4.7 Article

A Chemical Explanation for Variations in Antioxidant Capacity across Camellia sinensis L. Cultivars

期刊

FORESTS
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f14020249

关键词

Camellia sinensis; antioxidant capacity; phenolic compounds; cultivar variation; epigallocatechin gallate

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined 20 widely planted Chinese tea cultivars and found that variations in flavanol concentrations greatly influenced the antioxidant capacity of tea. Total catechins, especially epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), were stronger predictors of antioxidant capacity compared to total phenolic concentrations.
Flavanols are known as the most important antioxidants in tea (Camellia sinensis), but their contribution to the antioxidant capacity across tea cultivars has not been quantified. This study explored whether the variations of antioxidant capacity across tea cultivars could be linked to variations in main flavanol concentrations using 20 widely planted Chinese tea cultivars. The results showed that concentrations of flavanols, both monomeric (total catechins; 3.77%-8.85% d.w.) and polymeric forms (condensed tannins; 9.48%-17.67% d.w.), varied largely across tea cultivars. The contribution of total catechins to the antioxidant capacity in tea (R-2 = 0.54-0.55) was greater than that of condensed tannins (R-2 = 0.35-0.36) and total phenolic concentrations (R-2 = 0.33-0.36). Individual catechin components collectively explained 54.94%-56.03% of the variations in antioxidant capacity across tea cultivars. Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) was the leading catechin component that determined the antioxidant capacity in tea (p < 0.001), accounting for up to 57% of the differences in catechin composition between tea cultivars with high and low antioxidant capacities. These results suggested that flavanols were stronger predictors of the antioxidant capacity across tea cultivars compared to total phenolic concentrations, providing guidance for breeding tea cultivars with strong antioxidant capacities.

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