4.7 Article

Development of a rapid and simple voltammetric method to determine total antioxidative capacity of edible oils

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 138, 期 1, 页码 116-121

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.10.050

关键词

Reactive oxygen species; Antioxidants; Edible oils; Voltammetry; ABTS; Electron paramagnetic resonance

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation [3.4-Fokoop-DEU/1128670]
  2. DAAD Foundation through multilateral project International Masters and Postgraduate Programme in Materials Science and Catalysis (MatCatNet) in the Akademischer Neuaufbau Sudosteuropa programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work we report on a new, rapid and simple voltammetric method to determine the total antioxidant capacity (TAC) of the edible oils. The method explores the ABTS radical (2,2'-azinobis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid)) assay as a redox probe and it relays on measuring catalytic voltammetric currents. The electrocatalysis comprises redox regeneration of the electrochemically created ABTS radical either by Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethychroman-2-carboxylic acid) or by antioxidants present in studied oils. The detection limit of the method is determined to be 0.5 mg/L of Trolox equivalent, being a slightly lower than the corresponding UV-VIS spectrophotometric method. Applying the proposed voltammetric method the total antioxidant capacity of three types of commercially available cold-pressed edible oils are determined, and the results are found to be in a very good agreement with those obtained by UV-VIS spectrophotometry. The reported voltammetric method is cheap, rapid and simple, and it can be used as a sustainable alternative to the UV-VIS methods for the determination of total antioxidant capacitance of oils and other liquid lipophilic nutrients. Potent antioxidant capacity of studied oils was also confirmed by electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy of superoxide anion produced by macrophages. (C) 2012 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