4.0 Article

HPLC AND ESI-MS ANALYSIS OF VANILLIN ANALOGUE 2-HYDROXY-4-METHOXY BENZALDEHYDE IN SWALLOW ROOT - THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT HETEROGENEITY ON ANTIOXIDANT POTENTIAL

期刊

出版社

WYDAWNICTWO AKAD ROLNICZEJ W LUBLINIE
DOI: 10.24326/asphc.2019.2.3

关键词

habitat heterogeneity; root tubers; dichloromethane; 2-hydroxy-4-methoxy benzaldehyde

资金

  1. Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi [EMR_2016_001049]
  2. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India, New Delhi [BSC0106]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Decalepis hamiltonii Wight & Arn., is a plant species that is endemic to southern parts of India. The aim of this study is to explore the influence of habitat heterogeneity on total phenolics, flavonoids, flavor compound 2-hydroxy-4-methoxy benzaldehyde (2H4MB) and antioxidant potential of tubers. The flavor metabolite 2H4MB was quantified by HPLC using isocratic solvent system (methanol: acetonitrile : water : acetic acid 47 : 10 : 42 : 1) that indicates obvious difference in 2H4MB content of tubers with a maximum of 96.4 +/- 2.6 and 92.6 +/- 1.2 mg 100 g(-1) dry weight basis (DW) in samples from B.R. Hills and Mysore area of Karnataka, followed by samples from Tirumalai Hills and Kurnool from Andhra Pradesh (89.02 +/- 0.9 mg 100 g(-1) DW), Tamil Nadu (81.6 +/- 2.4 mg 100 g(-1) DW) and Kerala (80.18 +/- 1.1 mg 100 g(-1) DW) of tubers. There was variation in total phenolics, total flavonoids and 2H4MB content of root samples collected from different habitats. Also significant variation in free radical scavenging potential of methanol root extracts was noticed, which is directly proportional to the phenolics, and flavonoids content. Overall, there was 10-16% difference in content of 2H4MB in D. hamiltonii tubers that were collected from different natural habitats, and this habitat heterogeneity has to be considered vital, while using such tubers for edible purposes and food formulations.

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

4.0
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