| Literature DB >> 31517114 |
Yingpeng Zhu1, Jiangliu Yu1, Chunyan Jiao1, Jinfeng Tong1, Lei Zhang1, Yan Chang1, Weina Sun1, Qing Jin1, Yongping Cai1.
Abstract
Ultrasonic-assisted extraction of quercetin from Dendrobium officinale was optimized by response surface methodology (RSM) using high-performance liquid chromatography as a separative method. Based on single-factor experiments and two-level factorial analysis, the ethanol concentration, solid-to-liquid ratio and ultrasonic power were selected as significant response factors. The amount of quercetin that we extracted from Dendrobium officinale was 2.506-2.594 μg/g under the extraction conditions, which showed that optimization could improve the extration rate of quercetin from Dendrobium officinale. Quercetin was extracted and detected within 12 consecutive months after the germination of Dendrobium officinale by optimizing the extraction process to analyze the accumulation of quercetin. The UV-B exposure experiments showed that the Dendrobium officinale leaves have different responses to low- and high-dose UV light. The results showed that the quercetin content in Dendrobium officinale could be changed by UV-B radiation, and the response of distinct tissue parts to varying intensities of UV-B radiation was different.Entities:
Keywords: Biotechnology; Dendrobium officinale; HPLC; Metabolite; Pharmaceutical chemistry; Plant biology; Quercetin; RSM; Theoretical chemistry; UV-B
Year: 2019 PMID: 31517114 PMCID: PMC6732668 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Fig. 1Effect of the solid-to-liquid ratio on quercetin extraction from Dendrobium officinale.
Fig. 2Effect of the extraction temperature on quercetin extraction from Dendrobium officinale.
Fig. 3Effect of ultrasonic power on quercetin extraction from Dendrobium officinale.
Fig. 4Effect of the ethanol concentration on quercetin extraction from Dendrobium officinale.
Fig. 5Effect of time on quercetin extraction from Dendrobium officinale.
Two-level factorial design and results.
| Run | Ethanol (%) | Temperature (°C) | Time (min) | Power (W) | Liquid Ratio (%) | Quercetin (μg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 90 | 70 | 60 | 180 | 60 | 4.0283 |
| 2 | 50 | 50 | 60 | 140 | 60 | 4.2728 |
| 3 | 50 | 50 | 30 | 140 | 60 | 3.9518 |
| 4 | 50 | 50 | 30 | 180 | 60 | 3.8855 |
| 5 | 50 | 50 | 30 | 140 | 40 | 2.5772 |
| 6 | 90 | 70 | 60 | 180 | 40 | 2.7356 |
| 7 | 50 | 50 | 30 | 180 | 40 | 2.7316 |
| 8 | 50 | 70 | 60 | 180 | 40 | 2.5752 |
| 9 | 50 | 50 | 60 | 140 | 40 | 2.7216 |
| 10 | 90 | 70 | 30 | 180 | 40 | 2.9232 |
| 11 | 50 | 70 | 30 | 180 | 60 | 3.7777 |
| 12 | 90 | 50 | 60 | 140 | 40 | 2.8444 |
| 13 | 90 | 70 | 60 | 140 | 40 | 2.9480 |
| 14 | 90 | 50 | 30 | 180 | 40 | 2.9076 |
| 15 | 50 | 50 | 60 | 180 | 60 | 3.9451 |
| 16 | 50 | 70 | 30 | 180 | 40 | 2.6568 |
| 17 | 90 | 50 | 30 | 140 | 60 | 4.0861 |
| 18 | 50 | 70 | 60 | 140 | 60 | 4.0650 |
| 19 | 50 | 70 | 60 | 140 | 40 | 2.8132 |
| 20 | 50 | 70 | 30 | 140 | 40 | 2.6696 |
| 21 | 90 | 50 | 60 | 180 | 60 | 3.9680 |
| 22 | 50 | 70 | 60 | 180 | 60 | 3.9433 |
| 23 | 90 | 70 | 60 | 140 | 60 | 4.1090 |
| 24 | 90 | 70 | 30 | 180 | 60 | 4.0663 |
| 25 | 90 | 50 | 30 | 140 | 40 | 2.9244 |
| 26 | 90 | 50 | 30 | 180 | 60 | 4.2873 |
| 27 | 50 | 50 | 60 | 180 | 40 | 2.6480 |
| 28 | 90 | 70 | 30 | 140 | 40 | 2.9668 |
| 29 | 50 | 70 | 30 | 140 | 60 | 3.9662 |
| 30 | 90 | 70 | 30 | 140 | 60 | 4.0120 |
| 31 | 90 | 50 | 60 | 140 | 60 | 4.3385 |
| 32 | 90 | 50 | 60 | 180 | 40 | 2.7552 |
ANOVA of the two-level factorial design.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 13.3700 | 9 | 1.4900 | 280.32 | <0.0001 |
| Ethanol | 0.2300 | 1 | 0.2300 | 42.98 | <0.0001 |
| Temperature | 0.0110 | 1 | 0.0110 | 2.05 | 0.1667 |
| Time | 0.0032 | 1 | 0.0032 | 0.61 | 0.4435 |
| Power | 0.0640 | 1 | 0.0640 | 12.09 | 0.0021 |
| Liquid Ratio | 12.8800 | 1 | 12.8800 | 243.78 | <0.0001 |
Central composite design and results.
| Run | Ethanol (%,A) | Power (W,B) | Liquid Ratio (%,C) | Quercetin (μg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 90 (1) | 140 (-1) | 40 (-1) | 2.5818 |
| 2 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 33.18 (-1.68) | 2.5070 |
| 3 | 50 (-1) | 140 (-1) | 40 (-1) | 2.3590 |
| 4 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.5661 |
| 5 | 50 (-1) | 140 (-1) | 60 (1) | 2.3644 |
| 6 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.6033 |
| 7 | 90 (1) | 180 (1) | 60 (1) | 2.3880 |
| 8 | 70 (0) | 126.36 (-1.68) | 50 (0) | 2.3731 |
| 9 | 50 (-1) | 180 (1) | 40 (-1) | 2.4710 |
| 10 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.5772 |
| 11 | 90 (1) | 140 (-1) | 60 (1) | 2.4206 |
| 12 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 66.82 (1.68) | 2.4871 |
| 13 | 103.64 (1.68) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.4652 |
| 14 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.5619 |
| 15 | 50 (-1) | 180 (1) | 60 (1) | 2.4925 |
| 16 | 36.36 (-1.68) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.3438 |
| 17 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.5570 |
| 18 | 70 (0) | 160 (0) | 50 (0) | 2.5355 |
| 19 | 90 (1) | 180 (1) | 40 (-1) | 2.4703 |
| 20 | 70 (0) | 193.64 (1.68) | 50 (0) | 2.4909 |
ANOVA of the central composite design.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 0.1200 | 9 | 0.0140 | 19.1800 | <0.0001 | ** |
| A | 0.0100 | 1 | 0.0100 | 14.7400 | 0.0033 | ** |
| B | 0.0046 | 1 | 0.0046 | 6.4500 | 0.0294 | * |
| C | 0.0063 | 1 | 0.0063 | 8.9200 | 0.0137 | * |
| AB | 0.0091 | 1 | 0.0091 | 12.8700 | 0.0049 | ** |
| AC | 0.0180 | 1 | 0.0180 | 26.0300 | 0.0005 | ** |
| BC | 0.0012 | 1 | 0.0012 | 1.5900 | 0.2357 | |
| A2 | 0.0450 | 1 | 0.0450 | 63.8300 | <0.0001 | ** |
| B2 | 0.0078 | 1 | 0.0078 | 11.0500 | 0.0077 | ** |
| C2 | 0.0310 | 1 | 0.0310 | 43.6200 | <0.0001 | ** |
| Residual | 0.0071 | 10 | 0.0007 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 0.0046 | 5 | 0.0009 | 1.79 | 0.2685 | |
| Pure Error | 0.0026 | 5 | 0.0005 | |||
| Cor Total | 0.1300 | 19 | ||||
| R2 | 0.9452 | |||||
| R2Adj | 0.8960 |
Fig. 6Response surface plots of the effect of factor interactions on quercetin extraction yield. (A) Effect of the interaction between ethanol concentration and the solid-to-liquid ratio; (B) Effect of the interaction between ultrasonic power and ethanol concentration; (C) Effect of the interaction between the solid-to-liquid ratio and ultrasonic power.
Verification of the experimental results.
| Category | Run | Yield (μg/g) | STDEV (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive | Experimental | |||
| Quercetin | 1 | 2.58 | 2.59 | 0.0084 |
| 2 | 2.58 | 2.57 | ||
| 3 | 2.58 | 2.47 | ||
| 4 | 2.58 | 2.58 | ||
| 5 | 2.58 | 2.58 | ||
| 6 | 2.58 | 2.56 | ||
Fig. 7Quercetin content in the leaves and stems of Dendrobium officinale at different culture times.
Fig. 8Effects of different irradiation intensities on quercetin content in Dendrobium officinale, (A), quercetin content in leaves; (B), quercetin content in stems.