Research Article

Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits

Volume: 3 Number: 2 December 30, 2021
EN

Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits

Abstract

The yield, total phenolic content and antioxidant activity values of the extracts obtained from the dried fruits of Diospyros lotus L. plant by using Soxhlet (SXE), ultrasound assisted extraction (UBE) and hot solvent extraction (HME) techniques with methanol were investigated. The highest extraction yield was obtained from HME experiments with 50.67±0.63% and UBE with 49.50±1.05%, respectively. While the extract obtained by the UBE technique showed lower TPC value (1464±57 mg GAE/100 g original sample) compared to the extracts obtained from the other two techniques, it showed higher antioxidant activity values than that of HME technique. While these values were determined as 192.53±4.45 and 273.10±34.79 mg/mL (IC50, lower is better) for the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity assay, 0.65±0.04 and 0.25±0.04 g GAE/100 g original sample for cupric ion reducing antioxidant activity (CUPRAC) assay, respectively. Both the UBE and HME techniques have clearly demonstrated that they are more advantageous than conventional Soxhlet extraction for simplicity of application, reduced solvent consumption, extraction of thermally sensitive compounds and shortened extraction times.

Keywords

References

  1. D. Thompson, P. Moldéus, Cytotoxicity of butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene in isolated rat hepatocytes, Biochemical Pharmacology, 37, 1988, 2201–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(88)90582-5
  2. J.M. Luque-Rodriquez, M.D. Luque De Castro, P. Perez-Juan, Extraction of fatty acids from grape seed by superheated hexane, Talanta, 68 (1), 2005, 126-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2005.04.054
  3. R.P.F.F. da Silva, T.A.P. Rocha-Santosa, A.C. Duarte, Supercritical fluid extraction of bioactive compounds, Trends Anal. Chem, 76, 2016, 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2015.11.013
  4. K. Kumar, S. Srivastav, V.S. Sharanagat, Ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE) of bioactive compounds from fruit and vegetable processing by-products: A review, Ultrason Sonochem, 70, 2020, 105325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105325
  5. A.P. Da Fonseca Machado, J.L. Pasquel-Reátegui, G.F. Barbero, J. Martínez, Pressurized liquid extraction of bioactive compounds from blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L.) residues: a comparison with conventional methods, Food Res Int, 77 (3), 2015, 675-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.12.042
  6. S. B. Bagade, M. Patil, Recent Advances in Microwave Assisted Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Complex Herbal Samples: A Review, Crit Rev Anal Chem, 51 (2), 2021, 138-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408347.2019.1686966
  7. T. Baytop, Türkiye’de Bitkiler ile Tedavi: Geçmişte ve Bugün, 1999, İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri, s. 138, (in Turkish)
  8. M.R. Loizzo, A. Said, R. Tundis, U.W. Hawas, K. Rashed, F. Menichini, N.G. Frega, F. Menichini, Antioxidant and antiproliferative activity of Diospyros lotus L. extract and isolated compounds, Plant Foods Hum Nutr, 64 (4), 2009, 264-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-009-0133-0

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Analytical Chemistry

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

December 30, 2021

Submission Date

December 6, 2021

Acceptance Date

December 26, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 3 Number: 2

APA
Akdeniz, F., Dursun, İ., Tepebaş, K., Özbay, H., Kekeç, L., & Yıldız, S. (2021). Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits. Turkish Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 3(2), 64-69. https://doi.org/10.51435/turkjac.1032908
AMA
1.Akdeniz F, Dursun İ, Tepebaş K, Özbay H, Kekeç L, Yıldız S. Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits. TurkJAC. 2021;3(2):64-69. doi:10.51435/turkjac.1032908
Chicago
Akdeniz, Fikret, İnan Dursun, Kadir Tepebaş, Hanife Özbay, Levent Kekeç, and Samet Yıldız. 2021. “Comparison of Different Extraction Methods for Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Dried Diospyros Lotus L Fruits”. Turkish Journal of Analytical Chemistry 3 (2): 64-69. https://doi.org/10.51435/turkjac.1032908.
EndNote
Akdeniz F, Dursun İ, Tepebaş K, Özbay H, Kekeç L, Yıldız S (December 1, 2021) Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits. Turkish Journal of Analytical Chemistry 3 2 64–69.
IEEE
[1]F. Akdeniz, İ. Dursun, K. Tepebaş, H. Özbay, L. Kekeç, and S. Yıldız, “Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits”, TurkJAC, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 64–69, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.51435/turkjac.1032908.
ISNAD
Akdeniz, Fikret - Dursun, İnan - Tepebaş, Kadir - Özbay, Hanife - Kekeç, Levent - Yıldız, Samet. “Comparison of Different Extraction Methods for Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Dried Diospyros Lotus L Fruits”. Turkish Journal of Analytical Chemistry 3/2 (December 1, 2021): 64-69. https://doi.org/10.51435/turkjac.1032908.
JAMA
1.Akdeniz F, Dursun İ, Tepebaş K, Özbay H, Kekeç L, Yıldız S. Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits. TurkJAC. 2021;3:64–69.
MLA
Akdeniz, Fikret, et al. “Comparison of Different Extraction Methods for Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Dried Diospyros Lotus L Fruits”. Turkish Journal of Analytical Chemistry, vol. 3, no. 2, Dec. 2021, pp. 64-69, doi:10.51435/turkjac.1032908.
Vancouver
1.Fikret Akdeniz, İnan Dursun, Kadir Tepebaş, Hanife Özbay, Levent Kekeç, Samet Yıldız. Comparison of different extraction methods for total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of dried Diospyros lotus L fruits. TurkJAC. 2021 Dec. 1;3(2):64-9. doi:10.51435/turkjac.1032908

Cited By