4.7 Article

The antioxidant activity and free radical scavenging potential of two different solvent extracts of Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntz, Ficus bengalensis L. and Ficus racemosa L.

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 1000-1007

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.09.008

关键词

Camellia sinensis; Ficus bengalensis; Fucus racemosa; polyphenols; antioxidant activity; free radicals; reducing power

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stem bark and fruits of Ficus bengalensis L. and Ficus racemosa L. are used in India for the treatment of diabetes and a number of other diseases. Since these effects may be correlated with the presence of antioxidant compounds, methanol and 70% acetone (acetone:water, 70:30) extracts of F bengalensis (aerial root) and F racemosa (stem bark) were evaluated for their antioxidant activity and radical scavenging capacity in comparison with Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntz (green tea). Methanol extracts of green tea and F bengalensis and 70% acetone extract of F racemosa contained relatively higher levels of total phenolics than the other extracts. The antioxidant potential of the extracts were assessed by employing different in vitro assays such as reducing power assay, DPPH., ABTS(.divided by). and (OH)-O-. radical scavenging capacities, peroxidation inhibiting activity through linoleic acid emulsion system, antihemolytic assay by hydrogen peroxide induced method and metal ion chelating ability. Though all the extracts exhibited dose dependent reducing power activity, methanol extracts of all the samples were found to have more hydrogen donating ability. Similar line of dose dependent activity has been maintained in all the samples in DPPH. and (OH)-O-. scavenging systems. All the extracts exhibited antioxidant activity against the linoleic acid emulsion system (34-38%). The potential of multiple antioxidant activity was evident as it possessed antihemolytic activity and metal ion chelating potency. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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