Optimisation of extraction conditions of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of Ruta chalepensis L. using response surface methodology

  • Yassine BenchikhEmail author
  • Amina Zaoui
  • Rihab Derbal
  • Mostapha Bachir bey
  • Hayette Louaileche
Original Paper


In the present study, the extraction conditions of phenolic compounds from the Ruta chalepensis L. (a medicinal plant) and the antioxidant activity of its extract were determined. The response surface methodology (RSM) flowing Box–Behnken design was used to study and optimise the effect of three factors [ethanol concentration (40–80%), sample to solvent ratio (0.05/10–0.5/10 g/mL) and extraction time (30–90 min)] on the total phenolic content (TPC) and the antioxidant activity (AA). The optimal extraction conditions predicted by the models were 50.33%, 0.28 g/10 mL, and 59.86 min for the ethanol concentration, the sample to solvent ratio and the extraction time, respectively. These factors gave the optimal predicted values of 521.10 mg GAE/g DW and of 60.48 mg AAE/g DW for the total phenolic content and the antioxidant activity, respectively. Total flavonoids (TFC), flavonols (TFlC), and ortho-diphenols (ODC) contents were further determined by evaluating the extract obtained by the validated optimal conditions of phenolic compounds. The obtained contents were 129.72 ± 1.09 mg QE/g DW, 24.98 ± 0.38 mg RE/g DW and 45.93 ± 0.37 mg CAE/g DW for TFC, TFlC, and ODC, respectively. The data of this report revealed that the extract of Ruta chalepensis L. is an excellent source of natural antioxidants that can be used or incorporated, as natural additives, into different food products in order to develop novel functional food products.


Antioxidant activity Box–Behnken design Optimisation Phenolic compounds Response surface methodology Ruta chalpensis L. 



The authors are grateful to the Algerian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research for the financial support. They would also convey special thanks to Dr. Mohamed El-Hadef El-Okki for his valuable help concerning the response surface methodology modelling and to Dr. Mohammed Gagaoua for his support in the scientific opinion and English editing of the manuscript as well as Mrs. Lamia Elmechta for her grammar checking.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    L.C. Di Stasi, G.P. Oliveira, M.A. Carvalhaes, M. Queiroz-Junior, O.S. Tien, S.H. Kakinami, M.S. Reis, Fitoterapia 73, 69 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Iauk, K. Mangano, A. Rapisarda, S. Ragusa, L. Maiolino, R. Musumeci, R. Costanzo, A. Serra, A. Speciale, J. Ethnopharmacol. 90, 267 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Kacem, I. Kacem, G. Simon, A. Ben Mansour, S. Chaabouni, A. Elfeki, M. Bouaziz, Food Biosci. 12, 73 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Aguilar-Santamaría, J. Tortoriello, Phytother. Res. 10, 531 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. Fakhfakh, S. Zouari, M. Zouari, C. Loussayef, N. Zouari, J. Med Plants Res 6, 593 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Khlifi, R.M. Sghaier, S. Amouri, D. Laouini, M. Hamdi, J. Bouajila, Food Chem. Toxicol. 55, 202 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L.M. Perry, J. Metzger, Medicinal Plants of East and Southeast Asia: Attributed Properties and Uses (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.S. Al-Said, M. Tariq, M.A. Al-Yahya, S. Rafatullah, O.T. Ginnawi, A.M. Ageel, J. Ethnopharmacol. 28, 305 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Ouerghemmi, I. Bettaieb Rebey, F.Z. Rahali, S. Bourgou, L. Pistelli, R. Ksouri, B. Marzouk, M. Saidani Tounsi, J. Food Drug Anal. 25, 350 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Bachir bey, L. Meziant, Y. Benchikh, H. Louaileche, Food Chem. 162, 277 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Siddiqui, V. Aeri, JPC 30, 36 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Saci, Y. Benchikh, H. Louaileche, M. Bachir bey, Ann. Univ. Dunarea de Jos of Galati. 42, 26 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Tsapatsaris, P. Kotzekidou, Int. J. Food Microbiol. 95, 157 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H.S. Yim, F.Y. Chye, S.M. Koo, P. Matanjun, S.E. How, C.W. Ho, Food Bioprod. Process. 90, 235 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Bachir bey, L. Meziant, Y. Benchikh, H. Louaileche, Int. Food Res. J. 21, 1477 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Ilaiyaraja, K.R. Likhith, G.S. Babu, F. Khanum, Food Chem. 173, 348 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    V.L. Singleton, J.A. Rossi, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 16, 144–158 (1965)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. Dewanto, X. Wu, K.K. Adom, R.H. Liu, J. Agric. Food Chem. 50, 3010–3014 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    I. Yermakov, V.V. Arasimov, N.P. Yarosh, Leningrad Agropromizdat 122 (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Mateos, J.L. Espartero, M. Trujillo, J.J. Rios, M. León-Camacho, F. Alcudia, A. Cert, J. Agric. Food Chem. 49, 2185 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Brand-Williams, M.E. Cuvelier, C. Berset, LWT 28, 25 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C.Y. Cheok, N.L. Chin, Y.A. Yusof, R.A. Talib, C.L. Law, Ind. Crops Prod. 40, 247 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    E. Silva, H. Rogez, Y. Larondelle, Sep. Purif. Technol. 55, 381 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    S.W. Chan, C.Y. Lee, C.F. Yap, W.W. Aida, C.W. Ho, Int. Food Res. J. 16, 203 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Z.-S. Zhang, D. Li, L.-J. Wang, N. Ozkan, X.D. Chen, Z.-H. Mao, H.-Z. Yang, Sep. Purif. Technol. 57, 17 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Biotechnologie, Institut de la Nutrition, de l’Alimentation et des Technologies Agro-Alimentaires (I.N.A.T.A.A.)Université Frères Mentouri -Constantine 1ConstantineAlgeria
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Biochimie Appliquée, Faculté des Sciences de la Nature et de la VieUniversité de BejaiaBejaiaAlgeria

Personalised recommendations