2018, Vol.23 No.
1, 063-069
Article ID 1007-1202(2018)01-0063-07
DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11859-018-1295-0
Optimization of Extraction of
Antioxidants from Turmeric (Curcuma
longa L.) Using Response Surface
Methodology
□ LIU Caiqin, CHEN Weiqing, WANG Nan,
JIN Jianchang
College of Biology and Environment Engineering, Zhejiang
Shuren University, Hangzhou 310015, Zhejiang, China
© Wuhan University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018
Abstract: Turmeric is a spice widely used to enhance the taste
and color of certain meats. We investigated the antioxidant capaci-
ties of turmeric ethanol soaking extracts by utilizing the scaveng-
ing properties of hydroxyl radical and 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhy-
drazyl (DPPH) free radical. The results showed that the optimum
extraction parameters were: extraction time 4 h, sample-solvent
ratio 1:84.12, solvent 72.34% ethanol solution, and water bath
temperature 81.3 ℃. The optimum ethanol soaking extraction
parameters were: extraction time 4 h, sample-solvent ratio 1:90.74,
solvent 80.46% ethanol solution, water bath temperature 88.2 ℃.
With these parameters, the hydroxyl radical scavenging rate and
the DPPH free radical clearance of crude extracts from turmeric
can reach about 93.78% and 40.69%, respectively. These results
indicate that ethanol soaking extraction may be a useful method
for extracting antioxidants from turmeric.
Key words: turmeric; ethanol soaking extraction; antioxidant
activity; hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity; 1,1-diphenyl-2-
picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging capacity
CLC number: R 284.2
Received date: 2016-09-23
Foundation item: Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (31401500), the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province
( LQ13C200005), and the Young Academic Team of Zhejiang Shuren University
Biography: LIU Caiqin, female, Associate professor, Ph.D., research direction:
food science. E-mail: sailor603@126.com
0 Introduction
Antioxidants can protect food from being lipid oxi-
dation initiated by free radicals and reactive oxygen spe-
cies (ROS)[1], and protect human body from free radicals
and ROS damage[2]. Therefore, antioxidants are impor-
tant for food store and bodily protection against oxida-
tive stress. In the food industry, the more popular syn-
thetic antioxidants are phenolic compounds, such as bu-
tylated hydroxyanisol (BHA), butylated hydroxytoluene
(BHT), tertiary butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ) and propyl
gallate (PG), because they can increase the shelf life of
foods by 15%-200%, allowing food to be transported and
stored for long periods[3]. At the same time, they are
cheaper than natural antioxidants. However, the use of
these synthetic antioxidants for food or medicine com-
ponents has been stricted by the toxicity and potential
damage to the health of human[4]. Many researchers aim
at looking for natural or origin-natural alternates to re-
place synthetic antioxidants for their safe and benefit to
human[5]. Some natural antioxidants were extracted from
Bauhinia purpurea[6], Curcuma caesia rhizome[7], Cur-
cuma longa leaf[8], and Ocimum basilicum[9].
Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) is a perennial herb
and a member of the ginger family which is cultivated
extensively in Southeast Asia, India, China, and other
countries with a suitable climate[10]. Numerous studies
show that the active components in turmeric are curcu-
minoids that have antioxidant[11-13], anti-inflammatory[14],
wound healing[15], anticancer[16], anti-bacterial proper-
 64
ties[17], affects cellular enzymes, and angiogenesis[18,19].
Curcuminoids are polyphenol that can be derived by
means of extraction[20]. Soaking is a conventional
method of extraction with low cost and relatively high
yield. And among the popular solvents for the extraction
of polyphenolic compounds, such as methanol, ethanol,
and ethyl acetate[21], ethanol is the most appropriate sol-
vent for the extraction of various poly-phenolic com-
pounds from herbal materials[9]. Moreover, the selection
of the optimum conditions of extraction process is essen-
tial for the extraction of antioxidants crude extracts from
turmeric.
In this paper, by adopting response surface method-
ology, we investigated how solid to liquid ratio, ethanol
concentration, extraction temperature, and extraction
time impact the extraction of antioxidants from turmeric
by means of ethanol soaking method, with the capacities
of hydroxyl radical scavenging and capacity of
1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical
scavenging set as antioxidant indexes.
1 Materials and Methods
1.1 Materials
Turmeric was purchased from a traditional Chinese
medicines store in Hangzhou, China. 1,1-diphenyl-2-
picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) was purchased from Sigma
Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA). All other reagents
were of analytical grade.
1.2 Extraction of Turmeric Antioxidant
Turmeric powder was passed through 0.178 mm
sieves. 1.000 g turmeric powder and a measured amount
of ethanol were transferred to 500 mL iodine flasks,
which was simultaneously stirred and heated using a
water bath at a selected temperature for a predetermined
time. Then the solution was filtered with quantitative
filter paper and then centrifuged at 3 000 r/min for 10
min. The supernatant was collected and constant volume
to 500 mL, then for assessment of antioxidant capacity
through various chemical assays.
1.3 Hydroxyl Radical Scavenging Activity
The scavenging capacity of hydroxyl radical was
measured according to Chen[22] with small modifications.
The reaction mixture contained 1.0 mL of sodium phos-
phate buffer (0.15 mol/L, pH 7.4), 1.0 mL of safranine
(40 mg/L), 1.0 mL of EDTA-Fe2+ (0.945 mmol/L), 0.2
mL of sample, and 1.0 mL of 3% H2O2 (V/V). In the es-
sential control, the sample and EDTA-Fe2+ solution were
replaced by 3% H2O2 (V/V). In the blank, the sample was
Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 2018, Vol.23 No.1
replaced by distilled water. The solution was incubated
at 37 ℃ for 30 min, and absorbance was detected at 520
nm by ultraviolet spectrophotometer.
The antioxidant activity of the sample was evalu-
ated by the following formula: scavenging rate E = [(A-
A0)/(Ae-A0)]×100%, where A, A0 and Ae were the ab-
sorbance of the sample, the control, and the blank, re-
spectively.
1.4 Scavenging Activity of DPPH Free Radical
The scavenging capacity of the extract on DPPH
was determined according to Jiang et al[23] with some
modifications. 2 mL of sample was placed in a cuvette,
and 2 mL of ethanol solution of DPPH (0.02 mmol/L)
was added in. The solution was incubated in the dark at
room temperature for 40 min. Reduction of DPPH free
radicals was determined by measuring the absorbance at
517 nm by ultraviolet spectrophotometer.
The DPPH free radical scavenging activity was
calculated according to the following equation: scaveng-
ing rate E=(1-(A1/A0))×100%, where A0 was the absorb-
ance of the control (blank, without extract) and A1 was
the absorbance in the presence of the extract. All deter-
minations were determined by replicate experiments with
triplicate analysis.
1.5 Experimental Design
In the present study, the optimization process firstly
requires identifying the most important extraction me-
dium using fractional factorial design (FFD), and then it
focuses on the critical subset of extraction medium. Fi-
nally a central composite design (CCD) was derived to
optimize the critical extraction medium and maximize
the hydroxyl radical and DPPH free radical scavenging
activities.
In the fractional factorial design, a 26-2 FFD leading
to 16 sets of experiments, performed in duplicate, was
used to verify the most significant factors affecting the
hydroxyl radical and DPPH free radical scavenging ca-
pacity. The variables were coded according to the fol-
lowing equation:
xi=(X i-X 0)/Xi (1)
where xi is the coded value of an independent variable, Xi
is the real value of an independent variable, X0 is the real
value of an independent variable at the center point, and
Xi is the step change value. X1, X2, X3, X4 represent the
actual independent variables of sample to solvent ratio
(W/V), ethanol concentration (%), extraction temperature
(℃) and extraction time (h), respectively. x1, x2, x3, x4
represent the coded value of sample to solvent ratio,
ethanol concentration, extraction temperature, and ex-
LIU Caiqin et al : Optimization of Extraction of Antioxidants from Turmeric … 65

traction time, respectively. surface plots and counter plots of the independent vari-
The coded and actual independent variables used in ables were generated by Design Expert 8.0 (Stat-Ease
the FFD design are shown in Table 1. Ranges of sample Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA).
to solvent ratio, ethanol concentration, extraction tem-
perature and extraction time, and the central points were 2 Results and Discussion
selected based on preliminary experimental results. The
hydroxyl radical and DPPH free radical scavenging ca- 2.1 FFD and Analysis
pacity were considered as the dependent variable or re- The antioxidants crude extracts were extracted from
sponse (respectively as Y 1 and Y2). turmeric by means of ethanol soaking extraction, and the
Table 1 Coded and actual values of factors in FFD
effects of four extraction process variables, sample to
solvent ratio (X1:1:50-1:100), ethanol concentration
Independent variables (X2:65%-95%), extraction temperature (X3:75-95℃) and
Coded values
X1 X2/% X3/℃ X4/h extraction time (X4:2-6 h) were investigated in the study.
1 1:50 65 75 2 The two antioxidant indexes were hydroxyl radical and
DPPH free radical scavenging capacities. A two-level
0 1:75 80 85 4
FFD was employed and the results of the FFD are shown
1 1:100 95 95 6
in Table 3.
The first-order model was obtained from FFD. In As can be seen from Table 3, the parameters of
order to fit the empirical second-order polynomial model, x1 and x2 were found to be highly significant at the
a central composition design (CCD) with three coded probability level of 99% for hydroxyl radical scavenging
levels was performed. Table 3 Design and results of FFD
The model proposed for the response (Y) was:
Run x1 x2 x3 x4 Y1/% Y2/%
Y  b0   bi xi   bii xi2   bij xi x j (2)
1 -1 -1 1 1 91.11 32.43
where Y is the response variable, b0, bi, bii, bij are the re-
gression coefficients variables, for intercept, linear, 2 -1 -1 1 -1 88.44 36.76
quadratic and interaction terms, respectively, and xi and 3 1 1 -1 -1 98.64 32.13
xj are independent variables. Data were analyzed using 4 1 -1 1 -1 97.14 40.03
the response surface regression (RSREG) procedure
5 -1 1 1 -1 96.45 37.41
(SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and x is the coded
6 1 -1 1 1 101.40 40.53
level of the independent variable. The coded and un-
coded independent variables used in the CCD design are 7 -1 0 -1 -1 92.13 32.76
shown in Table 2. 8 1 -1 -1 -1 94.95 37.85
9 -1 -1 -1 -1 89.28 37.23
Table 2 Coded and actual values of factors in CCD
10 1 -1 -1 1 88.65 35.57
Independent variables
Coded values 11 -1 0 -1 1 91.36 35.41
X1 X2 X3
12 1 0 1 -1 97.94 41.62
-1.68 33 60.3 70.0
13 1 0 -1 1 96.41 40.91
-1 50 68.27 76.1
14 1 0 1 1 96.70 40.13
0 75 80 85
15 -1 -1 -1 1 90.30 26.97
1 100 91.73 93.9
1.68 117 99.7 100 16 -1 1 1 1 99.18 28.75
17 0 0 0 0 95.50 38.12
1.6 Statistical Analysis 18 0 0 0 0 95.05 40.68
Statistical analysis involving analysis of variance
19 0 0 0 0 94.71 40.93
(ANOVA), fit statistics, canonical analysis as well as
20 0 0 0 0 94.13 39.72
maximum response estimation for variable were per-
formed under SAS software. The 3-dimensional response x1 = (X1-75) /25; x2= (X2-80) /15; x3 = (X3-85) /10; x4 = (X4-4) /2
 66 Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 2018, Vol.23 No.1

capacity of extraction, x3 was significance at the probabil- Table 4 Experimental designs and the results of CCD
ity level of 95%, and x4 was not significant at the prob-
Run x1 x2 x3 Y1/% Y2/%
ability level of 90%. There is no evidence of any interac-
tions. The predicted regression equation was as follows: 1 0 0 0 94.94 40.88
Y1 =95.148 27+2.267 44x1+2.699 08x2+1.496 31x3 1 1 -1 92.82 34.03
2
+0.177 44x4 (3)
3 1 -1 -1 94.04 38.75
The parameters of x1 was found to be significant at
the probability level of 95% for DPPH free radical scav- 4 1 -1 1 93.83 40.18
enging capacity of extraction. x2, x3 and x4 were not sig- 5 0 1.68 0 95.84 39.77
nificant at the probability level of 90%. There is no evi-
6 0 0 0 96.22 40.28
dence of any interactions. The predicted regression equa-
tion was as follows: 7 0 0 0 97.30 39.26
Y2 =36.675 45+2.535 24x1-0.486 21x2+1.207 26x3 8 0 0 -1.68 94.44 35.60
-0.973 51x4 (4) 1 1 1 92.69 40.54
9
Consequently, x1, x2 and x3 were selected to be fur-
ther optimized in the following experiment. x4 was fixed 10 0 0 0 95.11 44.68
at zero level, namely 4 h. 11 1.68 0 0 93.65 39.38
The results of t-test for variance between average
12 0 0 0 94.05 34.47
value and center point value of observation of two-level
experiment showed that the difference was highly sig- 13 -1 1 -1 88.07 31.68
nificant (p＜0.01). This result indicated that optimum 14 -1 -1 -1 89.67 31.67
point was in the domain of our experiment.
15 0 -1.68 0 94.33 34.82
2.2 CCD and Response Surface Analysis
A response surface design is appropriate once the 16 0 0 1.68 93.41 36.22
optimal range for running the process has been identi- 0 0 0 92.29 37.19
17
fied. Further optimization of medium components was
18 -1 -1 1 84.66 30.73
carried out using a Box-Wilson CCD with four-star
points and six replicates at center point for each of X1, X2 19 -1 1 1 89.14 32.69
and X3 factors. The coded and uncoded values of factors -1.68 0 0 83.11 31.38
20
in CCD are shown in Table 2. Experimental design and
x1=(X1-75)/25, x2=(X2-80)/ 11.726, x3=(X3-85)/ 8.928 6
the results are shown in Table 4.
2.2.1 Effect of process variables on hydroxyl radical
Table 5 Results of parameter estimate for Y1 of CCD
scavenging capacity
In light of multi-regressive-analysis of the central Parameter Estimate Std error Pr＞|T|
composite experiments of hydroxyl radical scavenging
Intercept 95.041 441 0.704 505 ＜0.000 1
capacity (Table 5), the second-order polynomial predic-
tion model was obtained as Eq.(5) (given below). Table 5 x1 2.898 335 0.467 663 0.000 1

and Eq.(5) showed positive effects of x1 , x2 , x3 x1 , and x2 0.224 027 0.467 663 0.642 2
x3 x2 , and negative effects of x3 , x12 , x2 x1 , x22 , and x3 -0.440 490 0.467 663 0.368 4
x32 .
x12 -2.698 001 0.455 782 0.000 1
Y1=95.041 441+2.898 335 x1 +0.224 027 x2
x2 x1 -0.655 000 0.610 762 0.308 7
-0.440 490 x3 -2.698 001 x12 -0.655 000 x2 x1 -0.322 363 x22
2
+0.450 000 x3 x1 +0.770 000 x3 x2 -0.733 361 x32 (5) x2 -0.322 363 0.455 782 0.495 5

Three-dimensional response surface plots of x1, x2 x3 x1 0.450 000 0.610 762 0.478 2
and x3 against hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity of x3 x2 0.770 000 0.610 762 0.236 0
extraction can further explain the results of the statistical
x32 -0.733 361 0.455 782 0.138 7
and mathematical analysis. The response surface opening
LIU Caiqin et al : Optimization of Extraction of Antioxidants from Turmeric … 67

its mouth downwards demonstrated that there must be a
maximum in the stable range (see Fig. 1).
According to the ANOVA results listed in Table 6,
the linear coefficients for the response of hydroxyl radi-
cal scavenging capacity was highly significant (p ＜
0.001). Quadratic terms and total regress were significant
(p＜0.01), and cross product was determined not to be
significant. The fit value, termed R2 (determinant coeffi-
cient), of the polynomial model was calculated to be
0.887 5, indicating that 88.75% of the variability in the
response could be explained by the second-order poly-
nomial prediction equation (Eq. (5)).

Fig. 1 Response surface plots show the effects of variables on hydroxyl radical scavenging rate(Y1)

Table 6 Analysis of variance for the model of Y1

Regression Freedom Sum of squares R2 F-Ratio Pr ＞ F

Linear 3 117.953 357 0.444 5 13.18 0.000 8

Quadratic 3 107.750 764 0.406 1 12.04 0.001 2
Cross product 3 9.795 400 0.036 9 1.09 0.396 0
Total Regression 9 235.499 521 0.887 5 8.77 0.001 1

It is evident from the plot that hydroxyl radical Table 7 Results of parameter estimate for Y2 of CCD
scavenging capacity of extraction from turmeric reached
Parameter Estimate Std error Pr＞|T|
maximum at a combination of coded level 0.364 832(x1),
-0.653 145(x2) and -0.409 719(x3). This was a reconfir- Intercept 39.491 927 1.152 157 ＜0.000 1
mation that the fitted surface had a maximum point, which x1 2.943 979 0.764 823 0.003 2
were X1 (sample to solvent ratio) 1:84.12, X2 (ethanol x2 0.434 305 0.764 823 0.582 7
concentration) 72.34%, and X3 (extraction temperature)
x3 0.663 374 0.764 823 0.406 1
81.3 ℃. The model predicted a maximum response of
2
hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity for this point, and x1 -1.647 974 0.745 392 0.051 5
hydroxyl radical scavenging rate reached 95.96%. x2 x1 -0.791 250 0.998 848 0.446 7
2.2.2 Effect of process variables on DPPH free radical x22 -0.969 473 0.745 392 0.222 6
scavenging capacity
x3x1 0.983 750 0.998 848 0.347 9
In light of multi-regressive-analysis of the central
composite experiments of DPPH free radical scavenging x3x2 0.878 750 0.998 848 0.399 6
capacity shown in Table 7, the second-order polynomial x32 -1.460 190 0.745 392 0.078 6
prediction model was obtained as Eq. (6).
Three-dimensional response surface plots of x1, x2
Y2=39.491 927+2.943 979x1+0.434 305x2+0.663 374x3
and x3 against DPPH free radical scavenging capacity of
-1.647974x12-0.791 250x2x1-0.969 473x22 +0.983 750x3x1
extraction can further explain the results of the statistical
+0.878 750x3x2-1.460 190x32 (6) and mathematical analysis. The response surface plots
x1, x2, x3, x3x1 and x3x2 showed positive effects, and show the effects of variables on DPPH free radical
x12, x2x1, x22, and x32 represented negative effects. scavenging capacity (see Fig. 2).
 68
Fig. 2 Response surface plots show the effects of variables on DPPH radical scavenging rate(Y2)
According to the ANOVA results listed in Table 8,
the linear coefficients for the response of DPPH free
radical scavenging capacity was significant (p＜0.05).
Quadratic terms, cross product and total regress were not
significant (see Fig. 2). The fit value, R2 (determinant
coefficient), of the polynomial model was calculated to
be 0.730 4, indicating that 73.04% of the variability in
the response could be explained by the second order
polynomial prediction equation (Eq. (6)).
The DPPH free radical scavenging capacity of ex-
traction from turmeric reached maximum at a combina-
tion of coded level 0.629 427 (x1), 0.039 184 (x2) and
0.359 027 (x3). This was a reconfirmation that the fitted
surface had a maximum point, which were X1 1:90.74, X2
80.46%, and X3 88.2 ℃. The model predicted a maxi-
Table 8 Analysis of variance for the model of Y2
Regression Freedom Sum of squares
Linear 3 126.837 904
Quadratic 3 70.446 004
Cross product 3 18.928 338
Total Regression 9 216.212 246
3 Conclusion
Optimum extraction condition of antioxidant from
turmeric by ethanol soaking extraction was performed
through response surface methodology. The results
showed that the optimum extraction parameters were:
extraction time for 4 h, sample to solvent ratio of 1:84.12,
solvent 72.34% ethanol solution, and water bath tem-
perature of 81.3 ℃. In this condition, the hydroxyl radi-
cal scavenging rate can reach about 93.78%. The opti-
mum ethanol soaking extraction parameters were: ex-
traction time for 4 h, sample to solvent ratio of 1:90.74,
Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 2018, Vol.23 No.1
mum response of DPPH free radical scavenging capacity
for this point, and DPPH free radical scavenging rate
reached 41.26%.
2.2.3 Optimization for process variables and
verification
Four individual verification experiments for hy-
droxyl radical scavenging capacity and DPPH free radi-
cal scavenging capacity were carried out under respec-
tive optimal X1, X2 and X3 within the experimental range.
The experimental values of 93.78% (n=3) and 40.69%
(n=3) were found close to the predicted values derived
from the respective regression models. It suggests that
the optimized model is proper and effective for explain-
ing the actual cultivation process.
R2 F-ratio Pr＞F
0.428 5 5.30 0.019 1
0.238 0 2.94 0.085 3
0.063 9 0.79 0.526 4
0.730 4 3.01 0.050 5
solvent 80.46% ethanol solution, water bath temperature
of 88.2 ℃. The capacity of DPPH scavenging rate can
reach to 40.69%.
Additionally, the results showed that turmeric has
antioxidants and can be extracted by means of ethanol
soaking extraction. The hydroxyl radical scavenging ca-
pacity of turmeric crude extracts was higher than DPPH
scavenging capacity. It was reported that hydroxyl radicals
may be scavenged by flavonoids, and that the DPPH radi-
cal is a useful reagent to investigate the scavenger proper-
ties of phenols, catechols and anilines[5]. Therefore, the
results indicate that the turmeric extract contains a sig-
nificant amount of phenolic compound.
LIU Caiqin et al : Optimization of Extraction of Antioxidants from Turmeric … 69

[12] Lim H S, Park S H, Ghafoor K, et al. Quality and antioxidant

References properties of bread containing turmeric (Curcuma longa L.)
cultivated in South Korea [J]. Food Chem, 2011, 124(4):
[1] Zhang Y W, Zhang H, Wang L, et al. Influence of the degree
1577-1582.
of hydrolysis (DH) on antioxidant properties and radi-
[13] Banerjee A, Ghosh S, Ghosh M. Anti-oxidative effect of
cal-scavenging activities of peanut peptides prepared from
turmeric on frying characteristics of soybean oil [J]. J Food
fermented peanut meal [J]. Eur Food Res Technol, 2011,
Sci Technol, 2015, 52(3): 1760-1765.
232(6): 941-950.
[14] Sikora E, Scapagnini G, Barbagallo M. Curcumin, inflamma-
[2] Gulcin I, Huyut Z, Elmastas M, et al. Radical scavenging and
tion, ageing and age-related diseases [J]. Immun Ageing,
antioxidant activity of tannic acid [J]. AR J Chem, 2010, 3(1):
2010, 7(1): 1-4.
43-53.
[15] Maheshwari R K, Singh A K, Gaddipati J, et al. Multiple
[3] Tsaliki E, Lagouri V, Doxastakis G. Evaluation of the anti-
biological activities of curcumin: A short review [J]. Life Sci,
oxidant activity of lupin seed flour and deriatives (Lulinus
2006, 78(18): 2081-2087.
albus ssp. Graecus) [J]. Food Chem, 1999, 65(1): 71-75.
[16] Kim M H, Kim S I, Seo D W, et al. Antioxidant activity of
[4] Ahn G N, Kim K N, Cha S H, et al. Antioxidant activities of
Salvia miltiorrhiza Bunge, a novel foodstuff [J]. Mol Cell
phlorotannins purified from Ecklonia cava on free radical
Toxicol, 2010, 6(1): 65-72.
scavenging using ESR and H2O2-mediated DNA damage [J].
[17] Naz S, Jabeen S, Ilyas S, et al. Antibacterial activity of cur-
Eur Food Res Technol, 2007, 226(1-2): 71-79.
cuma longa varieties against different strains of bacteria [J].
[5] Gulcin I. Antioxidant activity of food constituents: An over-
Pak J Bot, 2012, 42(1): 455-462.
view [J]. Arch Toxicol, 2012, 86(3): 345-391.
[18] Chainani W N. Safety and anti-inflammatory activity of cur-
[6] Annegowda H V, Mordi M N, Ramanathan S, et al. Effect of
cumin: A component of turmeric (Curcuma longa) [J]. J Al-
extraction techniques on phenolic content, antioxidant and
tern Complement Med, 2003, 9(1): 161-168.
antimicrobial activity of Bauhinia purpurea: HPTLC deter-
[19] Sharma R A, Gescher A J, Steward W P. Curcumin: The
mination of antioxidants [J]. Food Anal Methods, 2012, 5(2):
story so far [J]. Eur J Cancer, 2005, 41(13): 1955-1968.
226-233.
[20] Wickenberg J, Ingemansson S L, Hlebowicz J. Effects of
[7] Karmakar I, Dolai N, Saha P, et al. Scavenging activity of
Curcuma longa (turmeric) on postprandial plasma glucose
Curcuma caesia rhizome against reactive oxygen and nitro-
and insulin in healthy subjects [J]. Nutrition Journal, 2010,
gen species [J]. Orient Pharm Exp Med, 2011, 11(4): 221-
9(1):1-5.
228.
[21] Hussain A I, Chatha A S, Noor S, et al. Effect of extraction
[8] Mohd N F, Mohamed S, Idris N A, et al. Antioxidative prop-
techniques and solvent systems on the extraction of antioxi-
erties of Curcuma longa leaf extract in accelerated oxidation
dant components from peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) hulls [J].
and deep frying studies [J]. J Am Oil Chem Soc, 2009, 86(2):
Food Anal Methods, 2012, 5(4): 890-896.
141-147.
[22] Chen X Q. Experiment Method of Antioxidant Research[M].
[9] Filip S, Pavlic B, Vidovic S, et al. Optimization of micro-
Beijing: China Medical Science Press, 1996(Ch).
wave-assisted extraction of polyphenolic compounds from
[23] Jiang B, Zhang H Y, Liu C J, et al. Extraction of wa-
Ocimum basilicum by response surface methodology [J].
ter-soluble polysaccharide and the antioxidant activity from
Food Anal Methods, 2017, 10(7): 2270-2280.
Ginkgo biloba leaves [J]. Med Chem Res, 2010, 19(3): 262-
[10] Sogi D S, Sharma S, Oberoi D P S, et al. Effect of extraction
270(Ch).
parameters on curcumin yield from turmeric [J]. J Food Sci
Technol, 2010, 47(3): 300-304.
□
[11] Khanna N M. Turmeric-nature’s precious gift [J]. Current
Science, 1999, 76: 1351-1356.