MARATTO

article · Molecules

Evaluation of Different Extraction Methods on the Phenolic Profile and the Antioxidant Potential of Ceratonia siliqua L. Pods Extracts

202232 citationsOpen accessAbdelmalek Essaâdi University

In plain language

This study evaluates how four different extraction techniques affect the recovery of phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties from carob pods. The assessed techniques comprise ultrasonic-assisted, supercritical fluid, microwave-assisted, and conventional Soxhlet extraction. Using spectrophotometric assays and ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry, researchers found that the choice of extraction method significantly altered the resulting chemical profile and bioactivity. Across the methods, total phenolic content ranged from 11.55 to 34.38 milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per gram, while flavonoid and condensed tannin yields also varied widely. Nine specific compounds were identified through liquid chromatography. Antioxidant potency, measured via a free radical scavenging assay, demonstrated a dose-dependent response that was positively linked to the concentration of extracted phenolic compounds.

Key takeaways

  • The extraction method significantly affects both the phenolic yield and antioxidant capacity of carob pod extracts.
  • Total phenolic content ranged between 11.55 and 34.38 milligrams per gram of dry weight across the four tested methods.
  • Chromatographic analysis successfully identified nine distinct compounds in the carob extracts.
  • Higher levels of extracted phenolic compounds directly correlate with stronger antioxidant activity.

Why it matters

Carob pods are a natural source of antioxidants, which can protect cells from oxidative stress. Understanding which extraction methods yield the highest concentrations of beneficial compounds allows processors to select the most efficient techniques. This ensures the maximum recovery of valuable phytochemicals from raw plant material for further scientific evaluation and potential formulation needs.

Commercialisation angle

This work represents early-stage laboratory research that provides comparative baseline data for selecting extraction processes for carob. Process engineers, ingredient manufacturers, and natural product developers could use these findings to optimise extraction parameters for antioxidant recovery. Because the evaluations remain at the in vitro experimental level, further scale-up studies, cost analyses, and formulation trials are necessary before practical commercial application.

AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.

Abstract

The present work was designed to investigate the effects of different extraction processes, namely ultrasonic-assisted, supercritical fluid, microwave-assisted and Soxhlet applied to carob pods. The total phenolic quantification and the antioxidant activity were assessed by the means of rapid in vitro spectrophotometric assays; the phenolic profile was identified using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. The results revealed that the phenolic compounds and the antioxidant capacity varied significantly with the nature of the extraction process. The content of total phenolic compounds ranged from 11.55 to 34.38 mg GAE/g DW; the content of total flavonoids varied from 3.50 to 10.53 mg QE/g DW, and the content of condensed tannins fluctuated from 3.30 to 6.55 mg CE/ g DW. All extracts performed differently on antioxidant activity when determined by the DPPH assay producing a dose-dependent response, with IC50 extended from 11.33 to 6.07 µg/mL. HPLC analysis enabled the identification of nine compounds. As a function of the studied extraction methods, the phenolic compound contents were positively correlated with antioxidant activity.

Research topics

  • Polysaccharides Composition and Applications
  • Polysaccharides and Plant Cell Walls
  • Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.3390/molecules27196163

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.