| Literature DB >> 31323872 |
Anna-Maria Abi-Khattar1, Hiba N Rajha1, Roula M Abdel-Massih2, Richard G Maroun3, Nicolas Louka1, Espérance Debs2.
Abstract
Optimization of infrared-assisted extraction was conducted using Response Surface Methodology (RSM) in order to intensify polyphenol recovery from olive leaves. The extraction efficiency using Ired-Irrad®, a newly-patented infrared apparatus (IR), was compared to water bath (WB) conventional extraction. Under optimal conditions, as suggested by the model and confirmed experimentally, the total phenolic content yield was enhanced by more than 30% using IR as contrasted to WB, which even required 27% more ethanol consumption. High Performance Liquid Chromatography analyses quantified the two major phenolic compounds of the leaves: Oleuropein and hydroxytyrosol, which were both intensified by 18% and 21%, respectively. IR extracts increased the antiradical activity by 25% and the antioxidant capacity by 51% compared to WB extracts. On the other hand, extracts of olive leaves obtained by both techniques exhibited equal effects regarding the inhibition of 20 strains of Staphylococcus aureus, with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) varying between 3.125 and 12.5 mg/mL. Similarly, both extracts inhibited Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) secretion by Aspergillus flavus, with no growth inhibition of the fungus. Finally, optimization using RSM allowed us to suggest other IR operating conditions aiming at significantly reducing the consumption of energy and solvent, while maintaining similar quantity and quality of phenolic compounds as what is optimally obtained using WB.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial activity; antioxidants; infrared-assisted extraction; olive leaves; response surface methodology
Year: 2019 PMID: 31323872 PMCID: PMC6680986 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8070227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Instrumental setup for (a) water bath (WB) and (b) infrared apparatus (IR).
Figure 2(a) Effect of solid to liquid ratio and (b) particle size on the extraction yield (letters a and b indicate significant statistical difference between means). Every arbitrary unit value is the ratio of the Total Phenolic Compounds (TPC) (at the corresponding experimental conditions) to the highest obtained TPC.
Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (MICs) of WB and IR olive leaves extract against twenty Staphylococcus aureus strains.
| Bacterial Strain | Olive Leaves Extract Minimum Inhibitory Concentrations (mg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|
| WB | IR | |
| 12.5 | 12.5 | |
|
| 6.25 | 6.25 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 3.125 | 3.125 |
|
| 3.125 | 3.125 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
|
| 6.25 | 6.25 |
|
| 6.25 | 6.25 |
|
| 12.5 | 12.5 |
Arrangement for independent variables and their responses for TPC (mg GAE/g dry matter (DM)).
| Run | Central Composite Design | Variable Levels Uncoded | Phenolic Compounds Yield (mg GAE/g DM) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solvent (% Ethanol) | Time (min) | Temperature ( °C) | WB | IR | ||||
| Experimental | Predicted | Experimental | Predicted | |||||
| 1 | Factorial design points | 40 | 60 | 38 | 15.74 | 15.00 | 19.71 | 18.27 |
| 2 | 80 | 60 | 38 | 14.41 | 13.81 | 16.61 | 14.73 | |
| 3 | 40 | 180 | 38 | 18.35 | 18.47 | 23.20 | 22.40 | |
| 4 | 80 | 180 | 38 | 16.12 | 16.65 | 18.39 | 16.63 | |
| 5 | 40 | 60 | 77 | 22.52 | 21.16 | 21.02 | 22.15 | |
| 6 | 80 | 60 | 77 | 23.90 | 22.94 | 23.66 | 23.81 | |
| 7 | 40 | 180 | 77 | 23.81 | 23.58 | 27.51 | 28.75 | |
| 8 | 80 | 180 | 77 | 24.81 | 24.72 | 27.38 | 28.18 | |
| 9 | Star points | 26.36 | 120 | 57.5 | 17.41 | 18.33 | 21.90 | 21.51 |
| 10 | 93.63 | 120 | 57.5 | 18.04 | 18.30 | 16.76 | 18.06 | |
| 11 | 60 | 19.09 | 57.5 | 16.31 | 18.09 | 16.46 | 17.37 | |
| 12 | 60 | 220.9 | 57.5 | 23.11 | 22.51 | 23.86 | 23.86 | |
| 13 | 60 | 120 | 24.7 | 14.31 | 14.31 | 15.01 | 18.20 | |
| 14 | 60 | 120 | 90.3 | 25.11 | 26.28 | 33.47 | 31.18 | |
| 15 | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 21.20 | 21.22 | 21.77 | 20.81 | |
| 16 | Center points | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 21.15 | 21.22 | 20.17 | 20.81 |
| 17 | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 21.43 | 21.22 | 20.32 | 20.81 | |
| 18 | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 21.09 | 21.22 | 20.70 | 20.81 | |
| 19 | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 21.20 | 21.22 | 20.45 | 20.81 | |
| 20 | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 21.49 | 21.22 | 20.51 | 20.81 | |
| 21 | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 20.47 | 21.22 | 21.29 | 20.81 | |
| 22 | 60 | 120 | 57.5 | 21.89 | 21.22 | 21.45 | 20.81 | |
Figure 3(a,b) Standardized Pareto charts and (c,d) the corresponding estimated response surface mesh of TPC for WB and IR.
Optimum extraction conditions for WB and IR.
| Factor | Optimum Conditions | |
|---|---|---|
| WB | IR | |
| Ethanol/Water (%) | 70.16 | 55.35 |
| Time (min) | 193.28 | 220.91 |
| Temperature ( °C) | 90.29 | 90.29 |
Second order regression equation for TPC of each extraction technique and the R-squared of each equation.
| Extraction Technique | Equation | |
|---|---|---|
| WB | 90.69 | TPC = 29.1281 − 0.0854381E + 0.0347351t − 0.487806T − 0.000850084E2 − 0.0000128046t2 + 0.00366906T2 − 0.00046598Et + 0.00333862ET + 0.000528357tT |
| IR | 95.23 | TPC = −1.18369 + 0.214169E + 0.0644087t + 0.193729T − 0.0025667E2 − 0.0000897562t2 − 0.000854751T2 − 0.000132978Et + 0.0019014ET − 0.000225784tT |
Predicted and experimental results of TPC (mg GAE/g DM) for WB and IR.
| Optimum TPC Value (mg GAE/g DM) | Predicted | Experimental |
|---|---|---|
| WB | 27.12 | 26.31a ± 0.3 |
| IR | 36.23 | 34.28b ± 1 |
a and b indicate significant statistical difference between means.
Oleuropein and hydroxytyrosol concentrations (mg/g DM) in WB and IR olive leaf extracts.
| Concentration (mg/g DM) | Extraction Technique | |
|---|---|---|
| WB | IR | |
| Oleuropein | 11.84a ± 1.2 | 14.01b ± 0.9 |
| Hydroxytyrosol | 0.33c ± 0.02 | 0.40d ± 0.008 |
Different letters (a, b, c, and d) indicate significant statistical difference between means.
Figure 4(a) Antiradical and antioxidant activities, (b) fungal growth of A. flavus and (c) AFB1 inhibition percentage for WB and IR extracts (a, b, c, and d indicate significant statistical difference between means).