Cited by 93Seaweed-derived Bioactive CompoundsPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesAgricultural and Biological Research

Antioxidant activity and phenolic content of pressurised liquid and solid–liquid extracts from four Irish origin macroalgae

Heffernan, Natalie, Smyth, Thomas J., FitzGerald, Richard J., Soler‐Vila, Anna, Brunton, Nigel·2014·International Journal of Food Science & Technology

Abstract

Summary The efficiency of solid–liquid extraction ( SLE ) and pressurised liquid extraction ( PLE ) for the recovery of antioxidant and polyphenols from the I rish macroalgae, F ucus serratus , L aminaria digitata , G racilaria gracilis and C odium fragile, was assessed using the 2,2‐diphenyl‐1‐picrylhydrazyl ( DPPH ) and ferric reducing antioxidant power ( FRAP ) assays and the F olin– C iocalteu total phenol content ( TPC ) assay. F ucus serratus had TPC and antioxidant activities thirty times higher than the other species. Solid–liquid extraction cold water ( CW SLE ) had the highest TPC (81.17 μg GAE mg −1 sample) derived from F . serratus , compared with the TPC of 61.12 μg GAE mg −1 sample for the corresponding PLE extract. For both SLE and PLE extracts, low TPC levels were observed in L . digitata , G . gracilis and C . fragile . The majority of SLE extracts possessed higher FRAP and DPPH activities compared with their PLE counterparts. This study indicates that the high temperatures and pressures in PLE did not enhance the antioxidant activities relative to conventional SLE extraction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ijfs.12512

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heffernan, N., Smyth, T. J., FitzGerald, R. J., Soler‐Vila, A., & Brunton, N.
Affiliations
  • Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
  • University of Limerick (IE)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Smyth, Thomas J.
Venue
International Journal of Food Science & Technology
Published
2014-03-03
Volume
49
Issue
7
Pages
1765-1772
ISSN
  • 0950-5423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2621
OpenAlex
W1988698148
Cited by
93
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
8.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Food Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Marine Institute (MFFRI/07/01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Seaweed-derived Bioactive Compounds
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Biological Research
Keywords
seaweed, antioxidant activity, polyphenols, total phenolic content, accelerated solvent extraction, solid-liquid extraction, Fucus serratus, Laminaria digitata, Gracilaria gracilis, Codium fragile, seaweed extract

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