Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 905

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modified 2,2-Azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic Acid (ABTS) Method to Measure Antioxidant Capacity of Selected Small Fruits and Comparison to Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) and 2,2‘-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) Methods

Ozgen, Mustafa, Reese, R. Neil, Tulio, Artemio Z., Scheerens, Joseph C., Miller, A. Raymond·2006·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Abstract

The measurement of antioxidant capacity in fruits differs from that of other biological samples due to their low pH and very low lipophilic antioxidant capacity. In this report, we present a modified 2,2-azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) method for fruits and compare its performance with the other commonly used antioxidant methods of 2,2'-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP). The antioxidant capacity and reaction kinetics of four phenolic compounds, two antioxidant standards, and five fruits were also investigated. The modified ABTS method prepared at a pH of 4.5 with sodium acetate buffer is highly stable and easily applied to fruit samples as compared to the standard (pH 7.4) version. The measured antioxidant capacity of samples varied with the assay method used, pH, and time of reaction. Traditional antioxidant standards (trolox, ascorbic acid) displayed stable, simple reaction kinetics, which allowed end point analysis with all of assays. Of the phenolic compounds examined, chlorogenic and caffeic acids exhibited the most complex reaction kinetics and reaction rates that precluded end point analysis while gallic acid and quercetin reached stable end points. All fruit extracts exhibited complex and varied kinetics and required long reaction times to approach an end point. Because the antioxidant capacity of fruit extracts is a function of the array of individual antioxidants present, accurate comparisons among fruit samples require that reaction times be standardized and of sufficient length to reach steady state conditions and that more than one assay be used to describe the total antioxidant activity of fruit samples.

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 · 10.1021/jf051960d

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 905

Metadata

Authors
Ozgen, M., Reese, R. N., Tulio, A. Z., Scheerens, J. C., & Miller, A. R.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Published
2006-01-31
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
1151-1157
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
OpenAlex
W2133632526
Cited by
905
References
2
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Modified 2,2-Azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic Acid (ABTS) Method to Measure Antioxidant Capacity of Selected Small Fruits and Comparison to Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) and 2,2‘-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jf051960d
The paper
Ozgen, M., Reese, R. N., Tulio, A. Z., Scheerens, J. C., & Miller, A. R. (2006). Modified 2,2-Azino-bis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic Acid (ABTS) Method to Measure Antioxidant Capacity of Selected Small Fruits and Comparison to Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) and 2,2‘-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) Methods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf051960d

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.