| Literature DB >> 28987352 |
Suyang Tian1,2, Changchun Hao1, Guangkuan Xu1, Juanjuan Yang1, Runguang Sun1.
Abstract
In this study, polysaccharides from Angelica sinensis were extracted using the ultrasound-assisted extraction method. Based on the results of single factor experiments and orthogonal tests, three independent variables-water/raw material ratio, ultrasound time, and ultrasound power-were selected for investigation. Then, we used response surface methodology to optimize the extraction conditions. The experimental data were fitted to a quadratic equation using multiple regression analysis, and the optimal conditions were as follows: water/raw material ratio, 43.31 mL/g; ultrasonic time, 28.06 minutes; power, 396.83 W. Under such conditions, the polysaccharide yield was 21.89±0.21%, which was well matched with the predicted yield. In vitro assays, scavenging activity of superoxide anion radicals, hydroxyl radicals, and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picry-hydrazyl radical showed that polysaccharides had certain antioxidant activities and that hydroxyl radicals have a remarkable scavenging capability. Therefore, these studies provide reference for further research and rational development of A. sinensis polysaccharide.Entities:
Keywords: Angelica sinensis; optimization; polysaccharide; response surface methodology; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28987352 PMCID: PMC9328866 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2016.08.012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Drug Anal Impact factor: 6.157
Box–Behnken experimental design and the results for extraction yield of ASP.
| Run number | Coded levels | Yield of ASP (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 18.40 |
| 2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 17.87 |
| 3 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 18.93 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.29 |
| 5 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 19.43 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 17.85 |
| 7 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 17.72 |
| 8 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 20.29 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.65 |
| 10 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 19.00 |
| 11 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 19.04 |
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 20.83 |
| 13 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 18.43 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.37 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.98 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 21.44 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21.90 |
ASP = Angelica sinensis polysaccharide.
Figure 1Effects of (A) water/raw material ratio, (B) ultrasound extraction time, (C) ultrasound extraction power, and (D) ultrasound radiation method on the extraction yield of ASP (%). Values are means ± SD (n = 3). ASP = Angelica sinensis polysaccharide; SD = standard deviation.
Orthogonal test design and the results for extraction yield of ASP.
| Run number | Coded levels | Yield of ASP (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | 30 | 20 | 300 | 5:10 | 19.60 |
| 2 | 30 | 25 | 400 | 10:15 | 19.70 |
| 3 | 30 | 30 | 500 | 15:20 | 19.71 |
| 4 | 40 | 25 | 300 | 15:20 | 21.48 |
| 5 | 40 | 30 | 400 | 5:10 | 21.11 |
| 6 | 40 | 20 | 500 | 10:15 | 21.13 |
| 7 | 50 | 30 | 300 | 10:15 | 21.25 |
| 8 | 50 | 20 | 400 | 15:20 | 20.60 |
| 9 | 50 | 25 | 500 | 5:10 | 21.36 |
|
| 19.670 | 20.443 | 20.777 | 20.690 | |
|
| 21.240 | 20.847 | 20.470 | 20.693 | |
|
| 21.070 | 20.690 | 20.733 | 20.597 | |
|
| 1.570 | 0.404 | 0.307 | 0.096 | |
R refers to the result of extreme analysis.
ASP = Angelica sinensis polysaccharide.
ANOVA for response surface quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of squares |
| Mean square |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 37.20 | 9 | 4.13 | 15.91 | 0.0007 |
|
| 3.11 | 1 | 3.11 | 11.98 | 0.0105 |
|
| 5.18 | 1 | 5.18 | 19.95 | 0.0029 |
|
| 1.02 | 1 | 1.02 | 3.91 | 0.0886 |
|
| 0.90 | 1 | 0.90 | 3.47 | 0.1046 |
|
| 0.91 | 1 | 0.91 | 3.51 | 0.1031 |
|
| 1.80 | 1 | 1.80 | 6.91 | 0.0340 |
|
| 8.37 | 1 | 8.37 | 32.23 | 0.0008 |
|
| 2.48 | 1 | 2.48 | 9.55 | 0.0175 |
|
| 11.12 | 1 | 11.12 | 42.81 | 0.0003 |
| Residual | 1.82 | 7 | 0.26 | ||
| Lack of fit | 1.44 | 3 | 0.48 | 5.07 | 0.0754 |
| Pure error | 0.38 | 4 | 0.095 | ||
| Cor total | 39.02 | 16 | |||
|
| 0.9534 | ||||
|
| 0.8935 | ||||
| Adeq precision | 10.805 | ||||
| CV % | 2.57 |
Significant at p < 0.05.
Not significant.
ANOVA = analysis of variance; CV = coefficient of variation; df = degrees of freedom.
Figure 2Response surface figure (3D) and diagnostics diagrams for the model adequacy. (A) Solid–liquid rate and ultrasonic time. (B) Solid–liquid rate and ultrasonic power. (C) ultrasonic time and ultrasonic power. (D) Predicted versus actual. (E) Normal plot of residuals. (F) Residuals versus predicted. (G) residuals versus run numbers.
Figure 3Scavenging activity of (A) ASP on superoxide anion radicals, (B) hydroxyl radicals, and (C) DPPH. Values are means ± SD (n = 3). ASP = Angelica sinensis polysaccharide; DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1-picry-hydrazyl; SD = standard deviation.