Molecular and pharmacological aspects of piperine as a potential molecule for disease prevention and management: evidence from clinical trials

Tripathi, Amit Kumar; Ray, Anup Kumar; Mishra, Sunil Kumar

doi:10.1186/s43088-022-00196-1

Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

Table 4 Methods of piperine extraction from black and white pepper

From: Molecular and pharmacological aspects of piperine as a potential molecule for disease prevention and management: evidence from clinical trials

Methods	Apparatus used	Extraction yield & (extraction time)	Solvent used	Advantage	Disadvantage	References
CHE	Soxhlet apparatus	3.2% 2 h	95% Ethanol,10% aq. Potassium hydroxide	Simple, low cost, no filtration is required after leaching	A long time of extraction and a large amount of extractant is required	Luque de Castro and Priego-Capote [175], Shingate et al. [25]
Reflux Extraction	RBF, condenser, Buchner funnel, etc.	5% 20 min	Dichloro-methane, Acetone and Hexane	More efficient than percolation or maceration and requires less extraction time and solvent	Cannot be used for thermolabile natural products	Shingate et al. [25], Zhang et al. [176]
Cold Maceration	Separating funnel, Rota evaporator, etc.	4.6% –	GAA, chloroform, 10% sodium bicarbonate, toluene, ethyl acetate, sodium hydroxide, diethyl ether	Yield is high, pure, and crystallizable as compared to the above two methods	Complex and time-consuming	Shingate et al. [25]
EASC-CO₂ Extraction	SPEED SFE 2, Ice-bath	0.88–1.38 mg/g dry black pepper 2.25 h	α-Amylase, CO₂, methanol	Efficient	Expensive	Dutta and Bhattacharjee [177, 178]
ILUA Extraction	KQ-100DA and KQ-500 ultrasonic water baths (Kunshan, Jiangsu, China), Acquity™ UPLC (Waters, Milford, MA, USA)	3.57% 30 min	1-Alkyl-3-methylimidazolium ionic liquids, deionized water, methanol	High extraction efficiency, and less extraction time	Expensive	Cao et al. [179]
SLDE	Naviglio Extractor®	317.7 mg/g 3 h	96% Ethanol	Simple application, exhaustion in a short period, production of high-quality extracts	Expensive	Gigliarelli et al. [180], Naviglio et al. [181]
SMUAE	Microwave oven (CQ4250, Samsung) Ultrasonic bath (Elmasonic S10H)	46.6 mg/g 31 min	Ethanol, Methanol, Acetone, Dichloromethane Potassium hydroxide, Hexane, Acetonitrile	Increased extraction efficiency	Not suitable for thermolabile natural products	Gorgani et al. [1, 182], Zhang et al. [176]
MAE	IFB domestic microwave oven (model Neutron)	45% 4 h	Petroleum ether, water	Simple, rapid, and reliable	Not suitable for thermolabile natural products	Raman and Gaikar [30]
UAE	–	0.58% w/w 18 min	Ethanol, hexane, and acetone	Short running time, higher extractive yield, controllable parameters	Small particle size, more filtration steps	Shityakov et al. [183]
SFE	–	90–96% w/w 2–5 h	Liquid carbon dioxide	Efficient, selective, clean, fast	High cost, less pressure-resistant	Shityakov et al. [183]

Back to article page