Hindawi Publishing CorporationOxidative Medicine and Cellular LongevityVolume 2013 Article ID 369479 12 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013369479

Review ArticleNatural Antioxidant Activity of Commonly Consumed PlantFoods in India Effect of Domestic Processing

D Sreeramulu1 C V K Reddy1 Anitha Chauhan1 N Balakrishna2 and M Raghunath1

1 Endocrinology and Metabolism Division National Institute of Nutrition Jamai-Osmania Post Office Tarnaka HyderabadAndhra Pradesh 500007 India

2 Statistical Division National Institute of Nutrition Jamai-Osmania Post Office Tarnaka Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 500007 India

Correspondence should be addressed to D Sreeramulu dandesryahoocom

Received 28 February 2013 Accepted 14 May 2013

Academic Editor MaheshThirunavukkarasu

Copyright copy 2013 D Sreeramulu et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited

Phytochemicals protect against oxidative stress which in turn helps in maintaining the balance between oxidants and antioxidantsIn recent times natural antioxidants are gaining considerable interest among nutritionists food manufacturers and consumersbecause of their perceived safety potential therapeutic value and long shelf life Plant foods are known to protect againstdegenerative diseases and ageing due to their antioxidant activity (AOA) attributed to their high polyphenolic content (PC) Dataon AOA and PC of Indian plant foods is scantyTherefore we have determined the antioxidant activity in 107 commonly consumedIndian plant foods and assessed their relation to their PC Antioxidant activity is presented as the range of values for each of thefood groups The foods studied had good amounts of PC and AOA although they belonged to different food groups Interestinglysignificant correlation was observed between AOA (DPPH and FRAP) and PC in most of the foods corroborating the literaturethat polyphenols are potent antioxidants and that they may be important contributors to the AOA of the plant foods We have alsoobserved that common domestic methods of processing may not affect the PC and AOA of the foods studied in general To the bestof our knowledge these are the first results of the kind in commonly consumed Indian plant foods

1 Introduction

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as singlet oxygen super-oxide anion hydroxyl radical and hydrogen peroxide (H

2O2)

are often generated as byproducts of biological reactionsor from exogenous factors [1] These reactive species exertoxidative damage by reacting with nearly every moleculefound in living cells including DNA [2] Excess ROS if noteliminated by antioxidant system result in high levels of freeradicals and lipid peroxides which underlie the pathogenesisof degenerative diseases like atherosclerosis carcinogenesisdiabetes cataract ageing and so forth [3]

Experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests asignificant role of diet in the prevention of degenerative dis-eases [4] Plant derived antioxidants such as flavonoids andrelated phenolic compounds have multiple biological effectsincluding antioxidant activity Phytochemicals present in

plant foods exert health beneficial effects as they combatoxidative stress in the body bymaintaining a balance betweenoxidants and antioxidants [5] Although more than 8000phytochemicals have been identified in plant foods a largepercentage remains to be identified Further data on thepolyphenolic content antioxidant activity in Indian plantfoods is scanty and the effects of domestic processing onthe AOA (antioxidant activity) in Indian plant foods are notreported yet [6]

Among plant foods green leafy vegetables and grainsare a rich source of antioxidants apart from energy proteinand selected micronutrients in Indian diets [7] Traditionallygrains and GLVs have played a major role in providingnutrition particularly in the Indian Subcontinent and inother developing countries [8] Since plant foods are oftenconsumed in one or the other cooked forms polyphenol andAOA intakes calculated on the basis of their content in raw

2 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

foods are likely to be inaccurate Therefore it was consideredpertinent to study the effect of domestic processing on thenatural antioxidant activity and phenolic content of com-monly consumed plant foods rich in these activities Hencethe effect of domestic processing (cooking) was determinedon antioxidant activity and polyphenol content in somecommonly consumed green leafy vegetables (GLVs) and foodgrains

2 Sampling Procedures

The literature on antioxidant activity and phenolic content(PC) of plant foods is limited from India as well as otherparts of the world Available literature mostly from otherparts of the world indicates that different researchers haveadopted different sampling methods to get representativevalue of AOA and PC Velioglu et al [9] collected marketsamples and estimated AOA and PC in 200mgs to 1 g offruit vegetable and grain products In another study Al-Farsi et al [10] took 1 g of sun-dried dates to estimateantioxidant parameters whereas Arcan and Yemenicioglu [11]took about 20 g of fresh and dry nuts for the extractionSampling procedures followed in some Indian studies are asfollows Gupta and Prakash [12] used one gram of green leafyVegetable for extractionwhereasNair et al [13] have collectedfresh food samples from local market and five grams ofcleaned food sample was taken to quantify PC and flavonoidsin a few Indian plant foods Keeping in view the differencesin the sampling methods used and the quantities of samplesextracted by different workers to analyse antioxidants in plantfoods it appears to be a good practice to take a higherquantity of food sample for the processing specially to getreproducible results and adopt ideal sampling practices forthe quantification of AOA in food and herbal samples [6]

Commonly consumed cereals pulses legumes andGLVsanalyzed in this study were chosen based on NNMB survey[14] Samples were collected from market outlets located inthree different locations of the twin cities of Hyderabad andSecunderabad India The market samples were pooled andanalyzed in triplicates and the results are presented as meanvalues on fresh weight basis

To determine the effect of different types of domesticprocessing of grains edible portion of the sample was sortedout and divided into four aliquots of 25 grams each [11]First portion was processed as such to know its natural (raw)antioxidant activity while the 2nd 3rd and 4th portionsof the sample were subjected to conventional pressure andmicrowave methods of cooking respectively We have mim-icked consumerrsquos habits of food procurement frommarket tohousehold In case of GLVs 10 g edible portions were takenand processed as above

3 Extraction Procedure

To determine the antioxidant activity in plant foods severalsolvent extraction procedures have been used by differentresearchers There is no single satisfactory solvent extrac-tion method suitable for the extraction of all classes offood antioxidants and phenolics This probably is due to

the differences in the chemical nature of antioxidants andphenolics namely simple to highly polymerized chemicalsubstances present in plant foods Oki et al [15] used sixdifferent polar solvents to extract milled rice n-hexanediethyl ether ethyl acetate acetone methanol and deionizedwater and found that the extracts with highly polar sol-vents like methanol and deionized water shown the highestradical-scavenging activity Al-Farsi et al [10] used sevendifferent solvents to extract sun-dried dates water-phosphatebuffer (40 60 ratio) methanol containing 01 formic acid(88 12 vv) methanolHCl (999 01 vv) acetone contain-ing 07 cyclodextrin water (50 50 vv) methanolwater(50 50 vv) andwater aloneThey reported thatmost antiox-idants present in dates were water-soluble (hydrophilic) Onthe other hand extraction with 50 methanol yielded thehighest recovery of phenolics in the same study This couldbe due to the solubility differences of phenolic acids inmethanol andwaterTherefore they used phosphate buffer forextracting antioxidant activity and 50methanol to estimatetotal phenolic content in dates

Rochfort and Panozzo [7] used four different solventsto extract cereal grains (i) acetone-water (80 10 vv) (ii)ethanol-water (80 10 vv) (iii) methanol-water (80 10 vv)and (iv) water Found that water and 80 methanol showedhigher extraction than other solvents In another study Chi-dambara Murthy et al [16] reported that methanol extractsof grape pomace protected the activities of hepatic enzymesand could thus be important in combating reactive oxygenspecies In another study using in vitro models Singh et al[17] observed that methanol extracts of pomegranate peeland seeds had high antioxidant activity and similar findingswere reported by others [18] Several workers used acidified80 methanol extraction to assess antioxidant contents inplant foods and the reasons for it could be that methanolextraction not only gives a higher yield but also gives highantioxidant activity as compared to that with other polarsolvents Hence we have used acidic 80 methanol (with01 HCl) for extraction of phenolics and AOA from foodsin our studies Methanol extracts were also used to know theeffect of domestic cooking Domestic cooking was done withnormal tap water

Briefly 10 grams of GLV or 25 grams of the grain samplewas cooked in 100mL of water for 10ndash15 minutes (in caseof conventional cooking it took about 15 minutes pressurecooking was done at 120∘C for 10ndash12 minutes andmicrowavecooking was done for 5ndash8 minutes resp) Cooking was donewith the sample covered with lid except in conventionalcooking To estimate natural (raw) antioxidant content thefirst portion of 10 or 25 g of the edible portion of the samplewas ground in a domestic blender and extracted as such in80 methanol containing 01HCl and final volumes ofGLVs and grain samplesweremade to 50 and 100mL extractsrespectively with 80 methanol

4 Various Antioxidant Methods in Use

Determination of AOA in plant extracts is still an unresolvedproblem It is not possible to evaluate multifunctionalbiological antioxidants in plant foods by a single antioxidant

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 3

method Hence batteries of tests are used about twentydifferent biochemical methods are in practice to asses AOA[19] The exact comparison of the results obtained by dif-ferent methods and their general interpretation may bepractically impossible due to the variability of experimentalconditions and differences in physicochemical properties ofoxidizable substrates Many other factors including colloidalproperties of substrate experimental conditions reactionmedium oxidation state and antioxidant localization indifferent phases may influence antioxidant activity Amongthe different antioxidant parameters in use ABTS (Troloxequivalent antioxidant assay TEACABTS) and DPPH (220-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl) are widely used due to theirsimplicity stability accuracy and reproducibility [20] In areview on the AOA methods Huang et al [21] suggested thatFRAP (ferric reducing antioxidant power) and DPPH arethe two most commonly accepted assays for the estimationof AOA in plant foods In another study Ozgen et al [22]evaluated the three most commonly used AOA methodsand suggested that FRAP lt DPPH lt ABTS in fruits Astudy carried out by Siddhuraju and Becker [20] suggestedthat DPPH lt ABTS lt FRAP showed better antioxidant andfree radical-scavenging activities in processed cow pea andits seed extracts Several new analytical approaches havesuggested investigating antioxidant power of food extracts onthe basis of their electron-donating ability One such recentlysuggested assay is CAAP (chemiluminescence analysis ofantioxidant power) which is a chemiluminescence basedmethod The rapid CAAP assay is said to be convenient toinvestigate the antioxidant power of herbal extracts CAAPmethod showed positive correlation with FRAP (119903 = 0959)[23] Nevertheless FRAP and DPPH assays are the mostwidely used methods Since these assays are electron transferbased assays and often show excellent correlationwith pheno-lic contents and they are carried out in acidic conditions pHvalues have an important effect on the reducing capacity ofantioxidants In acidic conditions reducing capacity tends tobe suppressed due to protonation on antioxidant compoundswhereas in basic conditions proton dissociation of phenoliccompounds would enhance the sample reducing capacity[24]

41 Phenolic Content Soluble and hydrolysable phenoliccontents (free phenols) were estimated as per the proceduredescribed by Singh et al [17] and Singleton and Rossi [25]Values are expressed as Gallic acid equivalents Colorimetricmethod was adopted in the present study since sensitivechromatographicmethod in quantification of phenols is oftenlimited to single class of phenolics and is often limited to low-molecular weight compounds that are available as standardsIt is therefore necessary to use colorimetric assays such asthe Folin-Ciocalteu assaywhich rely on the reducing ability ofphenols to quantify the amount of total phenolics in a sample[26]

42 DPPH Radical-Scavenging Activity DPPH radical-scavenging activity was determined according to Aoshima etal [27]This method is based on the ability of the antioxidant

to scavenge the DPPH cation radical Briefly to 100120583L ofsample extract or standard 29mL of DPPH reagent (01mMin methanol) was added and vortexed vigorously This wasallowed to stand in dark for 30min at room temperature andthe discoloration of DPPH was measured against a suitableblank at 517 nm Percentage inhibition of the discolorationof DPPH by the sample extract was expressed as Troloxequivalents (mg100 g)

43 FRAP Assay Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP)was determined according to Benzie and Strain [28] In thepresence of TPTZ the Fe+2-TPTZ complex exhibits blue colorwhich is read at 593 nm Briefly 30mL of working FRAPreagent was added to an appropriate volumeconcentration ofthe sample extract incubated for 6min at room temperatureand the absorbance was measured at 593 nm against FeSO

4

standard

5 Over View

Current life style is one of themajor causes in the overproduc-tion of free radicals and reactive oxygen species and decreas-ing physiological antioxidant capacity [29] Food providesnot only nutrients essential for life but also other bioactivecompounds for health promotion and disease preventionEpidemiological studies have consistently shown that regularconsumption of plant foods is associated with reduced riskin developing chronic degenerative diseases and biologicalageing [30] Phytochemicals are the bioactive nonnutrientcompounds present in plant foodswhich have been suggestedto be responsible for their bioactivity linked to the reducedrisk of major chronic diseases It has indeed been estimatedthat a healthy diet could prevent approximately 30 of allcancers [31] So far published data from other parts ofthe world and India account only for a minor fraction oftotal polyphenols and AOA of plant foods Therefore it wassuggested to have food composition tables on antioxidantactivity and polyphenolic content of commonly consumedplant foods from developing countries [32] Hence we haveattempted for the first time to get representative values ofAOA in 107 commonly consumed plant foods in IndiaPurposive samples were purchased from three different localmarkets of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secundrabad(India)They were analyzed separately and data presented onfresh weight basis to mimic natural practice of consumptionPC and AOA were assessd in the methanol extracts of thefoods by Folin-Ciocalteumethod andDPPHFRAPmethodsrespectively and the results are expressed as Gallic acid andTroloxFeSO

4equivalents respectively It has been observed

in our studies that the foods studied had good amount ofpolyphenols and antioxidant activity despite the fact that theybelonged to different food groups Also a good correlationwas observed between the natural AOAof the food and itrsquos PC(Table 2) in many of the food groups studied Part of naturalantioxidant data was published by us as full length articleshence range of values are given Data on the effect of domesticprocessing on PC and AOA has been elaborated here since itis not yet published

4 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 1 Natural content of AOA and TPC

S no Group of foods 119899 (107) Antioxidant content (mg100 g) PC (mg100 g G A equ)DPPH (Trol equ) FRAP (FeSO4 equ)

1 Cereals and millets 9 24ndash173 450ndash13093 47ndash3732 Dry fruits 10 271ndash1541 1174ndash32416 99ndash9593 Edible oils and sugars 11 3ndash208 11ndash11674 072ndash3364 Fresh fruits 14 32ndash891 22ndash496lowast 26ndash3745 Green leafy vegetables 11 21ndash1020 1380ndash27827 77ndash10776 Nuts and oil seeds 12 20ndash28622 220ndash4220341 10ndash108417 Pulses and legumes 11 26ndash107 1469ndash10362 62ndash4188 Roots and tubers 10 11ndash125 256ndash6308 22ndash1699 Vegetables 19 12ndash466 243ndash10510 27ndash339Values are expressed on fresh weight basis lowastABTS range of values are given

Table 2 Correlation between PC versus DPPH FRAP

S no Group of Foods 119899 (107) PC versus DPPH (119903) PC versus FRAP (119903) DPPH Versus FRAP (119903)1 Cereals and millets 9 045 091 0842 Dry fruits 10 097 087lowast 081lowast

3 Edible oils and sugars 14 093 093 0994 Fresh fruits 14 077 084lowast 0945 Green leafy vegetables 11 094 095 0966 Nuts and oil seeds 12 099 099 0997 Pulses and legumes 11 016 044 0788 Roots and tubers 10 076 085 0979 Vegetables 19 079 085 075lowastABTS correlations are in natural form

6 Natural DPPH Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of DPPH activities in different food groups arepresented in Table 1 and the values are expressed as mg100 gon fresh weight basis Among all the food groups analysedthe highest DPPH scavenging activity was observed in arecanut (28622mg100 g)while the activity was the least in carrots1106 The DPPH activity in cereals and millets ranged from24ndash173mg100 g with the highest activity being found infinger millet and the lowest in Semolina The activity inlegumes and pulses ranged 26ndash107mg100 g with the highestin rajma and the lowest in roasted Bengal gram dhal Amongthe nuts and oil seeds studied the DPPH values ranged from20ndash28622mg100 with areca nut showing the highest andcoconutwater having the least activities Among the dry fruitsDPPH activity ranged 271ndash1541mg100 g with the highestactivity being in walnuts and the lowest in piyal seeds Onthe other hand among fresh fruits the values ranged 32ndash891mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest inwatermelon In green leafy vegetables the values ranged 21ndash1021mg100 g with Curry leaves having the highest whereasspinach had the least activity In roots and tubers categorythe DPPH activity ranged 11ndash125mg100 g with the highestactivity being found in red beet root and the lowest in carrotAmong the vegetables studied the DPPH values ranged 12ndash466mg100 g The highest activity was found in okra and thelowest was in ridge gourd Due to scanty data available in

the literature on DPPH activity in Indian plant foods it wasnot possible for us to compare these DPPH findings with theliterature

7 Natural FRAP Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of FRAP activities in different food groupsare presented in Table 1 and the values are expressed asmg100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the food groupsanalyzed the highest FRAP activity was observed in arecanut 4220341mg100 g while the activity was the least insunflower oil 3610 Salient findings are as follows Cerealsand millets ranged 450ndash13093mg100 g highest activity wasfound in finger millet and the lowest was in SemolinaAmong the dry fruits activity ranged 1174ndash32416mg100 gwith the highest being in walnuts and the lowest in cashewnuts whereas in fresh fruits ABTS activity ranged 22ndash496mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest wasin pineapple Some of these findings are in agreement withthe literature values of fresh fruits [32]The AOA determinedby ABTS in fresh fruits and FRAP in dry fruits showed thatboth had reasonably good AOA Interestingly dry fruits hadhigher activity than fresh fruits probably due to their lowmoisture content It was pertinent to assess whether theseobservations made by two different methods in fresh anddry fruits could be validated by a common third method

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 5

Therefore we determined the AOA in fresh and dry fruits bytheDPPH scavengingmethod anothermost commonly usedantioxidant biochemical parameter FRAP activity in greenleafy vegetables ranges 1380ndash27827mg100 g mint leaves hadhighest activity and the lowest was in spinach Edible oilsand sugars range 36ndash11674mg100 g the highest activityfound in jaggery and lowest in groundnut oil (unrefined)Among the nuts and oil seeds studied FRAP ranges 220ndash4220341mg100 g the areca nut showed the highest activityand lowest was in coconut water In pulses and legumes FRAPranged 1469ndash10362mg100 g with the highest in rajma andthe lowest in green gram dhalThe roots and tubers showed awide range 256ndash6308mg100 g and beet root had the highestand carrot the least Among the vegetables studied FRAPranges 243ndash10510mg100 g The highest activity was found inred cabbage and the lowest in pumpkin Due to scanty datait was not possible for us to compare our FRAP finding withthe literature

8 Natural Phenolic Content in Group ofPlant Foods

The soluble total phenolic content (PC) data is presentedin Table 1 Values are presented as mg Gallic acid equiv-alent100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the foodgroups analyzed the highest PC was observed in arecanut 10841GAE100 g and was the least in coconut water1000 Coming to different food groups in cerealsmilletsPC values ranged 47ndash373mg100 g finger millets (Ragi)had the highest (373mg100 g) while milled rice had thelowest (47mg100 g) Dry fruits values range from 99 to959mg100 g of whichwalnuts (959mg100 g) and piyal seeds(99mg100 g) had the highest and the lowest PC respectivelyPC of fresh fruits ranged from 26 to 374mg100 g with thehighest PC being in guava (374) and the least in watermelon(26mg100 g) PC of Papaya and sapota observed here arein agreement with reported data from other parts of theworld [33] orange [34] pineapple [35] and apple [36]Among the GLVs PC was ranging 77ndash1077mg100 g curryleaves have the highest (1077mg100 g) and the lowest was inspinach (77mg100 g) To compare our findings on naturalphenolic contents of GLVs as such there is very little or nopublished data available from India However Gupta andPrakash [12] analyzed phenolic content in 4GLV samplesof which phenolic contents of fenugreek leaves values arecomparablewith our finding 158 versus 163mg100 g whereasAmaranth and Curry leaves data is remarkably different fromour findings 253 and 1077mg100 g respectively while thereported values are 150 and 387mg100 gThis variation couldbe due to the fact that they used tannic acid as standardwhereas we used Gallic acid However it is not clear fromGupta and Prakash study [12] whether the data presentedby them was on dry or on fresh weight basis wasgiven Coming to edible oils and sugars the PC values ranged072ndash336mg100 g Jaggery had the highest PC (336mg100 g)while the lowest was in Vanaspati (072mg100 g) Nuts andoil seeds ranged from 10 to 10841mg100 g areca nut hadthe highest phenolic content (10841mg100 g) and coconuts

water the least (10mg100 g) Among the pulses and legumesvalues ranged from 62ndash418mg100 g black gram dhal hadthe highest (418mg100 g) while green gram dhal had theleast (62mg100 g) Roots and tubers showed a wide range(22ndash169mg100 g) and beet root had the highest and carrotthe least Phenolic content of vegetables ranged from 27 to339mg100 g and red cabbage had the highest and ridgegourd the lowest Very little published data is available onPC of Indian plant foods some findings are in agreementwith our data [37] However phenolic contents of plantfoods can significantly vary due to various other factors likeplant genetics and cultivar soil composition and growingconditions maturity state and postharvest conditions and soforth [38]

9 Correlation between PC DPPH and FRAP(in a Group of Natural Plant Foods)

Our observations on correlation between DPPH FRAP andPC of cereals pulses and legumes are in agreement withan earlier report [18] in that no significant correlation wasobserved between these two parameters among these foodgrains Interestingly no correlation was observed amongPC DPPH and ABTS in wheat extracts [20] The lack ofcorrelation in cereal and legume grains could be due to thedifferences in the bound and free forms of phytochemicalspresent in them It was observed that there was a possibilityof underestimation of phenolic compounds in cereallegumegrains due to the differences in bound and free phenolicspresent in them The bound phenolics contribute about 62in rice to 85 in corn [5] Another possibility could be dueto the different responses of different phenolic compoundsin different assay systems Since the molecular antioxidantresponses of phenolic compounds vary remarkably depend-ing on their chemical structure their AOAdoes not necessar-ily correlate with the PC in grains [39]

However both in dry and fresh fruits there was a goodcorrelation between PC and AOA and our findings arein agreement with the available literature on the phenoliccontent of fresh and dry fruits [10] However the discordancein phenolic content of different groups of foods studiedcould be due to varietal seasonal agronomical and genomicdifferences moisture content method of extraction andstandards used and so forth [40] Among GLVs there was agood correlation among the PC and antioxidant parametersstudied (Table 2) However little information is available inthe literature on the AOA and PC correlations in GLVs [12]

Although edible oils and sugars belong to different foodgroups there was a good correlation among their PC andAOA parameters in that the ldquo119903rdquo value was 093 between boththe AOA parameters and PC Among nuts and oil seedsa significant correlation was observed between AOA (bothDPPH and FRAP) and PC The ldquo119903rdquo value between PC andAOA was 099 indicating the importance of PC to theirAOA as assessed by these two methods These findings arein agreement with earlier reports of this nature [10]

Correlations between the antioxidant activity and phe-nolic content of roots tubers and vegetables are given in

6 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 2 In general there was a good correlation betweenthe PC and AOA among the vegetables roots and tubersstudied A significant correlation (119875 lt 001) was observedbetween PC and AOA both in roots and tubers (119903 valuesbeing 076 and 085 resp with DPPH and FRAP) and othervegetables (119903 = 079 and 085 with DPPH and FRAP) Thesefindings suggest that PC may be an important contributor totheAOAof roots tubers and vegetables our observations arein agreement with the literature from other parts of the world[34]

10 Effect of Domestic Cooking on PC andAOA in Green Leafy Vegetables

Plant foods are often consumed in one or the other processedforms Therefore it was considered pertinent to study theeffect of common domestic processing (cooking) methodson the natural antioxidant activity and phenolic contentof a few commonly consumed plant foods Since oxidantsand antioxidants have different chemical and physical char-acteristics different types of cooking may bring differenttype of alterations in antioxidant activities of different foodsFurther if polyphenol intakes are calculated based on rawplant foods the intake values computed may not be accurateHence effect of cooking was determined on phenolic contentand antioxidant activity in commonly consumed green leafyvegetables (GLVs) and food grains

Effect of cooking on PC and AOA of GLVs is presented inTables 3ndash6 Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of foodscooked by different methods were compared with its natural(raw) activity from same portion of subsample In generaldifferent cooking methods used in this study did not affectthe AOA and phenolic contents in most of the GLVs Percentchange in the phenolic content (PC) or antioxidant activity(AOA) on cooking is given in parentheses with respectiveraw GLV value (Tables 3ndash6) Differences were consideredsignificant at a 119875 value at least lt005

Out of the eleven GLVs studied only two GLVs namelyAmbat Chukka and Ponnaganti showed a small decrease of10ndash20 in their PC content on cooking While Gogu showedvery little or no change on cooking The other eight GLVsshowed an increase in PC during different types of cooking(Table 3) Among them six GLVs namely Amaranth Curryleaves Fennel Fenugreek Purslane and Sorrel leaves showedan increase in PC ranging 108minus146 on cooking CorianderMint and spinach showed a significant increase in PC in theabove cooking methods and the increase was ranging 125ndash211 (Table 1) As such there is very little data of this kindreported in the literature Kuti andKonuru [41] demonstratedin spinach leaves a similar increasing trend in PC on cookingContrary to this Faller and Fialho [42] showed cookingloss in PC in vegetables The possible explanation for theincreasing or decreasing trends of phenolic contents duringvarious cooking methods could be that the phenolics arestored in pectin or cellulose networks of plant foods and canbe released during thermal processing In turn individualphenolics may sometime increase because heat can breaksupramolecular structure which might make the phenoliccompounds react better with the reagents [43]

Effect of cooking on DPPH scavenging activity is givenin Table 4 The increase or decrease activity in differentGLVs during different cooking methods was compared withits natural DPPH activity of the raw GLV Our findings onchanges in DPPH are in line with those in PC In generalan increasing trend in DPPH activity on cooking was seenin most of the GLVs studied Out of eleven GLVs marginaleffect of 1ndash10 was seen only in Ambat Chukka Most of theGLVs showed an increasing trend in all the three methodsof cooking Among them Purslane and Ponnaganti showed10ndash20 increase whereas Amaranth and Mint showed 17ndash50 increase Coriander andCurry leaves showed an increaseof 38ndash133 During conventional cooking curry leavesshowed little effect (lt7)while spinach showed an enormousincrease of 221ndash381 Remaining three GLVs namely FennelFenugreek and Gogu leaves did not show any effect inconventional and pressure cooking but inmicrowave cookingalone showed about 31ndash36 increase (Table 4) This could bedue to effect of high temperature as compared to the abovetwo methods of heat treatment Considering that no data ofsimilar type is available from other parts of the world weare unable to compare our findings with literature reportsData available on other vegetables (not GLVs) reported amixed trend which is in agreement with our results Indeedan increasing trend was observed in potatoes [44] while adecreasing trend was reported in other vegetables [42]

Effect of cooking on FRAP is presented in Table 5This biochemical indicator was chosen as the second mostcommonly used antioxidant biochemical parameter Againsimilar increasing trends were seen in FRAP activity oncooking Most of the GLVs (nine out of eleven) showed anincrease ranging 119ndash181 While Coriander and spinachleaves showed an enormous increase two other GLVs AmbatChukka and Ponnaganti showed a decrease (maximum of10) This type of complex trend during cooking requiresfurther research [45] However the present data on naturalantioxidant content in commonly consumed GLVs is thefirst data of its kind from India Secondly our findings onthe effect of different methods of cooking in above GLVsmost of them show an increase in AOA it could be due tobetter availability of bound phenolics Correlation among thethree biochemical parameters and effect of different methodsof cooking were assessed next and these correlations werecompared by using rank correlations (Table 6) Phenolicsversus antioxidant parameters in different cooking methodsare highly correlated Findings of this study suggest thatalthough different cooking methods showed changes (highlysignificant in some cases) in the phenolic content and AOAof the GLVs there was no effect of domestic cooking onthe correlation between the PC and AOA This observationconfirms that PC may be important contributor to the AOAof GLVs both in raw and cooked forms

11 Effect of Domestic Cooking (Food Grains)

PC and AOA of the food grains (raw and cooked by differentmethods) are presented in Tables 7ndash9 The PC of rawwhole green gram (with peel) was the highest (284mg100 g)followed by black rajma (146mg100 g) Green gram dhal

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 7

Table 3 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 2530a(100)

275b(108)

355c(140)

312d(123)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 1003(100)

90(89)

93(92)

91(91)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 2396a(100)

417b(174)

451c(188)

506d(211)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10770a(100)

1434b(133)

1184c(109)

1377d(127)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 2513(100)

268(106)

265(105)

312(124)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonellafoenum-graecum

1633a(100)

180a(110)

176a(107)

220b(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 946a(100)

128b(135)

138b(146)

128b(135)

8 Sorrel leaves Hibiscus cannabinus 1913(100)

194(101)

211(107)

213(111)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 4403a(100)

657b(149)

796c(180)

761c(172)

10 Water amaranth Alternanthera sessilis 1363(100)

122(89)

110(80)

123(90)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 770a(100)

96b(125)

125c(162)

117c(152)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric KruskalWallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 4 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100 g Trolox Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 4056a(100)

520b(128)

527b(129)

476b(117)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 853(100)

87(101)

83(97)

94(110)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 4710a(100)

886b(181)

948b(201)

1100c(233)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10206a(100)

950b(93)

1724c(168)

1418d(138)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 5453(100)

592(108)

540(99)

746(136)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 1443(100)

142(98)

127(87)

193(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 1383(100)

162(117)

165(119)

151(109)

8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 3460(100)

365(105)

334(96)

456(131)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 13686(100)

2055(150)

1856(135)

2020(147)

10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 1730(100)

172(99)

203(117)

198(114)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 216a(100)

69b(321)

85c(393)

104d(481)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

2 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

foods are likely to be inaccurate Therefore it was consideredpertinent to study the effect of domestic processing on thenatural antioxidant activity and phenolic content of com-monly consumed plant foods rich in these activities Hencethe effect of domestic processing (cooking) was determinedon antioxidant activity and polyphenol content in somecommonly consumed green leafy vegetables (GLVs) and foodgrains

2 Sampling Procedures

The literature on antioxidant activity and phenolic content(PC) of plant foods is limited from India as well as otherparts of the world Available literature mostly from otherparts of the world indicates that different researchers haveadopted different sampling methods to get representativevalue of AOA and PC Velioglu et al [9] collected marketsamples and estimated AOA and PC in 200mgs to 1 g offruit vegetable and grain products In another study Al-Farsi et al [10] took 1 g of sun-dried dates to estimateantioxidant parameters whereas Arcan and Yemenicioglu [11]took about 20 g of fresh and dry nuts for the extractionSampling procedures followed in some Indian studies are asfollows Gupta and Prakash [12] used one gram of green leafyVegetable for extractionwhereasNair et al [13] have collectedfresh food samples from local market and five grams ofcleaned food sample was taken to quantify PC and flavonoidsin a few Indian plant foods Keeping in view the differencesin the sampling methods used and the quantities of samplesextracted by different workers to analyse antioxidants in plantfoods it appears to be a good practice to take a higherquantity of food sample for the processing specially to getreproducible results and adopt ideal sampling practices forthe quantification of AOA in food and herbal samples [6]

Commonly consumed cereals pulses legumes andGLVsanalyzed in this study were chosen based on NNMB survey[14] Samples were collected from market outlets located inthree different locations of the twin cities of Hyderabad andSecunderabad India The market samples were pooled andanalyzed in triplicates and the results are presented as meanvalues on fresh weight basis

To determine the effect of different types of domesticprocessing of grains edible portion of the sample was sortedout and divided into four aliquots of 25 grams each [11]First portion was processed as such to know its natural (raw)antioxidant activity while the 2nd 3rd and 4th portionsof the sample were subjected to conventional pressure andmicrowave methods of cooking respectively We have mim-icked consumerrsquos habits of food procurement frommarket tohousehold In case of GLVs 10 g edible portions were takenand processed as above

3 Extraction Procedure

To determine the antioxidant activity in plant foods severalsolvent extraction procedures have been used by differentresearchers There is no single satisfactory solvent extrac-tion method suitable for the extraction of all classes offood antioxidants and phenolics This probably is due to

the differences in the chemical nature of antioxidants andphenolics namely simple to highly polymerized chemicalsubstances present in plant foods Oki et al [15] used sixdifferent polar solvents to extract milled rice n-hexanediethyl ether ethyl acetate acetone methanol and deionizedwater and found that the extracts with highly polar sol-vents like methanol and deionized water shown the highestradical-scavenging activity Al-Farsi et al [10] used sevendifferent solvents to extract sun-dried dates water-phosphatebuffer (40 60 ratio) methanol containing 01 formic acid(88 12 vv) methanolHCl (999 01 vv) acetone contain-ing 07 cyclodextrin water (50 50 vv) methanolwater(50 50 vv) andwater aloneThey reported thatmost antiox-idants present in dates were water-soluble (hydrophilic) Onthe other hand extraction with 50 methanol yielded thehighest recovery of phenolics in the same study This couldbe due to the solubility differences of phenolic acids inmethanol andwaterTherefore they used phosphate buffer forextracting antioxidant activity and 50methanol to estimatetotal phenolic content in dates

Rochfort and Panozzo [7] used four different solventsto extract cereal grains (i) acetone-water (80 10 vv) (ii)ethanol-water (80 10 vv) (iii) methanol-water (80 10 vv)and (iv) water Found that water and 80 methanol showedhigher extraction than other solvents In another study Chi-dambara Murthy et al [16] reported that methanol extractsof grape pomace protected the activities of hepatic enzymesand could thus be important in combating reactive oxygenspecies In another study using in vitro models Singh et al[17] observed that methanol extracts of pomegranate peeland seeds had high antioxidant activity and similar findingswere reported by others [18] Several workers used acidified80 methanol extraction to assess antioxidant contents inplant foods and the reasons for it could be that methanolextraction not only gives a higher yield but also gives highantioxidant activity as compared to that with other polarsolvents Hence we have used acidic 80 methanol (with01 HCl) for extraction of phenolics and AOA from foodsin our studies Methanol extracts were also used to know theeffect of domestic cooking Domestic cooking was done withnormal tap water

Briefly 10 grams of GLV or 25 grams of the grain samplewas cooked in 100mL of water for 10ndash15 minutes (in caseof conventional cooking it took about 15 minutes pressurecooking was done at 120∘C for 10ndash12 minutes andmicrowavecooking was done for 5ndash8 minutes resp) Cooking was donewith the sample covered with lid except in conventionalcooking To estimate natural (raw) antioxidant content thefirst portion of 10 or 25 g of the edible portion of the samplewas ground in a domestic blender and extracted as such in80 methanol containing 01HCl and final volumes ofGLVs and grain samplesweremade to 50 and 100mL extractsrespectively with 80 methanol

4 Various Antioxidant Methods in Use

Determination of AOA in plant extracts is still an unresolvedproblem It is not possible to evaluate multifunctionalbiological antioxidants in plant foods by a single antioxidant

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 3

method Hence batteries of tests are used about twentydifferent biochemical methods are in practice to asses AOA[19] The exact comparison of the results obtained by dif-ferent methods and their general interpretation may bepractically impossible due to the variability of experimentalconditions and differences in physicochemical properties ofoxidizable substrates Many other factors including colloidalproperties of substrate experimental conditions reactionmedium oxidation state and antioxidant localization indifferent phases may influence antioxidant activity Amongthe different antioxidant parameters in use ABTS (Troloxequivalent antioxidant assay TEACABTS) and DPPH (220-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl) are widely used due to theirsimplicity stability accuracy and reproducibility [20] In areview on the AOA methods Huang et al [21] suggested thatFRAP (ferric reducing antioxidant power) and DPPH arethe two most commonly accepted assays for the estimationof AOA in plant foods In another study Ozgen et al [22]evaluated the three most commonly used AOA methodsand suggested that FRAP lt DPPH lt ABTS in fruits Astudy carried out by Siddhuraju and Becker [20] suggestedthat DPPH lt ABTS lt FRAP showed better antioxidant andfree radical-scavenging activities in processed cow pea andits seed extracts Several new analytical approaches havesuggested investigating antioxidant power of food extracts onthe basis of their electron-donating ability One such recentlysuggested assay is CAAP (chemiluminescence analysis ofantioxidant power) which is a chemiluminescence basedmethod The rapid CAAP assay is said to be convenient toinvestigate the antioxidant power of herbal extracts CAAPmethod showed positive correlation with FRAP (119903 = 0959)[23] Nevertheless FRAP and DPPH assays are the mostwidely used methods Since these assays are electron transferbased assays and often show excellent correlationwith pheno-lic contents and they are carried out in acidic conditions pHvalues have an important effect on the reducing capacity ofantioxidants In acidic conditions reducing capacity tends tobe suppressed due to protonation on antioxidant compoundswhereas in basic conditions proton dissociation of phenoliccompounds would enhance the sample reducing capacity[24]

41 Phenolic Content Soluble and hydrolysable phenoliccontents (free phenols) were estimated as per the proceduredescribed by Singh et al [17] and Singleton and Rossi [25]Values are expressed as Gallic acid equivalents Colorimetricmethod was adopted in the present study since sensitivechromatographicmethod in quantification of phenols is oftenlimited to single class of phenolics and is often limited to low-molecular weight compounds that are available as standardsIt is therefore necessary to use colorimetric assays such asthe Folin-Ciocalteu assaywhich rely on the reducing ability ofphenols to quantify the amount of total phenolics in a sample[26]

42 DPPH Radical-Scavenging Activity DPPH radical-scavenging activity was determined according to Aoshima etal [27]This method is based on the ability of the antioxidant

to scavenge the DPPH cation radical Briefly to 100120583L ofsample extract or standard 29mL of DPPH reagent (01mMin methanol) was added and vortexed vigorously This wasallowed to stand in dark for 30min at room temperature andthe discoloration of DPPH was measured against a suitableblank at 517 nm Percentage inhibition of the discolorationof DPPH by the sample extract was expressed as Troloxequivalents (mg100 g)

43 FRAP Assay Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP)was determined according to Benzie and Strain [28] In thepresence of TPTZ the Fe+2-TPTZ complex exhibits blue colorwhich is read at 593 nm Briefly 30mL of working FRAPreagent was added to an appropriate volumeconcentration ofthe sample extract incubated for 6min at room temperatureand the absorbance was measured at 593 nm against FeSO

4

standard

5 Over View

Current life style is one of themajor causes in the overproduc-tion of free radicals and reactive oxygen species and decreas-ing physiological antioxidant capacity [29] Food providesnot only nutrients essential for life but also other bioactivecompounds for health promotion and disease preventionEpidemiological studies have consistently shown that regularconsumption of plant foods is associated with reduced riskin developing chronic degenerative diseases and biologicalageing [30] Phytochemicals are the bioactive nonnutrientcompounds present in plant foodswhich have been suggestedto be responsible for their bioactivity linked to the reducedrisk of major chronic diseases It has indeed been estimatedthat a healthy diet could prevent approximately 30 of allcancers [31] So far published data from other parts ofthe world and India account only for a minor fraction oftotal polyphenols and AOA of plant foods Therefore it wassuggested to have food composition tables on antioxidantactivity and polyphenolic content of commonly consumedplant foods from developing countries [32] Hence we haveattempted for the first time to get representative values ofAOA in 107 commonly consumed plant foods in IndiaPurposive samples were purchased from three different localmarkets of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secundrabad(India)They were analyzed separately and data presented onfresh weight basis to mimic natural practice of consumptionPC and AOA were assessd in the methanol extracts of thefoods by Folin-Ciocalteumethod andDPPHFRAPmethodsrespectively and the results are expressed as Gallic acid andTroloxFeSO

4equivalents respectively It has been observed

in our studies that the foods studied had good amount ofpolyphenols and antioxidant activity despite the fact that theybelonged to different food groups Also a good correlationwas observed between the natural AOAof the food and itrsquos PC(Table 2) in many of the food groups studied Part of naturalantioxidant data was published by us as full length articleshence range of values are given Data on the effect of domesticprocessing on PC and AOA has been elaborated here since itis not yet published

4 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 1 Natural content of AOA and TPC

S no Group of foods 119899 (107) Antioxidant content (mg100 g) PC (mg100 g G A equ)DPPH (Trol equ) FRAP (FeSO4 equ)

1 Cereals and millets 9 24ndash173 450ndash13093 47ndash3732 Dry fruits 10 271ndash1541 1174ndash32416 99ndash9593 Edible oils and sugars 11 3ndash208 11ndash11674 072ndash3364 Fresh fruits 14 32ndash891 22ndash496lowast 26ndash3745 Green leafy vegetables 11 21ndash1020 1380ndash27827 77ndash10776 Nuts and oil seeds 12 20ndash28622 220ndash4220341 10ndash108417 Pulses and legumes 11 26ndash107 1469ndash10362 62ndash4188 Roots and tubers 10 11ndash125 256ndash6308 22ndash1699 Vegetables 19 12ndash466 243ndash10510 27ndash339Values are expressed on fresh weight basis lowastABTS range of values are given

Table 2 Correlation between PC versus DPPH FRAP

S no Group of Foods 119899 (107) PC versus DPPH (119903) PC versus FRAP (119903) DPPH Versus FRAP (119903)1 Cereals and millets 9 045 091 0842 Dry fruits 10 097 087lowast 081lowast

3 Edible oils and sugars 14 093 093 0994 Fresh fruits 14 077 084lowast 0945 Green leafy vegetables 11 094 095 0966 Nuts and oil seeds 12 099 099 0997 Pulses and legumes 11 016 044 0788 Roots and tubers 10 076 085 0979 Vegetables 19 079 085 075lowastABTS correlations are in natural form

6 Natural DPPH Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of DPPH activities in different food groups arepresented in Table 1 and the values are expressed as mg100 gon fresh weight basis Among all the food groups analysedthe highest DPPH scavenging activity was observed in arecanut (28622mg100 g)while the activity was the least in carrots1106 The DPPH activity in cereals and millets ranged from24ndash173mg100 g with the highest activity being found infinger millet and the lowest in Semolina The activity inlegumes and pulses ranged 26ndash107mg100 g with the highestin rajma and the lowest in roasted Bengal gram dhal Amongthe nuts and oil seeds studied the DPPH values ranged from20ndash28622mg100 with areca nut showing the highest andcoconutwater having the least activities Among the dry fruitsDPPH activity ranged 271ndash1541mg100 g with the highestactivity being in walnuts and the lowest in piyal seeds Onthe other hand among fresh fruits the values ranged 32ndash891mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest inwatermelon In green leafy vegetables the values ranged 21ndash1021mg100 g with Curry leaves having the highest whereasspinach had the least activity In roots and tubers categorythe DPPH activity ranged 11ndash125mg100 g with the highestactivity being found in red beet root and the lowest in carrotAmong the vegetables studied the DPPH values ranged 12ndash466mg100 g The highest activity was found in okra and thelowest was in ridge gourd Due to scanty data available in

the literature on DPPH activity in Indian plant foods it wasnot possible for us to compare these DPPH findings with theliterature

7 Natural FRAP Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of FRAP activities in different food groupsare presented in Table 1 and the values are expressed asmg100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the food groupsanalyzed the highest FRAP activity was observed in arecanut 4220341mg100 g while the activity was the least insunflower oil 3610 Salient findings are as follows Cerealsand millets ranged 450ndash13093mg100 g highest activity wasfound in finger millet and the lowest was in SemolinaAmong the dry fruits activity ranged 1174ndash32416mg100 gwith the highest being in walnuts and the lowest in cashewnuts whereas in fresh fruits ABTS activity ranged 22ndash496mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest wasin pineapple Some of these findings are in agreement withthe literature values of fresh fruits [32]The AOA determinedby ABTS in fresh fruits and FRAP in dry fruits showed thatboth had reasonably good AOA Interestingly dry fruits hadhigher activity than fresh fruits probably due to their lowmoisture content It was pertinent to assess whether theseobservations made by two different methods in fresh anddry fruits could be validated by a common third method

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 5

Therefore we determined the AOA in fresh and dry fruits bytheDPPH scavengingmethod anothermost commonly usedantioxidant biochemical parameter FRAP activity in greenleafy vegetables ranges 1380ndash27827mg100 g mint leaves hadhighest activity and the lowest was in spinach Edible oilsand sugars range 36ndash11674mg100 g the highest activityfound in jaggery and lowest in groundnut oil (unrefined)Among the nuts and oil seeds studied FRAP ranges 220ndash4220341mg100 g the areca nut showed the highest activityand lowest was in coconut water In pulses and legumes FRAPranged 1469ndash10362mg100 g with the highest in rajma andthe lowest in green gram dhalThe roots and tubers showed awide range 256ndash6308mg100 g and beet root had the highestand carrot the least Among the vegetables studied FRAPranges 243ndash10510mg100 g The highest activity was found inred cabbage and the lowest in pumpkin Due to scanty datait was not possible for us to compare our FRAP finding withthe literature

8 Natural Phenolic Content in Group ofPlant Foods

The soluble total phenolic content (PC) data is presentedin Table 1 Values are presented as mg Gallic acid equiv-alent100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the foodgroups analyzed the highest PC was observed in arecanut 10841GAE100 g and was the least in coconut water1000 Coming to different food groups in cerealsmilletsPC values ranged 47ndash373mg100 g finger millets (Ragi)had the highest (373mg100 g) while milled rice had thelowest (47mg100 g) Dry fruits values range from 99 to959mg100 g of whichwalnuts (959mg100 g) and piyal seeds(99mg100 g) had the highest and the lowest PC respectivelyPC of fresh fruits ranged from 26 to 374mg100 g with thehighest PC being in guava (374) and the least in watermelon(26mg100 g) PC of Papaya and sapota observed here arein agreement with reported data from other parts of theworld [33] orange [34] pineapple [35] and apple [36]Among the GLVs PC was ranging 77ndash1077mg100 g curryleaves have the highest (1077mg100 g) and the lowest was inspinach (77mg100 g) To compare our findings on naturalphenolic contents of GLVs as such there is very little or nopublished data available from India However Gupta andPrakash [12] analyzed phenolic content in 4GLV samplesof which phenolic contents of fenugreek leaves values arecomparablewith our finding 158 versus 163mg100 g whereasAmaranth and Curry leaves data is remarkably different fromour findings 253 and 1077mg100 g respectively while thereported values are 150 and 387mg100 gThis variation couldbe due to the fact that they used tannic acid as standardwhereas we used Gallic acid However it is not clear fromGupta and Prakash study [12] whether the data presentedby them was on dry or on fresh weight basis wasgiven Coming to edible oils and sugars the PC values ranged072ndash336mg100 g Jaggery had the highest PC (336mg100 g)while the lowest was in Vanaspati (072mg100 g) Nuts andoil seeds ranged from 10 to 10841mg100 g areca nut hadthe highest phenolic content (10841mg100 g) and coconuts

water the least (10mg100 g) Among the pulses and legumesvalues ranged from 62ndash418mg100 g black gram dhal hadthe highest (418mg100 g) while green gram dhal had theleast (62mg100 g) Roots and tubers showed a wide range(22ndash169mg100 g) and beet root had the highest and carrotthe least Phenolic content of vegetables ranged from 27 to339mg100 g and red cabbage had the highest and ridgegourd the lowest Very little published data is available onPC of Indian plant foods some findings are in agreementwith our data [37] However phenolic contents of plantfoods can significantly vary due to various other factors likeplant genetics and cultivar soil composition and growingconditions maturity state and postharvest conditions and soforth [38]

9 Correlation between PC DPPH and FRAP(in a Group of Natural Plant Foods)

Our observations on correlation between DPPH FRAP andPC of cereals pulses and legumes are in agreement withan earlier report [18] in that no significant correlation wasobserved between these two parameters among these foodgrains Interestingly no correlation was observed amongPC DPPH and ABTS in wheat extracts [20] The lack ofcorrelation in cereal and legume grains could be due to thedifferences in the bound and free forms of phytochemicalspresent in them It was observed that there was a possibilityof underestimation of phenolic compounds in cereallegumegrains due to the differences in bound and free phenolicspresent in them The bound phenolics contribute about 62in rice to 85 in corn [5] Another possibility could be dueto the different responses of different phenolic compoundsin different assay systems Since the molecular antioxidantresponses of phenolic compounds vary remarkably depend-ing on their chemical structure their AOAdoes not necessar-ily correlate with the PC in grains [39]

However both in dry and fresh fruits there was a goodcorrelation between PC and AOA and our findings arein agreement with the available literature on the phenoliccontent of fresh and dry fruits [10] However the discordancein phenolic content of different groups of foods studiedcould be due to varietal seasonal agronomical and genomicdifferences moisture content method of extraction andstandards used and so forth [40] Among GLVs there was agood correlation among the PC and antioxidant parametersstudied (Table 2) However little information is available inthe literature on the AOA and PC correlations in GLVs [12]

Although edible oils and sugars belong to different foodgroups there was a good correlation among their PC andAOA parameters in that the ldquo119903rdquo value was 093 between boththe AOA parameters and PC Among nuts and oil seedsa significant correlation was observed between AOA (bothDPPH and FRAP) and PC The ldquo119903rdquo value between PC andAOA was 099 indicating the importance of PC to theirAOA as assessed by these two methods These findings arein agreement with earlier reports of this nature [10]

Correlations between the antioxidant activity and phe-nolic content of roots tubers and vegetables are given in

6 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 2 In general there was a good correlation betweenthe PC and AOA among the vegetables roots and tubersstudied A significant correlation (119875 lt 001) was observedbetween PC and AOA both in roots and tubers (119903 valuesbeing 076 and 085 resp with DPPH and FRAP) and othervegetables (119903 = 079 and 085 with DPPH and FRAP) Thesefindings suggest that PC may be an important contributor totheAOAof roots tubers and vegetables our observations arein agreement with the literature from other parts of the world[34]

10 Effect of Domestic Cooking on PC andAOA in Green Leafy Vegetables

Plant foods are often consumed in one or the other processedforms Therefore it was considered pertinent to study theeffect of common domestic processing (cooking) methodson the natural antioxidant activity and phenolic contentof a few commonly consumed plant foods Since oxidantsand antioxidants have different chemical and physical char-acteristics different types of cooking may bring differenttype of alterations in antioxidant activities of different foodsFurther if polyphenol intakes are calculated based on rawplant foods the intake values computed may not be accurateHence effect of cooking was determined on phenolic contentand antioxidant activity in commonly consumed green leafyvegetables (GLVs) and food grains

Effect of cooking on PC and AOA of GLVs is presented inTables 3ndash6 Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of foodscooked by different methods were compared with its natural(raw) activity from same portion of subsample In generaldifferent cooking methods used in this study did not affectthe AOA and phenolic contents in most of the GLVs Percentchange in the phenolic content (PC) or antioxidant activity(AOA) on cooking is given in parentheses with respectiveraw GLV value (Tables 3ndash6) Differences were consideredsignificant at a 119875 value at least lt005

Out of the eleven GLVs studied only two GLVs namelyAmbat Chukka and Ponnaganti showed a small decrease of10ndash20 in their PC content on cooking While Gogu showedvery little or no change on cooking The other eight GLVsshowed an increase in PC during different types of cooking(Table 3) Among them six GLVs namely Amaranth Curryleaves Fennel Fenugreek Purslane and Sorrel leaves showedan increase in PC ranging 108minus146 on cooking CorianderMint and spinach showed a significant increase in PC in theabove cooking methods and the increase was ranging 125ndash211 (Table 1) As such there is very little data of this kindreported in the literature Kuti andKonuru [41] demonstratedin spinach leaves a similar increasing trend in PC on cookingContrary to this Faller and Fialho [42] showed cookingloss in PC in vegetables The possible explanation for theincreasing or decreasing trends of phenolic contents duringvarious cooking methods could be that the phenolics arestored in pectin or cellulose networks of plant foods and canbe released during thermal processing In turn individualphenolics may sometime increase because heat can breaksupramolecular structure which might make the phenoliccompounds react better with the reagents [43]

Effect of cooking on DPPH scavenging activity is givenin Table 4 The increase or decrease activity in differentGLVs during different cooking methods was compared withits natural DPPH activity of the raw GLV Our findings onchanges in DPPH are in line with those in PC In generalan increasing trend in DPPH activity on cooking was seenin most of the GLVs studied Out of eleven GLVs marginaleffect of 1ndash10 was seen only in Ambat Chukka Most of theGLVs showed an increasing trend in all the three methodsof cooking Among them Purslane and Ponnaganti showed10ndash20 increase whereas Amaranth and Mint showed 17ndash50 increase Coriander andCurry leaves showed an increaseof 38ndash133 During conventional cooking curry leavesshowed little effect (lt7)while spinach showed an enormousincrease of 221ndash381 Remaining three GLVs namely FennelFenugreek and Gogu leaves did not show any effect inconventional and pressure cooking but inmicrowave cookingalone showed about 31ndash36 increase (Table 4) This could bedue to effect of high temperature as compared to the abovetwo methods of heat treatment Considering that no data ofsimilar type is available from other parts of the world weare unable to compare our findings with literature reportsData available on other vegetables (not GLVs) reported amixed trend which is in agreement with our results Indeedan increasing trend was observed in potatoes [44] while adecreasing trend was reported in other vegetables [42]

Effect of cooking on FRAP is presented in Table 5This biochemical indicator was chosen as the second mostcommonly used antioxidant biochemical parameter Againsimilar increasing trends were seen in FRAP activity oncooking Most of the GLVs (nine out of eleven) showed anincrease ranging 119ndash181 While Coriander and spinachleaves showed an enormous increase two other GLVs AmbatChukka and Ponnaganti showed a decrease (maximum of10) This type of complex trend during cooking requiresfurther research [45] However the present data on naturalantioxidant content in commonly consumed GLVs is thefirst data of its kind from India Secondly our findings onthe effect of different methods of cooking in above GLVsmost of them show an increase in AOA it could be due tobetter availability of bound phenolics Correlation among thethree biochemical parameters and effect of different methodsof cooking were assessed next and these correlations werecompared by using rank correlations (Table 6) Phenolicsversus antioxidant parameters in different cooking methodsare highly correlated Findings of this study suggest thatalthough different cooking methods showed changes (highlysignificant in some cases) in the phenolic content and AOAof the GLVs there was no effect of domestic cooking onthe correlation between the PC and AOA This observationconfirms that PC may be important contributor to the AOAof GLVs both in raw and cooked forms

11 Effect of Domestic Cooking (Food Grains)

PC and AOA of the food grains (raw and cooked by differentmethods) are presented in Tables 7ndash9 The PC of rawwhole green gram (with peel) was the highest (284mg100 g)followed by black rajma (146mg100 g) Green gram dhal

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 7

Table 3 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 2530a(100)

275b(108)

355c(140)

312d(123)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 1003(100)

90(89)

93(92)

91(91)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 2396a(100)

417b(174)

451c(188)

506d(211)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10770a(100)

1434b(133)

1184c(109)

1377d(127)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 2513(100)

268(106)

265(105)

312(124)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonellafoenum-graecum

1633a(100)

180a(110)

176a(107)

220b(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 946a(100)

128b(135)

138b(146)

128b(135)

8 Sorrel leaves Hibiscus cannabinus 1913(100)

194(101)

211(107)

213(111)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 4403a(100)

657b(149)

796c(180)

761c(172)

10 Water amaranth Alternanthera sessilis 1363(100)

122(89)

110(80)

123(90)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 770a(100)

96b(125)

125c(162)

117c(152)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric KruskalWallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 4 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100 g Trolox Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 4056a(100)

520b(128)

527b(129)

476b(117)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 853(100)

87(101)

83(97)

94(110)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 4710a(100)

886b(181)

948b(201)

1100c(233)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10206a(100)

950b(93)

1724c(168)

1418d(138)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 5453(100)

592(108)

540(99)

746(136)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 1443(100)

142(98)

127(87)

193(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 1383(100)

162(117)

165(119)

151(109)

8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 3460(100)

365(105)

334(96)

456(131)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 13686(100)

2055(150)

1856(135)

2020(147)

10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 1730(100)

172(99)

203(117)

198(114)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 216a(100)

69b(321)

85c(393)

104d(481)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 3

method Hence batteries of tests are used about twentydifferent biochemical methods are in practice to asses AOA[19] The exact comparison of the results obtained by dif-ferent methods and their general interpretation may bepractically impossible due to the variability of experimentalconditions and differences in physicochemical properties ofoxidizable substrates Many other factors including colloidalproperties of substrate experimental conditions reactionmedium oxidation state and antioxidant localization indifferent phases may influence antioxidant activity Amongthe different antioxidant parameters in use ABTS (Troloxequivalent antioxidant assay TEACABTS) and DPPH (220-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl) are widely used due to theirsimplicity stability accuracy and reproducibility [20] In areview on the AOA methods Huang et al [21] suggested thatFRAP (ferric reducing antioxidant power) and DPPH arethe two most commonly accepted assays for the estimationof AOA in plant foods In another study Ozgen et al [22]evaluated the three most commonly used AOA methodsand suggested that FRAP lt DPPH lt ABTS in fruits Astudy carried out by Siddhuraju and Becker [20] suggestedthat DPPH lt ABTS lt FRAP showed better antioxidant andfree radical-scavenging activities in processed cow pea andits seed extracts Several new analytical approaches havesuggested investigating antioxidant power of food extracts onthe basis of their electron-donating ability One such recentlysuggested assay is CAAP (chemiluminescence analysis ofantioxidant power) which is a chemiluminescence basedmethod The rapid CAAP assay is said to be convenient toinvestigate the antioxidant power of herbal extracts CAAPmethod showed positive correlation with FRAP (119903 = 0959)[23] Nevertheless FRAP and DPPH assays are the mostwidely used methods Since these assays are electron transferbased assays and often show excellent correlationwith pheno-lic contents and they are carried out in acidic conditions pHvalues have an important effect on the reducing capacity ofantioxidants In acidic conditions reducing capacity tends tobe suppressed due to protonation on antioxidant compoundswhereas in basic conditions proton dissociation of phenoliccompounds would enhance the sample reducing capacity[24]

41 Phenolic Content Soluble and hydrolysable phenoliccontents (free phenols) were estimated as per the proceduredescribed by Singh et al [17] and Singleton and Rossi [25]Values are expressed as Gallic acid equivalents Colorimetricmethod was adopted in the present study since sensitivechromatographicmethod in quantification of phenols is oftenlimited to single class of phenolics and is often limited to low-molecular weight compounds that are available as standardsIt is therefore necessary to use colorimetric assays such asthe Folin-Ciocalteu assaywhich rely on the reducing ability ofphenols to quantify the amount of total phenolics in a sample[26]

42 DPPH Radical-Scavenging Activity DPPH radical-scavenging activity was determined according to Aoshima etal [27]This method is based on the ability of the antioxidant

to scavenge the DPPH cation radical Briefly to 100120583L ofsample extract or standard 29mL of DPPH reagent (01mMin methanol) was added and vortexed vigorously This wasallowed to stand in dark for 30min at room temperature andthe discoloration of DPPH was measured against a suitableblank at 517 nm Percentage inhibition of the discolorationof DPPH by the sample extract was expressed as Troloxequivalents (mg100 g)

43 FRAP Assay Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP)was determined according to Benzie and Strain [28] In thepresence of TPTZ the Fe+2-TPTZ complex exhibits blue colorwhich is read at 593 nm Briefly 30mL of working FRAPreagent was added to an appropriate volumeconcentration ofthe sample extract incubated for 6min at room temperatureand the absorbance was measured at 593 nm against FeSO

4

standard

5 Over View

Current life style is one of themajor causes in the overproduc-tion of free radicals and reactive oxygen species and decreas-ing physiological antioxidant capacity [29] Food providesnot only nutrients essential for life but also other bioactivecompounds for health promotion and disease preventionEpidemiological studies have consistently shown that regularconsumption of plant foods is associated with reduced riskin developing chronic degenerative diseases and biologicalageing [30] Phytochemicals are the bioactive nonnutrientcompounds present in plant foodswhich have been suggestedto be responsible for their bioactivity linked to the reducedrisk of major chronic diseases It has indeed been estimatedthat a healthy diet could prevent approximately 30 of allcancers [31] So far published data from other parts ofthe world and India account only for a minor fraction oftotal polyphenols and AOA of plant foods Therefore it wassuggested to have food composition tables on antioxidantactivity and polyphenolic content of commonly consumedplant foods from developing countries [32] Hence we haveattempted for the first time to get representative values ofAOA in 107 commonly consumed plant foods in IndiaPurposive samples were purchased from three different localmarkets of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secundrabad(India)They were analyzed separately and data presented onfresh weight basis to mimic natural practice of consumptionPC and AOA were assessd in the methanol extracts of thefoods by Folin-Ciocalteumethod andDPPHFRAPmethodsrespectively and the results are expressed as Gallic acid andTroloxFeSO

4equivalents respectively It has been observed

in our studies that the foods studied had good amount ofpolyphenols and antioxidant activity despite the fact that theybelonged to different food groups Also a good correlationwas observed between the natural AOAof the food and itrsquos PC(Table 2) in many of the food groups studied Part of naturalantioxidant data was published by us as full length articleshence range of values are given Data on the effect of domesticprocessing on PC and AOA has been elaborated here since itis not yet published

4 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 1 Natural content of AOA and TPC

S no Group of foods 119899 (107) Antioxidant content (mg100 g) PC (mg100 g G A equ)DPPH (Trol equ) FRAP (FeSO4 equ)

1 Cereals and millets 9 24ndash173 450ndash13093 47ndash3732 Dry fruits 10 271ndash1541 1174ndash32416 99ndash9593 Edible oils and sugars 11 3ndash208 11ndash11674 072ndash3364 Fresh fruits 14 32ndash891 22ndash496lowast 26ndash3745 Green leafy vegetables 11 21ndash1020 1380ndash27827 77ndash10776 Nuts and oil seeds 12 20ndash28622 220ndash4220341 10ndash108417 Pulses and legumes 11 26ndash107 1469ndash10362 62ndash4188 Roots and tubers 10 11ndash125 256ndash6308 22ndash1699 Vegetables 19 12ndash466 243ndash10510 27ndash339Values are expressed on fresh weight basis lowastABTS range of values are given

Table 2 Correlation between PC versus DPPH FRAP

S no Group of Foods 119899 (107) PC versus DPPH (119903) PC versus FRAP (119903) DPPH Versus FRAP (119903)1 Cereals and millets 9 045 091 0842 Dry fruits 10 097 087lowast 081lowast

3 Edible oils and sugars 14 093 093 0994 Fresh fruits 14 077 084lowast 0945 Green leafy vegetables 11 094 095 0966 Nuts and oil seeds 12 099 099 0997 Pulses and legumes 11 016 044 0788 Roots and tubers 10 076 085 0979 Vegetables 19 079 085 075lowastABTS correlations are in natural form

6 Natural DPPH Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of DPPH activities in different food groups arepresented in Table 1 and the values are expressed as mg100 gon fresh weight basis Among all the food groups analysedthe highest DPPH scavenging activity was observed in arecanut (28622mg100 g)while the activity was the least in carrots1106 The DPPH activity in cereals and millets ranged from24ndash173mg100 g with the highest activity being found infinger millet and the lowest in Semolina The activity inlegumes and pulses ranged 26ndash107mg100 g with the highestin rajma and the lowest in roasted Bengal gram dhal Amongthe nuts and oil seeds studied the DPPH values ranged from20ndash28622mg100 with areca nut showing the highest andcoconutwater having the least activities Among the dry fruitsDPPH activity ranged 271ndash1541mg100 g with the highestactivity being in walnuts and the lowest in piyal seeds Onthe other hand among fresh fruits the values ranged 32ndash891mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest inwatermelon In green leafy vegetables the values ranged 21ndash1021mg100 g with Curry leaves having the highest whereasspinach had the least activity In roots and tubers categorythe DPPH activity ranged 11ndash125mg100 g with the highestactivity being found in red beet root and the lowest in carrotAmong the vegetables studied the DPPH values ranged 12ndash466mg100 g The highest activity was found in okra and thelowest was in ridge gourd Due to scanty data available in

the literature on DPPH activity in Indian plant foods it wasnot possible for us to compare these DPPH findings with theliterature

7 Natural FRAP Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of FRAP activities in different food groupsare presented in Table 1 and the values are expressed asmg100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the food groupsanalyzed the highest FRAP activity was observed in arecanut 4220341mg100 g while the activity was the least insunflower oil 3610 Salient findings are as follows Cerealsand millets ranged 450ndash13093mg100 g highest activity wasfound in finger millet and the lowest was in SemolinaAmong the dry fruits activity ranged 1174ndash32416mg100 gwith the highest being in walnuts and the lowest in cashewnuts whereas in fresh fruits ABTS activity ranged 22ndash496mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest wasin pineapple Some of these findings are in agreement withthe literature values of fresh fruits [32]The AOA determinedby ABTS in fresh fruits and FRAP in dry fruits showed thatboth had reasonably good AOA Interestingly dry fruits hadhigher activity than fresh fruits probably due to their lowmoisture content It was pertinent to assess whether theseobservations made by two different methods in fresh anddry fruits could be validated by a common third method

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 5

Therefore we determined the AOA in fresh and dry fruits bytheDPPH scavengingmethod anothermost commonly usedantioxidant biochemical parameter FRAP activity in greenleafy vegetables ranges 1380ndash27827mg100 g mint leaves hadhighest activity and the lowest was in spinach Edible oilsand sugars range 36ndash11674mg100 g the highest activityfound in jaggery and lowest in groundnut oil (unrefined)Among the nuts and oil seeds studied FRAP ranges 220ndash4220341mg100 g the areca nut showed the highest activityand lowest was in coconut water In pulses and legumes FRAPranged 1469ndash10362mg100 g with the highest in rajma andthe lowest in green gram dhalThe roots and tubers showed awide range 256ndash6308mg100 g and beet root had the highestand carrot the least Among the vegetables studied FRAPranges 243ndash10510mg100 g The highest activity was found inred cabbage and the lowest in pumpkin Due to scanty datait was not possible for us to compare our FRAP finding withthe literature

8 Natural Phenolic Content in Group ofPlant Foods

The soluble total phenolic content (PC) data is presentedin Table 1 Values are presented as mg Gallic acid equiv-alent100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the foodgroups analyzed the highest PC was observed in arecanut 10841GAE100 g and was the least in coconut water1000 Coming to different food groups in cerealsmilletsPC values ranged 47ndash373mg100 g finger millets (Ragi)had the highest (373mg100 g) while milled rice had thelowest (47mg100 g) Dry fruits values range from 99 to959mg100 g of whichwalnuts (959mg100 g) and piyal seeds(99mg100 g) had the highest and the lowest PC respectivelyPC of fresh fruits ranged from 26 to 374mg100 g with thehighest PC being in guava (374) and the least in watermelon(26mg100 g) PC of Papaya and sapota observed here arein agreement with reported data from other parts of theworld [33] orange [34] pineapple [35] and apple [36]Among the GLVs PC was ranging 77ndash1077mg100 g curryleaves have the highest (1077mg100 g) and the lowest was inspinach (77mg100 g) To compare our findings on naturalphenolic contents of GLVs as such there is very little or nopublished data available from India However Gupta andPrakash [12] analyzed phenolic content in 4GLV samplesof which phenolic contents of fenugreek leaves values arecomparablewith our finding 158 versus 163mg100 g whereasAmaranth and Curry leaves data is remarkably different fromour findings 253 and 1077mg100 g respectively while thereported values are 150 and 387mg100 gThis variation couldbe due to the fact that they used tannic acid as standardwhereas we used Gallic acid However it is not clear fromGupta and Prakash study [12] whether the data presentedby them was on dry or on fresh weight basis wasgiven Coming to edible oils and sugars the PC values ranged072ndash336mg100 g Jaggery had the highest PC (336mg100 g)while the lowest was in Vanaspati (072mg100 g) Nuts andoil seeds ranged from 10 to 10841mg100 g areca nut hadthe highest phenolic content (10841mg100 g) and coconuts

water the least (10mg100 g) Among the pulses and legumesvalues ranged from 62ndash418mg100 g black gram dhal hadthe highest (418mg100 g) while green gram dhal had theleast (62mg100 g) Roots and tubers showed a wide range(22ndash169mg100 g) and beet root had the highest and carrotthe least Phenolic content of vegetables ranged from 27 to339mg100 g and red cabbage had the highest and ridgegourd the lowest Very little published data is available onPC of Indian plant foods some findings are in agreementwith our data [37] However phenolic contents of plantfoods can significantly vary due to various other factors likeplant genetics and cultivar soil composition and growingconditions maturity state and postharvest conditions and soforth [38]

9 Correlation between PC DPPH and FRAP(in a Group of Natural Plant Foods)

Our observations on correlation between DPPH FRAP andPC of cereals pulses and legumes are in agreement withan earlier report [18] in that no significant correlation wasobserved between these two parameters among these foodgrains Interestingly no correlation was observed amongPC DPPH and ABTS in wheat extracts [20] The lack ofcorrelation in cereal and legume grains could be due to thedifferences in the bound and free forms of phytochemicalspresent in them It was observed that there was a possibilityof underestimation of phenolic compounds in cereallegumegrains due to the differences in bound and free phenolicspresent in them The bound phenolics contribute about 62in rice to 85 in corn [5] Another possibility could be dueto the different responses of different phenolic compoundsin different assay systems Since the molecular antioxidantresponses of phenolic compounds vary remarkably depend-ing on their chemical structure their AOAdoes not necessar-ily correlate with the PC in grains [39]

However both in dry and fresh fruits there was a goodcorrelation between PC and AOA and our findings arein agreement with the available literature on the phenoliccontent of fresh and dry fruits [10] However the discordancein phenolic content of different groups of foods studiedcould be due to varietal seasonal agronomical and genomicdifferences moisture content method of extraction andstandards used and so forth [40] Among GLVs there was agood correlation among the PC and antioxidant parametersstudied (Table 2) However little information is available inthe literature on the AOA and PC correlations in GLVs [12]

Although edible oils and sugars belong to different foodgroups there was a good correlation among their PC andAOA parameters in that the ldquo119903rdquo value was 093 between boththe AOA parameters and PC Among nuts and oil seedsa significant correlation was observed between AOA (bothDPPH and FRAP) and PC The ldquo119903rdquo value between PC andAOA was 099 indicating the importance of PC to theirAOA as assessed by these two methods These findings arein agreement with earlier reports of this nature [10]

Correlations between the antioxidant activity and phe-nolic content of roots tubers and vegetables are given in

6 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 2 In general there was a good correlation betweenthe PC and AOA among the vegetables roots and tubersstudied A significant correlation (119875 lt 001) was observedbetween PC and AOA both in roots and tubers (119903 valuesbeing 076 and 085 resp with DPPH and FRAP) and othervegetables (119903 = 079 and 085 with DPPH and FRAP) Thesefindings suggest that PC may be an important contributor totheAOAof roots tubers and vegetables our observations arein agreement with the literature from other parts of the world[34]

10 Effect of Domestic Cooking on PC andAOA in Green Leafy Vegetables

Plant foods are often consumed in one or the other processedforms Therefore it was considered pertinent to study theeffect of common domestic processing (cooking) methodson the natural antioxidant activity and phenolic contentof a few commonly consumed plant foods Since oxidantsand antioxidants have different chemical and physical char-acteristics different types of cooking may bring differenttype of alterations in antioxidant activities of different foodsFurther if polyphenol intakes are calculated based on rawplant foods the intake values computed may not be accurateHence effect of cooking was determined on phenolic contentand antioxidant activity in commonly consumed green leafyvegetables (GLVs) and food grains

Effect of cooking on PC and AOA of GLVs is presented inTables 3ndash6 Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of foodscooked by different methods were compared with its natural(raw) activity from same portion of subsample In generaldifferent cooking methods used in this study did not affectthe AOA and phenolic contents in most of the GLVs Percentchange in the phenolic content (PC) or antioxidant activity(AOA) on cooking is given in parentheses with respectiveraw GLV value (Tables 3ndash6) Differences were consideredsignificant at a 119875 value at least lt005

Out of the eleven GLVs studied only two GLVs namelyAmbat Chukka and Ponnaganti showed a small decrease of10ndash20 in their PC content on cooking While Gogu showedvery little or no change on cooking The other eight GLVsshowed an increase in PC during different types of cooking(Table 3) Among them six GLVs namely Amaranth Curryleaves Fennel Fenugreek Purslane and Sorrel leaves showedan increase in PC ranging 108minus146 on cooking CorianderMint and spinach showed a significant increase in PC in theabove cooking methods and the increase was ranging 125ndash211 (Table 1) As such there is very little data of this kindreported in the literature Kuti andKonuru [41] demonstratedin spinach leaves a similar increasing trend in PC on cookingContrary to this Faller and Fialho [42] showed cookingloss in PC in vegetables The possible explanation for theincreasing or decreasing trends of phenolic contents duringvarious cooking methods could be that the phenolics arestored in pectin or cellulose networks of plant foods and canbe released during thermal processing In turn individualphenolics may sometime increase because heat can breaksupramolecular structure which might make the phenoliccompounds react better with the reagents [43]

Effect of cooking on DPPH scavenging activity is givenin Table 4 The increase or decrease activity in differentGLVs during different cooking methods was compared withits natural DPPH activity of the raw GLV Our findings onchanges in DPPH are in line with those in PC In generalan increasing trend in DPPH activity on cooking was seenin most of the GLVs studied Out of eleven GLVs marginaleffect of 1ndash10 was seen only in Ambat Chukka Most of theGLVs showed an increasing trend in all the three methodsof cooking Among them Purslane and Ponnaganti showed10ndash20 increase whereas Amaranth and Mint showed 17ndash50 increase Coriander andCurry leaves showed an increaseof 38ndash133 During conventional cooking curry leavesshowed little effect (lt7)while spinach showed an enormousincrease of 221ndash381 Remaining three GLVs namely FennelFenugreek and Gogu leaves did not show any effect inconventional and pressure cooking but inmicrowave cookingalone showed about 31ndash36 increase (Table 4) This could bedue to effect of high temperature as compared to the abovetwo methods of heat treatment Considering that no data ofsimilar type is available from other parts of the world weare unable to compare our findings with literature reportsData available on other vegetables (not GLVs) reported amixed trend which is in agreement with our results Indeedan increasing trend was observed in potatoes [44] while adecreasing trend was reported in other vegetables [42]

Effect of cooking on FRAP is presented in Table 5This biochemical indicator was chosen as the second mostcommonly used antioxidant biochemical parameter Againsimilar increasing trends were seen in FRAP activity oncooking Most of the GLVs (nine out of eleven) showed anincrease ranging 119ndash181 While Coriander and spinachleaves showed an enormous increase two other GLVs AmbatChukka and Ponnaganti showed a decrease (maximum of10) This type of complex trend during cooking requiresfurther research [45] However the present data on naturalantioxidant content in commonly consumed GLVs is thefirst data of its kind from India Secondly our findings onthe effect of different methods of cooking in above GLVsmost of them show an increase in AOA it could be due tobetter availability of bound phenolics Correlation among thethree biochemical parameters and effect of different methodsof cooking were assessed next and these correlations werecompared by using rank correlations (Table 6) Phenolicsversus antioxidant parameters in different cooking methodsare highly correlated Findings of this study suggest thatalthough different cooking methods showed changes (highlysignificant in some cases) in the phenolic content and AOAof the GLVs there was no effect of domestic cooking onthe correlation between the PC and AOA This observationconfirms that PC may be important contributor to the AOAof GLVs both in raw and cooked forms

11 Effect of Domestic Cooking (Food Grains)

PC and AOA of the food grains (raw and cooked by differentmethods) are presented in Tables 7ndash9 The PC of rawwhole green gram (with peel) was the highest (284mg100 g)followed by black rajma (146mg100 g) Green gram dhal

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 7

Table 3 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 2530a(100)

275b(108)

355c(140)

312d(123)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 1003(100)

90(89)

93(92)

91(91)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 2396a(100)

417b(174)

451c(188)

506d(211)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10770a(100)

1434b(133)

1184c(109)

1377d(127)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 2513(100)

268(106)

265(105)

312(124)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonellafoenum-graecum

1633a(100)

180a(110)

176a(107)

220b(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 946a(100)

128b(135)

138b(146)

128b(135)

8 Sorrel leaves Hibiscus cannabinus 1913(100)

194(101)

211(107)

213(111)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 4403a(100)

657b(149)

796c(180)

761c(172)

10 Water amaranth Alternanthera sessilis 1363(100)

122(89)

110(80)

123(90)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 770a(100)

96b(125)

125c(162)

117c(152)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric KruskalWallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 4 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100 g Trolox Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 4056a(100)

520b(128)

527b(129)

476b(117)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 853(100)

87(101)

83(97)

94(110)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 4710a(100)

886b(181)

948b(201)

1100c(233)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10206a(100)

950b(93)

1724c(168)

1418d(138)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 5453(100)

592(108)

540(99)

746(136)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 1443(100)

142(98)

127(87)

193(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 1383(100)

162(117)

165(119)

151(109)

8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 3460(100)

365(105)

334(96)

456(131)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 13686(100)

2055(150)

1856(135)

2020(147)

10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 1730(100)

172(99)

203(117)

198(114)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 216a(100)

69b(321)

85c(393)

104d(481)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

4 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 1 Natural content of AOA and TPC

S no Group of foods 119899 (107) Antioxidant content (mg100 g) PC (mg100 g G A equ)DPPH (Trol equ) FRAP (FeSO4 equ)

1 Cereals and millets 9 24ndash173 450ndash13093 47ndash3732 Dry fruits 10 271ndash1541 1174ndash32416 99ndash9593 Edible oils and sugars 11 3ndash208 11ndash11674 072ndash3364 Fresh fruits 14 32ndash891 22ndash496lowast 26ndash3745 Green leafy vegetables 11 21ndash1020 1380ndash27827 77ndash10776 Nuts and oil seeds 12 20ndash28622 220ndash4220341 10ndash108417 Pulses and legumes 11 26ndash107 1469ndash10362 62ndash4188 Roots and tubers 10 11ndash125 256ndash6308 22ndash1699 Vegetables 19 12ndash466 243ndash10510 27ndash339Values are expressed on fresh weight basis lowastABTS range of values are given

Table 2 Correlation between PC versus DPPH FRAP

S no Group of Foods 119899 (107) PC versus DPPH (119903) PC versus FRAP (119903) DPPH Versus FRAP (119903)1 Cereals and millets 9 045 091 0842 Dry fruits 10 097 087lowast 081lowast

3 Edible oils and sugars 14 093 093 0994 Fresh fruits 14 077 084lowast 0945 Green leafy vegetables 11 094 095 0966 Nuts and oil seeds 12 099 099 0997 Pulses and legumes 11 016 044 0788 Roots and tubers 10 076 085 0979 Vegetables 19 079 085 075lowastABTS correlations are in natural form

6 Natural DPPH Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of DPPH activities in different food groups arepresented in Table 1 and the values are expressed as mg100 gon fresh weight basis Among all the food groups analysedthe highest DPPH scavenging activity was observed in arecanut (28622mg100 g)while the activity was the least in carrots1106 The DPPH activity in cereals and millets ranged from24ndash173mg100 g with the highest activity being found infinger millet and the lowest in Semolina The activity inlegumes and pulses ranged 26ndash107mg100 g with the highestin rajma and the lowest in roasted Bengal gram dhal Amongthe nuts and oil seeds studied the DPPH values ranged from20ndash28622mg100 with areca nut showing the highest andcoconutwater having the least activities Among the dry fruitsDPPH activity ranged 271ndash1541mg100 g with the highestactivity being in walnuts and the lowest in piyal seeds Onthe other hand among fresh fruits the values ranged 32ndash891mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest inwatermelon In green leafy vegetables the values ranged 21ndash1021mg100 g with Curry leaves having the highest whereasspinach had the least activity In roots and tubers categorythe DPPH activity ranged 11ndash125mg100 g with the highestactivity being found in red beet root and the lowest in carrotAmong the vegetables studied the DPPH values ranged 12ndash466mg100 g The highest activity was found in okra and thelowest was in ridge gourd Due to scanty data available in

the literature on DPPH activity in Indian plant foods it wasnot possible for us to compare these DPPH findings with theliterature

7 Natural FRAP Activity in Group ofPlant Foods

The range of FRAP activities in different food groupsare presented in Table 1 and the values are expressed asmg100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the food groupsanalyzed the highest FRAP activity was observed in arecanut 4220341mg100 g while the activity was the least insunflower oil 3610 Salient findings are as follows Cerealsand millets ranged 450ndash13093mg100 g highest activity wasfound in finger millet and the lowest was in SemolinaAmong the dry fruits activity ranged 1174ndash32416mg100 gwith the highest being in walnuts and the lowest in cashewnuts whereas in fresh fruits ABTS activity ranged 22ndash496mg100 g with the highest in guava and the lowest wasin pineapple Some of these findings are in agreement withthe literature values of fresh fruits [32]The AOA determinedby ABTS in fresh fruits and FRAP in dry fruits showed thatboth had reasonably good AOA Interestingly dry fruits hadhigher activity than fresh fruits probably due to their lowmoisture content It was pertinent to assess whether theseobservations made by two different methods in fresh anddry fruits could be validated by a common third method

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 5

Therefore we determined the AOA in fresh and dry fruits bytheDPPH scavengingmethod anothermost commonly usedantioxidant biochemical parameter FRAP activity in greenleafy vegetables ranges 1380ndash27827mg100 g mint leaves hadhighest activity and the lowest was in spinach Edible oilsand sugars range 36ndash11674mg100 g the highest activityfound in jaggery and lowest in groundnut oil (unrefined)Among the nuts and oil seeds studied FRAP ranges 220ndash4220341mg100 g the areca nut showed the highest activityand lowest was in coconut water In pulses and legumes FRAPranged 1469ndash10362mg100 g with the highest in rajma andthe lowest in green gram dhalThe roots and tubers showed awide range 256ndash6308mg100 g and beet root had the highestand carrot the least Among the vegetables studied FRAPranges 243ndash10510mg100 g The highest activity was found inred cabbage and the lowest in pumpkin Due to scanty datait was not possible for us to compare our FRAP finding withthe literature

8 Natural Phenolic Content in Group ofPlant Foods

The soluble total phenolic content (PC) data is presentedin Table 1 Values are presented as mg Gallic acid equiv-alent100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the foodgroups analyzed the highest PC was observed in arecanut 10841GAE100 g and was the least in coconut water1000 Coming to different food groups in cerealsmilletsPC values ranged 47ndash373mg100 g finger millets (Ragi)had the highest (373mg100 g) while milled rice had thelowest (47mg100 g) Dry fruits values range from 99 to959mg100 g of whichwalnuts (959mg100 g) and piyal seeds(99mg100 g) had the highest and the lowest PC respectivelyPC of fresh fruits ranged from 26 to 374mg100 g with thehighest PC being in guava (374) and the least in watermelon(26mg100 g) PC of Papaya and sapota observed here arein agreement with reported data from other parts of theworld [33] orange [34] pineapple [35] and apple [36]Among the GLVs PC was ranging 77ndash1077mg100 g curryleaves have the highest (1077mg100 g) and the lowest was inspinach (77mg100 g) To compare our findings on naturalphenolic contents of GLVs as such there is very little or nopublished data available from India However Gupta andPrakash [12] analyzed phenolic content in 4GLV samplesof which phenolic contents of fenugreek leaves values arecomparablewith our finding 158 versus 163mg100 g whereasAmaranth and Curry leaves data is remarkably different fromour findings 253 and 1077mg100 g respectively while thereported values are 150 and 387mg100 gThis variation couldbe due to the fact that they used tannic acid as standardwhereas we used Gallic acid However it is not clear fromGupta and Prakash study [12] whether the data presentedby them was on dry or on fresh weight basis wasgiven Coming to edible oils and sugars the PC values ranged072ndash336mg100 g Jaggery had the highest PC (336mg100 g)while the lowest was in Vanaspati (072mg100 g) Nuts andoil seeds ranged from 10 to 10841mg100 g areca nut hadthe highest phenolic content (10841mg100 g) and coconuts

water the least (10mg100 g) Among the pulses and legumesvalues ranged from 62ndash418mg100 g black gram dhal hadthe highest (418mg100 g) while green gram dhal had theleast (62mg100 g) Roots and tubers showed a wide range(22ndash169mg100 g) and beet root had the highest and carrotthe least Phenolic content of vegetables ranged from 27 to339mg100 g and red cabbage had the highest and ridgegourd the lowest Very little published data is available onPC of Indian plant foods some findings are in agreementwith our data [37] However phenolic contents of plantfoods can significantly vary due to various other factors likeplant genetics and cultivar soil composition and growingconditions maturity state and postharvest conditions and soforth [38]

9 Correlation between PC DPPH and FRAP(in a Group of Natural Plant Foods)

Our observations on correlation between DPPH FRAP andPC of cereals pulses and legumes are in agreement withan earlier report [18] in that no significant correlation wasobserved between these two parameters among these foodgrains Interestingly no correlation was observed amongPC DPPH and ABTS in wheat extracts [20] The lack ofcorrelation in cereal and legume grains could be due to thedifferences in the bound and free forms of phytochemicalspresent in them It was observed that there was a possibilityof underestimation of phenolic compounds in cereallegumegrains due to the differences in bound and free phenolicspresent in them The bound phenolics contribute about 62in rice to 85 in corn [5] Another possibility could be dueto the different responses of different phenolic compoundsin different assay systems Since the molecular antioxidantresponses of phenolic compounds vary remarkably depend-ing on their chemical structure their AOAdoes not necessar-ily correlate with the PC in grains [39]

However both in dry and fresh fruits there was a goodcorrelation between PC and AOA and our findings arein agreement with the available literature on the phenoliccontent of fresh and dry fruits [10] However the discordancein phenolic content of different groups of foods studiedcould be due to varietal seasonal agronomical and genomicdifferences moisture content method of extraction andstandards used and so forth [40] Among GLVs there was agood correlation among the PC and antioxidant parametersstudied (Table 2) However little information is available inthe literature on the AOA and PC correlations in GLVs [12]

Although edible oils and sugars belong to different foodgroups there was a good correlation among their PC andAOA parameters in that the ldquo119903rdquo value was 093 between boththe AOA parameters and PC Among nuts and oil seedsa significant correlation was observed between AOA (bothDPPH and FRAP) and PC The ldquo119903rdquo value between PC andAOA was 099 indicating the importance of PC to theirAOA as assessed by these two methods These findings arein agreement with earlier reports of this nature [10]

Correlations between the antioxidant activity and phe-nolic content of roots tubers and vegetables are given in

6 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 2 In general there was a good correlation betweenthe PC and AOA among the vegetables roots and tubersstudied A significant correlation (119875 lt 001) was observedbetween PC and AOA both in roots and tubers (119903 valuesbeing 076 and 085 resp with DPPH and FRAP) and othervegetables (119903 = 079 and 085 with DPPH and FRAP) Thesefindings suggest that PC may be an important contributor totheAOAof roots tubers and vegetables our observations arein agreement with the literature from other parts of the world[34]

10 Effect of Domestic Cooking on PC andAOA in Green Leafy Vegetables

Plant foods are often consumed in one or the other processedforms Therefore it was considered pertinent to study theeffect of common domestic processing (cooking) methodson the natural antioxidant activity and phenolic contentof a few commonly consumed plant foods Since oxidantsand antioxidants have different chemical and physical char-acteristics different types of cooking may bring differenttype of alterations in antioxidant activities of different foodsFurther if polyphenol intakes are calculated based on rawplant foods the intake values computed may not be accurateHence effect of cooking was determined on phenolic contentand antioxidant activity in commonly consumed green leafyvegetables (GLVs) and food grains

Effect of cooking on PC and AOA of GLVs is presented inTables 3ndash6 Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of foodscooked by different methods were compared with its natural(raw) activity from same portion of subsample In generaldifferent cooking methods used in this study did not affectthe AOA and phenolic contents in most of the GLVs Percentchange in the phenolic content (PC) or antioxidant activity(AOA) on cooking is given in parentheses with respectiveraw GLV value (Tables 3ndash6) Differences were consideredsignificant at a 119875 value at least lt005

Out of the eleven GLVs studied only two GLVs namelyAmbat Chukka and Ponnaganti showed a small decrease of10ndash20 in their PC content on cooking While Gogu showedvery little or no change on cooking The other eight GLVsshowed an increase in PC during different types of cooking(Table 3) Among them six GLVs namely Amaranth Curryleaves Fennel Fenugreek Purslane and Sorrel leaves showedan increase in PC ranging 108minus146 on cooking CorianderMint and spinach showed a significant increase in PC in theabove cooking methods and the increase was ranging 125ndash211 (Table 1) As such there is very little data of this kindreported in the literature Kuti andKonuru [41] demonstratedin spinach leaves a similar increasing trend in PC on cookingContrary to this Faller and Fialho [42] showed cookingloss in PC in vegetables The possible explanation for theincreasing or decreasing trends of phenolic contents duringvarious cooking methods could be that the phenolics arestored in pectin or cellulose networks of plant foods and canbe released during thermal processing In turn individualphenolics may sometime increase because heat can breaksupramolecular structure which might make the phenoliccompounds react better with the reagents [43]

Effect of cooking on DPPH scavenging activity is givenin Table 4 The increase or decrease activity in differentGLVs during different cooking methods was compared withits natural DPPH activity of the raw GLV Our findings onchanges in DPPH are in line with those in PC In generalan increasing trend in DPPH activity on cooking was seenin most of the GLVs studied Out of eleven GLVs marginaleffect of 1ndash10 was seen only in Ambat Chukka Most of theGLVs showed an increasing trend in all the three methodsof cooking Among them Purslane and Ponnaganti showed10ndash20 increase whereas Amaranth and Mint showed 17ndash50 increase Coriander andCurry leaves showed an increaseof 38ndash133 During conventional cooking curry leavesshowed little effect (lt7)while spinach showed an enormousincrease of 221ndash381 Remaining three GLVs namely FennelFenugreek and Gogu leaves did not show any effect inconventional and pressure cooking but inmicrowave cookingalone showed about 31ndash36 increase (Table 4) This could bedue to effect of high temperature as compared to the abovetwo methods of heat treatment Considering that no data ofsimilar type is available from other parts of the world weare unable to compare our findings with literature reportsData available on other vegetables (not GLVs) reported amixed trend which is in agreement with our results Indeedan increasing trend was observed in potatoes [44] while adecreasing trend was reported in other vegetables [42]

Effect of cooking on FRAP is presented in Table 5This biochemical indicator was chosen as the second mostcommonly used antioxidant biochemical parameter Againsimilar increasing trends were seen in FRAP activity oncooking Most of the GLVs (nine out of eleven) showed anincrease ranging 119ndash181 While Coriander and spinachleaves showed an enormous increase two other GLVs AmbatChukka and Ponnaganti showed a decrease (maximum of10) This type of complex trend during cooking requiresfurther research [45] However the present data on naturalantioxidant content in commonly consumed GLVs is thefirst data of its kind from India Secondly our findings onthe effect of different methods of cooking in above GLVsmost of them show an increase in AOA it could be due tobetter availability of bound phenolics Correlation among thethree biochemical parameters and effect of different methodsof cooking were assessed next and these correlations werecompared by using rank correlations (Table 6) Phenolicsversus antioxidant parameters in different cooking methodsare highly correlated Findings of this study suggest thatalthough different cooking methods showed changes (highlysignificant in some cases) in the phenolic content and AOAof the GLVs there was no effect of domestic cooking onthe correlation between the PC and AOA This observationconfirms that PC may be important contributor to the AOAof GLVs both in raw and cooked forms

11 Effect of Domestic Cooking (Food Grains)

PC and AOA of the food grains (raw and cooked by differentmethods) are presented in Tables 7ndash9 The PC of rawwhole green gram (with peel) was the highest (284mg100 g)followed by black rajma (146mg100 g) Green gram dhal

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 7

Table 3 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 2530a(100)

275b(108)

355c(140)

312d(123)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 1003(100)

90(89)

93(92)

91(91)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 2396a(100)

417b(174)

451c(188)

506d(211)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10770a(100)

1434b(133)

1184c(109)

1377d(127)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 2513(100)

268(106)

265(105)

312(124)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonellafoenum-graecum

1633a(100)

180a(110)

176a(107)

220b(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 946a(100)

128b(135)

138b(146)

128b(135)

8 Sorrel leaves Hibiscus cannabinus 1913(100)

194(101)

211(107)

213(111)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 4403a(100)

657b(149)

796c(180)

761c(172)

10 Water amaranth Alternanthera sessilis 1363(100)

122(89)

110(80)

123(90)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 770a(100)

96b(125)

125c(162)

117c(152)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric KruskalWallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 4 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100 g Trolox Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 4056a(100)

520b(128)

527b(129)

476b(117)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 853(100)

87(101)

83(97)

94(110)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 4710a(100)

886b(181)

948b(201)

1100c(233)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10206a(100)

950b(93)

1724c(168)

1418d(138)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 5453(100)

592(108)

540(99)

746(136)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 1443(100)

142(98)

127(87)

193(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 1383(100)

162(117)

165(119)

151(109)

8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 3460(100)

365(105)

334(96)

456(131)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 13686(100)

2055(150)

1856(135)

2020(147)

10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 1730(100)

172(99)

203(117)

198(114)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 216a(100)

69b(321)

85c(393)

104d(481)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 5

Therefore we determined the AOA in fresh and dry fruits bytheDPPH scavengingmethod anothermost commonly usedantioxidant biochemical parameter FRAP activity in greenleafy vegetables ranges 1380ndash27827mg100 g mint leaves hadhighest activity and the lowest was in spinach Edible oilsand sugars range 36ndash11674mg100 g the highest activityfound in jaggery and lowest in groundnut oil (unrefined)Among the nuts and oil seeds studied FRAP ranges 220ndash4220341mg100 g the areca nut showed the highest activityand lowest was in coconut water In pulses and legumes FRAPranged 1469ndash10362mg100 g with the highest in rajma andthe lowest in green gram dhalThe roots and tubers showed awide range 256ndash6308mg100 g and beet root had the highestand carrot the least Among the vegetables studied FRAPranges 243ndash10510mg100 g The highest activity was found inred cabbage and the lowest in pumpkin Due to scanty datait was not possible for us to compare our FRAP finding withthe literature

8 Natural Phenolic Content in Group ofPlant Foods

The soluble total phenolic content (PC) data is presentedin Table 1 Values are presented as mg Gallic acid equiv-alent100 g on fresh weight basis Among all the foodgroups analyzed the highest PC was observed in arecanut 10841GAE100 g and was the least in coconut water1000 Coming to different food groups in cerealsmilletsPC values ranged 47ndash373mg100 g finger millets (Ragi)had the highest (373mg100 g) while milled rice had thelowest (47mg100 g) Dry fruits values range from 99 to959mg100 g of whichwalnuts (959mg100 g) and piyal seeds(99mg100 g) had the highest and the lowest PC respectivelyPC of fresh fruits ranged from 26 to 374mg100 g with thehighest PC being in guava (374) and the least in watermelon(26mg100 g) PC of Papaya and sapota observed here arein agreement with reported data from other parts of theworld [33] orange [34] pineapple [35] and apple [36]Among the GLVs PC was ranging 77ndash1077mg100 g curryleaves have the highest (1077mg100 g) and the lowest was inspinach (77mg100 g) To compare our findings on naturalphenolic contents of GLVs as such there is very little or nopublished data available from India However Gupta andPrakash [12] analyzed phenolic content in 4GLV samplesof which phenolic contents of fenugreek leaves values arecomparablewith our finding 158 versus 163mg100 g whereasAmaranth and Curry leaves data is remarkably different fromour findings 253 and 1077mg100 g respectively while thereported values are 150 and 387mg100 gThis variation couldbe due to the fact that they used tannic acid as standardwhereas we used Gallic acid However it is not clear fromGupta and Prakash study [12] whether the data presentedby them was on dry or on fresh weight basis wasgiven Coming to edible oils and sugars the PC values ranged072ndash336mg100 g Jaggery had the highest PC (336mg100 g)while the lowest was in Vanaspati (072mg100 g) Nuts andoil seeds ranged from 10 to 10841mg100 g areca nut hadthe highest phenolic content (10841mg100 g) and coconuts

water the least (10mg100 g) Among the pulses and legumesvalues ranged from 62ndash418mg100 g black gram dhal hadthe highest (418mg100 g) while green gram dhal had theleast (62mg100 g) Roots and tubers showed a wide range(22ndash169mg100 g) and beet root had the highest and carrotthe least Phenolic content of vegetables ranged from 27 to339mg100 g and red cabbage had the highest and ridgegourd the lowest Very little published data is available onPC of Indian plant foods some findings are in agreementwith our data [37] However phenolic contents of plantfoods can significantly vary due to various other factors likeplant genetics and cultivar soil composition and growingconditions maturity state and postharvest conditions and soforth [38]

9 Correlation between PC DPPH and FRAP(in a Group of Natural Plant Foods)

Our observations on correlation between DPPH FRAP andPC of cereals pulses and legumes are in agreement withan earlier report [18] in that no significant correlation wasobserved between these two parameters among these foodgrains Interestingly no correlation was observed amongPC DPPH and ABTS in wheat extracts [20] The lack ofcorrelation in cereal and legume grains could be due to thedifferences in the bound and free forms of phytochemicalspresent in them It was observed that there was a possibilityof underestimation of phenolic compounds in cereallegumegrains due to the differences in bound and free phenolicspresent in them The bound phenolics contribute about 62in rice to 85 in corn [5] Another possibility could be dueto the different responses of different phenolic compoundsin different assay systems Since the molecular antioxidantresponses of phenolic compounds vary remarkably depend-ing on their chemical structure their AOAdoes not necessar-ily correlate with the PC in grains [39]

However both in dry and fresh fruits there was a goodcorrelation between PC and AOA and our findings arein agreement with the available literature on the phenoliccontent of fresh and dry fruits [10] However the discordancein phenolic content of different groups of foods studiedcould be due to varietal seasonal agronomical and genomicdifferences moisture content method of extraction andstandards used and so forth [40] Among GLVs there was agood correlation among the PC and antioxidant parametersstudied (Table 2) However little information is available inthe literature on the AOA and PC correlations in GLVs [12]

Although edible oils and sugars belong to different foodgroups there was a good correlation among their PC andAOA parameters in that the ldquo119903rdquo value was 093 between boththe AOA parameters and PC Among nuts and oil seedsa significant correlation was observed between AOA (bothDPPH and FRAP) and PC The ldquo119903rdquo value between PC andAOA was 099 indicating the importance of PC to theirAOA as assessed by these two methods These findings arein agreement with earlier reports of this nature [10]

Correlations between the antioxidant activity and phe-nolic content of roots tubers and vegetables are given in

6 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 2 In general there was a good correlation betweenthe PC and AOA among the vegetables roots and tubersstudied A significant correlation (119875 lt 001) was observedbetween PC and AOA both in roots and tubers (119903 valuesbeing 076 and 085 resp with DPPH and FRAP) and othervegetables (119903 = 079 and 085 with DPPH and FRAP) Thesefindings suggest that PC may be an important contributor totheAOAof roots tubers and vegetables our observations arein agreement with the literature from other parts of the world[34]

10 Effect of Domestic Cooking on PC andAOA in Green Leafy Vegetables

Plant foods are often consumed in one or the other processedforms Therefore it was considered pertinent to study theeffect of common domestic processing (cooking) methodson the natural antioxidant activity and phenolic contentof a few commonly consumed plant foods Since oxidantsand antioxidants have different chemical and physical char-acteristics different types of cooking may bring differenttype of alterations in antioxidant activities of different foodsFurther if polyphenol intakes are calculated based on rawplant foods the intake values computed may not be accurateHence effect of cooking was determined on phenolic contentand antioxidant activity in commonly consumed green leafyvegetables (GLVs) and food grains

Effect of cooking on PC and AOA of GLVs is presented inTables 3ndash6 Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of foodscooked by different methods were compared with its natural(raw) activity from same portion of subsample In generaldifferent cooking methods used in this study did not affectthe AOA and phenolic contents in most of the GLVs Percentchange in the phenolic content (PC) or antioxidant activity(AOA) on cooking is given in parentheses with respectiveraw GLV value (Tables 3ndash6) Differences were consideredsignificant at a 119875 value at least lt005

Out of the eleven GLVs studied only two GLVs namelyAmbat Chukka and Ponnaganti showed a small decrease of10ndash20 in their PC content on cooking While Gogu showedvery little or no change on cooking The other eight GLVsshowed an increase in PC during different types of cooking(Table 3) Among them six GLVs namely Amaranth Curryleaves Fennel Fenugreek Purslane and Sorrel leaves showedan increase in PC ranging 108minus146 on cooking CorianderMint and spinach showed a significant increase in PC in theabove cooking methods and the increase was ranging 125ndash211 (Table 1) As such there is very little data of this kindreported in the literature Kuti andKonuru [41] demonstratedin spinach leaves a similar increasing trend in PC on cookingContrary to this Faller and Fialho [42] showed cookingloss in PC in vegetables The possible explanation for theincreasing or decreasing trends of phenolic contents duringvarious cooking methods could be that the phenolics arestored in pectin or cellulose networks of plant foods and canbe released during thermal processing In turn individualphenolics may sometime increase because heat can breaksupramolecular structure which might make the phenoliccompounds react better with the reagents [43]

Effect of cooking on DPPH scavenging activity is givenin Table 4 The increase or decrease activity in differentGLVs during different cooking methods was compared withits natural DPPH activity of the raw GLV Our findings onchanges in DPPH are in line with those in PC In generalan increasing trend in DPPH activity on cooking was seenin most of the GLVs studied Out of eleven GLVs marginaleffect of 1ndash10 was seen only in Ambat Chukka Most of theGLVs showed an increasing trend in all the three methodsof cooking Among them Purslane and Ponnaganti showed10ndash20 increase whereas Amaranth and Mint showed 17ndash50 increase Coriander andCurry leaves showed an increaseof 38ndash133 During conventional cooking curry leavesshowed little effect (lt7)while spinach showed an enormousincrease of 221ndash381 Remaining three GLVs namely FennelFenugreek and Gogu leaves did not show any effect inconventional and pressure cooking but inmicrowave cookingalone showed about 31ndash36 increase (Table 4) This could bedue to effect of high temperature as compared to the abovetwo methods of heat treatment Considering that no data ofsimilar type is available from other parts of the world weare unable to compare our findings with literature reportsData available on other vegetables (not GLVs) reported amixed trend which is in agreement with our results Indeedan increasing trend was observed in potatoes [44] while adecreasing trend was reported in other vegetables [42]

Effect of cooking on FRAP is presented in Table 5This biochemical indicator was chosen as the second mostcommonly used antioxidant biochemical parameter Againsimilar increasing trends were seen in FRAP activity oncooking Most of the GLVs (nine out of eleven) showed anincrease ranging 119ndash181 While Coriander and spinachleaves showed an enormous increase two other GLVs AmbatChukka and Ponnaganti showed a decrease (maximum of10) This type of complex trend during cooking requiresfurther research [45] However the present data on naturalantioxidant content in commonly consumed GLVs is thefirst data of its kind from India Secondly our findings onthe effect of different methods of cooking in above GLVsmost of them show an increase in AOA it could be due tobetter availability of bound phenolics Correlation among thethree biochemical parameters and effect of different methodsof cooking were assessed next and these correlations werecompared by using rank correlations (Table 6) Phenolicsversus antioxidant parameters in different cooking methodsare highly correlated Findings of this study suggest thatalthough different cooking methods showed changes (highlysignificant in some cases) in the phenolic content and AOAof the GLVs there was no effect of domestic cooking onthe correlation between the PC and AOA This observationconfirms that PC may be important contributor to the AOAof GLVs both in raw and cooked forms

11 Effect of Domestic Cooking (Food Grains)

PC and AOA of the food grains (raw and cooked by differentmethods) are presented in Tables 7ndash9 The PC of rawwhole green gram (with peel) was the highest (284mg100 g)followed by black rajma (146mg100 g) Green gram dhal

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 7

Table 3 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 2530a(100)

275b(108)

355c(140)

312d(123)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 1003(100)

90(89)

93(92)

91(91)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 2396a(100)

417b(174)

451c(188)

506d(211)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10770a(100)

1434b(133)

1184c(109)

1377d(127)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 2513(100)

268(106)

265(105)

312(124)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonellafoenum-graecum

1633a(100)

180a(110)

176a(107)

220b(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 946a(100)

128b(135)

138b(146)

128b(135)

8 Sorrel leaves Hibiscus cannabinus 1913(100)

194(101)

211(107)

213(111)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 4403a(100)

657b(149)

796c(180)

761c(172)

10 Water amaranth Alternanthera sessilis 1363(100)

122(89)

110(80)

123(90)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 770a(100)

96b(125)

125c(162)

117c(152)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric KruskalWallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 4 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100 g Trolox Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 4056a(100)

520b(128)

527b(129)

476b(117)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 853(100)

87(101)

83(97)

94(110)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 4710a(100)

886b(181)

948b(201)

1100c(233)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10206a(100)

950b(93)

1724c(168)

1418d(138)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 5453(100)

592(108)

540(99)

746(136)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 1443(100)

142(98)

127(87)

193(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 1383(100)

162(117)

165(119)

151(109)

8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 3460(100)

365(105)

334(96)

456(131)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 13686(100)

2055(150)

1856(135)

2020(147)

10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 1730(100)

172(99)

203(117)

198(114)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 216a(100)

69b(321)

85c(393)

104d(481)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

6 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 2 In general there was a good correlation betweenthe PC and AOA among the vegetables roots and tubersstudied A significant correlation (119875 lt 001) was observedbetween PC and AOA both in roots and tubers (119903 valuesbeing 076 and 085 resp with DPPH and FRAP) and othervegetables (119903 = 079 and 085 with DPPH and FRAP) Thesefindings suggest that PC may be an important contributor totheAOAof roots tubers and vegetables our observations arein agreement with the literature from other parts of the world[34]

10 Effect of Domestic Cooking on PC andAOA in Green Leafy Vegetables

Plant foods are often consumed in one or the other processedforms Therefore it was considered pertinent to study theeffect of common domestic processing (cooking) methodson the natural antioxidant activity and phenolic contentof a few commonly consumed plant foods Since oxidantsand antioxidants have different chemical and physical char-acteristics different types of cooking may bring differenttype of alterations in antioxidant activities of different foodsFurther if polyphenol intakes are calculated based on rawplant foods the intake values computed may not be accurateHence effect of cooking was determined on phenolic contentand antioxidant activity in commonly consumed green leafyvegetables (GLVs) and food grains

Effect of cooking on PC and AOA of GLVs is presented inTables 3ndash6 Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of foodscooked by different methods were compared with its natural(raw) activity from same portion of subsample In generaldifferent cooking methods used in this study did not affectthe AOA and phenolic contents in most of the GLVs Percentchange in the phenolic content (PC) or antioxidant activity(AOA) on cooking is given in parentheses with respectiveraw GLV value (Tables 3ndash6) Differences were consideredsignificant at a 119875 value at least lt005

Out of the eleven GLVs studied only two GLVs namelyAmbat Chukka and Ponnaganti showed a small decrease of10ndash20 in their PC content on cooking While Gogu showedvery little or no change on cooking The other eight GLVsshowed an increase in PC during different types of cooking(Table 3) Among them six GLVs namely Amaranth Curryleaves Fennel Fenugreek Purslane and Sorrel leaves showedan increase in PC ranging 108minus146 on cooking CorianderMint and spinach showed a significant increase in PC in theabove cooking methods and the increase was ranging 125ndash211 (Table 1) As such there is very little data of this kindreported in the literature Kuti andKonuru [41] demonstratedin spinach leaves a similar increasing trend in PC on cookingContrary to this Faller and Fialho [42] showed cookingloss in PC in vegetables The possible explanation for theincreasing or decreasing trends of phenolic contents duringvarious cooking methods could be that the phenolics arestored in pectin or cellulose networks of plant foods and canbe released during thermal processing In turn individualphenolics may sometime increase because heat can breaksupramolecular structure which might make the phenoliccompounds react better with the reagents [43]

Effect of cooking on DPPH scavenging activity is givenin Table 4 The increase or decrease activity in differentGLVs during different cooking methods was compared withits natural DPPH activity of the raw GLV Our findings onchanges in DPPH are in line with those in PC In generalan increasing trend in DPPH activity on cooking was seenin most of the GLVs studied Out of eleven GLVs marginaleffect of 1ndash10 was seen only in Ambat Chukka Most of theGLVs showed an increasing trend in all the three methodsof cooking Among them Purslane and Ponnaganti showed10ndash20 increase whereas Amaranth and Mint showed 17ndash50 increase Coriander andCurry leaves showed an increaseof 38ndash133 During conventional cooking curry leavesshowed little effect (lt7)while spinach showed an enormousincrease of 221ndash381 Remaining three GLVs namely FennelFenugreek and Gogu leaves did not show any effect inconventional and pressure cooking but inmicrowave cookingalone showed about 31ndash36 increase (Table 4) This could bedue to effect of high temperature as compared to the abovetwo methods of heat treatment Considering that no data ofsimilar type is available from other parts of the world weare unable to compare our findings with literature reportsData available on other vegetables (not GLVs) reported amixed trend which is in agreement with our results Indeedan increasing trend was observed in potatoes [44] while adecreasing trend was reported in other vegetables [42]

Effect of cooking on FRAP is presented in Table 5This biochemical indicator was chosen as the second mostcommonly used antioxidant biochemical parameter Againsimilar increasing trends were seen in FRAP activity oncooking Most of the GLVs (nine out of eleven) showed anincrease ranging 119ndash181 While Coriander and spinachleaves showed an enormous increase two other GLVs AmbatChukka and Ponnaganti showed a decrease (maximum of10) This type of complex trend during cooking requiresfurther research [45] However the present data on naturalantioxidant content in commonly consumed GLVs is thefirst data of its kind from India Secondly our findings onthe effect of different methods of cooking in above GLVsmost of them show an increase in AOA it could be due tobetter availability of bound phenolics Correlation among thethree biochemical parameters and effect of different methodsof cooking were assessed next and these correlations werecompared by using rank correlations (Table 6) Phenolicsversus antioxidant parameters in different cooking methodsare highly correlated Findings of this study suggest thatalthough different cooking methods showed changes (highlysignificant in some cases) in the phenolic content and AOAof the GLVs there was no effect of domestic cooking onthe correlation between the PC and AOA This observationconfirms that PC may be important contributor to the AOAof GLVs both in raw and cooked forms

11 Effect of Domestic Cooking (Food Grains)

PC and AOA of the food grains (raw and cooked by differentmethods) are presented in Tables 7ndash9 The PC of rawwhole green gram (with peel) was the highest (284mg100 g)followed by black rajma (146mg100 g) Green gram dhal

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 7

Table 3 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 2530a(100)

275b(108)

355c(140)

312d(123)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 1003(100)

90(89)

93(92)

91(91)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 2396a(100)

417b(174)

451c(188)

506d(211)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10770a(100)

1434b(133)

1184c(109)

1377d(127)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 2513(100)

268(106)

265(105)

312(124)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonellafoenum-graecum

1633a(100)

180a(110)

176a(107)

220b(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 946a(100)

128b(135)

138b(146)

128b(135)

8 Sorrel leaves Hibiscus cannabinus 1913(100)

194(101)

211(107)

213(111)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 4403a(100)

657b(149)

796c(180)

761c(172)

10 Water amaranth Alternanthera sessilis 1363(100)

122(89)

110(80)

123(90)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 770a(100)

96b(125)

125c(162)

117c(152)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric KruskalWallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 4 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100 g Trolox Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 4056a(100)

520b(128)

527b(129)

476b(117)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 853(100)

87(101)

83(97)

94(110)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 4710a(100)

886b(181)

948b(201)

1100c(233)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10206a(100)

950b(93)

1724c(168)

1418d(138)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 5453(100)

592(108)

540(99)

746(136)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 1443(100)

142(98)

127(87)

193(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 1383(100)

162(117)

165(119)

151(109)

8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 3460(100)

365(105)

334(96)

456(131)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 13686(100)

2055(150)

1856(135)

2020(147)

10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 1730(100)

172(99)

203(117)

198(114)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 216a(100)

69b(321)

85c(393)

104d(481)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 7

Table 3 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 2530a(100)

275b(108)

355c(140)

312d(123)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 1003(100)

90(89)

93(92)

91(91)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 2396a(100)

417b(174)

451c(188)

506d(211)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10770a(100)

1434b(133)

1184c(109)

1377d(127)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 2513(100)

268(106)

265(105)

312(124)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonellafoenum-graecum

1633a(100)

180a(110)

176a(107)

220b(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 946a(100)

128b(135)

138b(146)

128b(135)

8 Sorrel leaves Hibiscus cannabinus 1913(100)

194(101)

211(107)

213(111)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 4403a(100)

657b(149)

796c(180)

761c(172)

10 Water amaranth Alternanthera sessilis 1363(100)

122(89)

110(80)

123(90)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 770a(100)

96b(125)

125c(162)

117c(152)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric KruskalWallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 4 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100 g Trolox Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 4056a(100)

520b(128)

527b(129)

476b(117)

2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 853(100)

87(101)

83(97)

94(110)

3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 4710a(100)

886b(181)

948b(201)

1100c(233)

4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 10206a(100)

950b(93)

1724c(168)

1418d(138)

5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 5453(100)

592(108)

540(99)

746(136)

6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 1443(100)

142(98)

127(87)

193(134)

7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 1383(100)

162(117)

165(119)

151(109)

8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 3460(100)

365(105)

334(96)

456(131)

9 Mint Mentha spicata 13686(100)

2055(150)

1856(135)

2020(147)

10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 1730(100)

172(99)

203(117)

198(114)

11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 216a(100)

69b(321)

85c(393)

104d(481)

Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

8 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 5 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed green leafy vegetables

Sl no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Amaranth Amaranthus gangeticus 82376a (100) 11370b (138) 12102b (146) 11786b (143)2 Ambat chukka Rumex vesicarius 35116(100) 3270(93) 2946(83) 3243(92)3 Coriander leaves Coriandrum sativum 71256a (100) 18636b (261) 16123c (226) 19802d (277)4 Curry leaves Murraya koenigii 202750a (100) 18533b (91) 24213c (119) 27392d (135)5 Fennel leaves Foeniculum vulgare 92386a (100) 10128a (109) 9970a (107) 13362b (144)6 Fenugreek leaves Trigonella foenum-graecum 34096a (100) 3919b (114) 4799c (140) 5429d (159)7 Purslane leaves Portulaca oleracea 28633a (100) 4327b (151) 4800c (167) 4030b (140)8 Gogu Hibiscus cannabinus 52540(100) 7274(138) 6921(131) 7107(135)9 Mint Mentha spicata 278276a (100) 42562b (152) 48909bc (175) 50401c (181)10 Ponnaganti Alternanthera sessilis 50683(100) 4280(84) 4837(95) 4327 (85)11 Spinach Spinacia oleracea 13806a (100) 3196b (231) 3471b (251) 3502b (253)Mean values were compared (119899 = 3) by nonparametric Kruskal wallis one way ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percentgain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery values are given in parentheses Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 6 Rank correlation between phenolic content versus DPPH and FRAP in different cooking methods of GLV

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0945 0936 0918 0945 120594

2 = 023 119875 = 097TPC versus FRAP 0955 0936 0927 0973 120594

2 = 123 119875 = 074DPPH versus FRAP 0964 0973 0991 0991 120594

2 = 323 119875 = 036All correlations are significant at 119875 lt 0001 (119899 = 11)

without peel had the least phenolic content (41mg100 g)(Table 7) This difference in phenolic content of green gramwhole and dhal could be due to the peel component knownto contribute high phenolic contents in grains DPPH scav-enging activity was the highest in black rajma (160mg100 g)followed by whole green gram (113mg100 g) and the lowestwas in green gramdhal (without peel) (21mg100 g) (Table 8)FRAP content was the highest in black rajma followed by soyabean and the lowest was in green gramdhalThe FRAP valueswere 6852 3778 and 1066mg100 g respectively (Table 9)

Effect of different cooking methods on antioxidant activ-ity of each food grain was compared with its AOA andphenolic contents of the raw sample (Tables 7ndash9) Percentagechange in the PC and antioxidant activity on cooking isgiven in parentheses in Tables 7ndash9 Overall different cookingmethods did not show any significant cooking losses butshowed mixed results of increasing andor decreasing trends(Tables 7ndash9) the changes being significant in most of thewhole grains as compared to grains without seed coat

Effects of cooking on PC are presented in Table 7 Nineout of 11 legumes samples showed the maximum of 20increase or decrease in their PC during different types ofdomestic cooking Interestingly during conventional andpressure cooking whole Bengal gram and rajma have shown27 and 54 increase Other studies showed similar effects onAOA in potatoes upon cooking [44] and in other vegetables[38] The possible mechanism for the increase or decreasein AOA during various cooking methods could be that thephenolics were stored in pectin or cellulose networks ofplant foods and were released during thermal processing[39]

DPPH scavenging activity in legumes cooked by differentcooking methods also showed a mixedinconsistent trend(Table 8) Nine out of eleven food grains studied showed lessthan 20 increase or decrease during cooking It is howeverinteresting that whole green gram (with peal) showed ahigher increase in DPPH activity in all cooking methodsstudied with the increase ranging 40ndash62 as compared to itscontent in the unprocessed form Indeed some literature saysthat this type of complex trend on cooking is unexplainableand requires further research [45]

Effect of cooking on FRAP activity is given in Table 9Findings are in line with DPPH showing a mixed trendNine out of eleven legumes showed less than 20 variationin FRAP values While whole green gram and dry green peasshowed higher increase in FRAP ranging 41ndash102 in differentmethods of cooking lentil and red gram dhal showed 34ndash73 increase albeit during pressure cooking only It washowever of interest that over all the percent increase ordecrease found vis-a-vis their content in unprocessed foodshowed similar trend in different cooking methods in agiven food grain Such increasing or decreasing trends werereported in few vegetables from other parts of the world[46] The possible explanation given for this type of findingwas summarized by few workers as follows Cooking couldhave resulted in liberation of high amounts of antioxidantcompounds due to thermal destruction of cell wall andsubcellular compartments [47 48] Another possibilitymightbe the production of stronger radical-scavenging antioxi-dants by thermal or chemical reactions [49] There can be aproduction of new nonnutritional antioxidants or formationof novel compounds such as Millard reaction products with

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 9

Table 7 Effect of domestic processing on polyphenol content of commonly consumed pulses and legumes in India

Sl No Common name Botanical name Phenolic content (mg100 g Gallic acid Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 926 plusmn 55a(100)

906 plusmn 65a(98)

986 plusmn 40a(106)

860 plusmn 55a(93) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1163 plusmn 77a(100)

1056 plusmn 61a(91)

1086 plusmn 56a(93)

1020 plusmn 105a(88) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 1140 plusmn 104a(100)

1546 plusmn 70b(136)

1763 plusmn 45c(154)

1133 plusmn 60d(99) 0024

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 693 plusmn 45a(100)

586 plusmn 30b(85)

600 plusmn 26b(86)

513 plusmn 32c(74) 0022

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 413 plusmn 25a(100)

436 plusmn 11a(106)

430 plusmn 36a(104)

340 plusmn 30c(82) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseollus aureus Roxb 2843 plusmn 65a(100)

2493 plusmn 30b(88)

2693 plusmn 45c(95)

2436 plusmn 40b(86) 0019

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 643 plusmn 25a(100)

646 plusmn 35a(100)

590 plusmn 60a(92)

560 plusmn 26a(87) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 823 plusmn 20a(100)

840 plusmn 26a(102)

1033 plusmn 55b(126)

756 plusmn 35c(92) 0024

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 700 plusmn 65a(100)

836 plusmn 46b(119)

816 plusmn 15b(117)

740 plusmn 45a(106) 0035

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 1466 plusmn 70a(100)

1860 plusmn 45b(127)

1956 plusmn 97c(133)

1593 plusmn 25c(109) 0020

11 Soya bean Glycine maxMerr 816 plusmn 35a(100)

820 plusmn 75a(100)

983 plusmn 50a(121)

943 plusmn 60a(116) NS

Pooled samples were analyzed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 8 Effect of domestic processing on DPPH activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

Sl no Common name Botanical name DPPH (mg100g Trolox Eq) P valueRaw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 426 plusmn 25a(100)

433 plusmn 15a(102)

436 plusmn 40a(102) 400 plusmn 36a (94) NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 313 plusmn 25a(100)

343 plusmn 37a(110)

313 plusmn 35a(100) 256 plusmn 25a (82) NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 686 plusmn 45a(100)

1000 plusmn 75b(146)

953 plusmn 35b(139) 603 plusmn 25c (88) 0022

4 Black gram dhal (with out peel) Phaseolusmungo Roxb

350 plusmn 30a(100)

290 plusmn 10a(83)

300 plusmn 72a(86) 246 plusmn 0a (70) NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaselus aureusRoxb

213 plusmn 45a(100)

193 plusmn 45a(91)

176 plusmn 35a(83) 186 plusmn 36a (87) NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolusaureus Roxb

1136 plusmn 92a(100)

1843 plusmn 90b(162)

1593 plusmn 137c(140) 1713 plusmn 90bc (151) 0027

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 356 plusmn 35a(100)

380 plusmn 40a(107)

353 plusmn 37a(99) 366 plusmn 65a (103) NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 510 plusmn 30a(100)

553 plusmn 30a(108)

560 plusmn 40a(110) 420 plusmn 55b (82) 0040

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 420 plusmn 40a(100)

493 plusmn 75a(117)

563 plusmn 47a(134) 420 plusmn 40a (100) NS

10 Rajma (Black) PhaseolusVulgaris

1600 plusmn 81a(100)

1823 plusmn 45a(114)

1703 plusmn 60a(106) 1740 plusmn 95a (109) NS

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr

756 plusmn 75a(100)

613 plusmn 23b(81)

593 plusmn 41c(78) 716 plusmn 20a (95) 0023

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by non-parametric Kruskal Wallies 119867 test of oneway ANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recoveryvalues are given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

10 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Table 9 Effect of domestic processing on FRAP activity of commonly consumed Pulses and Legumes in India

S no Common name Botanical name FRAP (mg100 g FeSO4 Eq)119875 Value

Raw Conventional Pressure Microwave

1 Bengal gram dhal Cicer arietinum 1679 plusmn 532a(100)

1909 plusmn 647a(114)

1968 plusmn 441a(117)

1973 plusmn 466a(118)

NS

2 Bengal gram dhal (roasted) Cicer arietinum 1466 plusmn 1252a(100)

1711 plusmn 1095a(117)

1359 plusmn 1145a(93)

1367 plusmn 1035a(93)

NS

3 Bengal gram (whole grains) Cicer arietinum 2283 plusmn 1328a(100)

2560 plusmn 1310b(112)

2676 plusmn 1700b(117)

2177 plusmn 1021a(95)

0033

4 Black gram dhal (without peel) Phaseolus mungo Roxb 1515 plusmn 414a(100)

1420 plusmn 801a(94)

1470 plusmn 465a(97)

1265 plusmn 478a(83)

NS

5 Green gram dhal Phaseolus aureus Roxb 1066 plusmn 1286a(100)

1371 plusmn 583a(128)

1042 plusmn 998a(98)

938 plusmn 857a(88)

NS

6 Green gram dhal (whole) Phaseolus aureus Roxb 3098 plusmn 224a(100)

5490 plusmn 1010b(177)

5785 plusmn 1846c(187)

5505 plusmn 811b(178)

0025

7 Lentil Lens esculenta 1534 plusmn 540a(100)

1652 plusmn 1210a(108)

2058 plusmn 1090a(134)

1625 plusmn 1079a(105)

NS

8 Peas green (dry) Pisum sativum 1846 plusmn 808a(100)

3027 plusmn 937a(164)

3734 plusmn 710b(202)

2609 plusmn 645c(141)

0016

9 Red gram dhal (without peel) Cajanus cajan 2446 plusmn 849a(100)

3133 plusmn 816b(128)

4251 plusmn 1066c(173)

2646 plusmn 848b(108)

0016

10 Rajma (Black) Phaseolus Vulgaris 6852 plusmn 664a(100)

6809 plusmn 1252a(99)

7171 plusmn 814b(105)

7915 plusmn 1305c(115)

0025

11 Soya been Glycine maxMerr 3778 plusmn 1625a(100)

3504 plusmn 1280a(93)

3714 plusmn 1255a(98)

3502 plusmn 1490a(93)

NS

Pooled samples were analysed in triplicates Data is presented as mean plusmn SD Mean values were compared by nonparametric Kruskal Wallies119867 test of one wayANOVA Differences in alphabets are significantly different at P lt 005 Percent gain or loss calculated when raw value taken as 100 Percent recovery valuesare given in parenthesis Decimal points are not given due to higher numbers

Table 10 Rank correlation between phenolic content and AOA (DPPH and FRAP) in raw and cooked pulses and legumes

TPC versus AOA Raw Traditional Pressure Microwave HomogeneityTPC versus DPPH 0689 0801 0793 0780 120594

2 = 123 P = 0746TPC versus FRAP 0573 0701 0619 0706 120594

2 = 112 P = 0772DPPH versus FRAP 0918 0909 0895 0916 120594

2 = 031 P = 0959All correlations are significant at P lt 001 (119899 = 11) and correlations are comparable across the methods Between the methods all the parameters aresignificantly correlated (TPC versus DPPH TPC versus FRAP and DPPH versus FRAP)

antioxidant activity during cooking However these findingsare first of their kind in commonly consumed pulses andlegumes

Correlations among the PC and AOA were determinedin the legumes in unprocessed as well as during the threedifferent types of domestic cooking For this purpose rankcorrelations were used and the data is presented in Table 10Correlations between PC and AOA were significant in dif-ferent cooking methods and they were comparable acrossthe methods Although different cooking methods showedchanges (highly significant in some cases) in the phenoliccontent and AOA of the food grains the finding that they didnot affect the correlation between the PC and AOA suggeststhat PC may be important contributor to the AOA even inpulses and legumes both in raw and cooked forms

12 Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge findings observed in this revieware first of their kind from India this reviewmainly dealt withtwo aspects and natural antioxidant content of commonlyconsumed plant foods in India was assessed and correlatedwith its phenolic content And the second aspect is assessingthe effect of domestic cooking on PC and antioxidant activityfor the first time from India in themost commonly consumedGLVs and grains Our findings demonstrate that antioxidantcontents did not get affected in most of the foods studiedon the other hand most of them shown a higher AOA indifferent method of domestical processing This overviewwould be useful to researchers nutritionists and consumersto assess AOA andor formulate antioxidant-rich therapeutic

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 11

diets as well as commercial antioxidant-rich preparationsfrom plant foods In addition they will be a valuable additionto the scanty knowledge on antioxidant activity of commonlyconsumed foods in India

Limitation of the Present Findings Purposive samples werecollected from three local markets to provide first handinformation on antioxidant activity of plant foods commonlyconsumed in India Hence findings cannot be considered asIndian plant foods data base

Abbreviations

AOA Antioxidant activityDPPH 221015840-Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazylFRAP Ferric reducing antioxidant powerGLV Green leafy vegetablesTPTZ 246-Tripyridyl-s-triazinePC Phenolic content

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Kalpagam Polasa Officer in chargeNational Institute of Nutrition for her encouragement Theythank Mr R Srinivas Rao for his help in preparation of thepaper

References

[1] H Wiseman and B Halliwell ldquoDamage to DNA by reactiveoxygen and nitrogen species role in inflammatory disease andprogression to cancerrdquo Biochemical Journal vol 313 no 1 pp17ndash29 1996

[2] M S Cooke M D Evans M Dizdaroglu and J LunecldquoOxidative DNA damage mechanisms mutation and diseaserdquoThe FASEB Journal vol 17 no 10 pp 1195ndash1214 2003

[3] B Halliwell J M C Gutteridge and C E Cross ldquoFree radicalsantioxidants and human disease where are we nowrdquo Journalof Laboratory and Clinical Medicine vol 119 no 6 pp 598ndash6201992

[4] P J Harris and L R Ferguson ldquoDietary fibre its compositionand role in protection against colorectal cancerrdquo MutationResearch vol 290 no 1 pp 97ndash110 1993

[5] A Scalbert C Manach C Morand C Remesy and L JimenezldquoDietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseasesrdquo CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition vol 45 no 4 pp 287ndash306 2005

[6] H Zielinski and H Kozłowska ldquoAntioxidant activity and totalphenolics in selected cereal grains and their different morpho-logical fractionsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 48 no 6 pp 2008ndash2016 2000

[7] S Rochfort and J Panozzo ldquoPhytochemicals for health the roleof pulsesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 55no 20 pp 7981ndash7994 2007

[8] D Sreeramulu C V K Reddy andM Raghunath ldquoAntioxidantactivity of commonly consumed cereals millets pulses andlegumes in Indiardquo Indian Journal of Biochemistry andBiophysicsvol 46 no 1 pp 112ndash115 2009

[9] Y S Velioglu GMazza L Gao and B D Oomah ldquoAntioxidantactivity and total phenolics in selected fruits vegetables and

grain productsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol46 no 10 pp 4113ndash4117 1998

[10] M Al-Farsi C Alasalvar A Morris M Baron and FShahidi ldquoComparison of antioxidant activity anthocyaninscarotenoids and phenolics of three native fresh and sun-drieddate (Phoenix dactylifera L) varieties grown in Omanrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 19 pp 7592ndash7599 2005

[11] I Arcan and A Yemenicioglu ldquoAntioxidant activity and pheno-lic content of fresh and dry nuts with or without the seed coatrdquoJournal of Food Composition andAnalysis vol 22 no 3 pp 184ndash188 2009

[12] S Gupta and J Prakash ldquoStudies on Indian green leafy veg-etables for their antioxidant activityrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 64 no 1 pp 39ndash45 2009

[13] S Nair R Nagar and R Gupta ldquoAntioxidant phenolics andflavonoids in common Indian foodsrdquo Journal of Association ofPhysicians of India vol 46 no 8 pp 708ndash710 1998

[14] NationalNutritionMonitoringBureauReport of Repeat Surveys(1988ndash90) National Institute of Nutrition ICMR HyderabadIndia 1991

[15] T Oki M Masuda M Kobayashi et al ldquoPolymeric procyani-dins as radical-scavenging components in red-hulled ricerdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 26 pp7524ndash7529 2002

[16] K N Chidambara Murthy R P Singh and G K JayaprakashaldquoAntioxidant activities of grape (Vitis vinifera) pomaceextractsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50no 21 pp 5909ndash5914 2002

[17] R P Singh K N Chidambara Murthy and G K JayaprakashaldquoStudies on the antioxidant activity of pomegranate (Punicagranatum) peel and seed extracts using in vitromodelsrdquo Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 1 pp 81ndash862002

[18] B Matthaus ldquoAntioxidant activity of extracts obtained fromresidues of different oilseedsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 12 pp 3444ndash3452 2002

[19] P Stratil B Klejdus and V Kuban ldquoDetermination of totalcontent of phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity invegetablesmdashevaluation of spectrophotometric methodsrdquo Jour-nal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 3 pp 607ndash616 2006

[20] P Siddhuraju and K Becker ldquoThe antioxidant and free radicalscavenging activities of processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L)Walp) seed extractsrdquo Food Chemistry vol 101 no 1 pp 10ndash19 2007

[21] D Huang B Ou and R L Prior ldquoReview on AOA methodsthe chemistry behind antioxidant capacity assaysrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53 no 6 pp 1841ndash18562005

[22] M Ozgen R N Reese A Z Tulio Jr J C Scheerens andA RMiller ldquoModified 22-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method to measure antioxidant capacityof selected small fruits and comparison to ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) and 221015840-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl(DPPH) methodsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistryvol 54 no 4 pp 1151ndash1157 2006

[23] T Chen S Liou H Wu et al ldquoNew analytical method forinvestigating the antioxidant power of food extracts on thebasis of their electron-donating ability comparison to the

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

12 Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

ferric reducingantioxidant power (FRAP) assayrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 58 no 15 pp 8477ndash84802010

[24] R Re N Pellegrini A Proteggente A PannalaM Yang andCRice-Evans ldquoAntioxidant activity applying an improved ABTSradical cation decolorization assayrdquo Free Radical Biology andMedicine vol 26 no 9-10 pp 1231ndash1237 1999

[25] V L Singleton and J A Rossi ldquoColorimetry of total phenolicswith phosphomolybdic phosphotungstic acid reagentsrdquo Ameri-can Journal of Enology and Viticulture vol 16 pp 144ndash158 1965

[26] I Johnson and G Williamson Eds Phytochemical FunctionalFoods Woodhead Publication in Food Science and TechnologyCRC Publication 2007

[27] H Aoshima H Tsunoue H Koda and Y Kiso ldquoAging ofwhiskey increases 11-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl radical scav-enging activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol52 no 16 pp 5240ndash5244 2004

[28] I F F Benzie and J J Strain ldquoFerric reducingantioxidant powerassay direct measure of total antioxidant activity of biologicalfluids and modified version for simultaneous measurementof total antioxidant power and ascorbic acid concentrationrdquoMethods in Enzymology vol 299 pp 15ndash27 1998

[29] V Lopez S Akerreta E Casanova J M Garcıa-Mina R YCavero andM I Calvo ldquoIn vitro antioxidant and anti-rhizopusactivities of Lamiaceae herbal extractsrdquo Plant Foods for HumanNutrition vol 62 no 4 pp 151ndash155 2007

[30] P P Singh andP Sharma ldquoAntioxidant basket do notmix applesand orangesrdquo Indian Journal of Clinical Biochemistry vol 24 no3 pp 211ndash214 2009

[31] M Dong X He and H L Rui ldquoPhytochemicals of black beanseed coats isolation structure elucidation and their antiprolif-erative and antioxidative activitiesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 15 pp 6044ndash6051 2007

[32] C Vijaya Kumar Reddy D Sreeramulu and M RaghunathldquoAntioxidant activity of fresh and dry fruits commonly con-sumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 1 pp285ndash288 2010

[33] K Mahattanatawee J A Manthey G Luzio S T Talcott KGoodner and E A Baldwin ldquoTotal antioxidant activity andfiber content of select Florida-grown tropical fruitsrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 54 no 19 pp 7355ndash73632006

[34] J Sun Y Chu XWu andRH Liu ldquoAntioxidant and antiprolif-erative activities of common fruitsrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 25 pp 7449ndash7454 2002

[35] NMAHassimottoM I Genovese and FM Lajolo ldquoAntioxi-dant activity of dietary fruits vegetables and commercial frozenfruit pulpsrdquo Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 53no 8 pp 2928ndash2935 2005

[36] C Kevers M Falkowski J Tabart J Defraigne J Dommes andJ Pincemail ldquoEvolution of antioxidant capacity during storageof selected fruits and vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 55 no 21 pp 8596ndash8603 2007

[37] D Sreeramulu and M Raghunath ldquoAntioxidant activity andphenolic content of roots tubers and vegetables commonlyconsumed in Indiardquo Food Research International vol 43 no 4pp 1017ndash1020 2010

[38] E H Jeffery A F Brown A C Kurilich et al ldquoVariation incontent of bioactive components in broccolirdquo Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis vol 16 no 3 pp 323ndash330 2003

[39] M P Kahkonen A I Hopia H J Vuorela et al ldquoAntioxidantactivity of plant extracts containing phenolic compoundsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 47 no 10 pp3954ndash3962 1999

[40] U Imeh and S Khokhar ldquoDistribution of conjugated and freephenols in fruits antioxidant activity and cultivar variationsrdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 22 pp6301ndash6306 2002

[41] J O Kuti and H B Konuru ldquoAntioxidant capacity and phenoliccontent in leaf extracts of tree spinach (Cnidoscolus spp)rdquoJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry vol 52 no 1 pp117ndash121 2004

[42] A L K Faller and E Fialho ldquoThe antioxidant capacity andpolyphenol content of organic and conventional retail vegeta-bles after domestic cookingrdquo Food Research International vol42 no 1 pp 210ndash215 2009

[43] A Bunea M Andjelkovic C Socaciu et al ldquoTotal and individ-ual carotenoids and phenolic acids content in fresh refrigeratedand processed spinach (Spinacia oleracea L)rdquo Food Chemistryvol 108 no 2 pp 649ndash656 2008

[44] J A Tudela E Cantos J C Espın F A Tomas-Barberanand M I Gil ldquoInduction of antioxidant flavonol biosynthesisin fresh-cut potatoes Effect of domestic cookingrdquo Journal ofAgricultural and Food Chemistry vol 50 no 21 pp 5925ndash59312002

[45] A M Jimenez-Monreal L Garcia-Diz M Martinez-Tome MMariscal and M A Murcia ldquoInfluence of cooking methods onantioxidant activity of vegetablesrdquo Journal of Food Science vol74 no 3 pp H97ndashH103 2009

[46] M Racchi M Daglia C Lanni A Papetti S Govoni andG Gazzani ldquoAntiradical activity of water soluble componentsin common diet vegetablesrdquo Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry vol 50 no 5 pp 1272ndash1277 2002

[47] N Turkmen F Sari and Y S Velioglu ldquoThe effect of cookingmethods on total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selectedgreen vegetablesrdquo Food Chemistry vol 93 no 4 pp 713ndash7182005

[48] B Chipurura Z M Muchuweti and F Manditseraa ldquoEffectsof thermal treatment on the phenolic content and antioxidantactivity of some vegetablesrdquo Asian Journal of Clinical Nutritionvol 2 no 3 pp 93ndash100 2010

[49] MBajpai AMishra andD Prakash ldquoAntioxidant and free rad-ical scavenging activities of some leafy vegetablesrdquo InternationalJournal of Food Sciences andNutrition vol 56 no 7 pp 473ndash4812005

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Disease Markers

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Diabetes ResearchJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Research and TreatmentAIDS

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Gastroenterology Research and Practice

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Parkinsonrsquos Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom