Cosmos Caudatus as a Potential Source of Polyphenolic Compounds: Optimisation of Oven Drying Conditions and Characterisation of Its Functional Properties
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Radical Scavenging Activity (DPPH)
2.2. Total Phenolic Content
Run Order | Point Type | Blocks | Drying Time | Oven Temperature | 80% Methanol | 80% Ethanol | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IC50 (mg/mL) Y1 | TPC (g GAE/100g DW) Y2 | IC50 (mg/mL) Y3 | TPC (g GAE/100g DW) Y4 | |||||
control | 0.029 ± 0.01 | 22.3 ± 0.96 | 0.032 ± 0.02 | 19.3 ± 0.80 | ||||
1 | 1 | 1 | 9.00 | 50.00 | 0.074 ± 0.01 | 13.82 ± 0.13 | 0.072 ± 0.02 | 12.65 ± 0.40 |
2(c) | 0 | 1 | 6.50 | 70.00 | 0.088 ± 0.03 | 11.70 ± 0.12 | 0.084 ± 0.06 | 10.75 ± 0.30 |
3(c) | 0 | 1 | 6.50 | 70.00 | 0.082 ± 0.02 | 11.87 ± 0.25 | 0.087 ± 0.03 | 10.10 ± 0.40 |
4 | 1 | 1 | 4.00 | 90.00 | 0.087 ± 0.02 | 10.13 ± 0.34 | 0.092 ± 0.05 | 8.75 ± 0.50 |
5 | 1 | 1 | 9.00 | 90.00 | 0.142 ± 0.01 | 5.84 ± 0.32 | 0.145 ± 0.07 | 5.48 ± 0.40 |
6(c) | 0 | 1 | 6.50 | 70.00 | 0.078 ± 0.02 | 11.32 ± 0.11 | 0.095 ± 0.04 | 10.43 ± 0.30 |
7 | 1 | 1 | 4.00 | 50.00 | 0.047 ± 0.04 | 14.67 ± 0.15 | 0.066 ± 0.03 | 14.05 ± 0.40 |
8 | −1 | 2 | 10.04 | 70.00 | 0.116 ± 0.02 | 10.32 ± 0.10 | 0.122 ± 0.01 | 10.35 ± 0.20 |
9(c) | 0 | 2 | 6.50 | 70.00 | 0.088 ± 0.03 | 10.82 ± 0.30 | 0.092 ± 0.06 | 9.85 ± 0.20 |
10 | −1 | 2 | 2.96 | 70.00 | 0.058 ± 0.03 | 14.25 ± 0.17 | 0.067 ± 0.01 | 14.94 ± 0.40 |
11 | −1 | 2 | 6.50 | 41.76 | 0.054 ± 0.04 | 16.25 ± 0.13 | 0.054 ± 0.01 | 12.92 ± 0.20 |
12 | −1 | 2 | 6.50 | 98.28 | 0.141 ± 0.05 | 6.25 ± 0.10 | 0.142 ± 0.01 | 5.34 ± 0.30 |
13(c) | 0 | 2 | 6.50 | 70.00 | 0.091 ± 0.01 | 10.43 ± 0.14 | 0.095 ± 0.02 | 10.43 ± 0.40 |
14(c) | 0 | 2 | 6.50 | 70.00 | 0.083 ± 0.02 | 10.58 ± 0.10 | 0.093 ± 0.05 | 10.56 ± 0.30 |
2.3. Effect of the Solvent on IC50 and TPC
Regression Coefficient | Symbol | Full Model | Reduce Model | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter Estimate | p- value | Parameter Estimate | p- value | ||||||
IC50(Y1) | TPC(Y2) | IC50(Y1) | TPC(Y2) | IC50(Y1) | TPC(Y2) | IC50(Y1) | TPC(Y2) | ||
Linear | X1 | 0.020503 | −1.3372 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.020503 | −1.3372 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
X2 | 0.028880 | −3.3328 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.028880 | −3.3328 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Quadratic | X21 | −0.000187 | 0.4194 | 0.902 | 0.124 | - | - | - | - |
X22 | 0.005062 | −0.0981 | 0.011 | 0.695 | 0.005077 | - | 0.006 | - | |
Interaction | X1X2 | 0.007000 | −0.8600 | 0.010 | 0.034 | 0.007000 | −0.8600 | 0.006 | 0.036 |
R2 | 98.9% | 97.3% | 98.9% | 96.0% | |||||
R2 adjusted | 98.0% | 95.0% | 98.3% | 94.2% |
Regression Coefficient | Symbol | Full Model | Reduce Model | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameter Estimate | p-value | Parameter Estimate | p-value | ||||||
IC50 (Y3) | TPC (Y4) | IC50(Y3) | TPC(Y4) | IC50(Y3) | TPC(Y4) | IC50(Y3) | TPC(Y4) | ||
Linear | X1 | 0.017098 | −1.3952 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.017098 | −1.3952 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
X2 | 0.027931 | −2.8987 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.027931 | −2.8987 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Quadratic | X21 | 0.001125 | 0.9821 | 0.584 | 0.001 | - | 0.9821 | - | 0.002 |
X22 | 0.002875 | −0.7754 | 0.186 | 0.005 | - | −0.7754 | - | 0.007 | |
Interaction | X1X2 | 0.011750 | −0.4675 | 0.003 | 0.111 | 0.011750 | - | 0.002 | - |
R2 | 97.9 | 98.1 | 97.2 | 97.2 | |||||
R2 adjusted | 96.1 | 96.5 | 95.9 | 95.5 |
2.4. Effect of Independent Variables
2.5. Optimization Conditions
2.6. Validation of the Model
80% Methanol | 80% Ethanol | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IC50 (Y1) | TPC (Y2) | IC50 (Y3) | TPC (Y4) | ||||||||
EVa | FVa | EV-FV | EVb | FVb | EV-FV | EVc | FVc | EV-FV | EVd | FVd | EV-FV |
0.074 | 0.072 | 0.002 | 13.82 | 14.191 | −0.371 | 0.072 | 0.069 | 0.003 | 12.65 | 11.908 | 0.742 |
0.088 | 0.083 | 0.005 | 11.70 | 11.336 | 0.364 | 0.084 | 0.092 | −0.008 | 10.75 | 10.198 | 0.552 |
0.082 | 0.083 | −0.001 | 11.87 | 11.336 | 0.534 | 0.087 | 0.092 | −0.005 | 10.10 | 10.198 | −0.098 |
0.087 | 0.089 | −0.002 | 10.13 | 10.200 | −0.07 | 0.092 | 0.091 | 0.001 | 8.75 | 8.901 | −0.151 |
0.142 | 0.144 | −0.002 | 5.84 | 5.806 | 0.034 | 0.145 | 0.148 | −0.003 | 5.48 | 6.110 | −0.63 |
0.078 | 0.083 | −0.005 | 11.32 | 11.336 | −0.016 | 0.095 | 0.092 | 0.003 | 10.43 | 10.198 | 0.232 |
0.047 | 0.045 | 0.002 | 14.67 | 15.146 | −0.476 | 0.066 | 0.058 | 0.008 | 14.05 | 14.698 | −0.648 |
0.116 | 0.116 | 0.000 | 10.32 | 9.380 | 0.94 | 0.122 | 0.119 | 0.003 | 10.35 | 10.500 | −0.15 |
0.088 | 0.087 | 0.001 | 10.82 | 11.271 | −0.451 | 0.092 | 0.095 | −0.003 | 9.85 | 10.509 | −0.659 |
0.058 | 0.058 | 0.000 | 14.25 | 13.163 | 1.087 | 0.067 | 0.071 | −0.004 | 14.94 | 14.446 | 0.494 |
0.054 | 0.057 | −0.003 | 16.25 | 15.985 | 0.265 | 0.054 | 0.055 | −0.001 | 12.92 | 13.058 | −0.138 |
0.141 | 0.138 | 0.003 | 6.25 | 6.558 | −0.308 | 0.142 | 0.135 | 0.007 | 5.34 | 4.859 | 0.481 |
0.091 | 0.087 | 0.004 | 10.43 | 11.271 | −0.841 | 0.095 | 0.095 | 0.000 | 10.43 | 10.509 | −0.079 |
0.083 | 0.087 | −0.004 | 10.58 | 11.271 | −0.691 | 0.093 | 0.095 | −0.002 | 10.56 | 10.509 | 0.051 |
p-value = 1.000 | p-value = 1.000 | p-value = 0.994 | p-value = 1.000 |
2.7. Correlation between Antioxidant Capacity and TPC
2.8. Identified Compounds in Cosmos Caudatus by HPLC
3. Experimental
3.1. Materials
3.2. Plant Material
3.3. Sample Preparation
Factor | Symbol | Coded Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
−1 | 0 | 1 | −α | +α | ||
Drying time (h) | X1 | 4 | 6.5 | 9 | 2.9645 | 10.0355 |
Oven temperature (°C) | X2 | 50 | 70 | 90 | 41.7157 | 98.2843 |
3.4. Extraction Method
3.5. DPPH Radical Scavenging Activity
3.6. Total Phenolic Content (TPC)
3.7. Experimental Design
3.8. Assortment of the Factor Ranges
3.9. Statistical Analysis
3.10. High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Capecka, E.; Mareczek, A.; Leja, M. Antioxidant activity of fresh and dry herbs of some lamiaceae species. Food Chem. 2005, 93, 223–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, Y.Y.; Murtijaya, J. Antioxidant properties of Phyllanthus Amarus extracts as affected by different drying methods. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 40, 1664–1669. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, S.Y.; Halliwell, B. Medicinal plants and antioxidants: what do we learn from cell culture and caenorhabditis elegans studies? Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2010, 394, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Proestos, C.; Boziaris, I.S.; Nychas, G.-E.; Komaitis, M. Analysis of flavonoids and phenolic acids in greek aromatic plants: investigation of their antioxidant capacity and antimicrobial activity. Food Chem. 2006, 95, 664–671. [Google Scholar]
- Shui, G.; Leong, L.P. Residue from star fruit as valuable source for functional food ingredients and antioxidant nutraceuticals. Food Chem. 2006, 97, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoo, Y.Y.; Ho, S.K.; Liang, J.Y.; Ho, C.W.; Tan, C.P. Effects of binary solvent extraction system, extraction time and extraction temperature on phenolic antioxidants and antioxidant capacity from mengkudu (Morinda Citrifolia). Food Chem. 2010, 120, 290–295. [Google Scholar]
- Zin, Z.M.; Abdul-Hamid, A.; Osman, A. Antioxidative activity of extracts from mengkudu (Morinda Citrifolia L.) root, fruit and leaf. Food Chem. 2002, 78, 227–231. [Google Scholar]
- Shui, G.; Leong, L.P.; Shih, P.W. Rapid screening and characterisation of antioxidants of Cosmos Caudatus using liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Tech. Biomed. Life Sci. 2005, 827, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abas, F.; Shaari, K.; Lajis, N.H.; Israf, D.A.; Kalsom, Y.U. Antioxidative and radical scavenging properties of the constituents isolated from Cosmos Caudatus kunth. Nat. Prod. Sci. 2003, 9, 245–248. [Google Scholar]
- Madsen, H.L.; Bertelsen, G. Spices as antioxidants. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 6, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, E.W.C.; Lim, Y.Y.; Wong, S.K.; Lim, K.K.; Tan, S.P.; Lianto, F.S.; Yong, M.Y. Effects of different drying methods on the antioxidant properties of leaves and tea of ginger species. Food Chem. 2009, 113, 166–172. [Google Scholar]
- Ismail, A.; Marjan, Z.M.; Foong, C.W. Total antioxidant activity and phenolic content in selected vegetables. Food Chem. 2004, 87, 581–586. [Google Scholar]
- Larrauri, J.A.; Rupérez, P.; Saura-Calixto, F. Effect of drying temperature on the stability of polyphenols and antioxidant activity of red grape pomace peels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1997, 45, 1390–1393. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, M.K.; Takenaka, M.; Isobe, S.; Tsushida, T. Antioxidant potential, anti-proliferative activities, and phenolic content in water-soluble fractions of some commonly consumed vegetables: Effects of thermal treatment. Food Chem. 2007, 103, 106–114. [Google Scholar]
- Toor, R.K.; Savage, G.P. Effect of semi-drying on the antioxidant components of tomatoes. Food Chem. 2006, 94, 90–97. [Google Scholar]
- Kuljarachanan, T.; Devahastin, S.; Chiewchan, N. Evolution of antioxidant compounds in lime residues during drying. Food Chem. 2009, 113, 944–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, K.W.; Ismail, A.; Tan, C.P.; Rajab, N.F. Optimization of oven drying conditions for lycopene content and lipophilic antioxidant capacity in a by-product of the pink guava puree industry using response surface methodology. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 43, 729–735. [Google Scholar]
- Mustafa, R.A.; Hamid, A.A.; Mohamed, S.; Bakar, F.A. Total phenolic compounds, flavonoids, and radical scavenging activity of 21 selected tropical plants. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, C28–C35. [Google Scholar]
- He, S.; Wang, H.; Wu, B.; Zhou, H.; Zhu, P.; Yang, R.; Yan, X. Response surface methodology optimization of fermentation conditions for rapid and efficient accumulation of macrolactin a by marine bacillus amyloliquefaciens ESB-2. Molecules 2013, 18, 408–417. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, Y.-B.; Dong, F.; Ma, D.-B.; Miao, J.; Jin, L.-N.; Liu, Z.-F.; Zhang, L.-W. Optimizing the extraction of anti-tumor polysaccharides from the fruit of Capparis Spionosa L. by response surface methodology. Molecules 2012, 17, 7323–7335. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, L.-C.; He, Y.; Deng, X.; Yang, G.-L.; Li, W.; Liang, J.; Tang, Q.-L. Response surface modeling and optimization of accelerated solvent extraction of four lignans from fructus schisandrae. Molecules 2012, 17, 3618–3629. [Google Scholar]
- Senawi, N.; Idid, S.O.; Idid, S.Z.; Koya, M.S.; Mohamed Rehan, A.; Kamarudin, K.R. Antioxidant levels and activities of selected seeds of malaysian tropical fruits. Malaysian J. Nutr. 2010, 16, 149–159. [Google Scholar]
- Gruz, J.; Ayaz, F.A.; Torun, H.; Strnad, M. Phenolic acid content and radical scavenging activity of extracts from medlar (Mespilus Germanica L.) fruit at different stages of ripening. Food Chem. 2011, 124, 271–277. [Google Scholar]
- Surveswaran, S.; Cai, Y.; Corke, H.; Sun, M. Systematic evaluation of natural phenolic antioxidants from 133 Indian medicinal plants. Food Chem. 2007, 102, 938–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukrasno, S.; Fidriany, I.; Anggadiredja, K.; Handayani, W.A.; Anam, K. Influence of drying method on flavonoid content of Cosmos Caudatus (Kunth) leaves. Res. J. Med. Plant 2011, 5, 189–195. [Google Scholar]
- Sample Availability: Sample of Cosmos Caudatus is available from the authors.
© 2013 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Mediani, A.; Abas, F.; Khatib, A.; Tan, C.P. Cosmos Caudatus as a Potential Source of Polyphenolic Compounds: Optimisation of Oven Drying Conditions and Characterisation of Its Functional Properties. Molecules 2013, 18, 10452-10464. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules180910452
Mediani A, Abas F, Khatib A, Tan CP. Cosmos Caudatus as a Potential Source of Polyphenolic Compounds: Optimisation of Oven Drying Conditions and Characterisation of Its Functional Properties. Molecules. 2013; 18(9):10452-10464. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules180910452
Chicago/Turabian StyleMediani, Ahmed, Faridah Abas, Alfi Khatib, and Chin Ping Tan. 2013. "Cosmos Caudatus as a Potential Source of Polyphenolic Compounds: Optimisation of Oven Drying Conditions and Characterisation of Its Functional Properties" Molecules 18, no. 9: 10452-10464. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules180910452