| Literature DB >> 29354632 |
Antonio C Santos Felix1, Cleber G Novaes2, Maísla Pires Rocha1, George E Barreto3,4, Baraquizio B do Nascimento1, Lisandro D Giraldez Alvarez1.
Abstract
In this study, we have determined, using RSM (mixture design and Doehlert matrix), the optimum values of the independent variables to achieve the maximum response for the extraction of total phenolic compounds from Spondias mombin L bagasse agroindustrial residues in order to preserve their antioxidant activity. The extraction of phenolic compounds, as well as their antioxidant capacity and the capacity to scavenge ABTS, was determined by the modified DPPH method at different periods of time, temperature, velocity of rotation and solvents concentration. We observed that the optimum condition for the highest antioxidant yield was obtained using water (60.84%), acetone (30.31%), and ethanol (8.85%) at 30°C during 20 min at 50 rpm. We have also found that the maximum yield of total phenolics was 355.63 ± 9.77 (mg GAE/100 g), showing an EC50 of 3,962.24 ± 41.20 (g fruit/g of DPPH) and 8.36 ± 0.30 (μM trolox/g fruit), which were measured using DPPH and ABTS assays. These results suggest that RSM was successfully applied for optimizing the extraction of phenolics compounds thus preserving their antioxidant activity.Entities:
Keywords: ABTS; Cajá; DPPH; Spondias mombin L.; factorial design; polyphenols
Year: 2018 PMID: 29354632 PMCID: PMC5760567 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2017.00116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Chem ISSN: 2296-2646 Impact factor: 5.221
Design matrix and results for optimization of the extraction of compounds phenolic.
| 1 | 100.0 (1) | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | 119.81 ± 3.80 | 120.41 |
| 2 | 0.0 (0) | 100.0 (1) | 0.0 (0) | 155.77 ± 4.90 | 153.27 |
| 3 | 0.0 (0) | 0.0 (0) | 100.0 (1) | 124.41 ± 6.90 | 125.40 |
| 4 | 50.0 (½) | 50.0 (½) | 0.0 (0) | 170.32 ± 9.30 | 170.77 |
| 5 | 50.0 (½) | 0.0 (0) | 50.0 (½) | 124.60 ± 4.20 | 128.57 |
| 6 | 0.0 (0) | 50.0 (½) | 50.0 (½) | 168.35 ± 10.4 | 169.22 |
| 7 | 66.7 (2/3) | 16.7 (1/6) | 16.7 (1/6) | 150.90 ± 10.3 | 147.63 |
| 8 | 16.7 (1/6) | 66.7 (2/3) | 16.7 (1/6) | 166.10 ± 14.70 | 172.13 |
| 9 | 16.7 (1/6) | 16.7 (1/6) | 66.7 (2/3) | 153.33 ± 2.00 | 148.79 |
| 10 (CP) | 33.3 (1/3) | 33.3 (1/3) | 33.3 (1/3) | 171.26 ± 13.6 | 163.91 |
| 11(CP) | 33.3 (1/3) | 33.3 (1/3) | 33.3 (1/3) | 155.96 ± 19.89 | 163.91 |
| 12 (CP) | 33.3 (1/3) | 33.3 (1/3) | 33.3 (1/3) | 167.14 ± 14.50 | 163.91 |
| 1 | 0 (30.0) | +1.68 (110.0) | 0 (150) | 111.37 ± 15.45 | 138.67 |
| 2 | −1 (20.0) | +1 (90.0) | −1 (50) | 173.25 ± 24.17 | 174.33 |
| 3 | − (20.0) | +1 (90.0) | +1 (250) | 130, 02 ± 44.78 | 144.31 |
| 4 | +1 (40.0) | +1 (90.0) | −1 (50) | 230.73 ± 51.52 | 281.00 |
| 5 | +1 (40.0) | +1 (90.0) | +1 (250) | 294.14 ± 45.28 | 183.20 |
| 6 | −1.68 (10.0) | 0 (60.0) | 0 (150) | 164.77 ± 6.43 | 150.91 |
| 7 (CP) | 0 (30.0) | 0 (60.0) | 0 (150) | 229.56 ± 29.07 | 261.36 |
| 8 (CP) | 0 (30.0) | 0 (60.0) | 0 (150) | 268.80 ± 37.90 | 261.36 |
| 9 (CP) | 0 (30.0) | 0 (60.0) | 0 (150) | 286.17 ± 76.16 | 261.36 |
| 10 | (1.68) 50.0 | 0 (60.0) | 0 (150) | 215.13 ± 38.58 | 228.71 |
| 11 | −1 (20.0) | −1 (30.0) | −1 (50) | 321.61 ± 48.17 | 269.73 |
| 12 | −1 (20.0) | −1 (30.0) | +1 (250) | 107.47 ± 53.43 | 171.94 |
| 13 | +1 (40.0) | −1 (30.0) | −1 (50) | 307.03 ± 53.08 | 308.63 |
| 14 | +1 (40.0) | −1 (30.0) | +1 (250) | 178.68 ± 41.73 | 210.84 |
| 15 | 0 (30.0) | −1.68 (10.0) | 0 (150) | 212.42 ± 47.78 | 184.72 |
CP, Central Point;
Mean ± Standard Deviation.
Figure 1(A) Response surface and (B) Contour plot obtained from Mixture design.
ANOVA for the models.
| 3, 761.82 | 5 | 752.36 | 20.53 | 0.001 | |
| Total Error | 219.84 | 6 | 36.64 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 94.49 | 4 | 23.62 | 0.37 | 0.815 |
| Pure Error | 125.35 | 2 | 62.67 | ||
| Total Adjusted | 3, 981.66 | 11 | 361.97 | ||
| Temperature (Te) | 3, 865.99 | 1 | 3, 865.99 | 4.43 | 0.128 |
| 11, 907.78 | 1 | 11, 907.78 | 13.65 | 0.034 | |
| Time (Ti) | 7, 425.28 | 1 | 7, 425.28 | 8.51 | 0.061 |
| (Ti)2 | 6, 145.00 | 1 | 6, 145.00 | 7.04 | 0.076 |
| Velocity of rotation (VR) | 6, 458.15 | 1 | 6, 458.15 | 7.40 | 0.072 |
| (VR)2 | 295.13 | 1 | 295.13 | 0.33 | 0.601 |
| (Te)(Ti) | 2, 416.53 | 1 | 2, 416.53 | 2.77 | 0.194 |
| 14, 428.74 | 1 | 14, 428.74 | 16.54 | 0.026 | |
| (Ti)(VR) | 1, 793.43 | 1 | 1, 793.43 | 2.05 | 0.247 |
| Lack of Fit | 3, 296.11 | 2 | 1, 648.05 | 1.88 | 0.294 |
| Pure Error | 2, 616.48 | 3 | 872.16 | ||
| Total Adjusted | 69, 630.28 | 14 | |||
Significant.
Figure 2Response surfaces obtained from Doehlert matrix for (A) Time × Temperature and (B) Velocity of rotation × Time.