| Literature DB >> 28078258 |
Solomon Akinremi Makanjuola1, Victor Ndigwe Enujiugha2, Olufunmilayo Sade Omoba2.
Abstract
The influence of extraction temperature, powder concentration, and extraction time on the antioxidant properties of aqueous ginger extract was investigated. The possibility of estimating the antioxidant properties of the extract from its absorbance and colour properties was also investigated. Results indicated that powder concentration was the most significant factor to consider in optimizing antioxidant extraction. However, temperature and time still influenced the 2,2'-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical scavenging activity while extraction temperature influenced the 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity of the extract. Using the total phenol content, total flavonoid content, ABTS radical scavenging activity, and DPPH radical scavenging activity of the extract, the multiresponse optimization condition for extraction of antioxidant based on the experimental range studied is 96°C, 2.10 g/100 mL, and 90 min. The absorbance of the ginger extract at 610 nm could be exploited for rapid estimation of its total flavonoid and polyphenol with a R2 of 0.713 and 0.753, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; aqueous extraction; ginger; multivariate regression; response surface
Year: 2016 PMID: 28078258 PMCID: PMC5216887 DOI: 10.3746/pnf.2016.21.4.355
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prev Nutr Food Sci ISSN: 2287-1098
Response surface model for aqueous extraction of ginger powder
| Source | TFC | TPC | ABTS | Peroxide scavenging activity | Iron chelating activity | DPPH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transformation | (TFC+28.00)0.34 | na | 1.0/Sqrt | (DPPH+19) | ||
| Intercept | 3.9974 | 16.8173 | 1.0744 | 73.4920 | 65.3010 | 83.4637 |
| TEM | 0.0161 | −2.3704 | ||||
| CON | 4.2744 | 82.6237 | −1.0432 | −7.5812 | ||
| TIM | 8.6137E−3 | |||||
| TEM×CON | 0.3080 | |||||
| TEM×TIM | ||||||
| CON×TIM | −1.4728E–3 | |||||
| TEM2 | −1.2901E–4 | 0.0203 | ||||
| CON2 | 0.4261 | |||||
| TIM2 | −6.9939E–5 | |||||
| Model ( | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0003 | 0.0008 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 0.6835 | 0.8919 | 0.0714 | 0.0093 | 0.0102 | 0.5088 |
| R2 | 0.6329 | 0.6214 | 0.8613 | 0 | 0 | 0.6974 |
| Adj R2 | 0.6125 | 0.6004 | 0.7804 | 0 | 0 | 0.6167 |
| Pred R2 | 0.5723 | 0.5424 | 0.5400 | −0.1080 | −0.1080 | 0.4073 |
| Adeq Prec | 11.142 | 10.871 | 11.144 | 9.811 |
TFC, total flavonoid content; TPC, total phenol content; ABTS, 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radical scavenging activity; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity.
TEM, temperature; CON, concentration; TIM, time; Adj R2, adjusted R2; Pred R2, predicted R2; Adeq Prec, adequate precision; Sqrt, square root.
Fig. 1Response surface graphs showing effect of extraction variables on antioxidant properties [(A) total flavonoid content (TFC), (B) total phenol content (TPC), (C) 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical scavenging activity, and (D) 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity] during aqueous extraction of ginger powder. TEM, temperature; CON, concentration; TIM, time; CE, catechin equivalent; GAE, gallic acid equivalent; TE, Trolox equivalent.
Single response optimisation conditions for aqueous ginger extraction
| Source | TFC | TPC | ABTS | Peroxide scavenging activity | Iron chelating activity | DPPH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEM (°C) | 36.66 | 37.31 | 30.51 | – | – | 96 |
| CON (g/100 mL) | 2.10 | 2.10 | 1.28 | – | – | 2.1 |
| TIM (min) | 24.68 | 8.56 | 6.91 | – | – | 10.19 |
TFC, total flavonoid content; TPC, total phenol content; ABTS, 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radical scavenging activity; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity.
TEM, temperature; CON, concentration; TIM, time.
Not significant.
No prediction due to insignificant models.
Fig. 2Response surface graph showing multi-response optimisation conditions for aqueous extraction of antioxidant from ginger powder. TEM, temperature; CON, concentration; TIM, time.
Confirmation run for aqueous ginger extraction (n=3)
| Response | Prediction | 95% CI low | 95% CI high | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH (%) | 70.01 | 49.34 | 90.68 | 64.47±1.40 |
| TPC (mg GAE/L) | 190.33 | 151.60 | 229.05 | 358.45±37.10 |
| TFC (mg CE/L) | 1,850.09 | 1,133.84 | 2,809.67 | 2,216.67±520.42 |
| ABTS (mg TE/L) | 0.90 | 0.67 | 1.27 | 0.91±0.016 |
| Peroxide scavenging activity (%) | – | – | – | 86.32±2.00 |
| Iron chelating activity (%) | – | – | – | 62.79±0.034 |
CI, confidence interval; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity; TPC, total phenol content; TFC, total flavonoid content; ABTS, 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radical scavenging activity; GAE, gallic acid equivalent; CE, catechin equivalent; TE, Trolox equivalent.
No prediction due to insignificant models.
Regression parameters for antioxidant prediction in aqueous ginger extract
| Components | R2 | Q2 | RMSE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TFC | ||||
| OLSR | L*, a*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, redox potential, A510, A610, A510/610, hue index | 0.926 | 0.497 | 354.857 |
| PCR | L*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, A610, hue index | 0.818 | 0.284 | 456.251 |
| PLSR | A610 | 0.713 | 0.702 | 443.533 |
| TPC | ||||
| OLSR | L*, a*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, redox potential, A510, A610, A510/610, hue index | 0.866 | 0.526 | 42.516 |
| PCR | L*, b*, A610, hue index | 0.763 | 0.524 | 41.260 |
| PLSR | A610 | 0.753 | 0.748 | 36.467 |
| DPPH | ||||
| OLSR | L*, a*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, redox potential, A510, A610, A510/610, hue index | 0.967 | 0.324 | 6.744 |
| PCR | L*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, A610, hue index | 0.905 | 0.644 | 9.305 |
| PLSR | b*, chroma, A610 | 0.818 | 0.672 | 9.993 |
| ABTS | ||||
| OLSR | L*, a*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, redox potential, A510, A610, A510/610, hue index | 0.688 | 0.321 | 0.183 |
| PCR | L*, b*, A610, hue index | 0.595 | 0.260 | 0.152 |
| PLSR | L*, A510 | 0.521 | 0.417 | 0.143 |
| 1/(Peroxide scavenging activity)2 | ||||
| OLSR | L*, a*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, redox potential, A510, A610, A510/610, hue index | 0.445 | −0.175 | 0.000849 |
| PCR | L*, b*, A610, hue index | 0.103 | −0.184 | 0.000788 |
| PLSR | – | – | – | – |
| 1/(Iron chelating activity)2 | ||||
| OLSR | L*, a*, b*, hue, chroma, pH, redox potential, A510, A610, A510/610, hue index | 0.843 | −0.267 | 0.000135 |
| PCR | L*, b*, pH, A610, hue index | 0.451 | −0.219 | 0.000191 |
| PLSR | – | – | – | – |
TFC, total flavonoid content; TPC, total phenol content; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity; ABTS, 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radical scavenging activity; RMSE, root mean square error; OLSR, ordinary least square regression; PCR, principal component regression; PLSR, partial least square regression.
The component column shows the predictors present in the different regression equations.
No suitable model was found because the antioxidant property had no positive Q2 with any of the PLSR components.