Next Article in Journal
Extraction and Determination of Vitamin K1 in Foods by Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction, SPE, and LC-MS/MS
Previous Article in Journal
Rosmarinic Acid as a Candidate in a Phenotypic Profiling Cardio-/Cytotoxicity Cell Model Induced by Doxorubicin
Open AccessArticle

Comparative Assessment of Phytochemical Profiles of Comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.) Root Extracts Obtained by Different Extraction Techniques

1
Faculty of Technology, University of Novi Sad, Bulevar Cara Lazara 1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Functional Food Research and Development Centre (CIDAF), Health Science Technological Park, Avda. del Conocimiento s/n, Bioregion building, 18016 Granada, Spain
3
Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Granada, Campus Universitario s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
4
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Granada, Avda. Fuentenueva s/n, 18071 Granada, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2020, 25(4), 837; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25040837
Received: 29 January 2020 / Revised: 10 February 2020 / Accepted: 12 February 2020 / Published: 14 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Natural Products Chemistry)
In this work a comparative study on phytochemical profiles of comfrey root extracts obtained by different extraction approaches has been carried out. Chemical profiles of extracts obtained by supercritical fluid (SFE), pressurized liquid (PLE), and conventional solid/liquid extraction were compared and discussed. Phytochemical composition was assessed by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray time-of-flight mass spectrometry (HPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS) identifying 39 compounds reported for the first time in comfrey root, mainly phenolic acids and fatty acids. The influence of different extraction parameters on phytochemical profiles of S. officinale root was investigated for all applied techniques. PLE and maceration, using alcohol-based solvents (aqueous methanol or ethanol), were shown to be more efficient in the recovery of more polar compounds. Greater numbers of phenolics were best extracted by PLE using 85% EtOH at 63 °C. The use of SFE and 100% acetone for 30 min enabled good recoveries of nonpolar compounds. SFE using 15% EtOH as a cosolvent at 150 bar produced the best recoveries of a significant number of fatty acids. The main compositional differences between extracts obtained by different extraction techniques were assigned to the solvent type. Hence, these results provided comprehensive approaches for treating comfrey root enriched in different phytochemicals, thereby enhancing its bioaccessibility. View Full-Text
Keywords: comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.) root; maceration; PLE; SFE; HPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS; phytochemical compounds comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.) root; maceration; PLE; SFE; HPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS/MS; phytochemical compounds
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Nastić, N.; Borrás-Linares, I.; Lozano-Sánchez, J.; Švarc-Gajić, J.; Segura-Carretero, A. Comparative Assessment of Phytochemical Profiles of Comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.) Root Extracts Obtained by Different Extraction Techniques. Molecules 2020, 25, 837.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop