Chemical composition analysis and activityevaluation of Cercis chinensis extract

• Main Authors: LIN, CHIA-CHING, 林佳靜
• Other Authors: HUANG,WEN-YING
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/zwdxzc

碩士 === 弘光科技大學 === 化妝品應用研究所 === 106 === Cercis chinensis is a plant of Fabaceae Cercis, which contains abundant flavonoids. In this study, I used different extraction methods of which were collected the component analysis, including antioxidant, whitening, antibacterial and enzyme kinetics were compared. The results showed that four components, including gallic acid, quercitrin, myricetin and resveratrol, could be detected by using high-performance liquid chromatography. Only quercitrin could be detected by ethanol extraction; resveratrol could only be found in ultrasound water extraction. To determine antioxidant ability, all of the total phenolic, total flavonoids and reducing power could have the highest contents by using hot reflux ethanol extraction, which were 85.1608 ± 0.0047 μg/mg of gallic acid and 157.5710 ± 0.0553 μg/mg of quercetin. DPPH radical and superoxide anion radical scavenging ability could have superior effect in hot reflux water extraction; the IC50 values ​​were 0.1280 ± 0.0152 mg/mL and 0.3481 ± 0.0062 mg/mL. The ABTS cation radical could have best effect by using both of hot reflux extraction; the IC50 values were 0.2566 ± 0.0131 mg/mL and 0.2502 ± 0.0149 mg/mL. In the inhibition of tyrosinase activity assay, it could have best effect by utilizing hot reflux water extraction; the IC50 value was 3.6138 ± 0.0039 mg/mL. Then, C. chinensis showed mixed-type inhibitor after detecting enzyme kinetics. For the antibacterial experiment, while its concentration reached 90.52 mg/mL, it could have the ability of inhibition Staphylococcus aureus. Therefore, no matter of composition or activity analysis, my study found out that, hot reflux extraction and ultrasonic extraction for inhibition activity and content, the former could be better than the latter. Besides, if I measured the divers solvents, for component analysis, the ethanol extraction method could be detected more contents than water extraction could do. However, for the active part, due to different extraction method, could do might be showed that two solvents have similar activity; or that water extraction is better than ethanol extraction for scavenging effect.