4.6 Article

Optimization Extraction, Preliminary Characterization and Antioxidant Activities of Polysaccharides from Semen Juglandis

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 21, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules21101335

关键词

Semen Juglandis; polysaccharide; response surface methodology (RSM); physicochemical property; antioxidant activities

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [BLX2014-39]
  2. key laboratory of Zhejiang Biological and Chemical Utilization of Forestry Resources (KLZML)
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31571795, 31501815]
  4. China Ministry of Science and Technology [2016YFD0600803]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The optimization extraction process, preliminary characterization and antioxidant activities of polysaccharides from Semen Juglandis (SJP) were studied in this paper. Based on the Box-Behnken experimental design and response surface methodology, the optimal extraction conditions for the SJP extraction were obtained as follows: temperature 88 degrees C, extraction time 125 min and ratio of liquid to solid 31 mL/g. Under these conditions, experimental extraction yield of SJP was (5.73 +/- 0.014)% (n = 5), similar to the predicted value of 5.78%. Furtherly, the purified SJP obtained from SJP extract by DEAE-52 and Sephacryl S-100 chromatography was analyzed to be rhamnose, galacturonic acid, galactose, arabinose and fucose in the molar ratio of 1:6.34:1.38:3.21:1.56. And the weight-average molecular weight and radius of gyration of the purified SJP in 0.1 M NaCl were determined to be 2.76 +/- 104 g/mol and 122 nm by SEC-MALLS, respectively. More importantly, it exhibited appreciable antioxidant activities compared to the standard Vc, such as DPPH radical scavenging activity (IC50 0.21 mg/mL), strong reducing power, ABTS radical scavenging activity (IC50 0.29 mg/mL), and hydroxyl radical scavenging activity (IC50 0.38 mg/mL). These results indicate that SJP may be useful for developing functional health products or natural antioxidant.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据