| Literature DB >> 34940661 |
Natalia Castejón1,2, Kristin Anna Thorarinsdottir2, Ragnhildur Einarsdóttir1,2, Kristberg Kristbergsson1,2, Gudrún Marteinsdóttir2,3.
Abstract
A growing concern for overall health is driving a global market of natural ingredients not only in the food industry but also in the cosmetic field. In this study, a screening on potential cosmetic applications of aqueous extracts from three Icelandic seaweeds produced by pulsed electric fields (PEF) was performed. Produced extracts by PEF from Ulva lactuca, Alaria esculenta and Palmaria palmata were compared with the traditional hot water extraction in terms of polyphenol, flavonoid and carbohydrate content. Moreover, antioxidant properties and enzymatic inhibitory activities were evaluated by using in vitro assays. PEF exhibited similar results to the traditional method, showing several advantages such as its non-thermal nature and shorter extraction time. Amongst the three Icelandic species, Alaria esculenta showed the highest content of phenolic (mean value 8869.7 µg GAE/g dw) and flavonoid (mean value 12,098.7 µg QE/g dw) compounds, also exhibiting the highest antioxidant capacities. Moreover, Alaria esculenta extracts exhibited excellent anti-enzymatic activities (76.9, 72.8, 93.0 and 100% for collagenase, elastase, tyrosinase and hyaluronidase, respectively) for their use in skin whitening and anti-aging products. Thus, our preliminary study suggests that Icelandic Alaria esculenta-based extracts produced by PEF could be used as potential ingredients for natural cosmetic and cosmeceutical formulations.Entities:
Keywords: Alaria esculenta; PEF-assisted extraction; Palmaria palmata; Ulva lactuca; bioactive compounds; cosmeceuticals; green extraction; macroalgae; natural ingredients
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34940661 PMCID: PMC8704373 DOI: 10.3390/md19120662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mar Drugs ISSN: 1660-3397 Impact factor: 5.118
Electrical conductivity and pH of seaweed suspensions before and after extraction process, and temperature after process.
| Seaweed Specie and Extraction Method | T | Conductivity before | Conductivity after | pH before | pH after |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| HW | 95.0 | 16.433 ± 0.260 a | 18.413 ± 0.228 a | 6.49 ± 0.02 a | 6.28 ± 0.05 a |
| PEF | 36.0 | 16.790 ± 0.131 a | 17.713 ± 0.091 a | 6.37 ± 0.01 b | 6.32 ± 0.01 a |
| PEF+HW | 34.3/95 | 16.560 ± 0.259 a | 16.957 ± 1.799 a | 6.42 ± 0.01 c | 6.16 ± 0.03 b |
|
| |||||
| HW | 95.0 | 8.736 ± 0.09 a | 9.724 ± 0.362 a | 6.46 ± 0.02 a | 6.44 ± 0.04 a |
| PEF | 46.3 | 8.571 ± 0.19 a | 9.214 ± 0.129 a | 6.39 ± 0.02 b | 6.52 ± 0.02 a |
| PEF+HW | 44.3/95 | 8.460 ± 0.17 a | 9.271 ± 0.037 a | 6.42 ± 0.03 a,b | 6.41 ± 0.07 a |
|
| |||||
| HW | 95.0 | 6.213 ± 0.02 a | 6.740 ± 0.081 a | 6.07 ± 0.04 a | 6.25 ± 0.05 a |
| PEF | 51.0 | 6.006 ± 0.11 b | 6.261 ± 0.200 b | 5.94 ± 0.04 b | 5.33 ± 0.06 b |
| PEF+HW | 49.3/95 | 6.128 ± 0.01 a,b | 6.437 ± 0.094 a,b | 5.96 ± 0.03 b | 6.12 ± 0.05 c |
HW = hot water extraction; PEF = pulsed electric fields—assisted extraction; PEF + HW = combination of both techniques. For the PEF + HW, temperature is shown after the PEF and after the following hot water extraction procedure. Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for each specie.
Figure 1UV absorption spectra (λ = 220–440 nm) of seaweed extracts produced by hot water (HW), pulsed electric field (PEF) and the combination of both techniques (PEF + HW): U. lactuca (a), P. palmata (b) and A. esculenta (c). The graphs show the mean values (n = 3).
Total phenolic content, total flavonoid content, and total carbohydrate content of seaweeds extracts (A. esculenta, P. palmaria and U. lactuca) produced by the investigated extraction methods.
| Seaweed Specie and Extraction Method | Total Phenolic Content | Total Flavonoid Content (µg QE/g dw) | Total Carbohydrate Content |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| HW | 8937.1 ± 785.7 a | 12232.8 ± 1248.7 a | 44.8 ± 1.5 a |
| PEF | 9368.2 ± 407.1 a | 12426.4 ± 848.3 a | 59.6 ± 1.1 b |
| PEF+HW | 8303.8 ± 594.1 a | 11636.8 ± 1393.6 a | 65.2 ± 2.7 c |
|
| |||
| HW | 1850.5 ± 121.5 a | 805.0 ± 1.9 a | 510.5 ± 61.2 a |
| PEF | 1806.3 ± 104.2 a | 939.0 ± 95.9 a | 401.5 ± 43.8 a |
| PEF+HW | 1761.8 ± 97.8 a | 973.3 ± 45.8 a | 413.8 ± 26.5 a |
|
| |||
| HW | 1950.6 ± 109.5 a | 4533.1 ± 89.3 a | 249.5 ± 21.1 a |
| PEF | 1592.0 ± 95.8 b | 3427.3 ± 199.0 b | 106.3 ± 21.2 b |
| PEF+HW | 1709.4 ± 49.4 b | 4496.7 ± 589.4 a | 224.7 ± 19.1 a |
HW = hot water extraction; PEF = pulsed electric fields -assisted extraction; PEF + HW = combination of both techniques. Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for each specie.
Antioxidant capacities of seaweeds extracts (A. esculenta, P. palmaria and U. lactuca) produced by the investigated extraction methods: DPPH, ABTS and FRAP assays.
| Seaweed Specie and Extraction Method | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| HW | 93.8 ± 1.6 a | 984.4 ± 31.3 a | 86.5 ± 15.3 a |
| PEF | 91.8 ± 1.6 a | 960.7± 13.1 a | 89.2 ± 9.8 a |
| PEF + HW | 90.9 ± 1.0 a | 895.7 ± 46.8 a | 106.8 ± 8.3 a |
|
| |||
| HW | 69.4 ± 7.3 a | 426.3 ± 65.5 a | 113.0 ± 5.6 a |
| PEF | 65.0 ± 7.2 a | 301.0 ± 7.9 a | 101.8 ± 1.5 a |
| PEF + HW | 56.4 ± 3.3 a | 302.7 ± 78.9 a | 97.4 ± 41.1 a |
|
| |||
| HW | 71.0 ± 5.7 a | 534.6 ± 42.4 a | 75.7 ± 12.5 a |
| PEF | 86.3 ± 0.5 b | 570.2 ± 26.5 a | 99.5 ± 5.9 a |
| PEF + HW | 71.9 ± 10.0 a | 547.8 ± 38.2 a | 81.6 ± 10.0 a |
HW = hot water extraction; PEF = pulsed electric fields—assisted extraction; PEF + HW = combination of both techniques. Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for each specie.
Collagenase, elastase, tyrosinase and hyaluronidase inhibitory activity of Icelandic seaweed extracts (A. esculenta, P. palmaria and U. lactuca) produced by the investigated extraction methods.
| Samples | Collagenase Inhibition (%) | Elastase | Tyrosinase | Hyaluronidase Inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| HW | 71.7 ± 8.6 a | 73.4 ± 2.5 a | 95.5 ± 2.5 a | 100.0 ± 0.0 a |
| PEF | 90.8 ± 3.0 b | 73.8 ± 7.5 a | 92.9 ± 2.6 a | 100.0 ± 0.0 a |
| PEF+HW | 68.3 ± 5.6 a | 71.1 ± 3.0 a | 90.5 ± 4.6 a | 100.0 ± 0.0 a |
|
| ||||
| HW | 4.3 ± 7.4 a | NI | NI | 91.8 ± 0.5 a |
| PEF | 1.6 ± 1.8 a | NI | NI | 91.9 ± 0.0 a |
| PEF + HW | 2.3 ± 4.0 a | NI | NI | 89.5 ± 2.8 a |
|
| ||||
| HW | 2.3 ± 2.1 a | NI | NI | 93.4 ± 0.6 a |
| PEF | 1.7 ± 2.9 a | NI | NI | 96.8 ± 0.4 b |
| PEF + HW | 1.5 ± 2.6 a | NI | NI | 97.3 ± 1.0 b |
| Inhibitor from kit * | 74.9 ± 1.2 | NT | NT | NT |
| EGCG (5 mM) * | 63.15 | NT | NT | NT |
| EGCG (0.5 mM) * | 13.70 | NT | NT | NT |
| Quercetin (1mM) * | NT | 100.0 ± 0.0 | 88.2 ± 1.4 | NT |
| Quercetin (0.5 mM) * | NT | 58.7 ± 11.7 | 74.8 ± 0.5 | NT |
| Tannic acid (1 mM) * | NT | NT | NT | 94.3 ± 0.2 |
| Tannic acid (0.5 mM) * | NT | NT | NT | 88.5 ± 3.2 |
HW = hot water extraction; PEF = pulsed electric fields -assisted extraction; PEF + HW = combination of both techniques. * Positive standards. No inhibition (NI). Not tested (NT). Epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG). Values are presented as mean ± SD (n = 3). Different lowercase letters indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for each specie.
Figure 2Principal component analysis (PCA) biplot of factor loadings (black circles) and scores for the algae extracts (P. palmata: brown dots (upper right); U. lactuca: green triangles (mainly in upper left); A. esculenta: blue squares (lower part of plot)).
Pearson correlation coefficients between chemical components of the produced seaweed extracts, antioxidant capacity and inhibition effects on enzymes.
| Chemical Composition | Antioxidant Capacity | Enzyme Inhibition | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | TPC | TFC | TCC | DPPH | FRAP | ABTS | Collag | Elast | Tyros | Hyalur |
|
| 1 | 0.95 *** | −0.70 *** | 0.74 *** | 0.91 *** | −0.04 | 0.98 *** | 0.99 *** | 0.99 *** | 0.42 * |
|
| 1 | −0.84 *** | 0.82 *** | 0.97 *** | −0.24 | 0.93 *** | 0.94 *** | 0.95 *** | 0.54 ** | |
|
| 1 | −0.91 *** | −0.86 *** | 0.31 | −0.68 *** | −0.71 *** | −0.71 *** | −0.60 ** | ||
|
| 1 | 0.88 *** | −0.19 | 0.74 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.75 *** | 0.52 ** | |||
|
| 1 | −0.25 | 0.90 *** | 0.91 *** | 0.91 *** | 0.61 ** | ||||
|
| 1 | −0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | −0.18 | |||||
|
| 1 | 0.98 *** | 0.98 *** | 0.42 * | ||||||
|
| 1 | 0.998 *** | 0.43 * | |||||||
|
| 1 | 0.43 * | ||||||||
* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Experimental design for bioactives extraction from A. esculenta, P. palmata and U. lactuca.
| Seaweed Species | Extraction Procedure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| HW | PEF | PEF + HW |
|
| HW | PEF | PEF + HW |
|
| HW | PEF | PEF + HW |
HW = hot water extraction; PEF = pulsed electric fields -assisted extraction; PEF + HW = combination of both techniques.