| Literature DB >> 35423359 |
Suppalak Phaisan1, Fonthip Makkliang1, Waraporn Putalun2,3, Seiichi Sakamoto4, Gorawit Yusakul1.
Abstract
This study outlines a green process for Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. (CA) extraction. Natural deep eutectic solvents (NADESs) and microwave-assisted extraction (MAE) were combined to provide a high bioactive compound yield and high antioxidant activity. Among the NADESs evaluated, the combination of acetylcholine chloride : malic acid : water (1 : 2 : 2): water (40 : 60) was the best for extraction. These conditions provide high madecassoside (MS) (21.7 mg g-1 dry weight) and asiaticoside (AS) (12.7 mg g-1 dry weight) yields, with greater than 80% (v/v) EtOH (13.3 mg g-1 MS and 7.80 mg g-1 AS). In addition, the extracts from this process showed higher antioxidant activity (IC50 = 0.26 mg mL-1) than the CA aqueous EtOH and water extracts. Moreover, the color of the extract products was less green than that of the extracts prepared using EtOH and aqueous EtOH as solvents, which are suitable for cosmeceutical products. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used for MAE optimization. The ANOVA data from the central composition design (CCD) of RSM were fitted with quadratic models yielding acceptable R 2 (>0.93), adjusted R 2 (>0.87), predicted R 2 (>0.81), and nonsignificant lack of fit (p > 0.05) values. The quadratic model was validated using optimal conditions (30 s, power 300 W, and a liquid to solid ratio 20 mL g-1), and the model validation showed more than 80% accuracy in both MS and AS yields. This research presented an effective green process for CA extraction, which resulted in an environmentally friendly CA extract requiring little energy consumption and no organic solvents. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35423359 PMCID: PMC8695212 DOI: 10.1039/d0ra09934a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 3.361
The compositions of NADESs
| Code | NADES | Dilution ratio (water : NADES) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA) | Hydrogen bond donor (HBD) | Mole ratio (HBA : HBD : water) | ||
| AGW10 | Acetylcholine chloride | Gluconic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 10 : 90 |
| AGW20 | Acetylcholine chloride | Gluconic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 20 : 80 |
| AGW40 | Acetylcholine chloride | Gluconic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 40 : 60 |
| AGW60 | Acetylcholine chloride | Gluconic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 60 : 40 |
| AGW80 | Acetylcholine chloride | Gluconic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 80 : 20 |
| AMW10 | Acetylcholine chloride | Malic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 10 : 90 |
| AMW20 | Acetylcholine chloride | Malic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 20 : 80 |
| AMW40 | Acetylcholine chloride | Malic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 40 : 60 |
| AMW60 | Acetylcholine chloride | Malic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 60 : 40 |
| AMW80 | Acetylcholine chloride | Malic acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 80 : 20 |
| ACW10 | Acetylcholine chloride | Citric acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 10 : 90 |
| ACW20 | Acetylcholine chloride | Citric acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 20 : 80 |
| ACW40 | Acetylcholine chloride | Citric acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 40 : 60 |
| ACW60 | Acetylcholine chloride | Citric acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 60 : 40 |
| ACW80 | Acetylcholine chloride | Citric acid | 1 : 2 : 2 | 80 : 20 |
Experimental parameters of central composition design (CCD)
| Factors | Symbol | Unit | Level | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −Alpha (−1.68) | Low (−1) | Medium (0) | High (+1) | +Alpha (+1.68) | |||
|
| |||||||
| Irradiation time |
| Second | 3.2 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 36.8 |
| Microwave power |
| W | 198 | 300 | 450 | 600 | 702 |
| LS ratio |
| mL g−1 | 13.2 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 46.8 |
|
| |||||||
| Madecassoside (MS) |
| mg g−1 dry weight | |||||
| Asiaticoside (AS) |
| mg g−1 dry weight | |||||
The extractions were performed with 180 W and 800 W microwave power instead, respectively, because the 198 W and 702 W power are not available in the microwave model used.
The central composition design matrix and experiment results
| Run | Independent variables | Responses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 19.84 | 11.84 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | −1.68 | 15.72 | 9.24 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 18.40 | 10.74 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12.96 | 7.57 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.07 | 7.67 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.38 | 8.93 |
| 7 | 1.68 | 0 | 0 | 16.96 | 9.69 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 1.68 | 14.00 | 8.05 |
| 9 | 0 | −1.68 | 0 | 17.44 | 10.13 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.30 | 7.76 |
| 11 | −1.68 | 0 | 0 | 9.11 | 5.34 |
| 12 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 13.52 | 7.89 |
| 13 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 14.69 | 8.41 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.32 | 8.91 |
| 15 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 12.92 | 7.51 |
| 16 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 13.44 | 7.80 |
| 17 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16.42 | 9.49 |
| 18 | 0 | 1.68 | 0 | 17.78 | 10.40 |
| 19 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 12.01 | 7.06 |
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13.26 | 7.84 |
The extractive yields of madecassoside (MS) and asiaticoside (AS) from microwave-assisted extraction using NADESsa
| Solvents | Extraction yields (mg g−1 dry weight) | |
|---|---|---|
| MS | AS | |
| AGW10 | 18.9 ± 0.03* | 10.6 ± 0.03* |
| AGW20 | 19.9 ± 0.02* | 11.1 ± 0.02* |
| AGW40 | 19.8 ± 0.01* | 10.9 ± 0.05* |
| AGW60 | 22.5 ± 0.01* | 11.9 ± 0.02* |
| AGW80 | 20.5 ± 0.08* | 11.0 ± 0.09* |
| AMW10 | 5.56 ± 0.02 | 3.25 ± 0.02 |
| AMW20 | 11.6 ± 0.01 | 6.90 ± 0.02 |
| AMW40 | 20.1 ± 0.03* | 11.7 ± 0.02* |
| AMW60 | 21.7 ± 0.03* | 12.7 ± 0.03* |
| AMW80 | 20.2 ± 0.03* | 11.8 ± 0.04* |
| ACW10 | 4.50 ± 0.02 | 2.66 ± 0.01 |
| ACW20 | 12.9 ± 0.12 | 7.55 ± 0.01 |
| ACW40 | 18.9 ± 0.02* | 11.0 ± 0.02* |
| ACW60 | 20.5 ± 0.01* | 11.6 ± 0.05* |
| ACW80 | 19.2 ± 0.03* | 11.1 ± 0.03* |
| Distilled water | 6.99 ± 0.41 | 1.16 ± 0.02 |
| 20% (v/v) EtOH | 4.25 ± 0.17 | 1.17 ± 0.00 |
| 40% (v/v) EtOH | 6.95 ± 0.03 | 3.46 ± 0.02 |
| 60% (v/v) EtOH | 13.1 ± 0.10 | 6.71 ± 0.03 |
| 80% (v/v) EtOH | 13.3 ± 0.04 | 7.80 ± 0.02 |
| Absolute EtOH | 4.95 ± 0.03 | 2.99 ± 0.01 |
All values are presented as the mean of three replicates ± standard deviation (mean ± SD). All samples were extracted using CA powders (0.1 g) and MAE conditions (20 s of radiation time, 450 W of microwave power, and 20 mL g−1 LS ratio). *Indicates that the extractive yield was significantly higher than those extracted using 80% (v/v) EtOH (p-value <0.05), which was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, followed by Tukey's honest test.
Fig. 1The extractive yields of madecassoside (MS) and asiaticoside (AS) obtained from the screening of MAE parameters for CCD experiments, including the effect of radiation time (a) with fixed 180 W and 20 mL g−1 LS ratio, microwave power (b) with fixed 10 s radiation time and 20 mL g−1 LS ratio, and liquid to solid ratio (c) with fixed 10 s radiation time and 180 W. The results obtained from triplicates (n = 3) of each extraction and SD are shown in the error bars.
ANOVA data of regression parameters of the central composition design experimenta
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of squares |
|
| Sum of squares |
|
| |
| Model | 113.66 | 15.54 | <0.0001* | 39.5 | 16.9 | < 0.0001* |
|
| 68.85 | 84.73 | <0.0001* | 22.48 | 86.54 | < 0.0001* |
|
| 0.6154 | 0.7573 | 0.4046 | 0.1747 | 0.6726 | 0.4313 |
|
| 8.64 | 10.63 | 0.0086* | 3.64 | 14.01 | 0.0038* |
|
| 0.3805 | 0.4682 | 0.5094 | 0.1572 | 0.6051 | 0.4547 |
|
| 4.96 | 6.11 | 0.033* | 2.34 | 8.99 | 0.0134* |
|
| 2.15 | 2.64 | 0.1349 | 0.9275 | 3.57 | 0.0881 |
|
| 1.45 | 1.78 | 0.2116 | 0.6556 | 2.52 | 0.1432 |
|
| 24.33 | 29.95 | 0.0003* | 8.3 | 31.94 | 0.0002* |
|
| 1.54 | 1.9 | 0.1983 | 0.5048 | 1.94 | 0.1935 |
| Residual | 8.13 | 2.6 | ||||
| Lack of fit | 1.58 | 0.2418 | 0.9273** | 0.5997 | 0.3002 | 0.8937** |
| Pure error | 6.54 | 2 | ||||
| Cor total | 121.79 | 42.1 | ||||
| Std. dev. | 0.9014 | 0.5097 | ||||
| Mean | 14.78 | 8.61 | ||||
| C.V. (%) | 6.1 | 5.92 | ||||
| PRESS | 22.37 | 7.96 | ||||
|
| 0.9333 | 0.9383 | ||||
| Adjusted | 0.8732 | 0.8828 | ||||
| Predicted | 0.8163 | 0.8109 | ||||
* Indicate the significance at p-value <0.05. ** Indicate the insignificance at p-value <0.05.
Fig. 2The 3D responses of extractive yields for madecassoside (MS, a) and asiaticoside (AS, b), which resulted from the effects of dependent factors, including the interaction between radiation time and microwave power (X1X2) (a1 and b1), radiation time and liquid to solid ratio (X1X3) (a2 and b2), and microwave power and liquid to solid ratio (X2X3) (a3 and b3).
Fig. 3Linear regression established between the actual and predicted values of the quadratic model for extractive yields of MS (a) and AS (b).
The prediction and validation value of the models
| Optimized condition | Predicted values | Experimental value | Prediction accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prediction accuracy (%) was calculated using the following equation: .
The absorbance of chlorophyll and antioxidant activity of CA extracted using NADESs and various conventional solvents
| Extracts | The absorbance | Antioxidant activity |
|---|---|---|
| Water | 0.348 | 1.50 mg mL−1 |
| 20% (v/v) EtOH | 0.400 | 0.37 mg mL−1 |
| 40% (v/v) EtOH | 0.165 | 0.44 mg mL−1 |
| 60% (v/v) EtOH | 0.391 | 0.40 mg mL−1 |
| 80% (v/v) EtOH | 1.709 | 0.99 mg mL−1 |
| Absolute EtOH | 2.033 | 4.30 mg mL−1 |
| AMW60 | 0.088 | 0.26 mg mL−1 |
| Rutin (positive control) | — | 34.8 μg mL−1 |
The absorbances of every extract were subtracted from the absorbances of their solvent as a blank.
The CA powders (0.1 g) were extracted using MAE (20 s of radiation time, 450 W of microwave power, and 20 mL g−1 LS ratio) and then prepared into various concentrations in 50% (v/v) EtOH as the working solution for the DPPH assay.