| Literature DB >> 34358980 |
Muhammad Faisal Manzoor1, Abid Hussain2, Aysha Sameen3, Amna Sahar4, Sipper Khan5, Rabia Siddique6, Rana Muhammad Aadil3, Bin Xu7.
Abstract
Quercetin (QUR) have got the attention of scientific society frequently due to their wide range of potential applications. QUR has been the focal point for research in various fields, especially in food development. But, the QUR is highly unstable and can be interrupted by using conventional assessment methods. Therefore, researchers are focusing on novel extraction and non-invasive tools for the non-destructive assessment of QUR. The current review elaborates the different novel extraction (ultrasound-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, and enzyme-assisted extraction) and non-destructive assessment techniques (fluorescence spectroscopy, terahertz spectroscopy, near-infrared spectroscopy, hyperspectral imaging, Raman spectroscopy, and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy) for the extraction and identification of QUR in agricultural products. The novel extraction approaches facilitate shorter extraction time, involve less organic solvent, and are environmentally friendly. While the non-destructive techniques are non-interruptive, label-free, reliable, accurate, and environmental friendly. The non-invasive spectroscopic and imaging methods are suitable for the sensitive detection of bioactive compounds than conventional techniques. QUR has potential therapeutic properties such as anti-obesity, anti-diabetes, antiallergic, antineoplastic agent, neuroprotector, antimicrobial, and antioxidant activities. Besides, due to the low bioavailability of QUR innovative drug delivery strategies (QUR loaded gel, QUR polymeric micelle, QUR nanoparticles, glucan-QUR conjugate, and QUR loaded mucoadhesive nanoemulsions) have been proposed to improve its bioavailability and providing novel therapeutic approaches.Entities:
Keywords: Bioavailability; Noninvasive assessment; Novel extraction; Quercetin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34358980 PMCID: PMC8350193 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2021.105686
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrason Sonochem ISSN: 1350-4177 Impact factor: 7.491
Concentrations of QUR in some selected plant sources and their therapeutic properties.
| Common name | Scientific name | Sources (mg/100 g) | Therapeutic properties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Celery | 3.51 | Lowers blood pressure, Lowers glucose, Anti-inflammatory, Antibacterial, Antihypertensive, Wound healing, Antioxidant, Reduce depressive disorders, Neurological effects, Reduce the risk of stroke, Neuropathy, Reduce cholesterol, Reduce dyspepsia, Antineoplastic, Antiulcer, Anti-tussive, Iron deficiency anemia, Reduce osteoporosis, Anti-laxative, Antiviral, Antispasmodic, Antidiabetic, Disinfectants, Antiatherosclerotic agent, and Anti-cancer | |
| Raw Kale | 23.1 | ||
| Raw Sweet Cherry | 1.24 | ||
| Welsh onion | 5.20 | ||
| Red onion | 19.9 | ||
| Black grapes | 2.56 | ||
| Broccoli | 3.10 | ||
| Tomato | 4.13 | ||
| Coriander | 5.01 | ||
| Lettuce, raw | 8.00 | ||
| Raw Watercress | 30.0 | ||
| Plums | 2.00 | ||
| Apple | 4.70 | ||
| Cranberry | 14.3 | ||
| Okra | 21.0 |
Sources of QUR references: Source: http://www.swisstargetprediction.ch, [82], [1], [159].
Novel extraction of QUR from agricultural products.
| Technique | Matrix | Optimum conditions and extraction yield | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| UAE | Euonymus alatus (Thunb.) Sieb | Aqueous ethanol 70 %, extraction time 3 × 30 min, solvent: sample ratio 40:1 (v/w), and QUR extraction yield 0.29 mg/g | |
| Ultrasound intensity 50%, frequency 50/60 KHz, time 10 min, solvent methanol and QUR extraction yield 11.8% | |||
| Onion solid wastes | Ethanol 59%, temperature of 49 °C, and total QUR yield 11.08 mg/g dry weight | ||
| Dendrobium officinale | Ethanol 90%, Temperature 50 °C, Time 60 min, power 140 W, liquid ratio 60%, and QUR yield 4.3385 µg/g | ||
| Apple Peels | Treatment time 15 min of ultrasound wavelengths of dehydrated apple peel powder in 80% to 100% (v/v) methanol in 1:50 (w: v) solid to solvent ratio provided the optimum extraction conditions for quercetin | ||
| Onion skin | Treatment time 21.7 min, power 606.4 W with 43.8% ethanol and QUR yield 20.3% | ||
| Total flavonoids yield was 172.90 mg QE/g and QUR yielded 51.39 mg/g | |||
| Ultrasound power of 160 W, frequency of 45 kHz, the temperature of 332.19 K, extraction time 39.25 min, the ethanol concentration of 50%, a liquid–solid ratio of 20 mL/g, and QUR yielded 69.59 ± 2.57 mg/g | |||
| Cabbage | Sonication by 60:40 methanol/water (v/v), temperature 30 °C, time 40 min, and QUR yielded 1378. 9 μg/mL | ||
| Extraction temperature 67 °C, time 67 min, HCl concentration 1.2 M, methanol concentration 77% (v/v) and QUR yielded 10.81 mg/g | |||
| Temperature 70 °C, liquid–solid ratio 25 mL/g, particle diameter 0.18 mm, ethanol concentration 60%, ultrasonic time 35 min, ultrasonic intensity 3.3 W/cm2 and two experimental runs. Under these optimum conditions, approximately 16.26 mg of QUR was obtained from 1 g of | |||
| MWAE | Stalks of | MW power 170 W, irradiation time 6 min, 50% ethanol (v/v) solution, extractant volume 40 mL | |
| Solid Onion ( | MW irradiation for 150 sec at pH 6.25 yielded QUR 209 mg/ 100 gm fresh weight | ||
| Red Kidney Bean | Solvent 60 w/w% acetone, solvent to solid ratio was 10:1 and the MW irradiation power 800 W, treatment time 1 min and QUR yielded 35.8 mg/g | ||
| Carica papaya flower | Solid to liquid ratio (1:15), MW power 400 W, extraction time 4 min, and QUR yielded 0.214% | ||
| MW radiation power 385 W, irradiation time 50 s, ethanol concentration 50%, liquid-to-solid ratio was 30:1 (mL: g) and QUR yielded 0.75–0.02) mg/g | |||
| UMWAE | Red onion skin wastes | MW irradiation time 60 s followed by sonication time 15 min at 70 °C, 70% ethanol, solvent to solid ratio of 30 mL/g and yielded QUR 7.66% and total flavonoids10.18% | |
| Iranian Propolis | MW power 300 W, irradiation time 1.5 min and ultrasound treatment time 10 min and temperature 40 °C. obtained QUR yield 44.53% | ||
| SFE | Sumac ( | Temperature 40οC, pressure 250 bar, 6% ethanol content and yielded QUR 2196 μg/100 g | |
| Onion skin | Extraction time 15 min, temperature 165 °C, the mixture ratio of 1.5:2.5 for onion skin and diatomaceous earth and yielded QUR 16.29 ± 0.75 mg/g | ||
| Rosa damascene Mill | The temperature of 46.3 °C, Pressure 25.5 MPa, CO2 flow rate of 0.7 mL/min, extraction time of 120 min and yielded QUR 32.0% | ||
| Phyllanthus niruri Callus Culture | Temperature 60 °C, pressure 200 bars, time 30 min and yielded QUR 1.72% | ||
| Temperature 46 °C, pressure 24 MPa, time 2.3 h, solvent 82% ethanol and yielded QUR 3.73 mg/g | |||
| EAE | Enzymolysis time 92 min, ethanol concentration 22%, liquid/solid ratio was 40: 1 (m L/g) and yielded QUR 12.56 μg/g | ||
| Onions | Ethanol concentration 5%, flow rate 3 mL/min, temperature 84 °C, pH 5.5, and yielded maximum QUR | ||
| Onion peel waste | Pectinase 0.16 mg, cellulose 0.72 mg, xylanase 1.0 mg, and QUR yield was enhanced by 1.61 folds |
Strengths and weakness of non-destructive methods used in current work.
| Techniques | Type | Advantages | Limitations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FS | Spectroscopic | Good signal–noise ratio, an abundant fluorophore | Autofluorescence, limited to the samples exhibiting fluoresce | |
| THzS | Spectroscopic | Use low energy and lower ionizing energy, Can generate frequency-domain and time-domain data from physical properties and chemical structure of the sample | Cannot penetrate in water and metals, scattering effect for irregular samples is also a weakness in THzS | |
| NIRS | Spectroscopic | The cost-effective tool can conduct qualitative and quantitative detections | Difficult to analyze samples containing water, can generate spectral data only | |
| HIS | Spectral imaging | provide spectral and spatial data, accurately differentiate the similar components of the sample even with similar color, can detect trace elements efficiently | Abundant redundant data, data processing needs a lot of time, adaptability of chemometric methods is another problem in HSI | |
| RS | Spectroscopic | No interference to water, provide rich molecular Raman signatures | Weak Raman scattering cost-ineffective | |
| SERS | Spectroscopic | An ultra-sensitive and specific tool, Direct/minor sample preparation needed, No interference to water and glass | Unstable hotspot regions in substrates, Sensitivity depends on the characteristics of employed nanoparticles |
Note: FS = fluorescence spectroscopy, THzS = terahertz spectroscopy, NIRS = near infrared spectroscopy, HSI = hyper spectral imaging, RS = Raman spectroscopy, SERS = surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy.
Nondestructive detection of QUR in agricultural products.
| Technique | Matrix | Model | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FS | PLSR | QUR yield in | ||
| PLSR | QUR yield in Z | |||
| THzS | QUR, myricetin, and kaempferol Discrimination | PLSR and LS-SVM | LS-SVM showed better results: RMSEP = 0.0039, 0.0044, and 0.0048 | |
| NIRS | Grapes and red wine | PLSR | Determined QUR (0.124% and 0.078%), TR, (0.447% and 0.124%), TPC (12.82% and 0.168%) and antioxidant % value (1.279% and 0.014%) for grapes and red wine samples | |
| Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) | PLSR | For quercetin, catechin, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, t-ferulic acid, vitexin, isovitexin, myricetin, and kaempferol, | ||
| Wine from DO Rías Baixas and DO Ribeira Sacra | PCR and PLS models | PLS showed good results as compare to PCR model. For DO Ribeira Sacra red wines: | ||
| Grapes and grapes wine | PLS | Tested | ||
| HSI | white grape marc | PLSR | QUR = 1.6 ± 0.1 mg/100 g dry mass, 2.1 ± 0.4 mg/100 g dry mass, and 2.0 ± 0.3 mg/100 g dry mass in the seed, skin, and stem of the samples. | |
| RS | dried onion | R2 = 0.9998 and 0.9998 for QUR in methanol and ethanol LOD = 5 × 10-5 mol/L |
TR = trans-resveratrol, TPC = total phenolic (TPC), R2 = coefficient of determination, PLSR: partial least squares regression, PCR: principal component regression, PLS: partial least squares, LS-SVM: least-squares support vector machine, RMSEP: root mean square error of prediction, RMSE = root-mean-square error, R: coefficient of determination in calibration; RMSEC: root mean square error of calibration; RMSECV: root mean square error of cross-validation; RPD: residual predictive deviation, RPD-relationship between the standard deviation of the reference method and the standard error of cross-validation, R: coefficient of determination of cross-validation, R: coefficient of determination of calibration, R: coefficient of determination for prediction.
Fig. 1The normal RS and SERS peaks for QUR using 532, 633, 785, and 1064 nm excitation wavelengths lasers adopted from Dendisová, Palounek, Švecová and Prokopec [76].
Fig. 2Quercetin poor bioavailability reasons and improvement approaches.
QUR delivery vehicles and in vitro therapeutic properties.
| System | Process detail | Therapeutic effect | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrogels | Chemical: Hydrogels WPI-QUR-LRA | Increase drug loading and release | |
| Metal and metal oxide nanoparticles | Chemical: Gold nanoparticles | Reduce the toxicity and improved the antioxidant activity | |
| Chitosan nanoparticle | Chemical: QUR-chitosan conjugate-loaded with paclitaxel | Advanced aqueous solubility of novel anticancer | |
| PLGA/PLA nanoparticles | chemical: PLGA (coencapsulated QUR and tamoxifen) | Enhance in cell cytotoxicity | |
| Solid lipid nanoparticles | Chemical: Trilaurin and phospholipid | Improve aqueous solubility | |
| Micelles | Chemical: Nano micelles | Reduced cell viability at 72 h | |
| Liposome | Lecithin, Cholesterol, Polyethyleneglycol (PEG) 4000 and QUR | Decreased collagen deposition and lung fibrosis areas after two weeks | |
| Liposome | QUR, PEG-4000 | Anti-angiogenesis and anti-tumor effects | |
| Liposome | Cholesterol, egg sphingomyelin, QUR, PEG 2000-ceramide, and vincristine | No bodyweight loss and inhibited tumor xenograft | |
| Lipid nanocapsules | Solutol, Lipophile WL 1349, QUR, and Phospholipon | Improve solubility (aqueous) by a factor of 100 | |
| Nanostructured lipid carriers | Stearic acid, glyceryl monostearate, soya lecithin, media chain triglyceride, and QUR | Enhanced the QUR retention in dermis and epidermis by 3.03 and 1.52 times | |
| Solid lipid nanoparticles | Soya lecithin, glyceryl monostearate, PEG 400, QUR, and Tween-80 | ||
| Complex | Phospholipid and QUR | Improve the anti-oxidant activity,Improve water solubility by 12 folds |
Note: PLA, poly (D, L-lactic acid); PLGA, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid); WPI, whey protein isolate; QUR, quercetin; LRA, lotus root amylopectin.
Fig. 3Different kind of lipid formulations and drug-loaded liposomes.