| Literature DB >> 35807408 |
Wantanwa Krongrawa1,2, Sontaya Limmatvapirat1,2, Supachai Saibua3, Chutima Limmatvapirat2,4.
Abstract
The major bioactive components of Kaempferia parviflora (KP) rhizomes, 3,5,7,3',4'-pentamethoxyflavone (PMF), 5,7-dimethoxyflavone (DMF), and 5,7,4'-trimethoxyflavone (TMF), were chosen as the quantitative and qualitative markers for this plant material. In order to extract bioactive components (total methoxyflavones) from KP rhizomes, ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) was proposed as part of this study. Plackett-Burman design (PBD) and Box-Behnken design (BBD) were utilized to optimize the effects of UAE on extraction yields and total methoxyflavone contents in KP rhizomes. First, PBD was utilized to determine the effect of five independent variables on total yields and total methoxyflavone contents. The results indicated that the concentration of the extracting solvent (ethanol), the extraction time, and the ratio of solvent to solid were significant independent terms. Subsequently, BBD with three-level factorial experiments was used to optimize the crucial variables. It was discovered that the concentration of ethanol was the most influential variable on yields and total methoxyflavone contents. Optimum conditions for extraction yield were ethanol concentration (54.24% v/v), extraction time (25.25 min), and solvent-to-solid ratio (49.63 mL/g), while optimum conditions for total methoxyflavone content were ethanol concentration (95.00% v/v), extraction time (15.99 min), and solvent-to-solid ratio (50.00 mL/g). The relationship between the experimental and theoretical values was perfect, which proved that the regression models used were correct and that PBD and BBD were used to optimize the conditions in the UAE to obtain the highest yield and total methoxyflavone content in the KP rhizomes.Entities:
Keywords: Box–Behnken design; Kaempferia parviflora; Plackett–Burman design; methoxyflavone; ultrasound-assisted extraction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807408 PMCID: PMC9268270 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27134162
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Independent variables and corresponding levels tested in PBD.
| Symbols | Independent Variables | Levels | |
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 (Low Level) | +1 (High Level) | ||
|
| Type of solvent | Methanol | Ethanol |
|
| Organic solvent concentration (% | 50 | 95 |
|
| Extraction time (min) | 5 | 30 |
|
| Extraction temperature (°C) | 30 | 80 |
|
| Solvent-to-solid ratio (mL/g) | 10 | 50 |
Independent variables and corresponding levels tested in BBD.
| Symbols | Independent Variables | Levels | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 (Low Level) | 0 (Center Level) | +1 (High Level) | ||
| x1 | Ethanol concentration (% | 50 | 72.5 | 95 |
| x2 | Solvent-to-solid ratio (mL/g) | 10 | 30 | 50 |
| x3 | Extraction time (min) | 5 | 17.5 | 30 |
Figure 1HPLC chromatograms of (A) PMF (20.10 µg/mL), DMF (20.05 µg/mL), and TMF (20.12 µg/mL) standards, (B) KP rhizome ethanol extract (1.27 mg/mL), (C) spiked KP rhizome ethanol extract containing PMF, DMF, and TMF (10 µg/mL), (D) KP rhizome methanol extract (1.05 mg/mL), and (E) spiked KP rhizome methanol extract containing PMF, DMF, and TMF (10 µg/mL) using UV detection at 254 nm.
Linearity, correlation coefficient (r2), limit of detection (LOD), and limit of quantitation (LOQ).
| Methoxyflavones | Linearity Range | Regression Equation | R2, | LOD | LOQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMF | 2.61–104.50 | Y = 46.8460x + 11.6360 | 0.9999 | 0.99 | 2.98 |
| DMF | 2.76–110.51 | Y = 95.4880x + 24.4180 | 0.9995 | 0.52 | 1.48 |
| TMF | 3.22–128.74 | Y = 33.4950x + 3.5629 | 0.9999 | 1.44 | 4.40 |
Y, peak area (mAU); x, concentration of analyte (μg/mL).
Accuracy and precision.
| Methoxyflavones | Accuracy, | Precision, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration | Intra-Day Precision | Inter-Day Precision (% RSD) | ||
| PMF | 109.00 ± 0.40–109.86 ± 3.72 | 2.61–104.50 | 0.06–0.29 | 0.34–1.70 |
| DMF | 92.23 ± 0.61–113.48 ± 0.51 | 2.76–110.51 | 0.06–0.46 | 1.17–3.15 |
| TMF | 92.41 ± 0.50–100.75 ± 0.88 | 3.22–128.74 | 0.03–0.95 | 0.52–1.83 |
Extraction yields and total methoxyflavone contents from KP rhizomes using Plackett–Burman design #.
| Run | Independent Variables | Dependent Variables (Responses) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x1 | x2
| x3
| x4 | x5 | Extraction Yields (%) | Total Methoxyflavone Contents | |
| 1 | Ethanol | 50 | 5 | 30 | 10 | 7.81 | 88.94 |
| 2 | Methanol | 50 | 30 | 70 | 50 | 16.64 | 104.19 |
| 3 | Ethanol | 95 | 5 | 70 | 50 | 6.49 | 255.38 |
| 4 | Methanol | 95 | 5 | 30 | 10 | 3.67 | 273.73 |
| 5 | Methanol | 95 | 30 | 30 | 10 | 7.70 | 286.44 |
| 6 | Methanol | 50 | 30 | 70 | 10 | 10.36 | 103.69 |
| 7 | Ethanol | 50 | 30 | 30 | 50 | 14.72 | 111.63 |
| 8 | Ethanol | 95 | 30 | 30 | 50 | 9.08 | 273.87 |
| 9 | Methanol | 50 | 5 | 30 | 50 | 10.22 | 83.56 |
| 10 | Ethanol | 50 | 5 | 70 | 10 | 9.27 | 95.73 |
| 11 | Methanol | 95 | 5 | 70 | 50 | 8.66 | 240.29 |
| 12 | Ethanol | 95 | 30 | 70 | 10 | 8.89 | 277.09 |
# Results were performed using Design Expert software: x1, type of solvent; x2, organic solvent concentration; x3, extraction time; x4, extraction temperature; x5, solvent-to-solid ratio.
Figure 2Pareto charts of optimization for dependent variables on the extraction yields (A) and total methoxyflavone contents (B).
ANOVA for the responses obtained from PBD screening.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F-Value | Significant | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 (Extraction yields) | |||||||
| Model | 119.35 | 5 | 23.87 | 13.69 | 0.0031 | Yes | |
| x1 | 0.08 | 1 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.8365 | No | |
| x2 | 50.05 | 1 | 50.05 | 28.70 | 0.0017 | Yes | |
| x3 | 37.71 | 1 | 37.71 | 21.62 | 0.0035 | Yes | |
| x4 | 4.22 | 1 | 4.22 | 2.42 | 0.1710 | No | |
| x5 | 27.30 | 1 | 27.30 | 15.65 | 0.0075 | Yes | |
| Residual | 10.46 | 6 | 1.74 | R2 = 0.9194 | |||
| Cor total | 129.82 | 11 | R2 (adj.) = 0.8522 | ||||
| Y2 (Total methoxyflavone contents) | |||||||
| Model | 88,146.13 | 5 | 17,629.23 | 293.68 | <0.0001 | Yes | |
| x1 | 9.61 | 1 | 9.61 | 0.16 | 0.7030 | No | |
| x2 | 86,537.84 | 1 | 86,537.84 | 1441.61 | <0.0001 | Yes | |
| x3 | 1185.45 | 1 | 1185.45 | 19.75 | 0.0044 | Yes | |
| x4 | 145.41 | 1 | 145.41 | 2.42 | 0.1706 | No | |
| x5 | 267.81 | 1 | 267.81 | 4.46 | 0.0791 | No | |
| Residual | 360.17 | 6 | 60.03 | R2 = 0.9259 | |||
| Cor total | 88,506.30 | 11 | R2 (adj.) = 0.9125 | ||||
BBD experimental combinations and their results of the extraction yields and total methoxyflavone contents #.
| Run | Independent Variables | Dependent Variables (Responses) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| x2 (% | x3 (min) | x5 (mL/g) | Y1
| Y2
| |
| 1 | 95 | 50 | 17.5 | 3.85 | 320.56 |
| 2 | 72.5 | 30 | 17.5 | 9.58 | 165.13 |
| 3 | 72.5 | 30 | 17.5 | 9.51 | 170.37 |
| 4 | 50 | 30 | 5 | 11.86 | 123.29 |
| 5 | 72.5 | 50 | 30 | 13.95 | 173.40 |
| 6 | 72.5 | 30 | 17.5 | 10.92 | 166.89 |
| 7 | 72.5 | 50 | 5 | 6.85 | 185.50 |
| 8 | 95 | 10 | 17.5 | 3.81 | 281.98 |
| 9 | 50 | 10 | 17.5 | 11.16 | 127.84 |
| 10 | 72.5 | 10 | 30 | 9.21 | 195.92 |
| 11 | 95 | 30 | 30 | 4.51 | 308.03 |
| 12 | 50 | 50 | 17.5 | 15.36 | 121.80 |
| 13 | 72.5 | 10 | 5 | 5.08 | 189.75 |
| 14 | 50 | 30 | 30 | 15.06 | 138.89 |
| 15 | 72.5 | 30 | 17.5 | 9.86 | 155.02 |
| 16 | 95 | 30 | 5 | 2.68 | 321.05 |
| 17 | 72.5 | 30 | 17.5 | 9.86 | 159.19 |
# Results were performed using Design Expert software: x2, ethanol concentration; x3, extraction time; x5, solvent-to-solid ratio.
Analysis of variance for the fitted polynomial models after eliminating non-significant terms.
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F-Value | Significant | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 (Extraction yields) | |||||||
| Model | 233.60 | 3 | 77.87 | 50.01 | <0.0001 | Yes | R2 = 0.9203 |
| x2 | 186.13 | 1 | 186.13 | 119.53 | <0.0001 | Yes | R2 (adj.) = 0.9019 |
| x3 | 14.45 | 1 | 14.45 | 9.28 | 0.0094 | Yes | Adeq. precision = 22.65 |
| x5 | 33.02 | 1 | 33.02 | 21.20 | 0.0005 | Yes | |
| Residual | 20.24 | 13 | 1.56 | ||||
| Lack of fit | 5.55 | 3 | 1.85 | 6.47 | 0.0566 | No | |
| Pure error | 1.30 | 4 | 0.33 | ||||
| Y2 (Total methoxyflavone contents) | |||||||
| Model | 74,317.50 | 3 | 18,579.37 | 139.70 | <0.0001 | Yes | R2 = 0.9790 |
| x2 | 64,770.84 | 1 | 64,770.84 | 487.02 | <0.0001 | Yes | R2 (adj.) = 0.9720 |
| x22 | 8007.07 | 1 | 8007.07 | 60.21 | <0.0001 | Yes | Adeq. precision = 31.50 |
| x32 | 1168.82 | 1 | 1168.82 | 8.79 | 0.0118 | Yes | |
| Residual | 1595.92 | 13 | 132.99 | ||||
| Lack of fit | 1444.30 | 9 | 180.54 | 4.76 | 0.0743 | No | |
| Pure error | 151.62 | 4 | 37.91 | ||||
Figure 3Three-dimensional response surface graphs representing the effect of process conditions on the yields.
Figure 4Three-dimensional response surface graphs representing the effect of process conditions on the total methoxyflavone contents.
Verification of the experimental results.
| Run | Total Yields (%) | Total Methoxyflavone Contents | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictive Value | Experimental Value | Error (%) | Predictive Value | Experimental Value | Error (%) | |
| 1 | 16.95 | 16.33 | 3.66 | 327.25 | 322.48 | 1.48 |
| 2 | 16.95 | 16.19 | 4.48 | 327.25 | 323.62 | 1.12 |
| 3 | 16.95 | 16.53 | 2.48 | 327.25 | 315.61 | 3.69 |
| 4 | 16.95 | 16.15 | 4.71 | 327.25 | 331.69 | 1.34 |
| 5 | 16.95 | 16.56 | 2.30 | 327.25 | 321.81 | 1.69 |