Cited by 421Phytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesAgricultural and Biological ResearchFood and Agricultural Sciences

Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of extracts obtained from six important fruit residues

Babbar, Neha, Oberoi, Harinder Singh, Uppal, Dewinder Singh, Patil, Ramabhau Tumadu·2011·Food Research International

Abstract

The extracts from kinnow peel, kinnow seeds, litchi pericarp, litchi seeds, grape seeds, and banana peel were screened for total phenolic content (TPC), trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC), 1,1 diphenyl-2-picryl hydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity, as well as reducing power. Kinnow peel extract exhibited the highest reducing power, TEAC, and DPPH free radical scavenging activity, whereas, the phenolic content of 37.4mg GAE/g-dw was highest for grape seed extract. Banana peel extract with a low TPC showed the lowest reducing power, TEAC as well as DPPH free radical scavenging activity among the fruit residue extracts examined in the present study. Correlation analysis between the reducing power and DPPH radical scavenging ability; reducing power and ABTS radical scavenging activity; and ABTS and DPPH radical scavenging abilities showed a high degree of correlation (r²=0.85–0.91). However, r² of 0.36, 0.66, and 0.49 between TPC and DPPH radical scavenging activity; TPC and reducing power; and TPC and ABTS radical scavenging ability, respectively, indicated that some non-phenolic compounds also contributed to the total antioxidant activity in fruit residue extracts examined in this study. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper presenting comprehensive data on TPC, reducing power, and antioxidant activity for the six fruit residues. This study demonstrated that kinnow peel, litchi pericarp, litchi seeds, and grape seeds, can serve as potential…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodres.2010.10.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Babbar, N., Oberoi, H. S., Uppal, D. S., & Patil, R. T.
Affiliations
Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology (IN)
Corresponding author
Oberoi, Harinder Singh
Venue
Food Research International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
391-396
ISSN
0963-9969 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030320214
Cited by
421
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 11
FWCI
7.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Food Research International (publishedVersion)
Funders
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Government of India
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Biological Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
Keywords
fruit residues, total phenolic content, antioxidant capacity, DPPH radical scavenging, reducing power, ABTS radical scavenging, Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity, grape seeds, banana peel, litchi pericarp, food by-products

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review