Next Article in Journal
Intranasal Administration of KYCCSRK Peptide Rescues Brain Insulin Signaling Activation and Reduces Alzheimer’s Disease-like Neuropathology in a Mouse Model for Down Syndrome
Next Article in Special Issue
Optimization of Ultrasonic Extraction Parameters for the Recovery of Phenolic Compounds in Brown Seaweed: Comparison with Conventional Techniques
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Cloning and Functional Characterization of Catalase in Stress Physiology, Innate Immunity, Testicular Development, Metamorphosis, and Cryopreserved Sperm of Pacific Abalone
Previous Article in Special Issue
Profiling of Redox-Active Lipophilic Constituents in Leaf Mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.) Cultivars Using LC-MS and GC-MS
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Antioxidants
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/antiox12010110
antioxidants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preliminary Phytochemical Screening and Antioxidant Activity of Commercial Moringa oleifera Food Supplements

by
Eulogio J. Llorent-Martínez
*,
Ana I. Gordo-Moreno
,
María Luisa Fernández-de Córdova
and
Antonio Ruiz-Medina
Department of Physical and Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Experimental Sciences, University of Jaén, Campus Las Lagunillas, E-23071 Jaén, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antioxidants 2023, 12(1), 110; https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12010110
Submission received: 15 November 2022 / Revised: 23 December 2022 / Accepted: 27 December 2022 / Published: 2 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights into Phytochemical Antioxidants in Food)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Moringa oleifera has been reported to possess a high number of bioactive compounds; hence, several food supplements are commercially available based on it. This work aimed to analyze the phytochemical composition and antioxidant activity of commercial food supplements. The phenolic composition of methanolic extracts was determined by using high-performance liquid chromatography with diode-array and electrospray ionization mass spectrometric detection (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn), and the antioxidant activity was assessed by ABTS·+ and DPPH assays. Thirty-three compounds were identified, and all the main compounds were quantified, observing that the main contribution to the phenolic profile was due to kaempferol and quercetin glucosides. The antioxidant activity in both assays agreed with the phenolic content: the higher the phenolic levels, the higher the antioxidant activity. The obtained results were compared with those previously published regarding Moringa oleifera leaves to establish the potential benefits of food supplement consumption in the diet.

1. Introduction

Moringa is a plant cultivated in different countries such as India, Ethiopia, the Philippines, and Sudan, and is being grown in West, East, and South Africa, tropical Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands. It is also known in the world as “the tree of life” because it has various parts which are used as sources of food and medicines [1]. There are 13 species of this plant, which encompass a very diverse range of growth habits or forms, from herbs and shrubs to large trees. Although they vary greatly in their form, it is very easy to distinguish a member of Moringa from any other plant. Large pinnate leaves characterize these species, where each leaf is divided into many leaflets. The fruits form a long and woody capsule that, when it reaches maturity, slowly opens into three valves that separate one from the other along their length, remaining attached only to the base of the fruit [2].
Of the species discussed above, Moringa oleifera, is the best known and most used. It is not very long-lived, about 20 years, and reaches a height of between 5–10 m. This species is native to South Asia, where it grows in the Himalayan foothills, but is widely cultivated across the tropics. Numerous studies have highlighted the advantageous influences of this plant on human health [3], which is cultivated for its edible leaves, flowers, and nutritious pods, with M. oleifera leaf being the most utilized part [4]. In recent years, M. oleifera leaves have been extensively studied due to their enormous potential as sources of functional compounds with health-promoting properties [5], especially various biological activities such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetic, anti-cancer, cardioprotective, hypocholesterolemic, hepatoprotective, antifungal, antiviral, antidepressant, and anti-asthmatic activities [6,7,8]. In addition, M. oleifera leaves are useful in treating neuro-dysfunctional diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and ischemic stroke [9,10]. The anti-inflammatory effects are mainly due to the large number of phenolics [11,12,13,14] present, specifically flavonoids, where numerous compounds have been described, among the most important being quercetin and kaempferol [15,16].
The phenolic composition [17] and antioxidant activity [18,19] of M. oleifera leaves have already been studied. Some of these works are focused on the evaluation of total phenolic content (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC) [20], while others also include a chromatographic study of its components [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. In addition, various in vitro and in vivo studies have been carried out to verify the antioxidant action of the phytochemicals present in this species [28,29]. Precious-Adejoh et al. showed that M. oleifera extracts reduced blood glucose levels in diabetic animals and inhibit α-amylase/α-glucosidase activities, respectively [30]. Verma et al. found that the antioxidant effect of M. oleifera leaves on rodents was similar to that obtained with vitamin E [31].
We cannot forget that, in addition to all the properties mentioned above, M. oleifera is a storehouse of important nutrients. Their leaves are rich in minerals such as Ca, K, Fe, Mg, P, Zn, and Cu, and vitamins A, C, D, E, and B (B1, B2, B3, B6), and folic acid [32]. Consequently, the use of M. oleifera by the food industry as a natural ingredient to replace different classic preservatives and antioxidants, as well as to increase the nutritional value of certain food products, represents an interesting opportunity. To bring the properties of M. oleifera to consumers, a few studies have reported its incorporation into different foods (e.g., meat, biscuits, and bread). In meat products, it is used as a preservative and antioxidant additive with very good results without affecting the sensory characteristics of the final product [33,34,35]. In the field of bakery (bread, cereal gruel, and snacks such as biscuits) the objective is usually nutritional fortification [36,37]. For example, the protein and crude fiber content of wheat flour bread fortified with 5% M. oleifera leaves were found to increase by approximately 54% and 56%, respectively [38]. On the other hand, several studies demonstrated that a little addition of M. oleifera to maize flour, a major constituent of most snacks, can add nutritive value to the snack in terms of protein, energy, and minerals [39].
An alternative to enriched foods is the use of food supplements, which are defined in Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament as “food products whose purpose is to complement the normal diet and consisting of concentrated sources of nutrients or of other substances that have a nutritional or physiological effect, in simple or combined form, marketed in dosage form, that is to say capsules, pills, tablets, pills and other similar forms, powder sachets, liquid ampoules, dropper bottles and others similar forms of liquids and powders to be taken in small unit quantities” [40]. The nutrition and health claims made on foods in their labeling are established by Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 [41], which applies, without prejudice, to the food supplement Directive 2002/46/EC [40]. Therefore, it is essential to control the composition of food supplements reported in labeling. The main objective of this work was to carry out a preliminary phytochemical screening of commercial food supplements prepared from M. oleifera and compare the results obtained with those previously reported for extracts of the plant. To our best knowledge, this work is the first study carried out to determine the phenolic profile and antioxidant capacity of commercially available M. oleifera food supplements, which can contribute significantly to the quality control of these products.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

Six commercial food supplements containing M. oleifera were purchased and analyzed. The nomenclature used, the composition of each supplement, and the recommended dose by the manufacturer are summarized in Table 1.
Before performing the sample extraction, the content of 10 capsules was mixed, and 10 tablets were ground and mixed to ascertain representativity. Then, three sub-samples of each supplement were extracted and analyzed independently. Ultrasound-assisted extraction was done by placing 2.5 g of dry material in 50 mL MeOH for 10 min (Qsonica Sonicators; Newton, CT, USA) with a power of 55 W and a frequency of 20 kHz (50% power). Each sample was extracted in triplicate. Then, solutions were filtered through Whatman No.1 filters and the solvent was evaporated under reduced pressure in a rotary evaporator at 40 °C. Dried extracts (DE) were stored at −20 °C until analysis.

2.2. Chromatographic Analysis

The instrumentation and the chromatographic conditions are described in detail in the Supplementary Materials. Briefly, an HPLC system was connected to a DAD detector and an ion trap mass spectrometer equipped with an electrospray ionization interface, operating in negative ion mode.
MS data and analytical standards were used for compounds’ identification, whereas the quantitation was performed using UV data to construct the calibration graphs. Calibration graphs for chlorogenic acid, neochlorogenic acid, coumaric acid, quercetin, kaempferol, rutin, and vicenin-2 were prepared at concentrations 0.5–100 mg L−1 in MeOH. Chromatograms were recorded at 320 nm for phenolic acids and 350 nm for flavonoids. The mentioned analytical standards were used to quantify the exact compound or compounds of the same chemical family. A chromatogram showing the analytical standards used is given in Figure S1 (Supplementary Materials).

2.3. Antioxidant Capacity Assays

The antioxidant capacity of the selected food supplements was studied by ABTS·+ and DPPH assays. The results were expressed in mg Trolox equivalents per 100 g of dried extract (mg TE/g DE), mmol TE/g DE, and IC50 (50% inhibition). Details for each assay are given in Supplementary Materials.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS Statistics software v.22 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The analyses were performed in triplicate, and data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05) was used to look for statistical differences among results in the quantification of compounds and antioxidant activities. Different superscripts in the corresponding tables indicate significant differences in the extracts (p < 0.05).

3. Results and Discussion

In this work, we selected food supplements containing M. oleifera leaves and extracts of M. oleifera seeds. The phenolic profile was characterized by HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn, and the main compounds were quantified. Then, the antioxidant capacity was evaluated by ABTS·+ and DPPH assays.

3.1. HPLC-ESI-MSn Analysis of Food Supplements’ Extracts

The characterization of the extracted compounds was performed by mass spectrometry, using negative ion mode (the most sensitive mode for phenolic compounds). The identification was carried out using analytical standards and data available in the scientific literature. Compounds were numbered regarding their order of elution, keeping the same numbering in all samples (Table 2). The base peak chromatogram of a food supplement is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen in Table 2, most of the characterized compounds were flavonoid glycosides, 19 out of 33 identified compounds. The phenolic profile agrees with previous reports on the composition of M. oleifera leaves [15,25]. Following is a brief description of the identification.

3.1.1. Phenolic Acids

Compound 4 exhibited deprotonated molecular ion at m/z 315 and suffered the neutral loss of 162 Da to yield dihydroxybenzoic acid at m/z 153 (comparison with an analytical standard of protocatechuic acid), so it was characterized as its hexoside. Compounds 5 and 11 were identified as neochlorogenic acid and chlorogenic acid by comparison with analytical standards. Compound 6 exhibited the transition 179→135, typical of caffeic acid (checked with a caffeic acid analytical standard), so it was tentatively characterized as a derivative.
Compounds 9, 12, and 14 were identified as 3-p-coumaroylquinic acid, 3-feruloylquinic acid, and 4-p-coumaroylquinic acid, respectively, based on the hierarchical scheme proposed by Clifford et al. [42].
It is worth mentioning that although some authors mentioned gallic acid as one of the main compounds in M. oleifera leaves [43], we did not find this compound in any of the analyzed supplements. This is in line with the findings of other authors, who did not find gallic acid either [25].

3.1.2. Flavonoids

Three apigenin C-glycosides were characterized: vicenin-2 (compound 15) by comparison with an analytical standard, and vitexin (compound 18) and isovitexin (compound 20) based on bibliographic information [44]. The differentiation between vitexin (8-C-glucoside) and vitexin (6-C-glucoside) is due to the fragment ion at m/z 413, which is absent in vitexin.
Six quercetin derivatives were identified. Compound 19 was identified as rutin by comparison with an analytical standard. Compound 21 suffered the neutral loss of 162 Da (hexoside), whereas compounds 23 and 28 exhibited the neutral loss of 204 Da (acetylhexoside moiety) to yield quercetin at m/z 301 (fragment ions at m/z 179 and 151). Compound 24 was tentatively characterized as quercetin-malonyl-hexoside [45], whereas 25 was characterized as quercetin-hydroxy-methylglutaroyl-hexoside (neutral losses of 144 + 162 Da), previously reported in M. oleifera [46].
The same neutral losses described for quercetin glycosides were used to characterize kaempferol glycosides (compounds 22, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34) and isorhamnetin glycosides (27 and 33).

3.1.3. Other Compounds

Compound 1 was identified as citric acid by comparison with an analytical standard. Compound 2 was characterized as a disaccharide (probably diglucoside) due to the neutral loss of 162 Da (341→ 179) and the characteristic fragments of hexoside moieties (m/z 179, 161, 143, and 119) [47]. Compound 3 was characterized as the glucosinolate glucomoringin, previously reported in M. oleifera [48]. Compound 5 exhibited deprotonated molecular ion at m/z 315 and suffered the neutral loss of 162 Da to yield dihydroxybenzoic acid at m/z 153, so it was characterized as its hexoside. Compound 13 was tentatively characterized as roseoside (vomifoliolglucoside or drovomifoliol-O-β-D-glucopyranoside) based on bibliographic information [49]. Compound 35 was identified as N-feruloyltyramine [50]. This compound was only detected in food supplement S4, due to the presence of black pepper fruit, which contains this compound [51]. Hence, it was absent in all the supplements that contained only M. oleifera.
Compounds 36 and 37 were characterized as oxylipins oxo-dihydroxy-octadecenoic acid and trihydroxy-octadecenoic acid based on bibliographic information [52].

3.2. Quantification of Phytochemicals

The most abundant compounds were flavonoids, followed by phenolic acids. The following analytical standards were used: chlorogenic acid, coumaric acid, and neochlorogenic acid for phenolic acids; and quercetin, kaempferol, rutin, and vicenin-2 (an apigenin glucoside) for flavonoids. The results are shown in Table 3.
Food supplements S1, S2, and S5 presented more than 10 mg g−1 DE of total individual phenolic content (the sum of all the phenolics quantified by HPLC), with S5 presenting the highest amount of phenolics. However, the other supplements presented a lower concentration of phenolics, with S3 presenting the lowest concentration. Although all of them are made from M. oleifera leaves (except S4), these differences make it clear that the preparation of food supplements is different, as these contents of phenolics are not supposed to be based only on the origin of M. oleifera species. However, in all of them, the profile is similar: more than 85% of the phenolics are flavonoids (again, except in S3, with only 73% of phenolics). Among flavonoids, the main compounds are kaempferol and quercetin glycosides, in agreement with the results reported in M. oleifera leaves by other authors [15,25,53].
Sultana et al. [53] reported a total amount of flavonoids of 6.13 mg mg−1, similar to our results (2.4–12.5 mg g−1 DE). These same authors reported concentrations of quercetin and kaempferol of 0.281 and 0.0402 mg g−1, respectively, whereas we found levels of 1.4–4.7 mg g−1 DE for quercetin (sum of all glycosides) and 0.56–8.2 mg g−1 DE for kaempferol (sum of all glycosides). These differences are due to the high levels of myricetin reported by Sultana et al., whereas we did not find this flavonoid in any of the analyzed extracts.
Singh et al. [43] reported concentrations of 0.08–0.5 mg g−1 for chlorogenic acid, 0.05–0.5 mg g−1 for ferulic acid, 0.07–0.2 mg g−1 for kaempferol and 0.03–0.8 mg g−1 for quercetin. Whereas the levels of chlorogenic acid and ferulic acid are similar to the ones reported in this work (Table 3), the levels found for flavonoids by these authors were much lower, due to the different extractants used (water in their work, in contrast to methanol in ours). Other authors also reported the levels of specific phenolic compounds in M. oleifera [54]; however, the concentrations were given in terms of fresh weight, making the comparison not straightforward. Hence, it can be observed that a comparison in terms of the main compounds can be made (quercetin and kaempferol were the main contributors to the phenolic profile), whereas comparisons of concentration are difficult to perform.
After performing the quantitation of the most abundant compounds, we also calculated the relative contribution of all compounds using the method of area normalization. Peak areas of each compound were obtained using the precursor ion, [M-H]- (Extracted Ion Chromatograms). Then, the relative contribution (in percentage) of each compound was calculated and the heat map (the darker the color, the higher the abundance) was constructed (Table 4). It can be observed that these data agree with the quantification (Table 3), observing that kaempferol and quercetin glycosides represented the highest percentage of phenolic contribution to the extracts.

3.3. Antioxidant Activity

The antioxidant capacity was evaluated utilizing the ABTS·+ and DPPH assays. We expressed the results in g TE (Trolox equivalents) per 100 g DE (Figure 2 and Supplementary Materials, Table S1), mmol TE/g DE (Table 5) and IC50 (amount needed to inhibit 50% of ABTS·+ or DPPH; Table 6). The reason to express the results of the assays in different ways is to ease comparison with other authors, as there is not consensus to express these assays in the same units.
In general, the antioxidant activity observed was in-line with the phenolic content. In this sense, supplement S5 had the highest activity, S1 and S3 presented similar capacity, and S3 and S6 had the lowest antioxidant capacity. However, there are some discrepancies; S3 and S6 presented the same antioxidant activity (no significant differences), even though S3 had less content of phenolics. This difference may be explained by the diverse antioxidant activity displayed by individual phenolics. In this case, both supplements had the same amount of quercetin-O-hexoside, which probably explains the similar activity. However, in general terms, the highest the phenolic content, the highest the antioxidant effect.
Braham et al. [24] reported DPPH values of 0.53 and 0.56 mmol TE/g for M. oleifera dried leaves, by using 70% and 50% ethanol as extraction solvents, respectively. Oldoni et al. [16] found DPPH values of 0.34 mmol TE/g of extract, obtained with 80% ethanol. Lin et al. [55] and Wu et al. [27] reported values of 0.17–0.47 and 0.07–0.15 mmol TE/g for M. oleifera dried leaves in the DPPH assays, respectively, with different concentrations of ethanol as the extractant and different extraction methodologies.
On the other hand, Lin et al. [55] and Wu et al. [27] reported values of 0.23–0.49 and 0.05–0.07 mmol TE/g for M. oleifera dried leaves in the ABTS·+ assays, respectively, and Oldoni et al. [16] found a value of 0.93 mmol TE/g of extract in the ABTS·+ assay.
When comparing our results with those previously reported by other authors, it is necessary to consider that there are differences in the solvent and the methodology used for the extraction, and in the forms of expression of results (DE in our work, in contrast to dried sample weight or extract weight in the previous works). In addition, previous studies revealed the significant influence of seasons and agroclimatic locations on the content of bioactive compounds with antiradical activity in M. oleifera leaves [56]. Therefore, it can be said that the results obtained in the present work in food supplements for the DPPH assay (0.05–0.20 mmol TE/g DE) and ABTS·+ assay (0.07–0.21 mmol TE/g DE), using methanol for extraction purposes, are of the same order as those previously reported by other authors.
In another work [57], values for IC50 of 1.02 and 1.60 mg mL−1 for ABTS·+ and DPPH assays were reported in methanol extracts of M. oleifera leaves. In general, these values are better than the ones found in food supplements (Table 6). However, food supplement S5 presented a similar antioxidant activity in the ABTS assay (1.26 mg mL−1) and slightly lower in the DPPH assay. These results agreed with the fact that S5 presented the highest phenolic concentration (Table 3).

4. Conclusions

In this work, we have reported the phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of six food supplements (sold in different presentations) based on M. oleifera, and compared the results obtained with those from other authors who analyzed M. oleifera fresh leaves. We found similarities in terms of phenolic profile: the main compounds were derivatives (mainly glucosides) of quercetin and kaempferol. Interestingly, we found malonyl-hexoside and acetyl-hexoside, which are not common flavonoids (the most abundant ones are usually hexoside, pentoside, deoxyhexoside, and rutinoside). However, in terms of quantitative analysis, although quercetin and kaempferol compounds were the most abundant (in agreement with previous works), the concentrations varied significantly between samples. This was an expected result, as the exact origin of M. oleifera plants (as well as season and agroclimatic conditions) and the preparation procedure, not provided by the different manufacturers, are probably different. Regarding the antioxidant capacity, in general, a good potential was obtained for most of the supplements; also, the results were different among them. However, as expected, there was a correlation between phenolic content and antioxidant activity: the higher the phenolic content, the higher the antioxidant activity. In our opinion, the consumption of these food supplements seems to provide a valuable source of antioxidants to the diet, although it is clear that not all the supplements provide the same amount of phenolics (which is equivalent to the antioxidant benefits).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/antiox12010110/s1, Figure S1: HPLC-ESI-MS base peak chromatogram of the analytical standards neochlorogenic acid (1), chlorogenic acid (2), vicenin-2 (3), coumaric acid (4), rutin (5), quercetin (6) and kaempferol (7).; Table S1: Results (mg TE/100g DE) obtained in ABTS·+ and DPPH assays. RSD (%) values in parenthesis.

Author Contributions

Data curation, E.J.L.-M. and A.I.G.-M.; funding acquisition, A.R.-M.; investigation, A.I.G.-M.; supervision, E.J.L.-M.; writing—original draft, E.J.L.-M., M.L.F.-d.C. and A.R.-M.; writing—review and editing, M.L.F.-d.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

Technical and human support provided by CICT of Universidad de Jaén (UJA, MINECO, Junta de Andalucía, FEDER) is gratefully acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Makkar, H.P.S.; Becker, K. Nutrients and antiquality factors in different morphological parts of the Moringa oleifera tree. J. Agric. Sci. 1997, 128, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Olson, M.E. Moringaceae. In Flora of North America: North of Mexico; Flora of North America Editorial Committee: New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 7, pp. 167–169. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kou, X.; Li, B.; Olayanju, J.B.; Drake, J.M.; Chen, N. Nutraceutical or pharmacological potential of Moringa Oleifera lam. Nutrients 2018, 10, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Saucedo-Pompa, S.; Torres-Castillo, J.; Castro-López, C.; Rojas, R.; Sánchez-Alejo, E.; Ngangyo-Heya, M.; Martínez-Ávila, G. Moringa plants: Bioactive compounds and promising applications in food products. Food Res. Int. 2018, 111, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cuellar-Nuñez, M.; Luzardo-Ocampo, I.; Campos-Vega, R.; Gallegos-Corona, M.; de Mejía, E.G.; Loarca-Piña, G. Physicochemical and nutraceutical properties of moringa (Moringa oleifera) leaves and their effects in an in vivo AOM/DSS-induced colorectal carcinogenesis model. Food Res. Int. 2018, 5, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Suresh, S.; Chhipa, A.S.; Gupta, M.; Lalotra, S.; Sisodia, S.; Baksi, R.; Nivsarkar, M. Phytochemical analysis and pharmacological evaluation of methanolic leaf extract of Moringa Oleifera lam. in ovalbumin induced allergic asthma. Phytomedicine 2021, 93, 153771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aju, B.; Rajalakshmi, R.; Mini, S. Protective role of Moringa Oleifera leaf extract on cardiac antioxidant status and lipid peroxidation in streptozotocin induced diabetic rats. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kashyap, P.; Kumar, S.; Riar, C.S.; Jindal, N.; Baniwal, P.; Guiné, R.P.F.; Correia, P.M.R.; Mehra, R.; Kumar, H. Recent Advances in Drumstick (Moringa oleifera) Leaves Bioactive Compounds: Composition, Health Benefits, Bioaccessibility, and Dietary Applications. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mahaman, Y.A.R.; Huang, F.; Wu, M.; Wang, Y.; Wei, Z.; Bao, J.; Salissou, M.T.M.; Ke, D.; Wang, Q.; Liu, R. Moringa oleifera alleviates homocysteine-induced Alzheimer’s disease-like pathology and cognitive impairments. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2018, 63, 1141–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Zeng, K.; Li, Y.; Yang, W.; Ge, Y.; Xu, L.; Ren, T.; Zhang, H.; Zhuo, R.; Peng, L.; Chen, C. Moringa oleifera seed extract protects against brain damage in both the acute and delayed stages of ischemic stroke. Exp. Gerontol. 2019, 122, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Minaiyan, M.; Asghari, G.; Taheri, D.; Saeidi, M.; Nasr-Esfahani, S. Anti-inflammatory effect of Moringa oleifera lam. seeds on acetic acid-induced acute colitis in rats. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 2014, 4, 127–136. [Google Scholar]
  12. Tumer, T.B.; Rojas-Silva, P.; Poulev, A.; Raskin, I.; Waterman, C. Direct and indirect antioxidant activity of polyphenol- and isothiocyanate-enriched fractions from Moringa oleifera. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 1505–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Vasanth, K.; Minakshi, G.C.; Ilango, K.; Kumar, R.M.; Agrawal, A.; Dubey, G.P. Moringa oleifera attenuates the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines in lipopolysaccharide stimulated human monocytic cell line. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 77, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kougan, G.B.; Tabopda, T.; Kuete, V.; Verpoorte, R. Simple phenols, phenolic acids and related esters from the medicinal plants of Africa. In Medicinal Plant Research in Africa: Pharmacology and Chemistry, 1st ed.; Kuete, V., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 225–249. [Google Scholar]
  15. Coppin, J.P.; Xu, Y.; Chen, H.; Pan, M.H.; Ho, C.T.; Juliani, R. Determination of flavonoids by LC/MS and anti-inflammatory activity in Moringa oleifera. J. Funct. Foods 2013, 5, 1892–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Oldoni, T.L.C.; Merlin, N.; Karling, M.; Carpes, S.T.; de Alencar, S.M.; Morales, R.G.F.; da Silva, E.A.; Pilau, E. Bioguided extraction of phenolic compounds and UHPLC-ESI-Q-TOF-MS/MS characterization of extracts of Moringa oleifera leaves collected in Brazil. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, T.; Tian, Y.; Zhong, Y.; Zakaib-Ali, F.A.; Yang, X.; Lu, B. Health benefits and phenolic compounds of Moringa oleifera leaves: A comprehensive review. Phytomedicine 2021, 93, 153771. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gopalakrishnan, L.; Doriya, K.; Kumar, D.S. Moringa oleifera: A review on nutritive importance and its medicinal application. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2016, 5, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Vyas, S.; Kachhwaha, S.; Kothari, S.L. Comparative analysis of phenolic contents and total antioxidant capacity of Moringa oleifera lam. Phcog. J. 2015, 7, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Iqbal, S.; Bhanger, M.I. Effect of season and production location on antioxidant activity of Moringa oleifera leaves grown in Pakistan. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2006, 19, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baldisserotto, A.; Buso, P.; Radice, M.; Dissette, V.; Lampronti, I.; Gambari, R.; Manfredini, S.; Vertuani, S. Moringa oleifera leaf extracts as multifunctional ingredients for "natural and organic" sunscreens and photoprotective preparations. Molecules 2018, 23, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Karthivashan, G.; Tangestani Fard, M.; Arulselvan, P.; Abas, F.; Fakurazi, S. Identification of bioactive candidate compounds responsible for oxidative challenge from hydro-ethanolic extract of Moringa oleifera leaves. J. Food Sci. 2013, 78, C1368–C1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jimoh, T.O. Enzymes inhibitory and radical scavenging potentials of two selected tropical vegetable (Moringa oleifera and Telfairia occidentalis) leaves relevant to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Braz. J. Pharmacogn. 2018, 28, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Braham, F.; Carvalho, D.O.; Almeida, C.M.R.; Zaidi, F.; Magalhães, J.M.C.S.; Guido, L.F.; Gonçalves, M.P. Online HPLC-DPPH screening method for evaluation of radical scavenging phenols extracted from Moringa oleifera leaves. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 129, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rodríguez-Pérez, C.; Quirantes-Piné, R.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A.; Segura-Carretero, A. Optimization of extraction method to obtain a phenolic compounds-rich extract from Moringa oleifera lam. leaves. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 66, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhu, Y.; Du, P.; Huang, S.; Yin, Q.; Yang, Y. Quality assessment of Moringa seed shells based on fingerprinting using HPLC-DAD. Acta Chromatogr. 2020, 32, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, L.; Li, L.; Chen, S.; Wang, L.; Lin, X. Deep eutectic solvent-based ultrasonic-assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from Moringa oleifera lam. leaves: Optimization, comparison and antioxidant activity. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2020, 247, 117014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Siddhuraju, P.; Becke, K. Antioxidant properties of various solvent extracts of total phenolic constituents from three different agroclimatic origins of drumstick tree (Moringa oleifera lam.) leaves. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 2144–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ceci, R.; Maldini, M.; Olson, M.E.; Crognale, D.; Horner, K.; Dimauro, I.; Sabatini, S.; Duranti, G. Moringa oleifera Leaf Extract Protects C2C12 Myotubes against H2O2-Induced Oxidative Stress. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Precious-Adejoh, I.; Stephen-Chiadikaobi, O.; Ojochegbe-Barnabas, A.; Oluwakemi-Ifeoluwa, A.; Shehu-Muhammed, H. In vivo and in vitro comparative evaluation of the anti-diabetic potentials of the parts of Moringa oleifera tree. Eur. J. Biotechnol. Biosci. 2016, 4, 14–22. [Google Scholar]
  31. Verma, A.R.; Vijayakumar, M.; Mathela, C.S.; Rao, C.V. In vitro and in vivo antioxidant properties of different fractions of Moringa oleifera leaves. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 2196–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kasolo, J.N.; Bimenya, G.S.; Ojok, L.; Ochieng, J.; Ogwal-Okeng, J.W. Phytochemicals and uses of Moringa oleifera leaves in Ugandan rural communities. J. Med. Plants Res. 2010, 4, 753–757. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hazra, S.; Biswas, S.; Bhattacharyya, D.; Das, S.K.; Khan, A. Quality of cooked ground buffalo meat treated with the crude extracts of Moringa oleifera (lam.) leaves. J. Food Sci. Tech. Mys. 2012, 49, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Al-Juhaimi, F.; Ghafoor, K.; Hawashin, M.D.; Alsawmahi, O.N.; Babiker, E.E. Effects of different levels of Moringa (Moringa oleifera) seed flour on quality attributes of beef burgers. CyTA-J. Food 2016, 14, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jayawardana, B.C.; Liyanage, R.; Lalantha, N.; Iddamalgoda, S.; Weththasinghe, P. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of drumstick (Moringa oleifera) leaves in herbal chicken sausages. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 64, 1204–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. López-Nicolás, R.; Frontela-Saseta, C.; Gonzáez-Abellán, R.; Barado-Piqueras, A.; Pérez-Conesa, D.; Ros-Berruezo, G. Folate fortification of white and whole-grain bread by adding Swiss chard and spinach. Acceptability by consumers. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 59, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ogunsina, B.; Radha, C.; Indrani, D. Quality characteristics of bread and cookies enriched with debittered Moringa oleifera seed flour. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2010, 62, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sengev, A.; Abu, J.; Gernah, D. Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf powder supplementation on some quality characteristics of wheat bread. Food Nutr. Sci. 2013, 4, 270–275. [Google Scholar]
  39. Aluko, O.; Brai, M.R.; Adelore, A.O. Evaluation of sensory attributes of snack from maize-moringa seed flour blends. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2013, 7, 597–599. [Google Scholar]
  40. European Council. Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the Laws of the Member States Relating to Food Supplements (Consolidated Text); European Council: Strasbourg, France, 2002; Volume 183, p. 51. [Google Scholar]
  41. European Council. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods (Consolidated Text); European Council: Strasbourg, France, 2006; Volume 404, p. 9. [Google Scholar]
  42. Clifford, M.N.; Johnston, K.L.; Knight, S.; Kuhnert, N. Hierarchical scheme for LC-MSn identification of chlorogenic acids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 2900–2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Singh, B.N.; Singh, B.R.; Singh, R.L.; Prakash, D.; Dhakarey, R.; Upadhyay, G.; Singh, H.B. Oxidative DNA damage protective activity, antioxidant and anti-quorum sensing potentials of Moringa oleifera. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2009, 47, 1109–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Waridel, P.; Wolfender, J.-L.; Ndjoko, K.; Hobby, K.R.; Major, H.J.; Hostettmann, K. Evaluation of quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry and ion-trap multiple-stage mass spectrometry for the differentiation of C-glycosidic flavonoid isomers. J. Chromatogr. A 2001, 926, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shui, G.; Peng, L.L. An improved method for the analysis of major antioxidants of Hibiscus esculentus Linn. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1048, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Makita, C.; Chimuka, L.; Steenkamp, P.; Cukrowska, E.; Madala, E. Comparative analyses of flavonoid content in Moringa oleifera and Moringa ovalifolia with the aid of UHPLC-qTOF-MS fingerprinting, S. Afr. J. Bot. 2016, 105, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Verardo, G.; Duse, I.; Callea, A. Analysis of underivatized oligosaccharides by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry with post-column addition of formic acid. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2009, 23, 1607–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Maldini, M.; Maksoud, S.A.; Natella, F.; Montoro, P.; Petretto, G.L.; Foddai, M.; De Nicola, G.R.; Chessa, M.; Pintore, G. Moringa oleifera: Study of phenolics and glucosinolates by mass spectrometry. J. Mass Spectrom. 2014, 49, 900–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Spínola, V.; Llorent-Martínez, E.J.; Gouveia, S.; Castilho, P.C. Myrica faya: A new source of antioxidant phytochemicals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 9722–9735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rodríguez-Medina, I.C.; Beltrán-Debón, R.; Micol Molina, V.; Alonso-Villaverde, C.; Joven, J.; Menéndez, J.A.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. Direct characterization of aqueous extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa using HPLC with diode array detection coupled to ESI and ion trap MS. J. Sep. Sci. 2009, 32, 3441–3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Takooree, H.; Aumeeruddy, M.Z.; Rengasamy, K.R.R.; Venugopala, K.N.; Jeewon, R.; Zengin, G.; Mahomoodally, M.F. A systematic review on black pepper (Piper nigrum L.): From folk uses to pharmacological applications. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, S210–S243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Van Hoyweghen, L.; De Bosscher, K.; Haegeman, G.; Deforce, D.; Heyerick, A. In vitro inhibition of the transcription factor NF-κB and cyclooxygenase by Bamboo extracts. Phytother. Res. 2014, 28, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sultana, B.; Anwar, F. Flavonols (kaempeferol, quercetin, myricetin) contents of selected fruits, vegetables and medicinal plants. Food Chem. 2008, 108, 879–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Amaglo, N.K.; Bennett, R.N.; Lo Curto, R.B.; Rosa, E.A.S.; Lo Turco, V.; Giuffrida, A.; Lo Curto, A.; Crea, F.; Timpo, G.M. Profiling selected phytochemicals and nutrients in different tissues of the multipurpose tree Moringa oleifera L., grown in Ghana. Food Chem. 2010, 122, 1047–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lin, X.; Wu, L.; Wang, X.; Yao, L.; Wang, L. Ultrasonic-assisted extraction for flavonoid compounds content and antioxidant activities of India Moringa oleifera L. leaves: Simultaneous optimization, HPLC characterization and comparison with other methods. J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants 2021, 20, 100284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vázquez-León, L.A.; Páramo-Calderón, D.E.; Robles-Olvera, V.J.; Valdés-Rodríguez, O.A.; Pérez-Vázquez, A.; García-Alvarado, M.A.; Rodríguez-Jimenes, G.C. Variation in bioactive compounds and antiradical activity of Moringa oleifera leaves: Influence of climatic factors, tree age, and soil parameters. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2017, 243, 1593–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Charoensin, S. Antioxidant and anticancer activities of Moringa oleifera leaves. J. Med. Plant Res. 2014, 8, 318–325. [Google Scholar]
Antioxidants 12 00110 g001 550
Figure 1. HPLC−ESI−MSn base peak chromatogram of food supplement S1.
Figure 1. HPLC−ESI−MSn base peak chromatogram of food supplement S1.
Antioxidants 12 00110 g001
Antioxidants 12 00110 g002 550
Figure 2. Antioxidant assays (g TE/100 g DE) for the analyzed M. oleifera food supplements. Means of the same assay not sharing the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05 probability level.
Figure 2. Antioxidant assays (g TE/100 g DE) for the analyzed M. oleifera food supplements. Means of the same assay not sharing the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05 probability level.
Antioxidants 12 00110 g002
Table
Table 1. Nomenclature used and data for each food supplement of M. oleifera analyzed.
Table 1. Nomenclature used and data for each food supplement of M. oleifera analyzed.
NomenclaturePresentationCompositionRecommended Dose per DayRecommended Dose per Day (mg M. oleifera)
S1powderM. oleifera leaves5 g5000 mg
S2powderM. oleifera leaves3 g3000 mg
S3capsulesM. oleifera leaves (500 mg/capsule), chromium picolinate, magnesium stearate1–2 capsules500–1000 mg
S4capsulesextract of M. oleifera seeds (300 mg/capsule) and powder of black pepper fruit, maltodextrin1–2 capsules300–600 mg
S5capsulesM. oleifera leaves (300 mg/capsule)2–4 capsules600–1200 mg
S6tabletsM. oleifera leaves (490 mg/tablet)4–12 tablets1960–5880 mg
Table
Table 2. Characterization of phytochemicals found in extracts of food supplements of M. oleifera by HPLC-DAD-MSn.
Table 2. Characterization of phytochemicals found in extracts of food supplements of M. oleifera by HPLC-DAD-MSn.
No.tR
(min)		[M-H]−
m/z		m/z (% Base Peak)Assigned IdentificationS1S2S3S4S5S6
11.8191MS2 [191]: 173 (10), 153 (82),
111 (100)		Citric acid * ✓✓
21.8341MS2 [341]:179 (100), 161 (81), 143 (29), 119 (45)
MS3 [341→179]: 161 (57), 143 (65), 131 (90), 119 (100)		Disaccharide ✓✓✓✓✓✓
32.6570MS2 [570]: 424 (5), 328 (26), 291 (16), 275 (18), 259 (100)Glucomoringin✓✓✓ ✓✓
43.9315MS2 [315]: 153 (100), 123 (8)
MS3 [315→153]: 123 (100)		Dihydroxybenzoic acid-O-hexoside✓✓✓ ✓✓
55.1353MS2 [353]: 191 (100), 179 (50), 173 (5), 135 (14) Neochlorogenic acid *✓✓✓✓✓✓
65.1375MS2 [375]: 201 (100), 179 (52), 135 (14)
MS3 [375→179]: 135 (100)		Caffeic acid derivative✓✓✓✓✓✓
75.8463MS2 [463]: 419 (100)
MS3 [463→419]: 419 (100), 373 (35), 331 (45), 207 (20)		Unknown ✓
86.4628MS2 [628]: 291 (100)Unknown
97.6337MS2 [337]: 163 (100)
MS3 [337→163]: 119 (100) 		3-p-Coumaroylquinic acid✓✓✓✓✓✓
108.4612MS2 [612]: 370 (100), 275 (75) Unknown✓✓✓ ✓✓
118.7353MS2 [353]: 191 (16), 179 (49), 173 (100)
MS3 [353→173]: 155 (100), 111 (54)		Chlorogenic acid *✓✓✓✓✓✓
128.8367MS2 [367]: 193 (100)
MS3 [367→193]: 149 (37), 134 (100)		3-Feruloylquinic acid✓✓✓✓✓✓
1310.8431MS2 [431]: 385 (100), 223 (14)
MS3 [431→385]: 223 (100), 205 (69), 161 (22), 153 (69) 		Roseoside (formate adduct)✓✓ ✓✓✓
1412.1337MS2 [337]: 173 (100), 163 (7)
MS3 [337→173]: 111 (100)		4-p-Coumaroylquinic acid✓✓✓✓✓✓
1512.4593MS2 [593]: 575 (6), 503 (27), 473 (100), 383 (21), 353 (62)Vicenin-2 (Apigenin 6,8-di-C-glucoside) *✓✓✓✓✓✓
1614.4324MS2 [324]: 278 (100), 255 (53), 132 (97)Unknown ✓✓✓
1716.6563MS2 [563]: 417 (100), 271 (27)
MS3 [563→417]: 271 (100)
MS4 [563→417→271]: 165 (100)		Unknown flavonoid-di-dHex✓✓✓✓✓✓
1818.8431MS2 [431]: 341 (6), 311 (100)
MS3 [431→311]: 283 (100)		Vitexin (8-C-glucoside-apigenin)✓✓✓✓✓✓
1919.3609MS2 [609]: 301 (100)
MS3 [609→301]: 179 (97), 151 (100)		Rutin *✓✓✓✓✓✓
2019.5431MS2 [431]: 413 (6), 341 (37), 311 (100)
MS3 [341→311]: 283 (100)		Isovitexin (6-C-glucoside-apigenin)✓✓✓✓✓✓
2120.7463MS2 [463]: 301 (100), 179 (10), 151 (5)
MS3 [463→301]: 179 (100), 151 (81)		Quercetin-O-Hex✓✓✓✓✓✓
2222.5593MS2 [593]: 285 (100), 255 (10), 229 (5)
MS3 [593→285]: 257 (100), 241 (43), 169 (35)		Kaempferol-O-Rut ✓ ✓ ✓
2322.6505MS2 [505]: 463 (33), 301 (100), 151 (2)
MS3 [505→301]: 271 (55), 179 (76), 151 (100)		Quercetin-O-acetyl-Hex✓✓✓✓✓✓
2422.9549MS2 [549]: 505 (100)
MS3 [549→505]: 463 (9), 301 (100)
MS4 [549→505→301]: 179 (80), 151 (100)		Quercetin-malonyl-Hex✓✓ ✓✓
2522.9607MS2 [607]: 463 (100), 301 (39)
MS3 [607→463]: 301 (100), 151 (42)		Quercetin-hydroxy-methylglutaroyl-Hex✓✓✓✓✓
2624.0447MS2 [447]: 285 (100), 284 (57), 255 (24)
MS3 [447→285]: 257 (9), 255 (100)		Kaempferol-O-Hex✓✓✓✓✓✓
2724.6477MS2 [477]: 315 (55), 314 (100)
MS3 [477→314]: 300 (100), 271 (63)		Isorhamnetin-O-Hex✓✓✓✓✓✓
2825.0505MS2 [505]: 463 (17), 301 (100), 151 (5)
MS3 [505→301]: 271 (25), 255 (30), 179 (100), 151 (82)		Quercetin-O-acetyl hexoside✓✓✓✓✓✓
2926.5591MS2 [591]: 447 (100)
MS3 [591→447]: 285 (100)		Kaempferol-hydroxy-methylglutaroyl Hex✓✓✓✓ ✓
3026.8533MS2 [533]: 489 (100)
MS3 [533→489]: 285 (100)
MS4 [533→489→285]: 257 (69), 241 (60), 199 (100)		Kaempferol-malonyl-Hex✓✓ ✓✓
3126.8489MS2 [489]: 285 (100)
MS3 [489→285]: 257 (42), 255 (27), 241 (100)		Kaempferol-O-acetyl hexoside✓✓✓✓✓✓
3227.5489MS2 [489]: 285 (100)
MS3 [489→285]: 255 (100), 151 (77)		Kaempferol-O-acetyl hexoside✓✓ ✓✓
3327.6519MS2 [519]: 315 (100), 300 (8)
MS3 [519→315]: 300 (100) 		Isorhamnetin-O-acetyl hexoside✓✓ ✓✓
3429.5489MS2 [489]: 285 (100), 255 (6), 151 (4)
MS3 [489→285]: 255 (100), 227 (30)		Kaempferol-O- acetyl hexoside✓✓✓✓✓✓
3531.4312MS2 [312]: 178 (100), 135 (59)N-Feruloyltyramine ✓
3638.8327MS2 [327]: 291 (29), 229 (32), 211 (22), 171 (100)Oxo-dihydroxy-octadecenoic acid✓✓✓✓✓✓
3740.6329MS2 [329]: 229 (100), 211 (88), 171 (97) Trihydroxy-octadecenoic acid✓✓✓✓✓✓
* Identified by comparison with analytical standards. Hex = hexoside (usually glucoside, but also galactoside); Rut = rutinoside; dHex = deoxyhexoside (usually rhamnoside, but also furanoside).
Table
Table 3. Quantification of the main compounds found in the extracts of M. oleifera food supplements analyzed.
Table 3. Quantification of the main compounds found in the extracts of M. oleifera food supplements analyzed.
NºAssigned Identificationmg g−1 DE
S1S2S3S4S5S6
Phenolic acids
5 + 6Neochlorogenic + caffeic acid der.0.76 ± 0.05 c0.42 ± 0.03 b0.29 ± 0.02 a0.43 ± 0.03 b0.87 ± 0.06 d0.23 ± 0.02 a
93-p-Coumaroylquinic acid0.18 ± 0.01 cd0.17 ± 0.01 bc0.21 ± 0.02 d0.27 ± 0.02 e0.112 ± 0.008 a0.14 ± 0.01 ab
11 + 12Chlorogenic acid + 3-FQA0.78 ± 0.05 d0.34 ± 0.02 b0.38 ± 0.03 b0.54 ± 0.04 c0.76 ± 0.05 d0.18 ± 0.01 a
Total 1.72 ± 0.07 d0.93 ± 0.04 b0.88 ± 0.04 b1.24 ± 0.05 c1.74 ± 0.08 d0.55 ± 0.02 a
Flavonoids
18Vitexin0.071 ± 0.005 b0.0096 ± 0.0007 a---------0.60 ± 0.04 c
19 + 20Rutin + isovitexin0.64 ± 0.04 c1.00 ± 0.07 e0.034 ± 0.002 a0.49 ± 0.03 b---0.85 ± 0.06 d
21Quercetin-O-Hex4.0 ± 0.3 b1.40 ± 0.09 a1.8 ± 0.1 a4.7 ± 0.3 c5.2 ± 0.3 c1.7 ± 0.1 a
22−25Kaempferol + Quercetin glycosides2.1 ± 0.1 c2.1 ± 0.1 c---0.009 ± 0.001 a2.8 ± 0.2 d0.56 ± 0.04 b
26Kaempferol-O-Hex1.9 ± 0.1 c2.4 ± 0.2 d0.56 ± 0.04 a1.12 ± 0.07 b2.5 ± 0.2 d0.60 ± 0.04 a
27Isorhamnetin-O-Hex0.16 ± 0.01 a0.13 ± 0.01 a---0.36 ± 0.02 b---0.39 ± 0.03 b
28Quercetin-O-AHex---------------0.38 ± 0.02
29−31Kaempferol + Quercetin glycosides1.7 ± 0.1 b3.2 ± 0.2 d---0.19 ± 0.01 a2.0 ± 0.1 c0.36 ± 0.02 a
32 + 33Kaempferol + Isorhamnetin-O-AHex0.34 ± 0.03 c0.49 ± 0.03 d---0.19 ± 0.01 a---0.26 ± 0.02 b
34Kaempferol-O-AHex---------------0.25 ± 0.2
Total 10.9 ± 0.4 d10.7 ± 0.3 d2.4 ± 0.1 a7.1 ± 0.3 c12.5 ± 0.4 e6.0 ± 0.3 b
TIPC 12.6 ± 0.4 e11.7 ± 0.3 d3.3 ± 0.1 a8.3 ± 0.3 c14.2 ± 0.4 f6.6 ± 0.3 b
Values are reported as mean ± SD of three parallel experiments. Bold values represent the sum of each type of components. Means in the same line not sharing the same letter are significantly different at p < 0.05 probability level. Hex = hexoside (usually glucoside, but also galactoside); der. = derivative; FQA = feruloylquinic acid; AHex = acetylhexoside.
Table
Table 4. Relative peak areas and heat map of extracts of M. oleifera food supplements.
Table 4. Relative peak areas and heat map of extracts of M. oleifera food supplements.
PeakCompoundS1S2S3S4S5S6
1Citric acid0.000.003.651.160.000.00
2Disaccharide 12.948.424.492.0214.317.68
3Glucomoringin0.881.600.590.002.470.19
4Hydroxytyrosol hexoside0.090.140.170.000.220.30
5Neochlorogenic acid2.061.151.260.593.190.23
6Caffeic acid derivative0.540.220.290.170.290.11
7Unknown0.000.007.550.000.000.00
8Unknown0.000.000.000.000.000.00
93-p-Coumaroylquinic acid0.350.401.560.500.310.38
10Unknown1.505.200.150.002.031.49
11Chlorogenic acid1.210.511.851.370.850.21
123-Feruloylquinic acid0.210.210.320.110.370.19
13Roseoside1.100.050.000.060.110.28
144-p-Coumaroylquinic acid0.170.102.400.910.120.18
15Vicenin-21.231.333.920.871.333.41
16Unknown0.000.008.094.090.620.00
17Unknown flavonoid-di-dHex0.341.630.250.150.330.84
18Vitexin 8-C-Glc-apigenin1.610.730.960.750.831.95
19Rutin0.702.610.640.990.660.97
20Isovitexin 6-C-Glc-apigenin1.951.071.480.741.602.27
21Quercetin-O-hexoside 20.5810.3126.1638.1217.8227.54
22Kaempferol-O-rutinoside0.007.530.000.170.001.00
23Quercetin-O-acetyl hexoside10.383.900.300.2410.093.91
24Quercetin-malonyl hexose1.580.750.000.001.990.91
25Quercetin-der0.310.470.250.300.280.00
26Kaempferol-O-hexoside 17.4019.5217.4018.8317.9113.80
27Isorhamnetin-O-hexoside0.960.653.392.761.281.41
28Quercetin-O-acetyl hexoside0.300.281.231.960.459.54
29Kaempferol-der0.301.960.170.270.003.93
30Kaempferol-malonyl hexose1.572.6200.001.140.41
31Kaempferol-O-acetyl hexoside10.7315.870.100.2211.233.42
32Kaempferol-O-acetyl hexoside0.791.470.000.000.900.27
33Isorhamnetin-O-acetyl hexoside0.690.770.000.000.670.47
34Kaempferol-O- acetyl hexoside0.381.330.841.050.497.25
35N-Feruloyltyramine0.000.000.0010.260.000.00
36Oxo-dihydroxy-octadecenoic acid5.315.484.785.254.284.64
37Trihydroxy-octadecenoic acid1.851.715.746.101.870.81
Hex = hexoside (usually glucoside, but also galactoside); Rut= rutinoside; dHex = deoxyhexoside (usually rhamnoside, but also furanoside); Glc = glucoside.
Table
Table 5. Results (mmol TE/g DE) obtained in ABTS·+ and DPPH assays for M. oleifera food supplements. RSD (%) values in parenthesis.
Table 5. Results (mmol TE/g DE) obtained in ABTS·+ and DPPH assays for M. oleifera food supplements. RSD (%) values in parenthesis.
SampleABTS·+DPPH
S10.124 (20)0.108 (16)
S20.128 (18)0.104 (14)
S30.085 (19)0.080 (14)
S40.105 (20)0.108 (6)
S50.206 (5)0.196 (8)
S60.069 (5)0.052 (6)
Table
Table 6. Results (IC50; mg DE/mL MeOH) obtained in ABTS·+ and DPPH assays. RSD (%) values in parenthesis.
Table 6. Results (IC50; mg DE/mL MeOH) obtained in ABTS·+ and DPPH assays. RSD (%) values in parenthesis.
SampleABTS·+DPPH
S12.33 (16)5.31 (14)
S22.11 (15)5.59 (12)
S33.08 (14)7.14 (12)
S42.58 (20)5.22 (6)
S51.26 (5)2.77 (7)
S63.76 (5)10.47 (6)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Llorent-Martínez, E.J.; Gordo-Moreno, A.I.; Fernández-de Córdova, M.L.; Ruiz-Medina, A. Preliminary Phytochemical Screening and Antioxidant Activity of Commercial Moringa oleifera Food Supplements. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12010110

AMA Style

Llorent-Martínez EJ, Gordo-Moreno AI, Fernández-de Córdova ML, Ruiz-Medina A. Preliminary Phytochemical Screening and Antioxidant Activity of Commercial Moringa oleifera Food Supplements. Antioxidants. 2023; 12(1):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12010110

Chicago/Turabian Style

Llorent-Martínez, Eulogio J., Ana I. Gordo-Moreno, María Luisa Fernández-de Córdova, and Antonio Ruiz-Medina. 2023. "Preliminary Phytochemical Screening and Antioxidant Activity of Commercial Moringa oleifera Food Supplements" Antioxidants 12, no. 1: 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12010110

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop