2.1. Evaluation of Single Factors Affecting MLF Extraction
The effects of various temperatures (40–80 °C) on MLF extractions were examined, and the results are presented in
Figure 1A. The highest yield was 70 °C; Y
MLF increased from 11.87 ± 1.43 mg g
−1 to 46.25 ± 1.49 mg g
−1 at 40–70 °C and then decreased to 26.51 ± 1.45 mg g
−1 at 80 °C. The optimum temperature for flavonoid extraction was deemed to be 70 °C.
Given the high solubility of flavonoids in ethanol, it was used as an extraction solvent. To further research the effect of ethanol concentration on extraction yield, different concentrations from 20% to 60%were tested.
Figure 1B shows the effect of solvent on Y
MLF. The yield of MLF increased from 20% to 40% and reached a peak of 45.60 ± 1.73 mg g
−1 at 40% concentration, but obviously decreased at 40% to 60%. Accordingly, 40% ethanol was chosen for succeeding experiments.
To investigate the effect of extraction time on Y
MLF, extraction was carried out at 60–180 min. As shown in
Figure 1C, from 60 min to 120 min, the yield prominently increased from 33.94 ± 1.97 to 44.64 ± 1.19 mg g
−1, and then leveled off. Accordingly, 120 min was used for RSM tests.
The liquid/solid ratio was also investigated.
Figure 1D shows the extraction results in different liquid/solid ratios. Extraction efficiency increased with an increased liquid/solid ratio, especially from 27.19 ± 1.57 mg g
−1 (10:1) to 47.50 ± 1.26 mg g
−1 (30:1), and then leveled off. Thus, the liquid/solid ratio of 30:1 was selected for subsequent experiments.
2.2. RSM Analysis
The extraction of flavonoids was optimized by RSM.
Table 1 shows the coded and actual levels used in the optimization process. A total of 29 tests were designed, including 5 zero-point experiments and 24 factorial tests.
Table 2 shows the designed and experimental data of the MLF. The Y
MLF ranged within 30.98–50.50 mg g
−1. By the multivariable regression fitting method of the data in
Table 2, the quadratic polynomial regression model of extraction temperature (
A), solvent concentration (
B), extraction time (
C) and liquid/solid ratio (
D) were generated as shown in the equation blow:
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the regression equation is shown in
Table 3, with
p < 0.05, the linear coefficient (
C and
D), the quadratic coefficients (
A2,
B2,
C2, and
D2), and the interaction coefficients (
AB,
AC, and
AD) having significant effects. The others, namely,
A,
B,
BC,
BD, and
CD with
p > 0.05, had insignificant effects. Furthermore, the influence of the conditions on Y
MLF followed the sequence liquid/solid ratio (
D), extraction time (
C), extraction temperature (
A), and solvent concentration (
B).
The p-value of this model was <0.0001, which indicated that the linear and quadratic terms were highly significant. The p-value of the lack of fit was 0.1506 (>0.05), indicating that the experimental data adapted to the model.
Figure 2 shows that all residual-standard values were in ±3 intervals, indicating that the model was consistent with the experimental data with no error recorded [
14].The precision was 15.292 (>4), indicating an adequate signal and the suitability of this model to be applied in navigation-design space. The “Pred R-Squared” of 0.7620 reasonably agreed with the “Adj R-Squared” of 0.9096. The “Adeq Precision” measures the signal-to-noise ratio, and a ratio greater than four is desirable. The ratio of 15.292 in this work indicated an adequate signal. Thus, this model can be used to navigate the design space.
Figure 3A shows the contour plot for Y
MLF as a function of various extraction temperatures and solvent concentrations at fixed extraction time (120.18 min) and liquid/solid ratio (34.60). The yield of MLF was found to increase rapidly with increased extraction temperature from 60 °C to 70 °C, but decreased rapidly with increased extraction temperature beyond 70 °C. Moreover, Y
MLF increased with increased solvent concentration from 30% to 40% and then decreased from 40% to 50%.
Figure 3B shows the contour plot for Y
MLF as a function of various extraction temperatures and extraction times at fixed solvent concentration (39.30%) and liquid/solid ratio (34.60). The yield of MLF increased rapidly within the extraction temperature from 60 °C to 70 °C and reached the maximum value. However, after 70 °C, Y
MLF did not increase and even decreased to a certain degree. The yield of MLF increased rapidly with the increase of extraction time from 90 min to 120 min, and then decreased slightly from 120 min to 150 min.
Figure 3C shows the contour plot for Y
MLF as a function of various extraction temperatures and liquid/solid ratios at a fixed solvent concentration (39.30%) and extraction time (120.18 min). The maximum Y
MLF was obtained when the extraction temperature and liquid/solid ratio were 70 °C and 35, respectively.
Figure 3D shows the contour plot for Y
MLF as a function of various solvent concentrations and extraction times at a fixed extraction temperature (70.85 °C) and liquid/solid ratio (34.60). The maximum Y
MLF was achieved when solvent concentration and extraction time were 40% and 120 min, respectively.
Figure 3E shows the contour plots for Y
MLF as a function of various solvent concentrations and liquid/solid ratios at a fixed extraction temperature (70 °C) and extraction time (120 min). The maximum Y
MLF was achieved when the solvent concentration and liquid/solid ratio were 40 and 35, respectively.
Figure 3F shows the contour plot for Y
MLF as a function of various extraction times and liquid/solid ratios at a fixed extraction temperature (70 °C) and solvent concentration (40%). The yield of MLF increased with prolonged extraction time from 90 min to 120 min and then decreased from 120 min to 150 min. Moreover, Y
MLF increased rapidly with increased solvent concentration from 20% to 35% but decreased slightly beyond 35%.
Overall, the optimal conditions for total flavonoids extraction from mulberry leaves were as follows: extraction temperature of 70.85 °C, solvent concentration of 39.30%, extraction time of 120.18 min, and liquid/solid ratio of 34.60:1. The predicted yield was 50.33 mg g
−1. According to the quadratic polynomial model and the contour plot (
Figure 3), the liquid/solid ratio was the most significant factor that influenced Y
MLF, followed by extraction time, extraction temperature, and solvent concentration.
2.8. AHP Model for Weight Calculation
A multi-criterion model was developed to evaluate the related process parameters, and its structure is depicted in
Figure 4. The AHP model consisted of two levels. The top level was the goal of the model (comprehensive assessment of the multiple-bioactivities of MLF samples), and the second level covered the criteria (
f1, MIC of
S.aureus antibacterial activity;
f2, MIC of
B.subtilis antibacterial activity;
f3, MIC of
B.pumilus antibacterial activity;
f4, IC
50 of ABTS
+ radical-scavenging activity;
f5, IC
50 of DPPH scavenging activity;
f6, EC
50 of total reducing power; and
f7, IC
50 of α-amylase inhibition activity). The importance of criteria in the goal level was assessed using a suitable scale based on
Table 7.
The results were then transformed into positive pairwise comparison matrices N as follows:
The calculated initial weights w
1′, w
2′, w
3′, w
4′, w
5′, w
6′, and w
7′, were 2.4566, 1.8253, 1.8253, 0.7306, 0.7306, 0.5338, and 0.4288, respectively. In further normalized computation, the priority weights w
1, w
2, w
3, w
4, w
5, w
6, and w
7 were 0.2880, 0.2140, 0.2140, 0.0856, 0.0856, 0.0626, and 0.0503, respectively. The maximum eigenvalue (
λmax) was 7.5182, CI was 0.0864, the consistency ratio (CR) was 0.0654 < 0.1, and the consistency check was passed. The value of w, as the priority weight of criterion to goal, was provided as follows:
The comprehensive assessment score S of MLF, MLFp, MLFe, and MLFb were 119.16, 457.45, 78.88, and 169.52, respectively.