An integrated procedure for the recovery of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) produced by Cupriavidus necator based on the extraction with 1,2‐propylene carbonate was evaluated. The effect of temperature (100–145°C) and contact time (15–45 min), precipitation period, and biomass pretreatments (pH shock and/or thermal treatments) on PHB extraction efficiency and polymer properties was evaluated. The highest yield (95%) and purity (84%) were obtained with the combination of a temperature of 130°C and a contact time of 30 min, with a precipitation period of 48 h. Under these conditions, PHB had a molecular weight of 7.4×105, which was the highest value obtained. Lower values (2.2×105) were obtained for higher temperatures (145°C), while lower temperatures resulted in incomplete extraction yields (45–54%). No further yield improvement was achieved with the pH/heat pretreatments, but the polymer's molecular weight was increased to 1.3×106. The PHB physical properties were not significantly affected by any of the tested procedures, as shown by the narrow ranges obtained for the glass transition temperature (4.8–5.0°C), melting temperature (170.1–180.1°C), melting enthalpy (77.8–88.5 J/g) and crystallinity (55–62%). 1,2‐Propylene carbonate was shown to be an efficient solvent for the extraction of PHB from biomass. The precipitation procedure was found to highly influence the polymer recovery and its molecular weight. Although polymer molecular weight and purity were improved by applying pH/heat pretreatment to the biomass, the procedure involves the use of large amounts of chemicals, which increases the recovery costs and makes the process environmentally unfriendly.

No abstract

No abstract

a b s t r a c tThe objective of this work was to develop and evaluate integrated processes of cooking and vacuum cooling of chicken breast cuts in a same vessel aiming at avoiding product manipulation and reducing the processing time. In this context, three integrated processes were compared with respect to weight loss and processing time: (i) vapor cooking followed by vacuum cooling; (ii) water immersion cooking followed by draining the cooking water and vacuum cooling; and (iii) water immersion cooking followed by vacuum cooling with the product immerse in the cooking water. Shorter cooling times were obtained using processes (i) and (ii), where the cooling is performed in non-immersed samples, while smaller weight losses are obtained using process (iii). Consequently, for applications in which weight loss is not an issue, processes (i) and (ii) must be used. Alternatively, process (iii) can be used for obtaining smaller weight losses with a larger cooling time.

No abstract