| Literature DB >> 30241408 |
Francisco J Segovia1, Gádor Indra Hidalgo2, Juliana Villasante3, Xavier Ramis4, María Pilar Almajano5.
Abstract
Increasingly, consumers want products containing little or no synthetic compounds. Avocado seeds, which are a residue of the food industry, could be used to obtain extracts with high antioxidant power. In the present study, the most popular radical scavenging methods are presented, establishing a comparison between them, besides working with two different extractions: pure methanol and ethanol⁻water (50:50 v/v). The radical scavenging assay methods ORAC and ABTS were performed, as well as a novel method: the reaction to methoxy radical, as determined by electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR). Peroxide value and thiobarbituric acid reactive compounds (TBARs) were used to monitor the oxidation of avocado seed oil, as well as the power of the avocado seed extract (ASE) to delay oil oxidation by oxidation induction time (OIT) and measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Radical scavenging methods have values between 1310⁻263 µmol TE/g of mass dissolved for ORAC and ABTS, respectively. The individual contribution of each of the compounds present in the extract was analyzed. The sum of all of them contributed up to 84% of the total radical scavenging activity. The concentration of 0.75% ASE causes a delay in the oxidation that is close to 80%, as measured by OIT. This implies that avocado seed residue may have a use as a natural antioxidant source, providing added value to organic waste.Entities:
Keywords: EPR; antioxidant; avocado seed; differential scanning calorimetry; emulsion; lipid peroxidation; oil; oxidation induction time; radical scavenging
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30241408 PMCID: PMC6222478 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23102421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Different radical scavenging values found in the bibliography.
| Seed Sample | Extraction Conditions | TPC [mg GAE/g DW] | ORAC [µmol TE/g DW] | ABTS [µmol TE/g DW] | DPPH [µmol TE/g DW] | FRAP [µmol TE/g DW] | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Acetone/water/acetic acid (70:29.7:0.3, | 6.15 ± 0.08 | - | 58.45 ± 1.39 | 37.64 ± 4.81 | 42.81 ± 0.80 | [ |
| Acetone/water/acetic acid (70:29.7:0.3, | 16.5 | 137.2 | - | 52.7 | - | [ | |
| Ethanol/water (1:1, | - | 310 ± 30 | 300 ± 20 | 15 ± 2 γ | - | [ | |
|
| Ethanol/Water (1:1, | 88.2 ± 2.2 | - | 725 ± 39.4 | - | 1484 ± 15.7 | [ |
|
| Ethanol/water (56:44, | 45.01 | 616.48 | - | - | - | [ |
| Ethanol/Water (80:20, | 57.3 ± 2.7 1, 59.2 ± 6.9 2 | - | 645.8 ± 17.9 1, 580.8 ± 31.0 2 | 410.7 ± 35.8 1, 464.9 ± 32.7 2 | 656.9 ± 26.0 1,δ, 931.7 ± 65.6 2,δ | [ | |
| Methanol/Water (80:20, | 9.51 ± 0.161 | 210 | 94 | - | - | [ | |
|
| Soxhlet Methanol/water (75:25, | 292.00 ± 9.81 | - | 173.3 | - | - | [ |
| Methanol/water (70:30, | 35.11 1, 41.64 2 | - | 78.93 ± 26.73 1,β, 121.61 ± 31.87 2,β | 66.24 ± 24.84 1,β, 94.27 ± 30.47 2,β | CUPRAC: 141.67 ± 41.24 1,β, 184.42 ± 66.05 2,β | [ | |
| Acetone/water (70:30, | 60.82 1, 69.12 2 | - | 158.29 ± 26.27 1,β, 194.80 ± 44.69 2,β | 130.26 ± 36.80 1,β, 167.50 ± 42.08 2,β | CUPRAC: 275.36 ± 59.09 1,β, 353.43 ± 75.83 2,β | [ |
α [µmol TE/g DW]; β [mmol TE/g FW]; γ IC50[µg/mL]; δ [µmol Fe2+/g DW]; 1 var. Hass; 2 var. Fuerte.
Radical scavenging values of avocado seed extract (ASE) obtained with pure methanol and ethanol/water.
| Method | Methanol, 4 °C, 24 h | Ethanol/water (50:50, |
|---|---|---|
| TPC [mg GAE/g DW] | 25.35 ± 0.77 | 30.98 ± 0.68 |
| ORAC [µmol TE/g DW] | 1240 ± 70 (0.59 ± 0.03 1) | 1310 ± 40 |
| ABTS [µmol TE/g DW] | 123.74 ± 2.46 (0.15 ± 0.00 1) | 263.58 ± 17.85 |
| FRAP [µmol TE/g DW] | 316.60 ± 6.87 (0.19 ± 0.00 1) | 438.89 ± 7.32 |
| EPR [µmol FAE/g DW] | 0.53 ± 0.07 | - |
1 g ferulic acid equivalents (FAE)/g DW.
Figure 1HPLC chromatogram of the extract of ASE. Chlorogenic acid (1), (+)-Catechin (2), (−)-Epicatechin (3).
ASE composition and antioxidant capacity of their compounds.
| Name | Retention Time (RT) | HPLC Peak Area | Concentration mg/L | HPLC-ABTS Peak Area | % | Antioxidant Capacity [mg GAE/L] | % Antioxidant Activity in the Total Extract |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procyanidin 1 * | 15.36 | 199,682 | - | 1,956,638 | 21.76 | 53.12 | 16.3 |
| Chlorogenic acid | 17.88 | 1,011,205 | 51.59 | 1,901,135 | 21.14 | 51.86 | 16.0 |
| (+)-Catechin | 24.59 | 157,538 | 20.10 | 977,869 | 10.88 | 30.84 | 9.5 |
| (−)-Epicatechin | 31.07 | 233,557 | 27.89 | 1,574,801 | 17.51 | 44.43 | 13.7 |
| Procyanidin 2 * | 32.21 | 80,373 | - | 265,837 | 2.96 | 14.63 | 4.5 |
| Procyanidin 3 * | 34.12 | 216,547 | - | 1,169,588 | 13.01 | 35.21 | 10.8 |
| Procyanidin 4 * | 35.82 | 192,750 | - | 960,683 | 10.68 | 30.45 | 9.4 |
| Catechin 1 ** | 39.40 | 205,953 | - | 184,943 | 2.06 | 12.79 | 3.9 |
* belongs to the family of procyanidin; ** belongs to the family of catechins.
Figure 2Changes in the peroxide value (PV) of a sunflower oil fatty acid mixture at 35 °C.
Parameters of the different methods to calculate the antioxidant activity.
| Sample | IT [days] 1 | OIT [min] 2 | PV10 [meq hydroperoxide/kg oil] 3 | PV Slope [meq Hydroperoxide/kg oil·days] | TBARs15 [mg MDA/kg oil] 4 | TBARs Slope [mg MDA/kg oil·days] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 5.00 | 28.51 | - | 66.08 | 42.09 ± 1.92 a | 3.64 |
| Avocado 0.25% | 8.31 | 41.55 | 110.03 ± 13.28 a | 67.52 | 11.47 ± 1.60 b | 1.27 |
| Avocado 0.5% | 11.65 | 43.22 | 26.74 ± 3.50 b | 54.21 | 6.69 ± 1.04 b | 0.86 |
| Avocado 0.75% | 18.85 | 52.54 | 7.73 ± 0.98 c | 58.02 | 1.79 ± 0.38 c | 0.19 |
| BHA 0.01% | 19.17 | 4.54 | 15.37 ± 2.28 d | 51.00 | 2.76 ± 0.08 d | 0.26 |
| BHA 0.05% | - | 127.79 | 5.23 ± 0.19 e | - | 0.99 ± 0.00 e | 0.06 |
1 Data from PV graphics; 2 Data from differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) graphics; 3 Hydroperoxide value at 10 days of experiment; 4 Thiobarbituric acid reactive compounds (TBARs) value at 15 days of experiment. a,b,c,d,e Means within each column with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). IT: induction time; OIT: oxidation induction time.
Figure 3Changes in the TBARs value of sunflower oil fatty acid mixture at 35 °C in the dark.
Figure 4Isothermal analysis to determinate OIT value for sunflower oil fatty acid mixture.