Content uploaded by Hammadi El Farissi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hammadi El Farissi on Jan 14, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Hammadi El Farissi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hammadi El Farissi on Jan 13, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Hammadi El Farissi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hammadi El Farissi on Jan 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Extraction, analysis of polyphenols and antioxidant properties of
morrocan barley seed extracts (Hordeum vulgare L.)
Fouad EL Mansouri
a,
⇑
, Miguel Palma Lovillo
b
, Hammadi El Farissi
a
, Halima Oufdou
c
, Jamal Brigui
a
a
Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Valorization of Resources, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Abdelmalek Essaâdi University, Tangier
416, Morocco
b
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, Instituto de Investigación Vitivinícola y Agroalimentaria (IVAGRO), University of Cadiz, Campus del Rio San Pedro,
11510 Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain
c
Applied Economics Laboratory Mohammed V University Rabat 10000, Morocco
article info
Article history:
Received 3 June 2020
Received in revised form 16 October 2020
Accepted 30 October 2020
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Antioxidant
Polyphenols
Flavonoids
Proanthocyanidins
Hordeum vulgare L.
abstract
This study investigated the effect of extraction method and the choice of solvent on the phenolic sub-
stance and antioxidant activity of certain varieties of grain seeds (Hordeum vulgare L.). In this ponder,
three diverse solvents were used, specifically acetone, ethanol, and methanol, and three extraction meth-
ods were utilized to extract the phenolic substance ultrasound extraction, Soxhlet, and maceration. The
levels of total phenols (TPC), total flavonoids (TFC) and proanthocyanidins (PA) were decided.
The results appeared that diverse solvents of different polarity had a major impact on polyphenol con-
tent and antioxidant activity; the highest TPC (1.990 mg EG/g of dried extract), PA (1.628 mg EC/g of dried
extract) were obtained with acetone, the results of TPC and PA were in this order: 70% acetone
extract > 70% ethanol extract > 70% methanol extract and the highest TFC (2.204 mg EQ/g of dried extract)
were obtained with methanol, the results of TFC were in this order: 70% methanol extract > 70% acetone
extract 70% ethanol extract. However, different extraction methods gave comparable results. In vitro
antioxidant activities were assessed utilizing the DPPH radical scavenging capacity, The lowest IC50 value
reflects the highest antioxidant potency, acetone extract showed the greatest ability to scavenge DPPH
free radicals with an IC50 of 2.013 mg/ml, 2.024 mg/ml, 2.635 mg/ml, 3.428 mg/ml respectively observed
in the varieties MASSINE, LOCALE, CASAMENCE, AMALOU, these results show that barley seeds of the
two-row type (MASSINE and LOCALE) have a higher antioxidant activity compared to the six-row type
(CASAMENCE and AMALOU). Ultrasonic extraction was better for extracting antioxidant molecules from
barley seeds in comparison to soxhlet and maceration.
Ó2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advanced Materials Behavior and Characterization.
1. Introduction
Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is the second most cultivated cer-
eal in Morocco after common wheat. It occupies an annual average
of 1.9 million hectares, or 38% of the useful agricultural area of
cereals and 21.8% of the total UAA. Barley is grown all over Mor-
occo. The 67% of the areas are located in arid, semi- arid and
semi-arid zones, 8% in mountains and 24% in areas with low-
input soils.
Antioxidant compounds are currently the focus of many studies
because, besides to their benefits in the treatment of a multitude of
pathologies, they are also used for the preservation of edible food-
stuffs for the food industry [1].Most antioxidants isolated from
plants are polyphenols. In this family, we find a class of secondary
metabolites recognized as being responsible for these numerous
biological activities, such as flavonoids, which have antioxidant,
anti-inflammatory [2,3], anti-allergic [4] and anti-carcinogenic
activities [5,6].
In addition, these phenolic compounds have pulled in the con-
sideration of nourishment and therapeutic researchers since of
their solid in vitro and in vivo antioxidant exercises and their
capacity to rummage free radicals, break radical chain re-
sponse and chelate metals. Besides, tall phenol utilization has been
associated with a decreased hazard of cardiovascular illnesses and
a few cancers [7–9].Phenolic compounds would help ensure the
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.922
2214-7853/Ó2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advanced Materials Behavior and Characterization.
⇑
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fouad.elmansouri@etu.uae.ac.ma (F. EL Mansouri).
Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr
Please cite this article as: F. EL Mansouri, M. Palma Lovillo, H. El Farissi et al., Extraction, analysis of polyphenols and antioxidant properties of morrocan
barley seed extracts (Hordeum vulgare L.), Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.922
proper functioning of the mitochondria, the tiny furnaces of our
cells, the disruption of which would be at the root of the develop-
ment of metabolic syndrome, inflammatory cancers [10],Alzhei-
mer’s and Parkinson’s diseases [11].Additionally, phenolic
compounds, responsible for the nutritional quality of foods, were
used as markers in taxonomic studies. Recently, research has
focused on assessing the ability of these compounds to inhibit bac-
tericidal activity [12,13].
The extraction of phenols and antioxidants are made from sev-
eral biomasses and with different techniques. but barley is the
richest biomass of its components hence the context, our work is
integrated on the valuation of these different varieties of barley
by the characterization of these phenolic compounds as well as
their antioxidant properties resulting from different methods
extraction.
2. Materiel and methods
2.1. Materials
Four varieties of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) were used in our
study; AMALOU, CASAMENCE, MASSINE, LOCALE.
Barley seeds were crushed to pass by a 1.0 mm sieve, then the
powder was degreased for 24 h with n-hexane under continuous
stirring at room temperature, and stored at 4 °C until use.
2.2. Chemicals and reagents
2,2-Diphenyl-l-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), Folin-Ciocalteau, the gal-
lic acid catechin standard, and the quercetin standard were pur-
chased from the American company Sigma-Aldrich. The other
solvents and chemicals used were of analytical grade.
2.3. Extraction methods
Different extraction methods used for the extraction of phenolic
compounds. Most of these techniques are generally used for the
analysis of pollutants in soil, whereas in the last decades studies
have focused on the analysis of natural compounds in plants and
foods [14].
2.3.1. Extraction by maceration
15 g of the defatted grain powder were weighed and put into a
500 ml bottle. 200 ml of 70% acetone (v/v), 70% ethanol (v/v), and
70% methanol (v/v), were included to each bottle, separately. After
4 h of extraction at 45 °C, the supernatant and the silt were iso-
lated by vacuum filtration. The buildup was re-extracted as the pri-
mary extraction. The gotten extraction arrangements were
combined and concentrated to dryness by vacuum-evaporator at
45 °C. The antioxidant extracts were kept in dull at 4 °C
until advance examinations.
2.3.2. Extraction by Soxhlet
In cellulose cartridges, pour 15 g of barley seed powder of each
variety (Amalou, Casamence, Massine, Locale), and place them in
the glass body of the Soxhlet apparatus, the extraction solvent
which has a volume of Two hundred millilitres of 70% acetone
(v/v), 70% ethanol (v/v) and 70% methanol (v/v), were added is
introduced into each boiling flask, the solvent vapours pass
through the adductor tube, condense in the refrigerant and fall
back into the body of the extractor, thus macerating the vegetable
powder after 90 min, the condensed solvent accumulates in the
glass body ; until it reaches the top of the siphon tube, which then
causes the liquid to return to the flask along with the extracted
substances.
The solvent continues to evaporate, while the extracted sub-
stances remain in the flask (their boiling temperatures must be
much higher than those of ethanol).
2.3.3. Ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE)
The extraction is accelerated by the use of ultrasound (J.P.
Selecta, Barcelona, Spain). The extraction protocol used is as fol-
lows: 15 g of each sample were introduced into the sonicator with
200 ml of 70%(v/v) acetone, 70%(v/v) ethanol and 70%(v/v) metha-
nol added to each container. The temperature of the ultrasonic
water bath is regulated to 50 °C. The extraction takes 30 min and
is repeated 3 times. The power of the sonicator used in our tests
is 400 W.
2.4. Determination of phenolic compounds
2.4.1. Determination of total polyphenols content (TPC)
The total phenolic substance of the extracts was determined
with the Folin–Ciocalteau strategy with little change [15]. Shortly,
0.5 ml diluted extract solution was shaken for 1 min with 100
l
lof
Folin–Ciocalteau reagent and 6 ml of distilled water. After the
blend was shaken, 2 ml of 15% Na
2
CO
3
was included and the mix-
ture was shaken once again for 0.5 min. Finally, the arrange-
ment was brought up to 10 ml by including distilled water. After
1.5 h, the absorbance at 750 nm was evaluated employing a spec-
trophotometer. The results were expressed as gallic acid equiva-
lents. The calibration curve was drawn and the equation of linear
regression was obtained:
y = 1.552x + 0.208, R2 = 0.962
2.4.2. Determination of flavonoids content (TFC)
The quantification of total flavonoids will be done using a col-
orimetric method. 1 ml of methanolic extract diluted (20 once) will
be added to 1 ml of a fresh solution of aluminium chloride (AlCl3,
2%). After 10 min incubation at room temperature [16]. After shak-
ing, the absorbance of this preparation will be measured at 430 nm
with reference to an extract test control. A calibration curve per-
formed by quercetin at different concentrations 50, 100, 200, 400
and 800
l
g/ml under the same operating conditions as the samples
will be used for the quantification of flavonoids. Flavonoid contents
will be expressed in mg quercetin equivalent/g of dried extract.
The calibration curve was drawn and the equation of linear regres-
sion was obtained:
y = 2.857x + 0.080, R
2
= 0.999.
2.4.3. Determination of proanthocyanidins content (PA)
The PA substance of the extracts was decided agreeing to
the strategy of Sun, Ricardo-Da-Silva, and Spranger (1998). Shortly,
0.5 ml diluted extracts solution was blended with 3 ml of 4% vanil-
lin–methanol solution and 1.5 ml hydrochloric acid and
the blend was permitted to stand for 15 min. The absorbance at
500 nm was measured and the final results of PA sub-
stance were surveyed as catechin equivalents [17]. The calibration
curve was drawn and the equation of linear regression was
obtained:
y = 1.0304x – 0.0596, R2 = 1.
2.4.4. Free radical scavenging activity
Free radical scavenging capacity of barley extracts was surveyed
concurring to the detailed strategy utilizing the stable 2, 2-
diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH) [18]. shortly, barley
extracts (50–200
l
g) diluted in ethanol (3 ml) was blended with
3 ml DPPH solution in ethanol (200
l
M). The final concentration
of DPPH was 100
l
M. The reaction mixture was shaken, and incu-
bated in the dark. The absorbance of the solution was measured
against a blank at 517 nm after 30 min. Inhibition of free radical
F. EL Mansouri, M. Palma Lovillo, H. El Farissi et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
2
DPPH in percent (I%) was calculated by using the following
equation:
I% = [(Ao Ae)/Ao] 100where Ao is the absorbance of the
blank sample and Ae is the absorbance of the tested.
The successful concentration of sample required to scavenge
DPPH radical by 50% (IC50 value) was gotten by linear regression
examination of dose–response curve plotting between inhibition
(%) and concentrations.
3. Statistical analysis
Exploratory data analysis is mentioned as means ± SD of three
parallel measurements. P values < 0.05 were regarded as signifi-
cant. The statistical analysis was done by the Statistical Package
for Social Science (SPSS 23.0).
4. Results and discussion
This study is one of the first to study the effect of solvent type
and extraction techniques on the recovery of phenolic compounds
from barley seeds (Hordeum vulgare).
4.1. Total polyphenol content
The results obtained in the polyphenol assay are shown in the
(Fig. 1) below.
All extracts obtained from barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) seeds
showed significant variations in total phenolic content, as shown
in Fig. 1. The highest levels were detected in the acetone extracts
from the AMALOU sample, ranging from 1.990 mg EG/g of dried
extract using ultrasound-assisted extraction (Fig. 1. (a)),
1.000 ± 0.002 mg EG/g of dried extract using Soxhlet (Fig. 1. (b)),
and 0.996 ± 0.008 mg EG/g of dried extract using maceration
(Fig. 1. (c)); followed by ethanol extracts 1.525 ± 0.044 mg EG/g
of dried extract using ultrasound (Fig. 1. (a)), 0.658 ± 0.002 mg
EG/g of dried extract using Soxhlet (Fig. 1. (b)), and
0.525 ± 0.013 mg EG/g of dried extract using maceration (Fig. 1.
(c)); and followed by methanol extracts 1.458 ± 0.011 mg EG/g of
dried extract using ultrasound (Fig. 1. (a)), 0.645 ± 0.002 mg EG/g
of dried extract using Soxhlet (Fig. 1. (b)), and 0.458 ± 0.001 mg
EG/g of dried extract using maceration (Fig. 1. (c)). The same
remarks were observed for the other LOCALE, CASAMENCE and
MASSINE samples.
The results showed that the total phenol contents have been
impacted by the extraction solvents in the following order from
top to bottom: acetone > ethanol > methanol.
Acetone was superior to ethanol and methanol for the extrac-
tion of total phenolic compounds, which is consistent with the
results obtained with buckwheat [19].The extraction method
had a major effect on the recovery of phenolics, as levels varied
considerably for ultrasonic assisted extraction (UAE), Soxhlet and
maceration. The results in the (table.1) revealed that the highest
levels of total phenols were obtained using ultrasonic assisted
extraction (UAE) with acetone as the extraction solvent, whose
results varied between samples of 1.990 mg EG/g of dried extract
in AMALOU sample, 1.730 ± 0.007 mg EG/g of dried extract in MAS-
SINE sample, 1.450 ± 0.016 mg EG/g of dried extract in LOCALE
sample, and 1.303 mg EG/g of dried extract in CASAMENCE sample.
Acetone appears to be a very stable choice for the extraction of
phenolic compounds from the seeds of Hordeum vulgare L,
because it has high phenol content. It should be noted that the sol-
ubility of phenolic compounds is influenced by the nature of the
solvent used and their polarity [20].
The highest levels of TPC using UAE could be attributed to the
ability of microwaves to penetrate the c ell matrix and interact
with polar molecules, resulting in volumetric heating of the bioma-
terial and, consequently, an increase in pressure within the plant
cell [21].
Fig. 1. (a) effect of Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction and the type of solvent on the determination of total phenolic composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.; (b)
effect of Soxhlet extraction and the type of solvent on the determination of total phenolic composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.;(c) Effect of Extraction by
maceration and the type of solvent on the determination of total phenolic composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.
F. EL Mansouri, M. Palma Lovillo, H. El Farissi et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
3
4.2. Determination of flavonoids content (TFC).
The result of the total flavonoid contents (TFC) of Hordeum vul-
gare extracts is given in (Table 2).
The TFC varies in the different extracts depending to the used
solvent as follows: methanol > ethanolacetone; being of
0.172 ± 0.011 mg QE/g of dried extract (ethanol/maceration) and
2.204 ± 0.012 mg QE/g of dried extract (methanol/Ultrasound).
most efficient solvent for the extraction of TFC was methanol
(2.204 ± 0.012, 0.804 ± 0.012 and 0.504 ± 0.012 mg QE/g of dried
extract), when used in ultrasound, Soxhlet and maceration respec-
tively in the CASAMENCE sample (Fig. 2.(a), (b) and (c)),
The highest levels of TFC were detected using ultrasound-
assisted extraction (UAE) with the use of methanol as the extrac-
tion solvent, while acetone and ethanol extracts showed lower
but substantially comparable TFC values. Most previous studies
on different plants have suggested that absolute methanol is rec-
ommended for the extraction of flavonoids [22–26].
Various extraction techniques were used for flavonoid com-
pounds; the flavonoid contents determined in extracts also
depended significantly (p < 0.05) on the used extraction technique.
4.3. The contents of proanthocyanidins (PA)
The obtained results showed that the proanthocyanidins (PA)
contents in Hordeum vulgare L extracts presented a significant dif-
ference (p < 0.05) according to the solvent used (Table 3).
The highest PA content was obtained by acetone when used
in ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE) in the MASSINE sample
with a rate of 1,628 ± 0,006 mg CE/g of dried extract (Fig. 3.
(a)). The obtained PA content extract was comparable for
acetone, ethanol and methanol, while the methanol extract
presented the lowest PA in the CASAMENCE sample ranging
from 0,177 ± 0,045 mg CE/g of dried extract (with maceration
(Fig. 3. (c)) to 0,295 ± 0,021 mg CE/g of dried extract (with soxh-
let (Fig. 3. (b)), and 1,161 ± 0,017 mg CE/g of dried extract (with
UAE (Fig. 3. (a)).
However, the PA content was significantly different for all the
three processes and higher with UAE/acetone in the MASSINE sam-
ple (PA contents values 1,628 ± 0,006 mg CE/g of dried extract) and
UAE/ethanol (1,197 ± 0,002 mg CE/g of dried extract) than with
Soxhlet/acetone (1,191 ± 0,033 mg CE/g of dried extract) and Soxh-
let/ethanol (0,728 ± 0,002 mg CE/g of dried extract).
Table 1
The extraction result of phenolic from Hordeum vulgare by various solvents and extraction methods.
Test Sample Extraction methods Solvant
70% Acetone extract 70% Ethanol extract 70% Methanol extract
Total phenolic content(EG* mg/g of dried extract). AMALOU Maceration 0,996 ± 0,008
a,C
0,525 ± 0,013
b,C
0,458 ± 0,001
c,C
Soxhlet 1,000 ± 0,002
a,B
0,658 ± 0,002
b,B
0,645 ± 0,002
c,B
Ultrason 1,990 ± 0,000
a,A
1,525 ± 0,044
b,A
1,458 ± 0,011
c,A
LOCALE Macération 0,449 ± 0,021
a,C
0,351 ± 0,020
b,C
0,314 ± 0,010
c,C
Soxhlet 0,650 ± 0,016
a,B
0,514 ± 0,031
b,B
0,451 ± 0,016
c,B
Ultrason 1,450 ± 0,016
a,A
1,351 ± 0,022
b,A
1,314 ± 0,016
c,A
MASSINE Macération 0,730 ± 0,028
a,C
0,590 ± 0,018
b,C
0,505 ± 0,028
c,C
Soxhlet 0,831 ± 0,002
b,B
0,690 ± 0,012
b,B
0,605 ± 0,010
c,B
Ultrason 1,730 ± 0,007
a,A
1,590 ± 0,012
b,A
1,505 ± 0,006
c,A
CASAMENCE Macération 0,302 ± 0,025
a,C
0,301 ± 0,045
b,C
0,270 ± 0,035
c,C
Soxhlet 0,503 ± 0,001
a,B
0,470 ± 0,031
b,B
0,451 ± 0,021
c,B
Ultrason 1,303 ± 0,000
a,C
1,270 ± 0,022
b,A
1,230 ± 0,017
c,A
Values are averages ± standard deviation of sixtuplicate analysis.
Data in the same row having different lower-case indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). Results are ranked in ascending order; a > b > c.
Data in the same column with different capital letters indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05). Results are ranked in ascending order; A > B > C.
*EG is gallic acid equivalent.
Table 2
The extraction result of total flavonoid content (TFC) Hordeum vulgare L. by various solvents and extraction methods.
Test Sample Extraction Methods Solvant
70% Methanol extract 70% Acetone extract 70% Ethanol extract
Total Flavonoid Content(mg QE/g of dried extract). AMALOU Maceration 0,387 ±0,028
a,C
0,174 ± 0,012
b,C
0,172 ± 0,011
b,C
Soxhlet 0,687 ± 0,028
a,B
0,274 ± 0,012
b,B
0,272 ± 0,011
b,B
Ultrason 2,187 ±0,028
a,A
1,182 ± 0,013
b,A
1,179 ± 0,011
b,A
LOCALE Maceration 0,502 ±0,013
a,C
0,203 ± 0,020
b,C
0,201 ± 0,010
b,C
Soxhlet 0,802 ± 0,013
a,B
0,298 ± 0,012
b,B
0,287 ± 0,026
b,B
Ultrason 2,202 ± 0,013
a,A
1,205 ± 0,010
b,A
1,201 ± 0,015
b,A
MASSINE Maceration 0,389 ± 0,035
a,C
0,188 ± 0,019
b,C
0,168 ± 0,029
b,C
Soxhlet 0,689 ± 0,035
b,B
0,288 ± 0,012
b,B
0,268 ± 0,022
b,B
Ultrason 2,189 ± 0,035
a,A
1,188 ± 0,011
b,A
1,168 ± 0,031
b,A
CASAMENCE Maceration 0,504 ± 0,012
a,C
0,192 ± 0,015
b,C
0,186 ± 0,045
b,C
Soxhlet 0,804 ± 0,012
a,B
0,292 ± 0,031
b,B
0,286 ± 0,034
b,B
Ultrason 2,204 ± 0,012
a,C
1,205 ± 0,011
b,A
1,201 ± 0,015
b,A
Values are averages ± standard deviation of sixtuplicate analysis.
Data in the same row having different lower-case indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). Results are ranked in ascending order; a > b > c .
Data in the same column with different capital letters indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05). Results are ranked in ascending order; A > B > C .
*QE is quercetin equivalent.
F. EL Mansouri, M. Palma Lovillo, H. El Farissi et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
4
Also, maceration was less effective in extraction of proantho-
cyanidins (PA) than UAE and Soxhlet (the lowest PA content
recorded for acetone was 0,298 ± 0,005 mg CE/g of dried extract
in the CASAMENCE sample). These results show extraction method
and solvent type affect highly the PA of Hordeum vulgare L.
4.4. Antioxidant activity
The antioxidant activity of Hordeum vulgare. was determined
using assay: DPPH radical scavenging assay. model of scavenging
stable DPPH-free radicals is used to evaluate the antioxidant
activity in relatively short time [27].The results of antioxidant
activity values are given in (Fig. 4). The reduction of stable free
DPPH radical to 1,1-diphenyl 2-picrylhydrazin results in color
change from purple to yellow. This leads to a decrease of absor-
bance associated with the ability of sample to donate hydrogen/-
electron. [28].
Results presented that acetone extracts present strong antioxi-
dant activity as they did not require a high concentration to inhibit
50% of DPPH in the Massine sample (2,013 ± 0.017, 3,113 ± 0.019
and 4,174 ± 0.003 mg/ml for UAE (Fig. 4. (a)), Soxhlet (Fig. 4. (a))
and maceration (Fig. 4. (a)), respectively). This could be explained
by the high phenolic and flavonoid contents in acetone extract, this
is understandable considering the comparable TPC, TFC and PA val-
ues recorded for those extracts.
The effect of the three extraction methods (UAE, Soxhlet and
maceration) on the DPPH inhibition activity of Hordeum vulgar L.
extracts was investigated (Fig. 4. (a), (b) and (c)). Extracts from
UAE showed lower EC50 values compared to other extraction meth-
ods, indicating stronger antioxidant activities of UAE with higher
Fig. 2. (a) effect of Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction and the type of solvent on the determination of the total flavonoid composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.; (b)
effect of Soxhlet extraction and the type of solvent on the determination of the total flavonoid composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.;(c) Effect of Extraction
by maceration and the type of solvent on the determination of the total flavonoid composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.
Table 3
The extraction result of total flavonoid content (TFC) Hordeum vulgare L. by various solvents and extraction methods.
Test Sample Extraction methods Solvant
70% Acetone extract 70% Ethanol extract 70% Methanol extract
Proanthocyanidins (mg EC* /g of dried extract) AMALOU Maceration 0,568 ± 0,054
a,C
0,203 ± 0,011
b,C
0,200 ± 0,002
c,C
Soxhlet 0,768 ± 0,008
a,B
0,435 ± 0,012
b,B
0,400 ± 0,003
c,B
Ultrason 1,568 ± 0,001
a,A
1,230 ± 0,014
b,A
1,151 ± 0,012
c,A
LOCALE Macération 0,543 ± 0,002
a,C
0,201 ± 0,010
b,C
0,190 ± 0,011
c,C
Soxhlet 0,643 ± 0,001
a,B
0,401 ± 0,011
b,B
0,390 ± 0,013
c,B
Ultrason 1,543 ± 0,001
a,A
1,201 ± 0,012
b,A
1,171 ± 0,014
c,A
MASSINE Macération 0,628 ± 0,001
a,C
0,207 ± 0,008
b,C
0,191 ± 0,012
c,C
Soxhlet 1,191 ± 0,033
a,B
0,728 ± 0,002
b,B
0,297 ± 0,007
c,B
Ultrason 1,628 ± 0,006
a,A
1,197 ± 0,002
b,A
1,151 ± 0,003
c,A
CASAMENCE Macération 0,298 ± 0,005
a,C
0,195 ± 0,005
b,C
0,177 ± 0,045
c,C
Soxhlet 0,398 ± 0,011
a,B
0,377 ± 0,031
b,B
0,295 ± 0,021
c,B
Ultrason 1,289 ± 0,003
a,A
1,195 ± 0,022
b,A
1,161 ± 0,017
c,A
Values are averages ± standard deviation of sixtuplicate analysis.
Data in the same row having different lower-case indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). Results are ranked in ascending order; a > b > c .
Data in the same column with different capital letters indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05). Results are ranked in ascending order; A > B > C .
*EC is catechin equivalent.
F. EL Mansouri, M. Palma Lovillo, H. El Farissi et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
5
Fig. 3. (a) the impact of Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction and the type of solvent on the determination of proanthocyanidins composition in some varieties of Hordeum
vulgare L.; (b) the impact of Soxhlet extraction and the type of solvent on the determination of proanthocyanidins composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.; (c)
the impact of Extraction by maceration and the type of solvent on the determination of proanthocyanidins composition in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.
Fig. 4. (a) the impact of Ultrasonic Assisted Extraction and the choice of solvent on the antioxidant activity in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.; (b) the impact of Soxhlet
extraction and the choice of solvent on the antioxidant activity in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.; (c) the impact of Extraction by maceration and the choice of solvent
on the antioxidant activity in some varieties of Hordeum vulgare L.
F. EL Mansouri, M. Palma Lovillo, H. El Farissi et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
6
scavenging of DPPH radicals compared to Soxhlet and maceration
methods.
the antioxidant activity of our samples is classified in the fol-
lowing order: MASSINE > LOCALE > CASAMENCE > AMALOU. The
two-row type barley seeds (Massine and LOCALE) have a higher
antioxidant activity compared to six-row type barley seeds (CASA-
MENCE and AMALOU).
These results show extraction method and solvent type affect
highly on DPPH scavenging capacity determination for Hordeum
vulgar L. extracts which is consistent with several researches have
shown that diverse solvents utilized in extraction have brought
about in contrasts within the compositions and antioxidant activ-
ities of extracts [29].
5. Conclusion
The results show that 70% acetone extracts with the use of
ultrasound-assisted extraction increased the content of phenolic
compounds, proanthocyanidins, flavonoids and antioxidant activ-
ity. The results are reliable for the use of ultrasound-assisted
extraction as an analytical recovery system for phenolic com-
pounds and antioxidant activity in barley seeds. We have verified
that the factor that most influences the extraction is the solvent.
The reproducibility and repeatability values of the method are
respectively<5% and are expressed as standard deviation (SD).
For this reason, the method adopted is highly reproducible.
In conclusion, this variability in the antioxidant capacity of
extracts of Hordeum vulgar L. obtained with different solvents
and using different extraction methods have led to the conclusion
that we should carefully choose the extraction method and the sol-
vent used in order to have an extract with the highest efficiency in
terms of biochemical activities, could serve as a medicine against
oxidative damage associated with free radicals.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Y. Pan, K. Wang, S. Huang, H. Wang, X. Mu, C. He, X. Ji, J. Zhang, F. Huang,
Antioxydant activity of microwave-assisted extract of longan (Dimocarpus
Longan Lour.) peel, Food Chem. 106 (2008) 1264–1270.
[2] P. Castilla, R. Echarri, A. Dávalos, F. Cerrato, H. Ortega, J. Luis Teruel, M.
Fernández Lucas, D. Gómez-Coronado, J. Ortuño, M.A. Lasunción, Concentrated
red grape juice exerts antioxidant, hypolipidemic, and antiinflammatory
effects in both hemodialysis patients and healthy subjects, Am. J. Clin.
Nutrit. 84 (2006) 252.
[3] P. Greenspan, J.D. Bauer, S.H. Pollock, J. David Gangemi, E.P. Mayer, A. Ghaffar, J.
L. Hargrove, D.K. Hartle, Antiinflammatory Properties of the Muscadine Grape
(Vitis rotundifolia), J. Agric. Food Chem. 53 (2005) 8481.
[4] H. Akiyama, J. Sakushima, S. Taniuchi, T. Kanda, A. Yanagida, T. Kojima, R.
Teshima, Y. Kobayashi, Y. Goda, M. Toyoda, Antiallergic effect of apple
polyphenols on the allergic model mouse, Biol. Pharm. Bull. 23 (2000) 1370.
[5] K. Ghedira, Les flavonoïdes: structure, propriétés biologiques, rôle
prophylactique et emplois en thérapeutique, Phytothérapie 3 (4) (2005)
162–169.
[6] D.M. Morré, D. James Morre, Anticancer activity of grape and grape skin
extracts alone and combined with green tea infusions, Cancer Lett. 238 (2006)
202.
[7] S. Bradamante, L. Barenghi, A. Villa, Cardiovascular protective effects of
resveratrol, Cardiovasc. Drug Rev. 22 (2004) 169.
[8] P.K. Marja, I.H. Anu, J.V. Heikki, R. Jussi-Pekka, P. Kalevi, S.K. Tytti, et al.,
Antioxidant activity of plant extracts containing phenolic compounds, J. Agric.
Food. Chem. 47 (1999) 3954–3962.
[9] H. Tapiero, K.D. Tew, G. Nguken Ba, G. Mathe, Polyphenols: do they play a role
in the prevention of human pathologies, Biomedical Pharmacotherapy 56
(2002) 200–207.
[10] A. Svobodová, J. Psotová, D. Walterová, Biomed. Papers 147 (2) (2003) 137–
145.
[11] P. King, E. Robinson, J. Virol. 72 (10) (1998) 8420–8424.
[12] N. Göktürk Baydar, G. özkan, O. Sagdiç, Total phenolic contents and
antibacterial activities of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) extracts, Food Control 15
(2004) 335.
[13] M. Palma, L.T. Taylor, R.M. Varela, S.J. Cutler, H.G. Cutler, Fractional Extraction
of Compounds from Grape Seeds by Supercritical Fluid Extraction and Analysis
for Antimicrobial and Agrochemical Activities, J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (1999)
5044.
[14] C.W. Huie, A review of modern sample-preparation techniques for the
extraction and analysis of medicinal plants, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 373 (2002)
23.
[15] M. Bonoli, V. Verardo, E. Marconi, M.F. Caboni, Antioxidant phenols in barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.) flour: comparative spectrophotometric study among
extraction methods of free and bound phenolic compounds, J. Agricult. Food
Chem. 52 (2004) 5195–5200.
[16] A. Djeridane, M. Yousfi, B. Nadjemi, D. Boutassouna, P. Stocher, N. Vidal,
Antioxidant activity of some Algerian medicinal plants containing phenolic
compounds, Food Chem. 97 (2006) 654–660.
[17] B.S. Sun, J.M. Ricardo-Da-Silva, M.I. Spranger, Critical factors of vanillin assay
for catechins and proanthocyanidins, J. Agricult. Food Chem. 46 (1998) 4267–
4274.
[18] Y. Chen, M.F. Wang, R.T. Rosen, C.T. Ho, 2,2-Diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl radical-
scavenging active components from polygonum multiflorum Thunb, J.
Agricult. Food Chem. 47 (1999) 2226–2228.
[19] T. Sun, C.T. Ho, Antioxidant activities of buckwheat extracts, Food Chem. 90
(2005) 743–749.
[20] M. Naczk, F. Shahidi, Extraction and analysis of phenolics in food, J.
Chromatogr. A 1054 (1–2) (2004) 95–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chroma.2004.08.059.
[21] E. Koffi, T. Sea, Y. Dodehe, S. Soro, Effect of solvent type on extraction of
polyphenols from twenty three Ivorian plants, J. Animal Plant Sci. 5 (3) (2010)
550–558. http://www.m.elewa.org/JAPS/2010/5.3/Abstract3-koffi.html.
[22] M. Bouaziz, A. Dhouib, S. Loukil, M. Boukhris, S. Sayadi, Polyphenols content,
antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of extracts of some wild plants
collected from the south of Tunisia, Afr. J. Biotechnol. 8 (24) (2009) 7017–
7027, https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB2009.000-9545.
[23] T. Swain, W.E. Hillis, The phenolic constituents of prunus domestica. I. The
quantitative analysis of phenolic constituents, J. Sci. Food Agric. 10 (1) (1959)
63–68, https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740100110.
[24] M. Hayta, E.M. I_sßçimen, Antidiabetic, antihypertensive and antioxidant
properties of grapevine leaf extracts obtained by ultrasound, microwave
assisted, and classical solvent extraction, Erwerbs-Obstbau 60 (Supplement 1)
(2018) 79–85, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-018-0406-6.
[25] B. Sultana, F. Anwar, M. Ashraf, Effect of extraction solvent/technique on the
antioxidant activity of selected medicinal plant extracts, Molecules 14 (6)
(2009) 2167–2180, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules14062167.
[26] V.T. Nguyen, M.C. Bowyer, Q.V. Vuong, I.A.V. Altena, C.J. Scarlett,
Phytochemicals and antioxidant capacity of Xao tam phan (Paramignya
trimera) root as affected by various solvents and extraction methods, Ind.
Crops Prod. 67 (2015) 192–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indcrop.2015.01.051.
[27] B. Nayak, F. Dahmoune, K. Moussi, H. Remini, S. Dairi, O. Aoun, M. Khodir,
Comparison of microwave, ultrasound and accelerated-assisted solvent
extraction for recovery of polyphenols from Citrus sinensis peels, Food
Chem. 187 (2015) 507–516, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.04.081.
[28] F. Conforti, G. Statti, D. Uzunov, F. Menichini, Comparative chemical
composition and antioxidant activities of wild and cultivated Laurus nobilis
L. leaves and Foeniculum vulgare subsp. piperitum (Ucria) coutinho seeds,
Biol. Pharm. Bull. 29 (10) (2006) 2056–2064, https://doi.org/10.1248/
bpb.29.2056.
[29] M. Pinelo, L. Manzocco, M.J. Nunez, et al., Interaction among phenols in food
fortification: negative synergism on antioxidant capacity, J. Agric. Food Chem.
52 (2004) 1177–1180.
F. EL Mansouri, M. Palma Lovillo, H. El Farissi et al. Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
7
