| Literature DB >> 34068159 |
Daniela Soto-Madrid1, Marlen Gutiérrez-Cutiño2,3, Josué Pozo-Martínez4, María Carolina Zúñiga-López4, Claudio Olea-Azar4, Silvia Matiacevich1.
Abstract
Walnut green husk (WGH) is a waste generated by the walnut (Juglans regia L.) harvest industry. It represents a natural source of polyphenols, compounds with antioxidant and antimicrobial activities, but their activity could be dependent on the ripeness stage of the raw material. In this study, the effect of the different ripeness stages-open (OH) and closed (CH) husks-on the antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of WGH extracts were analyzed, emphasizing the influence of the extracts in inhibiting Escherichia coli growth. The ripeness stage of WGH significantly affected the antioxidant activity of the extracts. This was attributed to the different polyphenol profiles related to the mechanical stress when the husk opened compared to the closed sample. The antimicrobial activity showed inhibition of E. coli growth. OH-extracts at 96 µg/mL caused the lowest specific growth rate (µmax = 0.003 h-1) and the greatest inhibition percentage (I = 93%) compared to CH-extract (µmax = 0.01 h-1; I = 69%). The obtained results showed the potential of the walnut green husk, principally open husk, as an economical source of antioxidant and antimicrobial agents with potential use in the food industry.Entities:
Keywords: Escherichia coli; antimicrobial activity; antioxidant activity; ripeness stage; walnut green husk
Year: 2021 PMID: 34068159 PMCID: PMC8152964 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26102878
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Proximal analysis of the walnut green husks.
| Percent (%) | Open Husk (OH) | Closed Husk (CH) |
|---|---|---|
| Moisture | 11.716 a ± 0.147 | 14.074 b ± 0.679 |
| Proteins | 4.694 a ± 0.190 | 4.452 a ± 0.129 |
| Lipids | 1.385 a ± 0.788 | 1.610 a ± 0.129 |
| Ashes | 18.515 a ± 0.949 | 17.509 a ± 1.393 |
| Crude fiber | 44.700 a ± 0.018 | 44.800 a ± 0.027 |
| Non-nitrogen extract | 18.918 a ± 0.051 | 17.243 a ± 1.806 |
OH: ripe walnuts green husk (open husk); CH: unripe walnuts green husk (closed husk). * Different letters (a, b) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between samples.
Figure 1Samples of walnut green husks with different ripeness stages: (a) ripe walnut green husk with an open husk (OH); and (b) unripe walnut green husk with a closed husk (CH).
Polyphenolic compounds detected by HPLC from walnut green husks samples.
| Polyphenol | Detection | Control Extraction | Optimized Extraction | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAD (nm) | FLD (nm) | OH | CH | OH | CH | |
| Gallic acid | 272 | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Protocatechuic acid | 260–290 | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Catechin | 278 | 280–318 | ✓ | ✓ | - | ✓ |
| Caffeic acid | 322 | - | ✓ | - | - | - |
| Ferulic acid | 322 | 332–445 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Polydatin | 306–318 | 320–395 | ✓ | - | - | - |
| Hesperetin | 284 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Resveratrol | 306–318 | 323–390 | - | - | - | - |
| Quercetin | 254–370 | - | ✓ | ✓ | - | - |
| Myricetin | 250–370 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Kaempferol | 270–366 | - | ✓ | ✓ | - | - |
| Hesperidin | 288 | - | ✓ | ✓ | - | - |
| Juglone | 235–275 | - | - | - | ✓ | ✓ |
OH: ripe walnuts green husk (open husk); CH: unripe walnuts green husk (closed husk); DAD: diode array detector; FLD: fluorescence detector.
Experimental results for samples from the central composite design.
| Independent Variables | Responses Variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run | X1: | X2: | Y1: | Y2: | Y3: | Y4: |
| 1 | 1/20 | 50/50 | 105.99 ± 0.85 | 152.3 ± 3.0 | 102.4 ± 2.7 | 130 ± 1.4 |
| 2 | 1/30 | 75/25 | 102.21 ± 0.71 | 199.4 ± 2.8 | 123.7 ± 3.4 | 182.3 ± 2.5 |
| 3 | 1/10 | 25/75 | 31.17 ± 0.18 | 75.4 ± 1.1 | 65.2 ± 0.2 | 78.4 ± 0.86 |
| 4 | 1/10 | 75/25 | 45.95 ± 0.10 | 91.6 ± 0.6 | 83.1 ± 1.4 | 121.81 ± 0.64 |
| 5 | 1.4/40 | 50/50 | 67.02 ± 0.12 | 153.0 ± 0.8 | 78.4 ± 1.7 | 142.4 ± 4.4 |
| 6 | 1/30 | 25/75 | 57.07 ± 0.40 | 86.6 ± 1.9 | 59.6 ± 0.9 | 102.2 ± 0.86 |
| 7 | 1/20 | 50/50 | 106.01 ± 0.85 | 153.8 ± 1.5 | 96.6 ± 0.2 | 137.07 ± 0.06 |
| 8 | 1.4/14 | 50/50 | 50.12 ± 0.04 | 89.3 ± 0.1 | 80.5 ± 2.0 | 102.95 ± 0.38 |
| 9 | 1/20 | 35/65 | 65.05 ± 0.10 | 127.8 ± 0.5 | 81.2 ± 3.3 | 154.83 ± 1.08 |
| 10 | 1/20 | 65/35 | 82.43 ± 0.02 | 166.4 ± 0.9 | 120.3 ± 3.4 | 167.3 ± 0.84 |
TPC: total phenolic content; DPPH radical scavenging activity; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; GAE: gallic acid equivalents; dw: dry weight. Mean data with their corresponding standard deviations are reported for each parameter.
Figure 2Results of extraction optimization by (a) desirability function and (b) contour plots with optimum condition.
Figure 3Total polyphenol content (TPC) and antioxidant activity of the extracts of the walnut green husks (OH: open husk and CH: closed husk) measured by (a) ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; (b) DPPH radical scavenging activity; and (c) FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between samples.
Comparison of the kinetic parameters of growth of Escherichia coli by adding extracts of the walnut green husks.
| Extract (µg/mL) | Kinetic Parameters | RMS (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.52 a ± 0.02 | 0.09 a ± 0.002 | 1.74 b ± 0.06 | --- | 5.0 | |
| OH | 16 | 0.26 b ± 0.05 | 0.03 b ± 0.01 | 1.57 b ± 0.14 | 44.4 ± 3.7 | 5.0 |
| 32 | 0.25 bc ± 0.01 | 0.03 bc ± 0.004 | 1.25 b ± 0.21 | 51.6 ± 2.2 | 7.0 | |
| 48 | 0.22 bcd ± 0.05 | 0.013 efg ± 0.005 | 3.90 c ± 0.09 | 63.4 ± 2.0 | 12.0 | |
| 64 | 0.22 bcd ± 0.03 | 0.009 fgh ± 0.003 | 3.70 c ± 0.60 | 62.0 ± 0.1 | 9.8 | |
| 80 | 0.04 f ± 0.005 | 0.004 gh ± 0.001 | 5.00 d ± 0.04 | 78.4 ± 7.5 | 8.7 | |
| 96 | 0.04 g ± 0.005 | 0.003 h ± 0.001 | 3.35 c ± 0.57 | 93.2 ± 1.0 | 8.1 | |
| CH | 16 | 0.26 b ± 0.02 | 0.03 bc ± 0.004 | 1.62 b ± 0.15 | 50.8 ± 3.2 | 5.3 |
| 32 | 0.25 bc ± 0.01 | 0.024 cd ± 0.005 | 1.55 b ± 0.10 | 52.5 ± 1.6 | 6.2 | |
| 48 | 0.23 bcd ± 0.03 | 0.018 de ± 0.001 | 2.22 b ± 1.16 | 58.7 ± 2.0 | 7.4 | |
| 64 | 0.19 cde ± 0.01 | 0.016 ef ± 0.003 | 1.95 b ± 1.23 | 63.1 ± 2.6 | 9.4 | |
| 80 | 0.19 de ± 0.03 | 0.013 ef ± 0.004 | 1.92 b ± 0.05 | 66.1 ± 4.7 | 6.3 | |
| 96 | 0.15 ef ± 0.03 | 0.01 fg ± 0.001 | 0.00 a ± 0.00 | 68.9 ± 2.4 | 10.0 | |
Different letters (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between samples. OH (open husk); CH (closed husk) samples. A: asymptotic value of the maximum absorbance value (adimensional); µmax: the maximum growth rate (h−1); λ: lag phase (h), I: percentage inhibition of E. coli (%); and RMS: root mean square (%).
Figure 4Microbial growth kinetics of Escherichia coli under the influence of optimized open husk (OH) and closed husk (CH) extracts. The lines represent the modified Gompertz model.
Variables and levels of the central composite experimental design.
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| |
| X1: solid/solvent ratio (g/mL) | 1:10 | 1:20 | 1:30 |
| X2: ethanol/water ratio ( | 25/75 | 50/50 | 75/25 |
|
|
| ||
| Y1: TPC (mg GAE/g sample dw) | Maximize | ||
| Y2: DPPH (mg Trolox/g sample dw) | |||
| Y3: FRAP (mg FeSO4/g sample dw) | |||
| Y4: ORAC (µmol Trolox/g sample dw) | |||
TPC: total phenolic content; DPPH radical scavenging activity; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power; ORAC: oxygen radical absorbance capacity; GAE: gallic acid equivalents; dw: dry weight.