4.7 Article

Anti-Inflammatory Effect and Toxicological Profile of Pulp Residue from the Caryocar Brasiliense, a Sustainable Raw Material

期刊

GELS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/gels9030234

关键词

Cerrado; inflammation; nanotechnology; pequi; phytotherapic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the toxicity and anti-inflammatory activity of pequi pulp residue (EPPR) were analyzed. The results showed that EPPR has high anti-inflammatory activity and no toxicity, suggesting that a new herbal medicine with anti-inflammatory activity can be developed from discarded pequi residue.
Caryocar brasiliense Cambess is a plant species typical of the Cerrado, a Brazilian biome. The fruit of this species is popularly known as pequi, and its oil is used in traditional medicine. However, an important factor hindering the use of pequi oil is its low yield when extracted from the pulp of this fruit. Therefore, in this study, with aim of developing a new herbal medicine, we an-alyzed the toxicity and anti-inflammatory activity of an extract of pequi pulp residue (EPPR), fol-lowing the mechanical extraction of the oil from its pulp. For this purpose, EPPR was prepared and encapsulated in chitosan. The nanoparticles were analyzed, and the cytotoxicity of the encapsu-lated EPPR was evaluated in vitro. After confirming the cytotoxicity of the encapsulated EPPR, the following evaluations were performed with non-encapsulated EPPR: in vitro anti-inflammatory activity, quantification of cytokines, and acute toxicity in vivo. Once the anti-inflammatory activity and absence of toxicity of EPPR were verified, a gel formulation of EPPR was developed for topical use and analyzed for its in vivo anti-inflammatory potential, ocular toxicity, and previous stability assessment. EPPR and the gel containing EPPR showed effective anti-inflammatory activity and lack of toxicity. The formulation was stable. Thus, a new herbal medicine with anti-inflammatory activity can be developed from discarded pequi residue.

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

4.7
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