Molecules 2016, 21, 656
8 of 12
˝
Data for ethyl nitrohydroxytyrosyl ether (6b): 73% yield. Obtained as a white solid: mp 94–96 C 1H-NMR
(500 MHz, DMSO-d6 δ ppm 10.11 (bs, 2H, 2 phenolic OH’s), 7.44 (s, 1H, H7), 6.76 (s, 1H, H4), 3.51 (t,
1
1
J = 6.7 Hz, 2H, H1), 3.39 (c, J = 7.0 Hz, 2H, H1 ), 2.99 (t, J = 6.7 Hz, 2H, H2), 1.06 (t, J = 7.0 Hz, 3H, H2 );
13C-NMR (125 MHz, DMSO-d6
δ ppm 151.0 (C5), 143.9 (C6), 139.8 (C8), 127.3 (C3), 118.3 (C4), 112.0
(C7), 69.6 (C1), 65.2 (C1 ), 32.8 (C2), 15.0 (C2 ); HRMS (CI) m/z calcd for C10H14NO5 [M + H]+ 228.0872,
1
1
found 228.0867 (2.2 ppm). Log Ptheor 1.84.
1
Data for n-butyl nitrohydroxytyrosyl ether (6c): 63% yield. Obtained as a syrup: H-NMR (500 MHz,
DMSO-d6 δ ppm 10.2 (bs, 2H, 2 phenolic OH’s), 7.44 (s, 1H, H7), 6.75 (s, 1H, H4), 3.51 (t, J = 6.8 Hz, 2H,
1
1
H1), 3.33 (t, J = 6.5 Hz, 2H, H1
´
), 2.99 (t, J = 6.8 Hz, 2H, H2), 1.42 (q, 2H, H2 ), 1.26 (m, 2H, H3 ), 0.84 (t,
1
J = 7.0 Hz, 3H, H4 ); 13C-NMR (125 MHz, DMSO-d6 δ ppm 151.0 (C5), 143.8 (C6), 139.8 (C8), 127.4 (C3),
118.4 (C4), 112.0 (C7), 69.8 (C1), 69.6 (C11), 32.8 (C2), 31.2 (C21), 18.8 (C3 ), 13.7 (C41); HRMS (CI) m/z
´
calcd for C12H18NO5 [M + H]+ 256.1185, found 256.1183 (0,8 ppm). Log Ptheor 2.75.
1
Data for n-hexyl nitrohydroxytyrosyl ether (6d): 74% yield. Obtained as a syrup: H-NMR (500 MHz,
DMSO-d6)
δ ppm 10.02 (bs, 2H, 2 phenolic OH’s), 7.44 (s, 1H, H7), 6.75 (s, 1H, H4), 3.50 (t, J = 6.7 Hz,
2H, H1), 3.32 (t, J = 6.6 Hz, 2H, H11), 2.99 (t, 2H, H2); 1.43 (q, 2H, H21), 1.26–1.20 (m, 6H, H31-H51),
0.83 (t, J = 7,0 Hz, 3H, H61); 13C-RMN (125 MHz, DMSO-d6)
δ ppm 151.0 (C5), 143.8 (C6), 139.8 (C8),
127.4 (C3), 118.4 (C4), 112.0 (C7), 69.9 (C1), 69.8 (C11), 32.7 (C2), 31.0 (C41), 29.1 (C21), 25.2 (C31), 22.0
(C51), 13.8 (C61); HRMS (CI) m/z calcd for C14H22NO5 [M + H]+ 284.1498, found 284.1494 (1,4 ppm).
Log Ptheor 3.66.
˝
Data for n-octyl nitrohydroxytyrosyl ether (6e): 66% yield. Obtained as a white solid: mp 84–86 C;
1H-NMR (500 MHz, DMSO-d6)
δ
ppm 10.02 (bs, 2H, 2 phenolic OH’s ), 7.44 (s, 1H, H7),16.75 (s, 1H,
1
H4), 3.50 (t, J = 6.7 Hz, 2H, H1), 3.32 (t, J = 6.6 Hz, 2H, H1 ), 2.99 (t, 2H, H2); 1.43 (q, 2H, H2 ), 1.26–1.20
(m, 10 H, H3 -H7 ), 0.84 (t, J = 7.0 Hz, 3H, H8 ); 13C-RMN (125 MHz, DMSO-d6)
δ ppm 151.0 (C5), 143.8
1
1
1
(C6), 139.7 (C8), 127.4 (C3), 118.3 (C4), 112.0 (C7), 69.9 (C1), 69.8 (C11), 32.7 (C2), 31.2 (C61), 29.1 (C21),
28.7 (C41), 28.6 (C51), 25.6 (C31), 22.0 (C71), 13.9 (C81); HRMS (CI) m/z calcd for C16H26NO5 [M + H]+
312.1811, found 312.1808 (1.0 ppm). Log Ptheor 4.57.
4.3. Antioxidant Activity Determinations
4.3.1. Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) Assay
The FRAP assay was carried out according to the procedure described by Pulido et al. [34]. The
antioxidant potential of the synthesized compounds was estimated from their ability to reduce the
ferric tripyridyltriazine (TPTZ-Fe(III)) complex to its stable ferrous form (TPTZ-Fe(II)). Briefly, the
FRAP reagent contained 2.5 mL of a 10 mM TPTZ solution in 40 mM HCl, plus 2.5 mL of 20 mM
FeCl3
and warmed to 37 ˝C prior to use. Nine hundred microliters of FRAP reagent was mixed with 90 µL
of distilled water and 30 L of either a standard, methanol (as appropriate reagent blank), or a test
sample (ranging from 50 to 400 M for ethers with short (<6) alkyl chain and from 100 to 1000
for ethers with medium ( 6) alkyl chain). All compounds were dissolved in methanol. Once the
¨
6H2O and 25 mL of 0.3 M acetate buffer to a final pH of 3.6. This reagent was freshly prepared
µ
µ
µM
ě
mixture was shaken, readings at the abso˝rption maximum at 595 nm were taken every 20 s, and the
reaction was monitored up to 30 min at 37 C, using a UV visible Varian (Cary 50 BIO, Varian, Madrid,
´
Spain) spectrophotometer equipped with a thermostatic autocell-holder. The reading at 30 min was
selected in each case for the calculation of FRAP values. Methanol solutions of Trolox were used for
calibration. The FRAP values are expressed as millimolar TEAC (Trolox equivalent,). All analyses
were run in triplicate.
4.3.2. ABTS Assay
The free radical scavenging capacity was measured using the ABTS discoloration method [35
]
with some modifications. The method is based on the capacity of different components to scavenge