

TABLE 4 Analysis of the model fitting for astaxanthin yield These values indicate that the variables (holding time, pressure, and
Elements Values Elements Values amount of solvents) contributed positively to the response.
SD 4.41 R-squared 0.9836
Mean 46.69 Adj R-squared 0.9688 3.3 | Graphical analysis for yield optimization
C. V. % 9.45 Pred R-squared 0.8941
RSM plays a key role for dependent variables to identify a maximum
PRESS 1,256.33 Adeq precision 22.082
response of the optimum values from independent variables. It shows
residual. Referring to Figure 2, the residuals were studentized and the contours of constant response of two-dimensional (2D) and three-
values were greater than +2 and less than −2. It shows that the resid- dimensional (3D) graphs with the axis system being a specific pair of
uals followed a normal distribution and the majority of the data points the two design variables, while the other design variables remain con-
are distributed along the fitted line, which are fairly close with reason- stant. The interactions between holding time and pressure, as well as
able outliers (Anuar, Mohd Adnan, Saat, Aziz, & Mat Taha, 2013). between holding time and amount of solvents, were insignificant
according to the value of Prob > F. Therefore, the contour plot and 3D
3.2 | Analysis of variance surface shown involved the interaction between pressure and amount
of solvents because these variables have significant Prob > F values.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) provides a means to examine the effect
The model equation of effects is drawn using a 2D contour plot
of qualitative factors on qualitative results. ANOVA was evaluated
and a 3D response surface plot (Figures 3–5) to illustrate the indepen-
using a quadratic model (Table 3). The F value of this study was 66.55.
dent variables and interactive effects of each independent variable
This implies that the model is a significantly useful model. The distri-
(Dejaegher, Durand, & Heyden, 2010). The significance or
bution of the independent variables of probability for N samples was
estimated using the p value (Prob > F). Table 3 shows that A, B, C, BC,
A2, B2, and C2 are significant model terms. The model terms are not
significant if the values are greater than 0.1. From the findings, hold-
ing time (A), pressure (B), and amount of solvents (C) influenced the
extraction of astaxanthin because the values of Prob > F are less than
0.05. Factor A had a significant influence on the response because its
Prob > F was close to 0.05, while B and C had highly significant effects
on the response because the Prob > F was <0.0001 (Mudge, Baker,
Edge, & Houlahan, 2012).
The estimation of the variables according to the application of
RSM, both response and tested variables in coded units according to
an empirical relationship, is represented through the following regres-
sion equation:

Astaxanthin yield ðmg=gdwÞ ¼74:93 + 2:66* t + 7:65* P + 14:68* V

− 1:38* t* P− 1:31* t* V + 10:28* P* V
− 13:52* t2 −12:20* P2 −15:63* V 2 ,
ð3Þ

where t is holding time (min), P is pressure (MPa), and V is amount of

acetone-methanol mixture (ml).
The Lack of Fit F value of 4.34 implies that the Lack of Fit is not
significant relative to the pure error. The not significant of Lack of Fit
indicates that the model was fit for the present model (Mourabet, El
Rhilassi, El Boujaady, Bennani-Ziatni, & Taitai, 2017). There was only
6.66% probability that a Lack of Fit F value this large could occur due
to noise (Table 4).
The relationship between responses and variables is evaluated
using regression coefficient (R2) and its value is between 0 (0%) and
1 (100%) (Cohen et al., 2013). The R2 approaching 1 implies that both
factors and responses fit each other (Mourabet et al., 2017). The R2
value was 0.9836, and the predicted-R2 of 0.8941 was in reasonable
agreement with the adjusted-R2 of 0.9688 (Table 4). In addition, the
low values coefficient of variation (CV) and SD show the adequate of
the model with the experiment is performed (Mourabet et al., 2017). FIGURE 3 2D contour plots and 3D response surface plot showing
the CV was 9.45 and SD was 4.41 display the degree of precision. the effect of pressure and holding time
6 of 8 IRNA ET AL.

FIGURE 5 2D contour plots and 3D response surface plot showing

FIGURE 4 2D contour plots and 3D response surface plot showing the effect of amount of solvents and pressure
the effect of amount of solvents and holding time

insignificance of interactions between independent variables corre-

sponds to the contour plot profile. A significant interaction between
the independent variables is shown by an elliptical contour plot profile
(Zhao et al., 2012).
Figure 3 shows 2D contour and 3D response surface plots, these
pictures are indicating the effect of pressure and holding time that
played in affecting the yield of astaxanthin. It can be seen, the highest
yield of astaxanthin was perceived just about 76 μg/g when the holding
time was approximately 15 min with pressure was over 200 MPa.
Meanwhile, Figure 4 displays the important role of the interaction
between amount of solvents and holding time. The increased of amount
of solvents and holding increases the yield of astaxanthin to nearly
78μg/g. The maximum yield was discovered when the amount of sol-
vents were just about 6 ml and holding time was over 15 min. In addi-
tion, the corresponding contour plot showing the effect of pressure and
amount of solvents on astaxanthin in Figure 5 shows that yield of astax-
anthin increases if the pressure and amount of solvents increased. FIGURE 6 Chromatogram of astaxanthin at optimum condition
IRNA ET AL.
TABLE 5 Validation of developed quadratic model with the optimum constituents (mean  SE)
Run Holding time (min) Pressure (MPa) Amount of solvent (ml)
1 17.25 233.76 6.02
2 16.29 238.54 6.59
3 17.05 240.68 6.32
Hence, the highest astaxanthin yield was observed approximately
82 μg/g when the pressure was fixed to approximately 225 MPa and
the amount of solvents was increased to 6 ml. The exerted pressure is
limited in order to avoid excessive levels that have been shown to cause
oxidation and affect food quality (Shankar, 2014).
3.4 | Model validation
In order to assess model accuracy, the criterion for numerical solution
was evaluated by running optimized solutions with the highest
desirability (Table 5). The predicted values were compared with exper-
imental values and the percentage of errors was calculated. The result
of the three confirmation experiments was presented in Table 5.
The percentage of error varied from 3.99 to 4.87%. Table 5 shows
that the optimum condition of the model based on the validation is
the second run with a yield of astaxanthin at 84.17 μg/g and error of
3.99%. This condition then was carried out using HPLC then qualita-
tively analyzed based on the retention time (13 min) with astaxanthin
standard chromatogram. In addition, the quantitative analysis
(Figure 6) resulted at 95.17  0.63 μg/gdw for the yield of astax-
anthin with a pressure of 238.54 MPa, holding time of 16.29 min, and
a solvent in the amount of 6.59 ml. This analysis was based on the
astaxanthin standard with the concentration of 0.5–2.5 μg/ml that
was diluted in ethyl acetate.
The optimum condition of HPP method from P. monodon carapace
enabled higher extraction yield of astaxanthin to be obtained compared
to without optimization with the yield of astaxanthin of 59.77 μg/gdw
(Irna et al., 2018), supercritical CO2 without and with ethanol of
20.7 μg/g (Sánchez-Camargo, Martinez-Correa, Paviani, & Cabral, 2011)
and 34.8 μg/g from (Sánchez-Camargo, Meireles, Ferreira, Saito, &
Cabral, 2012) Farfantepenaues paulensis, and 58.03 μg/g from Penaeus
monodon (Radzali, Baharin, Othman, Markom, & Rahman, 2014). In
addition, it also higher compare to other HPP works with the yield of
astaxanthin from Litopenaeus vannamei of 89.12 μg/g (Du et al., 2013),
and Penaeus vannamei Boone of 72.94 μg/g (Li et al., 2017).
4 | CO NC LUSIO N
Astaxanthin is a safe and powerful natural antioxidant. It is an ideal die-
tary supplement as it has potential health benefits and enhances
immune system. Shrimp carapace is a cheap material for producing
astaxanthin. HPP is a well-established method to extract astaxanthin.
This study showed that the optimization of HPP extraction had a signif-
icant effect on the yield of astaxanthin from shrimp carapace
(P. monodon) using RSM in estimating the optimum condition. Based on
the ANOVA analysis, the selected quadratic model gave high regression
coefficient and Adj R-Squared. Hence, the optimization of the variables
7 of 8
Yield
Experiment μg/gdw Predicted μg/gdw % error
80.23 83.63  0.54 4.24
80.94 84.17  0.36 3.99
79.48 83.35  0.77 4.87
(pressure, holding time, and amount of solvents) indicates that the appli-
cation of RSM could optimize the yield of astaxanthin. Moreover, HPP
has proven its potential as an alternative astaxanthin extraction method
that can be conducted in shorter time and with good properties.
CONFLIC T OF INT E RE ST
The authors confirmed that there are no known conflicts of interest
associated with this publication.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank for the Ministry of Higher Education
(MOHE) and International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) for the
Research Grant MIRGS13-01-001-0002.
ORCID
Cicy Irna https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0586-8258
RE FE RE NC ES
Akhnazorova, S., & Katarao, V. (1982). Experiment optimisation in chemistry
and chemical engineering. Design of experiments. Part II. Moscow: Mir
Publisher.
Anthony, J. (2008). Design of experiments for engineers and scientists.
London: Butterworth Heineman.
Anuar, N., Mohd Adnan, A. F., Saat, N., Aziz, N., & Mat Taha, R. (2013).
Optimization of extraction parameters by using response surface
methodology, purification, and identification of anthocyanin pigments
in Melastoma malabathricum fruit. The Scientific World Journal, 2013,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/810547
Armenta, R. E., & Guerrero-Legarreta, I. (2009). Stability studies on astax-
anthin extracted from fermented shrimp byproducts. Journal of Agricul-
tural and Food Chemistry, 57(14), 6095–6100. https://doi.org/10.
1021/jf901083d
Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V., & Juliano, P. (2008). Food sterilization by combin-
ing high pressure and thermal energy. In G. F. Gutiérrez-Lopez,
G. V. Barbosa-Cánovas, J. Welti-Chanes, & E. Parada-Arias (Eds.), Food
engineering: Integrated approaches (pp. 9–46). Washington: Springer.
Capelli, B., & Cysewski, G. (2007). ASTAXANTHIN Natural astaxanthin: King
of the carotenoids (pp. 7–32). Kailua, HI: Cyanotech Corporation.
Chang-hwan, Y., Tao, Z., & Kyung-ho, R. (2012). Purification of Astaxanthin
from Laminaria japonica by ionic liquid-based monolithic cartridge.
Chemical Research in Chinese Universites, 28(3), 406–409.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (Vol. 1). New
Jersey: Routledge.
Dejaegher, B., Durand, A., & Heyden, Y. V. (2010). Experimental design in
method optimisation and robustness testing. In G. Hanrahan &
F. A. Gomez (Eds.), Chemometric methods in capillary electrophoresis
(pp. 11–74). Hoboken: Wiley.
Dey, G., Mitra, A., Banerjee, R., & Maiti, B. R. (2001). Enhanced production
of amylase by optimization of nutritional constituents using response
surface methodology. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 7(3), 227–231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-703X(00)00139-X
8 of 8
Du, J., He, J., Yu, Y., Zhu, S., & Li, J. (2013). Astaxanthin extracts from
shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) discards assisted by high pressure pro-
cessing. In 2013 Kansas City, Missouri, July 21–July 24, 2013 (p. 1).
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Ferstl, C., & Ferstl, P. (2013). High pressure processing insights on technol-
ogy and regulatory requirements. The NFL White Paper Series, 10, 2–6.
Gamlath, S., & Wakeling, L. (2011). Trends in high pressure processing of
foods: Food quality and bioactive components. In New topics in food
engineering (pp. 109–110). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Guerin, M., Huntley, M. E., & Olaizola, M. (2003). Haematococcus astax-
anthin: Applications for human health and nutrition. Trends in Biotech-
nology, 21(5), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(03)
00078-7
Handayani, A. D., Indraswati, N., & Ismadji, S. (2008). Extraction of astaxanthin
from giant tiger (Panaeus monodon) shrimp waste using palm oil: Studies
of extraction kinetics and thermodynamic. Bioresource Technology, 99(10),
4414–4419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.028
Huang, H.-W., Hsu, C. P., Yang, B. B., & Wang, C. Y. (2014). Potential utility
of high-pressure processing to address the risk of food allergen con-
cerns. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13(1),
78–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12045
Hussein, G., Sankawa, U., Goto, H., Matsumoto, K., & Watanabe, H.
(2006). Astaxanthin, a carotenoid with potential in human health and
nutrition. Journal of Natural Products, 69(3), 443–449. https://doi.
org/10.1021/np050354+
Irna, C., Jaswir, I., Othman, R., & Jimat, D. N. (2018). Comparison between
high-pressure processing and chemical extraction: Astaxanthin yield
from six species of shrimp carapace. Journal of Dietary Supplements, 15
805–813. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/19390211.2017.1387885, 15
Jeddi, M. Z., Khaniki, G. J., & Sadighara, P. (2013). Optimization of extrac-
tion of carotenoids from shrimp waste. Global Veterinaria, 10(6),
636–637. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.gv.2013.10.6.73168
Jiménez-Contreras, E., Torres-Salinas, D., Moreno, R., Baños, R., &
López-Cózar, E. (2008). Response surface methodology and its applica-
tion in evaluating scientific activity. Scientometrics, 79(1), 201–218.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0413-3
Kaur, B. P., & Rao, P. S. (2017). Process optimization for high-pressure pro-
cessing of black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) using response surface
methodology. Food Science and Technology International, 23(3),
197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013216673460
Khuri, A. I., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2010). Response surface methodology.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(2), 128–149.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.73
Kim, S. K., Rajapaske, N., & Shahidi, F. (2008). Production of bioactive chito-
san oligosaccharides and their potential uses as nutraceuticals
(pp. 183–196). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.
Lerfall, J., & Birkeland, S. (2014). Effect of high pressure processing on
astaxanthin stability. International Journal of Food Science and Technol-
ogy, 49(1), 294–297. doi:0.1111/ijfs.12271
Li, J., Sun, W., Ramaswamy, H. S., Yu, Y., Zhu, S., Wang, J., & Li, H. (2017).
High pressure extraction of astaxanthin from shrimp waste (Penaeus Van-
namei Boone): Effect on yield and antioxidant activity. Journal of Food Pro-
cess Engineering, 40(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.12353
Mahata, M. E., Dharma, A., Ryanto, H. I., & Rizal, Y. (2008). Effect of
substituting shrimp waste hydrolysate of Penaeus merguensis for fish
meal in broiler performance. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 7(6),
806–810. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2008.806.810
Morris, W. L., Ducreux, L., Griffiths, D. W., Stewart, D., Davies, H. V., &
Taylor, M. A. (2004). Carotenogenesis during tuber development and
storage in potato. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55(399), 975–982.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh121
Mourabet, M., El Rhilassi, A., El Boujaady, H., Bennani-Ziatni, M., &
Taitai, A. (2017). Use of response surface methodology for optimiza-
tion of fluoride adsorption in an aqueous solution by Brushite. Arabian
Journal of Chemistry, 10, S3292–S3302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
arabjc.2013.12.028
Mudge, J. F., Baker, L. F., Edge, C. B., & Houlahan, J. E. (2012). Setting an
optimal α that minimizes errors in null hypothesis significance tests. PLoS
One, 7(2), e32734. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032734
Muntean, M. V., Marian, O., Barbieru, V., Catunescu, G. M., Ranta, O.,
Drocas, I., & Terhes, S. (2016). High pressure processing in food industry –
IRNA ET AL.
Characteristics and applications. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Proce-
dia, 10, 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.09.077
Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., & Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2009).
Response surface methodology: Process and product optimisation using
designed experiments (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.
Niu, Z., Zhao, Y., & Tian, B. (2014). Design optimization of high pressure
and high temperature piezoresistive pressure sensor for high sensitiv-
ity. Review of Scientific Instruments, 85(1), 015001. https://doi.org/10.
1063/1.4856455
Omar, E. N., & Jaafar, H. S. (2011, September). Halal supply chain in the
food industry – A conceptual model. In Business, engineering and indus-
trial applications (ISBEIA), 2011 I.E. Symposium on (pp. 384–389). IEEE.
Othman, R. (2009). Biochemistry and genetics of carotenoid composition in
potato tubers (Doctoral dissertation. Lincoln University.. doi:
10.1.1.945.3174
Patria, A. (2013). Production and characterization of chitosan from shrimp
shells waste. AACL Bioflux, 6(4), 339–344.
Radzali, S. A., Baharin, B. S., Othman, R., Markom, M., & Rahman, R. A.
(2014). Co-solvent selection for supercritical fluid extraction of astax-
anthin and other carotenoids from Penaeus monodon waste. Journal of
Oleo Science, 63(8), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.5650/jos.ess13184
Rasdi, Z., Rahman, N. A. A., Abd-Aziz, S., Lai-Yee, P., Zulkhairy, M.,
Yusoff, M., … Hassan, M. A. (2009). Statistical optimisation of biohy-
drogen production from palm oil mill effluent palm oil mill effluent by
natural microflora. The Open Biotechnology Journal, 3, 79–86. https://
doi.org/10.2174/1874070700903010079
Sánchez-Camargo, A. P., Martinez-Correa, H. A., Paviani, L. C., &
Cabral, F. A. (2011). Supercritical CO2 extraction of lipids and
astaxanthin from Brazilian redspotted shrimp waste (Farfantepenaeus
paulensis). The Journal of Supercritical Fluids, 56(2), 164–173. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2010.12.009
Sánchez-Camargo, A. P., Meireles, M. A. A., Ferreira, A. L., Saito, E., &
Cabral, F. A. (2012). Extraction of ω-3 fatty acids and astaxanthin from
Brazilian redspotted shrimp waste using supercritical CO2 + ethanol
mixtures. The Journal of Supercritical Fluids, 61, 71–77. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.supflu.2011.09.17
Shankar, R. (2014). High pressure processing – Changes in quality character-
istic of various food material processed under high pressure technology.
International Journal of Innovation and Science Research, 3(2), 168–186.
Simpson, B. K., & Haard, N. F. (1985). The use of enzymes to extract
carotenoprotein from shrimp waste. Journal of Applied Biochemistry,
7(3), 212–222.
Theodore, L. (2011). Heat transfer applications for the practicing engineer
(Vol. 7). New Jersey, UK: Wiley.
Uhm, J. T., & Yoon, W. B. (2011). Effects of high-pressure process on
kinetics of leaching oil from soybean powder using hexane in batch
systems. Journal of Food Science, 76(6), E444–E449. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1750-3481.20111.02252.x
Yamashita, E. (2013). Astaxanthin as a medical food. Functional Foods in
Health and Disease, 3(7), 254–258.
Yue, Y., Bohkyung, K., & Ji-Young, L. (2013). Astaxanthin structure, metab-
olism, and health benefits. Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science,
1, 1003.1–1003.11. https://doi.org/10.3390/md12010128
Zhang, J., Sun, Z., Sun, P., Chen, T., & Chen, F. (2014). Microalgal caroten-
oids: Beneficial effects and potential in human health. Food & Function,
5(3), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3fo60607d
Zhao, L. C., He, Y., Deng, X., Yang, G. L., Li, W., Liang, J., & Tang, Q. L.
(2012). Response surface modeling and optimization of accelerated
solvent extraction of four lignans from fructus schisandrae. Molecules,
17(4), 3618–3629. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules17043618
How to cite this article: Irna C, Jaswir I, Othman R, Jimat DN.
Optimization of high-pressure processing in extraction of
astaxanthin from Penaeus monodon carapace using response
surface methodology. J Food Process Eng. 2018;41:e12880.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.12880