Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Optimisation of ultrasonic-assisted extraction and biological activity of total flavonoids from leaves of Murrayae exotica using response surface methodology Cover

Optimisation of ultrasonic-assisted extraction and biological activity of total flavonoids from leaves of Murrayae exotica using response surface methodology

By: Yao Wen,  Manchun Liu and  Xueying Mai  
Open Access
|Jun 2023

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

The effect of different ultrasonic temperature (A), ultrasonic power (B), ultrasonic time (C), solvent concentration (D) and liquid–solid ratio (E) on the extraction yield of MELTF.
The effect of different ultrasonic temperature (A), ultrasonic power (B), ultrasonic time (C), solvent concentration (D) and liquid–solid ratio (E) on the extraction yield of MELTF.

Figure 2.

Response surface (3D) plots showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.
Response surface (3D) plots showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.

Figure 3.

Contour plot showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.
Contour plot showing the effect of solvent concentration and ultrasonic time (A), solvent concentration and liquid–solid ratio (B), and ultrasonic time and liquid–solid ratio (C) on extraction yield of MELTF.

Figure 4.

Elution profile of MELPTF on AB-8 macroporous resin column. MELPTF, MELTF after purification.
Elution profile of MELPTF on AB-8 macroporous resin column. MELPTF, MELTF after purification.

Figure 5.

α-Glucosidase inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.
α-Glucosidase inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.

Figure 6.

α-Amalyse inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.
α-Amalyse inhibitory activities of MELTF and MELPTF. MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification.

Figure 7.

DPPH-scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhdrazyl; MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.
DPPH-scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. DPPH, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhdrazyl; MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.

Figure 8.

ABTS·+ scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. ABTS, 2,2′-Azino-bis (3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid); MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.
ABTS·+ scavenging activities of MELTF and MELPTF. ABTS, 2,2′-Azino-bis (3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid); MELTF, M. exotica leaves total flavonoids; MELPTF, MELTF after purification; VC, vitamin C.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the effects of solvent concentration (X1), ultrasonic time (X2) and liquid-solid ratio (X3) on extraction yield of MELTF with ethanol as solvent using predicted polynomial models_

SourceSum of squaresDfMean squareF-valuep-valueSignificanta
Model20.1692.2410.820.0024
X16.8816.8833.240.0007
X22.9712.9714.360.0068**
X33.1313.1315.110.0060***
X1X20.2610.261.260.2987**
X1X30.7210.723.490.1038**
X2X30.1510.150.710.4273*
X122.5312.5312.230.0100*
X221.7711.778.530.0223
X321.1411.145.490.0516
Residual1.4570.21
Lack of fit0.7930.261.580.3255Not significant
Pure Error0.66
Cor total21.614
R20.932916
R2adj.0.8467

The coded experimental and predicted values for RSM design using ethanol as solvent_

RunX1X2X3Extraction yield (mg · g−1)
ExperimentalPredicted
1−1−1  05.715.29
2  0  1  18.338.26
3  0  0  07.428.00
4  0  1−16.856.62
5  0−1−15.715.79
6  1−1  06.536.64
7  0  0  07.748.00
8  0  0  08.308.00
9  1  0−17.627.43
10−1  0−14.394.73
11  0  0  08.388.00
12  0−1  16.436.65
13−1  0  16.636.83
14−1  1  06.116.00
15  1  1  07.958.37
16  1  0  18.177.83
17  0  0  08.148.00

Result of model validation experiments_

No.Optimum conditionsExtraction yield (mg · g−1)
Solvent concentration (%)Ultrasonic time (min)Liquid-solid radio (mL · g−1)ExperimentalPredicted
17655228.798.62
27655228.288.62
37655228.398.62
47655228.568.62
57655228.938.62
Average 8.59
Ethanol leaching extraction
6020203.38
7020203.28
8020203.42
Average 3.36

The coded values and corresponding actual values of the optimisation parameters_

CodeSolvent concentration (%)Ultrasonic time (min)Liquid-solid ratio (mL · g-1)
−1603015
0704520
1806025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2023-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761
Language: English
Page range: 135 - 148
Submitted on: Dec 27, 2022
Accepted on: Feb 14, 2023
Published on: Jun 26, 2023
Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2023 Yao Wen, Manchun Liu, Xueying Mai, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.