An effective procedure was developed to produce high‐value added phenolic compounds through the conversion of 2‐phenylethanol (2‐PhEt) by using acid‐activated clays KSF for the hydrogen peroxide. Owing to KSF's ability to catalyze a variety of complex oxidations, it was likely to convert 2‐PhEt to hydroxytyrosol (HTY) and tyrosol (TY) derivatives. The analyses of catalytic solution revealed that the optimum conditions, giving a higher concentration of oxidation products such as HTY, were as follows: 2‐PhEt concentration 10−2 mol/L, the hydrogen peroxide concentration 5.05 × 10−2 and 0.6 g L–1 of KSF clays . The yield during the conversion reaction into HTY was around 25%. All compounds in the reaction mixture were identified by mass spectrophotometry using a LC‐MS apparatus. HTY, TY, meta‐tyrosol and ortho‐tyrosol were the major compounds. The antioxidant activity was realized by 2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) method. In fact, it is revealed that the strongest inhibition percentage (PI = 96) was detected with the increase in the concentration of HTY. The approach proposed in the present work presents an environment friendly method.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective The study compared the efficacy and tolerability of piroxicam gel and a new topical combination of medicinal plant products (Soulagel®) to treat pain caused by soft tissue injuries. Methods 1525 patients were assigned to receive piroxicam gel or Soulagel®. Efficacy assessments included pain-on-movement (POM) VNS (visual numeric scale) change from emergency department (ED) discharge (baseline) by at least 50% at day-7 final assessment, the time required to reach pain resolution criteria, need for rescue analgesia, patients’ satisfaction, and rate of adverse effects. Results At day-7, 1216 patients (79.7%) achieved at least 50% reduction of VNS from baseline; 623 patients (82.4%) in Soulagel® group vs. 593 patients (77.1%) in piroxicam group (p = 0.01). Time to decrease POM by 50% was significantly higher with piroxicam gel compared to Soulagel® (34±1 vs 33±1 days respectively; p = 0.54). At day 7, 96.4% of patients in Soulagel® group declared being “very satisfied” to “satisfied” vs. 68% in piroxicam group (p < 0.001). There was no major adverse events in both groups. Conclusion Soulagel® is not inferior to piroxicam gel for managing pain related to a soft tissues injuries. Further studies will help ascertain whether this new gel offers an alternative treatment option in this common ED condition.