| Literature DB >> 35558788 |
Shiquan Qian1, Xiaohui Fang2, Demiao Dan3, Enjie Diao1, Zhaoxin Lu4.
Abstract
A novel water soluble polysaccharide from dragon fruit peel named DFPWSP-1 was isolated and purified and chemical analysis was performed. The results indicated that DFPWSP-1, with an average molecular weight of 2.98 × 102 kDa, mainly contained galacturonic acid, glucose and galactose. Then, a Box-Behnken design (BBD) was employed to optimize the ultrasonic-assisted enzymatic extraction (UAEE) of DFPWSP-1. The optimal extraction conditions for the maximum yield of DFPWSP-1 were a cellulase volume of 104 U, an enzymolysis time of 2.06 h, an ultrasonication power of 105 W and a ratio of solution to sample of 8.5 mL g-1. Under these conditions, the extraction yield of DFPWSP-1 was 20.28%. Furthermore, the polysaccharide DFPWSP-1 exhibited a significant scavenging activity of 2-diphenyl-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical, superoxide anion and hydroxyl radical. DFPWSP-1 may be a potential natural antioxidant in the food industry. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 35558788 PMCID: PMC9092055 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra06449k
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1GPC chromatogram of the polysaccharide DFPWSP-1. The molecular weight was calculated with GPC software.
Monosaccharide composition of the polysaccharide DFPWSP-1. All experiments were performed in triplicated and the data were expressed as mean ± SD. One-way analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the statistical difference
| Monosaccharide | Composition (%) |
|---|---|
| Glucose | 12.53 ± 0.25 |
| Fructose | 3.57 ± 0.06 |
| Arabinose | 4.26 ± 0.0.09 |
| Xylose | 1.79 ± 0.05 |
| Galactose | 11.47 ± 0.21 |
| Rhamnose | 9.24 ± 0.18 |
Fig. 2FT-IR spectra of the polysaccharide DFPWSP-1.
Fig. 3Effects of enzymolysis-ultrasonic assisted extraction conditions on the yield of DFPWSP-1. (A) Cellulase volume; (B) enzymolysis time; (C) ultrasonication power; (D) ratio of solution to sample. All experiments were performed in triplicated and the data were expressed as mean ± SD. One-way analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the statistical difference. Statistical significance was evaluated by Duncan's test. Differences at P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 were considered to be significant.
Box–Behnken design and results of the experimental values and predicted values for the DFPWSP-1 yield
| Standard run | Cellulase volume ( | Enzymolysis time ( | Ultrasonication power ( | Ratio of solution to sample ( | DFPWSP-1 yield ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual | Predicted | |||||
| 1 | −1 (75) | −1 (1.5) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 16.21 | 16.26 |
| 2 | 1 (125) | −1 (1.5) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 17.51 | 17.59 |
| 3 | −1 (75) | 1 (2.5) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 16.53 | 16.48 |
| 4 | 1 (125) | 1 (2.5) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 18.04 | 18.02 |
| 5 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | −1 (80) | −1 (6) | 17.12 | 17.16 |
| 6 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | 1 (120) | −1 (6) | 18.28 | 18.01 |
| 7 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | −1 (80) | 1 (10) | 17.48 | 17.78 |
| 8 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | 1 (120) | 1 (10) | 19.74 | 19.74 |
| 9 | −1 (75) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | −1 (6) | 15.76 | 15.89 |
| 10 | 1 (125) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | −1 (6) | 17.12 | 17.18 |
| 11 | −1 (75) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | 1 (10) | 16.83 | 16.92 |
| 12 | 1 (125) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | 1 (10) | 18.48 | 18.50 |
| 13 | 0 (100) | −1 (1.5) | −1 (80) | 0 (8) | 17.51 | 17.25 |
| 14 | 0 (100) | 1 (2.5) | −1 (80) | 0 (8) | 17.37 | 17.63 |
| 15 | 0 (100) | −1 (1.5) | 1 (120) | 0 (8) | 18.82 | 18.71 |
| 16 | 0 (100) | 1 (2.5) | 1 (120) | 0 (8) | 18.57 | 18.98 |
| 17 | −1 (75) | 0 (2) | −1 (80) | 0 (8) | 16.90 | 16.71 |
| 18 | 1 (125) | 0 (2) | −1 (80) | 0 (8) | 18.16 | 18.01 |
| 19 | −1 (75) | 0 (2) | 1 (120) | 0 (8) | 18.01 | 17.98 |
| 20 | 1 (125) | 0 (2) | 1 (120) | 0 (8) | 19.54 | 19.55 |
| 21 | 0 (100) | −1 (1.5) | 0 (100) | −1 (6) | 16.97 | 17.20 |
| 22 | 0 (100) | 1 (2.5) | 0 (100) | −1 (6) | 16.21 | 16.02 |
| 23 | 0 (100) | −1 (1.5) | 0 (100) | 1 (10) | 16.86 | 16.87 |
| 24 | 0 (100) | 1 (2.5) | 0 (100) | 1 (10) | 19.12 | 18.71 |
| 25 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 20.24 | 20.08 |
| 26 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 19.85 | 20.08 |
| 27 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 20.23 | 20.08 |
| 28 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 19.85 | 20.08 |
| 29 | 0 (100) | 0 (2) | 0 (100) | 0 (8) | 20.21 | 20.08 |
ANOVA for response surface quadratic model of the yield of DFPWSP-1a
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 49.84 | 14 | 3.56 | 49.17 | <0.0001** |
|
| 6.18 | 1 | 6.18 | 85.34 | <0.0001** |
|
| 0.32 | 1 | 0.32 | 4.42 | 0.0540 |
|
| 5.91 | 1 | 5.91 | 81.61 | <0.0001** |
|
| 4.14 | 1 | 4.14 | 57.22 | <0.0001** |
|
| 0.011 | 1 | 0.011 | 0.15 | 0.7022 |
|
| 0.018 | 1 | 0.018 | 0.25 | 0.6236 |
|
| 0.021 | 1 | 0.021 | 0.29 | 0.5984 |
|
| 3.025 × 10−3 | 1 | 3.025 × 10−3 | 0.042 | 0.8410 |
|
| 2.28 | 1 | 2.28 | 31.50 | <0.0001** |
|
| 0.30 | 1 | 0.30 | 4.18 | 0.0602 |
|
| 15.24 | 1 | 15.24 | 210.46 | <0.0001** |
|
| 13.71 | 1 | 13.71 | 189.39 | <0.0001** |
|
| 1.50 | 1 | 1.50 | 20.76 | 0.0004** |
|
| 13.13 | 1 | 13.13 | 181.34 | <0.0001** |
| Residual | 1.01 | 14 | 0.072 | ||
| Lack of fit | 0.84 | 10 | 0.084 | 1.97 | 0.2675 |
| Pure error | 0.17 | 4 | 0.043 | ||
| Cor total | 50.85 | 28 | |||
|
| 0.9801 | ||||
|
| 0.9601 | ||||
| C.V.% | 1.49 |
** Significant (P < 0.05).
Fig. 4Response-surface plots and contour plots of enzymolysis-ultrasonic assisted extraction conditions on the DFPWSP-1 yield. (A) Interactive effects between cellulase volume (X1) and enzymolysis time (X2); (B) interactive effects between cellulase volume (X1) and ultrasonication power (X3); (C) interactive effects between cellulase volume (X1) and ratio of solution to sample (X4); (D) interactive effects between enzymolysis time (X2) and ultrasonication power (X3); (E) interactive effects between enzymolysis time (X2) and ratio of solution to sample (X4); (F) interactive effects between ultrasonication power (X3) and ratio of solution to sample (X4). All experiments were performed in triplicated and the data were expressed as mean ± SD. Statistical significance was evaluated by Duncan's test. Differences at P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 were considered to be significant.
Fig. 5Radical scavenging assays of the polysaccharide DFPWSP-1. (A) DPPH radical scavenging activity; (B) hydroxyl radical scavenging activity; (C) superoxide anion radical scavenging activity. All experiments were performed in triplicated and the data were expressed as mean ± SD. One-way analysis of variance was performed to evaluate the statistical difference. Statistical significance was evaluated by Duncan's test. Differences at P < 0.05 or P < 0.01 were considered to be significant.