| Literature DB >> 30274261 |
Cai-Ning Zhao1, Jiao-Jiao Zhang2, Ya Li3, Xiao Meng4, Hua-Bin Li5,6.
Abstract
A microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) technology optimized by response surface methodology (RSM) was established to extract phenolic compounds from the fruit of Melastoma sanguineum. The effects of solvent composition, ratio of solvent to material, temperature, time and microwave power on phenol yield were evaluated in single-factor tests. The three parameters exerting main impacts on phenol yield were further optimized by RSM. Under optimal extraction conditions (31.33% ethanol, solvent/material ratio of 32.21 mL/g, 52.24 °C, 45 min and 500 W), the total phenolic content was 39.02 ± 0.73 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g dry weight (DW). This MAE method performed better in comparison with two conventional methods, those being maceration (25.79 ± 1.03 mg GAE/g DW) and Soxhlet extraction (18.40 ± 1.34 mg GAE/g DW), using lower process temperature, shorter irradiation time, and lower organic solvent consumption. In addition, five flavonoids (epicatechin gallate, epicatechin, rutin, pigallocatechin and quercetin) and two phenolic acids (protocatechuic acid and chlorogenic acid) in the extract were identified and quantified using UPLC-MS/MS.Entities:
Keywords: Melastoma sanguineum; green extraction; microwave-assisted extraction; phenolic compounds; response surface methodology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30274261 PMCID: PMC6222716 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23102498
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Effects of different factors on total phenolic content value of extracts (mg GAE/g DW): ethanol concentration (%) (a); solvent/material ratio (mL/g) (b); extraction temperature (°C) (c); extraction temperature (min) (d); and microwave power (W) (e). TPC: total phenolic content; GAE: gallic acid equivalent; DW: dry weight.
The central composite design, coded and actual levels of three independent variables, actual and predicted values of total phenolic content.
| Run | X1 (Ethanol Concentration, %) | X2 (Solvent/Material Ratio, mL/g) | X3 (Temperature, °C) | Y (TPC Value, mg GAE/g DW) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual | Predicted | ||||
| 1 | 20 (−1) | 40 (1) | 40 (−1) | 28.71 | 27.70 |
| 2 | 40 (1) | 40 (1) | 60 (1) | 30.32 | 30.32 |
| 3 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 39.30 | 38.68 |
| 4 | 30 (0) | 46.82 (1.68) | 50 (0) | 30.33 | 30.50 |
| 5 | 40 (1) | 20 (−1) | 60 (1) | 28.11 | 29.60 |
| 6 | 20 (−1) | 20 (-1) | 60 (1) | 26.93 | 27.47 |
| 7 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 39.42 | 38.68 |
| 8 | 40 (1) | 20 (−1) | 40 (−1) | 23.11 | 22.42 |
| 9 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 66.82 (1.68) | 32.63 | 30.96 |
| 10 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 38.17 | 38.68 |
| 11 | 20 (−1) | 40 (1) | 60 (1) | 28.11 | 29.28 |
| 12 | 13.18 (−1.68) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 27.72 | 27.25 |
| 13 | 40 (1) | 40 (1) | 40 (−1) | 29.75 | 29.69 |
| 14 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 38.65 | 38.68 |
| 15 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 33.18 (−1.68) | 22.61 | 23.60 |
| 16 | 20 (−1) | 20 (−1) | 40 (−1) | 18.87 | 19.35 |
| 17 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 37.51 | 38.68 |
| 18 | 30 (0) | 13.18 (−1.68) | 50 (0) | 23.72 | 22.87 |
| 19 | 46.82 (1.68) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 30.91 | 30.70 |
| 20 | 30 (0) | 30 (0) | 50 (0) | 38.90 | 38.68 |
Analyses of variance of the regression model.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 726.77 | 9 | 80.75 | 62.17 | <0.0001 |
| X1 | 14.42 | 1 | 14.42 | 11.10 | 0.0076 |
| X2 | 70.31 | 1 | 70.31 | 54.13 | <0.0001 |
| X3 | 65.38 | 1 | 65.38 | 50.34 | <0.0001 |
| X1X2 | 0.59 | 1 | 0.59 | 0.45 | 0.5161 |
| X1X3 | 0.45 | 1 | 0.45 | 0.34 | 0.5707 |
| X2X3 | 21.42 | 1 | 21.42 | 16.49 | 0.0023 |
| X12 | 169.56 | 1 | 169.56 | 130.54 | <0.0001 |
| X22 | 259.05 | 1 | 259.05 | 199.44 | <0.0001 |
| X32 | 233.98 | 1 | 233.98 | 180.14 | <0.0001 |
| Residual | 12.99 | 10 | 1.30 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 10.38 | 5 | 2.08 | 3.98 | 0.0778 |
| Pure Error | 2.61 | 5 | 0.52 | ||
| Cor. Total | 739.76 | 19 | |||
| R2 | 0.9824 | ||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.9666 |
df: degree of freedom.
Figure 2Graphical analysis of the effects of ethanol concentration (X1, %) and solvent/material ratio (X2, mL/g) (a); ethanol concentration (X1, %) and extraction temperature (X3, °C) (b); and solvent/material ratio (X2, mL/g) and extraction temperature (X3, °C) (c) on total phenolic content value (mg GAE/g DW).
The comparison of microwave-assisted extraction with maceration and Soxhlet extraction.
| Extraction Methods | Ethanol Concentration (%) | Time | Temperature (°C) | TPC (mg GAE/g DW) | TEAC (μmol Trolox/g DW) | TFC (mg QE/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maceration extraction | 31.33 | 24 h | 25 | 25.79 ± 1.03 | 380.66 ± 1.09 | 1.11 ± 0.28 |
| Soxhlet extraction | 31.33 | 4 h | 95 | 18.40 ± 1.34 | 309.10 ± 1.32 | 1.19 ± 0.23 |
| MAE | 31.33 | 45 min | 52.24 | 39.02 ± 0.73 | 480.58 ± 1.23 | 1.33 ± 0.31 |
TEAC: Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity; TFC: total flavonoid content; QE: quercetin equivalent.
The phenolic compounds in extract of M. sanguineum fruit.
| Phenolic Compounds | Classification | Retention Time ( | Parent Ion ( | Product Ion ( | Contents (µg/g DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Epicatechin gallate | Flavonoid | 6.87 | 441 | 169 | 256.14 ± 18.42 |
| Epicatechin | Flavonoid | 5.4 | 289 | 203 | 22.57 ± 1.78 |
| Rutin | Flavonoid | 9.67 | 609 | 300 | 17.24 ± 1.52 |
| Epigallocatechin | Flavonoid | 3.03 | 305 | 137 | 7.84 ± 0.67 |
| Protocatechuic acid | Phenolic acid | 3.09 | 152.9 | 107.8 | 0.74 ± 0.14 |
| Chlorogenic acid | Phenolic acid | 4.13 | 353 | 191 | 0.65 ± 0.08 |
| Quercetin | Flavonoid | 11.8 | 301 | 179 | 0.35 ± 0.02 |