Chem Cent J. 2014 Aug 22;8(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s13065-014-0048-1. eCollection 2014.
Evaluation of solvent effect on the extraction of phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacities from the berries: application of principal component analysis.
Chemistry Central journal
Joana Schuelter Boeing, Erica Oliveira Barizão, Beatriz Costa E Silva, Paula Fernandes Montanher, Vitor de Cinque Almeida, Jesuí Vergilio Visentainer
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Departament of Chemistry, State University of Maringa, Maringa, Parana 87020-900 Brazil.
- Institute of Chemistry, State University Paulista, Araraquara, Sao Paulo 14800-060 Brazil.
PMID: 25246942
PMCID: PMC4158270 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-014-0048-1
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effect of the solvent on the extraction of antioxidant compounds from black mulberry (Morus nigra), blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius) and strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa). Different extracts of each berry were evaluated from the determination of total phenolic content, anthocyanin content and antioxidant capacity, and data were applied to the principal component analysis (PCA) to gain an overview of the effect of the solvent in extraction method.
RESULTS: For all the berries analyzed, acetone/water (70/30, v/v) solvent mixture was more efficient solvent in the extracting of phenolic compounds, and methanol/water/acetic acid (70/29.5/0.5, v/v/v) showed the best values for anthocyanin content. Mixtures of ethanol/water (50/50, v/v), acetone water/acetic acid (70/29.5/0.5, v/v/v) and acetone/water (50/50, v/v) presented the highest antioxidant capacities for black mulberries, blackberries and strawberries, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Antioxidants extractions are extremely affected by the solvent combination used. In addition, the obtained extracts with the organic solvent-water mixtures were distinguished from the extracts obtained with pure organic solvents, through the PCA analysis.
Keywords: Anthocyanins; Fragaria x ananassa; Morus nigra; Multivariate analysis; Rubus ulmifolius; Solvent extraction
References
- J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Mar 27;50(7):1815-21 - PubMed
- J Sci Food Agric. 2014 Jan 30;94(2):246-55 - PubMed
- J Chromatogr A. 2004 Oct 29;1054(1-2):95-111 - PubMed
- Anal Biochem. 1996 Jul 15;239(1):70-6 - PubMed
- J Food Sci. 2010 Sep;75(7):C626-32 - PubMed
- J Agric Food Chem. 2012 Sep 5;60(35):8738-44 - PubMed
- Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Jun;51(6):675-83 - PubMed
- J Agric Food Chem. 2000 Aug;48(8):3396-402 - PubMed
- J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2006 Aug 28;41(5):1523-42 - PubMed
- J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Jun 16;52(12):4026-37 - PubMed
- J Sci Food Agric. 2010 May;90(7):1268-82 - PubMed
- J Agric Food Chem. 2001 Oct;49(10):4619-26 - PubMed
- J Sci Food Agric. 2013 Sep;93(12):2909-16 - PubMed
- J Agric Food Chem. 2008 Feb 13;56(3):630-5 - PubMed
- J Agric Food Chem. 2010 Apr 28;58(8):4666-74 - PubMed
- Food Chem. 2012 Dec 15;135(4):2138-46 - PubMed
- Chem Cent J. 2012 Jul 04;6(1):66 - PubMed
- J Sci Food Agric. 2012 Jan 30;92(2):433-8 - PubMed
- Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):95-135 - PubMed
- Chem Cent J. 2013 Jul 15;7:121 - PubMed
Publication Types