Wood Science and Technology

, Volume 52, Issue 5, pp 1359–1376 | Cite as

Response surface methodology for optimisation of total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity of extracts from Maytenus macrocarpa bark by means of ultrasound-assisted extraction

  • Reinier Abreu-Naranjo
  • Yasiel Arteaga-Crespo
  • Luis Ramón Bravo-Sanchez
  • Manuel Lázaro Pérez-Quintana
  • Yudel García-Quintana


The aim of this study was to optimise the ultrasound-assisted extraction of the total polyphenol content (TPC) and antioxidant activity from Maytenus macrocarpa bark by means of response surface methodology (RSM). The effect and interactions of temperature, time, particle size, solid:solvent ratio and water:ethanol ratio were analysed by using a fractional factorial design type 25−1. The most significant factors were: temperature, particle size and time. The RSM was applied to the optimisation of the TPC and two total antioxidant activities [Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and 2,2 -azino-bis (3-ethylbenthiozoline-6-sulphonic acid) (ABTS)] as response variables. Four polynomial models were applied; the quadratic model was the most adequate one, with an adjusted R2 value of 0.9422. M. macrocarpa has a considerable TPC that contributes to its antioxidant activity. The best results from the analysis of correlations were found in the FRAP versus TPC and ABTS versus FRAP, with a Pearson’s r coefficient of 0.961 and 0.953, respectively.



This work was supported by Universidad Estatal Amazónica (UEA-AGR-003-2015).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

226_2018_1034_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)


  1. Anderson MJ, Whitcomb PJ (2016) DOE simplified: practical tools for effective experimentation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  2. Aroso IM, Araujo AR, Fernandes JP et al (2017) Hydroalcoholic extracts from the bark of Quercus suber L. (Cork): optimization of extraction conditions, chemical composition and antioxidant potential. Wood Sci Technol 51:855–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashraf A, Bhatti IA, Sultana B, Jamil A (2016) Study of variations in the extraction yield, phenolic contents and antioxidant activities of the bark of F. religiosa as a function of extraction procedure. J Basic Appl Sci 12:8–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM-E1757-01 (2007) Standard practice for preparation of biomass for compositional analysis. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM-E871-82 (2006) Standard test method for moisture analysis of particulate wood fuels. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. Baqueiro-Peña I, Guerrero-Beltrán JÁ (2017) Physicochemical and antioxidant characterization of Justicia spicigera. Food Chem 218:305–312. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouras M, Chadni M, Barba FJ, Grimi N, Bals O, Vorobiev E (2015) Optimization of microwave-assisted extraction of polyphenols from Quercus bark. Ind Crops Prod 77:590–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruni R, Rossi D, Muzzoli M et al (2006) Antimutagenic, antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of Maytenus krukovii bark. Fitoterapia 77:538–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Crespo YA, Naranjo RA, Quitana YG, Sanchez CG, Sanchez EMS (2017) Optimisation and characterisation of bio-oil produced by Acacia mangium Willd wood pyrolysis. Wood Sci Technol 51:1155–1171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delgado-Andrade C, Rufián-Henares JA, Morales FJ (2005) Assessing the antioxidant activity of melanoidins from coffee brews by different antioxidant methods. J Agric Food Chem 53:7832–7836. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Deng G-F, Xu D-P, Li S, Li H-B (2015) Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of natural antioxidants from sugar apple (Annona squamosa L.) peel using response surface methodology. Molecules 20:20448–20459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Du G, Zhao HY, Zhang QW, Li GH, Yang FQ, Wang Y, Li YC, Wang YT (2010) A rapid method for simultaneous determination of 14 phenolic compounds in Radix Puerariae using microwave-assisted extraction and ultra high performance liquid chromatography coupled with diode array detection and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1217:705–714. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Galvan d’Alessandro L, Kriaa K, Nikov I, Dimitrov K (2012) Ultrasound assisted extraction of polyphenols from black chokeberry. Sep Purif Technol 93:42–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gan C-Y, Latiff AA (2011) Optimisation of the solvent extraction of bioactive compounds from Parkia speciosa pod using response surface methodology. Food Chem 124:1277–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garden MB (2017) Maytenus Missouri Botanical Garden. Accessed 15 June 2017
  16. Ghitescu R-E, Volf I, Carausu C, Bühlmann A-M, Gilca IA, Popa VI (2015) Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenols from spruce wood bark. Ultrason Sonochem 22:535–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gonzalez JG, Delle Monache G, Delle Monache F, Marini-Bettolo G (1982) Chuchuhuasha—a drug used in folk medicine in the Amazonian and Andean areas. A chemical study of Maytenus laevis. J Ethnopharmacol 5:73–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Horwitz W, Albert R (2006) The Horwitz ratio (HorRat): a useful index of method performance with respect to precision. J AOAC Int 89:1095–1109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Karacabey E, Mazza G (2010) Optimisation of antioxidant activity of grape cane extracts using response surface methodology. Food Chem 119:343–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khoddami A, Wilkes MA, Roberts TH (2013) Techniques for analysis of plant phenolic compounds. Molecules 18:2328–2375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiran B, Pathak K, Kumar R, Deshmukh D (2016) Statistical optimization using Central Composite Design for biomass and lipid productivity of microalga: a step towards enhanced biodiesel production. Ecol Eng 92:73–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lazar L, Talmaciu AI, Volf I, Popa VI (2016) Kinetic modeling of the ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenols from Picea abies bark. Ultrason Sonochem 32:191–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee M-H, Lin C-C (2007) Comparison of techniques for extraction of isoflavones from the root of Radix Puerariae: ultrasonic and pressurized solvent extractions. Food Chem 105:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKenna MJ, Simmons MP, Bacon CD, Lombardi JA (2011) Delimitation of the segregate genera of Maytenus sl (Celastraceae) based on morphological and molecular characters. Syst Bot 36:922–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nazir S, Wani IA, Masoodi FA (2017) Extraction optimization of mucilage from Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) seeds using response surface methodology. J Adv Res 8:235–244. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Niero R, Faloni de Andrade S, Cechinel F (2011) A review of the ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry and pharmacology of plants of the Maytenus genus. Curr Pharm Des 17:1851–1871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Piacente S, Dos Santos LC, Mahmood N, Pizza C (2006) Triterpenes from Maytenus macrocarpa and evaluation of their anti-HIV activity Nat Prod Commun 19:1073–1078Google Scholar
  28. Pompeu DR, Silva EM, Rogez H (2009) Optimisation of the solvent extraction of phenolic antioxidants from fruits of Euterpe oleracea using Response Surface Methodology. Bioresour Technol 100:6076–6082. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Prior RL, Wu X, Schaich K (2005) Standardized methods for the determination of antioxidant capacity and phenolics in foods and dietary supplements. J Agric Food Chem 53:4290–4302. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Rommel Z-H, Alexander Z-H, Karelya W-P et al. (2016) Study on the Temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate and Electrocardiogram of concomitant administration of Maytenus macrocarpa “Chuchuhuasi” and Propranolol in escalating doses. Pharm Commun 6Google Scholar
  31. Rosdiana NA, Dumarcay S, Gerardin C et al (2017) Characterization of bark extractives of different industrial Indonesian wood species for potential valorization. Ind Crops Prod 108:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Santos SA, Cilela C, Domingues RMA et al (2017) Secondary metabolites from Eucalyptus grandis wood cultivated in Portugal, Brazil and South Africa. Ind Crops Prod 95:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanz-Biset J, Canigueral S (2011) Plant use in the medicinal practices known as “strict diets” in Chazuta valley (Peruvian Amazon). J Ethnopharmacol 137:271–288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Silva EM, Rogez H, Larondelle Y (2007) Optimization of extraction of phenolics from Inga edulis leaves using response surface methodology. Sep Purif Technol 55:381–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singleton V, Rossi JA (1965) Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Vitic 16:144–158Google Scholar
  36. Stagegaard J, Sørensen M, Kvist LP (2002) Estimations of the importance of plant resources extracted by inhabitants of the Peruvian Amazon flood plains. Perspect Plant Ecol, Evol Syst 5:103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thaipong K, Boonprakob U, Crosby K, Cisneros-Zevallos L, Hawkins Byrne D (2006) Comparison of ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC assays for estimating antioxidant activity from guava fruit extracts. J Food Compos Anal 19:669–675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Todaro L, Russo D, Cetera P, Milella L (2017) Effects of thermo-vacuum treatment on secondary metabolite content and antioxidant activity of poplar (Populus nigra L.) wood extracts. Ind Crops Prod 109:384–390. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Veggi PC, Santos DT, Fabiano-Tixier A-S, Le Bourvellec C, Meireles MAA, Chemat F (2013) Ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenols from Jatoba (Hymenaea courbaril L. var stilbocarpa) bark. Food and Public Health 3:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Velmurugan R, Muthukumar K (2012) Ultrasound-assisted alkaline pretreatment of sugarcane bagasse for fermentable sugar production: optimization through response surface methodology. Bioresour Technol 112:293–299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Veloso CC, Soares GL, Perez AC, Rodrigues VG, Silva FC (2017) Pharmacological potential of Maytenus species and isolated constituents, especially tingenone, for treatment of painful inflammatory diseases. Revista Brasileira de Farmacognosia 27:533–540. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vilkhu K, Mawson R, Simons L, Bates D (2008) Applications and opportunities for ultrasound assisted extraction in the food industry—a review. Innov Food Sci Emer Technol 9:161–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vinatoru M (2001) An overview of the ultrasonically assisted extraction of bioactive principles from herbs. Ultrason Sonochem 8:303–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang J, Sun B, Cao Y, Tian Y, Li X (2008) Optimisation of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from wheat bran. Food Chem 106:804–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whitcomb PJ, Anderson MJ (2004) RSM simplified: optimizing processes using response surface methods for design of experiments. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whitcomb P, Oehlert GW (2007) Graphical selection of effects in general factorials. Fall Techn Conf 612:2036Google Scholar
  47. Witek-Krowiak A, Chojnacka K, Podstawczyk D, Dawiec A, Pokomeda K (2014) Application of response surface methodology and artificial neural network methods in modelling and optimization of biosorption process. Bioresour Technol 160:150–160. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesUniversidad Estatal Amazónica (UEA)Puyo, PastazaEcuador
  2. 2.Department of Earth ScienceUniversidad Estatal Amazónica (UEA)Puyo, PastazaEcuador

Personalised recommendations