| Literature DB >> 30519788 |
Danna Huang1, Xiaolei Zhou1,2, Jianzhi Si1, Xiaomei Gong1,3, Shuo Wang4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Illicium verum is widely cultivated in southern China especially in Guangxi province. Its fruits has been traditionally used in Chinese medicine. In recent years, it has been the industrial source of shikimic acid. Usually the residues after extracting shikimic acid are treated as waste. Thus, the aim of this study was to optimize the extraction conditions of cellulase-ultrasonic assisted extraction technology for flavonoids from I. verum residues.Entities:
Keywords: Cellulase-ultrasonic; Extraction; Flavonoid; Illicium verum
Year: 2016 PMID: 30519788 PMCID: PMC5400127 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-016-0202-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Chem Cent J ISSN: 1752-153X Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Standard curve
Fig. 2The effect of sonication times on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Fig. 3The effect of liquid–solid ratios on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Fig. 4The effect of ethanol concentrations on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Fig. 5The effect of pH on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Fig. 6The effect of temperatures on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Fig. 7The effect of concentrations of cellulase on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Fig. 8The effect of times of enzymatic hydrolysis on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Fig. 9The effect of crushed mesh sizes on the extraction yield of flavonoids
Scheme and experimental results of Plackett–Burman design
| No. | A (min) | B (mL/g) | C (%) | D | E (°C) | F (mg/g) | G (h) | Y (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 75 | 15 | 60 | 4 | 40 | 50 | 2.5 | 9.89 |
| 2 | 75 | 25 | 60 | 4 | 50 | 90 | 1.5 | 11.78 |
| 3 | 75 | 15 | 40 | 6 | 50 | 90 | 1.5 | 7.96 |
| 4 | 75 | 25 | 40 | 6 | 40 | 50 | 1.5 | 10.51 |
| 5 | 45 | 15 | 60 | 6 | 40 | 90 | 1.5 | 10.81 |
| 6 | 45 | 25 | 60 | 6 | 40 | 90 | 2.5 | 11.56 |
| 7 | 75 | 15 | 60 | 6 | 50 | 50 | 2.5 | 13.05 |
| 8 | 45 | 25 | 40 | 6 | 50 | 50 | 2.5 | 10.81 |
| 9 | 45 | 15 | 40 | 4 | 40 | 50 | 1.5 | 7.70 |
| 10 | 45 | 15 | 40 | 4 | 50 | 90 | 2.5 | 6.95 |
| 11 | 45 | 25 | 60 | 4 | 50 | 50 | 1.5 | 11.50 |
| 12 | 75 | 25 | 40 | 4 | 40 | 90 | 2.5 | 9.15 |
Variance analysis of Plackett–Burman design
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression model | 35.31 | 7 | 5.04 | 7.69 | 0.0335 |
| A | 0.75 | 1 | 0.75 | 1.14 | 0.3449 |
| B | 6.64 | 1 | 6.64 | 10.13 | 0.0335 |
| C | 20.03 | 1 | 20.03 | 30.55 | 0.0052 |
| D | 4.99 | 1 | 4.99 | 7.61 | 0.0509 |
| E | 0.49 | 1 | 0.49 | 0.75 | 0.4341 |
| F | 2.29 | 1 | 2.29 | 3.49 | 0.1350 |
| G | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 0.7006 |
The factor coding and levels of the Box–Benhnken design
| Factors | Real value | Coding | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| C | X1 |
| 40 | 50 | 60 |
| B | X2 |
| 15 | 20 | 25 |
| D | X3 |
| 4 | 5 | 6 |
x = (X1 − 50)/10; x = (X2 − 20)/5; x = (X3 − 5)/1
Observed and estimated values of Box–Benhnken response surface design
| No. | C (%) | B (mL/g) | D | Y (%) | Estimated value (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 12.66 | 12.60 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13.02 | 12.65 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 10.58 | 10.69 |
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 11.95 | 11.84 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.92 | 14.13 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.38 | 14.13 |
| 8 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 12.05 | 12.10 |
| 9 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 12.96 | 12.69 |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12.44 | 12.87 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.44 | 14.13 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.14 | 14.13 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13.85 | 13.53 |
| 14 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 12.09 | 11.67 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | −1 | 14.79 | 14.13 |
| 16 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 12.22 | 12.60 |
| 17 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 12.50 | 12.82 |
Variance analysis of regression equation for the extraction yield
| Source | Sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression model | 16.90 | 9 | 1.88 | 6.05 | 0.0135* |
| X1 | 1.37 | 1 | 1.37 | 4.42 | 0.0737 |
| X2 | 0.22 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.70 | 0.4320 |
| X3 | 0.29 | 1 | 0.29 | 0.92 | 0.3693 |
| X1X2 | 1.18 | 1 | 1.18 | 3.81 | 0.0920 |
| X1X3 | 0.04 | 1 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.7305 |
| X2X3 | 0.31 | 1 | 0.31 | 0.98 | 0.3544 |
| X12 | 8.57 | 1 | 8.57 | 27.62 | 0.0012* |
| X22 | 3.40 | 1 | 3.40 | 10.95 | 0.0129* |
| X32 | 0.48 | 1 | 0.48 | 1.56 | 0.2519 |
| Residual error | 2.17 | 7 | 0.31 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 1.04 | 3 | 0.35 | 1.23 | 0.4088 |
| Pure error | 1.13 | 4 | 0.28 | ||
| Total | 19.08 | 16 | |||
| R2 = 0.9871 |
* Means significant (p < 0.05)
Fig. 10Response surface and contour plots showing the effect of ethanol concentration and liquid–solid ratio on the extraction yield
Fig. 11Response surface and contour plots showing the effect of ethanol concentration and pH on the extraction yield
Fig. 12Response surface and contour plots showing the effect of liquid–solid ratio and pH on the extraction yield
The results of the validation test
| Test no. | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average | RSD % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extraction yield (%) | 14.87 | 14.09 | 15.33 | 14.76 | 4.24 |