Cited by 227Phytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesOrganic Food and AgricultureFood and Agricultural Sciences

Polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity in organic and conventional plant foods

Open access
Faller, A.L.K., Fialho, E.·2010·Journal of Food Composition and Analysis

Abstract

Fruit and vegetable intake is associated with lower risk of chronic diseases as a result of consumption of antioxidant substances. Organic foods are thought to have higher antioxidant capacity, because this form of agricultural management could induce synthesis of secondary compounds such as polyphenols. The objective of this work is to evaluate polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity in organically (OG) and conventionally (CV) grown fruits and vegetables, as well as in different parts of the plants. Soluble and hydrolysable polyphenols were quantified by Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, and the antioxidant capacity was measured by the DPPH radical method. The results showed that organic fruits tend to have higher hydrolysable polyphenol contents than conventional ones, with values being 11.5% in orange peels, to 72.6% in papaya peels, higher for hydrolysable polyphenols. Fruit peels also showed higher concentration of polyphenols than pulp, reaching, for bananas and tangerines, twice the amount found in pulps, which reflected in higher antioxidant capacity. Polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity varied among organic and conventional vegetables with no prevalence from either agricultural type. This study suggests that the effect of organic practices results in different effect patterns according to the plant species analysed, with fruits being more susceptible to the induction of polyphenol synthesis, and the greatest accumulation of polyphenols in external plant tissues. In general, organic agriculture results in food products with similar or slightly higher polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jfca.2010.01.003

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faller, A. L. K., & Fialho, E.
Affiliations
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
Corresponding author
Fialho, E.
Venue
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
561-568
ISSN
0889-1575 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2046560543
Cited by
226
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food and Agricultural Sciences
Keywords
polyphenols, antioxidant capacity, organic farming, conventional farming, organic vs conventional food, fruits, vegetables, fruit peel, DPPH radical scavenging, plant tissue distribution

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