Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extraction and quantification of polyphenols from kinnow ( Citrus reticulate L.) peel using ultrasound and maceration techniques

Open access
Safdar, Muhammad N., Kausar, Tusneem, Jabbar, Saqib, Mumtaz, Amer, Ahad, Karam, Saddozai, Ambreen A.·2017·Journal of Food and Drug Analysis

Abstract

An investigation was carried out to extract polyphenols from the peel of kinnow (Citrus reticulate L.) by maceration and ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) techniques. The antioxidant potential of these polyphenols was evaluated using ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), and superoxide radical scavenging assays; and their antimicrobial activity was assessed against bacterial strains Staphyloccoccus aureus, Bacillus cereus, and Salmonella typhimurium. The highest extraction yield was obtained through the solvent ethanol at 80% concentration level, whereas UAE was a more efficient technique and yielded comparatively higher polyphenol contents than maceration. Maximum polyphenols were extracted with 80% methanol [32.48 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g extract] using UAE, whereas minimum phenolics (8.64 mg GAE/g extract) were obtained with 80% ethyl acetate through the maceration technique. Elevated antioxidant activity of kinnow peel extracts was exhibited in three antioxidant assays, where 80% methanolic extracts showed the highest antioxidant activity (27.67±1.11mM/100 g for FRAP) and the highest scavenging activity, 72.83±0.65% and 64.80±0.91% for DPPH and superoxide anion radical assays, respectively. Strong correlations between total polyphenols and antioxidant activity were recorded. Eleven phenolic compounds-including five phenolic acids and six flavonoids-were identified and quantified by high performance liquid chromatography. Ferulic acid and hesperidin were the most abundant compounds whereas caffeic acid was the least abundant phenolic compound in kinnow peel extracts. Maximum inhibition zone was recorded against S. aureus (16.00±0.58 mm) whereas minimum inhibition zone was noted against S. typhimurium (9.00±1.16 mm). It was concluded that kinnow mandarin peels, being a potential source of phenolic compounds with antioxidant and antimicrobial properties, may be used as an ingredient for the preparation of functional foods.

Overview

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.jfda.2016.07.010

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 59 references

Cited by

See all 389

Metadata

Authors
Safdar, M. N., Kausar, T., Jabbar, S., Mumtaz, A., Ahad, K., & Saddozai, A. A.
Venue
Journal of Food and Drug Analysis
Published
2017-07
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
488-500
ISSN
1021-9498 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2547958380
Cited by
389
References
59
FWCI
11.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extraction and quantification of polyphenols from kinnow ( Citrus reticulate L.) peel using ultrasound and maceration techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.07.010
The paper
Safdar, M. N., Kausar, T., Jabbar, S., Mumtaz, A., Ahad, K., & Saddozai, A. A. (2017). Extraction and quantification of polyphenols from kinnow ( Citrus reticulate L.) peel using ultrasound and maceration techniques. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.07.010

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.