| Literature DB >> 35408640 |
Karina Sierra1, Laura Naranjo1, Luis Carrillo-Hormaza1,2, German Franco3, Edison Osorio1.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to chemically compare samples of Mentha spicata (marketing byproducts, production byproducts, and export material), cultivated in the open field and under greenhouse, using an integrated approach by HPLC/DAD and GC/MS analysis. The presence of phenolic compounds was higher in the marketing byproducts cultivated in the open field. Marketing byproducts also had the highest amount of carvone. For this reason, this byproduct was selected as a candidate for the development of natural ingredients. With the best selected material, the optimization of simultaneous high-intensity ultrasound-assisted extraction processes was proposed for the recovery of the compounds of interest. This extraction was defined by Peleg's equation and polynomial regression analysis. Modeling showed that the factors amplitude, time, and solvent were found to be significant in the recovery process (p < 0.005). The maximum amount of compounds was obtained using 90% amplitude for 5 min and ethanol/water mixture (80:20) for extraction to simultaneously obtain phenolic and terpenoid compounds. This system obtained the highest amount of monoterpenoid and sesquiterpenoid compounds from the essential oil of M. spicata (64.93% vs. 84.55%). Thus, with an efficient and eco-friendly method, it was possible to optimize the extraction of compounds in M. spicata as a starting point for the use of its byproducts.Entities:
Keywords: Mentha spicata; carvone; essential oil; phenolic compounds; rosmarinic acid
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35408640 PMCID: PMC9000270 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27072243
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Selection of extraction system. Total polyphenols (TPC) (A), and rosmarinic acid content (RA) (B), in extracts obtained with different proportions of solvent (mg of the compound or mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per gram of dry sample or extract). Statistical analysis uses a one-way ANOVA (Bonferroni test, p < 0.05). Equal letters means that there is no statistically significant difference.
Chemical composition of the different M. spicata sample extraction systems.
| Extraction Solvents % Relative | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound | Essential Oil | Hexane: Ethyl Acetate | Hexane: Ethyl Acetate | 100% Hexane | 100% Ethyl Acetate | 100% | 80% |
| D-Limonene | 4.28 | 0.23 | |||||
| Neodihydrocarveol | 0.61 | ||||||
| Trans-Carveol | 4.00 | 3.72 | 2.82 | 9.11 | 6.09 | ||
| Carvone | 58.52 | 17.89 | 12.64 | 39.42 | 26.36 | 25.85 | 30.51 |
| Dihydrocarvyl acetate | 0.57 | ||||||
| Trans-Carveyl acetate | 0.75 | ||||||
| γ-Elemene | 0.67 | ||||||
| β-bourbenene | 3.59 | 0.79 | 3.11 | ||||
| β-Elemene | 1.75 | 0.47 | |||||
| β-Caryophyllene | 4.55 | 8.96 | |||||
| β-Copaen-4α-ol | 1.17 | 3.06 | |||||
| ε-Muurolene | 2.54 | ||||||
| (-)-Isogermacrene D | 0.84 | 4.10 | 2.39 | ||||
| (E)-β-Famesene | 0.93 | 1.5 | |||||
| cis-Muurola-4(15),5-diene | 1.07 | 1.60 | 0.80 | 5.72 | |||
| Germacrene D | 2.55 | 2.24 | 0.78 | 2.99 | 1.66 | 6.23 | 6.26 |
| γ-cadinene | |||||||
| Trans-Calamenene | 0.69 | 3.24 | |||||
| Monoterpenoids | 67.41 | 21.61 | 15.46 | 49.85 | 32.45 | 25.85 | 30.74 |
| Sesquiterpenoids | 17.14 | 2.24 | 0.78 | 10.15 | 5.52 | 6.23 | 34.19 |
| TOTAL | 84.55 | 23.85 | 16.24 | 60.00 | 37.97 | 32.08 | 64.93 |
The relative percentage was based on 100% of the compounds, but only the identified compounds are reported in the table.
Figure 2Heatmap of comparative analysis of byproducts and export material in the expression of GAE, RA and carvone (A). Box and whisker plots of the comparison of the open field and greenhouse in relation to the total phenolic content (B), rosmarinic acid (C), and carvone (D). Statistical analysis used one-way ANOVA (Bonferroni test, p < 0.05). Equal letters indicate that there is no statistically significant difference.
Main compounds in M. spicata tentatively identified by HPLC-DAD-ESI/MSn.
| Peak | RT (min) | [M-H] m/z | MSn (MS2, MS3) Experimental | Tentative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.5 | 353 | 191, 179, 135 | Neochlorogenic acid |
| 2 | 8.5 | 311 | 179, 149 | Caftaric acid |
| 3 | 9.0 | 337 | 163, 119 | 3-ρ-coumaroyl-QA |
| 4 | 9.5 | 325 | 163, 119 | ρ-coumaryol-hex |
| 5 | 10.0 | 353 | 179, 173 | Criptochlorogenic acid |
| 6 | 12.3 | 179 | 159, 153 | Caffeic acid |
| 7 | 12.8 | 593 | 473, 383, 503, 353, 297 | Vicenin 2 |
| 8 | 13.7 | 337 | 173, 137, 111 | 4-ρ-coumaryol-hex |
| 9 | 14.7 | 377 | 359, 265 | Rosmarinic acid derivative I |
| 10 | 15.0 | 377 | 359, 197, 135 | Rosmarinic acid derivative II |
| 11 | 15.2 | 367 | 191, 173 | 4-Feruloyl-QA |
| 12 | 18.9 | 595 | 287, 151 | Eriocitrin |
| 13 | 20.0 | 593 | 285, 241, 175, 151 | Luteolin-7- |
| 14 | 21.4 | 447 | 285 | Luteolin-7- |
| 15 | 21.8 | 461 | 285, 243, 175 | Luteolin-7- |
| 16 | 23.3 | 579 | 271 | Narinrutin |
| 17 | 24.3 | 577 | 269, 225 | Apigenin-7- |
| 18 | 24.7 | 717 | 519, 475, 365, 321 | Salvianolic acid |
| 19 | 25.7 | 609 | 301, 286, 227 | Hesperidin |
| 20 | 27.0 | 445 | 269, 225, 175 | Apigenin-7- |
| 21 | 27.5 | 359 | 359, 223, 197, 161 | Rosmarinic acid |
| 22 | 29.0 | 461 | 315, 285, 241 | Kaempferol-7- |
| 23 | 30.9 | 537 | 493, 359, 295 | Lithospermic acid |
| 24 | 31.7 | 533 | 387, 369, 207, 163 | Medioresinol- |
| 25 | 32.2 | 563 | 387, 370/369, 207 | Medioresinol- |
| 26 | 33.4 | 493 | 359, 223, 179, 161 | Rosmarinic acid derivative III |
| 27 | 34.1 | 493 | 359, 223, 197, 179, 161 | Rosmarinic acid derivative IV |
Comparison of export material and byproducts in relation to terpenoids commonly present in the essential oil of spearmint.
| Compound | % Relative | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essential Oil | Export Material | Production Byproducts | Marketing Byproducts | |
| D-Limonene | 4.28 | 1.22 | 1.37 | 1.91 |
| Neodihydrocarveol | 0.61 | 0.43 | 0.87 | 4.08 |
| trans-Carveol | 4.00 | 3.15 | 2.41 | 3.11 |
| Carvone | 58.52 | 13.25 | 12.47 | 8.91 |
| Dihydrocarvyl acetate | 0.72 | |||
| trans-Carveyl acetate | 0.28 | 0.68 | ||
| γ-Elemene | 0.25 | 0.19 | ||
| β-bourbenene | 3.59 | 1.30 | 1.58 | 1.76 |
| β-Elemene | 1.75 | 0.35 | 0.40 | |
| β-Caryophyllene | 4.55 | 1.93 | 1.93 | 1.49 |
| β-Copaen-4α-ol | 1.17 | 0.26 | 0.47 | |
| ε-Muurolene | 0.39 | 0.32 | ||
| (-)-Isogermacrene D | 0.84 | 0.26 | 0.35 | |
| (E)-β-Famesene | 0.93 | 0.42 | 0.45 | |
| cis-Muurola-4(15),5-diene | 1.07 | 0.35 | 0.41 | 0.40 |
| Germacrene D | 2.55 | 2.89 | 2.63 | 1.46 |
| γ-Elemene | 0.42 | |||
| trans-Calamenene | 0.69 | 0.27 | 0.27 | |
| (-)-Spathulenol | 0.28 | 0.08 | ||
| α-Cadinol | 0.49 | 0.97 | 2.26 | |
| (1R,7S,E)-7-Isopropyl-4,10-dimethylenecyclodec-5-enol | 0.36 | 0.79 | 0.78 | |
| TOTAL | 84.55 | 28.54 | 25.54 | 27.56 |
Figure 3Kinetics extractions of total polyphenols (TPC) (A), temperature changes during the extraction at different temperatures (B), kinetics extractions of rosmarinic acid (C), and kinetics extractions of carvone (D).
Figure 4Response surface and contour plot effect of the extraction and amplitude for total polyphenols (TPC) (A), rosmarinic acid content (RA) (B), and carvone (C).