| Literature DB >> 31727081 |
Asma Elaguel1, Imen Kallel2, Bochra Gargouri3, Ichrak Ben Amor3, Bilel Hadrich4, Ezeddine Ben Messaoud1, Radhouane Gdoura1, Saloua Lassoued3, Ahmed Gargouri1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study was focused on the optimization of yield of the essential oil extraction from leaves of Lawsonia inermis, and the determination of chemical composition, antioxidant activities, and lipid peroxydation and antiproliferative effects.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant activity; Cytotoxicity; Essential oil; Lawsonia inermis; Lipid peroxidation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31727081 PMCID: PMC6857162 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-019-1141-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Used levels of the experiments
| Factor | Coded symbol | -1 | 0 | + 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drying (%) | x1 | 0 | 50 | 100 |
| Washings | x2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Salt concentration (g/L) | x3 | 175 | 262.5 | 350 |
Experimental conditions defined by Box–Behnken design
| Runs | Drying (%) | Washings | Salt concentration (g/L) | Yield (g/100 g d.b.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 262.5 | 4.837 |
| 2 | 100 | 3 | 262.5 | 0.244 |
| 3 | 0 | 5 | 262.5 | 6.822 |
| 4 | 100 | 5 | 262.5 | 1.873 |
| 5 | 0 | 4 | 175 | 5.522 |
| 6 | 100 | 4 | 175 | 0.997 |
| 7 | 0 | 4 | 350 | 5.775 |
| 8 | 100 | 4 | 350 | 1.618 |
| 9 | 50 | 3 | 175 | 1.183 |
| 10 | 50 | 5 | 175 | 2.879 |
| 11 | 50 | 3 | 350 | 1.136 |
| 12 | 50 | 5 | 350 | 2.692 |
| 13 | 50 | 4 | 262.5 | 1.992 |
| 14 | 50 | 4 | 262.5 | 1.650 |
| 15 | 50 | 4 | 262.5 | 1.820 |
Student test of the different terms suggested for the essential oil extraction yield model
| Factor | Coefficient | Standard Error | t | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 2.965 | 0.073 | 40.569 | < 0.0001 |
| x1 | −2.278 | 0.090 | − 25.450 | < 0.0001 |
| x2 | 0.858 | 0.090 | 9.590 | < 0.001 |
| x3 | 0.080 | 0.090 | 0.894 | 0.412 |
| x12 | −0.782 | 0.066 | −11.875 | < 0.0001 |
| x22 | −0.029 | 0.066 | −0.446 | 0.674 |
| x32 | −0.047 | 0.066 | −0.707 | 0.511 |
| x1 × x2 | −0.089 | 0.127 | −0.703 | 0.513 |
| x1 × x3 | 0.092 | 0.127 | 0.727 | 0.500 |
| x2 × x3 | −0.035 | 0.127 | −0.277 | 0.793 |
Composition of the essential oil of Henna by GS / MS
| Family | Compound | Composition (%) | Retention time | Level of identification (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Monoterpene hydrocarbon | α- limonene | 55.06 | 9.150 | 99 |
| β-limonene | 24.06 | 8.420 | 99 | |
| L-limonene | 0.4 | 9.799 | 97 | |
| β–ocimene | 0.91 | 9.595 | 96 | |
| β–myrcene | 2.28 | 7.952 | 97 | |
| β –thujone | 0.26 | 11.441 | 96 | |
| α –pinene | 0.16 | 6.400 | 97 | |
| β-pinene | 0.54 | 7.500 | 97 | |
| bicyclogermacrene | 0.15 | 21.486 | 98 | |
| Phtalate | Di-phthalate | 3.05 | 40.904 | 91 |
| Alcohol | Linalool | 1.58 | 11.027 | 97 |
| α–linalool | 0.83 | 10.665 | 91 | |
| Linalool oxide | 0.88 | 10.228 | 91 | |
| Dodecanol | 0.18 | 19.406 | 90 | |
| Epimanool | 0.18 | 33.068 | 78 | |
| Terpene | Linalylacetate | 1.25 | 15.307 | 91 |
| Geranylacetate | 0.87 | 18.720 | 91 | |
| Linalyl propionate | 0.81 | 13.589 | 91 | |
| Camphor | 0.27 | 11.916 | 98 | |
| Linalyl | 0.26 | 18.215 | 91 | |
| Sesquiterpeniccarbides | Germacrene | 0.95 | 21.124 | 99 |
| Sesquiterpene | β -caryophyllene | 0.81 | 19.572 | 99 |
| α –humulene | 0.32 | 20.423 | 98 | |
| Ketone | Bi-cycloheptanone | 0.61 | 12.187 | 98 |
| 2-naphtalenone | 0.16 | 28.576 | 96 | |
| Aldehyde | Caprinicaldehyde | 0.60 | 13.973 | 87 |
| AlcoholicSesquiterpene | Veridiflorol | 0.44 | 23.784 | 99 |
| Sesquiterpenealcoholic | Farnesol | 0.39 | 23.151 | 94 |
| Monoterpenecarbides | Camphene | 0.13 | 17.967 | 60 |
| Alcane | isotetradecane | 0.14 | 19.052 | 70 |
Fig. 3Anti-radical activity against the radical DPPH in inhibition percentage (I %) of the Henna essential oil (HeEO)
Fig. 4Anti-radical activity against the radical ABTS in percentage of inhibition (I %) of the essential oil of the dried leaves of Henna (HeEO)
Fig. 5Cytotoxicity of different concentrations of HeEO against HeLa and Raji lines. 240 105 HeLa cells/well (a) and Raji cells/well (b) are cultured in 96-well plates in the presence of increasing concentrations of oil (Henna). The percentage of cytotoxicity is evaluated by the MTT test
Fig. 6Effect of Henna essential oil on the production of MDA in the Raji line (c-: untreated cells, c+: cells treated with TPA, [HeEO] = 0.01 μg/mL). 3 106 cells are cultured in the presence and absence of TPA and the essential oil extracted from the plant, at a non-cytotoxic concentration. After washing with PBS, the cells are cultured for 48 h. The level of MDA produced is evaluated by the TBARS technique. The results are expressed in nmol/mg of protein (***: p < 0.001)
Fig. 7Effect of Henna essential oil on the production of DC in the Raji line (C-: untreated cells, C+: cells treated with TPA, [HeEO] = 0.01 μg/mL). 3 106 cells are cultured in the presence and absence of TPA and the essential oil extracted from the plant, at a non-cytotoxic concentration. After washing with PBS, the cells are cultured for 48 h. The level of DC produced is evaluated by measuring the OD at 233 nm (*: p < 0.05)
Fig. 1Extracted essential oil yield as function of drying and washings (a); washings and salt concentration (b); and drying and salt concentration (c)
Fig. 2Profiles for predicted values and desirability