Download Complete Issue - Academic Journals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. Orthogonal test and results (L16, 4 4 ). Test no. Ethanol (%) Extraction temperature(°C) Liquid/ solid (ml/mg) Extraction time (min) Mean yield (%, n = 3) 1 50 30 1 30 2.65 2 50 50 1.5 40 3.05 3 50 60 2 50 2.51 4 50 70 2.5 60 2.54 5 60 30 1.5 50 3.08 6 60 50 1 60 3.25 7 60 60 2.5 30 3.15 8 60 70 2 40 2.82 9 70 30 2 60 2.46 10 70 50 2.5 50 3.38 11 70 60 1 40 2.91 12 70 70 1.5 30 2.65 13 80 30 2.5 40 2.28 14 80 50 2 30 2.24 15 80 60 1.5 60 2.12 16 80 70 1 50 1.93 K1 2.69 2.62 2.69 2.67 K2 3.08 2.98 2.73 2.77 K3 2.85 2.67 2.51 2.73 K4 2.14 2.49 2.84 2.59 R 0.94 0.49 0.33 0.18 P value 0.002 ** 0.011 * 0.037 * 0.170 * Significant (P < 0.05); ** very significant (P < 0.01). analyzed. These factors are: sunshine (kh/y), precipitation (mm/y), cumulative temperature (≥10°C/y), mean annual temperature (°C/y), frost-free period (d/y), and altitude (m) were collected from local weather records of producing areas, respectively. Soil factors as soluble salinity (%), SOM (soil organic matter, %), Soil available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were analyzed according to the method of Täumer et al. (2005). The factors as sunshine, precipitation, cumulative temperature, mean annual temperature, frost-free period, altitude, soluble salinity and SOM were analyzed by principle factors analysis with SPSS 16.0 to investigate correlations between these environmental factors and the main active components, because these are environmental factors deciding the genuineness of L. barbarum fruits. While soil available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium can be easily changed by human farming, so the available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were analyzed by linear regression independently. RESULTS Preparation of the samples A four-level OAD with an OA16 (4 4 ) matrix was chosen to optimize the UAE parameters (Table 1). Based on singlefactor experiments (Figure 1), the levels are chosen as: ethanol concentration of 50/60/70/80%, extraction temperature of 30/50/60/70°C, ratio of liquid to solid of 1/1.5/2/2.5, extraction time of 30/40/50/60 min. The results of orthogonal test and extreme difference analysis are presented in Table 1. The P value analysis indicated that the influential order of the four factors on the extraction yield of polyphenols is ethanol concentration > extraction temperature > ratio of liquor to solid > ultrasonication time (Table 1). According to variance analysis, the contributions of ethanol concentration, extraction temperature and ratio of liquor to solid for the extraction yield of polyphenols are significant (P < 0.05), whereas extraction time was not significant factor which means UAE can significantly shorten extraction time. According to extreme difference analysis, the optimum extraction condition of polyphenols was deduced as: ethanol of 70%, liquid/solid of 1/2.5 (ml/mg), extraction temperature of 50°C, extraction time of 30 min. Accuracy of determination on polyphenols from UAE extracts The linearity range of standard rutin was determined as 4.0 to 15.0 µg/ml (R 2 = 0.9998). The equation was obtained by linear regression: y = 0.0419x - 0.1015 (data not shown), where y is absorbance, x is concentration of rutin (µg/ml). Recovery was obtained by adding standard rutin to extract solution to obtain total polyphenols. Final concentrations were 6.0, 11.0 and 15.0 µg/ml. The assay
Figure 1. Effect of ethanol concentration, temperature, liquid/solid and extraction time on polyphenols yields. Dong et al. 2279 Figure 2. UV-Visible chromatography of carotenoids extracted by different solvents (1 = absolute ethanol, 2 = chloroform, 3 = aether, 4 = acetone/aether (1/1), 5 = acetone, 6 = absolute methanol).
Page 1 and 2: Journal of Medicinal Plants Researc
Page 3 and 4: Editors Prof. Akah Peter Achunike E
Page 5 and 6: Electronic submission of manuscript
Page 7 and 8: Fees and Charges: Authors are requi
Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents: Volume 6 Number
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1. Chuanxiong Rhizoma (http:
Page 17 and 18: Table 1. Identification of main pea
Page 19 and 20: Table 3. Pharmacokinetic parameters
Page 21 and 22: active component study, many invest
Page 25 and 26: and 1185 kg ha -1 in the first site
Page 27 and 28: Table 1. Recommendation for use fer
Page 29 and 30: Sadanandan AK, Hamza S (1996c). Stu
Page 31 and 32: and it has been traced to South Ame
Page 33 and 34: Table 3. Results of phytochemical a
Page 37 and 38: (a) (b) (c) Figure 1. (a) Normal ce
Page 39 and 40: emedies in the south of Brazil. J.
Page 41 and 42: known fatty acids and terpenoids we
Page 43 and 44: Table 1. Renal function tests of ra
Page 45 and 46: Al-Radahe et al. 2271 Figure 3.nnnn
Page 47 and 48: namely disruption of the vascular e
Page 49 and 50: Zayachkivska OS, Konturek SJ, Drozd
Page 51: β-carotene were purchased from Sig
Page 55 and 56: Table 3. Climatic and soil factors
Page 57 and 58: content of polysaccharides. Phospha
Page 59 and 60: Serge et al. 2285 Table 1. Relative
Page 61 and 62: Percentage inhibition % of inhibiti
Page 65 and 66: Table 1. Result of phytochemical sc
Page 67 and 68: Table 3. Result of thin layer chrom
Page 71 and 72: Table 2. MIC of a compound 1 from c
Page 75 and 76: Zirihi et al. 2301 Figure 2. Termin
Page 77 and 78: Figure 5. T. catappa Linn. (Combret
Page 79 and 80: Figure 8. A. fumigatus: Aspect of c
Page 81 and 82: Figure 12. Sensitivity of A. fumiga
Page 85 and 86: Noormi et al. 2311 Table 1. Callus
Page 87 and 88: Table 2. Contd. NoC=No callus. 4.0
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2. Contd. at 2.0 mg/L yellow
Page 93 and 94: Table 1. Biochemical parameters in
Page 95 and 96: Figure 3. Bcl-xL reactions in inter
Page 97 and 98: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would l
Page 99 and 100: Figure 1. The first page of the boo
Page 101 and 102: Figure 3. The most widely included
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 4. Lithographic print “St.
Page 105 and 106:
Table 1. List of plants included in
Page 107 and 108:
Table 1. Contd. Nedelcheva 2333 Cin
Page 109 and 110:
Table 1. Contd. Nedelcheva 2335 Rhe
Page 111 and 112:
14 7 1 15 1 35 17 16 Imported plant
Page 113 and 114:
Academy of Science Publishing House
Page 115 and 116:
et al., 1996; van Wyk and Gericke,
Page 117 and 118:
DPPH inhibition (%) DPPH % inhibiti
Page 119 and 120:
% Mortality Concentration (µg/ml)
Page 121 and 122:
information on plants used for the
Page 123 and 124:
Table 1. Levels of independent vari
Page 125 and 126:
Arbutin (mg/g) Co-solvent Figure 1.
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction pressure
Page 131 and 132:
Table 3. Arbuitn content of Asian p
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction pressure
Page 137 and 138:
Arbutin (mg/g) Extraction temperatu
Page 139 and 140:
Journal of Medicinal Plants Researc
Page 141 and 142:
Table 1. Chemical composition of es
Page 143 and 144:
Darjazi 2369 Table 2. Statistical a
Page 145 and 146:
Table 3. Correlation matrix (number
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Table 1. Precision test. extraction
Page 151 and 152:
Figure 2. Effect of different alcoh
Page 153 and 154:
Table 6. Results of ANOVA. Nie et a
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Table 2. Plant data and MIC values
Page 159 and 160:
exhibiting the polar extracts of P.
Page 161 and 162:
Table 3. Contd. AcOEt ++ ++ ++ - Me
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 1. Map of Ladakh region of I
Page 165 and 166:
Warghat et al. 2391 Table 3. Summar
Page 167 and 168:
Table 5. Inter-Population genetic i
Page 169 and 170:
Excoffier L, Smouse PE, Quattro JM
Page 171 and 172:
ice residue is an ideal raw materia
Page 173 and 174:
DPPH• scavenging ratio(%) OD valu
Page 175 and 176:
scavenging effect on free radical a
Page 177 and 178:
our new CL system. Fenton reaction
Page 179 and 180:
1 2 Time (s) Figure 2. Kinetic curv
Page 181 and 182:
Wong et al., 2006). It can be seen
Page 183 and 184:
Pan YM, Liang Y, Wang HS, Liang M (
Page 185 and 186:
2422 J. Med. Plants Res. close cano
Page 187 and 188:
2424 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. M
Page 189 and 190:
2426 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. C
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
2432 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 2. D
Page 197 and 198:
2434 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 6. T
Page 199 and 200:
2436 J. Med. Plants Res. budget dur
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
2440 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. R
Page 205 and 206:
2442 J. Med. Plants Res. Stability
Page 207 and 208:
2444 J. Med. Plants Res. production
Page 209 and 210:
2446 J. Med. Plants Res. Figure 2.
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
2450 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 2. A
Page 215 and 216:
2452 J. Med. Plants Res. Ghasemi Pi
Page 217 and 218:
2454 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. I
Page 219 and 220:
2456 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. M
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
2460 J. Med. Plants Res. Department
Page 225 and 226:
2462 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. E
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
2466 J. Med. Plants Res. AOAC (2000
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
2470 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. F
Page 235 and 236:
2472 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 3. S
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
2480 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. W
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
2486 J. Med. Plants Res. components
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
2490 J. Med. Plants Res. Inhibition
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
2494 J. Med. Plants Res. can increa
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
2500 J. Med. Plants Res. Flowering
Page 265 and 266:
2502 J. Med. Plants Res. harvest in
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
2512 J. Med. Plants Res. over-expre
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
2516 J. Med. Plants Res. Table 1. P
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
2524 J. Med. Plants Res. ACKNOWLEDG
Page 289 and 290:
UPCOMING CONFERENCES 15th European
Page 291:
show all

Download Complete Issue - Academic Journals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?