Accès libre

Optimisation of ultrasonic-assisted extraction and biological activity of total flavonoids from leaves of Murrayae exotica using response surface methodology

Yao Wen
Yao Wen
, 
Manchun Liu
Manchun Liu
 et 
Xueying Mai
Xueying Mai
   | 26 juin 2023
Folia Horticulturae's Cover Image
À propos de cet article
Article précédent
Article suivant
Citez
Article Category: ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Publié en ligne: 26 juin 2023
Pages: 135 - 148
Reçu: 27 déc. 2022
Accepté: 14 févr. 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2023-0010
Mots clés
© 2023 Yao Wen et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Figure 1.

The effect of different ultrasonic temperature (A), ultrasonic power (B), ultrasonic time (C), solvent concentration (D) and liquid–solid ratio (E) on the extraction yield of MELTF.
The effect of different ultrasonic temperature (A), ultrasonic power (B), ultrasonic time (C), solvent concentration (D) and liquid–solid ratio (E) on the extraction yield of MELTF.

Figure 2.

Response surface (3D) plots showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.
Response surface (3D) plots showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.

Figure 3.

Contour plot showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.
Contour plot showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.

Figure 4.

Elution profile of MELPTF on AB-8 macroporous resin column. MELPTF, MELTF after purification.
Elution profile of MELPTF on AB-8 macroporous resin column. MELPTF, MELTF after purification.

Figure 5.

α-Glucosidase inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.
α-Glucosidase inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.

Figure 6.

α-Amalyse inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.
α-Amalyse inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.

Figure 7.

DPPH-scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhdrazyl; MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.
DPPH-scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhdrazyl; MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.

Figure 8.

ABTS·+ scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. ABTS, 2,2′-Azino-bis (3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid); MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.
ABTS·+ scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. ABTS, 2,2′-Azino-bis (3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid); MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the effects of solvent concentration (X1), ultrasonic time (X2) and liquid-solid ratio (X3) on extraction yield of MELTF with ethanol as solvent using predicted polynomial models.

Source Sum of squares Df Mean square F-value p-value Significanta
Model 20.16 9 2.24 10.82 0.0024
X1 6.88 1 6.88 33.24 0.0007
X2 2.97 1 2.97 14.36 0.0068 **
X3 3.13 1 3.13 15.11 0.0060 ***
X1X2 0.26 1 0.26 1.26 0.2987 **
X1X3 0.72 1 0.72 3.49 0.1038 **
X2X3 0.15 1 0.15 0.71 0.4273 *
X12 2.53 1 2.53 12.23 0.0100 *
X22 1.77 1 1.77 8.53 0.0223
X32 1.14 1 1.14 5.49 0.0516
Residual 1.45 7 0.21
Lack of fit 0.79 3 0.26 1.58 0.3255 Not significant
Pure Error 0.66
Cor total 21.61 4
R2 0.9329 16
R2adj. 0.8467

The coded experimental and predicted values for RSM design using ethanol as solvent.

Run X1 X2 X3 Extraction yield (mg · g−1)
Experimental Predicted
1 −1 −1   0 5.71 5.29
2   0   1   1 8.33 8.26
3   0   0   0 7.42 8.00
4   0   1 −1 6.85 6.62
5   0 −1 −1 5.71 5.79
6   1 −1   0 6.53 6.64
7   0   0   0 7.74 8.00
8   0   0   0 8.30 8.00
9   1   0 −1 7.62 7.43
10 −1   0 −1 4.39 4.73
11   0   0   0 8.38 8.00
12   0 −1   1 6.43 6.65
13 −1   0   1 6.63 6.83
14 −1   1   0 6.11 6.00
15   1   1   0 7.95 8.37
16   1   0   1 8.17 7.83
17   0   0   0 8.14 8.00

Result of model validation experiments.

No. Optimum conditions Extraction yield (mg · g−1)
Solvent concentration (%) Ultrasonic time (min) Liquid-solid radio (mL · g−1) Experimental Predicted
1 76 55 22 8.79 8.62
2 76 55 22 8.28 8.62
3 76 55 22 8.39 8.62
4 76 55 22 8.56 8.62
5 76 55 22 8.93 8.62
Average 8.59
Ethanol leaching extraction
6 0 20 20 3.38
7 0 20 20 3.28
8 0 20 20 3.42
Average 3.36

The coded values and corresponding actual values of the optimisation parameters.

Code Solvent concentration (%) Ultrasonic time (min) Liquid-solid ratio (mL · g-1)
−1 60 30 15
0 70 45 20
1 80 60 25
eISSN:
2083-5965
Langue:
Anglais
Périodicité:
2 fois par an
Sujets de la revue:
Life Sciences, Plant Science, Zoology, Ecology, other
RSS Feed de la revue