4.5 Article

Ultrasound-assisted extraction process of phenolic antioxidants from Olive leaves: a nutraceutical study using RSM and LC-ESI-DAD-MS

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MYSORE
卷 54, 期 8, 页码 2361-2371

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13197-017-2676-7

关键词

RSM: Response surface methodology; TPC: Total phenol content; TFC: Total flavonoid content

资金

  1. University of Tehran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, there has been an ever growing interest in finding new natural sources of food antioxidants. As a main fruit crop, olive is also valued due to its phenolic-containing leaves. Mathematically based optimization methods are used as powerful tools to extract different antioxidant compounds. The present study is aimed to provide an efficient extraction method for total phenol content (TPC), total flavonoid content (TFC) and antioxidant ability (DPPH scavenging assay and FRAP). The effects of ultrasonic temperature (35-65 A degrees C), ultrasonic time (5-15 min), and ethanol to water ratio (Et: W) (25-75%) were evaluated. Second-order polynomial models were used through a rotatable Box-Behnken design (BBD) consisting of 15 experimental runs with three replicates at the center point. Interactional effects of the studied factors were significant in most cases for all responses. The highest extraction efficiency was found to be fifty-one percent of ethanol (65 A degrees C, 15 min) to water ratio. Under optimal conditions, values for TPC, TFC, DPPHsc and FRAP assay were 183.4 (mg GAE. g(-1) DW), 696.77 (mg Quercetin. g(-1) DW), 78.98 (DPPHsc %) and 1942 A mu mol Fe+2/g DW, respectively. R (2) values (R (2) > 0.92) showed that RSM models could efficiently predict the yield of all responses. In the LC-ESI-MS-DAD profiling of the optimized extract, 27 compounds were identified with oleuropein as the main compound. In the present study, olive leaf is introduced as a promising source of natural antioxidant and can be used in food industries following further studies.

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

4.5
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