| Literature DB >> 36131779 |
Krisada Wuttikul1, Mathukorn Sainakham2,3.
Abstract
Curcuma aromatica (CA) is a herbaceous plant in the Zingiberaceae family. It has antioxidative activity and anti-inflammatory properties. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of solvents and extraction methods on CA rhizomes. The crude extracts were tested for phenolic and flavonoid contents, antioxidative activity by DPPH and lipid peroxidation assay, and protein denaturation inhibition. The crude extracts with 95% ethanol by maceration technique showed good results. It had phenolic content at 99.28 ± 1.09 mg GAE/g extract, flavonoid content at 397.00 ± 27.54 mg QE/g extract, antioxidative activity by DPPH assay and lipid peroxidation assay at IC50 value of 0.55 ± 0.02 mg/ml and 0.60 ± 0.10 mg/ml, respectively. The percentage of protein denaturation inhibition was 65.97 ± 4.68%. The crude extract with 95% ethanol by maceration technique was selected to formulate nanoemulsion. Nanoemulsion formulation consisted of DI water, Tween 80, CA extract, coconut oil and Span 80 at 72.50, 12.93, 7.07, 5.00 and 2.5%w/w, respectively. Its appearance was an opaque yellow liquid with no precipitation and no phase separation at room temperature. The particle size, pH, and viscosity were 70.20 ± 0.38 nm, 5.87 ± 0.01 and 3.56 ± 0.24 cP, respectively. Nanoemulsion loaded CA extract had bioactivities and highly stable characteristics after heating-cooling test for 6 cycles. This study has demonstrated the potential of nanoemulsion from coconut oil loaded CA extract for further development to novel cosmetic products.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant activity; Coconut oil; Curcuma aromatica; Nanoemulsion; Phenolic compounds; Protein denaturation inhibition
Year: 2022 PMID: 36131779 PMCID: PMC9483620 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2022.103435
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.052
The ingredients of blank nanoemulsion formulation.
| Ingredient | INCI name | Function | Formulation (%w/w) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | |||
| DI water | Aqua | Solvent | 80 | 77.5 | 75 | 72.5 | 75 | 72.5 | 70 | 67.5 |
| Coconut oil | Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil | Emollient | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Tween 80 | Polysorbate 80 | Emulsifier | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Span 80 | Sorbitan Oleate | Emulsifier | – | 2.5 | 5 | 7.5 | – | 2.5 | 5 | 7.5 |
The amount of water added in the formula was just enough to make the formula equal to 100%w/w.
The percentage yields, total phenolic and total flavonoid content determination of C. aromatica extracts.
| Sample | Appearance and color | Percentage yield (%) | Total phenolic content | Total flavonoid content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEC95 | Semisolid in yellow | 11.50 | 94.93 ± 1.65 | 324.50 ± 26.02 |
| HEC50 | Semisolid in brown | 12.50 | 40.43 ± 4.52 | 97.83 ± 5.77 |
| HECD | Solid in dark brown | 10.60 | 23.91 ± 0.43 | 7.01 ± 1.44 |
| MTC95 | Semisolid in light brown | 10.45 | 99.28 ± 1.09 | 397.00 ± 27.54 |
| MTC50 | Semisolid in light brown | 17.15 | 40.14 ± 3.26 | 104.50 ± 1.44 |
| MTCD | Semisolid in dark brown | 13.40 | 14.93 ± 0.25 | 5.33 ± 0.01 |
Note: HE = Hot extraction, MT = Maceration, CC. aromatica., 95 = 95% ethanol, 50 = 50% ethanol, D = DI water.
Percentage yield (%) = [Dried extract weight (g)/ Dried C. aromatica weight (g)] × 100.
Free radical scavenging, lipid peroxidation inhibition and protein denaturation inhibition activity of C. aromatica extracts.
| Sample | Free radical scavenging | Lipid peroxidation inhibition | Protein denaturation inhibition | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 (mg/ml) | Folds of | IC50 (mg/ml) | Folds of | (%) | Folds of Diclofenac | |
| RFC95 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 0.02 | ND | – | 80.67 ± 8.16 | 2.72 |
| RFC50 | 0.78 ± 0.06 | 0.01 | ND | – | 16.26 ± 9.07 | 0.55 |
| RFCD | 1.31 ± 0.17 | 0.008 | 2.16 ± 0.15 | 0.02 | ND | – |
| MTC95 | 0.57 ± 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.60 ± 0.10 | 0.08 | 65.97 ± 4.68 | 2.22 |
| MTC50 | 0.95 ± 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.24 | 0.06 | 57.86 ± 0.25 | 1.95 |
| MTCD | 2.43 ± 0.40 | 0.004 | 1.95 ± 0.23 | 0.03 | 8.87 ± 2.13 | 0.30 |
| 0.01 ± 0.01 | – | 0.05 ± 0.01 | – | – | – | |
| Diclofenac | – | – | – | – | 29.64 ± 3.50 | – |
Note: ND = Not detected.
The preliminary investigation of particle size and appearance of nanoemulsion formulation kept for 1, 24 and 72 h.
| Formulation | After 1 h | After 24 h | After 72 h | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (nm) | PDI | Size (nm) | PDI | ||
| BN3 | 105 | 0.57 | 112.5 | 0.48 | Phase separation |
| BN4 | 28.84 | 0.84 | 33.76 | 0.87 | Clear dispersibility and no phase separation |
| BN5 | 93.27 | 0.30 | 87.49 | 0.47 | Clear dispersibility and no phase separation |
| BN6 | 96.61 | 0.30 | 97.92 | 0.32 | No phase separation |
| BN13 | 47.90 | 0.67 | 50.60 | 0.69 | Clear dispersibility and no phase separation |
| BN14 | 11.55 | 0.52 | 14.59 | 0.56 | Clear dispersibility and no phase separation |
| BN15 | 61.31 | 0.55 | 62.02 | 0.54 | Clear dispersibility and no phase separation |
| BN16 | 109.10 | 0.29 | 102.2 | 0.27 | Phase separation |
Note: B = Blank; N = Nanoemulsion.
The ingredients of nanoemulsion loaded C. aromatica extract.
| Ingredient | INCI name | Function | Formulation (%w/w) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WN4 | WN5 | WN14 | |||
| DI water | Aqua | Solvent | 70 | 67.5 | 65 |
| Coconut oil | Cocos Nucifera (Coconut) Oil | Emollient | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Span 80 | Sorbitan Oleate | Emulsifier | 2.5 | 5 | 7.5 |
| – | Active ingredient | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | |
| Tween 80 | Polysorbate 80 | Emulsifier | 15 | 15 | 20 |
The amount of water added in the formula was just enough to make the formula equal to 100%w/w.
Fig. 1Appearance of nanoemulsion loaded C. aromatica extract.
Free radical scavenging and protein inhibition of nanoemulsion loaded C. aromatica extract.
| Sample | Free radical scavenging IC50 (mg/ml) | Folds of CA extract | Folds of | Protein denaturation inhibition | Folds of CA extract | Folds of Diclofenac |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BN4 | – | – | – | −0.46 ± 0.44 | – | – |
| BN5 | – | – | – | −5.22 ± 0.10 | – | – |
| BN14 | – | – | – | −4.44 ± 0.96 | – | – |
| WN4 | 0.18 ± 0.01* | 2.88 | 0.11 | 16.35 ± 0.79* | 1.24 | 0.57 |
| WN5 | 0.12 ± 0.01* | 4.33 | 0.16 | 16.25 ± 0.75* | 1.23 | 0.56 |
| WN14 | 0.14 ± 0.01* | 3.71 | 0.14 | 12.05 ± 0.19* | 0.91 | 0.42 |
| CA extract in Tween80 | 0.52 ± 0.02 | – | 0.03 | 13.12 ± 0.19 | – | 0.45 |
| 0.02 ± 0.01 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Diclofenac | – | – | – | 28.23 ± 0.14 | – | – |
Note: B = Blank; W = Wild turmeric (C. aromatica); N = Nanoemulsion; * = significant difference compared with CA extract in Tween80 (p value < 0.05).
Stability investigation of the nanoemulsion loaded C. aromatica extract.
| Sample | Heating-cooling 6 cycles | Appearance after centrifuge | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Viscosity at 100 rpm | Particle size | PDI | ||||||
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | ||
| BN4 | 6.73 ± 0.04 | 6.94 ± 0.06 | 5.07 ± 0.37 | 22.80 ± 2.00 | 17.23 ± 0.12 | 37.43 ± 0.13 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.01 | Good dispersibility |
| BN5 | 6.66 ± 0.02 | 6.85 ± 0.01 | 4.95 ± 0.13 | 25.46 ± 4.51 | 126.76 ± 0.64 | 162.90 ± 1.21 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | Phase separation |
| BN14 | 6.70 ± 0.02 | 6.85 ± 0.02 | 7.86 ± 0.24 | 42.70 ± 1.73 | 12.39 ± 0.27 | 56.54 ± 0.32 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | Good dispersibility |
| WN4 | 6.03 ± 0.02 | 5.94 ± 0.05 | 3.39 ± 0.18 | 4.30 ± 0.57 | 55.12 ± 0.24 | 547.70 ± 24.41 | 0.30 ± 0.02 | 0.03 ± 0.03 | Good dispersibility |
| WN5 | 6.19 ± 0.03 | 6.15 ± 0.02 | 3.11 ± 0.25 | 5.95 ± 1.00 | 109.10 ± 0.34 | 149.30 ± 10.78 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.35 ± 0.09 | Phase separation |
| WN14 | 5.87 ± 0.01 | 5.74 ± 0.04 | 3.56 ± 0.24 | 16.90 ± 1.00 | 70.20 ± 0.38 | 181.17 ± 8.70 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.06 | Good dispersibility |
Note: B = Blank; W = Wild turmeric (C. aromatica); N = Nanoemulsion.
Fig. 2Stability investigation of nanoemulsion loaded C. aromatica extract after heating cooling test for 6 cycles. (A.) pH value, (B.) viscosity at 100 rpm,(C.) particle size, (D.) PDI; * = significant difference compared before heating cooling cycle test (p value < 0.05).
Fig. 3Morphological examination by SEM at 300000x (SEM Quanta 250) of WN14.