| Literature DB >> 31720471 |
Yanfei Zhang1, Haitong Tang2, Yuchuan Zheng2, Jinzhu Li2, Le Pan2.
Abstract
Effective extraction of natural antioxidants from cheap plant sources is still a problem. In this paper, an excellent method of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from Ajuga ciliata Bunge was studied. The effects of four factors including ethanol volume fraction, ultrasonic time, ultrasonic temperature and material liquid ratio were discussed. After single factor experiments had been investigated, a 4-factor, 3-level Box-Behnken design experiment was used to obtain the model optimum conditions, which are shown as follows: ethanol volume fraction of 41%, liquid-solid ratio of 35:1 mL/g, ultrasonic temperature of 60 °C and ultrasonic time of 50 min. Under these conditions, the experimental productivity is 3.552 mg/g. The spectra of Fourier infrared and energy dispersive X-ray suggest that phenolic compounds exist in the extracts. Besides, free radical scavenging potentials of superoxide anion, hydroxyl and DPPH were measured to evaluate their antioxidant properties. This study proves that the ultrasonic-assisted extraction technique can extract phenolic compounds with antioxidant capacity from Ajuga ciliata Bunge.Entities:
Keywords: Ajuga ciliata Bunge; Analytical chemistry; FTIR; Food science; Poly-phenols; RSM; Ultrasonic
Year: 2019 PMID: 31720471 PMCID: PMC6838966 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02733
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Fig. 1The average effect of the EVC(A), LS ratio(B), UTe(C) and UTi(D) (n = 5).
Selected factors and levels.
| Factors | Symbol | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LS ratio/(mL/g) | X1 | -1 (30:1) | 0 (35:1) | 1 (40:1) |
| EVC/% | X2 | -1 (30) | 0 (40) | 1 (50) |
| UTe/°C | X3 | -1 (40) | 0 (50) | 1 (60) |
| UTi/min | X4 | -1 (40) | 0 (50) | 1 (60) |
BBD and the response values for yields of PAB.
| No | X1/(mL/g) | X2/% | X3/°C | X4/min | Y/(mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 2.3499 |
| 2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.2470 |
| 3 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 1.0408 |
| 4 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1.5641 |
| 5 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1.5718 |
| 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.0057 |
| 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1.8423 |
| 8 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.5285 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.5024 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.8156 |
| 11 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.7998 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1.8438 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.5426 |
| 14 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.7087 |
| 15 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 1.2938 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.5206 |
| 17 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1.5351 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1.6427 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.4908 |
| 20 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 1.5185 |
| 21 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 1.6250 |
| 22 | -1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1.5630 |
| 23 | 0 | -1 | 0 | -1 | 1.4573 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 1.8093 |
| 25 | -1 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1.4650 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 1.4793 |
| 27 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 1.5987 |
| 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.5238 |
| 29 | 0 | -1 | -1 | 0 | 1.6039 |
ANOVA for the fitted quadratic polynomial model.
| Source | Degree of freedom | Sum of Squares | Mean square | F value | p-Value | Rem-arks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 16.05 | 14 | 1.10 | 41.10 | <0.0001 | ** |
| X1 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.22 | 8.11 | 0.0129 | * |
| X2 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.17 | 6.20 | 0.0260 | * |
| X3 | 0.13 | 1 | 0.13 | 4.83 | 0.0453 | * |
| X4 | 0.0052 | 1 | 0.0052 | 0.19 | 0.6735 | |
| X1X2 | 0.0090 | 1 | 0.0090 | 0.32 | 0.5795 | |
| X1X3 | 0.081 | 1 | 0.081 | 2.91 | 0.1100 | |
| X1X4 | 0.022 | 1 | 0.021 | 0.80 | 0.3850 | |
| X2 X3 | 0.16 | 1 | 0.16 | 5.72 | 0.0314 | * |
| X2 X4 | 0.031 | 1 | 0.031 | 1.12 | 0.3076 | |
| X3 X4 | 0.19 | 1 | 0.19 | 6.89 | 0.0200 | * |
| X12 | 5.80 | 1 | 5.80 | 207.99 | <0.0001 | ** |
| X22 | 7.20 | 1 | 7.29 | 261.42 | <0.0001 | ** |
| X32 | 5.42 | 1 | 5.42 | 194.19 | <0.0001 | ** |
| X42 | 4.91 | 1 | 4.91 | 176.03 | <0.0001 | ** |
| Residua | 0.39 | 14 | 0.028 | |||
| Lack of fit | 0.39 | 10 | 0.039 | 96.46 | 0.0003 | |
| Pure error | 0.0016 | 4 | 0.0016 | |||
| Cor total | 16.44 | 28 |
R2 = 0.9762 Adj-R2 = 0.9525 Pred-R2 = 0.8636 C.V.% = 8.57%.
Notes: *means significant difference, ** means extremely significant difference.
Fig. 2The interactive effect of the variables on Ajuga ciliata Bunge: (A)LS ratio versus EVC, (B)LS ratio versus UTe, (C)LS ratio versus UTi, (D)EVC versus UTe, (E)EVC versus UTi, (F)UTe versus UTi.
Fig. 3The antioxidant activities of PAB: (A)HO scavenging activity, (B)O2-·scavenging activity and (C)DPPH·scavenging activity.
Fig.4(A) FTIR spectrum of PAB, (B)SEM images of PAB (C)EDX spectrum of PAB.
eZAF intelligent quantitative results of PAB.
| Element | Weight | Atom | Net intensity | error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C K | 32.95 | 61.94 | 140.7 | 0.01 |
| N K | 2.08 | 3.35 | 4.8 | 0.1 |
| O K | 10.69 | 15.09 | 85.7 | 0.02 |
| S K | 0.14 | 0.1 | 3 | 0.57 |
| ClK | 1.02 | 0.65 | 20.1 | 0.12 |
| CuK | 53.11 | 18.87 | 125.5 | 0.02 |