4.6 Article

Comparison of ABTS/DPPH assays to measure antioxidant capacity in popular antioxidant-rich US foods

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 1043-1048

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2011.01.008

关键词

ABTS; DPPH; Total antioxidant capacity; Foods; Polyphenols; Flavonoids; Fruits; Vegetables; Beverages; Food analysis; Food composition

资金

  1. University of Connecticut from the United States Department of Agriculture [CONS00846]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the comparability of the two most common radical scavenging assays using 2,2'-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid (ABTS) and 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical, the 50 most popular antioxidant-rich fruits, vegetables and beverages in the US diet were identified and analyzed for their antioxidant capacities, total phenolics and flavonoids content. Spearmans-Rho correlation coefficients were calculated in order to characterize the relationship between antioxidant capacities, total phenolics and flavonoids content. Antioxidant capacity showed a strong positive relationship comparing both assays (rho = 0.949, p < 0.001). Antioxidant capacity detected by ABTS assay was stronger positively associated with the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) from USDA database (for ABTS: rho = 0.593, p < 0.001: for DPPH: rho = 0.539, p < 0.001, respectively), phenolics (for ABTS: rho = 0.946, p < 0.001; for DPPH: rho = 0.897, p < 0.001, respectively) and flavonoids content (for ABTS: rho = 0.718, p < 0.001; for DPPH: rho = 0.708, p < 0.001, respectively). Antioxidant capacity detected by ABTS assay was significantly higher for fruits, vegetables and beverages compared to that by DPPH assay. The high-pigmented and hydrophilic antioxidants were better reflected by ABTS assay than DPPH assay. These data suggest that ABTS assay may be more useful than DPPH assay for detecting antioxidant capacity in a variety of foods. (C) 2011 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