IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlcjf/v26y2008i4id1119-cjfs.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of the phenolic content and total antioxidant activity in wines as determined by spectrophotometric methods

Author

Listed:
  • Pavel STRATIL

    (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Vlastimil KUBÁŇ

    (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Jitka FOJTOVÁ

    (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Folin-Ciocalteu reagent (FCM) and Price and Butler method (PBM) were used for spectrophotometric determination of the total content of phenolic compounds in 29 wines (8 white, 21 red). The average contents of phenolic compounds determined by FCM and PBM were 108 (90-119) and 105 (90-129) for white wines, and 1545 (874-2262) and 547 (306-816) mg/l of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) for red wines, respectively. The reason for the lower PBM values in red wines is the higher reactivity in PBM of phenolic compounds, especially of gallic acid generally used as a standard in the above methods. The higher reactivity of the standard means that the measured absorbance of the sample responds to a lower concentration. The average total antioxidant activities determined by TEAC (Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity), FRAP (Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power), and DPPH (using diphenyl-p-picrylhydrazyl radical) were 5.14 (4.30-6.14), 1.43 (0.86-2.14), and 0.71 (0.61-0.81) of Trolox equivalents (TE) and 26.44 (13. 9-34.4), 9.43 (4.92-13.9), and 5.52 (2.91-8.62) mmol/l TE for white and red wines, respectively. Almost the same molar absorptivities with TEAC and DPPH methods were found while with FRAP method it was somewhat higher (about 1.56-times). The ratio of the values determined by FRAP and DPPH methods for white and red wines were 2.0 and 1.7, respectively. The TEAC values were 2.8- and 4.8-fold higher than those determined by FRAP and DPPH methods, respectively. The radical ABTS*+ used in TEAC method is therefore the most reactive and responds to the highest number of hydroxyl groups of the phenolic compounds of wines.

Suggested Citation

  • Pavel STRATIL & Vlastimil KUBÁŇ & Jitka FOJTOVÁ, 2008. "Comparison of the phenolic content and total antioxidant activity in wines as determined by spectrophotometric methods," Czech Journal of Food Sciences, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 26(4), pages 242-253.
  • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjf:v:26:y:2008:i:4:id:1119-cjfs
    DOI: 10.17221/1119-CJFS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cjfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/1119-CJFS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://cjfs.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/1119-CJFS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/1119-CJFS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diana Chrpová & Lenka Kouřimská & Michael Harry Gordon & Veronika Heřmanová & Iva Roubíčková & Jan Pánek, 2010. "Antioxidant activity of selected phenols and herbs used in diets for medical conditions," Czech Journal of Food Sciences, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 28(4), pages 317-325.
    2. Josef BALÍK & Marie KYSELÁKOVÁ & Naděžda VRCHOTOVÁ & Jan TŘÍSKA & Michal KUMŠTA & Jaromír VEVERKA & Pavel HÍC & Jiří TOTUŠEK & Danuše LEFNEROVÁ, 2008. "Relations between polyphenols content and antioxidant activity in vine grapes and leaves," Czech Journal of Food Sciences, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 26(SpecialIs), pages 25-32.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjf:v:26:y:2008:i:4:id:1119-cjfs. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.