3.8 Article

Essential oil from the stem bark of Cordia sebestena scavenges free radicals

期刊

JOURNAL OF ACUTE MEDICINE
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 138-141

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacme.2013.07.002

关键词

Antioxidant; Butylated hydroxyanisole; Cordia sebestena; Essential oil; Gas chromatographyemass spectrometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Essential oils have been reported to possess various medicinal properties in folkloric medical practices. Their application in modern medicine has also increased recently. Materials and methods: The chemical composition of the essential oil from the stem bark of Cordia sebestena obtained by hydrodistillation was determined using gas chromatographyemass spectrometry and analyzed for its free radical scavenging potential using the 1,1-diphenyl-2picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay. Results: A total of nineteen compounds were identified with the major compounds being 9-octadecene (E) (20.26%), 5-octadecene (E) (18.68%), 9-eicosene (13.99%), cyclopropane, nonyl (12.42%), 3-eicosene (E) (7.29%), phenol, 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl) (4.71%), 1-nonadecene (3.17%), 7,9-di-tert-butyl-1-oxaspiro(4,5) deca-6,9-diene-2,8-dione (2.70%), and 2,6-diisopropylnaphthalene (2.17%). The DPPH radical scavenging potential of the oil was higher than the standard, butylated hydroxyanisole, with IC50 of 2.00 +/- 0.31 mg/mL and 47.00 +/- 1.27 mg/mL, respectively. At 50 mg/mL, the antioxidant potential of the butylated hydroxyanisole was 75% whereas the oil had 82% free radical scavenging activity. Several hydrocarbons contained in the essential oil may have contributed to the aromatic and antioxidant properties of the plant. The hydrocarbons could be useful for chemotaxonomic characterization of Cordia sebestena. Conclusion: The essential oil may be further explored for its potential as an antioxidant contributor in food and phytotherapeutic medicine. Copyright (C) 2013, Taiwan Society of Emergency Medicine. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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