| Literature DB >> 28873097 |
Majdouline Belaqziz1, Shiau Pin Tan2, Abdelilah El-Abbassi3, Hajar Kiai3, Abdellatif Hafidi3, Orla O'Donovan2, Peter McLoughlin2.
Abstract
Olive processing wastewaters (OPW), namely olive mill wastewater (OMW) and table-olive wastewaters (TOW) were evaluated for their antibacterial activity against five Gram-positive and two Gram-negative bacteria using the standard disc diffusion and thin layer chromatography (TLC)-bioautography assays. Disc diffusion screening and bioautography of OMW were compared to the phenolic extracts of table-olive brines. Positive activity against S. aureus was demonstrated. The optimization of chromatographic separation revealed that hexane/acetone in the ratio of 4:6 was the most effective for phenolic compounds separation. A HPLC-MS analysis was performed showing that only two compounds, hydroxytyrosol and tyrosol, were the predominant phenolic compounds in all OPW. The phenolic extract of OMW generated by a semi-modern process showed the highest free radical-scavenging activity (DPPH assay) compared to the other phenolic extracts. It is apparent from the present study that OPW are a rich source of antioxidants suitable for use in food, cosmetic or pharmaceutical applications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28873097 PMCID: PMC5584791 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182622
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Physicochemical characterization of olive mill wastewater and table-olive brine samples.
| Parameters | Unit | Olive mill wastewater | Table-olives wastewater | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OMW1 | OMW2 | GTOW | PTOW | BTOW | ||
| pH | - | 5 ± 0.10 | 5.10 ± 0.10 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 |
| EC | mS/cm | 56.30 ± 0.50 | 11.01 ± 0.60 | 76.2 ± 0.4 | 83.8 ± 0.6 | 106.4 ± 0.5 |
| Acidity | g/L | - | - | 6.6 ± 0.63 | 5.81 ± 0.63 | - |
| Color | - | - | - | 0.75 ± 0.01 | 0.8 ± 0.05 | 20.6 ± 1.1 |
| TPC | g TYE/L | 8.5 ± 0.4 | 6.46 ± 0.8 | 3.67 ± 0.4 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 0.1 |
| Sugar | g/L | - | - | 1.6 ± 0.12 | 6.9 ± 1.53 | 8.5 ± 1.8 |
| COD | g of O2/L | 110 ± 4.9 | 50 ± 5.4 | 3.26 ± 0.1 | 3.12 ± 0.15 | 12.6 ± 3.33 |
| Dry residue | g/L | 194.2 ± 11 | 132.7 ± 7 | 84.7 ± 2.05 | 101.5 ± 1 | 275.4 ± 4.8 |
| TSS | g/L | 86 ± 5 | 50 ± 3.5 | 1.68 ± 0.11 | 1.69 ± 0.02 | 2.6 ± 0.26 |
| Sodium | g/L | 2.10 ± 0.10 | 1.45 ± 0.09 | 27.5 ± 1.5 | 26.2 ± 1 | 9.63 ± 0.5 |
| Potassium | g/L | 1.24 ± 0.12 | 0.55 ± 0.02 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 2.9 ± 0.5 | 22 ± 1.2 |
EC: electrical conductivity, TPC: total phenolic content, COD: chemical oxygen demand, TSS: total suspended solids, OMW1: semi-modern OMW phenolic extract, OMW2: modern OMW phenolic extract, GTOW: green table-olive wastewater, POTW: purple table-olive wastewater, BTOW: black table-olive wastewater.
Effect of concentration of OMW and TOW phenolic extracts on their antibacterial activity against S. aureus using the disc diffusion assay.
| Test substance (amount/disc) | Zone of Inhibition (mm) |
|---|---|
| 6 ± 0.5 | |
| 7 ± 0.5 | |
| 8 ± 0.5 | |
| 11 ± 0.5 | |
| 15.6 ± 0.6 | |
| 0 | |
| 6 ± 0.5 | |
| 7 ± 0.5 | |
| 8 ± 0.5 | |
| 9.3 ± 0.6 | |
| 16 ± 0.5 | |
| 0 | |
| 10 ± 1 | |
| 9 ± 0.5 | |
| 12 ± 1 | |
| 15 ± 1 | |
| 0 | |
| 6 ± 0.5 | |
| 8 ± 0.5 | |
| 9 ± 0.5 | |
| 11 ± 0.5 | |
| 14.6 ± 0.6 | |
| 0 |
PC: positive control; NC: negative control; OMW1: semi modern OMW phenolic extract; OMW2: modern OMW phenolic extract; GTOW: green brine phenolic extract; BTOW: black brine phenolic extract; PTOW: purple phenolic extract.
Total phenolic content, phenolic constituents and antioxidant activity (IC50) of different olive processing wastewaters samples.
The values in the brackets are the proportions to the total phenolic content, TPC.
| Sample | TPC | Flavonoids | Flavanols | Proanthocyanidins | IC50 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TYE g/L | CAE g/L | CAE mg/L | CYE mg/L | mg/L | |
| OMW1 | 8.5 ± 0.4 | 5.74 ± 0.36 | 2.63 ± 0.12 | 19.32 ± 2.03 | 15.83 ± 1.9 |
| (100%) | (67.53%) | (0.031%) | (0.227%) | ||
| OMW2 | 6.46 ± 0.8 | 2.85 ± 0.24 | 2.1 ± 0.09 | 14.10 ± 1.53 | 32.32 ± 4.7 |
| (100%) | (44.11%) | (0.032%)) | (0.218%) | ||
| GTOW | 3.67 ± 0.04 | 0.87 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 42.57 ± 0.71 | 173 ± 2.8 |
| (100%) | (23.71%) | (0.006%)) | (1.159%) | ||
| PTOW | 4.5 ± 0.01 | 1.22 ± 0.09 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 533.39 ± 20.51 | 126.3 ± 3.9 |
| (100%) | (27.11%) | (0.004%) | (11.85%) | ||
| BTOW | 2.6 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.05 | 4.17 ± 0.14 | 399.83 ± 40.31 | 261.3 ± 4.8 |
| (100%) | (25.78%) | (0.160%) | (15.38%) |
Fig 1HPLC chromatograms of OMW phenolic extracts.
1. Hydroxytyrosol, 2. 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, 3. Tyrosol. 4. Protocatechuic acid derivative, 5. Caffeic acid. 6. p-coumaric acid. 7. Ferulic acid derivative, 8. Ferulic acid, 9. Luteolin derivative, 10. Oleuropein. Peaks 1, 3, 6, 8 and 10 were identified by use of standards. The remaining peaks were tentatively identified by comparison with literature data. (OMW1: olive mill wastewater from semi-modern process, OMW2: olive mill wastewater from modern process, GTOW: green table-olive brine, PTOW: purple table-olive brine and BTOW: black table-olive brine).
Fig 2Developed TLC bioautography plates (4:6, v/v Hexane: Acetone) stained with 2.54 mM DPPH solution visualized under visible light.
A. standard phenolic compounds at 1 mg/mL–OL: oleuropein; PC: p-coumaric acid; CA: caffeic acid; GA: gallic acid; HT: hydroxytyrosol. B. GTOW phenolic extract at 1, 5, 10 and 25 mg/mL. C. OMW1 phenolic extract at 2.5, 5, 25 and 50 mg/mL.
Summary results of the possible phenolic compounds from different olive processing wastewaters as identified by HPLC analysis and their respective concentrations (in mg/L).
| Suspected compound | Olive processing wastewaters samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OMW1 | OMW2 | GTOW | PTOW | BTOW | |
| Hydroxytyrosol | 52.8 | 34.32 | 83.6 | 48.6 | 10.9 |
| Tyrosol | 6.88 | 3.48 | 8.7 | 3.24 | 6.46 |
| 0.16 | 2.72 | n.d | 0.32 | 0.24 | |
| Ferulic acid derivative | n.d | 5.72 | n.d | n.d | 0.02 |
| Ferulic acid | n.d | 0.48 | n.d | n.d | 0.06 |
| Oleuropein | 31.36 | 7.4 | 0.66 | 48.8 | 10.82 |
n.d: not detected.