| Literature DB >> 31890972 |
Alma Yolanda Vázquez-Sánchez1, Pedro Aguilar-Zárate2, Diana Beatriz Muñiz-Márquez2, Jorge Enrique Wong-Paz2, Romeo Rojas3, Juan Alberto Ascacio-Valdés4, Guillermo Cristian G Martínez-Ávila3.
Abstract
The influence of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phytochemicals from Ardisia compressa Kunth on the antioxidant capacity was investigated. The factors evaluated were: ultrasound extraction time (10, 20 and 30 min), ethanol concentration (0, 35, 70 %) and solid/liquid ratio (1:4, 1:8 and 1:12 g mL-1). The L9 (3)3 array was applied, and the DPPH• scavenging capacity of treatments was evaluated to obtain optimal extraction conditions. Finally, the phytochemicals were characterized by high-performance liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI-MS). Ten minutes of ultrasound extraction using 0 % of ethanol and solid/liquid ratio 1:12 g mL-1 were the optimal conditions of extraction. The HPLC-ESI-MS analysis revealed the presence of gluconic acid, quercetin-3-O-glucoside, isorhamnetin-3-O-rutinoside, demethylligstroside, ponicidin, 4-caffeoylquinic acid, rosmarinic acid, and galloyl-hexoside. The optimal ultrasound-assisted extraction conditions were defined by applying the Taguchi methodology. The phytochemicals identified in A. compressa fruits suggest its use as a potential source of bioactive compounds.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Antioxidant capacity; Bioactive compound; Biochemical characterization of food; Chemical composition of food; Chromatography; Mass spectrometry; Phenolic compound; Phenolic compounds; Ultrasound-assisted extraction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31890972 PMCID: PMC6928263 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e03058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Selected factors and assigned levels for the Taguchi L9 orthogonal design.
| No. | Factor | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Time (min) | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| 2 | Ethanol (%) | 0 | 35 | 70 |
| 3 | Solid/Liquid | 1:4 | 1:8 | 1:12 |
The L9 (3)3 Taguchi design experimental matrix for ultrasound assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from A. compressa fruits.
| Run | Time | % Ethanol | Solid/liquid ratio | DPPH Inhibition (%) | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 80.1 | 2.9 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 64.0 | 17.1 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 88.6 | 2.4 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 87.4 | 3.7 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 68.6 | 14.6 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 67.1 | 7.4 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 82.0 | 10.1 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 55.1 | 5.0 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 57.2 | 4.6 |
Average DPPH• radical scavenging activity by factor level.
| Level | Means | Estimated parameters | Standard deviation | Standard error | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 1 | 77.55 | 5.32 | 12.47 | 1.55 |
| 2 | 74.38 | 2.15 | 11.32 | 1.48 | |
| 3 | 64.76 | -7.47 | 14.95 | 1.70 | |
| %Ethanol | 1 | 83.15 | 10.93 | 3.82 | 0.86 |
| 2 | 62.58 | -9.65 | 6.84 | 1.15 | |
| 3 | 70.95 | -1.28 | 16.05 | 1.76 | |
| Solid/liquid ratio | 1 | 67.43 | -4.79 | 12.46 | 1.55 |
| 2 | 69.53 | -2.69 | 15.87 | 1.75 | |
| 3 | 79.72 | 7.49 | 10.18 | 1.40 |
Figure 1Individual factors performance at different levels.
Figure 2Relative influence of factors on the extraction process.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA).
| Factors | SS | df | MS | F | p | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 266.12 | 2 | 133.06 | 2.35 | 0.298531 | 21 |
| %Ethanol | 642.35 | 2 | 321.18 | 5.67 | 0.149886 | 50 |
| Solid/liquid ratio | 259.10 | 2 | 129.55 | 2.29 | 0.304161 | 20 |
| Error | 113.26 | 2 | 56.63 | 9 | ||
| Total | 1280.82 | 8 | 100 |
The predicted values and the experimental results of maximum DPPH• inhibition (%) yield prepared under the optimum condition.
| Level | Effect size | Standard error | Bias (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | 1 | 5.32 | 4.34 | |
| %Ethanol | 1 | 10.93 | 4.34 | |
| Solid/liquid ratio | 3 | 7.49 | 4.34 | |
| Expected | 95.97 | |||
| Experimental validation | 81.55 | 0.33 | 14.16 |
bias (%) = (predicted value-experimental value)/experimental value *100.
Identification of polyphenols extracted from A. compressa under optimum conditions.
| Peak No. | RT | M. W. | [M-H]- | MS2 ion fragment | Tentative assignment | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.33 | 324 | 323 | 301, 265, 245, 197, 183 | Unknown | |
| 2 | 6.60 | 196 | 195 | 177, 159, 130 | Gluconic acid | ( |
| 3 | 8.00 | 354 | 353 | 173 | 4-Caffeoylquinic acid | ( |
| 4 | 9.58 | 370 | 369 | 195, 173, 196 | Unknown | |
| 5 | 14.34 | 352 | 351 | 305, 173; 172 | Unknown | |
| 6 | 15.44 | 332 | 331 | 331, 169 | Galloyl-hexoside | ( |
| 7 | 21.25 | 360 | 359 | 318, 314, 239, 197 | Rosmarinic acid | ( |
| 8 | 27.85 | 510 | 509 | 356, 355, 346, 329, 314, 303 | Demethylligstroside | ( |
| 9 | 30.01 | 362 | 361 | 281, 237, 201 | Ponicidin | ( |
| 10 | 35.12 | 464 | 463 | 317, 316, 302, 301, 300 | Quercetin-3- | ( |
| 11 | 36.36 | 624 | 623 | 316, 315, 314, 300, 299, 271, 255, 244 | Isorhamnetin-3- | ( |
Figure 3HPLC chromatograms of extracted phytochemicals by a) maceration and b) optimal conditions of ultrasound-assisted extraction.