| Literature DB >> 28878178 |
Ya Li1, Sha Li2, Sheng-Jun Lin3, Jiao-Jiao Zhang4, Cai-Ning Zhao5, Hua-Bin Li6,7.
Abstract
Our previous study reported that the fruit of Gordonia axillaris , an edible wild fruit, possessed strong antioxidant activity. In this study, a microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) method was established to extract antioxidants from the fruit of Gordonia axillaris . The influence of five parameters, including ethanol concentration, solvent/material ratio, extraction time, extraction temperature and microwave power, was investigated by single-factor experiments. Three factors, namely ethanol concentration, solvent/material ratio, extraction time, were found to exert a major influence on extraction efficacy, and were further studied by response surface methodology to investigate their interactions. Ethanol concentration of 36.89%, solvent/material ratio of 29.56 mL/g, extraction time of 71.04 min, temperature of 40 °C, and microwave power of 400 W were found to be the optimal condition. The TEAC value was 198.16 ± 5.47 µmol Trolox/g DW under the optimal conditions, which was in conformity to the predicted value (200.28 µmol Trolox/g DW). In addition, the MAE method was compared with two conventional methods (Soxhlet extraction and maceration extraction). Results showed that the antioxidant capacity of the extract obtained by MAE method was stronger than that obtained by maceration (168.67 ± 3.88 µmol Trolox/g DW) or Soxhlet extraction (114.09 ± 2.01 µmol Trolox/g DW). Finally, several phenolic compounds in the extract were identified and quantified by UPLC-MS/MS, which were rutin, gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, 2-hydrocinnamic acid, p -coumaric acid, quercetin, chlorogenic acid and ferulic acid.Entities:
Keywords: Gordonia axillaris; antioxidant; fruit; microwave-assisted extraction; phenolic compounds; response surface methodology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28878178 PMCID: PMC6151393 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22091481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The fruit (a) and leaves (b) of Gordonia axillaris.
Figure 2Effects of ethanol concentration (a); solvent/material ratio (b); extraction time (c); extraction temperature (d); and microwave power (e) on the extraction efficacy. Note: * Significant difference (p < 0.05).
The experimental design, experimental value, and predicted value of RSM.
| Run | X1 (Ethanol Concentration, %) | X2 (Solvent/Material Ratio, mL/g) | X3 (Extraction Time, min) | Y (TEAC Value, µmol Trolox/g DW) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual Value | Predicted Value | ||||
| 1 | 56.82 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 110.06 | 124.18 |
| 2 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 196.88 | 179.29 |
| 3 | 30.00 | 10.00 | 90.00 | 95.46 | 90.30 |
| 4 | 50.00 | 10.00 | 90.00 | 94.47 | 77.98 |
| 5 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 150.63 | 179.29 |
| 6 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 162.84 | 179.29 |
| 7 | 40.00 | 36.82 | 75.00 | 183.81 | 187.90 |
| 8 | 50.00 | 30.00 | 60.00 | 171.90 | 165.03 |
| 9 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 100.23 | 113.47 | 128.99 |
| 10 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 49.77 | 150.92 | 152.42 |
| 11 | 30.00 | 30.00 | 90.00 | 176.86 | 168.81 |
| 12 | 50.00 | 30.00 | 90.00 | 165.73 | 159.57 |
| 13 | 30.00 | 30.00 | 60.00 | 183.28 | 187.73 |
| 14 | 30.00 | 10.00 | 60.00 | 118.59 | 112.71 |
| 15 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 192.67 | 179.29 |
| 16 | 23.18 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 150.72 | 153.63 |
| 17 | 50.00 | 10.00 | 60.00 | 90.91 | 86.93 |
| 18 | 40.00 | 3.18 | 75.00 | 43.27 | 56.21 |
| 19 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 185.82 | 179.29 |
| 20 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 75.00 | 189.81 | 179.29 |
ANOVA of the fitted polynomial quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | Significant | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 32,462.64 | 9 | 3606.96 | 12.49 | 0.0002 | significant |
| X1 (Ethanol concentration) | 1046.75 | 1 | 1046.75 | 3.63 | 0.0861 | |
| X2 (Solvent/material ratio) | 20,933.85 | 1 | 20,933.85 | 72.50 | <0.0001 | |
| X3 (Time) | 662.86 | 1 | 662.86 | 2.30 | 0.1607 | |
| X1X2 | 4.75 | 1 | 4.75 | 0.016 | 0.9005 | |
| X1X3 | 90.70 | 1 | 90.70 | 0.31 | 0.5875 | |
| X2X3 | 6.09 | 1 | 6.09 | 0.021 | 0.8874 | |
| X12 | 2938.09 | 1 | 2938.09 | 10.18 | 0.0097 | |
| X22 | 5901.36 | 1 | 5901.36 | 20.44 | 0.0011 | |
| X32 | 2681.88 | 1 | 2681.88 | 9.29 | 0.0123 | |
| Residual | 2887.38 | 10 | 288.74 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 1155.11 | 5 | 231.02 | 0.67 | 0.6663 | not significant |
| Pure Error | 1732.27 | 5 | 346.45 | |||
| Cor Total | 35,350.01 | 19 | ||||
| R-Squared | 0.9183 | |||||
| Adj R-Squared | 0.8448 |
Figure 3Response surface plots of the effects of ethanol concentration (%) and solvent/material ratio (mL/g) (a); ethanol concentration and extraction time (min) (b); and solvent/material ratio and extraction time (c) on TEAC value (μmol Trolox/g DW).
The comparison of MAE with conventional methods.
| Extraction Methods | Ethanol Concentration (%) | Time | Temperature (°C) | TEAC (µmol Trolox/g DW) | TPC (mg GAE/g DW) | TFC (mg QE/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| maceration | 36.89 | 24 h | 25 | 168.67 ± 3.88 | 13.69 ± 0.11 | 1.90 ± 0.08 |
| Soxhlet | 36.89 | 4 h | 85 | 114.09 ± 2.01 | 9.63 ± 0.45 | 1.82 ± 0.11 |
| MAE | 36.89 | 71.04 min | 40 | 198.16 ± 5.47 | 17.69 ± 1.02 | 3.11 ± 0.12 |
Figure 4The total ion chromatograms of standard compounds (a) and the sample obtained under the optimal conditions (b).
The contents of phenolic components in extract obtained under the optimal condition.
| Phenolic Components | Retention Time ( | Parent Ion ( | Product Ion ( | Contents (µg/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rutin | 14.77 | 609 | 300, 343 | 60.38 ± 4.32 |
| Gallic acid | 4.76 | 169.1 | 125, 112 | 15.39 ± 1.73 |
| Protocatechuic acid | 8.07 | 153.1 | 109, 108 | 11.03 ± 1.24 |
| Epicatechin | 12.3 | 289 | 203, 245 | 5.34 ± 0.44 |
| Epicatechin gallate | 13.13 | 441 | 169, 289.1 | 2.86 ± 0.31 |
| 2-Hydrocinnamic acid | 14.03 | 163.1 | 119, 90 | 2.16 ± 0.23 |
| 14.03 | 162.7 | 119, 90 | 2.09 ± 0.21 | |
| Quercetin | 16.54 | 301 | 179, 151 | 0.96 ± 0.05 |
| Chlorogenic acid | 11.07 | 353 | 191, 114 | 0.29 ± 0.02 |
| Ferulic acid | 14.28 | 193.1 | 134, 178 | 0.13 ± 0.01 |
Five levels of the three variables of the extraction process.
| Variable | Units | Symbol | Coded Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1.68 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.68 | |||
| Ethanol concentration | % ( | X1 | 23.18 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 56.82 |
| Solvent/material ratio | mL/g | X2 | 3.18 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 36.82 |
| Extraction time | min | X3 | 49.77 | 60 | 75 | 90 | 100.23 |