| Literature DB >> 27081365 |
Mudasir Majeed1, Abdullah I Hussain1, Shahzad A S Chatha1, Muhammad K K Khosa1, Ghulam Mustafa Kamal2, Mohammad A Kamal3, Xu Zhang2, Maili Liu2.
Abstract
In the present work, the response surface methodology (RSM) based on a central composite rotatable design (CCRD), was used to determine optimum conditions for the extraction of antioxidant compounds from Origanum vulgare leaves. Four process variables were evaluated at three levels (31 experimental designs): methanol (70%, 80%, and 90%), the solute:solvent ratio (1:5, 1:12.5, 1:20), the extraction time (4, 10, 16 h), and the solute particle size (20, 65, 110 micron). Using RSM, a quadratic polynomial equation was obtained by multiple regression analysis for predicting optimization of the extraction protocol. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied and the significant effect of the factors and their interactions were tested at 95% confidence interval. The antioxidant extract (AE) yield was significantly influenced by solvent composition, solute to solvent ratio, and time. The maximum AE was obtained at methanol (70%), liquid solid ratio (20), time (16 h), and particle size (20 micron). Predicted values thus obtained were closer to the experimental value indicating suitability of the model. Run 25 (methanol:water 70:30; solute:solvent 1:20; extraction time 16 h and solute particle size 20) showed highest TP contents (18.75 mg/g of dry material, measured as gallic acid equivalents) and DPPH radical scavenging activity (IC50 5.04 μg/mL). Results of the present study indicated good correlation between TP contents and DPPH radical scavenging activity. Results of the study indicated that phenolic compounds are powerful scavengers of free radical as demonstrated by a good correlation between TP contents and DPPH radical scavenging activity.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant compounds; Central composite rotatable design; DPPH free radical scavenging activity; Optimization; Response surface methodology; Total phenolics
Year: 2015 PMID: 27081365 PMCID: PMC4818334 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2015.04.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Figure 1(a) Normal probability plot of the residuals for antioxidant extract yields. (b) Plot of residuals versus fitted values for antioxidant extract yields.
Experimental design for the extraction of antioxidants from Origanum vulgare leaves using response surface analysis.
| Run | Process variables | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratio | Ratio (g:mL) | Extraction time | Solute particle size | |
| Methanol:Water | Solute:Solvent | (hours) | (micron) | |
| 1 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 110 |
| 2 | 70:30 | 1:5 | 16 | 110 |
| 3 | 70:30 | 1:20 | 16 | 110 |
| 4 | 90:10 | 1:5 | 16 | 110 |
| 5 | 90:10 | 1:20 | 16 | 110 |
| 6 | 70:30 | 1:5 | 4 | 110 |
| 7 | 90:10 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 8 | 90:10 | 1:20 | 4 | 20 |
| 9 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 10 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 11 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 4 | 65 |
| 12 | 70:30 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 13 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 14 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 15 | 90:10 | 1:5 | 16 | 20 |
| 16 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 20 |
| 17 | 90:10 | 1:5 | 4 | 110 |
| 18 | 70:30 | 1:20 | 4 | 20 |
| 19 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 20 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 16 | 65 |
| 21 | 70:30 | 1:5 | 16 | 20 |
| 22 | 90:10 | 1:20 | 4 | 110 |
| 23 | 70:30 | 1:20 | 4 | 110 |
| 24 | 80:20 | 1:20 | 10 | 65 |
| 25 | 70:30 | 1:20 | 16 | 20 |
| 26 | 90:10 | 1:5 | 4 | 20 |
| 27 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 28 | 90:10 | 1:20 | 16 | 20 |
| 29 | 80:20 | 1:12.5 | 10 | 65 |
| 30 | 70:30 | 1:5 | 4 | 20 |
| 31 | 80:20 | 1:5 | 10 | 65 |
Total phenolic contents and DPPH free radical scavenging activity of different Origanum vulgare extracts.
| Run order | Extract yields (g/100 g) | Total phenolic contents (mg/g of dry plant material, measured as gallic acid equivalent) | DPPH scavenging IC50 (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.49 | 16.31 | 5.57 |
| 2 | 6.07 | 7.43 | 12.12 |
| 3 | 12.43 | 14.16 | 7.69 |
| 4 | 8.41 | 11.20 | 9.40 |
| 5 | 11.84 | 14.84 | 7.28 |
| 6 | 5.64 | 5.94 | 13.17 |
| 7 | 11.64 | 11.82 | 9.02 |
| 8 | 11.43 | 15.47 | 6.94 |
| 9 | 11.89 | 13.63 | 8.88 |
| 10 | 11.88 | 15.46 | 6.97 |
| 11 | 10.28 | 13.23 | 8.98 |
| 12 | 11.59 | 14.95 | 7.48 |
| 13 | 12.40 | 14.72 | 7.22 |
| 14 | 12.31 | 14.11 | 7.26 |
| 15 | 8.79 | 11.93 | 9.29 |
| 16 | 11.61 | 13.00 | 8.41 |
| 17 | 8.27 | 9.96 | 10.01 |
| 18 | 13.41 | 14.23 | 7.68 |
| 19 | 12.23 | 13.30 | 8.67 |
| 20 | 10.72 | 13.20 | 8.04 |
| 21 | 6.88 | 8.01 | 10.73 |
| 22 | 11.83 | 13.99 | 8.70 |
| 23 | 13.92 | 16.67 | 5.67 |
| 24 | 11.22 | 14.43 | 7.48 |
| 25 | 14.65 | 18.75 | 5.04 |
| 26 | 7.18 | 7.96 | 11.15 |
| 27 | 11.68 | 14.25 | 7.12 |
| 28 | 11.55 | 13.63 | 8.56 |
| 29 | 12.02 | 15.51 | 6.17 |
| 30 | 5.55 | 7.86 | 10.93 |
| 31 | 5.32 | 5.76 | 15.00 |
| Mean values | 10.52 | 12.76 | 8.60 |
| Median values | 11.59 | 13.63 | 8.41 |
| Maximum values | 14.65 | 18.75 | 15.00 |
| Minimum values | 5.32 | 5.76 | 5.04 |
| Correlation coefficient | −0.97 | ||
Analysis of variance for response surface quadratic model.
| Source | Degree of freedom | Sum of squares | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 14 | 194.74 | 13.91 | 35.79 | 0 |
| Linear | 4 | 140.83 | 35.21 | 90.57 | 0 |
| Square | 4 | 33.85 | 8.46 | 21.77 | 0 |
| Interaction | 6 | 20.06 | 3.34 | 8.60 | 0 |
| Residual Error | 16 | 6.22 | 0.39 | ||
| Lack of fit | 10 | 5.80 | 0.58 | 8.38 | 0.009 |
| Pure error | 6 | 0.42 | 0.69 | ||
| Total | 30 | 200.96 |
CV = 0.62%, R2 = 0.97, R2Adj = 0.94, Predicted R2 = 0.89.
Figure 2(a) Response surface plot showing the effect of methanol and particle size on antioxidant extract yields. (b) Response surface plot showing the effect of methanol and time on antioxidant extract yields. (c) Response surface plot showing the effect of methanol and solute to solvent ratio on antioxidant extract yields. (d) Response surface plot showing the effect of time and particle size on antioxidant extract yields. (e) Response surface plot showing the effect of solute to solvent ratio and particle size on antioxidant extract yields. (f) Response surface plot showing the effect of solute to solvent ratio and time on antioxidant extract yields.
Figure 3Linear regression line between total phenolic contents (TPC) and DPPH radical scavenging activity (IC50).