| Literature DB >> 35005281 |
Shima Jahanfar1, Mehrdad Gahavami1, Kianoush Khosravi-Darani2, Mahshid Jahadi3, M R Mozafari4.
Abstract
A major obstacle in the utilization of phenolic antioxidant compounds is their sensitivity and as a result stability issue. The current study aimed to encapsulate polyphenolic compounds, extracted from Rosemary, in liposomes prepared by the Mozafari method without the utilization of toxic solvents or detergents. The extract was prepared and converted into a powder by freeze-drying. The process conditions were optimized using response surface analysis, and the optimal parameters were as follows: phosphatidylcholine (PC), 2.5% (25 mg/mL); extract, 0.7% (7 mg/mL); process temperature, 70 °C and process time, 60 min. The entrapment efficiency in optimal sample was 54.59%. Also, optimal glycerosomes formulation were finally physicochemical characterized (permeability, zeta potential, and size distribution). The mean size of empty and containing rosemary extract glycerosome were 265.4 nm and 583.5 nm, respectively, and the Z-potential of optimal glycerosome was -65.1 mV. Total phenolic content was obtained 151.38 mg gallic acid/g extract, in optimal liposomal formulation, which was measured by Folin-Ciocalteu's phenol reagent. Also, the antioxidant activity of rosemary extract by DPPH for the free and optimal liposomal formulation was determined to be 84.57% and 92.5% respectively. It can be concluded that the liposomal rosemary extract formulation prepared in this study, employing a safe, scalable, and green technology, has great promise in food and pharmaceutical applications.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Liposome; Mozafari method; Polyphenols; Rosemary extract
Year: 2021 PMID: 35005281 PMCID: PMC8715198 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Independent variables in liposome preparation.
| Variable | Variable Levels | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| +α | 0 | -α | ||
| Phosphatidylcholine concentration (%) | 5.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | ( |
| Extract concentration (%) | 2.65 | 1.35 | 0.05 | ( |
| Mixing temperature (°C) | 80 | 60 | 40 | ( |
| Mixing time (min) | 75 | 45 | 15 | ( |
The experimental design and response result.
| St. Order | A: Phosphstydil choline (%) | B: Extract (%) | C: Temperature (°C) | D: | Response 1: | Response 2: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 50 | 30 | 51.17 | 15.0 | |
| 2 | 4.5 | 0.7 | 50 | 30 | 51.34 | 4.0 | |
| 3 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 50 | 30 | 45.78 | 12.5 | |
| 4 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 50 | 30 | 51.62 | 3.5 | |
| 5 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 70 | 30 | 53.10 | 13.5 | |
| 6 | 4.5 | 0.7 | 70 | 30 | 46.98 | 12.8 | |
| 7 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 70 | 30 | 50.79 | 3.5 | |
| 8 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 70 | 30 | 52.74 | 3.66 | |
| 9 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 50 | 60 | 50.46 | 4.2 | |
| 10 | 4.5 | 0.7 | 50 | 60 | 50.71 | 6.0 | |
| 11 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 50 | 60 | 49.84 | 2.75 | |
| 12 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 50 | 60 | 51.54 | 3.05 | |
| 13 | 2.5 | 0.7 | 70 | 60 | 54.59 | 8.22 | |
| 14 | 4.5 | 0.7 | 70 | 60 | 52.32 | 9.0 | |
| 15 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 70 | 60 | 50.19 | 1.56 | |
| 16 | 4.5 | 2.0 | 70 | 60 | 50.35 | 1.62 | |
| 17 | 1.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 49.55 | 9.5 | |
| 18 | 5.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 50.72 | 5.47 | |
| 19 | 3.5 | 0.05 | 60 | 45 | 53.42 | 15.3 | |
| 20 | 3.5 | 2.65 | 60 | 45 | 51.51 | 6.33 | |
| 21 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 40 | 45 | 51.9 | 3.33 | |
| 22 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 80 | 45 | 49.96 | 6.0 | |
| 23 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 15 | 49.07 | 4.5 | |
| 24 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 75 | 46.87 | 1.0 | |
| 25 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 45.82 | 1.5 | |
| 26 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 42.00 | 3.5 | |
| 27 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 45.45 | 1.5 | |
| 28 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 44.28 | 1.5 | |
| 29 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 45.31 | 2.5 | |
| 30 | 3.5 | 1.35 | 60 | 45 | 45.4 | 3.5 | |
Analysis of variance for encapsulation efficiency and permeability.
| Encapsulation Efficiency | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | D f | Mean Square | F-Value | P- value |
| Model | 10 | 23.21 | 9.31 | <0.0001∗ significant |
| A-Phosphatidylcholine | 1 | 0.67 | 0.27 | 0.6093 |
| B-Extract | 1 | 5.65 | 2.26 | 0.1489 |
| C-Temperature | 1 | 0.93 | 0.37 | 0.5490 |
| D-Time | 1 | 0.18 | 0.072 | 0.7909 |
| AB | 1 | 19.40 | 7.78 | 0.0117∗ |
| AC | 1 | 12.67 | 5.08 | 0.0362∗ |
| A2 | 1 | 56.45 | 22.63 | 0.0001∗∗ |
| B2 | 1 | 111.60 | 44.75 | <0.0001∗∗ |
| C2 | 1 | 73.17 | 29.34 | <0.0001∗∗ |
| D2 | 1 | 21.89 | 8.78 | 0.0080∗∗ |
| Residual | 19 | 2.49 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 14 | 2.66 | 1.31 | 0.4086 not significant |
| Pure Error | 5 | 2.03 | ||
| Core Total | 29 | |||
| Permeability | ||||
| Model | 10 | 49.06 | 19.29 | >0.0001∗ significant |
| A-Phosphatidyl choline | 1 | 27.43 | 10.79 | 0.0039 |
| B-Extract | 1 | 142.69 | 56.10 | <0.0001∗∗ |
| C-Temperature | 1 | 2.80 | 1.10 | 0.3071 |
| D-Time | 1 | 63.57 | 24.99 | <0.0001∗∗ |
| AC | 1 | 20.70 | 8.14 | 0.0102∗ |
| AD | 1 | 34.46 | 13.55 | 0.0016 ∗∗ |
| BC | 1 | 41.54 | 16.33 | 0.0007∗∗ |
| A2 | 1 | 46.66 | 18.34 | 0.0004 ∗∗ |
| B2 | 1 | 126.25 | 49.63 | <0.0001∗8 |
| C2 | 1 | 9.61 | 3.78 | 0.0609 |
| Residual | 19 | 2.54 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 14 | 3.11 | 3.21 | 0.1019 not significant |
| Pure Error | 5 | 0.97 | ||
| Core Total | 29 | |||
R-Adjusted = 0.74%, R-Square = 0.83%, R- Prediction = 0.53%. (∗∗) highly significant, p < 0.01; (∗) significant, p < 0.05.
R-Adjusted = 0.86%, R-Square = 0.91%, R- Prediction = 0.77%. (∗∗) highly significant, p < 0.01; (∗) significant, p < 0.05.
Figure 1Response Level Charts on the Encapsulation Efficiency of Liposomes; (a) Effects of Phosphatidylcholine and green tea extract Concentrations; (b) Effects of Phosphatidylcholine Concentration and Process Temperature.
Figure 2Response level charts on the permeability of liposomes; (a) effects of phosphatidylcholine concentration and temperature; (b) effects of phosphatidylcholine concentration and process time; (c) effects of extract concentration and process temperature.
Figure 3Particle size in (a) empty liposomes; (b) liposomes encapsulating rosemary extract.