Pharmacognostic and Preliminary Phytochemical Studies on the Leaf of Beta vulgaris Linn. (Chenopodiaceae).

Darshna Y. Bhatt¹*, Dr. S.S. Pandya²

¹Assistant Professor, Kalol Institute of Pharmacy, Kalol, Gujarat

²Professor and P. G. Director, Shree Krishna Institute of Pharmacy, Becharaji, Gujarat

*Corresponding Author E-mail: darshnabhatt9@yahoo.com, darshnabhatt90@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

The present communication deals with the macroscopical, microscopical and preliminary Phytochemical screening on the Beta vulgaris Linn. (Chenopodiaceae). B.vulgaris Linn. is widely used in traditional medicine in many parts of India for the treatment of various diseases and ailments viz. hepatoprotective, antioxidant, antifungal etc. No reports are available on the pharmacognostic nature of leaf of plant. Hence, the present study was undertaken to investigate the same. All the parameters were studied according to the WHO and Pharmacopoeial guidelines. The qualitative chemical tests on the successive solvent extract revealed the presence of Steroids, Triterpenoids, Proteins, Alkaloids, Saponins and Carbohydrates.

KEYWORDS: Beta vulgaris L; Pharmacognostic; Traditional medicine, solvent extraction, Physico-chemical.

INTRODUCTION:

Beta vulgaris Linn. (Figure 1) also known as beet, Indian laburnum, belongs to the family Chenopodiaceae¹.The Chenopodiaceae are a family of flowering plants, also called the goosefoot family. Recent gene-based APG system (1998) and the APG II classification system (2003) have included these plants in the family Amaranthaceae². This family includes approximately 1400 species divided into 105 genera³. Members of this family are dicotyledonous and usually herbaceous in nature. It is a family of flowering plants. The leaves of beets have long petioles (leaf stems) that all arise from the base of the plant. The leaves can be 10.2 - 45.7 cm or more in length, and dark shiny green to red. It bears small greenish or reddish flowers which lack petals. The "fruit" develops from aggregates of two or more flowers⁴. In traditional medicine, it is used in the treatment of hepatitis, antioxidant, antiviral, antifungal and wound healing⁵. Ethanolic extract of roots of plant was reported to possess hepatoprotective activity against CCl₄ induced toxicity in Rats⁶.

Various polyphenols content of this was reported to possess free radical scavenging assay against tocopherol⁷. Roots of the plant contains Various polyphenols which was reported to possess wound healing activity in ethanolic extract⁸.Root of beta vulgaris also possess anti diabetic activities⁹.

This plant also contain various phenolics like betacyanins (betanin and isobetanin)¹⁰. Generally, root vegetables are a good source of vitamins and minerals. The leaves and roots of beets are high in vitamins A and C¹¹. Since B. vulgaris L. is known for its various medicinal properties hence the present study may be useful to supplement information with respect to its identification, authentication and standardization, since no such data is available for the same. Keeping these facts into consideration, attempts are made to establish pharmacognostic standards of the leaf of the plant.

Figure-1 Beta vulgaris L.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Plant Materials:

Plant material was collected from local market of Mansa, Gujarat, India and authenticated by Dr. Ila Patel, Assistant Professor, Life science Department Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University, Patan, Gujarat. The specimens of the plants were also preserved in lab (DB-HDT-4-2009). The plant was stored under the normal environmental condition.

Pharmacognosy:

The Macroscopical characters were studied as per the procedure given in WHO guidelines and Indian herbal Pharmacopoeia. Physico-chemical parameters such as extractive values, ash values, loss on drying were performed as per the official standard procedures^12-13. Microscopical investigations of leaf were made with taking transverse sections and powder microscopy of the leaf was performed according to the prescribed procedure^14-15.

Preliminary Phytochemical Studeies:

For phytochemical screening, the leaves were shade dried, powdered and successive solvent extraction performed with different solvents of increasing polarity like petroleum ether, benzene, chloroform, ethyl acetate, ethanol and water¹⁶. After complete extraction the extract was evaporated under reduced pressure and the percentage yield, color, consistency was determined. The individual extract obtained by successive solvent extraction was subjected to qualitative chemical test and then thin layer chromatographic studies¹⁷ in order to confirm Phytoconstituents detected by chemical test.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Macroscopy:

Macroscopically the leaf was found to be green to light green in color with purple venation (Figure 2, Table1).

Figure-2 Leaf of Beta vulgaris L.

Table 1 Macroscopical Evaluation of leaf of Beta vulgaris L.

Leaf:
Shape	Fleshy, semi cylindrical in cross section
Size Leaf type Leaf blade edges Leaf arrangement	4-18 in (10.2-45.7 cm) or more in length the leaves are simple (lobed or unlobed but not separated into leaflets) the edge of the leaf blade is entire (has no teeth or lobes) alternate: there is one leaf per node along the stem
Colour	Dark shiny green to red
Taste	Salty

Microscopy:

The Transverse Section (Figure 3) of the leaf showed the presence of Dorsiventral type of mesophyll in lamina. Upper epidermis is made of single layered cells which contain anomocytic stomata (ranunculaceous). Below upper epidemis it has 1-2 layered Palisade which is absent above vascular bundles of midrib. Below palisade it has multilayered Spongy parenchyma which contains distinct, transeversly cut vascular bundles as in midrib. Lower epidermis is same as upper epidermis but have numerous stomata. In Midrib, Collenchyma is present below upper epidermis and above lower epidermis. It also has Hydrocentic type Vascular bundle.

Powder Microscopy:

Powder microscopy of the leaf shows the presence of anomocytic stomata, Parenchymatous cells, xylem vessel and fibers (Figure 4).

Physico Chemical Studies:

The values of the physical constant like ash values, extractive values, loss on drying were determined (Table 2). The physical characteristics and percentage yield of the successive solvent extract are given in (Table 4). Preliminary qualitative phytochemical screening of the extracts revealed the presence of steroids, triterpenoids, carbohydrate, flavonoids, phenolics and proteins (Table 3).

Table 2 proximate analytical parameters

Sr. No.	Parameters	*Average values(%w/w)**
1.	Extractive Value
a	Water soluble Extractive	15.30 ± 0.058
b	Alcohol soluble Extractive	7.80 ± 0.058
c	Ether soluble	1.88±0.145
2.	Loss on drying	4.8±0.173
3.	Ash Value
a	Total ash	14.36±0.230
b	Water soluble ash	07.32±0.289
c	Acid insoluble ash	2.2±0.346

*All values are expressed as Mean ± SEM

Table 3 Preliminary phytoprofile of Beta vulgaris

Successive solvent system	Pet. ether	Benzene	Chloroform	Ethyl acetate	Methanol	Water
Color	Blackish green	Blackish green	Brownish green	Brownish green	Reddish green	Light brown
Consistency	Non sticky	Sticky	Non-sticky	Sticky	Non- sticky	Non-sticky, dry
Yield (%w/w)	2.40	1.24	0.94	0.86	2.44	2.70
Phyto-chemical constituents	Steroids, Tepenoides, Fatty acids	Steroids, Tepenoides	Triterpenoids, Alkaloids	Triterpenoid, Alkaloids	Phenolic, Carbohydrates, proteins, saponins	Carbohydrates, protein, saponins

Table 4 TLC profile of successive solvent extract

Solvent system	Phyto-constituents detected	Spraying reagents used	Pet. ether	Toluene	Chloroform	Ethyl acetate	Methanol	water
Toluene: methanol (9:1)	Phytosterol	Anisaldihyde-H₂SO₄	0.22, 0.42	0.38, 0.26, 0.20	0.38, 0.26, 0.20		---	---
Toluene: methanol (9:1)	Terpenoids	Lieberman burchard	0.62, 0.48, 0.24	0.20, 0.24	0.20, 0.46, 0.61	0.24	---	---
Chloroform: EA : Methanol (6:12:2)	Alkaloids	Dragendorff’s reagent	---	---	0.34, 0.52	0.54	---	---
n-butanol: GAA:water (6:2:2)	carbohydrate	Anisaldihyde-H₂SO₄	---	---	---	---	---	0.39, 0.59
Ethyl acetate : Methanol: Water (75.5:13.5:10)	Saponin	VS reagent	---	---	---	---	0.44	0.44, 0.62
n-butanol: GAA:water: FA (14:4.5:4:1)	Proteins	Ninhydrin	---	---	---	---	0.47, 0.35	0.35

CONCLUSION:

Herbal medicine is a triumph of popular therapeutic diversity. Almost in all the traditional medicine, the medicinal plants play the major role and constitute the backbone for the same. In order to make sure the safe use of these medicines, a necessary first step is the establishment of standards of quality, safety and efficacy. Standardization of herbal drugs is very essential, as they are derived from heterogeneous sources which can lead to variations. These variations can lead to erroneous results in various pharmacological and phytochemical studies. In other words, the pharmacognostic features examined in the present study may serve as tool for identification of the plant for validation of the raw material and for standardization of its formulations at Herbal industrial level in the coming days with reference to available data of Chenopodiaceae family.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

The author is thankful to the Kalol Institute of Pharmacy, Kalol, Gujarat for providing all the facilities to accomplish the research work.

REFERENCES:

1. Trease and Evans, Book of Pharmacognosy (W.B. Saunders, 2002) 5^th edition, 472.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG_II_system.

3. Watson, L., and M. J. Dallwitz. 1992. "The Families of Flowering Plants: Descriptions, Illustrations, Identification, and Information Retrieval." Version: 15th October 1998.

4. http://www.floridata.com/ref/b/beta_vul.cfm

5. The Wealth of India, Raw Materials, (CSIR), V (2B), 126 – 132.

6. Ranju Pal, Kundlik Girhepunje, Hitesh Gevariya, Thirumoorthy N. Scholars Research Library Archives of Applied Science Research, 2010, 2 (1), 14-18.

7. Dorivaldo Da Silva Raupp; Eliseu Rodrigues, Ismael Ivan Rockenbach, Aline Carbonar, Priscilla Faber de Campos, Food Science and Technology (Campinas), 2011, 31 (3), 703-725.

8. Singh A., Kumar Garg V., Sharma P., Gupta S., et al ; Pharmacologyonline, 2011, 1, 1031-1038.

9. Monem Ateya , Fawkeya Abbas and Rasha Hamza, Indian Stream Research Journal, 2014, 4(1).

10. Tytti S. Kujala , Jyrki M. Loponen , Karen D. Klika , and Kalevi Pihlaja, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2000, 48 (11), 5338–5342.

11. Lintas, C. Nutritional Aspects of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Options Mediterraeennes 19, 1992,79-87.

12. WHO-Geneva, Quality control methods for Medicinal plant materials, (A.I.T.B.S. Publisher and Distributors, New Delhi, 2002) 8-24.

13. The Herbal Pharmacopoeia, Revised ed. (Indian Drug Manufacturers Association, Mumbai, 2002) 491-502.

14. Khanderwala KR, Practical Pharmacognosy, 18^th Ed. (Nirali Prakashan, Pune, 2007), 31-40.

15. Khasim SM, Botanical Micro technique: Principles and Practice. (Capital Publishing Company, New Delhi, 2002) 41-52, 85-88.

16. Mukharjee PK, Quality Control of Herbal Drugs, 1st Ed. (Business Horizon Pharmaceutical, 2001) 183-219.

17. Wagner, H.; Blade, S.; Zgainsky, G.M, G.M.; ‘Plant drug analysis”, Springer Verlag, Britain, 1984.

Received on 23.07.2015 Modified on 10.08.2015

Res. J. Pharmacognosy & Phytochem. 7(3): July-Sept. 2015; Page 163-166

DOI: 10.5958/0975-4385.2015.00027.8