4.7 Article

Comparative antioxidant activities of carotenoids measured by ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), ABTS bleaching assay (αTEAC), DPPH assay and peroxyl radical scavenging assay

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 129, Issue 1, Pages 139-148

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.04.045

Keywords

Lipophilic antioxidant activity; Lycopene; Carotenes; Xanthophylls

Funding

  1. EU [IP 016213]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to assess the antioxidant activity of carotenes and xanthophylls measured by various methods, compared to alpha-tocopherol, BHA and BHT. Four assays were selected to achieve a wide range of technical principles. Besides alpha TEAC, which uses ABTS(center dot+) radical cation, ferric reducing activity (measured by using FRAP assay), and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH center dot) scavenging assay were used. In addition, a luminol-chemiluminescence based peroxyl radical scavenging capacity (LPSC) assay, was used. Most of the compounds showed significant differences in their activity of scavenging radicals depending on the assay used. Of the 22 compounds tested, only a few such as !mein, zeaxanthin and capsanthin gave comparable results in the various assays. Surprisingly, in contrast to alpha-tocopherol, BHA and BHT, carotenoids did not show any DPPH center dot scavenging activity. To standardise the relative contribution of the assays used, weighted means of the values obtained in alpha TEAC, FRAP, DPPH and LPSC assay were calculated. This strategy was used to assess the antioxidant capacity of several juices and oil samples. The highest lipophilic antioxidant capacity in all assays was observed for sea buckthorn berry juice, followed by tomato juice, carrot juice and orange juice. Within the oil samples, the order of antioxidant capacity depended on the assay used. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available