Skip to main content
Download PDF

Carbon dioxide expanded liquid: an effective solvent for the extraction of quercetin from South African medicinal plants

Plant Methods volume 18, Article number: 87 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Quercetin is one of the most important bioflavonoids having positive effects on the biological processes and human health. Typically, it is extracted from plant matrices using conventional methods such as maceration, sonication, infusion, and Soxhlet extraction with high solvent consumption. Our study aimed to optimize the environmentally friendly carbon dioxide-based method for the extraction of quercetin from quince fruit with an emphasis on extraction yield, repeatability, and short extraction time.

Results

A two-step design of experiments was used for the optimization of the key parameters affecting physicochemical properties, including CO2/co-solvent ratio, co-solvent type, temperature, and pressure. Finally, gas expanded liquid combining CO2/ethanol/H2O in a ratio of 10/81/9 (v/v/v) provided the best extraction yield. Extraction temperature 66 °C and pressure 22.3 MPa were the most suitable conditions after careful optimization, although both parameters did not significantly affect the process. It was confirmed by experiments in various pressure and temperature conditions and statistical comparison of obtained data. The optimized extraction procedure at a flow rate of 3 mL/min took 30 min. The repeatability of the extraction method exhibited an RSD of 20.8%.

Conclusions

The optimized procedure enabled very fast extraction in 30 min using environmentally friendly solvents and it was successfully applied to 16 different plant samples, including 14 bulbs and 2 fruits from South Africa. The quercetin content in extracts was quantified using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) with tandem mass spectrometry. UHPLC hyphenated with high-resolution mass spectrometry was used to confirm chemical identity of quercetin in the analyzed samples. We quantified quercetin in 11 samples of all 16 tested plants. The quercetin was found in Agapanthus praecox from the Amaryllidaceae family and its presence in this specie was reported for the first time.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Medicinal plants have been used for the isolation of the well-known pharmaceutically active compounds and serve as the source of new compounds having the potential to treat various ailments such as cancer, influenza, malaria, pneumonia, inflammation, diarrhea, tuberculosis, and diabetes. Medicinal plants continue playing an important role in many developing countries in Asia, South America, and Africa, where about 80% of the population uses traditional medicines [1]. In South Africa, more than 30,000 plant species have been recognized, with over 3000 species commonly used in the disease treatment, cure, and management as easily available and low-cost medicine [2, 3]. Moreover, many African plant species demonstrate several promising activities against diseases related to a broad spectrum of biologically active compounds, including mainly secondary metabolites such as saponins, terpenoids, steroids, alkaloids, and phenolic compounds, including tannins, curcumins, lignans, phenolic acids, and flavonoids [4,5,6]. Flavonoids are the most studied group of polyphenols that have been identified in the fruits, flowers, leaves, bulbs, and other plant parts, where they are responsible for the colors [6]. From another point of view, therapeutic properties of flavonoids include antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and antiproliferative effects due to their free radical scavenging activities and inhibition of the synthesis of the pro-inflammatory prostaglandins and leukotrienes [5,6,7]. Quercetin (3,5,7,3′,4′-pentahydroxyflavone) is one of the most important bioflavonoid compounds having these effects on the biological processes and thus human health. It is considered a compound helping to deal with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and atherosclerosis and exhibits a vasodilator effect [4, 8,9,10,11,12,13]. As a common part of the human diet, quercetin is usually available from many foods, but it is also available as a food supplement [4]. The quince fruit containing quercetin from the deciduous tree or bush Cydonia oblonga, family Rosaceae, is a beneficial nutritive. Quince fruits are pear- or apple-shaped with excessive and aggressive astringency. Thus, the consumption of fresh pomes is not typical. On the contrary, quince fruit is commonly used in the food industry as the main part of many products, including jam, jelly, cakes, and liquors [14,15,16,17]. The increasing interest in quince fruit is associated with beneficial health properties due to the confirmed phenolics content and antioxidant capacity as well as antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and hypoglycemic properties [15, 16].

The efficiency of isolation and extraction of phenolic compounds from a complex matrix is usually achieved using solvents. Conventional laboratory methods include Soxhlet extraction, sonication, infusion, digestion, decoction, percolation, and maceration. They are commonly used despite several drawbacks, such as a long extraction time, high solvent volume consumption, and reduced extraction efficiency. Thus, the methods, which overcome the bottleneck of the traditional approaches, have been introduced in the field of plant extraction. These methods include microwave-assisted extraction and ultrasound-assisted extraction using various organic solvents, which selection is based on the physicochemical properties of the extracted compounds. Nowadays, there is also growing interest in methods applying principles of green sustainable chemistry. Pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) using green solvents are among the most common green solvent extraction techniques in many applications [18,19,20,21,22,23]. While PLE is based on the application of solvents such as water and ethanol (EtOH) in the temperature over the solvent boiling point and elevated pressure, SFE uses supercritical CO2 as the main part of the extraction solvent in elevated pressure (> 7.38 MPa) and moderate temperatures (> 31.1 °C). Due to its low polarity, supercritical CO2 has limitations in the extraction of polar compounds. Thus, an organic co-solvent is typically added to the CO2 in a small amount to change its properties and to enable the extraction of more polar compounds [22, 24, 25]. Ethanol, methanol (MeOH), isopropanol, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, and acetonitrile are commonly used as co-solvents in SFE. Water is sometimes added to improve the extraction of polar compounds [26]. Moreover, CO2 in its compressed liquid form can be added to organic solvent forming gas expanded liquid (GXL) with unique physicochemical properties. GXL has been shown to be an optimal solvent in many applications [27, 28]. SFE, GXLE, and PLE are commonly used to extract plant material as methods with short extraction time, low consumption of toxic organic solvent, and the possibility of thermolabile compound extraction.

Several methods using CO2 as a part of the extraction solvent have been developed to extract quercetin from plant materials including Strachyrtarpheta jamaicensis leaf [29], St John’s wort (Hyperici herba) [30], grape (Vitis vinifera) skin and bagasse [31, 32], Rosa damascena petals [33], Achyrocline satureioides flowers [34, 35], Mimosa pudica whole plant [36, 37], Abelmoschus manihot flowers [38], onion (Allium cepa) skin [39], Mango fruit (Mangifera indica) [40], leaves of Morus indica [41], Opuntia ficus-indica leaves [42], Moringa oleifera leaves [43], Taxus chinensis leaves [44], and sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) pomace [23]. Ethanol was mostly used as co-solvents in these studies. Acetone [40], methanol [30], and ethyl lactate with water addition [23] were used in other studies, but they do not belong to preferably used co-solvents in SFE. Typically, the co-solvent amount was < 20%, only in few studies, the enhanced co-solvent content varied in the range from 30 to 85% [23, 36, 38, 40, 43, 44]. The temperatures were usually in the range of 40–62 °C, and pressures varied from 20 to 40 MPa. Only two methods did not use any co-solvent [37, 41]. Moreover, Radojković et al. used low temperature, 23 °C, and moderate pressure 15 MPa to extract quercetin from M. indica [41]. Most of the methods required long time for extraction, typically from 90 to 420 min. Only one SFE method took less than 1 h including high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) determination [32]. HPLC, mostly with ultraviolet and rarely with mass spectrometry (MS) detection, is the method preferably used for plant extract analysis [43].

Our study aimed at optimization of the method enabling selective quercetin isolation from quince fruit and other similar plant parts with an emphasis on the use of green solvents and short extraction times. The composition of extraction solvent was optimized varying conditions from supercritical fluid mostly composed of CO2 to pressurized liquid with a high percentage of the organic solvent. The pressure and temperature effect on the physicochemical properties of the extraction solvent were tested. The optimized conditions were applied to extract other samples with expected quercetin content, including fruits and bulbs from South African traditional medicinal herbs and plants, that are traditionally used for the illness treatment. UHPLC with quadrupole-time-of-flight high resolution mass spectrometer (HRMS) was used to confirm the quercetin presence in the extracts. The level of quercetin was quantified using UHPLC hyphenated with triple quadrupole (MS/MS) as a most suitable MS for the quantification and targeted analysis.

Results and discussion

Design of experiments: key parameters optimization

The key parameters, including solvent composition, extraction pressure, and extraction temperature, affect the physicochemical properties of the extractant and thus extraction yield in both, as a single parameter and in interactions. The polarity, density, and viscosity of the extractant are changed based on the temperature, pressure, and solvent composition affecting the solubility of the analyte in the extractant. The optimization of the extraction using CO2 in the extraction solvent was carried out using MODDE software to design all the experiments.

First, the Plackett–Burman design model was used to identify the effect of single parameters without two-factor interactions on the extraction efficiency. Four factors were tested, including (i) EtOH amount in extractant from 10 to 90%, (ii) water content in co-solvent in the range 0–20%, (iii) the extraction temperature varying in the range 30–80 °C, and (iv) extraction pressure from 10 to 30 MPa. Eleven experiments covering tested ranges were carried out, and they are summarized in Additional file 1: Table S1.

We expected the amount of co-solvent to be the main parameter affecting the extraction yield due to the quercetin structure containing hydroxyl groups and physicochemical properties such as log P 1.99. Indeed, the extraction yields were low at the lowest co-solvent percentage of 10% in the DoE. They increased with the increase in co-solvent volume and water content. Indeed, the highest extraction yields were observed when 90% of EtOH containing 20% water (experiments No. 2 and 3) and 50% EtOH with 10% water (experiment No. 9–11). The results from the preliminary study conferred a valid model with R2 and Q2 close to 0.8 and 0.6. It is evident that the main parameter affecting the extraction efficiency is the EtOH percentage added to the CO2, as is shown in the box plot, Fig. 1. This result confirmed the theoretical assumption based on the physicochemical properties of quercetin.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Plackett–Burman design of experiments model results for scaled data. The box plot shows the effect of single parameters on the extraction yield. The error bars represent the confidence interval, when the error bar crosses the zero point, the factor does not significantly affect the extraction yield, EtOH - ethanol

Full size image

Our study continued with the full factorial design using the Plackett–Burman results to observe single factors and their interactions. Again, the same ratio of co-solvent/CO2 was tested. In this design, ethanol with 10% water was used as a co-solvent throughout the study. This water content was chosen since it provided highly repeatable extraction yields in the previous design and was based on the physicochemical properties of quercetin. The temperature in the range 60–80 °C, and pressure from 15 to 30 MPa were tested in 22 experiments with an emphasis on repeatability when different conditions set up were carried out in duplicate and in triplicate for the center point, see Additional file 1: Table S2.

The results showed a valid model for the addition of ethanol with 10% water as the co-solvent. The linearity expressed as R2 was 0.93 and future prediction precision as Q2 was 0.79. Good repeatability and reproducibility were confirmed from summaries of fits plot and plot of the replicates. Two experiments, 6 and 17, carried out under the same conditions, had to be eliminated because of the significant difference in extracted yield that had no valid explanation. The observed results confirmed co-solvent amount as the factor most affecting the extraction yield. Indeed, a higher volume of co-solvent led to an increase in the extracted amount of quercetin. Other parameters, as well as their interactions, did not play any significant role.

The MODDE optimizer was used to find the optimal conditions for quercetin extraction. The extraction solvent composition providing the highest extraction yields included CO2/EtOH/H2O in ratio 10/81/9 (v/v/v). This composition was inserted in the ternary diagram published elsewhere [23] to confirm the single-phase composition of the solvent. The effect of temperature and pressure was not so straightforward. We obtained twelve different conditions with pressures and temperatures spread in all tested ranges that should provide similar results, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Final conditions obtained from Optimizer, MODDE with the extracted amount of quercetin
Full size table

As expected, due to the properties of gas expanded liquids, both pressure and extraction temperature did not affect the extraction yield as would be the case of neat CO2. At high co-solvent amounts, the change in density, compressibility, and thus solubility was not affected significantly by the pressure and temperature change [27].

The extraction yields shown in Table 1 were compared statistically using MODDE and QCExpert (version 3.3.0.7., TriloByte, Czech Republic) software. The tests carried out at a confidence level of 0.95 resulted in normal, homogeneous, and independent data. The Jarque-Berr test for the residues confirmed the normal data distribution as shown in Fig. 2A, where the plotted data are very close to the line showing the ideal case. Figure 2B and C confirm the normal data distribution since the data copy the Gaussian normal distribution. Finally, the first box plot in Fig. 2D illustrates the average extracted amount and error bar the standard deviation. The second plot shows the difference between the maximal and minimal extracted amount that was confirmed as negligible. Based on these results, we determined final conditions for key extraction parameters, including temperature and pressure. A pressure of 22.3 MPa and a temperature of 66 °C represented mild conditions that could be easily achieved.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Tab. Statistical comparison of setpoints for optimal extraction conditions. A Jarque-Berr test result showing the normal data distribution. B density estimation for obtained data (blue line) and Gaussian normal distribution (green line), C data frequency confirming the normal data distribution, D average extracted amount of quercetin for all tested conditions and difference between maximal and minimal obtained value

Full size image

Final method tuning

The final step to optimize the extraction conditions was the examination of different flow rates. The flow rates 2, 3, 4, and 5 mL/min were investigated under optimal conditions for extraction solvent composition, temperature, and pressure. The fractions were collected at defined periods at all flow rates to obtain the kinetics profiles shown in Fig. 3 and assume the complete extraction of quercetin from plant material. The kinetic profiles confirm that the extracted amounts were equal in the first 5 min. Then, the curves were very close at flow rates 3, 4, and 5 mL/min, while the extraction yield was lower at 2 mL/min. Thus, the yield did not increase with the increasing flow rate after it achieved 3 mL/min, and the extraction efficiency was not affected by the solubility of the quercetin. The extracted quantities flattened at all tested flow rates after 30 min. This is likely because extraction of all compounds from the material has been completed, and/or the extraction rate is limited by the mass transfer from the matrix. Plots of the extracted amounts versus solvent volume in Fig. 3 overlap during the first part of the extraction process except for 3 mL/min flow rate. According to this result, a flow rate of 3 mL/min was considered optimal since it enabled the highest extraction yields using the least solvent consumption in 30 min. Compared to the previously published methods summarized in the Background section, the newly optimized protocol enables shorter extraction time and as well as lower solvent consumption.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Kinetic plots for four tested flow rates 2, 3, 4, and 5 mL/min showing the extracted quercetin amount from 0.5 g of quince fruit versus solvent volume used for the extraction

Full size image

The repeatability of the optimized method was tested. Three extractions were carried out on three different days, and the relative standard deviation of the extraction yield was calculated. The average extraction yield for nine extracts was 294.37 ng/g sample with RSD 20.8%. The RSD value can be affected by the the packing of the sample and glass beads used as a dispersant in the extraction cell, residual water content in the sample, and thus the drying procedure. As this optimized method was a proof of concept, the RSD value was considered as a satisfactory for the extraction of quercetin from quince plant material using carbon dioxide expanded liquid followed by UHPLC-ESI+-MS/MS analysis.

Application of the optimized method in different plant samples

The method was used for the extraction of multiple plant species that were expected to contain quercetin. Various South African lyophilized plant samples from different plant families, including fresh quince, were extracted and analyzed to quantify the quercetin amounts. Results are shown in Table 2. While short 5 min separation using UHPLC-ESI+-MS/MS method was used for quercetin quantification of extracts carried out during the DoE providing sufficient selectivity and sensitivity, a different method was employed for analysis of plant samples. Indeed, the short method was sufficient for quince analysis, but not for the analysis of bulbs. Thus, UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS, used for final quantification, was based on the separation conditions as well as ionization used in UHPLC-HRMS analysis to get complementary data and easier data evaluation and confirmation. The separation method lasted 17 min and enabled the separation of compounds with a similar and close m/z to quercetin that was crucial, especially at lower quercetin concentration levels. ESI in negative mode was chosen due to better sensitivity and lower background noise in UHPLC-HRMS analysis.

Table 2 The summary of the extracted South African plant samples, their name, extracted part, quantified quercetin amount in a sample, and results used for the quercetin confirmation in the sample.
Full size table

The content of quercetin was calculated from the standard calibration curve in the range 0.5–100 ng/mL analyzed by UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS. The limit of quantification (LOQ) with S/N ≈ 10 and error −3.8% was determined at 0.5 ng/mL. Consequently, the limit of detection (LOD) was determined at 0.15 ng/mL with S/N ≈ 3.

Quercetin identity was confirmed via three criteria: (i) ion ratios obtained from UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS analysis, (ii) mass accuracy for quercetin precursor ion with m/z 301.0354 that should be < 5 ppm (parts per million) as defined in [45], and/or < 1.50 mDa specifically for quercetin, calculated from UHPLC-HRMS data, and (iii) typical fragmentation obtained from measurement of quercetin standard by UHPLC-HRMS method, as shown in MS/MS scan, Fig. 4C. Two quercetin fragments (F), namely F1 with m/z 121.0295 and F2 with m/z 273.0405, were selected to confirm quercetin in the sample. Other fragments typical of quercetin, including m/z 107.0139, 151.0031, and 178.9986, were observed for quercetin as well as for stable isotopically labeled internal standard (SIL-IS) quercetin-d3, thus their use could provide false identification. As shown in Fig. 4A, these fragments were formed by the cleavage of the molecule parts containing cycle B, where the deuterium was bound in the case of SIL-IS. For samples with a concentration lower than LOQ (5 ng/mL), quercetin was confirmed only by the ion ratio calculated from peak areas of quantitative and qualitative SRM measured by the UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS method. The representative chromatograms and MS/MS spectrum of quercetin for the plant extract sample are shown in Fig. 4B,C. Two confirmative fragments F1 and F2 are visible and have mass accuracy lower than 5 ppm.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Chromatograms and MS/MS scan ion spectra of sample No. 13 and standard: A Structure of quercetin and its fragmentation in standard solution, B UHPLC-MS/MS chromatograms, including total ion current (TIC) and reconstructed ion chromatogram (RIC), and C MS/MS scan spectra. ppm parts per million

Full size image

Analyzed plant extracts were divided into 3 groups based on the detected and quantified quercetin levels, as shown in Table 2. The first group included O. longibracteatum (sample No. 1), S. puniceus (sample No. 3), D. robusta (sample No. 4), E. pole-evansii (sample No. 5), A. praecox (sample No. 13), A. cepa (sample No. 15), and C. oblonga (sample No. 16), where the quercetin contents were quantified in the range 2.14–2 097.70 ng/mL, i.e., 33.40–34,000 ng/g sample. The identity of quercetin was confirmed using all the criteria, ion ratio for the UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS method was less than 5.8%, mass accuracy of the deprotonated molecule of quercetin less than −4.7 ppm, and two typical fragments were observed (Table 2). The highest quantified amount, 34.40 µg/g sample, was observed in the bulb of A. praecox (sample No. 13), known as the African lily. To our best knowledge, quercetin has been determined for the first time in this species. A high quercetin amount of 5.80 µg/g sample was also confirmed in the onion bulb (sample No. 15), that is well known as the plant containing quercetin. Quince fruit (sample No. 16) also exhibited a high quercetin amount of 1.12 µg/g sample. The quercetin amount in this extract was different compared with that used during the method development, where the found concentration was lower, 294.37 ng/ g sample. This difference might result from two different drying methods used in the study, as is discussed in the Experimental part. Quercetin contents quantified in all the other plant bulbs and fruit were in the range 33.40—265.34 ng/g sample, as summarized in Table 2. The MS and MS/MS spectra of standard and sample No. 13 with the highest concentration of quercetin are shown in Fig. 4.

Quercetin was also analyzed in the second group of plant species, including A. nelsonii (sample No. 6), B. hemanthoides (sample No. 8), H. albiflos (sample No. 11), and K. africana (sample No. 14). In this case, the quercetin amounts were very low, close to the LOQ in UHPLC–MS/MS analysis (Table 2). Since the concentration was very low to be seen in UHPLC-HRMS analysis, its presence was not confirmed. Despite that, the UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS method allowed to quantify and confirm quercetin with respect to the deviation of the SRM ion ratio in the range −8.3—14.7% (Table 2) in these 4 plant bulbs.

Finally, quercetin contents were lower than the limit of detection and quantification in both UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS and UHPLC-HRMS methods in M. natalensis (sample No. 2), T. violacea (sample No. 7), C. obliquus (sample No. 10), B. volubilis (sample No. 9), and C. miniata (sample No. 12), thus its content was not confirmed.

Conclusions

We developed a fast, effective, and environmentally friendly method using CO2 as a part of solvent for the extraction of quercetin from fruit and bulb samples. The extraction solvent composition, extraction pressure, and temperature, affecting the extraction efficiency were tested. The solvent composition played the most important role, where an increase in extraction yield was observed with an increasing amount of EtOH + 10% water. In contrast, changes in the temperature in the range 60–80 °C and pressure from 15.0 to 30.0 MPa did not show any significant effect, that was confirmed via 12 experiments under different conditions obtained as optimal from the design of experiments. Finally, the CO2 expanded ethanol with water in a ratio of 10/81/9 (v/v/v) with 3 mL/min flow rate was used for 30 min quercetin extraction at 66 °C and 22.3 MPa enabling very short and effective extraction of quercetin from different plant material, including bulbs and fruits, compared to previously published methods.

The optimized method was successfully used for quercetin extraction in different bulbs and fruit from South African medicinal plant species. Quercetin was confirmed in 11 extracts using UHPLC-HRMS and UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS. In the extract of A. praecox from the Amaryllidaceae family, quercetin was confirmed for the first time. This newly optimized method is applicable for the fast green extraction and analysis of plants in which quercetin is expected. It is planned to be applied undescribed plant samples from South Africa to extract and confirm the presence of quercetin.

Methods

Chemicals and reagents

LC–MS grade methanol (> 99.9%) and formic acid (98–100%) were provided by Merck KGaA (Prague, Czech Republic). Ethanol (> 99.7%) was purchased from VWR International (Prague, Czech Republic). Carbon dioxide (> 99.995% purity) was obtained from Messer (Hradec Králové, Czech Republic). Ultrapure water was acquired from the Milli-Q reverse osmosis system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA) immediately before use.

Reference standard of quercetin (purity 98.02%) was purchased from MedChemExpress (Sollentuna, Sweden). SIL-IS quercetin-d3 was purchased from Toronto Research Chemicals (Toronto, Ontario, Canada).

Standard solutions

The quercetin standard stock solution and SIL-IS were prepared by dissolution in MeOH at a 1 mg/mL concentration. The solution was stored at −20 °C and was prepared fresh every week. The diluent mixture, MeOH: water (60: 40, v/v) + 0.1% formic acid, was used for the subsequent dilution of the standard solution. SIL-IS was added to the samples to obtain the final quercetin-d3 concentration of 20 ng/mL.

Plant samples

Oven-dried quince was used for the optimization of the extraction method that required larger quantities of fruit to optimize method. In contrast, we used the freeze-dried/ lyophilized (VirTis BenchTop Pro with Omnitronics Freeze Dryer—SP Scientific, USA) plant materials for the application of the method since the optimized method required a much smaller amount of the samples. The commercially sold fruits of Cydonia oblonga and the bulb of Allium cepa were bought in August 2019 from the Food Lovers Shopping Mall in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. The other mature plant materials, including Ornithogalum longibracteatum Jacq., Merwilla plumbea (Lindl.) Speta, Scadoxus puniceus (L.) Friis & Nordal, Drimia robusta Bak., Eucomis pallidiflora Baker pole-evansii (N.E. Br.) Reyneke, Albuca nelsonii (N.E. Br.), Tulbaghia violacea Harv., Boophone hemanthoides F.M. Leight., Bowiea volubilis Harv. Ex Hook.f., Cyrtanthus obliquus (L.f.) Aiton, Haemanthus albiflos Jacq., Clivia miniata (Lindl.) Regel, Agapanthus praecox Willd., and Kigelia africana (Lam.) Benth., were collected in the last week of August 2019 from the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) Pietermaritzburg (PMB) Botanical Garden (290 37.55′ S; 300 24.13′ E) (Table 1). All the plant species were identified by the horticulturist Mrs. Alison Young, after which the voucher specimens were prepared and deposited in the Bews Herbarium at UKZN. The plant samples were grinded using IKA A11 basic analytical mill (IKA-Werke GmnH & Co.KG, Staufen, Germany) to a powder that was stored in closed amber bottle in the dark at room temperature and finally used for the extraction. The quince fruit used for the optimization was grinded in several individual parts of fruit. Consequently, all obtained powders were finally mixed together and used for the sampling. The other plant parts were grinded separately in individual grinding runs.

Analytical conditions

UHPLC-ESI+-MS/MS conditions for SFE optimization

Our method for the separation of phenolics and flavonoids published elsewhere [46] was used for the determination of quercetin in the samples obtained during SFE optimization. Briefly, UHPLC-MS/MS system consisted of the Acquity Ultra Performance LC™ (UPLC) system (Waters, Milford, MA, USA) coupled with Micromass Quattro Micro™ API benchtop triple quadrupole mass spectrometer (Waters, Milford, MA, USA). The separation was carried using BEH Shield RP C18 (2.1 × 50 mm, 1.7 μm) and gradient elution with 0.1% formic acid as the mobile phase A and methanol as organic mobile phase B. The gradient started at 5% B in A and was ramped to 95% B in 5 min. Then, the mobile phase composition was switched in 0.1 min to the initial and left for 2 min column equilibration. The flow rate was 0.4 mL/min and the column temperature was 40 °C. The partial loop with needle overfill mode was set up to inject 5 μL. Electrospray in positive ionization mode (ESI+) was used for the quercetin ionization. The MS conditions were as follows: capillary voltage + 3.2 kV; ion source temperature 130 °C; extractor 3.0 V; RF lens 0.5 V. Nitrogen was used as a cone gas at a flow rate of 100 L/h and a desolvation gas at a flow rate 800 L/h at a temperature of 450 °C. Argon served as collision gas. Two selected reaction monitoring (SRM) channels were used for the quercetin analysis with [M + H]+ as a precursor ion m/z 302.9 to increase the selectivity of the measurement. The observed product ions were 136.92 for SRM 1 and 152.87 for SRM 2. The cone voltage was 40 V, the collision energy 30 eV, and the dwell time 0.05 s. MassLynx 4.1 software was used for MS control and data handling. QuanLynx software was used for data processing and peak integration.

The quercetin amount was calculated from the standard calibration curve analyzed in the range 1–1000 ng/ mL with limit of quantification (LOQ) at 10 ng/mL (S/N ≈ 10) and limit of detection (LOD) at 3.3 ng/mL (S/N ≈ 3).

UHPLC-ESI−-MS/MS conditions for analysis of South African plant extracts

Quercetin in different plant species was quantified using the UHPLC system ACQUITY UPLC I-Class (Milford, USA) hyphenated with a more sensitive Xevo TQ-XS (Manchester, UK) mass spectrometer. A 2 μL sample was injected in Acquity BEH Shield RP C18 analytical column (2.1 × 100 mm; 1.7 μm). The analytes were separated using gradient elution with 0.1% aqueous formic acid (mobile phase A) and ACN (mobile phase B) at a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min. The gradient started at 2% of eluent B in A and ramped to 30% B in 12 min, followed by a steep increase to 98% B in 3 min. The percentage of B decreased during 0.1 min to the original condition (2%), followed by 2 min equilibration. The total time of chromatographic separation, including column equilibration, was 17 min. Triple quadrupole MS with ESI in negative mode (ESI−) was used for the quantification of quercetin. Nitrogen was used as the desolvation and cone gas and argon as the collision gas. The MS conditions were the following: capillary voltage -1.0 kV, ion source temperature 150 °C, desolvation gas flow 800 L/h, desolvation temperature 500 °C, cone gas flow 200 L/h, nebulizer gas pressure 0.6 MPa, and collision gas flow 0.20 mL/min. Two specific qualifier and quantifier SRM transitions were optimized for quercetin [M-H]− precursor ion with m/z 300.97 to increase the selectivity of the measurement. The first product ion of m/z 150.48 (F1) was used for the quantification, while product ion 178.47 (F2) was used for quercetin confirmation. The ion ratio was calculated from these SRM transitions. The cone voltage was 50 V and the collision energy 20 eV for both product ions. Quercetin-d3 was used as an internal standard to increase the selectivity of the method when applied to plant extracts. The MassLynx 4.2 Data System was used for MS control and data acquisition. TargetLynx was used for peak integration and data processing. The method linearity was verified in the range 0.5–100 ng/mL with LOQ (S/N ≈ 10 and error -3.8%) determined at 0.5 ng/mL and LOD at 0.15 ng/mL (S/N ≈ 3).

UHPLC-HRMS conditions for quercetin identity confirmation in South African plant samples

The extracts were analyzed using the UPLC I-Class system (Milford, USA) hyphenated with HRMS Synapt-G2-Si quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometer (Milford, USA) to confirm the quercetin content. While the LC conditions were identical as for the UHPLC-Xevo TQ-XS system, the MS conditions were different. The ESI− parameters were capillary voltage −1.3 kV, sampling cone 10 V, source offset 20 V, and ion source temperature 120 °C. The nitrogen desolvation gas flow was 900 L/h and temperature 600 °C. Nitrogen was also used as the cone gas with a flow rate of 50 L/h. Argon was used as collision gas. Nebulization gas pressure was 0.65 MPa. The MS and MS/MS scans in the negative mode were used for the confirmation of quercetin in all plant samples. MS scan was acquired in the range of m/z 50–1200 and MS/MS scan of [M-H]− precursor ion with m/z 301.0354 was acquired in the range m/z 50–350 at collision energy 20 eV. Leucine enkephalin at a concentration of 200 pg/µL was used as the internal calibrant and 0.5 mmol/L aqueous sodium formate solution as an external calibrant. The MassLynx 4.1 Data System was used for MS control and data acquisition. The method linearity was verified in the range 0.5–100 ng/mL with LOQ (S/N ≈ 10) determined at 5.0 ng/mL and LOD at 1.60 ng/mL (S/N ≈ 3).

Extraction instrument

An analytical SFE system Waters MV-10 ASFE (Milford, MA, USA) consisted of a fluid delivery module for pumping liquid CO2 and the co-solvent, an oven for placing the extraction vessels, an automated back pressure regulator for setting the pressure in the system, a make-up pump for pumping make-up solvent to prevent precipitation of the compounds after the expansion following the pressure decrease, and a fraction collector module. The heads of the CO2 pump were cooled using a chiller operated at 5 °C. The flow was controlled as the volumetric ratio between CO2 and the co-solvent. After the extraction, the system was flushed with a CO2/co-solvent mixture for 5 min followed by purging with CO2. The system was controlled by ChromScope™ software (Waters, Milford, MA, USA).

Milled dried sample (0.50 g) was placed in a 5 mL stainless steel extraction vessel and its volume was filled with glass beads. Dynamic mode of extraction was used in all experiments. The volume of the collected extract was measured and the extract was stored at -20 °C. Prior to the analysis, 1 mL of the extract was evaporated to dryness using a vacuum concentrator at 30 °C and it was reconstituted in 100 µL of the diluent mixture containing SIL-IS to achieve a final quercetin-d3 concentration of 20 ng/mL. The solutions were well shaken and then injected into the UHPLC-MS/MS system.

Design of the experiments and extraction optimization

Linear Plackett Burman designs created in MODDE 12.1 software (Sartorius Stedim Data Analytics AB, Umeå, Sweden) was used in the preliminary study to evaluate the effect of single parameters without two-factor interactions, including extraction temperature, pressure, and extraction solvent composition, i.e., the water content in co-solvent and co-solvent CO2 ratio. Based on these results, two levels of full factorial design with three center points were created and used to monitor the interaction among the factors affecting the extraction of quercetin from quince fruit. The flow rate and time were kept at 2.0 mL/min and 10 min, respectively. In total, 11 and 22 experiments were run in random order. Multiple linear regression (MLR) was used to calculate the fitting model and response surface. The adequacy of the model was evaluated by R2 and Q2 values, where R2 shows the model fit, and Q2 shows an estimate of the future prediction precision. The predicted versus observed plot and coefficient box plots were also used for the model evaluation. The optimum values for tested parameters to gain maximum peak areas and thus the highest concentration was obtained using numerical analysis based on the desirability function. The obtained optimum parameters were compared. Finally, the effects of flow rate and extraction time were studied separately. Flow rates 2, 3, 4, and 5 mL/min were investigated and the extracts were collected at the defined periods representing defined extraction times. The data were plotted as the extracted amount in μg per g of the sample versus time and solvent amount to understand the extraction kinetics.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Ekor M. The growing use of herbal medicines: issues relating to adverse reactions and challenges in monitoring safety. Front Pharmacol. 2014;4:177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. van Wyk AS, Prinsloo G. Medicinal plant harvesting, sustainability and cultivation in South Africa. Biol Conserv. 2018;227:335–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balogun FO, Ashafa AOT. A review of plants used in South African traditional medicine for the management and treatment of hypertension. Planta Med. 2019;85(4):312–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Batiha GE, Beshbishy AM, Ikram M, Mulla ZS, El-Hack MEA, Taha AE, Algammal AM, Elewa YHA. The pharmacological activity, biochemical properties, and pharmacokinetics of the major natural polyphenolic flavonoid: quercetin. Foods. 2020;9(3):374.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Adebayo SA, Dzoyem JP, Shai LJ, Eloff JN. The anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activity of 25 plant species used traditionally to treat pain in southern African. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2015;15:159.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pandey KB, Rizvi SI. Plant polyphenols as dietary antioxidants in human health and disease. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2009;2(5):270–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ross JA, Kasum CM. Dietary flavonoids: bioavailability, metabolic effects, and safety. Annu Rev Nutr. 2002;22:19–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anand David AV, Arulmoli R, Parasuraman S. Overviews of biological importance of quercetin: a bioactive flavonoid. Pharmacogn Rev. 2016;10(20):84–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhat IUH, Bhat R. Quercetin: a bioactive compound imparting cardiovascular and neuroprotective benefits: scope for exploring fresh produce, their wastes, and by-products. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(7):586.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Li Y, Yao J, Han C, Yang J, Chaudhry MT, Wang S, Liu H, Yin Y. Quercetin, inflammation and immunity. Nutrients. 2016;8(3):167.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rauf A, Imran M, Khan IA, Ur-Rehman M, Gilani SA, Mehmood Z, Mubarak MS. Anticancer potential of quercetin: a comprehensive review. Phytother Res. 2018;32(11):2109–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang W, Sun C, Mao L, Ma P, Liu F, Yang J, Gao Y. The biological activities, chemical stability, metabolism and delivery systems of quercetin: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2016;56:21–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Veale DJH, Havlik I, Oliver DW, Dekker TG. Pharmacological effects of Agapanthus africanus on the isolated rat uterus. J Ethnopharmacol. 1999;66:257–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ashraf MU, Muhammad G, Hussain MA, Bukhari SN. Cydonia oblonga M., a medicinal plant rich in phytonutrients for pharmaceuticals. Front Pharmacol. 2016;7:163.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Karimi A, Movahhed M, HajiMehdipoor H, Allahyari F. A review on Cydonia Oblonga Miller as an herbal medicine. Indo Am J Pharm Sci. 2017;4(12):4370–86.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Griñán I, Galindo A, Rodríguez P, Morales D, Corell M, Centeno A, Collado-González J, Torrecillas A, Carbonell-Barrachina AA, Hernández F. Volatile composition and sensory and quality attributes of quince (Cydonia oblonga Mill.) fruits as affected by water stress. Sci Hortic. 2019;244:68–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Andrade PB, Carvalho ARF, Seabra RM, Ferreira MA. A previous study of phenolic profiles of quince, pear, and apple purees by HPLC diode array detection for the evaluation of quince puree genuineness. J Agric Food Chem. 1998;46:968–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ong ES. Extraction methods and chemical standardization of botanicals and herbal preparations. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2004;812(1–2):23–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ajila CM, Brar SK, Verma M, Tyagi RD, Godbout S, Valero JR. Extraction and analysis of polyphenols: recent trends. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2011;31(3):227–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Robards K. Strategies for the determination of bioactive phenols in plants, fruit and vegetables. J Chromatogr A. 2003;1000(1–2):657–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Romanik G, Gilgenast E, Przyjazny A, Kaminski M. Techniques of preparing plant material for chromatographic separation and analysis. J Biochem Biophys Methods. 2007;70(2):253–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Belwal T, Ezzat SM, Rastrelli L, Bhatt ID, Daglia M, Baldi A, Devkota HP, Orhan IE, Patra JK, Das G, et al. A critical analysis of extraction techniques used for botanicals: trends, priorities, industrial uses and optimization strategies. Trends Analyt Chem. 2018;100:82–102.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pilařová V, Al Hamimi S, Cunico LP, Nováková L, Turner C. Extending the design space in solvent extraction—from supercritical fluids to pressurized liquids using carbon dioxide, ethanol, ethyl lactate, and water in a wide range of proportions. Green Chem. 2019;21(19):5427–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cvjetko Bubalo M, Vidović S, Radojčić Redovniković I, Jokić S. New perspective in extraction of plant biologically active compounds by green solvents. Food Bioprods Process. 2018;109:52–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. da Silva RPFF, Rocha-Santos TAP, Duarte AC. Supercritical fluid extraction of bioactive compounds. Trends Analyt Chem. 2016;76:40–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. de Melo MMR, Silvestre AJD, Silva CM. Supercritical fluid extraction of vegetable matrices: applications, trends and future perspectives of a convincing green technology. J Supercrit Fluids. 2014;92:115–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cunico LP, Turner C. 2017. Supercritical Fluids and Gas-Expanded Liquids. In: The Application of Green Solvents in Separation Processes. Amsterdam: Elsevier 155–214.

  28. Jessop PG, Subramaniam B. Gas-expanded liquids. Chem Rev. 2007;107:2666–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Calista TMS, Putro JN, Nugraha AT, Soetaredjo FE, Ju YH, Ismadji S. Supercritical CO2 extraction of bioactive compounds from Stachytarpheta jamaicensis (L) Vahl. Int Food Res J. 2016;23:2144–50.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dimitrieska-Stojkovic E, Zdravkovski Z. Supercritical fluid extraction of quercetin and rutin from Hyperici Herba. J Liq Chromatogr Relat Technol. 2006;23:2517–33.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Farías-Campomanes AM, Rostagno MA, Meireles MAA. Production of polyphenol extracts from grape bagasse using supercritical fluids: yield, extract composition and economic evaluation. J Supercrit Fluids. 2013;77:70–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chafer A, Pascual-Marti MC, Salvador A, Berna A. Supercritical fluid extraction and HPLC determination of relevant polyphenolic compounds in grape skin. J Sep Sci. 2005;28(16):2050–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ghoreishi SM, Hedayati A, Mousavi SO. Quercetin extraction from Rosa damascena Mill via supercritical CO2: neural network and adaptive neuro fuzzy interface system modeling and response surface optimization. J Supercrit Fluids. 2016;112:57–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hatami T, Cavalcanti RN, Takeuchi TM, Meireles MAA. Supercritical fluid extraction of bioactive compounds from Macela (Achyrocline satureioides) flowers: kinetic, experiments and modeling. J Supercrit Fluids. 2012;65:71–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Takeuchi TM, Rubano ML, Meireles MAA. Characterization and functional properties of Macela (Achyrocline satureioides) extracts obtained by supercritical fluid extraction using mixtures of CO2 plus ethanol. Food Bioproc Tech. 2009;3(6):804–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tunna TS, Sarker MZI, Ghafoor K, Ferdosh S, Jaffri JM, Al-Juhaimi FY, Ali ME, Akanda MJH, Awal MS, Ahmed QU, et al. Enrichment, in vitro, and quantification study of antidiabetic compounds from neglected weed Mimosa pudica using supercritical CO2 and CO2-Soxhlet. Sep Sci Technol. 2017;53(2):243–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rahmawati A, Pang D, Ju Y-H, Soetaredjo FE, Ki OL, Ismadji S. Supercritical CO2 extraction of phytochemical compounds from Mimosa pudica Linn. Chem Eng Commun. 2014;202(8):1011–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Li J, Zhang J, Wang M. Extraction of Flavonoids from the flowers of Abelmoschus manihot (L.) medic by modified supercritical CO(2) extraction and determination of antioxidant and anti-adipogenic activity. Molecules. 2016;21(7):810.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Martino KG, Guyer D. Supercritical fluid extraction of quercetin from onion skins. J Food Process Eng. 2004;27:17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meneses MA, Caputo G, Scognamiglio M, Reverchon E, Adami R. Antioxidant phenolic compounds recovery from Mangifera indica L. by-products by supercritical antisolvent extraction. J Food Eng. 2015;163:45–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Radojković M, Zeković Z, Mašković P, Vidović S, Mandić A, Mišan A, Đurović S. Biological activities and chemical composition of Morus leaves extracts obtained by maceration and supercritical fluid extraction. J Supercrit Fluids. 2016;117:50–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Antunes-Ricardo M, Gutiérrez-Uribe JA, Guajardo-Flores D. Extraction of isorhamnetin conjugates from Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill using supercritical fluids. J Supercrit Fluids. 2017;119:58–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Rodríguez-Pérez C, Mendiola JA, Quirantes-Piné R, Ibáñez E, Segura-Carretero A. Green downstream processing using supercritical carbon dioxide, CO2-expanded ethanol and pressurized hot water extractions for recovering bioactive compounds from Moringa oleifera leaves. J Supercrit Fluids. 2016;116:90–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ruan X, Yan LY, Li XX, Liu B, Zhang H, Wang Q. Optimization of process parameters of extraction of amentoflavone, quercetin and ginkgetin from Taxus chinensis using supercritical CO2 plus co-solvent. Molecules. 2014;19(11):17682–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Wang Y, Gu M. The concept of spectral accuracy for MS. Anal Chem. 2010;82(17):7055–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pilařová V, Plachká K, Chrenková L, Najmanová I, Mladěnka P, Svec F, Novák O, Nováková L. Simultaneous determination of quercetin and its metabolites in rat plasma by using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta. 2018;185:71–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The University of KwaZulu-Natal and the National Research Foundation, South Africa, are acknowledged for financial support. We thank Mrs. Alison Young, Horticulturist, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Botanical Garden, Pietermaritzburg, for providing detailed information on studied plant species.

Funding

The study was supported by the project STARSS reg. No.: CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000465 funded by ERDF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Heyrovského 1203, 50005, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic

    Veronika Pilařová, Lukáš Kuda, Hana Kočová Vlčková, Lucie Nováková & František Švec

  2. Research Centre for Plant Growth and Development, School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

    Shubhpriya Gupta, Manoj Kulkarni & Johannes Van Staden

  3. Department of Chemical Biology, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 27, 78371, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    Karel Doležal

  4. Laboratory of Growth Regulators, Faculty of Science, Palacký University & Institute of Experimental Botany AS CR, Šlechtitelů 27, 78371, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    Shubhpriya Gupta & Karel Doležal

Authors
  1. Veronika Pilařová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lukáš Kuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hana Kočová Vlčková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lucie Nováková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shubhpriya Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manoj Kulkarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. František Švec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Johannes Van Staden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Karel Doležal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

VP conceived, designed, and supervised the experiments, and wrote the manuscript. LK undertook SFE optimization experiments. HKV designed and undertook UHPLC-MS/MS and UHPLC-HRMS experiments. LN helped with designing of experiments and revised the manuscript. SG, MK collected and pretreated the samples. JVS, FS revised manuscript. KD formulated the idea and revised manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veronika Pilařová.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors agreed to publish this manuscript.

Competing of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Table S1. Summary of experiments for Plackett–Burman design of experiment model. Table S2. Full factorial design and summary of the experiments.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pilařová, V., Kuda, L., Vlčková, H.K. et al. Carbon dioxide expanded liquid: an effective solvent for the extraction of quercetin from South African medicinal plants. Plant Methods 18, 87 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-022-00919-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-022-00919-6

Keywords

Plant Methods

ISSN: 1746-4811