4.6 Article

Fig Leaves (Ficus carica L.): Source of Bioactive Ingredients for Industrial Valorization

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr11041179

关键词

figs; leaves; bioactive compounds; circular economy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The leaves of fig tree varieties BN and DA have shown good antioxidant, anticancer, and antimicrobial activities. Fig leaves can be regarded as sustainable sources of valuable bioactive molecules for various industrial applications.
The fig tree (Ficus carica L.) was one of the first domesticated trees. In 2019, the world's fig fruit production was estimated at 1153 tons. However, fig leaves are not utilized, resulting in copious quantities of bio-waste. To identify promising fig tree varieties, hydroethanolic extracts were prepared from the leaves of five fig tree varieties (Pasteliere-PA, Longue d'Aout-LA, Dauphinie-DA, Boujassote Noire-BN, and Marseille-MA). The variety with the highest concentration of organic acids was BN (146.5 mg/g dw), while glucose, fructose, and sucrose were the predominant sugars across all varieties. All extracts present alpha-tocopherol as the prevalent tocopherol isoform (above 78%), while PUFA fatty acids were predominant, ranging from 53% to 71% of total fatty acids. BN showed moderate antioxidant activity (EC50 0.23 +/- 0.01 mg/mL), while the DA variety presented promising cytotoxicity against the tumor AGS and MCF-7 cell line (GI(50) 158 +/- 13 and 223 +/- 21 mu g/mL) and especially in the inhibition of Nitric Oxide Production evaluation (IC50 20 +/- 5 mu g/mL). The DA activities are probably related to high concentrations of flavonoids, specifically the predominant apigenin-C-hexoside-C-pentoside and quercetin-O-deoxyhexosyl-hexoside. Finally, the BN and DA varieties showed good antimicrobial activity, especially against Yersinia enterocolitica. Fig leaves can be considered sustainable sources of industrially valuable bioactive molecules, and several potential applications were highlighted.

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