4.7 Article

Voltammetric determination of total antioxidant capacity of Bunchosia glandulifera tree extracts

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 799, 期 -, 页码 519-524

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelechem.2017.07.003

关键词

Natural extracts; Antioxidant determination; Cyclic voltammetry; Differential pulse voltammetry; Dimethylsulfoxide; Falso Guarand

资金

  1. FINEP [0788/10]
  2. MECProExt (SIGProj) [37671.107854.480.56866.14022014, 51167.143299.648.56866.04022015]
  3. PDE/FURG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optimization of electrochemical methods for total antioxidant capacity (TAC) determination of Bunchosia glandulifera (Jacq.) Kunth (Malpighiaceae) extracts was performed. Other methods for antioxidant studies were also used for comparison with the results obtained by electrochemical assays. The extracts exhibited good solubility in the aprotic solvent dimethylsulfoxide. Hence, two electrochemical methods, namely cyclic (C) and differential pulse (DP) voltammetry (V) were optimized for TAC determination in this medium and by using ascorbic acid. The CV presented better linearity than DPV in the optimum conditions. TAC values determined by ARTS, FRAP and DPPH increased in the order seed < pulp < bark < leaf < root extract, in generally the same order observed by CV, indicating the applicability of the method in these conditions. The phenolic compounds contents were 302 +/- 10, 327 +/- 0 11, 1008 +/- 71, 4003 +/- 13 and 7502 +/- 30 mg gallic acid/100 g extract, respectively, increasing in the same order as observed for TAC. On the other hand, such order disagreed with the amounts of major antioxidant vitamins, carotenoids and ascorbic acid, estimated in these extracts, which corresponded, by comparison with the contents of phenolic compounds, to 0.62, 34, 9.9, 0.39 and 0.86%, respectively. Thus, it can be inferred that specially in the case of roots and leaves, the contents of phenolic compounds may have greater contribution for their TAC values.

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