| Literature DB >> 28116343 |
Leonardo Garcia1, Renata Garcia1, Georgia Pacheco1, Felipe Sutili2, Rodrigo De Souza3, Elisabeth Mansur1, Ivana Leal4.
Abstract
The vegetal species Arachis repens, commonly known as peanut grass, was studied and, for the first time, we detected the presence of the bioactive compound trans-resveratrol (t-RSV). We compared the efficiency of three different methodologies (conventional maceration [CM], ultrasound-assisted extractions [UAE], and microwave-assisted extractions [MAE]) concerning total phenolics (TP) and resveratrol (t-RSV) content, followed by antioxidant activity (AA) evaluation. By CM, at 1 h, the highest RSV content (1.024 ± 0.036 mg/L) and, correspondingly, the highest DPPH capture (23.90 ± 0.04%) were found. The TP contents, at 1 h, presented the highest value (27.26 ± 0.26 mg/g GAE). By the UAE, the maximum yields of TP (357.18 mg/g GAE) and RSV (2.14 mg/L), as well as, the highest AA (70.95%), were obtained by 5 min after a maceration pretreatment, on the solid-solvent ratio 1 : 40 w/v. For MAE, a central composite rotatable design (CCRD) was applied followed by the FFD design in order to evaluate the statistical effects of four independent variables on the extraction of RSV. The optimal conditions established for obtaining the highest recovery (2.516 mg/g) were 20 min; 90% MeOH aq.; 120 rpm; 60°C; and solid-solvent ratio: 1 : 35 w/v. Relevant correlations were established considering the TP and RSV contents, as well as the AA, corroborating obvious advantages of such techniques in terms of high extraction efficiency in shorter times.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28116343 PMCID: PMC5223070 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5890897
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1(a) Effect of the time exposure efficiency on the t-resveratrol contents in extracts obtained by maceration with 80% methanol (0.1 g per 4 mL), correlated to the radical-scavenging activity. (b) Effect of the resveratrol contents in extracts obtained by ultrasound with 80% methanol (0.1 g per 4 mL) correlated to the radical-scavenging activity. (c) Effect of the time efficiency maceration before treatment on the resveratrol contents in extracts obtained by maceration with 80% methanol (0.1 g per 4 mL) previously exposed to ultrasound for 5 minutes, correlated to the radical-scavenging activity. (d) Correlation of resveratrol contents in extracts at different proportions of solid-solvent, obtained by ultrasound, correlated to the radical-scavenging activity. Means ± standard error followed by the same letter are not statistically different at p = 0.05, Tukey-Kramer test.
Total phenolic compounds contents in GAE proceeding from different extracts obtained from the leaves of A. repens measured by the Folin-Ciocalteu method.
| Entry | Extraction conditions | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| GAE contents on extracts obtained by | ||
| Time | GAE (500 mg/g) | ||
|
| |||
| 1 | 0.5 | 30.18 ± 1.38b | |
| 2 | 1 | 58.10 ± 1.36a | |
| 3 | 2 | 30.28 ± 1.49b | |
| 4 | 3 | 31.17 ± 0.97b | |
|
| |||
|
| GAE contents on extracts obtained | ||
| Time | GAE (500 mg/g) | ||
|
| |||
| 5 | 5 | 212.51 ± 2.22a | |
| 6 | 10 | 185.82 ± 3.06b | |
| 7 | 20 | 144.77 ± 0.22c | |
| 8 | 30 | 140.82 ± 1.13d | |
|
| |||
|
| GAE contents on extracts obtained | ||
| Time | GAE (500 mg/g) | ||
|
| |||
| 9 | 5 | 357.18 ± 1.83a | |
| 10 | 10 | 189.47 ± 2.95b | |
| 11 | 20 | 136.50 ± 1.01c | |
| 12 | 30 | 104.14 ± 1.52d | |
|
| |||
|
| GAE contents of extracts obtained by different ratios | ||
| Relation | GAE (500 mg/g) | ||
|
| |||
| 13 | 1 : 20 | 246.83 ± 2.48e | |
| 14 | 1 : 30 | 315.51 ± 0.84b | |
| 15 | 1 : 40 | 356.17 ± 1.36a | |
| 16 | 1 : 50 | 299.61 ± 1.14c | |
Means ± standard error followed by the same letter within each column are not significantly different at p = 0.05, Tukey-Kramer test.
Fractional factorial design (FFD) model totalizing 11 experiments aiming at the optimization of trans-resveratrol extraction in mg/g extract, by the microwave-assisted technique.
| Entry | St (rpm) |
| Solvent concentration | Mass : solvent proportion (g/mL) | Content of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −1 (600) | −1 (30) | −1 (60) | −1 (1 : 60) | 0.235 |
| 2 | 1 (1200) | −1 (30) | −1 (60) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.786 |
| 3 | −1 (600) | 1 (70) | −1 (60) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.075 |
| 4 | 1 (1200) | 1 (70) | −1 (60) | −1 (1 : 60) | 0.456 |
| 5 | −1 (600) | −1 (30) | 1 (100) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.231 |
| 6 | 1 (1200) | −1 (30) | 1 (100) | −1 (1 : 60) | 0.085 |
| 7 | −1 (600) | 1 (70) | 1 (100) | −1 (1 : 60) | 0.103 |
| 8 | 1 (1200) | 1 (70) | 1 (100) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.289 |
| 9 | 0 (900) | 0 (50) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 40) | 0.143 |
| 10 | 0 (900) | 0 (50) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 40) | 0.117 |
| 11 | 0 (900) | 0 (50) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 40) | 0.124 |
aMeasured by HPLC-DAD.
Real and coded values (+ level, 0 intermediate, − lower level) for the independent variables, 24–1 experimental factorial design and results of CCRD for resveratrol extraction by the microwave-assisted technique.
| Entry | Variable levels |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stirring | Temperature | Solvent conc. | Solvent : mass proportion | ||
| 1 | −1 (975) | −1 (37.5) | −1 (75) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.149 |
| 2 | 1 (1125) | −1 (37.5) | −1 (75) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.062 |
| 3 | −1 (975) | 1 (52.5) | −1 (75) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.064 |
| 4 | 1 (1125) | 1 (52.5) | −1 (75) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.343 |
| 5 | −1 (975) | −1 (37.5) | 1 (85) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.065 |
| 6 | 1 (1125) | −1 (37.5) | 1 (85) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.071 |
| 7 | −1 (975) | 1 (52.5) | 1 (85) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.302 |
| 8 | 1 (1125) | 1 (52.5) | 1 (85) | −1 (1 : 30) | 0.809 |
| 9 | −1 (975) | −1 (37.5) | −1 (75) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.527 |
| 10 | 1 (1125) | −1 (37.5) | −1 (75) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.090 |
| 11 | −1 (975) | 1 (52.5) | −1 (75) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.120 |
| 12 | 1 (1125) | 1 (52.5) | −1 (75) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.070 |
| 13 | −1 (975) | −1 (37.5) | 1 (85) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.058 |
| 14 | 1 (1125) | −1 (37.5) | 1 (85) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.048 |
| 15 | −1 (975) | 1 (52.5) | 1 (85) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.087 |
| 16 | 1 (1125) | 1 (52.5) | 1 (85) | 1 (1 : 20) | 0.133 |
| 17 | −2 (1200) | 0 (45) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.092 |
| 18 | −2 (1200) | 0 (45) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.067 |
| 19 | 0 (1050) | −2 (30) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.076 |
| 20 | 0 (1050) | −2 (30) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.280 |
| 21 | 0 (1050) | 0 (45) | −2 (90) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.124 |
| 22 | 0 (1050) | 0 (45) | −2 (90) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.256 |
| 23 | 0 (1050) | 0 (45) | 0 (80) | −2 (1 : 35) | 0.195 |
| 24 | 0 (1050) | 0 (45) | 0 (80) | −2 (1 : 35) | 0.058 |
| 25 | 0 (1050) | 0 (45) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.074 |
| 26 | 0 (1050) | 0 (45) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.070 |
| 27 | 0 (1050) | 0 (45) | 0 (80) | 0 (1 : 25) | 0.076 |
aMeasured by HPLC-DAD based on a calibration curve of trans-resveratrol in five different levels.
Figure 2Response surface obtained by the CCRD mathematical model design for the extraction of resveratrol by the microwave-assisted method as a function of (a) temperature and mass; (b) temperature and stirring; and (c) stirring and mass.
Trans-resveratrol contents (mg/g extract) obtained in the present study by different extractive methodologies in optimized conditions.
| Methodology | Time | Methanol % | Stirring (rpm) | Temperature (°C) | Relation solid-solvent (w/v) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maceration | 1 hour | 80 | — | — | 1 : 50 | 1.024 ± 0.036 |
| Ultrasound assisted | 5 minutes | 80 | — | — | 1 : 40 | 3.959 ± 0.675 |
| Microwave assisted | 20 minutes | 90 | 1200 | 60 | 1 : 35 | 2.516 |