4.7 Article

Profiling of polyphenolics, nutrients and antioxidant potential of germplasm's leaves from seven cultivars of Moringa oleifera Lam.

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 166-176

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.12.032

关键词

Moringa oleifera L.; Phenolic compounds; Antioxidant activity; HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn; Crude protein; Mineral-nutrients

资金

  1. FCT-Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [PEst-OE/AGR/UI4033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work compares the polyphenolics composition, antioxidant activity and contents of selected nutrients in the leaves from seven cultivars of Moringa oleifera ('Tumu', 'Sunyaw', 'Kumasi', 'Techiman', 'China', 'Pakistan Black', and 'Pakistan White') representing the variety in Pakistan. Both the non-enzymatic (DPPH free radical and linoleic acid peroxidation inhibition assays) and enzymatic (superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, and catalase activities) antioxidant capacity was appraised. Regarding,the nutritional value, in terms of protein and minerals contents, minor differences were recorded among cultivars. HPLC-PDA-ESI-MSn analysis of the hydro-methanolic extracts of Moringa leaves revealed a wide range of phenolics, highlighting their content in kaempferol derivatives, caffeoylquinic acid, and feruloylquinic acid. The antioxidant capacity of the tested leaves was correlated with the individual phenolics composition in order to identify which compounds were responsible for this beneficial power. The varying (p < 0.05) concentration of phenolics together with the antioxidant capacity of the tested leaves established 'Pakistan Black' and 'Techiman' as the most nutritive cultivar among others to be grown in the local area. Moreover, these data support the relevance of genetic variability of Moringa for determining the aptitude as a source of beneficial phenolics and nutrients, allowing to identify the optima cultivars to be grown in southern Asia. (c) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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