| Literature DB >> 36249963 |
Jie Yang1, Zhenzhen Zhang1, Qimeng Wu1, Xiaoyuan Ding1, Chenyang Yin1, Endong Yang1, Dongdong Sun1, Weiyun Wang1, Yunqiu Yang2, Feng Guo1.
Abstract
Fenugreek seeds (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.), one kind of traditional Chinese medicine, are reported to be of great potential as a new alternative in terms of their bioactive components. In our present study, an ultrasonic-assisted method was applied in the extraction of antioxidative components from fenugreek seeds. Four factors: ethanol concentration, liquid-solid ratio, sonication time, and sonication power were selected and multiple responses were studied using the response surface methodology (RSM). The effects of factors along with the correlation between all responses (flavonoids content, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay, OH- assay) were studied. The regression model indicated that all four factors are of significant effect on all responses. The model predicted that the ethanol concentration of 72%, solvent-to-material ratio of 35 ml/g, ultrasonic time of 41 min, and 500 W of power would provide a flavonoid yield of 9.10 mg/g, DPPH clearance of 80.33%, and OH- clearance of 24.28%, respectively. The confirmation test showed the closeness of the predicted results with those of experimental values. And AB-8 resin was successfully used to purify the fenuellus hulusi seed extract, and the flavonoid concentration of 78.14% was obtained. Six flavonoids (Swertisin, Puerarin apioside, Jasminoside B, Astragalin, Apigenin-7-O-beta-D-glucoside, and Apiin) were successfully identified by the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Fenugreek seeds; LC–MS; antioxidant activity; flavonoids; multiple response surface optimization; natural products
Year: 2022 PMID: 36249963 PMCID: PMC9548360 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 3.553
FIGURE 1Effects of ethanol concentration (a), solvent‐to‐material ratio (b), ultrasonic time (c), and ultrasonic power (d) on the total flavonoid concentration (TFC). Results were expressed as average values ± standard deviation (n = 3)
Factors and levels in response surface methodology (RSM)
| Independent variable | Symbol | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Ethanol concentration (%) |
| 35 | 62.5 | 90 |
| Solvent‐to‐material ratio (ml/g) |
| 15 | 22.5 | 35 |
| Ultrasonic time (min) |
| 15 | 35 | 55 |
| Ultrasonic power (W) |
| 100 | 300 | 500 |
Designed experiments and measured responses of the response surface analysis
| Run |
|
|
|
| YTFC (mg/g) | YDPPH (%) | YOH (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 90 | 22.5 | 15 | 300 | 3.919 | 76.77 | 5.27 |
| 2 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 35 | 300 | 5.48 | 81.68 | 21.19 |
| 3 | 62.5 | 35 | 35 | 500 | 8.189 | 82.14 | 28.06 |
| 4 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 35 | 300 | 6.269 | 80.88 | 20.65 |
| 5 | 90 | 22.5 | 35 | 500 | 3.99 | 76.09 | 10.61 |
| 6 | 35 | 22.5 | 35 | 100 | 4.959 | 69.44 | 44.91 |
| 7 | 62.5 | 10 | 35 | 500 | 3.534 | 82.17 | 17.57 |
| 8 | 35 | 22.5 | 15 | 300 | 5.946 | 89.35 | 15.08 |
| 9 | 62.5 | 35 | 15 | 300 | 6.542 | 88.11 | 18.93 |
| 10 | 90 | 35 | 35 | 300 | 6.375 | 79.16 | 7.58 |
| 11 | 90 | 22.5 | 35 | 100 | 2.358 | 74.98 | 4.86 |
| 12 | 62.5 | 10 | 35 | 100 | 3.967 | 81.89 | 12.82 |
| 13 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 35 | 300 | 5.049 | 78.96 | 14.2 |
| 14 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 55 | 500 | 7.346 | 79.14 | 31.94 |
| 15 | 90 | 22.5 | 55 | 300 | 4.941 | 75.75 | 3.55 |
| 16 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 35 | 300 | 5.856 | 78.5 | 14.21 |
| 17 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 15 | 500 | 4.169 | 82.99 | 17.38 |
| 18 | 35 | 10 | 35 | 300 | 3.177 | 85.07 | 16.42 |
| 19 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 15 | 100 | 4.144 | 83.11 | 19.47 |
| 20 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 300 | 8.022 | 76.29 | 27.88 |
| 21 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 55 | 100 | 4.356 | 74.9 | 15.81 |
| 22 | 62.5 | 35 | 55 | 300 | 10.394 | 67.71 | 20.3 |
| 23 | 62.5 | 35 | 35 | 100 | 6.734 | 76.48 | 31.21 |
| 24 | 62.5 | 10 | 55 | 300 | 3.911 | 83.22 | 0.73 |
| 25 | 62.5 | 10 | 15 | 300 | 4.635 | 79.95 | 4.05 |
| 26 | 90 | 10 | 35 | 300 | 2.3 | 80.5 | 6.77 |
| 27 | 62.5 | 22.5 | 35 | 300 | 5.856 | 78.05 | 14.02 |
| 28 | 35 | 22.5 | 55 | 300 | 5.785 | 66.58 | 32.88 |
| 29 | 35 | 22.5 | 35 | 500 | 4.762 | 86.62 | 26.71 |
Regression coefficient (β) and fit statistics of the predicted second‐order polynomial models for flavonoids and antioxidant activity
| Factor | Coefficient (β) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| TFC | DPPH | OH− | |
|
| 25.83 | 9.84 | 7.44 |
|
| 1.19 | 2.64 | 2.19 |
| Intercept | 5.70 | 79.61 | 16.85 |
|
| −0.73 | −0.84 | −10.44 |
|
| 2.06 | −1.91 | 6.30 |
|
| 0.61 | −4.42 | 2.09 |
|
| 0.46 | 2.36 | 0.27 |
|
| −0.19 | 1.86 | −2.66 |
|
| 0.30 | 5.44 | −4.88 |
|
| 0.46 | −4.02 | 5.99 |
|
| 1.14 | −5.92 | 1.17 |
|
| 0.47 | 1.34 | −1.98 |
|
| 0.74 | 1.09 | 4.56 |
|
| −0.97 | −1.83 | −0.64 |
|
| 0.44 | 1.43 | −1.92 |
|
| 0.22 | −0.46 | −2.79 |
|
| −0.72 | −0.16 | 6.71 |
|
| .9627 | .9078 | .8816 |
| Adj. | .9255 | .8155 | .7631 |
|
| .4701 | .1815 | .2344 |
|
| <.0001 | <.0001 | .0003 |
Note: X 1: ethanol concentration (%); X 2: solvent‐to‐material ratio (ml/g); X 3: ultrasonic time (min); X 4: ultrasonic power (W).
Abbreviations: TFC, total flavonoids content; OH−, hydroxyl radical scavenging ability by the salicylic acid method; DPPH, 2‐2‐dipheny‐1‐picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging capacity.
p < .05: indicates significant level.
p < .01: indicates highly significant level.
p < .001: indicates remarkably significant level.
FIGURE 2Response surface three‐dimensional (3D) plots for the interaction effects of independent variables of ethanol concentration (%), solvent‐to‐material ratio (ml/g), extraction ultrasonic time (min), and ultrasonic power (W) on dependent variables of total flavonoids content (TFC) (a, b), 2‐2‐dipheny‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) (c–e), and OH− (f)
Chemical compositions of extracts from Fenugreek seeds
| RT(min) | Molecular weight | Formula | Compound name | Area (max.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.63 | 358.12 | C22 H22 O10 | Swertisin | 13357.75 |
| 9.03 | 548.15 | C26 H28 O13 | Puerarin apioside | 20061.67 |
| 14.07 | 346.16 | C16 H26 O8 | Jasminoside B | 3736786.11 |
| 8.88 | 448.09 | C21 H20 O11 | Astragalin | 92886.13 |
| 9.01 | 433.10 | C21 H20 O10 | Apigenin‐7‐O‐beta‐D‐glucoside | 1205700.90 |
| 8.84 | 564.14 | C26 H28 O14 | Apiin | 7067379.42 |
FIGURE 3Negative ion flow (a) and positive ion flow patterns (b)
Experimental values and predicted values of response variables at optimum extraction conditions
| Response variables | Optimum extraction conditions | Experimental value | Predicted value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| YTFC | 72% 35 ml/g 41 min 500 W | 9.10 ± 0.13 | 8.89 |
| YDPPH | 80.33 ± 0.41 | 79.27 | |
| YOH | 24.28 ± 0.22 | 25.19 |
Note: X 1: ethanol concentration (%); X 2: solvent‐to‐material ratio (ml/g); X 3: ultrasonic time (min); X 4: ultrasonic power (W). The experimental results were all expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).