1. bookVolume 9 (2016): Issue 2 (October 2016)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1339-3065
First Published
10 Dec 2012
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Open Access

Buckwheat cultivars — phenolic compounds profiles and antioxidant properties

Published Online: 08 Dec 2016
Volume & Issue: Volume 9 (2016) - Issue 2 (October 2016)
Page range: 124 - 129
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1339-3065
First Published
10 Dec 2012
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) and tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) cultivars originating in different world countries were investigated and compared for their quantitative and qualitative abundance of phenolics and flavonoids. Moreover, the antioxidant properties were tested using two different methods. The total phenolic and total flavonoid content ranged from 0.897 to 4.226 mg GAE g−1 dw and from 0.238 to 4.626 mg rutin g−1 dw, respectively. Flavonoids — rutin, quercetin, and hydroxybenzoic acids — gallic, protocatechuic, vanillic and syringic were identified and quantified. Rutin was the most abundant flavonoid and protocatechuic acid was the most abundant phenolic acid in evaluated cultivars. All cultivars showed significant antiradical properties, but their chelating activity was weak. The German cultivar of tartary buckwheat Lifago had significantly higher phenolic content and better antioxidant properties than other cultivars. The content of rutin was 24 times higher and free radicals scavenging activity about 70 % higher than the average value of other cultivars.

Keywords

Ahmed A, Khalid N, Ahmad A, Abbasi NA, Latif MSZ, Randhava MA (2014) J. Agric. Sci. 152: 349—369.Search in Google Scholar

Benso B, Franchin M, Massarioli AP, Paschoal JAR, Alencar SM, Franco GCN, Rosalen PL (2016) PLoS ONE 11: 1—19.10.1371/journal.pone.0162728502805527643502Search in Google Scholar

Gülçın İ, Oktay M, Kıreçcı E, Küfrevıoğlu Öİ (2003) Food Chem. 83: 371—82.Search in Google Scholar

Guo WD, Wu CS, Ma YJ, Parry J, Xu YY, Liu H, Wang M (2011) Food Res. Int. 49: 53—59.Search in Google Scholar

Choi JY, Cho EJ, Lee HS, Lee JM, Yoon YH, Lee S (2013) Food Chem. Toxicol. 53: 105—111.Search in Google Scholar

Choi KS, Kundu JK, Chun KS, Na HK, Surh YJ (2014) Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 559: 38—45.Search in Google Scholar

Inglett GE, Chen D, Berhow M, Lee S (2011) Food Chem. 125: 923—929.Search in Google Scholar

Jambrec D, Sakač M, Mišan A, Mandić A, Pestorić M (2015) J. Cereal Sci. 66: 1—9.10.1016/j.jcs.2015.09.004Search in Google Scholar

Kiprovski B, Mikulic-Petkovsek M, Slatnar A, Veberic R, Stampar F, Malencic D, Latkovic D (2015) Food Chem. 185: 41—47.Search in Google Scholar

Kreft S, Štrukelj B, Gaberščik A, Kreft I (2002) J. Exp. Bot. 53: 1801—1804.Search in Google Scholar

Mikulajová A, Takácsová M, Alexy P, Brindzová L (2007) Chem. Listy. 101: 563—568.Search in Google Scholar

Qin P, Wang Q, Shan F, Hou Z, Ren G (2010) Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 45: 951—958.Search in Google Scholar

Qin P, Wu L, Yao Y, Ren G (2013) Food Res. Int. 50: 562—567.Search in Google Scholar

Sedej I, Sakač M, Mandić A, Mišan A, Tumbas V, Čanadanović-Brunet J (2012) J. Food Sci. 77: 954—959.10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02867.x22888949Search in Google Scholar

Yen GC, Chen HY (1995) J. Agric. Food Chem. 43: 27—32.Search in Google Scholar

Yiming Z, Hong W, Linlin C, Xiaoli Z, Wena T, Xinli S (2015) Food Chem. 186: 244—248.Search in Google Scholar

Yu L, Haley S, Perret J, Harris M (2004) Food Chem. 86: 11—16.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo