Pol JFood Nutr Sci 2016 Vol 66 No 3 pp 167171Section Food - PDF document

1 Pol. J.Food Nutr. Sci., 2016, Vol. 66, N
Pol. J.Food Nutr. Sci., 2016, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 167–171Section: Food Quality andFunctionality© Copyright by Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences2016 Author(s). This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License Raki is avoured distilled spirit that isTurkey. Itmeze. Raki is avouring itTurkish Food Codex [Anli & Bayram, 2010]. Themum 94.5% ethanol content. Raisins, molasses and/or grape must are used for suma production [Yucesoy & Ozen, 2013]. hol. Finally, sugar is, sugar isMany in vitro assays have been conducted to evaluate drinks [Pel-., 2009]. However, determination of, determination ofet al., 2011; Bernaert et al., 2012]. Consequently, at least two assays should be, at least two assays should beet al., 2011; Meng et al., 2011].Plants are an important source ofce ofõn et al., 2003]. Fu * Corresponding Author: Tel.: +90 232 3113992; Fax: +90 232 3885258;E-mail: gorkemy1@gmail.com, gorkem.yalcin@ege.edu.tr pounds. However, theraki samples from different commercial brands were anal-this research andantioxidant capacity.MATERIAL ANDferent brands were purchased from local supermarkets ed andduction: Raki samples produced from dried type grapes (A, B, fresh-dried type grapes (D, Tafulo afulo Þ cations. Added y, 0.25standard curve was constructed using Trolox Trolox equivalent (TE).Turkish Traditional Alcoholic Drink, RakiGorkem Yalcin*Analytical Chemistry, Faculty ofPharmacy, Ege University, 35100, Bornova, Izmir, TurkeyKey words: Raki is avoured traditional Turkish alcoholic drink. Antioxidant capacity ofraki samples from different commercial brands were evalu-CUPRAC, DPPH, TEAC andORAC assays andtotal phenolic content were also investigated. Addition-ally, theone-way ANOVA andsamples. Results indicated t

2 hat different ORA�CTEA�CCU
hat different ORA�CTEA�CCUPRA�CDPPH.samples with their CUPRAC, TEAC andORAC results were found cant, while DPPH assay showed no signi cant correlation. Turkish Traditional Alcoholic Drink, Raki CUPRAC (cupric reducing antioxidant capacity) assay (cupric reducing antioxidant capacity) assay Þ cation. Added amounts of ed innm was measured. Trolox reference standard. Re-For TEAC (trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity) as-say, method described byRe modiÞ cations. Added amount of cations were applied to theusing Trolox (0.005–0.05ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) assay was (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) assay was modiÞ cation which was modi cation ofTrolox used y, 0.25 uorescein. This solution mmol/L AAPH (2,2’-azobis(2-methylprop- uorescence uorescence intensity nm, respectively. ORAC values were calculated byORAC=[CTrolox x ( AUC – AUC/ (AUCTrolox – AUCTrolox isTrolox concentration (0.3sample dilution factor, andAUC is uorescence decay curve. Thecurve (AUC) AUC=(f uorescence intensity at 0 uorescence intensities at Total phenolic contents (TPC) were determined according Fu Þ cation which was mod- cation ofFolin-Ciocalteu reagent. Brie y, Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. After 4 raki sample (mg GAE/L). cation /S, respectively, where GraphPad Prism 5ANOVA and cant with pearson’s correlation analysis was RESULTS ANDDISCUSSIONCUPRAC, DPPH, TEAC andORAC assays Table 1. TheCUPRAC, TEAC andORAC assays. For theDPPH assay, E showed highest antioxidant capacity, followed byTEAC assays. ORAC andCUPRAC assays, B (dried type respectively. To theraki. However, Pellegrini . [2003] investigated some alcoholic drinks TEAC values. They reported 1290, 40beer, respectively. Miti. Mitireported the DPPH and TEAC values ofmol/L TE, respectively. other alcoholic drinks. s. õn et al., 2003]. Grapes are rich inÂ

3  phenolic compounds such as gallic acid,
 phenolic compounds such as gallic acid, caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid, kaempferol, quercetin [dos Lima have been considered to have high antioxidant activity. Anti-using Folin Cio- Yalcin this study, lowest TPC (Table 1).ANOVA-One way test for all this study. Bon-samples. Results are seen inTable 2. Based on this cant, two different Generally, this test showed signi cant differences between rmed the uence ofTable 3. TheORA�CTEA�CCUPRA�CDPPH.Tafulo afulo investigated the antioxidant capacity of different beer sam-ples with the aid of TRAP (total radical trapping antioxi-dant parameter), TEAC, DPPH, FRAP (ferric-ion reducing antioxidant parameter), CUPRAC andORAC assays. Like present study, they obtained theORAC assay, while DPPH as-lowest value. As can beseen from Table 3, CUPRAC andTEAC methods are very close to each other, 113.12tively. This could befact that CUPRAC andTEAC present study. Thesamples with their CUPRAC, TEAC andORAC cant. These signi cant cor-raki samples. However, considering the cant correlations between TPC andTABLE 1. Antioxidant capacities (TPC (mg GAE/L) of CUPRACDPPHTEACORACTPCA100.43±5.1759.00±3.61121.35±9.46207.34±6.528.31±0.40B97.20±3.1155.37±4.5198.51±4.43105.96±5.685.83±0.30C87.33±2.2946.13±4.50107.66±5.98176.80±9.085.42±0.35D122.62±2.3649.30±5.11114.86±7.45177.48±4.477.42±0.21E132.79±4.0361.70±1.13142.34±9.60211.12±11.198.48±0.12F141.84±9.1858.62±2.63152.97±7.37232.99±8.928.82±0.24G109.60±8.9143.52±1.9695.95±6.84181.82±9.036.93±0.50TABLE 2. Bonferroni post-hoc test results. SamplesCUPRACDPPHTEACORACTPC Bnsns*** Cns*ns** D*nsns*ns E*nsnsnsns F*ns**ns Gns**** Cnsnsns*ns D*nsns** E*ns*** F*ns*** Gns*ns** D*nsnsns* E***** F***** G*nsnsns* Ens**** F*ns*** Gnsnsnsnsns Fnsnsnsnsns G***** G***** cant differences at p cant. Dried type Turkish Traditional Alcoholic Drink

4 , Raki et al., 2005; Bernaert et al.,
, Raki et al., 2005; Bernaert et al., 2012]. This could explain why results ob-tained by DPPH assay were found non-signiÞ cant with TPC cant correlations be-cant correlations be-tioxidant capacity of leek extracts. They also reported sig-niÞ cant correlation coef cient between ORAC and cant cant  Song et al. [2010] detected signiÞ cant cor-TEAC.C.gated the antioxidant capacity of different medicinal and food herbs. They showed that the TPC results of samples correlated signiÞ cant with those ofCUPRAC andTEAC.CONCLUSIONS nding ofdant properties. However, antioxidant capacity values ofusing ORAC using DPPH assay. Raki samples from different brands also showed different an- cant.author wish to thank Ege University Faculty ofmacy Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Centre (FABAL).1. Anli R.E., Bayram M., Traditional aniseed- avored spirit drinks. Food Rev. Int., 2010,2. Apak R., Güçlü K., Özyürek M., Karademir S.E., Erça E., cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity (CUPRAC) Food Sci. Nutr.3. Apak R., Güçlü K., Özyürek M., Çelik S.E., Mechanism ofCUPRAC (cupric ion reduc-ing antioxidant capacity) assay. Microchim. Acta, 2008, 160, 4. Bernaert N., de Paepe D., Bouten C., de Clercq H., Stewart D., Bockstaele E.V., de Loose M., Droogenbroeck B.V., Antioxidant capacity, total phenolic and var. ). Food Chem., 2012, 134, 669–677.5. dos Lima M.S., de Silani I.S.V., Toaldo I.M., Correa L.C., Biasoto A.C.T., Pereira G.E., Bordignon-Luiz M.T., Ninow J.L., Phenolic Region ofBrazil. Food Chem., 2014, 161, 94–103.6. Fu L., Xu B.T., Xu X.Food Chem., 2011, 129, 345–350. E., Küfrev L.) seed extracts. Food Chem., 2003, 83, 371–382.8. Huang D., Ou B., Prior R.L., TheAgric. Food Chem., 2005,9. Li J.W., Ding S.D., Ding X.L., Comparison of ve cultivars ofChinese jujube. Process 10. Li P.M., Du G.R., Ma F.W., Phenolics concentration and1

5 1. Lu M., Yuan B., Zeng M., Chen J., Ant
1. Lu M., Yuan B., Zeng M., Chen J., Antioxidant capacity andna. Food Res. Int., 2011, 44, 530–536.12. Meng J., Fang Y., Zhang A., Chen S., Xu T., Ren Z., Han G., Liu J., Li H., Zhang Z., Wang H., Phenolic content andXinjiang Province. Food Res. Int., 2011, 44, 2830–2836. S.S., Paunovi D.D., Pavlovi A.N., Toši S.B., Stojkovi M.N., Phenolic pro les andmarketed beers inFood Prop., 2014, 17, 14. Özyürek M., Güçlü K., Apak R., The ed CU-PRAC methods ofantioxidant measurement. Trends Anal. 15. Pellegrini N., Sera ni M., Colombi B., Rio D.D., Salvatore S., Bi-anchi M., Brighenti F., Total antioxidant capacity ofNutr., 2003, 133, 2812–2819.16. Re R., Pellegrini N., Proteggente A., Pannala A., Yang M., Rice-cal cation decolourisation assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med., 1999, TABLE 3. Descriptive statistics ofTPC (mg GAE/L) assays. MeanSD dence interval 95%Max.Min.LODLOQUpper limitLower limitCUPRAC7113.1219.97127.9498.30141.8487.335.5216.73DPPH753.387.0658.6248.1461.7043.525.4816.61TEAC7119.0921.61135.13103.06152.9795.951.334.05ORAC7184.7940.55214.89154.69232.99105.960.030.09TPC77.321.338.306.348.826.340.631.92 Yalcin 17. Schwarz M., Rodríguez M., Martínez C., Bosquet V., Guillén D., Food Chem., 2009, 116, 29–33.18. Song F.L., Gan R.Y., Zhang Y., Xiao Q., Kuang L., Li H.B., Total 19. Tafulo P.A.R., Queiros R.B., Delerue-Matos C.M., Sales M.G.F., Food Res. Int., 2010, 43, 1702–1709.20. Yucesoy D., Ozen B., Authentication ofTurkish traditional avoured distilled spirit, raki. Food Chem., 2013, 141, 21. Zulueta A., Esteve M.J., Frasquet I., Frígola A., Vitamin C, skim milk mixture beverages marketed Spain. Food Chem., 2007, 103, 1365–1374.22. Zulueta A., Esteve M.J., Frígola A., ORAC andTEAC assays ucts. Food Chem., 2009a, 114, 310–316.23. Zulueta A., Maurizi A., Frígola A., Esteve M.J., Coli R., Burini December 2014. Revised: 1March 20