Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Acta Chimica Slovaca

The Journal of Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
1337-978X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Buckwheat cultivars — phenolic compounds profiles and antioxidant properties

Anna Mikulajová
  • Department of Nutrition and Food Quality Assessment, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, Radlinského 9, Bratislava, 812 37, Slovak Republic
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Dominika Šedivá
  • Department of Nutrition and Food Quality Assessment, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, Radlinského 9, Bratislava, 812 37, Slovak Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Eva Hybenová
  • Department of Nutrition and Food Quality Assessment, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, Radlinského 9, Bratislava, 812 37, Slovak Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Silvia Mošovská
  • Department of Nutrition and Food Quality Assessment, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, Radlinského 9, Bratislava, 812 37, Slovak Republic
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-12-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/acs-2016-0021

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: buckwheat; cultivars; flavonoids; phenolic acids; antioxidant activity

References

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

  • Benso B, Franchin M, Massarioli AP, Paschoal JAR, Alencar SM, Franco GCN, Rosalen PL (2016) PLoS ONE 11: 1—19.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

  • Jambrec D, Sakač M, Mišan A, Mandić A, Pestorić M (2015) J. Cereal Sci. 66: 1—9.Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

  • Sedej I, Sakač M, Mandić A, Mišan A, Tumbas V, Čanadanović-Brunet J (2012) J. Food Sci. 77: 954—959.Google Scholar

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

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

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

About the article

Published Online: 2016-12-08

Published in Print: 2016-10-01


Citation Information: Acta Chimica Slovaca, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 124–129, ISSN (Online) 1337-978X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/acs-2016-0021.

Export Citation

© 2016 Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in