| Literature DB >> 26111171 |
Ali Ghasemzadeh1, Hawa Z E Jaafar2, Abdul Shukor Juraimi3, Amin Tayebi-Meigooni4.
Abstract
Secondary metabolite contents (total phenolic, flavonoid, tocopherol, and tocotrienol) and antioxidant activities of Hashemi rice bran extracts obtained by ultrasound-assisted and traditional solvent (ethanol and 50:50 (v/v) ethanol-water) extraction techniques were compared. Phenolic and, flavonoid compounds were identified using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography and method validation was performed. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among the different extraction techniques upon comparison of phytochemical contents and antioxidant activities. The extracts obtained using the ethanol-water (50:50 v/v) ultrasonic technique showed the highest amounts of total phenolics (288.40 mg/100 g dry material (DM)), total flavonoids (156.20 mg/100 g DM), and total tocotrienols (56.23 mg/100 g DM), and the highest antioxidant activity (84.21% 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), 65.27% β-carotene-linoleic bleaching and 82.20% nitric oxide scavenging activity). Secondary metabolite contents and antioxidant activities of the rice bran extracts varied depending of the extraction method used, and according to their effectiveness, these were organized in a decreasing order as follows: ethanol-water (50:50 v/v) ultrasonic, ethanol-water (50:50 v/v) maceration, ethanol ultrasonic and ethanol maceration methods. Ferulic, gallic and chlorogenic acids were the most abundant phenolic compounds in rice bran extracts. The phytochemical constituents of Hashemi rice bran and its antioxidant properties provides insights into its potential application to promote health.Entities:
Keywords: DPPH; Hashemi rice bran; nitric oxide scavenging; ultra-high performance liquid chromatography; ultrasonic; β-carotene bleaching
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26111171 PMCID: PMC6272729 DOI: 10.3390/molecules200610822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Total phenolic, total flavonoid and total tocopherol content of Hashemi rice bran extract with different extraction technique.
| Extraction Solvent/Technique | TPC (mg/100 g DM) | TFC (mg/100 g DM) | Total Tocopherol (mg/100 g DM ) | Total Tocotrienols (mg/100 g DM ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol maceration | 221.06 ± 10.63 d | 108.50 ± 10.01 c | 38.11 ± 2.04 a | 46.54 ± 2.92 c |
| Ethanol-water (50:50) maceration | 270.51 ± 11.47 b | 137.15 ± 12.89 b | 36.93 ± 2.26 a | 55.83 ± 1.85 a |
| Ethanol ultrasonic | 246.34 ± 12.26 c | 112.60 ± 13.65 c | 37.08 ± 2.21 a | 51.28 ± 2.80 b |
| Ethanol-water (50:50) ultrasonic | 288.40 ± 14.35 a | 156.20 ± 10.69 a | 37.51 ± 2.05 a | 56.23 ± 2.37 a |
TPC: total phenolic content; TFC: total flavonoid content; Data are means of triplicate, measurements ± standard deviation. Means not sharing a common single letter for each measurement were significantly, different at p < 0.05.
Effects of extracting solvent/technique on the antioxidant activity of Hashemi rice bran extracts (100 µg/mL), using three different methods.
| Extraction Solvent/Technique | DPPH Assay (%) | β-Carotene-linoleic Acid Bleaching Assay (%) | Nitric Oxide Scavenging Activity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethanol maceration | 57.33 ± 3.51 d | 47.23 ± 2.55 c | 46.20 ± 3.78 d |
| Ethanol-water (50:50) maceration | 71.41 ± 2.84 b | 53.67 ± 1.94 b | 74.50 ± 2.56 b |
| Ethanol ultrasonic | 68.05 ± 1.55 c | 54.76 ± 3.17 b | 58.30 ± 2.44 c |
| Ethanol-water (50:50) ultrasonic | 84.21 ± 3.84 a | 65.27 ± 2.73 a | 82.20 ± 2.69 a |
Data are means of triplicate measurements ± standard deviation. Means not sharing a common single letter for each measurement were significantly, different at p < 0.05.
Figure 1Free radical scaven.ging activity (DP.PH assay) of t.he different extrac.t of Hashemi rice bran. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (n = 3).
Figure 2Nitric oxide scavengi.ng activity of Hashemi rice bran, extracts from different extraction methods. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (n = 3).
Correlatio.n analysis betw.een, secondary metabolites and antioxi.dant activity of Hashemi rice bran.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TP | 1 | ||||||
| 2 | TF | 0.825 ** | 1 | |||||
| 3 | Total tocopherol | 0.526 | 0.663 | 1 | ||||
| 4 | Total tocotrienols | 0.792 * | 0.677 | 0.546 | 1 | |||
| 5 | DPPH | 0.925 ** | 0.911 ** | 0.946 ** | 0.988 ** | 1 | ||
| 6 | β-Carotene-linoleic acid bleaching | 0.668 | 0.871 * | 0.719 | 0.844 * | 0.612 | 1 | |
| 7 | Nitric oxide scavenging activity | 0.950 ** | 0.936 ** | 0.812 * | 0.969 ** | 0.905 ** | 0.746 | 1 |
* = significant at p < 0.05; ** = significant at p < 0.01.
Concentration of identified phenolic acids and flavonoids and their recovery test in Hashemi rice bran extract.
| Phenolic Acids | Concentration in Sample (mg/100 g DM) | Standard Added (mg) | Recovery | Recovery (%) | RSD (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expected | Actual | |||||
| Gallic acid | 11.56 ± 0.88 | 1.00 | 12.56 | 12.16 ± 0.26 | 96.81 | 2.13 |
| 11.56 ± 0.88 | 2.50 | 14.06 | 13.68 ± 0.37 | 97.30 | 2.70 | |
| 11.56 ± 0.88 | 5.00 | 16.56 | 16.24 ± 0.24 | 98.07 | 1.47 | |
| Protocatechuic acid | 6.72 ± 0.16 | 1.00 | 7.72 | 8.80 ± 0.10 | 113.99 | 1.13 |
| 6.72 ± 0.16 | 2.50 | 9.22 | 10.12 ± 0.15 | 109.76 | 1.48 | |
| 6.72 ± 0.16 | 5.00 | 11.72 | 11.95 ± 0.13 | 101.96 | 1.08 | |
| Syringic acid | 10.39 ± 0.11 | 1.00 | 11.39 | 10.55 ± 0.075 | 92.63 | 0.71 |
| 10.39 ± 0.11 | 2.50 | 12.89 | 11.47 ± 0.03 | 88.98 | 0.26 | |
| 10.39 ± 0.11 | 5.00 | 15.39 | 16.42 ± 0.09 | 106.69 | 0.54 | |
| Chlorogenic acid | 11.12 ± 0.28 | 1.00 | 12.12 | 11.80 ± 0.21 | 97.36 | 1.77 |
| 11.12 ± 0.28 | 2.50 | 13.52 | 14.19 ± 0.18 | 104.96 | 1.26 | |
| 11.12 ± 0.28 | 5.00 | 16.12 | 15.33 ± 0.17 | 95.10 | 1.10 | |
| Caffeic acid | 10.59 ± 0.16 | 1.00 | 11.59 | 10.64 ± 0.09 | 91.80 | 0.84 |
| 10.59 ± 0.16 | 2.50 | 13.09 | 12.77 ± 0.11 | 97.56 | 0.86 | |
| 10.59 ± 0.16 | 5.00 | 15.59 | 16.36 ± 0.07 | 104.94 | 0.42 | |
| Ferulic acid | 12.28 ± 0.69 | 1.00 | 13.28 | 12.91 ± 0.16 | 97.21 | 1.23 |
| 12.28 ± 0.69 | 2.50 | 14.78 | 15.10 ± 0.19 | 102.17 | 1.25 | |
| 12.28 ± 0.69 | 5.00 | 17.28 | 16.52 ± 0.23 | 95.60 | 1.39 | |
| Cinnamic acid | 8.23 ± 0.86 | 1.00 | 9.23 | 10.66 ± 0.14 | 115.49 | 1.31 |
| 8.23 ± 0.86 | 2.50 | 10.73 | 11.91 ± 0.17 | 111.00 | 1.42 | |
| 8.23 ± 0.86 | 5.00 | 13.23 | 12.46 ± 0.18 | 94.18 | 1.44 | |
| Apigenin | 2.65 ± 0.52 | 0.25 | 2.90 | 3.35 ± 0.12 | 115.51 | 3.58 |
| 2.65 ± 0.52 | 0.50 | 3.15 | 3.60 ± 0.09 | 114.28 | 2.50 | |
| 2.65 ± 0.52 | 1.00 | 3.65 | 3.40 ± 0.06 | 93.15 | 1.76 | |
| Catechin | 4.28 ± 0.88 | 0.50 | 4.78 | 4.20 ± 0.10 | 87.86 | 2.38 |
| 4.28 ± 0.88 | 1.00 | 5.28 | 5.00 ± 0.11 | 95.23 | 2.20 | |
| 4.28 ± 0.88 | 2.00 | 6.28 | 5.85 ± 0.13 | 93.15 | 2.22 | |
| Quercetin | 1.36 ± 0.22 | 0.25 | 1.61 | 1.50 ± 0.01 | 93.16 | 0.66 |
| 1.36 ± 0.29 | 0.50 | 1.86 | 1.62 ± 0.03 | 87.09 | 1.85 | |
| 1.36 ± 0.18 | 1.00 | 2.36 | 2.46 ± 0.04 | 104.23 | 1.62 | |
Analytical characteristics for determination of phenolic compounds.
| Compounds | Regression Equation (y = ax ± b) | R2 | LOD (µg/mL) | LOQ (µg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | y = 1846.5x − 5.2530 | 0.9954 | 0.50 | 0.25 |
| Protocatechuic acid | y = 2348.1x + 14.863 | 0.9990 | 0.10 | 0.30 |
| Syringic acid | y = 2245.2x − 3.5633 | 0.9992 | 0.10 | 0.30 |
| Chlorogenic acid | y = 2988.4x − 29.643 | 0.9984 | 0.01 | 0.20 |
| Caffeic acid | y = 3357.1x + 8.7350 | 0.9990 | 0.13 | 0.40 |
| Ferulic acid | y = 1969.5x − 14.299 | 0.9980 | 0.01 | 0.20 |
| Cinnamic acid | y = 3144.8x + 21.206 | 0.9982 | 0.03 | 0.20 |
| Apigenin | y = 1654.7x − 22.30 | 0.9975 | 1.07 | 3.25 |
| Catechin | y = 2459.4x + 71.083 | 0.9990 | 0.85 | 2.58 |
| Quercetin | y = 14692x + 2972.80 | 0.9981 | 0.19 | 0.49 |
y = peak area; R2 = coefficient of determination; LOD: Limit of detection; LOQ: Limit of quantification.