4.6 Article

Physicochemical Characterization and Antioxidant Activity of Humic Acids Isolated from Peat of Various Origins

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules23040753

关键词

peat; humic acid; antioxidant; ethnopharmacology; semiquinone; natural products

资金

  1. Tomsk Polytechnic University [VIU-RSCABS-89/2018]
  2. National Institutes of Health IDeA Program COBRE Grant [GM110732]
  3. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project [1009546]
  4. Montana State University Agricultural Experiment Station
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [P30GM110732] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although humic acids (HAs) from peat exhibit various therapeutic properties, there is little information available concerning their physicochemical and antioxidant properties. To address this issue, nine different types of peat, including oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and minerotrophic peat samples, were used for isolation ofHA fractions by basic (HAb) and pyrophosphate (HAp) extractions. Physical parameters of the HAs were analyzed by UV-Vis, fluorescent, infrared (IR), and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy. Average M-r of the fractions ranged from 17.2 to 39.7 kDa, while their humification index (HIX) varied from 0.49 to 1.21. HAp fractions had a higher content of aromatic structures compared to HAb fractions. Moreover, HAp fractions had a significantly higher content of phenolic OH groups (3.6 +/- 0.5 mmol/g) versus HAb (3.1 +/- 0.5 mmol/g). All HA fractions exhibited antioxidant activity in radical scavenging and electrochemical assays, and their EPR signal had a single line with g = 2.0035, which is consistent with semiquinone type radicals. Furthermore, the HIX was found to be important in determining the number of semiquinone-type free radicals in the HA structures. Overall, these data provide a molecular basis to explain at least part of the beneficial therapeutic properties of peat-derived HAs.

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