4.5 Article

Evaluation of spectrophotometric methods for screening of green rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) and green honeybush (Cyclopia genistoides) extracts for high levels of bio-active compounds

期刊

PHYTOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 169-178

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/pca.1033

关键词

Aspalathus linearis; Cyclopia genistoides; rooibos; honeybush; aspalathin; mangiferin; dihydrochalcone; screening methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The potential of UV spectrophotometry and an aluminium chloride (AlCl3) colorimetric method to determine the dihydrochalcone (DHC) and mangiferin contents of green rooibos and honeybush (C. genistoides) extracts, respectively, was investigated. The DHC content of rooibos water extracts, determined using UV spectroscopy, correlated with the sum of the aspalathin and nothofagin contents as quantified using HPLC (r = 0.98). A correlation coefficient of 0.91 was obtained when correlating the mangiferin content of C. genistoides methanol extracts, determined by the AlCl3 colorimetric method, with the results obtained by HPLC. Using the linear equations from the correlations it was possible to predict the DHC and mangiferin contents of extracts from the respective spectrophotometric measurements to a reasonable accuracy as an alternative to HPLC. The total polyphenol (TP) content of rooibos water extracts can also be determined using UV spectrophotometry and aspalathin as a standard (r = 0.99) as an alternative to the Folin-Ciocalteau method. The TP content of rooibos extracts correlated (r = 0.99) with its total antioxidant activity (TAA) as determined with the ABTS radical cation scavenging assay, but the TIP content of C. genistoides water extracts is not a good indication of their TAA (r = 0.27). The aspalathin content of rooibos extracts correlated with their TAA (r = 0.96), but the mangiferin content of honeybush water extracts only gave a moderate correlation with their TAA (r = 0.75). Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.5
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