| Literature DB >> 35889202 |
Mohamed Ibrahim Younis1,2, Xiaofeng Ren1, Azalldeen Kazal Alzubaidi3, Khaled Fahmy Mahmoud4, Ammar B Altemimi5,6, Francesco Cacciola7, Husnain Raza1,8, Anubhav Pratap-Singh9, Tarek Gamal Abedelmaksoud2.
Abstract
The total phenolic content (TPC) from Cassia javanica L. petals were extracted using ethanolic solvent extraction at concentrations ranging from 0 to 90% and an SCF-CO2 co-solvent at various pressures. Ultrasound-assisted extraction parameters were optimized using response surface methodology (RSM). Antioxidant and anticancer properties of total phenols were assessed. An SCF-CO2 co-solvent extract was nano-encapsulated and applied to sunflower oil without the addition of an antioxidant. The results indicated that the best treatment for retaining TPC and total flavonoids content (TFC) was SCF-CO2 co-solvent followed by the ultrasound and ethanolic extraction procedures. Additionally, the best antioxidant activity by β-carotene/linoleic acid and DPPH free radical-scavenging test systems was observed by SCF-CO2 co-solvent then ultrasound and ethanolic extraction methods. SCF-CO2 co-solvent recorded the highest inhibition % for PC3 (76.20%) and MCF7 (98.70%) and the lowest IC50 value for PC3 (145 µ/mL) and MCF7 (96 µ/mL). It was discovered that fortifying sunflower oil with SCF-CO2 co-solvent nanoparticles had a beneficial effect on free fatty acids and peroxide levels. The SCF-CO2 method was finally found to be superior and could be used in large-scale processing.Entities:
Keywords: Cassia javanica; SCF-CO2; antioxidant; nano-encapsulated; β-carotene/linoleic acid
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889202 PMCID: PMC9320193 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144329
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Effect of ethanol% on the TPC extraction from CJPD.
Figure 2(a) Effect of ultrasound parameters (sonication time (factor A) and sonication power (factor B)) on the TPC–response surface and contour plots; (b) perturbation plot showing the relative significance of factors on the TPC values.
The experimental design used and values of the response.
| Run | S-Time * (min) | S-Power * (watt) | TPC (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 250 | 83.05 ± 0.22 |
| 2 | 10 | 250 | 90.25 ± 0.15 |
| 3 | 5 | 150 | 83.83 ± 0.18 |
| 4 | 17 | 250 | 98.42 ± 0.12 |
| 5 | 5 | 400 | 99.95 ± 0.15 |
| 6 | 10 | 250 | 92.56 ± 0.20 |
| 7 | 10 | 150 | 88.36 ± 0.11 |
| 8 | 15 | 150 | 92.08 ± 0.22 |
| 9 | 3 | 250 | 82.88 ± 0.25 |
| 10 | 10 | 250 | 90.32 ± 0.28 |
| 11 | 15 | 400 | 109.24 ± 0.21 |
| 12 | 10 | 250 | 88.9 ± 0.13 |
| 13 | 10 | 450 | 113.5 ± 0.24 |
* S-Time: Sonication time; S-power: Sonication power.
Regression coefficients of the fitted second-order polynomials representing the relationship between the responses and variables.
| Source | Squares | Df | Square | Value | Prob > F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 1089.05 | 5 | 217.81 | 141.26 | <0.0001 | significant |
| A-S-Time | 228.20 | 1 | 228.20 | 148.00 | <0.0001 | |
| B-S-power | 162.50 | 1 | 162.50 | 105.39 | <0.0001 | |
| AB | 0.074 | 1 | 0.074 | 0.048 | 0.8332 | |
| A2 | 0.14 | 1 | 0.14 | 0.092 | 0.7703 | |
| B2 | 85.71 | 1 | 85.71 | 55.59 | 0.0001 | |
| Residual | 10.79 | 7 | 1.54 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 3.88 | 3 | 1.29 | 0.75 | 0.5773 | Not significant |
| Pure Error | 6.91 | 4 | 1.73 | |||
| Cor Total | 1099.85 | 12 | ||||
| Std. Dev. | 1.24 | R2 | 0.9902 | |||
| Mean | 93.33 | Adj R2 | 0.9832 | |||
| C.V. % | 1.33 | Pred R2 | 0.9606 | |||
| PRESS | 43.32 | Adeq Precision | 35.282 |
Predicted and actual values of TPC and TFC treated by the optimum ultrasound conditions.
| Treatment | TPC (mg/g) | TFC (mg QE/g) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted Value | Actual Value | ||
| Ethanol 60% | - | 92.1 | 67.43 |
| Sonication (15 min, 400 watt) | 110.147 | 112.89 | 82.54 |
| SCF-CO2 | - | 177.58 | 139.85 |
Figure 3Effect of SCF-CO2 co-solvent pressure on TPC of CJPD.
Total phenolic compounds and identification of phenolic compounds.
| Compounds | Solvent Extraction (mg/kg) | Ultrasound (mg/kg) | SCF-CO2 (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pyrogallol | 25.23 ± 0.05 b | 16.44 ± 0.04 c | 80.19 ± 0.06 a |
| Gallic acid | - | 19.82 ± 0.03 a | - |
| Catechol | 143.72 ± 0.07 b | 227.16 ± 0.05 a | - |
| 66.63 ± 0.09 c | 124.96 ± 0.07 b | 1981.65 ± 0.04 a | |
| Chlorogenic | 1.91 ± 0.03 c | 4.95 ± 0.05 b | 45.81 ± 0.07 a |
| Vanillic acid | 13.48 ± 0.02 c | 53.95 ± 0.02 b | 314.39 ± 0.06 a |
| Syringic acid | 10.08 ± 0.05 c | 26.57 ± 0.03 b | 423.23 ± 0.04 a |
| Benzoic acid | 297.22 ± 0.01 c | 383.09 ± 0.06 b | 5478.37 ± 0.05 a |
| Ferulic acid | 6.14 ± 0.08 c | 8.20 ± 0.05 b | 20.79 ± 0.06 a |
| Rutin | 238.11 ± 0.02 c | 497.16 ± 0.04 b | 4891.56 ± 0.05 a |
| Ellagic | 32.14 ± 0.03 a | 29.56 ± 0.08 b | - |
| o-Coumaric acid | - | - | 18.17 ± 0.07 a |
| Cinnamic acid | - | - | 9.61 ± 0.05 a |
| Quercitin | 1315.75 ± 0.04 c | 2980.92 ± 0.05 b | 50,018.10 ± 0.08 a |
| Rosemarinic | 202.43 ± 0.03 b | 656.39 ± 0.04 a | - |
| Myricetin | 13.78 ± 0.02 c | 19.67 ± 0.02 b | 421.88 ± 0.05 a |
| Kampherol | 23.62 ± 0.01 b | 2.45 ± 0.07 c | 47.51 ± 0.02 a |
Statistically significant difference shown levels a, b, c compared with same column (p ≤ 0.05); data are means ± S.D. (n = 3).
Figure 4(A) and (B) Anticancer effect of Cassia javanica petals extract treated by ethanol, ultrasound, and SCF-CO2. IC50: Lethal concentration of the sample which causes the death of 50% of cells in 48 h; PC3: Prostate cell line; MCF7: Human Caucasian breast adenocarcinoma, Positive control Adriamycin (Doxorubicin). a–d different superscripts in a column were significantly different (p < 0.05); data are means ± S.D. (n = 3).
Figure 5Antioxidant activity by (A) β-carotene/linoleic acid assay (inhibition ratio %); (B) DPPH assay of CJDP treated samples. BHT was used as a positive control. a–d different superscripts in a column were significantly different (p < 0.05); data are means ± S.D. (n = 3).
Figure 6Changes of FFA (A) and PV (B) of fortified sunflower oil compared with control samples. I %: Relative Increase % of FFA or PV after 15 h of frying at 3 days; a-d different superscripts in a column were significantly different (p < 0.05) values are mean ± S.D. for triplicate determinations.