| Literature DB >> 34731221 |
Aseesh Pandey1,2,3, Tarun Belwal1, Sushma Tamta3, Ranbeer S Rawal1.
Abstract
In this study heat-assisted extraction conditions were optimized to enhance extraction yield of antioxidant polyphenols from leaves of Himalayan Quercus species. In initial experiments, a five-factor Plackett-Burman design including 12 experimental runs was tested against the total polyphenolic content (TP). Amongst, XA: extraction temperature, XC: solvent concentration and XE: sample-to-solvent ratio had shown significant influence on yield. These influential factors were further subject to a three-factor-three-level Box-Wilson Central Composite Design; including 20 experimental runs and 3D response surface methodology plots were used to determine optimum conditions [i.e. XA: (80°C), XC:(87%), XE: (1g/40ml)].This optimized condition was further used in other Quercus species of western Himalaya, India. The High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) revealed occurrence of 12 polyphenols in six screened Quercus species with the highest concentration of catechin followed by gallic acid. Amongest, Q. franchetii and Q. serrata shared maximum numbers of polyphenolic antioxidants (8 in each). This optimized extraction condition of Quercus species can be utilized for precise quantification of polyphenols and their use in pharmaceutical industries as a potential substitute of synthetic polyphenols.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34731221 PMCID: PMC8565745 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Solvent selection and response of different solvents on total polyphenolic content (TP).
Bars capped with same letters are not significantly (p < 0.05) different to each other and separated using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).
Plackett-Burman design (PBD) with responses of the dependent variables to extraction conditions.
| Independent variables | Dependent Variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental run | XA | XB | XC | XD | XE | TP(mg GAE/g dw) |
| 1 | 30 (-1) | 60(1) | 60 (1) | 6 (1) | 1:15 (-1) | 52.13 |
| 2 | 60 (1) | 30(-1) | 60 (1) | 2.5 (-1) | 1:15 (-1) | 76.77 |
| 3 | 30 (-1) | 30 (-1) | 60 (1) | 6 (1) | 1:30 (1) | 62.50 |
| 4 | 60 (1) | 60 (1) | 30 (-1) | 6 (1) | 1:30 (1) | 67.42 |
| 5 | 60 (1) | 60 (1) | 30 (-1) | 6 (1) | 1:15 (-1) | 58.88 |
| 6 | 60 (1) | 60 (1) | 60 (1) | 2.5 (-1) | 1:30 (1) | 83.26 |
| 7 | 30 (-1) | 30 (-1) | 30 (-1) | 6 (1) | 1:30 (1) | 53.62 |
| 8 | 60 (1) | 30 (-1) | 30 (-1) | 2.5 (-1) | 1:30 (1) | 62.26 |
| 9 | 60 (1) | 30 (-1) | 60 (1) | 6 (1) | 1:15 (-1) | 71.99 |
| 10 | 30 (-1) | 60 (1) | 60 (1) | 2.5 (-1) | 1:30 (1) | 67.70 |
| 11 | 30 (-1) | 60 (1) | 30 (-1) | 2.5 (-1) | 1:15 (-1) | 47.14 |
| 12 | 30 (-1) | 30 (-1) | 30 (-1) | 2.5 (-1) | 1:15 (-1) | 47.14 |
XA = Extraction temperature (°C), XB = Extraction time (min), XC = Solvent concentration (%), XD = pH, XE = Sample-to-solvent ratio (g/ml), TP = Total polyphenolic content
Box-Wilson Central Composite Design (CCD) with responses of the dependent variables to extraction conditions.
| Independent variables | Dependent Variables | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental run | XA | XC | XE | TP(mg GAE/g dw) | TT(mg TAE/g dw) | TF(mg QE/g dw) | DPPH(mM AAE/g dw) | ABTS(mM AAE/g dw) |
| 1 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 64.66 | 67.54 | 27.89 | 25.44 | 1.78 |
| 2 | 40(-1) | 50(-1) | 1:40(+1) | 46.27 | 73.63 | 22.69 | 39.71 | 1.23 |
| 3 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:20(-1) | 48.74 | 44.29 | 18.65 | 18.46 | 1.26 |
| 4 | 60(0) | 90(+1) | 1:30(0) | 42.76 | 70.76 | 52.51 | 28.22 | 1.35 |
| 5 | 40(-1) | 90(+1) | 1:20(-1) | 32.78 | 41.84 | 37.82 | 19.37 | 1.02 |
| 6 | 80(+1) | 50(-1) | 1:20(-1) | 53.73 | 41.58 | 16.73 | 20.23 | 1.27 |
| 7 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 51.53 | 64.24 | 24.14 | 27.14 | 1.63 |
| 8 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 64.52 | 59.57 | 26.25 | 27.59 | 1.82 |
| 9 | 40(-1) | 90(+1) | 1:40(+1) | 31.77 | 76.31 | 46.41 | 38.58 | 0.94 |
| 10 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 47.53 | 64.52 | 30.77 | 25.79 | 1.76 |
| 11 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 49.58 | 59.88 | 30.10 | 26.35 | 1.77 |
| 12 | 80(+1) | 90(+1) | 1:40(+1) | 68.92 | 88.81 | 42.56 | 37.31 | 2.20 |
| 13 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:40(+1) | 64.96 | 84.30 | 30.38 | 40.42 | 1.96 |
| 14 | 40(-1) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 40.46 | 60.80 | 24.52 | 29.10 | 1.36 |
| 15 | 80(+1) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 91.27 | 61.52 | 31.45 | 31.19 | 1.89 |
| 16 | 60(0) | 50(-1) | 1:30(0) | 47.49 | 58.38 | 25.48 | 25.54 | 1.63 |
| 17 | 80(+1) | 90(+1) | 1:20(-1) | 65.42 | 42.43 | 33.33 | 17.86 | 1.26 |
| 18 | 60(0) | 70(0) | 1:30(0) | 49.32 | 62.17 | 31.06 | 25.44 | 1.73 |
| 19 | 80(+1) | 50(-1) | 1:40(+1) | 72.81 | 86.82 | 35.38 | 37.82 | 2.32 |
| 20 | 40(-1) | 50(-1) | 1:20(-1) | 49.01 | 42.66 | 15.83 | 18.88 | 1.23 |
XA = Extraction temperature (°C), XC = Solvent concentration (%), XE = Sample-to-solvent ratio (g/ml)
TP = Total polyphenolic content, TT = Total tannin content, TF = Total flavonoids content, DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging ability, ABTS = 2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) radical cation inhibition
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the regression model from the Plackett-Burman Design (PBD) for major contribution to total phenol content.
| Source | Sum of Squares | DF | Mean Square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1364.45 | 5 | 272.89 | 19.79 | 0.0011 |
| XA | 680.13 | 1 | 680.13 | 49.33 | 0.0004 |
| XB | 0.42 | 1 | 0.42 | 0.03 | 0.8665 |
| XC | 505.62 | 1 | 505.62 | 36.67 | 0.0009 |
| XD | 26.24 | 1 | 26.24 | 1.90 | 0.2169 |
| XE | 152.03 | 1 | 152.03 | 11.03 | 0.0160 |
| Residual | 82.73 | 6 | 13.79 | ||
| Total | 1447.18 | 11 |
XA = Extraction temperature (°C), XB = Extraction time (min), XC = Solvent concentration (%), XD = pH, XE = Sample-to-solvent ratio (g/ml).DF = degrees of freedom.
Level of significance
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
*** p < 0.001.
Fig 2Pareto chart showing responses of the dependent variables to extraction conditions under Plackett-Burman design (PBD).
A = Extraction temperature (°C), B = Extraction time (min), C = Solvent concentration (%), D = pH, E = Sample-to-solvent ratio (w/v), TP = Total polyphenolic content.
Regression coefficient (β), coefficient of determination (R2) and F-test value of the predicted second order polynomial models (CCD) for polyphenolics and antioxidant activities.
| Regression Coefficients (β) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP(mg GAE/g dw) | TT(mg TAE/g dw) | TF(mg QE/g dw) | DPPH(mM AAE/g dw) | ABTS(mM AAE/g dw) | |
| Intercept, X0 | 55.42 | 63.32 | 28.86 | 27.04 | 1.72 |
| Linear | |||||
| XA | 15.19 | 2.59 | 1.22 | -0.1228 | 0.315 |
| XC | -2.77 | 1.71 | 9.65 | -0.085 | -0.092 |
| XE | 3.5 | 19.71 | 5.51 | 9.91 | 0.2617 |
| Quadratic | |||||
| XA2 | 9.08 | -2.66 | -1.63 | 1.98 | -0.0518 |
| XC2 | -11.65 | 0.7504 | 9.38 | -1.29 | -0.1841 |
| XE2 | 0.0711 | 0.4773 | -5.09 | 1.27 | -0.0624 |
| Cross Product | |||||
| XAXC | 4.82 | 0.12 | -2.74* | -0.2806 | 0.0472 |
| XAXE | 3.29 | 3.27* | 1.55 | -0.375 | 0.2587 |
| XCXE | -1.73 | 0.5782 | -0.9615 | 0.0306 | -0.0222 |
| R2 | 0.827098 | 0.973231 | 0.935638 | 0.972387 | 0.973269 |
| 5.32 | 40.4 | 16.15 | 39.13 | 40.46 | |
| 1.18 | 1.41 | 1.83 | 5.97 | 2.33 | |
|
| 0.4296 | 0.3569 | 0.2612 | 0.0361 | 0.1879 |
XA = Extraction temperature (°C), XC = Solvent concentration (%), = XE = Sample-to-solvent ratio (g/ml), TP = Total polyphenolic content, TT = Total tannin content, TF = Total flavonoids content, DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging ability, ABTS = 2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) radical cation inhibition; Level of significance
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
*** p < 0.001.
Fig 3Response surface graphs showing the linear, quadratic, and interactive effect of different factors under Central Composite Design (CCD).
XA = Extraction temperature (°C), XC = Solvent concentration (%), XC = Sample-to-solvent ratio (g/ml), TP = Total polyphenolic content, TT = Total tannin content, TF = Total flavonoids content, DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging ability, ABTS = 2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) radical cation inhibition.
Comparative phytochemical profile of six Quercus species under optimal extraction condition.
| Phytochemical screening | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| TP(mg GAE/g dw) [ | 65.04 | 74.85 | 67.97 | 70.70 | 77.34 | 94.19 |
| TT(mg TAE/g dw) [ | 84.72 | 86.42 | 90.23 | 80.10 | 91.45 | 87.05 |
| TF(mg QE/g dw) [ | 37.24 | 27.24 | 38.97 | 31.67 | 44.42 | 33.10 |
| DPPH(mM AAE/g dw) [ | 42.22 | 39.09 | 37.62 | 42.51 | 35.35 | 2.18 |
| ABTS(mM AAE/g dw) [ | 2.16 | 2.14 | 2.15 | 2.14 | 2.10 | 63.01 |
|
|
| |||||
| 3-Hydroxy Benzoic acid | 3.69±0.04 | 1.14±0.31 | 2.24±0.12 | 1.96±0.15 | - | 1.95±0.23 |
| Caffeic acid | - | - | - | - | 0.09±0.00 | 0.03±0.00 |
| Catechin | - | - | 37.60±0.65 | 2.20±0.28 | 28.31±0.00 | 19.53±0.58 |
| Chlorogenic acid | 5.22±0.08 | 6.21±0.12 | - | 1.30±0.17 | - | - |
| Ellagic acid | - | - | - | 0.10±0.00 | - | - |
| Ferulic acid | - | 0.23±0.00 | - | 0.15±0.02 | - | 0.129±0.00 |
| Gallic acid | 23.45±0.19 | 28.28±0.32 | 14.81±0.18 | 21.55±1.41 | 16.53±0.24 | 17.28±0.06 |
| Rutin | - | - | - | - | 3.51±0.03 | 3.52±0.03 |
| Trans cinnamic acid | 0.04±0.00 | 0.10±0.00 | - | 0.01±0.00 | - | - |
| Vanillic acid | 0.44±0.01 | 0.60±0.05 | - | 0.25±0.01 | 0.16±0.01 | 0.44±0.02 |
| m-coumaric acid | 0.25±0.01 | - | - | - | - | - |
| p-coumaric acid | - | - | - | - | 0.10±0.01 | 0.11±0.00 |
TP = Total polyphenolic content, TT = Total tannin content, TF = Total flavonoids content, DPPH = 2,2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging ability, ABTS = 2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) radical cation inhibition
Pv = model’s predicted value; - = not detected