4.6 Article

Box-Behnken Response Surface Design of Polysaccharide Extraction fromRhododendron arboreumand the Evaluation of Its Antioxidant Potential

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 25, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules25173835

关键词

Rhododendron arboreum; polysaccharides; Box-Behnken design; antioxidant activity

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [RG-242]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present investigation, the ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) conditions and optimization of Rhododendron arboreum polysaccharide (RAP) yield were studied by a Box-Behnken response surface design and the evaluation of its antioxidant potential. Three parameters that affect the productivity of UAE, such as extraction temperature (50-90 degrees C), extraction time (10-30 min), and solid-liquid ratio (1-2 g/mL), were examined to optimize the yield of the polysaccharide percentage. The chromatographic analysis revealed that the composition of monosaccharides was found to be glucose, galactose, mannose, arabinose, and fucose. The data were fitted to polynomial response models, applying multiple regression analysis with a high coefficient of determination value (R-2= 0.999). The data exhibited that the extraction parameters have significant effects on the extraction yield of polysaccharide percentage. Derringer's desirability prediction tool was attained under the optimal extraction conditions (extraction temperature 66.75 degrees C, extraction time 19.72 min, and liquid-solid ratio 1.66 mL/g) with a desirability value of 1 yielded the highest polysaccharide percentage (11.56%), which was confirmed through validation experiments. An average of 11.09 +/- 1.65% of polysaccharide yield was obtained in optimized extraction conditions with a 95.43% validity. The in vitro antioxidant effect of polysaccharides of R. arboreum was studied. The results showed that the RAP extract exhibited a strong potential against free radical damage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据