Wight of hips and number of seed
The results for the weight fruit and number of seeds content from wild growing
Rosa canina L. were presented in Table 1.
The analysis of the results obtained shows that the average fruit weight is the 0.84±0.15g and contains seeds with an average number of 19.4±3.8.
Murathan et al., (2016), found that the weight of fresh fruit was about 34.5 ±0.9g with an average number of seeds was 23±0.7,
Buchwald et al., (2007), mentioned that the weight of each fruit varies within a range of 0.95 to 3.27g and influenced by many factors such as growing conditions and location.
Total polyphenols content
The results for the total phenols content in different extracts from a powder of rose hip were presented in Table 2. The average of TPC in extracts varied within a quite wide range from 24.66±2.95 to 55.51±1.16 mg EAG/g dw. The highest TPC was established in vinegar extract 55.51±1.16 mg EAG/g dw, while the lowest value was mentioned in 80% (v/v) methanol extract 24.66±2.95 mg EAG/g dw. The statistical comparison showed that the TPC of different extracts was significantly different (
p<0,005), except the difference between 70%(v/v) ethanol extract and 80%(v/v) methanol extract. The apple vinegar extract appeared to be the best solvent for extracting phenolic compounds from dry flesh of fruits of
Rosa canina.
These data were in agreement with several studies such as
(Ersoy et al., 2015) registered an average varies between 20.12 - 32.2 mg GAE/g in the water-methanol extract. Ben
Jemaa et al., (2017) documented an average of TPC was 21.918±1.784 mg/g fruit in methanol extract.
Roman et al., (2013), registered values between: 5.75 – 3.26 mg GAE/g in methanol/HCl extract,
Yoo et al., (2008) mentioned 8.18mg GAE/g fresh fruit,
Fattahi et al., (2012) and
Campos et al., (2010) reported an average ranged from 1.76 to 2.25mg GAE/g and 0.20mg GAE/g respectively, data which are lower than in our study.
Taneva et al., (2016) reported an average higher than ours in results. The obtained results revealed the richness of hips in phenolic compounds which make these fruits as an interesting source of the bioactive compounds.
Total flavonoids
The average of total flavonoids content registered in different extracts varied from 3.66 ± 0.02 to 22.15 ± 0.45mg QE/g dw. High concentration of TFC was found in the vinegar extract 22.15 ± 0.45 mg QE/g. while the lowest value was found in the 80%(v/v) methanol extract.
Significant differences can be observed in the TFC for all extracts that were analyzed (
p<0,005).
The outcome show variability in the TFC in different extracts of shells powder of rose hips fruit are agreement with
Montazeri et al., (2011) reported an average varies between 1.2 ± 3.2 -23.6 ± 4.2mg QE/g in different extracts. In the study conducted by
Jemaa et al., (2017), the average of TFC was 2.647 ± 0.040 mg Rutin Equivalent/g dw. The lower value of TFC was documented by
Roman et al., (2013) and
Fettahi et al., (2012), with values 1.63 ± 0.005 mg QE/g of frozen pulp and 2.02 ± 0.03 mg QE/100g respectively.
Condensed tannins
The results showed in Table 2 depicted that the condensed tannins values ranged from 3.60 ± 0.12 mg TAE/g to 12.37 ± 0.16 mg TAE/g dw. The maximum value was detected in vinegar extract (12.37 ± 0.16 mg TAE/g dw) and the minimum value was observed in methanol extract with value 3.60 ± 0.12 mg TAE/g dw.
Antioxidant activity
There are many methods to examine the antioxidant activity of plant extracts. In the present study, the antioxidant activities were evaluated by the phosphomolybdenum method and the capacity of scavenging of radicals’ DPPH. The results for the total antioxidant capacity of the different extracts rose hip shells were presented in Table 3. From the obtained values, the vinegar extract showed the highest antioxidant potential evaluated by phosphomolybdenum method was the highest values of 7.88 ± 0.19 mg EAA/g dw, while the lowest value was found in 80% methanol extract. The radical scavenging activity of the different extracts of
Rosa canina was determined from its radical quenching ability. The results are described in Table 3, the values of IC50% varied between 0.336 ± 0.005 µg for vinegar extract and 0.814 ± 0.025 µg for methanolic extract. The results presented in table 3 showed a significant difference between different extracts (P<0.005). Previously, different studies mentioned that the antioxidant activity of plant extracts is positively correlated with bioactive compounds
(Wenzig et al., 2008; Sinha et al., 2013; Beniwal and Jood 2014).
In the current study, the remaining extracts had antioxidant activity that positively correlated the phenolic content, flavonoid content, condensed tannins (r= 0.946; P<0.05, r= 0.817; P>0.05, r= 0.893; P<0.05). Results are in agreement with
Roman et al., (2013).
Multivariate analysis
Different extracts distribution and homogeneity founded on their biochemical parameters were studied using principal component analysis, to explore the links between variables and similarities between extracts, as a powerful tool for the chemometric analysis
(Forina et al., 1987).
The outcomes were mentioned in Fig 1 the first component explained (83.953%) and represented in its positive part: flavoind, TAC, condensed tannins, while the IC50% DPPH was the dominating parameter in the negative part.
The second principal component explained (10.703%) of the given results and represented mainly the IC50% DPPH in the positive part, while the phenolic content in the negative part. Based on the studied parameters, good discrimination was made between all extracts, which were discriminated by the first component. There is one group (AE, VE) in the positive part of component 1 and EtOH50%, EtOH70%, MeOH80% in the negative part of the same component. The vinegar extract and aqueous extract are characterized by their homogeneity in term of phenolic compounds, flavonoids compounds, condensed tannins, which implicated the positive correlation with the total antioxidant activity and negatively with the IC50% DPPH activity. The EtOH70% and MeOH80% PV are characterized by their homogeneity in term of IC50%DPPH which implicated the negative correlation with phenolic content, flavonoids content, condensed tannins (phenols,
r= -0.677,
P<0.05; flavonoid,
r= -0.605,
P<0.05; Condensed tannins,
r= -0.595,
P<0.05). Detailed correlations between the analyzed parameters were illustrated in Table 4.