Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,248

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative Evaluation of Various Total Antioxidant Capacity Assays Applied to Phenolic Compounds with the CUPRAC Assay

Open access
Apak, Reşat, Güçlü, Kubilay, Demirata, Birsen, Özyürek, Mustafa, Çelik, Saliha Esin, Bektaşoğlu, Burcu, Berker, K. Işıl, Özyurt, Dilek·2007·Molecules

Abstract

It would be desirable to establish and standardize methods that can measure the total antioxidant capacity level directly from vegetable extracts containing phenolics. Antioxidant capacity assays may be broadly classified as electron transfer (ET)− and hydrogen atom transfer (HAT)−based assays. The majority of HAT assays are kinetics-based, and involve a competitive reaction scheme in which antioxidant and substrate compete for peroxyl radicals thermally generated through the decomposition of azo compounds. ET−based assays measure the capacity of an antioxidant in the reduction of an oxidant, which changes colour when reduced. ET assays include the ABTS/TEAC, CUPRAC, DPPH, Folin-Ciocalteu and FRAP methods, each using different chromogenic redox reagents with different standard potentials. This review intends to offer a critical evaluation of existing antioxidant assays applied to phenolics, and reports the development by our research group of a simple and low-cost antioxidant capacity assay for dietary polyphenols, vitamins C and E, and human serum antioxidants, utilizing the copper(II)-neocuproine reagent as the chromogenic oxidizing agent, which we haved named the CUPRAC (cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity) method. This method offers distinct advantages over other ET−based assays, namely the selection of working pH at physiological pH (as opposed to the Folin and FRAP methods, which work at alkaline and acidic pHs, respectively), applicability to both hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidants (unlike Folin and DPPH), completion of the redox reactions for most common flavonoids (unlike FRAP), selective oxidation of antioxidant compounds without affecting sugars and citric acid commonly contained in foodstuffs and the capability to assay –SH bearing antioxidants (unlike FRAP). Other similar ET–based antioxidant assays that we have developed or modified for phenolics are the Fe(III)− and Ce(IV)−reducing capacity methods.

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 · 10.3390/12071496

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 1,248

Metadata

Authors
Apak, R., Güçlü, K., Demirata, B., Özyürek, M., Çelik, S. E., Bektaşoğlu, B., Berker, K. I., & Özyurt, D.
Venue
Molecules
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2007-07-19
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
1496-1547
ISSN
1420-3049 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114781275
Cited by
1,248
References
5
FWCI
10.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Comparative Evaluation of Various Total Antioxidant Capacity Assays Applied to Phenolic Compounds with the CUPRAC Assay. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/12071496
The paper
Apak, R., Güçlü, K., Demirata, B., Özyürek, M., Çelik, S. E., Bektaşoğlu, B., Berker, K. I., & Özyurt, D. (2007). Comparative Evaluation of Various Total Antioxidant Capacity Assays Applied to Phenolic Compounds with the CUPRAC Assay. Molecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/12071496

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.