4.6 Article

Antioxidant components and antioxidant/antiradical activities of desert truffle (Tirmania nivea) from various Middle Eastern origins

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 15-22

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2009.07.005

关键词

Antioxidant activity; Antiradical activity; DPPH; Flavonoids; FRA; Phenolics; Truffle; Fungi; Wild food; Middle East; Bahrain; Traditional food; Food composition; Food analysis

资金

  1. University of Bahrain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dried desert truffles from Bahraini, Iranian, Moroccan and Saudi origins were examined for their antioxidant and antiradical activities using four analytical methods: ferric reducing ability (FRAP), DPPH, deoxyribose, and nitric oxide (NO). Chemical constituents contributing towards these activities were also investigated. Generally, these truffles possessed varying concentration of antioxidant chemicals averaging 9.6 +/- 0.15, 12.0 +/- 8.34, 1860 +/- 361, 1328 +/- 167 and 293 +/- 32 mg/100 g dw, for ascorbic, anthocyanins, total esterified phenolics, total free phenolics and total flavonoids, respectively: total carotenoids averaged 681 +/- 245 g/100 g dw. Dried truffles also varied with regard to their antioxidant and antiradical activities. The FRAP value averaged 15.41 +/- 3.51 mmol/100 g dw. Antiradical activity measured as percent inhibition of DPPH quenching averaged 30.6 +/- 12.97% and EC(50) of 0.55 +/- 0.38 mg. The average EC(50) of NO scavenging activity was 159.4 +/- 69.3 mu g, whereas the average percent inhibition of deoxyribose degradation was 55.9 +/- 30.1%. The Iranian truffles yielded the highest in several variables, whereas the Moroccan truffles possessed the lowest values of many variables among the four tested samples. Significant correlation was established between total and free phenolics and FRAP values, and between flavonoids and percent radical inhibition using DPPH. NO and deoxyribose assays. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据