ArticleBiomolecules2025
Comparative Ultrasonic Bath and Probe Extraction of Piperine from
Article in Biomolecules, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mannose-Functionalized Chitosan-TPGS/Tween 80 Nanocarriers for Macrophage Targeting: Enhanced Piperine Delivery to Potentiate Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Therapy.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Piperine: From Green Extraction to Clinical Translation-A Review.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsThis study compared ultrasonic bath extraction (UBE) and ultrasonic probe extraction (UPE) using natural deep eutectic solvents (NADES) for isolating piperine from PNL fruits. Six NADES formulations were screened, with NADES-5 (choline chloride:glycerin:urea, 1:1:1) showing superior performance. Response surface methodology with a Box-Behnken design optimized extraction parameters, including liquid-to-solid ratio, extraction time, temperature, and water content, for both UBE and UPE.
resultsOptimized UPE consistently outperformed UBE, yielding 49.97 mg/g of piperine versus 25.67 mg/g under identical NADES conditions. Comprehensive characterization using TLC, HPTLC, UV, FTIR, Raman, HPLC, NMR, XRD, SEM, and EDX confirmed the successful isolation and structural integrity of piperine, with samples obtained via UPE exhibiting higher purity (98.7% vs. 95.2%) and enhanced crystallinity. In vitro cytotoxicity assays demonstrated that piperine extracted by UPE showed stronger activity against C2C12 myoblasts (IC
conclusionsThese findings indicate that UPE using NADES is a sustainable approach for high-yield piperine extraction with enhanced purity and bioactivity, supporting its potential for pharmaceutical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.