4.6 Article

Phytochemical Properties and Antioxidant Activities of Extracts from Wild Blueberries and Lingonberries

期刊

PLANT FOODS FOR HUMAN NUTRITION
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 360-364

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11130-017-0640-3

关键词

Blueberry; Lingonberry; Polyphenols; Anthocyanins; Antioxidant activity

资金

  1. Forest Research Institute [260801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Among Vaccinium species, blueberries (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) and lingonberries (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) are popular in the human diet. In this study, total phenolic, total flavonoid and total monomeric anthocyanin contents in the ethanol-water extracts of blueberry and lingonberry fruits grown wild in the forests in the central region of Poland were assayed. Antioxidant activities of the extracts from each plant were also evaluated for scavenging ability on 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radicals and reducing power by cupric reducing antioxidant capacity (CUPRAC) method. Total phenolics in the blueberry extracts ranged from 4.58 to 5.28 mg GAE CE/g fw. The extracts from lingonberry fruits contained higher total contents of phenolic compounds (5.82-7.60 mg GAE/g fw) as well as total flavonoids (5.22-6.47 mu mol CE/g fw) than those from blueberries (3.74-4.18 mu mol CE/g fw). For the total monomeric anthocyanin contents, the blueberry extracts presented significantly higher values (3.01-3.93 mg cyanidin-3-glucoside (C3G) equivalent/g fw) in comparison to the lingonberry extracts (0.32-0.47). Blueberry extracts exhibited higher antioxidant activity measured by both assays in comparison to lingonberry extracts. Water extracts from fresh and dried fruits also exhibited significant antioxidant activities for both types of berries. Considering the health benefits that have been associated with polyphenolic consumption, these fruits could appear as a good source of this group of phytochemical compounds for their direct consumption or their use as ingredients for the design of new food products or food supplements.

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

4.6
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