1.1 Total extractives content
According to the results, SW and HW contained significantly lower amounts of total extractives than B and KW (p < 0.001). On average, the two extractions of the silver fir samples yielded 2.22% of TEC and 0.55% TPC for SW, 3.80% of TEC and 1.07% TPC for HW, 24.65% of TEC and 9.89% TPC for KW and 11.82% of TEC and 3.22% TPC for B. Our results on extraction yields presented in Table 2 agree relatively well with previously published results on the chemistry of silver fir extracts, but there are some differences due to different sampling methods and extraction procedures (Brennan et al. 2020a; Hamada et al. 2018; Kebbi-Benkeder et al. 2017; Tavčar Benković et al. 2017; Willför et al. 2004). The following is a literature review of extractives obtained to date from various tissues of silver fir. It has been reported that the position of the bark on the silver fir can have a significant effect on extraction yield. Brennan et al. (2020a) demonstrated that ASE extraction of bark samples taken at different heights from a silver fir can yield TEC between 15% and even more than 30% (by weight). Treatment of Caucasian fir (Abies nordmanniana) bark with sodium hydroxide solution using the standard procedure (TAPPI; T 212 om-98) yielded 17.01% TEC (Ozgenc et al. 2017). In addition to the aforementioned longitudinal variation of water/ethanol soluble extractives in silver fir bark, radial variability in the content of total extractives was also observed. According to the results presented, Soxhlet extraction of sapwood and heartwood with a toluene/ethanol mixture yielded an average of 1.4% and 2.3% soluble extractives, respectively (Hamada et al. 2018). According to Willför et al. (2004) the total amount of hydrophilic extractives obtained with 95% acetone (v/v, aq) extraction was 0.7, 2.1 and 13-15% (dw) in SW, HW and KW, respectively. These amounts are lower than our measurements; however, their samples were washed with hexane (ASE) at a higher temperature and pressure prior to extraction with acetone, which probably also removed some of the nonstructural compounds that are soluble in acetone. Another possible explanation is that methanol and acetone are better suited for the extraction of polyphenols from fir bark samples. Secoisolariciresinol, lariciresinol and oligolignans have been reported to be abundant in silver fir KW samples (Willför et al. 2004). This was also confirmed in our preliminary study on the chemical composition of silver fir KW extracts (Vek et al. 2021). Significant longitudinal variation in extractives content has also been demonstrated for silver fir knotwood (Kebbi-Benkeder et al. 2017). In this case, the knotwood tissues were extracted sequentially in a Soxhlet apparatus using hexane and acetone as solvents. Soxhlet extraction of the samples from KW gave on average about 0.5% - < 2% lipophilic and 17% - 28% acetone soluble extractives. In addition to the dominant lignans, viz. secoisolariciresinol, hydroxymatairesinol and lariciresinol, the authors also found traces of matairesinol and pinoresinol in the KW extracts of silver fir (Kebbi-Benkeder et al. 2017). Similar results were also presented by Gérardin et al. (2023), whose KW samples contained 21.64% ethanol-soluble compounds. Ul’yanovskii et al. (2022) found that successive ASE extractions of KW of Siberian fir (Abies sibirica) with hexane and acetone (95%, aq) yielded 17.0% (dw) of TEC, and the amounts of TEC were significantly higher in the knotwood than in the stemwood (3.0%, dw). The TEC in KW of Siberian fir was significantly lower than the TEC in our KW samples (Table 2). In addition, the stemwood of Siberian fir contained comparable amounts of TEC with our stemwood samples (Table 2) but it is not clear whether either SW or HW or even a mixture of both was extracted in that case. In our study, the stemwood tissues were separated and analyzed separately. Butnaru et al. (2022) demonstrated that Soxhlet extraction of silver fir bark, needles and cones with an ethanol/toluene mixture yielded an average of 16.57-17.33%, 28.33-29.30% and 17.90-19.18% extractives, respectively. The bark was further described as an inexpensive and important source of phenols and flavonoids, containing about 95 mg GAE /g TPC and 130-175 mg QE /g flavonoids. Compared with the results of the present study (28.4-32.1 mg GAE /g TPC), the higher results for TPC in the B sample (Butnaru et al. 2022) could be explained by the composition of the solvent mixture and by the fact that the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent can also react with compounds that are soluble in less polar solvents than toluene, e.g., resin acids (Harju and Venäläinen 2006; Karppanen et al. 2007). Although the wood and bark of silver fir have been studied extensively for the chemical composition of extractives, this review of recent research reports clearly shows that only certain tissues of the fir trunk have been studied with the chosen extraction technique and solvent composition. The present report is the first comparative study to include all categories of silver fir stem tissues in one study, i.e., stemwood, knotwood and bark samples were extracted together and analyzed in the same manner.
Table 2 Chemical composition of wood and bark extracts of silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) with total extractive content (TEC) and total phenolic content (TPC).
Silver fir
|
ASE extraction
|
Sonication
|
sample
|
TEC, % dw
|
TPC, % dw
|
TEC, % dw
|
TPC, % dw
|
|
avg
|
SD
|
avg
|
SD
|
avg
|
SD
|
avg
|
SD
|
Sapwood
|
2.00
|
0.57 E
|
0.65
|
0.13 d
|
2.43
|
0.54 E
|
0.46
|
0.11 d
|
Heartwood
|
3.56
|
0.63 E
|
1.18
|
0.22 d
|
4.05
|
0.77 E
|
0.96
|
0.20 d
|
Knotwood
|
26.23
|
2.65 A
|
10.58
|
1.07 a
|
23.07
|
2.97 B
|
9.19
|
1.19 b
|
Bark
|
12.41
|
1.69 C
|
3.21
|
0.59 c
|
10.31
|
1.79 D
|
2.84
|
0.85 c
|
Results are expressed as the mean of the measurements (avg) with standard deviation (SD). a - e Different letters within the same column indicate significant differences at a p<0.05 level.
The highest extractive contents were measured in KW samples. The extractives content in KW samples was more than 11 and 6 times higher than in SW and HW, respectively. Compared to SW and HW, much higher TEC and TPC were also measured in the B samples (Table 3). KW samples of silver fir were also richest in polyphenols, with ratios of TPC between KW and other samples even higher than the ratios of TEC (Table 3). Comparison of ASE and sonication showed that there was not much difference in the extraction yield of the studied samples. However, significantly more TEC and TPC were extracted from KW with ASE than with sonication (Table 2). ASE also proved to be more efficient than sonication in extracting hydrophilic compounds (TEC) from B samples. In the case of the B samples, the extraction technique had no significant effect on the TPC (Table 2). In terms of stem tissue, interestingly, higher TEC was obtained with sonication than with ASE from both SW and HW, but the significance here was not confirmed by statistical analysis (Table 2).
Table 3 Ratios in the contents of extractives among the studied tissues of silver fir (Abies alba Mill.)
Ratio (w/w)
|
TEC
|
TPC
|
Knotwood/Sapwood
|
11.12
|
17.83
|
Knotwood/Heartwood
|
6.48
|
9.21
|
Knotwood/Bark
|
2.09
|
3.07
|
TEC, total extractive content; TPC total phenol content
Table 4 Percentage of total phenolic compounds in hydrophilic crude extracts (%, dw) for wood and bark of silver fir. Sapwood, heartwood and knotwood of bark samples were extracted by accelerated solvent extraction (ASE 350 system) and with sonication.
Silver fir
|
ASE 350
|
Sonication
|
sample
|
% (TPC/TEC)
|
% (TPC/TEC)
|
Sapwood
|
32.66
|
18.72
|
Heartwood
|
33.28
|
23.80
|
Knotwood
|
40.35
|
39.83
|
Bark
|
26.91
|
27.58
|
TEC, total extractive content; TPC total phenol content
According to Table 4, ASE was more efficient for the extraction of polyphenols using aqueous ethanol solution compared to US. This difference between extraction methods in TPC/TEC (%, dw) was particularly evident for SW and HW samples. It has been described that the advantage of ASE extraction, commonly defined as subcritical application, is that organic solvents are heated above their boiling point during extraction but are maintained in a liquid state under high pressure. This increases the penetration of the solvent into the sample and enhances the desorption of the analyte, resulting in higher overall extraction performance with lower solvent consumption (Thurbide and Hughes 2000). This may explain the higher efficiency of ASE in extracting phenolic compounds from cell walls, especially from HW, compared with sonication (Table 4). For the extracts of KW and B, the difference between the TPC/TEC for ASE and the TPC/TEC for sonication was much smaller. KW samples, i.e., dark colored and impregnated wood tissue from branches embedded in the tree trunk, were confirmed to be rich in phenolic extractives. More than forty percent of the dried ethanol extract KW was ascribed to polyphenols (Table 4). A lower percentage of TCP/TEC was measured in HW, SW and B samples, about one-third from TEC (Table 4). The results are in good agreement with the report of Tavčar Benković et al. (2017), who found that a dried aqueous extract of silver fir branchwood consists of 25% TPC (GAE).
1.2 Antioxidant capacity of silver fir wood and bark extracts
The antioxidant potential of the extracts was assessed using three different assays, all of which have different selectivity and reaction mechanisms (Prior et al. 2005; Shalaby and Shanab 2013; Sharma and Bhat 2009), so the results provide a complex insight into the comprehensive antioxidant power of the samples. The highest antioxidant capacities were measured with all three assays on KW extracts (FRAP: 159.75 mg AAE/g, ABTS: 316.15 mg TE /g, DPPH: 189.23 mg TE /g). In the case of Siberian fir, excellent antioxidant properties have also been found for KW samples (Ul’yanovskii et al. (2022). Lower antioxidant capacities were found for the B extracts (FRAP: 159.75 mg AAE/g, ABTS: 126.81 mg TE /g, DPPH: 74.52 mg TE /g). Butnaru et al. (2022) previously reported that ethanol/toluene extracts of silver fir bark were good DPPH radical scavengers but these results were only evaluated on the basis of a visible discoloration of the DPPH solutions. Water-soluble compounds of silver fir bark were found to be potent natural antioxidants tested by DPPH assay and a cell-based in vitro assay on primary human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (Tavčar Benković et al. 2014). According to the DPPH assay, silver fir bark extracts exhibited a significantly higher (91%) antioxidant activity than that of maritime pine bark extract (Tavčar Benković et al. 2014). The high application potential of silver fir bark extracts in nutrition, health and medicine is attributed to the at least 13 natural antioxidants, phenolic acids (gallic acid, homovanillic acid, protocatechuic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, vanillic and p-coumaric acid), flavonoids (catechin, epicatechin and catechin tetramethyl ether) and lignans (taxiresinol, 7-(2-methyl-3,4-dihydroxytetrahydropyran-5-yloxy)-taxiresinol, secoisolariciresinol and lariciresinol) (Tavčar Benković et al. 2014).
Using FRAP and DPPH assay, the weakest antioxidant power was measured in SW (FRAP: 6.80 mg AAE/g, DPPH: 4.57 mg TE /g) and HW (FRAP: 12.35 mg AAE/g, DPPH: 10.19 mg TE /g). In the case of ABTS assay, a relatively high antioxidant capacity was measured for SW (13.80 mg TE /g) and HW (31.50 mg TE /g) extracts compared to B extracts. However, it has already been demonstrated that, in addition to knotwood and bark extracts, silver fir wood also possesses significant antioxidant activity. The latter has been demonstrated by both in vitro and in vivo tests (Tavčar Benković et al. 2017; Vek et al. 2021). A comprehensive study of antioxidant activities in vitro and in vivo was conducted by Tavčar Benković et al. (2017) using a water extract of silver fir branchwood. They found that the branchwood extract exhibited higher antioxidant activity in vitro than selected reference antioxidants, i.e., ascorbic acid, resveratrol and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and similar antioxidant activity to epigallocatechin gallate. Branch wood extractives were found to be particularly effective OH radical scavengers. The in vivo antioxidant activity of silver fir extracts was also confirmed by intracellular assay. The in vitro and in vivo antioxidant activities of branchwood extracts were explained by the presence of lignans (Tavčar Benković et al. 2017). The effects of the chosen extraction technique on the antioxidant capacity of the silver fir samples studied are shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. It can be clearly seen that, for the SW and HW samples, the extraction technique had no significant effect on the antioxidant activity. Both extraction methods also had similar effects on the antioxidant capacity of the KW and B samples, but only when these extracts were analyzed with FRAP (Fig. 2). In contrast, the B extracts prepared by ASE extraction were found to be significantly better ABTS radical scavengers than the B extracts obtained by sonication (Fig. 3). In our study, the ASE extracts from KW proved to be the silver fir extracts with clearly the best DPPH radical scavenging activity (Fig. 4).
Fig. 2 Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) for sapwood (SW), heartwood (HW), knotwood (KW) and bark extracts (B) of silver fir prepared with different extraction methods (sonication and accelerated solvent extraction (ase350)). Results are expressed in ascorbic acid mass equivalents per gram of dry sample (mg AAE/g dw). a-c, Different letters on bars indicate a significant difference at the p<0.05 level
Fig. 3 ABTS radical scavenging activity for extracts of sapwood (SW), heartwood (HW), knotwood (KW) and bark (B) of silver fir prepared with different extraction methods (sonication and accelerated solvent extraction (ase350)). Results are expressed in Trolox mass equivalents per gram of dry sample (mg TE/g dw). a-d, Different letters on the bars indicate a significant difference at the p<0.05 level
Fig. 4 DPPH radical scavenging activity for extracts of sapwood (SW), heartwood (HW), knotwood (KW) and bark (B) of silver fir prepared with different extraction methods (sonication and accelerated solvent extraction (ase350)). Results are expressed in Trolox mass equivalents per gram of dry sample (mg TE /g dw). a-d, Different letters on bars indicate a significant difference at the p<0.05 level
The antioxidant capacity of wood and bark extracts has been explained by the presence of different classes of phenolic compounds (Miranda et al. 2021; Pietarinen et al. 2006; Rosales-Castro et al. 2012; Willför et al. 2003). Previous reports have indicated that hydrophilic extracts of silver fir bark consist of simple phenolic acids, flavonoids, lignans and condensed tannins, viz., prodelphinidins (Bianchi et al. 2014a; Tavčar Benković et al. 2014; Vek et al. 2023), whereas the studied wood of silver fir contained mainly lignans, with a dominance of secoisolariciresinol (Kebbi-Benkeder et al. 2017; Vek et al. 2021; Willför et al. 2004). However, one of the objectives of the present study was to investigate the statistical relationships between the measured TEC and TPC of the extracts obtained by both ASE and sonication and the measured antioxidant capacities. The results of statistical analysis clearly showed a linear model to describe the significant relationships between the antioxidant capacities and the amount of extractives in the fir samples (Table 5). Since the p-values of the ANOVA are below 0.001 (Table 5), a significant relationship between the antioxidant capacities (measured by FRAP, ABTS and DPPH assay) and the content of silver fir polyphenols was confirmed at a confidence level of 95.0%. Extraction of the silver fir wood and bark samples, either with ASE or by sonication, revealed a strong relationship between the measured TEC and TPC (p ASE, sonication < 0.001, r ASE > 0.980, r sonication > 0.988). Our results show that the amount of TEC and TPC in the wood and bark extracts obtained by ASE extraction significantly described the antioxidant capacity (ANOVA, pASE < 0.001). These relationships were statistically confirmed for all antioxidant tests performed (Table 5). Similar results were also characteristic of the silver fir extracts prepared with sonication (Table 5). This may mean that the quality of the extracts obtained with ASE and sonication is similar, which to some extent confirms the presence of polyphenols in the silver fir extracts, as previously reported (Kebbi-Benkeder et al. 2017; Tavčar Benković et al. 2014; Vek et al. 2021; Vek et al. 2023; Willför et al. 2004). To obtain more precise information on which isolates and phenolic compounds of silver fir are responsible for the antioxidant activity of the extracts, further research activities using appropriate sample-prep techniques for purification and the correct analytical tools for compound identification are needed. These samples should also be tested with other biological tests to determine the possible bioactivity of silver fir extractives.
Table 5 Relationships (R-squared/coefficient of determination) between total extractive (TEC) and total phenolic content (TPC) of silver fir samples (Abies alba Mill.) and antioxidant capacity measured by three colorimetric assays, i.e., FRAP, ABTS and DPPH. A statistically significant relationship between extractives content and antioxidant capacity at a confidence level of 95.0% is represented by p-values of less than 0.05. The relationships (p, R2) are presented separately for accelerated solvent extraction (ASE 350 system) and sonication.
|
ASE extraction
|
Sonication
|
Antioxidant
|
TEC
|
|
TPC
|
|
TEC
|
|
TPC
|
|
capacity; assay
|
p
|
R2 [%]
|
p
|
R2 [%]
|
p
|
R2 [%]
|
p
|
R2 [%]
|
FRAP
|
<0,001
|
90,52
|
<0,001
|
96,77
|
<0,001
|
95,00
|
<0,001
|
97,87
|
ABTS
|
<0,001
|
84,57
|
<0,001
|
78,82
|
<0,001
|
81,94
|
<0,001
|
85,56
|
DPPH
|
<0,001
|
97,83
|
<0,001
|
96,59
|
<0,001
|
96,48
|
<0,001
|
95,67
|
TEC, total extractive content; TPC total phenol content; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; ABTS, 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) assay; DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl assay.