| Literature DB >> 32942656 |
Patricia Gullón1, Beatriz Gullón2, Gonzalo Astray3,4, Paulo E S Munekata5, Mirian Pateiro5, José Manuel Lorenzo5,6.
Abstract
From ancient times, the medicinal properties of the different Eucalyptus species are well known. In fact, plants from this family have been used in folk medicine as antiseptics, and to treat different ailments of the upper respiratory tract such as sinus congestion, common cold, or influenza. Moreover, other biological activities were described for Eucalyptus species such as antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. In the last few decades, numerous investigations revealed that the compounds responsible for these properties are secondary metabolites that belonging to the group of phenolic compounds and are present in different parts of the plants such as leaves, bark, wood, fruits, and stumps. The increasing demand for natural compounds that can substitute synthetic antioxidants and the increase in resistance to traditional antibiotics have boosted the intense search for renewable natural sources containing substances with such bioactivities, as well as greener extraction technologies and avant-garde analytical methods for the identification of the target molecules. The literature data used in this paper were collected via Scopus (2001-2020) using the following search terms: Eucalyptus, extraction methods, phenolic compounds, and biological activities. This review collects the main studies related to the recovery of value-added compounds from different Eucalyptus species, as well as their biofunctional applications.Entities:
Keywords: biological properties; biomass; innovative extraction technologies; polyphenols
Year: 2020 PMID: 32942656 PMCID: PMC7570642 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25184227
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Phenolic compound characterization using analytical techniques reported for Eucalyptus extracts.
| Specie | Source | Analytic Technique | Phenolic Compounds Detected | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Leaves | HPLC | Rutin, quercitrin, chlorogenic acid, and ellagic acid | [ |
|
| Leaves | HPLC–MS/MS | Chlorogenic acid, rutin, quercetin 3-glucuronide, and ellagic acid derivatives | [ |
|
| Leaves | Py-GC/MS and FTIR | Possibly flavonoids and polyphenols | [ |
| Leaves | GC/MS | Hydroquinone, hesperitin, naringenin, chlorogenic, catechin, and gallic acid, among others | [ | |
| Not specified | Commercial | HPLC and GC/MS | Gallic and ellagic acids, eucalyptone, and macrocarpals A–E | [ |
|
| Leaves | HPLC–UV/MS | Hyperoside quercitrin myricetin, rutin, isoquercitrin, luteoline, apigenine, and quercetin, among others | [ |
|
| Leaves | UHPLC–TOF-MS | Sideroxylonal A or B, quercetin 3- | [ |
|
| Leaves, buds, empty capsules, and seeds | GC/MS | Gallic acid, catechin, tricetin, hydroquinone, pyrogallol, hesperitin, and chlorogenic acid, among others | [ |
|
| Bark | MALDI-TOF and RP-HPLC–ESI-TOF | Polygalloylglucoses mixtures (gallotannins), catechin, epicatechin, and ellagic acid, among others | [ |
| Bark | HPLC-UV, HPLC–MS/MS, and MSn | Ellagic acid–rhamnoside, dihydroxy-isopropylchromone–hexoside, dihydroxy-(methylpropyl) isopropylchromone–hexoside, epicatechin, quercetin–glucuronide, catechin, and chlorogenic acid, among others | [ | |
| By-products from the | Screw water, condensates, and concentrate | GC/MS and LC–MS/MS | Gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, chlorogenic acid, 3,4-dihydroxybenzaldehyde, 4-hydroxybenzaldehyde, geranyl acetate, geranyl butyrate, | [ |
|
| Wood industrial wastes | RP-HPLC–ESI-TOF | Ellagic acid, myricetin 3- | [ |
|
| Leaves | RP-HPLC and 13C- and 1H-NMR | Cypellocarpin A, eucaglobulin, cuniloside, and (1 | [ |
HPLC: high-performance liquid chromatography; GC/MS: gas chromatography–mass spectrometry; MALDI-TOF: matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight; RP-HPLC–ESI-TOF: reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography electrospray ionization time-of-flight; Py-GC/MS: pyrolysis and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; UHPLC–TOF-MS: ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with trapped ion mobility spectrometry and TOF high-resolution mass spectrometry; FTIR: Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy; NMR: nuclear magnetic resonance.
Extraction technologies for obtaining phenolic compounds from Eucalyptus biomass.
| Source | Extraction Conditions | Yield | Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activities | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 50 °C, 225 min, 56% ethanol, using an LSR of 20 mL/g in an orbital shaker at 120 rpm | 32.7% | TPC: 92.7 mg GAE/g dw, TFC: 53.7 mg RE/g dw, DPPH: 205.4 TE/g dw, ABTS: 363.4 TE/g dw and FRAP: 185.2 mg TE/g dw | [ | |
| 51% methanol, using an LSR of 60 mL/g for both species and at 52.85 °C for | Not specified | [ | ||
| 85 °C, 15 min, and an LSR of 20 mL/g | Not specified | TPC: 124.9 mg GAE/g | [ | |
| Methanol: 12.3%, ethanol: 9.3%, 75% ethanol: 8.1%, and hexane: 2.7% | TPC: (mg GAE/g extract): 460, 451.1, 444.6 and 25.9 for ethanol, methanol, 75% ethanol and n-hexane, respectively, TFC: (mg QE/g extract): 33.6, 43.1, 44.9, and 47.2 for ethanol, methanol, 75% ethanol, and | [ | ||
| 100 °C, 1.5% of Na2SO3 without NaOH | Not specified | TPC: 21.9 g GAE/100 g extract, FRAP: 132.8 nmol AAE/100 g extract | [ | |
| Methanol, ethanol, and chloroform (100% each) using an LSR of 10 mL/g in a shaking water bath at 150 rpm for 2 days at room temperature | Not specified | The highest phenolic content (mg TAE/100 g dw) was obtained in extracts of methanol (8.8) followed by ethanol (7.9) and chloroform (4.6) | [ | |
| Ethanol, methanol, acetone, ethyl acetate (95%, 70%, and 30%), and distilled water using an LSR of 10 mL/g for 72 h | 70% acetone: 46.6 mg/g dw, 30% methanol: 38.2 mg/g dw and 95% methanol: 34.6 mg/g dw | Acetone extracts exhibited the best antioxidant activity: 57.6, 50.5, and 35.5 mg/g dry weight for 95%, 70%, and 30%, respectively | [ | |
| 50% methanol at room temperature for 24 h under constant stirring using an LSR of 100 (v/m) | [ | |||
| Chloroform, ethanol, methanol, or 70% methanol at room temperature for 8 h using an LSR of 12.5 mL/g in an orbital shaker | Not specified | TPC: 0.19, 1.9, 8.1, and 12.9 mg GAE/g dw, for chloroform, ethanol, methanol, and 70% methanol | [ | |
| ChEG, ChX, ChG, and GCA using an LSR of 10 mL/g at 50 °C for 60 min | Not specified | TPC: 69.9 mg GAE/g dw, TFC: 45.4 mg RE/g dw, DPPH: 68 mg TE/g dw, ABTS: 89.9 mg TE/g dw, FRAP: 66.3 mg TE/g dw | [ | |
|
| ||||
| 250 W ultrasonic power for 90 min at 60 °C using water and an LSR of 50 mL/g | Not specified | TPC: 163.7 mg GAE/g, TFC: 6.2 mg RE/g, proanthocyanidins: 6.1 mg CAE/g, ABTS: 284.2 mg TE/g, DPPH: 302.9 mg TE/g, CUPRAC: 680.6 mg TE/g | [ | |
| 50% of ethanol for 60 min at 50 °C using an LSR of 10 (v/m) | 50.0 | TPC: 440.7 mg GAE/g of extract, TFC: 204.4 mg CAE/g of extract, Tannins: 395.0 mg CAE/g of extract, DPPH: 648.8 mg Trolox/g of extract, FRAP: 5247 mM Fe2+/g of extract | [ | |
|
| 56% of ethanol for 90 min at 50 °C using an LSR of 10 mL/g | Not specified | TPC: 84 mg GAE/g dw, TFC: 47.2 mg RE/g dw, DPPH: 156.6 TE/g dw, ABTS: 241.1 TE/g dw and FRAP: 84.7 mg TE/g dw | [ |
| 35% ethanol for 46.8 min using an LSR of 12 mL/g | Not specified | TPC: 13.9 mg GAE/g of dry plant material | [ | |
|
| ||||
| 3 min, 600 W power, and an LSR of 50 mL/g using water as a solvent | Not specified | TPC: 58.4 mg GAE/, TFC: 19.2 mg RE/g, proanthocyanidins: 6.2 mg CAE/g, ABTS: 74.9 mg TE/g, DPPH: 67.9 mg TE/g CUPRAC: 143.7 mg TE/g | [ | |
| 56% ethanol for 7 min using an LSR of 10 mL/g | Not specified | TPC: 79.4 mg GAE/g dw, TFC: 39.4 mg RE/g dw, DPPH: 141.2 TE/g dw, ABTS: 187.4 TE/g dw and FRAP: 105.8 mg TE/g dw | [ | |
| Ethanol for 10 min at 65 °C using an LSR of 8.8 mL/g | 2.3% | TPC: 65.1 g GAE/100 g extract, FRAP: 5458 nmol AAE/mg extract | [ | |
| 50% ethanol, 600 W power for 5 min using an LSR of 20 mL/g | Not specified | TPC: 76.6 mg GAE/g sample, TFC: 5.8 mg QE/g sample | [ | |
|
| ||||
| 70 °C, 20% ethanol as cosolvent, CO2 flow rate of 10 g/min at 300 bar | 0.5% | TPC: 57.2 mg GAE/g of extract, PC-HPLC: 119.5 mg/g of extract, and DPPH: 49.7 mg AAE/g of extract | [ | |
| SFE: 40 °C, for 30 min and 90 bar | The extracts obtained by SFE exhibited a powerful antioxidant activity compared to those obtained by HD | [ | ||
|
| ||||
| SWE: 160 °C at 3 MPa, SE: 7 days with constant stirring using methanol as solvent | SWE: 290 mg, SE: 312 mg | AA for SWE of 56.7% and for SE of 40.2% | [ | |
Ch: choline chloride; EG: ethylene glycol; X: xylitol; CA: citric acid; LSR: liquid-to-solid ratio; TAE: tannic acid equivalent; CAE: catechin equivalents; GAE: gallic acid equivalents; RE: rutin equivalents; EY: extraction yield; TPC: total phenolic content; TFC: total flavonoid content; DPPH: α,α-diphenyl-β-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging; ABTS: 2,2’-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; CUPRAC: cupric reducing antioxidant capacity; AAE: ascorbic acid equivalent; QE: quercetin equivalent; PC-HPLC: phenolic compounds quantified by HPLC; SE: solvent extraction; HD: hydrodistillation; SFE: supercritical fluid extraction; SWE: subcritical water extraction; AA: antioxidant activity; DW: dry weight.
Biological activities of the extracts obtained from Eucalyptus biomass.
| Source/Type of Extract | Outcomes | Reference |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Leaves of | IC50 (µg/mL) determined by DPPH: 89.1 µg/mL (methanol), 154.8 µg/mL (chloroform), 532.9 µg/mL (hexane) | [ |
| Fruits of | High reducing power and moderate inhibition of lipid peroxidation of linoleic acid emulsion; reducing power: IC50 = 39.5 µg/mL, lipid peroxidation inhibition = 51.3% | [ |
| DPPH: 15.3 μg QE/mg plant material, ABTS: 9.0 μg TE/mg plant material, HAPX: 61.2% | [ | |
| Ethanolic extracts obtained from the bark of | DPPH (mg AAE/g dry bark): 43.1 for | [ |
| Extracts of | Acetone extracts presented the highest antioxidant activity using ABTS and CUPRAC (10.1 and 3.7 mmol/g respectively); the highest value for DPPH was seen for methanol extract (1.6 mmol/g), and ethanol extracts led to the highest values for FRAP and TFPH assays (9.8 and 1.8 mmol/g, respectively). | [ |
| Stumps of | IC50 (mg/L) determined by DPPH: | [ |
| Bark of | DPPH: 648.8 mg Trolox/g of extract, and FRAP: 5247 mM Fe2+/g of extract | [ |
| Methanolic extracts of | IC50 determined by DPPH: | [ |
| ABTS: 832.8 mg BHT/g, DPPH: 1403.9 mg BHT/g, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2): 1447.5 mg BHT/g, CUPRAC: 715.7 mg BHT/g, FRAP: 1638.2 mg BHT/g | [ | |
|
| ||
| Fruits of | Growth inhibition of | [ |
| Ethanolic extract from | MIC values (mg/mL): | [ |
| Ethanolic extract from | MIC values (µg/mL): | [ |
| Methanolic extract from | MIC values varied between 0.19 and 0.39 mg/mL depending on the | [ |
| Phenolic components from the bark of | MIC values (μg/μL): 7.5 for | [ |
| Extract from | High acute toxicity with LD50 = 38 µg against | [ |
| Extracts of | The different extracts exhibited low MIC values (0.156–10 mg/mL) against several strains of | [ |
|
| ||
| Aqueous extracts from | Antitumor activity against cancers of colon, glioblastoma, breast, ovarian, lung, skin, prostate, neuroblastoma, and pancreas | [ |
| Aqueous acetone leaf extract of | Cytotoxic effect on tumor cell lines: breast adenocarcinoma, human epithelial laryngeal carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, human cervix adenocarcinoma, colorectal adenocarcinoma, and Caco-2 colon adenocarcinoma | [ |
| Aqueous extracts from | Antitumor activity on colorectal, pancreatic, and non-small-cell lung cancer | [ |
| Isolated compounds of | Nephroprotective role against diabetes mellitus and kidney stone disease | [ |
| Neuroprotective activity | [ | |
| Antiobesity activity: 90% inhibition of pancreatic lipase activity | [ | |
| Prevention of hyperglycemia through the inhibition of α-glucosidase and α-amylase activities | [ | |
QE: quercetin; TE: Trolox equivalent; HAPX: hemoglobin/ascorbate peroxidase activity inhibition assay; AAE: ascorbic acid equivalent; BHT: butylated hydroxytoluene; MIC: minimum inhibition concentration; MBC: minimum bactericidal concentration.