| Literature DB >> 33918721 |
Inês Mansinhos1, Sandra Gonçalves1, Raquel Rodríguez-Solana1,2, José Luis Ordóñez-Díaz2, José Manuel Moreno-Rojas2, Anabela Romano1.
Abstract
The present study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of different natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES) on the extraction of phenolic compounds from Lavandula pedunculata subsp. lusitanica (Chaytor) Franco, on the antioxidant activity, and acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) and tyrosinase (Tyr) inhibitory capacities. Ten different NADES were used in this research and compared with conventional solvents. Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) for 60 min proved to be the best extraction condition, and proline:lactic acid (1:1) and choline chloride:urea (1:2) extracts showed the highest total phenolic contents (56.00 ± 0.77 mgGAE/gdw) and antioxidant activity [64.35 ± 1.74 mgTE/gdw and 72.13 ± 0.97 mgTE/gdw in 2.2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2.2'-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) methods, respectively]. These extracts also exhibited enzymes inhibitory capacity particularly against Tyr and AChE. Even so, organic acid-based NADES showed to be the best extractants producing extracts with considerable ability to inhibit enzymes. Twenty-four phenolic compounds were identified by HPLC-HRMS, being rosmarinic acid, ferulic acid and salvianolic acid B the major compounds. The results confirmed that the combination of UAE and NADES provide an excellent alternative to organic solvents for sustainable and green extraction, and have huge potential for use in industrial applications involving the extraction of bioactive compounds from plants.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC; Lavandula pedunculata; antioxidant activity; enzyme inhibition; hydroxycinnamic acids; mass spectrometry; natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES); phenolic acids; phenolic compounds; ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE)
Year: 2021 PMID: 33918721 PMCID: PMC8069433 DOI: 10.3390/antiox10040582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Composition of natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES) used in this study and details concerning the synthesis thereof.
| Abbreviations | Component 1 (HBA) | Component 2 (HBD) | Molar Ratio | Appearance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gly:CA | Glycerol | Citric acid | 2:1 | Transparent light-yellow semi viscous liquid |
| Gly:U | Glycerol | Urea | 1:1 | Transparent colourless liquid |
| Glu:CA | Glucose | Citric Acid | 1:1 | Faintly yellow viscous liquid |
| Glu:U | Glucose | Urea | 1:2 | Transparent colourless semi viscous liquid |
| Glu:LA | Glucose | Lactic Acid | 1:5 | Transparent colourless liquid |
| CC:U | Choline Chloride | Urea | 1:2 | Transparent colourless liquid |
| CC:X | Choline Chloride | Xylitol | 2:1 | Transparent colourless liquid |
| CC:MA | Choline Chloride | Malic Acid | 1:1 | Transparent colourless liquid |
| CC:LA | Choline Chloride | Lactic Acid | 1:2 | Transparent colourless liquid |
| Pro:LA | Proline | Lactic Acid | 1:1 | Transparent colourless liquid |
Figure 1Effect of extraction technique (M: maceration and UAE: ultrasound-assisted extraction), extraction period (15, 30 and 60 min) and solvent (conventional and natural deep eutectic solvents, NADES) on total phenolic contents (TPC) of Lavandula pedunculata subsp. lusitanica extracts. The corresponding to the solvent’s abbreviations can be consulted in Table 1. Values are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters in each series indicate significant differences (p < 0.05), (Duncan’s new multiple range test). Uppercase letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the four extraction conditions (M60, UAE 60, 30, 15) while lowercase letter denotes significant differences (p < 0.05) between solvents.
Qualitative and quantitative (µg/g of extract, mean) analysis by high performance liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (HPLC-HRMS) of phenolic profile from Lavandula pedunculata subsp. lusitanica extracts obtained by ultrasound-assisted extraction for 60 min.
| Compound | Conventional Solvents | NADES | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MeOH | EtOH 80 | Water | Gly:CA | Gly:U | Glu:CA | Glu:U | Glu:LA | CC:U | CC:X | CC:MA | CC:LA | Pro:LA | |
| O-Caffeoylquinic acid | <LOQ | 68.41 | <LOQ | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| Gallic acid | <LOD | n.d. | <LOD | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | <LOD | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| Vanillic acid | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | 68.03 b | <LOQ | 78.69 b | 86.98 b | 91.35 b | <LOQ | <LOQ | 97.55 b | 179.1 a |
| Caffeic acid hexoside | 79.90 bc | 67.76 bcd | 62.22 cd | 53.25 d | <LOQ | <LOQ | 106.1 a | 77.97 bc | 86.24 b | 64.47 cd | 68.43 bcd | 81.32 bc | 72.92 bcd |
| Caffeic acid hexoside | 112.8 a | 93.26 abc | 72.44 cd | 60.23 d | <LOQ | <LOQ | 100.1 ab | 89.62 bc | 100.5 ab | 72.22 cd | 79.22 bcd | 81.64 bcd | 86.19 bc |
| Chlorogenic acid (5-O-caffeoylquinic acid) | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | n.d. | <LOD | n.d. | <LOD | n.d. | <LOD | n.d. | n.d. |
| Fertaric acid | 53.15 g | 163.1 f | 278.8 bc | 174.6 ef | 283.5 b | 91.70 g | 229.4 bcde | 277.8 bc | 341.7 a | 208.8 ef | 213.5 def | 270.2 bcd | 223.7 cde |
| Caffeic acid | 81.50 cd | 75.14 d | 427.4 a | 103.4 cd | <LOD | <LOQ | 90.72 cd | 160.0 c | 248.3 b | 76.68 cd | <LOQ | 157.3 cd | 137.6 cd |
| Feruloyl hexose | 259.8 a | 233.5 b | 201.2 c | 97.46 g | 195.8 cd | 56.95 h | 140.5 f | 197.7 c | 212.0 bc | 163.6 ef | 170.4 de | 208.7 bc | 184.9 cde |
| Ferulic acid | 1846 e | 3079 c | 3657 ab | 1427 f | 3020 c | 546.9 g | 2868 cd | 3105 c | 3774 a | 2557 d | 2979 c | 3417 b | 2585 d |
| Rosmarinic acid | 7224 a | 6882 a | 2416 cde | 2973 bcde | 59.66 e | 1620 de | 1556 de | 4252 abcd | 5239 abc | 5828 ab | 4181 abcd | 4375 abcd | 6089 ab |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer I | 57.46 c | 121.2 ab | 95.52 bc | 58.66 c | 46.13 c | <LOQ | 81.72 bc | 90.11 bc | 158.8 a | 104.7 abc | 87.88 bc | 101.5 abc | 132.2 ab |
| Salvianolic acid I | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Salvianolic acid B | 930.9 bcd | 2322 a | 1414 abc | 701.2 bcd | <LOD | 342.3 cd | 233.7 d | 1710 ab | 1220 abcd | 1472 abc | 1527 ab | 2144 a | 2277 a |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer III | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD |
|
| 10646 ab | 13106 a | 8624 bc | 5649 cd | 3673 d | 2658 d | 5485 cd | 10048 ab | 11473 ab | 10549 ab | 9307 abc | 10934 ab | 11967 ab |
| Luteolin-7-O-glucuronide | 84.32 gh | 216.6 bcd | 97.82 fgh | 66.94 h | 145.7 ef | <LOD | 121.3 efg | 265.7 ab | 209.2 cd | 170.4 de | 203.7 cd | 291.9 a | 231.4 bc |
| Luteolin-7-O-glucoside | 58.11 cde | 71.07 bc | <LOD | <LOQ | 25.97 f | <LOD | <LOQ | 64.38 cd | 45.98 de | 44.07 e | 52.84 cde | 91.15 a | 83.54 ab |
| Apigenin-7-O-glucoside | 98.05 a | 73.68 a | <LOD | 31.59 b | 95.37 a | <LOQ | 44.44 b | 25.20 b | 32.84 b | 30.31 b | 24.74 b | 28.22 b | 37.23 b |
| Apigenin-7-O-acetylglucoside | <LOD | 30.67 | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOD | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOQ |
| Luteolin | 154.1 c | 78.26 ef | 632.8 a | 90.82 de | <LOD | 32.22 f | <LOD | 94.14 de | 114.4 cde | 171.1 bc | 58.78 ef | 138.8 cd | 215.3 b |
| Naringenin | <LOQ | <LOQ | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD | <LOD |
| Apigenin | 242.8 a | 208.4 ab | 267.3 a | 126.1 bcd | <LOD | 63.78 d | 55.70 d | 131.9 bcd | 92.54 cd | 129.0 bcd | 111.6 bcd | 140.3 bcd | 175.1 abc |
|
| 637.4 bcd | 678.6 bc | 998.0 a | 315.4 efg | 267.0 fgh | 96.00 h | 221.4 gh | 581.3 bcd | 495.0 cde | 544.9 bcd | 451.6 def | 690.4 bc | 742.6 b |
| Herniarin | <LOQ | 43.96 ± 6.05 | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | <LOQ | <LOQ | n.d. | <LOQ |
|
| 11283 a | 13828 a | 9623 ab | 5965 bc | 3940 c | 2754 c | 5707 bc | 10629 a | 11968 a | 11094 a | 9759 ab | 11625 a | 12709 a |
Notes: n.d.—not detected; LOD—limit of detection; LOQ—limit of quantification. The results were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s new multiple range test. Different letters (a–h) in each row and for each phenolic compound mean significant differences (p < 0.05) among extracts.
Figure 2Effect of conventional and natural deep eutectic solvents on antioxidant capacity, determined by 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) assays, of extracts from Lavandula pedunculata subsp. lusitanica obtained by ultrasound-assisted extraction for 60 min. The corresponding to the solvent’s abbreviations can be consulted in Table 1. Values are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters in each graph bars indicate significant differences (p < 0.05, Duncan’s new multiple range test).
Figure 3Effect of conventional and natural deep eutectic solvents on acetylcholinesterase (AChE), butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) and tyrosinase (Tyr) inhibitory activities of extracts from Lavandula pedunculata subsp. lusitanica obtained by ultrasound-assisted extraction for 60 min. The corresponding to the solvent’s abbreviations can be consulted in Table 1. Values are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Different letters in each graph bars indicate significant differences (p < 0.05, Duncan’s new multiple range test).
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between antioxidant activity measured by the different assays (DPPH, FRAP, ABTS, and ORAC), enzyme inhibitory activities (AChE, BChE, and Tyr), total phenolic contents measured by F-C and HPLC, and individual phenolic compounds.
| Individual Phenolic Compounds | Antioxidant Activity | Enzyme Inhibitory Activity | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | ORAC | AChE | BChE | Tyr | ||
| Fertaric acid | 0.799 ** | 0.561 ** | 0.688 ** | 0.605 ** | −0.010 | −0.104 | −0.087 | |
| Ferulic acid | 0.846 ** | 0.708 ** | 0.846 ** | 0.717 ** | −0.312 | −0.333 | −0.349 | |
| Feruloyl hexose | 0.536 ** | 0.582 ** | 0.623 ** | 0.528 ** | −0.402 * | −0.361 | −0.400 * | |
| Luteolin-7-O-glucuronide | 0.593 ** | 0.685 ** | 0.354 | 0.822 ** | 0.438 * | 0.454 * | 0.498 * | |
| Luteolin-7-O-glucoside | −0.142 | 0.432 | −0.483 * | 0.211 | 0.321 | 0.373 | 0.593 ** | |
| Rosmarinic acid | 0.105 | 0.483 * | 0.187 | 0.196 | 0.164 | 0.152 | 0.127 | |
| Salvianolic acid A isomer I | 0.480 * | 0.732 ** | 0.498 ** | 0.314 | 0.231 | 0.085 | 0.139 | |
| Salvianolic acid B | 0.535 ** | 0.684 ** | 0.426 * | 0.713 * | 0.075 | 0.064 | 0.149 | |
| Total phenolic contents | F-C | 0.741 ** | 0.765 ** | 0.580 ** | 0.822 ** | −0.176 | −0.174 | −0.015 |
| HPLC | 0.429 * | 0.731 ** | 0.463 * | 0.484 * | 0.072 | 0.050 | 0.048 | |
DPPH: 2.2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; ABTS: 2.2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; AChE: acetylcholinesterase; BChE: butyrylcholinesterase; Tyr: tyrosinase; F-C: Folin-Ciocalteu; HPLC: high performance liquid chromatography. ** Correlation is significant (p < 0.01). * Correlation is significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Score plot (A) and loading plot (B) of principal component analysis (PCA) of extracts from Lavandula pedunculata subsp. lusitanica using NADES and conventional solvents.