| Literature DB >> 31289645 |
Zeshan Ali1,2, Haile Ma2, Muhammad Tayyab Rashid2, Asif Wali3, Shoaib Younas4.
Abstract
Antioxidant activity, total phenolic content (TPC), total flavonoids, carotenoids, pH, and total titratable acidity of red and black date's vinegar were analyzed. The extraction method was designed and optimized for this purpose with respect to the variety and solvent concentrations along with the time of ultrasonication. The results showed that red dates' vinegar has significantly (p < 0.05) higher total phenols (3.38 ± 0.13 mg GAE/ml) and antioxidant activity as compared to black dates' vinegar, which had a higher amount of carotenoids (3.43 ± 0.11 mg/100 ml). Similarly, red dates' vinegar has more flavonoids as compared to commercially available Zhenjiang vinegar. In terms of physiochemical properties, both red and black date's vinegar were not significantly different (p > 0.05). Use of 50% and 80% methanol with 25 min of ultrasonication for extraction seemed more effective. The total phenols, flavonoids, antioxidant activity, carotenoids, and physiochemical analysis of the red and black date's vinegar indicated that vinegar from dates (red or black dates) is a competitive product in the marketplace.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; dates' vinegar; extraction solvent; physiochemical properties; total phenolic index
Year: 2019 PMID: 31289645 PMCID: PMC6593385 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Figure 1Extraction process
Figure 2(a) TPC, DPPH, FRAP, TFC, and TCC values of red dates' vinegar for different ultrasound time tested. Values are presented as mean ± SD. (b) TPC, DPPH, FRAP, TFC, and TCC values of black dates' vinegar for different ultrasound time tested. Values are presented as mean ± SD. DPPH: 2, 2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; TCC: total carotenoid contents; TFC: total flavonoid content; TPC: total phenolic content
Effects of various percentages of methanol on phenols, antioxidants, and carotenoids
| Sample (Methanol%) | TPC (mg GAE/ml) | DPPH (mg TE/ ml) | FRAP (µmol AEAC/ml) | TFC (mg Ru/ml) | TCC (mg/100 ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% RDV | 2.79 ± 0.11a | 0.83 ± 0.04c | 0.86 ± 0.03bc | 0.67 ± 0.04c | 0.88 ± 0.04b |
| 80% RDV | 3.38 ± 0.13a | 0.98 ± 0.05c | 1.10 ± 0.15b | 0.95 ± 0.06bc | 0.97 ± 0.04bc |
| 50% RDV | 2.57 ± 0.16a | 1.16 ± 0.16b | 1.36 ± 0.14ab | 1.06 ± 0.12b | 1.00 ± 0.08b |
| 100% BDV | 1.64 ± 0.15b | 0.88 ± 0.03c | 0.90 ± 0.06c | 0.67 ± 0.03d | 3.01 ± 0.13a |
| 80% BDV | 1.67 ± 0.13b | 0.99 ± 0.02d | 1.27 ± 0.15c | 0.90 ± 0.05e | 3.12 ± 0.15a |
| 50% BDV | 0.92 ± 0.14d | 1.01 ± 0.14c | 1.68 ± 0.15b | 0.97 ± 0.04cd | 3.43 ± 0.11a |
BDV: black dates' vinegar; DPPH: 2, 2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; RDV: red dates' vinegar; TCC: total carotenoid contents; TFC: total flavonoid content; TPC: total phenolic content.
Data presented as mean ± SD. Values in the same row with different superscripted alphabet are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Pearson coefficient correlation of phytochemicals and antioxidants properties of methanol percentages
| Variables | TPC | DPPH | FRAP | TFC | TCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC |
| ||||
| DPPH | −0.0207 |
| |||
| FRAP | −0.5323 | 0.7049 |
| ||
| TFC | 0.0200 |
| 0.7954 |
| |
| TCC |
| −0.0804 | 0.4138 | −0.0733 |
|
DPPH: 2, 2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; TCC: total carotenoid contents; TFC: total flavonoid content; TPC: total phenolic content.
Correlation is significant bold values at p < 0.05.
Physiochemical properties of red and black date's vinegar
| Variable | Red dates' Vinegar | Black dates' Vinegar | Zhenjiang Vinegar |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 2.71 ± 0.02a | 2.70 ± 0.01a | 2.69 ± 0.01a |
| Sugar content Brix | 13.37 ± | 13.31 ± 0.05a | 11.10 ± 0.00b |
| Total titratable acidity (%) | 1.86 ± 0.03b | 1.81 ± 0.04c | 2.36 ± 0.04a |
Data presented as mean ± SD. Values in the same row with different superscripted alphabet are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Comparison with commercially available vinegars
| Sample | TPC (mg GAE/ml) | DPPH (mg TE/ml) | FRAP (µmol AEAC/ ml) | TFC (mg Ru/ml) | TCC (mg/100 ml) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z R V | 1.67 ± 0.13a | 1.35 ± 0.14b | 1.19 ± 0.15c | 0.81 ± 0.03d | 1.32 ± 0.14b |
| PV | 1.32 ± 0.14a | 1.12 ± 0.13c | 1.14 ± 0.12bc | 0.89 ± 0.05d | 1.19 ± 0.14b |
| R D V | 2.57 ± 0.16a | 1.16 ± 0.16c | 1.36 ± 0.14b | 1.06 ± 0.12d | 1.00 ± 0.06e |
| B D V | 0.92 ± 0.04d | 1.01 ± 0.14c | 1.68 ± 0.15b | 0.97 ± 0.04cd | 3.43 ± 0.15a |
BDV: black dates' vinegar; DPPH: 2, 2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; PV: persimmon vinegar; RDV: red dates' vinegar; TCC: total carotenoid contents; TFC: total flavonoid content; TPC: total phenolic content; ZRV: Zhenjiang rice vinegar.
Data presented as mean ± SD. Values in the same row with different superscripted alphabet are significantly different at p < 0.05.
Pearson coefficient correlation of date's and commercially available vinegar
| Variables | TPC | DPPH | FRAP | TFC | TCC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPC | 1 | ||||
| DPPH | 0.4231 | 1 | |||
| FRAP | −0.3234 | −0.6898 | 1 | ||
| TFC | 0.4486 | −0.5971 | 0.5377 | 1 | |
| TCC | −0.7255 | −0.6439 | 0.8804 | 0.1199 | 1 |
DPPH: 2, 2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl; FRAP: ferric reducing antioxidant power assay; TCC: total carotenoid contents; TFC: total flavonoid content; TPC: total phenolic content.
Correlation is significant at p < 0.05.