Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 14;8(10):e11109.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11109. eCollection 2022 Oct.

Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic content & antioxidant activity of hog plum (Spondias pinnata L. f. kurz) pulp by response surface methodology

Tanvir Ahmed  1 , Md Rahmatuzzaman Rana  1 , Mahjabin Rahman Maisha  1 , A S M Sayem  1 , Mizanur Rahman  1 , Rowshon Ara  1
Affiliations

Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic content & antioxidant activity of hog plum (Spondias pinnata L. f. kurz) pulp by response surface methodology

Tanvir Ahmed et al. Heliyon. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: The pulp of hog plum (Spondias pinnata L. f. kurz) has been documented as a potential source of nutritional, physiological, and pharmacological purposes due to its phenolic content (TPC) and antioxidant activity. However, an optimal extraction condition for hog plum pulp remains elusive. Optimization of extraction process conditions using Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) technique has recently attracted research interest.

Objectives: The present study focused on optimizing the UAE extraction conditions of TPC and antioxidant activities (DPPH and FRAP) from hog plum pulp by using response surface methodology (RSM).

Methods: The RSM with a three-factor-three-level Box-Behnken design (BBD) was used to optimize the extraction conditions. The BBD was used to investigate the effects of three independent variables, X1: ultrasonic temperature (40-60 °C), X2: ultrasonic time (30-60 min), and X3: ethanol concentration (40-80%) on TPC, DPPH and FRAP assays. Fifteen experimental trials have been carried out to optimize the UAE extraction conditions. A second-order polynomial model was used for predicting the responses. Statistically, the model was validated using an analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results: The ANOVA results revealed that UAE extraction temperature, time, and ethanol concentration had a significant (p < 0.01) influence on the TPC, DPPH, and FRAP, suggesting that all extraction parameters included in this investigation were crucial to the optimization process. For TPC, DPPH, and FRAP, the R2 values were 0.9976, 0.9943, and 0.9989, respectively, indicating that the models developed based on second-order polynomials were satisfactorily accurate for analyzing interactions between parameters (response and independent variables). RSM analysis showed that the optimal extraction parameters which maximized TPC, DPPH, and FRAP were 52.03 °C temperature, 30 min, time, and 79.99% ethanol. Under optimal conditions, experimental values for TPC, DPPH, and FRAP were 370 ± 26 mg GAE/100g DM, 57 ± 7%, and 7650 ± 460 mg AAE/100 g DM, respectively. The experimental values showed a good agreement with the predicted values with residual standard error values below 0.2% under optimum conditions. Pearson's correlation coefficients (r) demonstrate that the TPC showed a weak positive correlation with DPPH (r = 0.3508) and moderate correlation with FRAP (r = 0.3963).

Conclusion: The experimental results agreed with the predicted values, confirming the model's appropriateness and RSM's efficacy in optimizing the UAE extraction conditions. This optimized UAE extraction method may be effective in the industrial extraction process; moreover, further research should be conducted to determine the efficacy of these extracts when applied to food.

Keywords: Antioxidant activity; Hog plum; Optimization; Response surface methodology; Total phenol content; Ultrasound-assisted extraction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Main effects plot and Pareto chart of temperature, time, and ethanol concentration on (a, b) total phenolic content; (c, d) DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity; (e, f) FRAP: Ferric reducing antioxidant power.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Response surface and contour plots showing the interaction effects of (a, b) time and temperature; (c, d) temperature and ethanol; (e, f) time and ethanol on the total phenolic content of hog plum pulp.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Response surface and contour plots showing the interaction effects of (a, b) time and temperature; (c, d) temperature and ethanol; (e, f) time and ethanol on the DPPH (2,2-diphenyl1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging activity) of hog plum pulp.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Response surface and contour plots showing the interaction effects of (a, b) time and temperature; (c, d) temperature and ethanol; (e, f) time and ethanol on the FRAP (Ferric reducing antioxidant power) of hog plum pulp.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Graphical presentation of response optimization for hog plum pulp.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Diagnostic plots of TPC (total phenolic content) for validation of RSM model. (a) Normal Plot of Residuals; (b) Residuals vs. Predicted; (c) Residuals vs. Run; (d) Predicted vs. Actual; (e) Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the TPC.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Diagnostic plots of DPPH for validation of RSM model. (a) Normal Plot of Residuals; (b) Residuals vs. Predicted; (c) Residuals vs. Run; (d) Predicted vs. Actual; (e) Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the DPPH.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Diagnostic plots of FRAP for validation of RSM model. (a) Normal Plot of Residuals; (b) Residuals vs. Predicted; (c) Residuals vs. Run; (d) Predicted vs. Actual; (e) Perturbation plot showing the effect of all factors on the FRAP.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Maria A.C.B., Simões T.R., de Souza Ramos A., de Almeida M.M.H., da Silva M.A.M., da Cruz J.D., Ferreira J.L.P., de Andrade Silva J.R., Amaral A.C.F. Spondias mombin L.: an updated monograph. Pharmacogn. Rev. 2021;16
    1. Tiburski J.H., Rosenthal A., Deliza R., de Oliveira Godoy R.L., Pacheco S. Nutritional properties of yellow mombin (Spondias mombin L.) pulp. Food Res. Int. 2011;44:2326–2331.
    1. Sameh S., Al-Sayed E., Labib R.M., Singab A.N. Genus spondias: a phytochemical and pharmacological review, evidence-based complement. Alternative Med. 2018;2018 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lobo V., Patil A., Phatak A., Chandra N. Free radicals, antioxidants and functional foods: impact on human health. Pharm. Rev. 2010;4:118. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Santos Felix A.C., Novaes C.G., Pires Rocha M., Barreto G.E., doNascimento B.B., Jr., Giraldez Alvarez L.D. Mixture design and doehlert matrix for the optimization of the extraction of phenolic compounds from Spondias mombin L apple bagasse agroindustrial residues. Front. Chem. 2018;5:116. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources