4.7 Article

Antioxidant capacity of phenolic phytochemicals from various cultivars of plums

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 81, 期 3, 页码 321-326

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0308-8146(02)00423-5

关键词

antioxidant capacity; free radical; phenolic phytochemicals; plums; vitamin C equivalent antioxidant capacity (VCEAC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polyphenolic phytochemical extractions of six cultivars of plums (Beltsville Elite B70197, Cacak Best, French Damson, Long John, Stanley, Yugoslavian Elite T101) and Gala apples were performed using 80% aqueous methanol with ultrasound assistance and extracts were analyzed for total phenolics, flavonoids, and antioxidant capacity. The total phenolic contents of various cultivars of plums were in a range of 174 to 375 mg/100 g, expressed as gallic acid equivalents (GAE), on a fresh weight basis. Total flavonoid concentrations ranged from 118 to 237 mg catechin equivalents (CE)/100 g fresh weight. The concentrations of total phenolics and flavonoids in Gala apples were 118 +/- 1.4 ing GAE and 62.0 +/- 6.9 mg CE per 100 g fresh sample weight, respectively. The stable radical chromogen, ABTS(.-), commonly employed for the antioxidant activity measurement, was used to evaluate antioxidant capacity of plums and apples. The total antioxidant capacities, expressed as vitamin C equivalent antioxidant capacity (VCEAC), of fresh plums ranged from 266 to 559 mg/100 g. The order of total antioxidant capacity among different plum cultivars was as follows: Beltsville Elite B70197 >Cacak Bestgreater than or equal toFrench Damson > Yugoslavian Elite T101 > Long John>Stanley. The total antioxidant capacity of fresh Gala apple was 205 +/- 5.6 mg VCEAC/100 g. There was a good correlation between total phenolics or flavonoids contents and VCEAC at the high level of P < 0.001. Dietary polyphenolics from plums may supply substantial antioxidants, which may provide health-promoting advantages to the consumer. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

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