| Literature DB >> 36076826 |
Fazia Braham1,2, Luísa M P F Amaral2,3, Krzysztof Biernacki2, Daniel O Carvalho3, Luis F Guido3, Júlia M C S Magalhães2, Farid Zaidi1, Hiléia K S Souza2,4, Maria P Gonçalves2.
Abstract
In this work, a qualitative study of the phenolic content of Moringa oleifera leaves (MO), extracted with deep eutectic solvents (DES) based on choline chloride (ChCl) with lactic acid (LA) or glycerol (GLY), was performed by high-resolution mass spectrometry (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn). The two solvents (DES-LA and DES-GLY) extract similar classes of phenolics, and ten compounds were identified. The antioxidant profile was also studied (TPC, TFC, DPPH, FRAP, ORAC, and ABTS). Both solvents show an efficient extraction of phenolic compounds and high antioxidant capacity was verified for the extracts. However, the DES-Gly have a higher capacity for polyphenolic extraction (TPC led to 38.409 ± 0.095 mg GAE.g-1 and 2.259 ± 0.023 mg QE.g-1 for TFC). Films based on methylcellulose (MC) containing different amounts of DES or MO extracts, acting as plasticizers, were developed and characterized regarding their mechanical, optical, water vapor permeability, and microstructural properties. All films are uniform, clear, and transparent with smooth, homogeneous surfaces. It was found that the presence of more than 10% of MO extract and/or DES provided more flexible films (Eb for MC 2%_DES 20% achieved 4.330 ± 0.27 %, and 8.15 ± 0.39 % for MC 2%_MO 20%) with less mechanical and barrier resistance. The ultimate objective of this study was to provide information that could assist in the development of antimicrobial active methylcellulose films for sliced wheat bread packaging.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn analysis; Moringa oleifera leaf extracts; antioxidant capacity; deep eutectic solvents; mechanical and optical properties; methylcellulose films; water vapor permeability
Year: 2022 PMID: 36076826 PMCID: PMC9455762 DOI: 10.3390/foods11172641
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Composition of films. (wt% per dried MC amount).
| Sample | Methylcellulose % | DES (ChCl:Gly, 1:2) % | MO ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| MC 2% | 2 | - | - |
| MC 2%-DES 10% | 2 | 10 | - |
| MC 2%-DES 20% | 2 | 20 | - |
| MC 2%-MO 10% | 2 | - | 10 |
| MC 2%-MO 20% | 2 | - | 20 |
Phenolic compounds (TPC and TFC) and antioxidant capacity (DPPH, FRAP, ABTS, and ORAC).
| Samples | TPC | TFC | DPPH | FRAP | ORAC | ABTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mg GAE⋅g−1) | (mg QE⋅g−1) | (mmol TE⋅g−1) | (mmol TE⋅g−1) | (mmol TE⋅g−1) | (PI) | |
| ChCl/LA1:2 | 28.314 ± 0.146 b | 1.595 ± 0.023 b | 0.176 ± 0.022 b | 0.469 ± 0.003 a | 2.107 ± 0.003 a | 55.529 ± 0.267 b |
| ChCl/GLY1:2 | 38.409 ± 0.095 a | 2.259 ± 0.023 a | 0.294 ± 0.010 a | 0.361 ± 0.017 b | 1.200 ± 0.066 b | 92.614 ± 0.085 a |
Results are expressed as mean ± SD per gram of sample. Different superscript letters in the same column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 1HPLC-UV chromatograms of M. oleifera extracts prepared with DES (with LA and GLY) detected at 280 nm. Peaks are tentatively identified in Table 2.
Retention times, absorption maxima, and characteristic ions of tentatively identified compounds in M. oleifera extracts by HPLC-ESI-DAD-MSn.
| Peak | Rt | λmax | [M-H]- | MSn fragments | Identification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||||
| 1 | 24.6 | 325 | 353 | 191, 179, 135 | 3-Caffeoylquinic acid |
| 2 | 33.1 | 310 | 337 | 191, 173, 163 | p-Coumaroylquinicacid |
| 3 * | 40.5 | 325 | 353 | 191, 179, 135 | 5-Caffeoylquinic acid |
| 4 | 52.4 | 271, 334 | 593 | 575, 503, 473, 383, 353 | Apigenin 6,8-di-C-glucoside |
| 5 | 62.5 | 268, 337 | 431 | 341, 311, 283 | Vitexin/isovitexin |
| 6 | 65.5 | 271, 337 | 431 | 341, 311, 283 | Vitexin/isovitexin |
| 7 * | 69.1 | 256, 290sh, 355 | 609 | 301, 179, 151 | Rutin |
| 8 | 72.8 | 265, 290sh, 350 | 447 | 327, 285 | Kaempferol-3-O-glucoside |
| 9 | 73.1 | 253, 290sh, 355 | 593 | 285 | Kaempferol-3-O-glucoside-7-rhamnoside |
| 10 | 76.5 | 264, 289sh, 346 | 533 | 489, 447, 285 | Kaempferol-3-O-malonylglucoside |
* Compounds were identified by comparison with reference standards.
Color parameters and opacity of the different Methylcellulose films (Opacity, L*, a*, b* and ΔE*).
| Material | Opacity (%) | L* | a* | b* | ΔE* |
| MC 2% | 0.64 ± 0.07 a | 93.66 ± 0.20 a | 0.25 ± 0.04 a | 2.48 ± 0.18 a | 2.62 ± 0.09 a |
| MC 2%_DES 10% | 0.62 ± 0.06 b | 93.67 ± 0.06 a | 0.25 ± 0.03 a | 2.46 ± 0.18 a | 2.66 ± 0.04 a |
| MC 2%_DES 20% | 0.48 ± 0.03 c | 93.33 ± 0.14 b | 0.58 ± 0.09 b | 2.02 ± 0.06 b | 2.99 ± 0.14 b |
| MC 2%_MO 10% | 0.53 ± 0.02 d | 93.53 ± 0.14 a | 0.40 ± 0.02 | 2.14 ± 0.19 c | 2.78 ± 0.14 a |
| MC 2%_MO 20% | 0.97 ± 0.06 e | 93.25 ± 0.08 b | 0.53 ± 0.08 b | 2.06 ± 0.13 b,c | 3.04 ± 0.07 b |
Same letters in the same column indicate that values are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Film thickness (d) and mechanical properties (tensile strength, TS; elongation at break, Eb; and elastic modulus, YM) and water vapor permeability (WVP) for the methylcellulose films.
| Material | d/(mm) | TS/(MPa) | Eb/(%) | YM/(MPa) | WVP∙10−10/ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MC 2% | 0.020 ± 0.001 a | 24.30 ± 1.7 a | 2.455 ± 0.31 a | 32.87 ± 1.0 | 1.40 ± 0.002 |
| MC 2%_DES 10% | 0.018 ± 0.002 a | 23.97 ± 1.7 a | 3.290 ± 0.35 a,b,c | 28.65 ± 0.95 | 1.70 ± 0.028 a |
| MC 2%_DES 20% | 0.019 ± 0.002 a | 20.84 ± 1.6 b | 4.330 ± 0.27 b | 22.26 ± 1.3 | 1.71 ± 0.074 a |
| MC 2%_MO 10% | 0.021 ± 0.002 a | 21.74 ± 1.3 c | 3.850 ± 0.79 c | 20.5 ± 0.47 a | 2.02 ± 0.039 b |
| MC 2%_MO 20% | 0.019 ± 0.001 a | 21.72 ± 0.71 b,c | 8.15 ± 0.39 | 18.02 ± 2.8 a | 2.00 ± 0.026 b |
Same letters in the same column indicate that values are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Figure 2SEM micrographs of all studied film samples (magnification 10,000×, 5.00 kV). (a) Pure MC 2%, (b) MC 2%_DES 10%, (c) MC 2%_DES 20%, (d) MC 2%_MO 10%, (e) MC2%_MO 20%.
Figure 3SEM images of cryo-fractured cross section (magnification 5000×, 10.00 kV). (a) Pure MC 2%, (b) MC 2%_DES 10%, (c) MC 2%_DES 20%, (d) MC 2%_MO 10%, (e) MC 2%_MO 20%.
Figure 4Growth of fungi naturally present in wheat bread: (a,e,i) control (unwrapped), (b,f,j) wrapped with MC 2% film, (c,g,k) wrapped with MC 2%_DES 10% film, (d,h,l) wrapped with MC 2%_MO 10% film. (a–d, after 6 days; e–h, after 7 days; i–l, after 11 days).
Firmness of sliced bread.
| Day | Bread (N·mm−1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | MC | MC_DES | MC_MO | |
| 0 | 1.03 ± 0.05 a | |||
| 1 | 0.97 ± 0.04 a | 0.96 ± 0.08 | 0.91 ± 0.06 | 1.34 ± 0.03 a |
| 4 | 1.59 ± 0.12 | 1.88 ± 0.08 a | 1.44 ± 0.05 | 1.35 ± 0.11 a |
| 7 | 1.94 ± 0.04 b | 1.94 ± 0.05 a | 1.58 ± 0.08 | 2.16 ± 0.10 |
| 11 | 1.99 ± 0.02 b | 1.95 ± 0.10 a | 2.14 ± 0.11 | 2.51 ± 0.04 |
Same letters in the same column indicate that values are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Weight loss of sliced bread (%).
| Sample | Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 7 | 11 | |
| Control | 0.48 | 0.66 | 0.86 | 1.35 |
| MC 2% | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.35 | 0.68 |
| MC 2% _DES 10% | 0.18 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.66 |
| MC 2% _MO 10% | 0.17 | 0.52 | 0.69 | 2.01 |