OBJECTIVE: To determine and quantify lard as an adulterant in a binary blend with palm oil in a cosmetic soap formulations by FT-IR and multivariate analysis.
METHODS: Fatty acids in lard, palm oil and binary blends were extracted via liquid-liquid extraction and were subjected to FTIR spectrometry, combined with principal component analysis (PCA) and discriminant analysis (DA) for the classification of lard in cosmetic soap formulations via two DA models: Model A (percentage of lard in cosmetic soap) and Model B (porcine and non-porcine cosmetic soap). Linear regression (MLR), partial least square regression (PLS-R) and principal components regression (PCR) were used to assess the degree of adulteration of lard in the cosmetic soap.
FINDINGS: The FTIR spectrum of palm oil slightly differed from that of lard at the wavenumber range of 1453 cm -1 and 1415 cm -1 in palm oil and lard, respectively, indicating the bending vibrations of CH2 and CH3 aliphatic groups and OH carboxyl group respectively. Both of the DA models could accurately classify 100% of cosmetic soap formulations. Nevertheless, less than 100% of verification value was obtained when it was further used to predict the unknown cosmetic soap sample suspected of containing lard or a different percentage of lard. The PCA for Model A and Model B explained a similar cumulative variability (CV) of 92.86% for the whole dataset. MLR and PCR showed the highest determination coefficient (R2) of 0.996, and the lowest relative standard error (RSE) and mean square error (MSE), indicating that both regression models were effective in quantifying the lard adulterant in cosmetic soap.
CONCLUSION: FTIR spectroscopy coupled with chemometrics with DA, PCA and MLR or PCR can be used to analyse the presence of lard and quantify its percentage in cosmetic soap formulations.
METHODS: The fruit powder was macerated using methanol and then partitioned by hexane, ethyl acetate, n-butanol, and water. The fractions were chromatographed on the column chromatography and incorporated with TLC and recrystallization to give pure compounds. The structures of isolated compounds were determined by UV-Visible, FT-IR, MS, proton (1H-NMR), carbon (13C-NMR), and 2D-NMR techniques encompassing HMQC and HMBC spectra. The compounds were evaluated for their ACE inhibitory activity, and the strongest compound was determined by the kinetics enzyme inhibition.
RESULTS: Based on the spectral data, the isolated compounds were determined as 6,4-dihydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone-2-O-β-D-glucopyranoside (1), 4,4'-dihydroxy-6-methoxybenzophenone-2-O-β-D-glucopyranoside (2) and mangiferin (3). IC50 values of the isolated compounds 1, 2 and 3 were 0.055, 0.07, and 0.025 mM, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The three compounds have ACE inhibitor and mangiferin demonstrated the best ACE inhibitory activity with competitive inhibition on ACE with the type of inhibition kinetics is competitive inhibition.