| Literature DB >> 35745448 |
Xiaonan Zhang1,2, Yan Huang1, Yufei Shi1, Mengyu Chen1, Lubin Zhang1,2, Yimin An1, Zhiwei Liu1,2.
Abstract
Raw naringenin directly isolated from plants is significantly limited by its poor dissolution rate and low bioavailability for clinical and in vivo studies. This study reported a method for the preparation of naringenin ultrafine powder (NUP) using a novel anti-solvent recrystallization process; preliminary experiments were conducted using six single-factor experiments. The response surface Box-Behnken (BBD) design was used to optimize the level of factors. The optimal preparation conditions of the DMP were obtained as follows: the feed rate was 40.82 mL/min, the solution concentration was 20.63 mg/mL, and the surfactant ratio was 0.62%. The minimum average particle size was 305.58 ± 0.37 nm in the derived optimum conditions. A scanning electron microscope was used to compare and analyze the appearance and morphology of the powder before and after preparation. The characterization results of FTIR, TG and XRD showed that no chemical change occurred in the powder before and after preparation. Through the simulated gastrointestinal juice digestion experiment, it was confirmed that the absorption rate of NUP was 2.96 times and 4.05 times higher than raw naringenin, respectively. Therefore, the results showed that the reduction in the particle size through the use of low-speed recrystallization could improve the absorption rate and provided a feasible approach for the further applications.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; antisolvent recrystallization; naringenin; powder properties
Year: 2022 PMID: 35745448 PMCID: PMC9231401 DOI: 10.3390/nano12122108
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.719
Figure 1Antisolvent recrystallization under low-speed homogenate process (includes sampling system, reaction system and sterling system). Reprinted from ref. [22].
Influencing factors and the corresponding levels (L).
| Factors | Unit | L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | Percentage of surfactants | % | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1 |
| X2 | Solution concentration | mg/mL | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 |
| X3 | Nozzle size | μm | 200 | 300 | 400 | 500 | 600 |
| X4 | Homogenization speed | r/min | 1000 | 1500 | 2000 | 2500 | 3000 |
| X5 | Liquid-liquid ratio | mL/mL | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
| X6 | Feed speed | mL/min | 9 | 18 | 27 | 36 | 45 |
Figure 2Influence of various factors on NUP size ((a): surfactant %, (b): concentration mg/mL, (c): nozzle diameter μm, (d): homogenizer speed r/min, (e): liquid-liquid ratio, (f): feed rate mL/min). The different letters (a–e) indicate significant differences among all samples (p < 0.05).
Box–Behnken design (BBD) with the experimental value for NUP size (nm), analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the response surface quadratic model, and fit statistics for the response values.
| No | BBD Experiments | ANOVA | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Source | Sum of Squares | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Value | ||||
| 1 | 0.3 | 15 | 40 | 307.03 | Model | 17,849.04 | 9 | 1983.23 | 2850.28 | <0.0001 ** | ||
| 2 | 0.7 | 15 | 40 | 388.68 |
| 2071.75 | 1 | 2071.75 | 2977.51 | <0.0001 ** | ||
| 3 | 0.3 | 25 | 40 | 329.38 |
| 2315.40 | 1 | 2315.40 | 3327.68 | <0.0001 ** | ||
| 4 | 0.7 | 25 | 40 | 395.99 |
| 272.61 | 1 | 272.61 | 391.80 | <0.0001 ** | ||
| 5 | 0.3 | 20 | 35 | 370.65 |
| 19.98 | 1 | 19.05 | 27.38 | 0.0012 | ||
| 6 | 0.7 | 20 | 35 | 307.11 |
| 7.32 | 1 | 7.32 | 10.52 | 0.0142 | ||
| 7 | 0.3 | 20 | 45 | 305.69 |
| 6.68 | 1 | 6.68 | 9.60 | 0.0173 | ||
| 8 | 0.7 | 20 | 45 | 368.21 |
| 1073 | 1 | 1079.75 | 1551.81 | <0.0001 ** | ||
| 9 | 0.5 | 15 | 35 | 362.89 |
| 7551 | 1 | 7567.28 | 10,875.66 | <0.0001 ** | ||
| 10 | 0.5 | 25 | 35 | 305.97 |
| 3333 | 1 | 3344.52 | 4806.73 | <0.0001 ** | ||
| 11 | 0.5 | 15 | 45 | 365.89 | Residual | 4.81 | 7 | 0.70 | ||||
| 12 | 0.5 | 25 | 45 | 367.98 | Lack of fit | 3.32 | 3 | 1.11 | 2.85 | 0.1688 | ||
| 13 | 0.5 | 20 | 40 | 306.53 | Pure error | 1.55 | 4 | 0.39 | ||||
| 14 | 0.5 | 20 | 40 | 398.98 | Corrected total | 17,853.91 | 16 | |||||
| 15 | 0.5 | 20 | 40 | 352.51 | Credibility analysis of the regression equations | |||||||
| 16 | 0.5 | 20 | 40 | 327.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 17 | 0.5 | 20 | 40 | 341.13 | 0.83 | 347.21 | 0.24 | 0.9997 | 0.9994 | 0.9969 | 144.015 | |
X1: Percentage of surfactants; X2: solution concentration; X3: feed speed. Y: APS. “**”: extremely Significant.
Figure 3Response surface optimization of NUP particle size (optimization of concentration, surfactant and feed speed factors and levels). (a): Effect of concentration and surfactant on particle size, (b): The effects of feed speed and concentration on particle size, and (c): The effects of feed speed and surfactant on particle size.
Figure 4The morphology of raw naringenin (a) and NUP (b) under a scanning electron microscope.
Figure 5Comparison of raw naringenin (A) and NUP (B) under X-ray diffraction conditions.
Figure 6Comparison of raw naringenin (A) and NUP (B) under FTIR conditions.
Figure 7DSC curves of raw naringenin (A) and NUP (B).
Figure 8Cumulative release of the naringenin simples in (a) the simulated gastric fluid and (b) the simulated intestinal fluid.