Extraction optimization of polyphenols, antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitory activities from Prunus salicina Lindl.

Abstract

Optimization of polyphenols extraction from plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.) was evaluated using response surface methodology. The Box-Behnken experimental results showed the optimal conditions involved an extraction temperature of 59 °C, a sonication time of 47 min, and an ethanol concentration of 61% respectively. The maximum extraction yield of total polyphenols was 44.74 mg gallic acid equivalents per gram of dried plum at optimal conditions. Polyphenol extracts exhibited stronger antioxidant activities than V_c by evaluating of 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and hydroxyl radical scavenging activity. Furthermore, polyphenol extracts (IC₅₀ = 179 g/mL) showed obvious inhibitory effects on xanthine oxidase. These findings suggest that polyphenol extracts from P. salicina can be potentially used as natural antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitory agents.

Keywords:
Prunus salicina Lindl.; polyphenols; response surface methodology; antioxidant activities; xanthine oxidase inhibitory

1 Introduction

Polyphenolic compounds are a group of biologically active molecules and one of the most important classes of secondary plant metabolites. Plant polyphenols play important roles in the prevention of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative disorders, cancer, type II diabetes and osteoporosis (Scalbert et al., 2005). Therefore, plant polyphenols have become one of hot spots in recent years, and they have been widely applied in the manufacturing of various functional products, such as colorant or a functional ingredient, and in the nutraceutical and pharmaceutical industries (Vallverdú-Queralt et al., 2015; Pérez-Jiménez et al., 2010).

Plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.) is an important stone fruit which is widely planted in China, Japan, Europe, South African, Chile and the United States (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2016). China produced approximately 6022744 tons of plums during 2012, which was the country producing the largest yields of plums per annum (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2016). In addition, Fu et al. (2011) reported that plums have a fairly high phenolic content in comparison to some other fruits such as apple, orange, grapes, banana and kiwifruit. However, there are no reports yet about optimization of polyphenols extraction and xanthine oxidase inhibitory from Prunus salicina Lindl.. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to optimize the extraction of polyphenols from Prunus salicina Lindl. by using response surface methodology (RSM), and subsequently evaluate the antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity. The results provided scientific reference for development of antioxidant products and xanthine oxidase inhibitors from Prunus salicina Lindl..

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Plant materials and chemicals

The plums of Prunus salicina Lindl. cv.Yanzhi were collected from Yongtai County, Fujian Province, China. After harvesting and cleaning, the plum was dried with hot air at 50 °C and then stored at -20 °C refrigerator in the dark. Before extraction, dried plums were milled and sieved (particle size range from 0.5 to 2.0 mm). Gallic acid and 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) were purchased from Shanghai Yuanye Biotechnology Co., Ltd.. All other organic solvents used in the study were analytical grade.

2.2 Polyphenols extraction

Five grams of samples were placed in a capped triangular flask (250 mL) and mixed with ethanol. The extraction process was conducted in an ultrasonic bath (KQ-600DV, 40 kHz, 300W, Kunshan Ultrasonic Instrument Co. Jiangsu, China). After ultrasonic extraction, the mixture was filtered (Whatman No.1 paper). Then the filtrate was collected in volumetric flask and used for the determination of the total polyphenol content. The filtrate was evaporated by a rotary evaporator (at 0.09 MPa, 45 °C) and then the extracts were lyophilized. The plum extracts were stored at −20 °C for further use. Samples were re-suspended in distilled water for determination of antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitory activities.

2.3 Experimental design

On the basis of single factors experiment, RSM was applied to evaluate the influence of three independent variables on extraction of polyphenols. The main factors affecting extraction efficiency, including the extraction temperature (°C, X₁), sonication time (min, X₂) and ethanol concentration (%, X₃) were selected as independent variables. The coded values of the experimental factors and their levels for the Box–Behnken Design were presented in Table 1. The complete design was carried out in random order and consisted of 17 combinations including five replicates at central point (Table 2). Statistical analysis was performed using the Design-Expert.V8.0.6.1 software (State-Ease lnc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). Experimental data were fitted to a second-order polynomial model where multiple regression analysis and analysis of variance were used to determine fitness of the model and optimal conditions for investigated responses. All of the treatments were performed in triplicate.

Table 1
Levels of variables for the experimental design.

Symbols	Independent variables	Factor levels
		–1	0	1
X1	Extraction temperature (°C)	40	50	60
X2	Sonication time (min)	30	45	60
X3	Ethanol concentration (%, v/v)	40	60	80

Table 2
Box–Behnken design (uncoded) arrangement for extraction and the responses of polyphenols (mg GAE/g DP).

Run	X1(°C)	X2(min)	X3(%)	Y (mg GAE/g DP)*
1	50	45	60	39.01 ± 0.56
2	60	45	40	40.55 ± 0.49
3	60	30	60	40.41 ± 0.71
4	40	45	80	24.27 ± 0.38
5	60	60	60	40.11 ± 0.36
6	50	45	60	42.69 ± 0.69
7	50	45	60	41.62 ± 1.03
8	50	30	40	31.73 ± 0.82
9	40	30	60	21.84 ± 0.28
10	40	45	40	21.25 ± 0.57
11	50	30	80	29.59 ± 0.54
12	50	60	40	35.36 ± 0.84
13	50	45	60	39.31 ± 1.13
14	40	60	60	24.85 ± 0.47
15	50	45	60	40.16 ± 1.22
16	50	60	80	36.09 ± 0.75
17	60	45	80	42.84 ± 1.17

• ^*
  Mean values (n = 3) ± S.D.

2.4 Determination of total polyphenol content

Total polyphenol content in the extracts was determined with colorimetry by using the Folin–Ciocalteu method (Wood et al., 2002). Briefly, 2.5 mL diluted Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (10%, v/v) was mixed with 200 μL of sample. After 2 min of incubation in the dark at room temperature, 2 mL of aqueous sodium carbonate (7.5%, w/v) was added to the mixture. And then it was made up 10 mL by adding distilled water. After gentle vibration, the mixture was placed in a water bath at 50 °C for 30 min and then rapidly cooled down to room temperature. Absorbance was measured at 765 nm using a UV-vis spectrophotometer (756P, Shanghai Spectrum Instruments Co., Ltd., China). Total polyphenol content was expressed as mg (gallic acid equivalent) per gram of dried plum (mg GAE/g DP).

2.5 DPPH free radical scavenging capacity

DPPH assay was done according to a method (Yu et al., 2005) with some modifications. 5 mL of 100 μM DPPH dissolved in methanol was added to 1 mL of extract re-suspended in distilled water. After vigorously shaken, the mixtures were allowed to stand in the dark at 25 °C for 30 min. The absorbance was measured using a spectrophotometer at 517 nm against a blank sample without DPPH. The ability to scavenge the DPPH radical was calculated by using the Equation 1 below:

Antioxidant capacity (% inhibition) = [(A_c – A_s)/A_c] ×100(1)

where A_c is the absorbance of the control (DPPH solution without sample) and A_s is the absorbance of the test sample.

2.6 Hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity

Hydroxyl radicals scavenging capacity was determined according to previously reported methods (Sun & Kennedy, 2010) with some slight modifications. The test tube added 4.7 mL of ultrapure water, 1.0 mL of 0.15 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4), 2 mL of 0.52 mg/mL saffron solution, 1.0 mL of 6 mM EDTA-Na₂-Fe²⁺ and 0.5 mL of sample solution. The mixtures were shaken well and added 0.8 mL of 0.3% H₂O₂, then immediately placed in 40°C water bath for 30min. The blank group was replaced by an equal volume of ultrapure water instead of the sample solution, and the control group was replaced by an equal volume of ultrapure water instead of the sample solution and H₂O₂ solution. Then absorbance was measured at 520 nm (756P spectrophotometer, Shanghai Spectrum Instruments Co., Ltd., China). The capability of scavenge hydroxyl radicals was calculated using the following Equation 2:

Hydroxyl radical scavenging ability (%) = [(A _s -A _b) / (A _c -A _b)] × 100(2)

where A_b, A_c and A_s are the absorbance of the blank group, the control group and the test sample respectively.

2.7 Xanthine oxidase inhibitory assay

The assay was carried out based on a procedure reported by Orsolya et al. (2015) with slight modification. Briefly, test extracts were firstly dissolved in DMSO (1%, v/v) and then and then the phosphate buffer solution (0.2 M, pH 7.5) was used to prepare different concentrations. . The reaction mixture contained 50 μL of test extract solution and 150 μL of 0.4 mM xanthine solution, and then the mixture was incubated for another 15 min at 25 °C. After adding 50μL of 0.05 units/mL xanthine oxidase (XO) solution, the mixture was incubated at room temperature (25 °C) for 30 min. Finally 80μL of 1M HCl was added to stop reaction. A blank solution was phosphate buffer (0.2 M, pH 7.5) instead of the test sample solution. Each mixture was measured uric acid production by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC, LC-600 series, Nanjing Kejie Analysis Instrument Co. Ltd. China). The mixture was diluted 10 times with ultrapure water and was filtered through a 0.45 μm nylon membranes (Millipore). The separation was performed with a mobile phase consisting of methanol and 0.015 M dihydrogen phosphate amine solution (15:85, v/v) and a chromatographic running time of 10 min at 25 °C with a flow-rate of 0.8 mL/min, and chromatograms were monitored at 295 nm. Allopurinol was used as a positive control. Three replicates were made for each test sample. The inhibition rate (%) was calculated according to the following Equation 3:

$$Inhibitionrate(\%)=(1-\frac{A}{B})\times 100$$ (3)

where A is chromatographic peak area of uric acid in test sample; B is chromatographic peak area of uric acid in blank solution.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Fitting the response surface models

Table 2 showed polyphenol compounds extracted from P. salicina ranged from 21.25 ± 0.57 to 42.84 ± 1.17 mg GAE/g DP. A second-order polynomial model describing the correlation between polyphenols yield and the three variables in this study was obtained in Equation 4 below:

Y=-207.0203+6.0595X₁+1.7974X₂+1.0035X₃-0.0055X₁X₂-0.0009X₁X₃+0.0024X₂X₃-0.0486 X₁²-0.0173X₂²-0.0087X₃²(4)

Significance and suitability of the design were then studied using an analysis of the variance (ANOVA, Table 3). According to Table 3, lack of fit (p = 0.2585 > 0.05) was not significant, which indicated that the regression equation fit well with the experimental results and the quadratic regression model was appropriate. Model (p < 0.0001) was significant, which indicated the suitability of regression equation to accurately predict the variation. 97.39% of the variability of responses was explained (R² = 0.9739), asserting a good accuracy and ability of the established model.

Table 3
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the investigated systems.

Source	Sum of Squares	DF	Mean Square	F-Value	p-Value
Model	908.57	9	100.95	29.02	<0.0001
X1	642.61	1	642.61	184.72	<0.0001
X2	20.61	1	20.61	5.92	0.0452
X3	1.90	1	1.90	0.55	0.4838
X1 X2	2.74	1	2.74	0.79	0.4044
X1 X3	0.13	1	0.13	0.038	0.8504
X2 X3	2.06	1	2.06	0.59	0.4668
X12	99.46	1	99.46	28.59	0.0011
X22	63.89	1	63.89	18.36	0.0036
X32	50.71	1	50.71	14.58	0.0066
Residual	24.35	7	3.48
Lack of Fit	14.57	3	4.86	1.98	0.2585
Pure Error	9.79	4	2.45
Corrected Total	932.92	16

• X₁: Extraction temperature; X₂: Sonication time; X₃: Ethanol concentration; DF: degrees of freedom.

3.2 Effect of extraction parameters on polyphenols

Figure 1 presented the response surface and contour plots for the influences of extraction parameters on total polyphenol content. The temperature dominantly impacted response value in the processing of ultrasonic extraction by analyzing the slopes for each variable (Figure 1a and Figure 1b). The increased extraction yield of total polyphenols was observed with an increased temperature from 40 °C to 59 °C. This may be due to multiple effects of temperature on mass-transfer process such as improved diffusivity, degradation of the plum matrix and improvement of solvent characteristics in terms of penetration and solubility of polyphenols (Ghitescu et al., 2015). The results are consistent with previous studies describing the extraction of polyphenols from spruce wood bark (Ghitescu et al., 2015) and Aronia melanocarpa by-product (Ramić et al., 2015). As shown in Figure 1c, it could be concluded that maximum polyphenols extraction could be obtained when the ethanol concentration and sonication time were 61% and 47 min respectively. It was worth noting that application of ultrasound energy for longer time decreased the extraction yield of polyphenols, which was probably due to polyphenol degradation. This is also in accordance with the reports of other researchers who have evaluated the effect of sonication time on polyphenols from spruce wood bark (Ghitescu et al., 2015) and arecanut (Chavan & Singhal. 2013). However, the polyphenols yield decreased when the ethanol concentration was above 61%, which suggested that an appropriate combination of alcohol with water was more effective in extracting phenolic compounds. The findings obtained from our study are in good agreement with Muñiz-Márquez et al. (2013).

Figure 1
Response surface plots for polyphenols of the extracts as a function of (a) extraction temperature to sonication time (ethanol concentration = 60%); (b) extraction temperature to ethanol concentration (sonication time = 45 min); (c) sonication time to ethanol concentration (extraction temperature = 50 °C).

3.3 Optimization of extraction conditions and verification of model

The model predicted a maximum yield of 44.74 mg GAE/g DP at the optimum conditions, which involved an extraction temperature of 59 °C, a sonication time of 47 min and an ethanol concentration of 61% respectively.

Under the optimal conditions for three parallel experiments, polyphenols extraction yield was 43.85 ± 0.74 mg GAE/g DP, which amounted to 98.01% of theoretical prediction. This result indicates that the optimized model appropriately explains the actual extraction process of phenolic compounds.

3.4 DPPH free radical scavenging capacity of polyphenol extracts from P. salicina

DPPH radical scavenging assay was a widely used method to evaluate free radical scavenging activities of antioxidants. A dose-response curve of DPPH radicals scavenging capacities of the polyphenol extracts from P. salicina was presented in Figure 2. It was indicated that the DPPH radical-scavenging activity increased as the concentration of the extract increased. The polyphenol extracts from P. salicina showed higher activities than Vc in the concentration range of 0.02-0.16 mg/mL. Meanwhile, IC₅₀ values of polyphenol extracts (IC₅₀ = 0.034 mg/mL) was significantly lower than Vc (IC₅₀ = 0.065 mg/mL). The experimental results showed that the polyphenol extracts of the plums had a strong scavenging ability on DPPH radical.

Figure 2
DPPH scavenging capacity of the polyphenol extracts from P. salicina.

3.5 Hydroxyl radical scavenging activity of polyphenol extracts from P. salicina

Hydroxyl radical is one of the potent reactive oxygen species in the biological system. It could cause severe damage to cell and lead to ageing, cancer and several other diseases (Yang et al., 2014). The scavenging activities of polyphenol extracts from P. salicina and Vc of various concentrations on hydroxyl radical are given in Figure 3. The hydroxyl radical scavenging ability of the two test samples increased with the increase of the concentration. The IC₅₀ values of polyphenol extracts from P. salicin and Vc were 0.56 mg/mL and 0.63 mg/mL, respectively. These results suggested that polyphenol extracts from P. salicin was better natural antioxidant than Vc in scavenging hydroxyl radical.

Figure 3
Hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity of the polyphenol extracts from P. salicina.

3.6 Xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity of polyphenol extracts from P. salicina

Many metabolic disorders like gout and hyperuricemia are caused by elevated uric acid levels in blood, and xanthine oxidase (XO) is responsible for uric acid production by converting hypoxanthine into xanthine, and xanthine in turn into uric acid (Neha & Sanjai, 2014). Hence XO inhibitors, such as allopurinol, are usedwidely in the therapeutic approach for the treatment of gout and hyperuricemia (Hashim et al., 2013). However, allopurinol, as a widely used XO inhibitory agent, has various side effects such as renal toxicity and hypersensitivity reactions (Umamaheswari et al., 2009).

The xanthine oxidase inhibitory activities of polyphenols extracts from P. salicin and allopurinol were shown in Figure 4. With the increase of concentration, the inhibitory abilities of polyphenols extracts and Allopurinol on xanthine oxidase increased. As positive control, allopurinol showed a high inhibitory activity to xanthine oxidase at a low concentration. Polyphenol extracts from P. salicin also showed obvious inhibition of xanthine oxidase, which ranged from 0 to 63.94% at the concentration from 0 to 300 μg/mL. The IC₅₀ of polyphenol extracts from P. salicin and allopurinol was 179 μg/mL and 3.12 μg/mL respectively. These results indicate that polyphenol extracts from plums can be explored as a promising xanthine oxidase inhibitor.

Figure 4
The inhibitory activity of polyphenols extracts from P. salicina on xanthine oxidase.

4 Conclusions

The extraction conditions of polyphenols from Prunus salicina Lindl. were optimized by a Box-Behnken experiment design of three variables and three levels. Through the response surface method optimization, the optimal extraction conditions for the extraction of polyphenols were an extraction temperature of 59 °C, a sonication time of 47 min, and an ethanol concentration of 61%. Furthermore, the antioxidant activities of polyphenol extracts were evaluated by DPPH and hydroxyl radical scavenging assay. It exhibited stronger antioxidant activity compared to Vc. Polyphenol extracts showed significant inhibitory effect on xanthine oxidase, and the IC₅₀ was 179 μg/mL. Thus, Prunus salicina Lindl can be developed natural antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitor agent in functional food or drug candidate. However, purification of polyphenol extracts and in vivo evaluation should be further studied.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully thanks the financial support of this study by the public service sectors (agriculture) project of China Agricultural Ministry (201503142) and the special fund of Fujian non-profit research institutes (2014R1015-3). At the same time, thank you for the support of Fujian Key Laboratory of Agricultural Product (Food) Processing.

• Practical Application: P. salicina polyphenols can be potentially used as natural antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitor.

References

• Chavan, Y., & Singhal, R. S. (2013). Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) of bioactives from arecanut (Areca catechu L.) and optimization study using response surface methodology. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 17, 106-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2012.10.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2012.10.001
• Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsFAO2016FaostatRomeFAORetrieved from http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
  » http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
• Fu, L., Xu, B. T., Xu, X. R., Gan, R. Y., Zhang, Y., Xia, E. Q., & Li, H. B. (2011). Antioxidant capacities and total phenolic contents of 62 fruits. Food Chemistry, 129(2), 345-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.04.079
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.04.079
• Ghitescu, R. E., Volf, I., Carausu, C., Bühlmann, A. M., Gilca, I. A., & Popa, V. I. (2015). Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenols from spruce wood bark. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 22, 535-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.07.013 PMid:25132494.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.07.013
• Hashim, N. H. N., Abas, F., & Lajis, K. S. N. H. (2013). Antioxidant and xanthine oxidase inhibitory activities of persicaria hydropiper. International Journal of Food Properties, 16(5), 1028-1036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2011.575497
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2011.575497
• Muñiz-Márquez, D. B., Martínez-Ávila, G. C., Wong-Paz, J. E., Belmares-Cerda, R., & Raúl Rodríguez-Herrera, C. N. (2013). Ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from Laurus nobilis L. and their antioxidant activity. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 20(5), 1149-1154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2013.02.008 PMid:23523026.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2013.02.008
• Neha, K., & Sanjai, S. (2014). Potential xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity of endophytic lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 173(6), 1360-1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-0927-x PMid:24801403.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12010-014-0927-x
• Orsolya, O. G., Ildikó, L., Judit, H., Gusztáv, J., & Andrea, V. (2015). Xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity of extracts prepared from polygonaceae species. Phytotherapy Research, 29(3), 459-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ptr.5275 PMid:25510560.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ptr.5275
• Pérez-Jiménez, J., Neveu, V., Vos, F., & Scalbert, A. (2010). Systematic analysis of the content of 502 polyphenols in 452 foods and beverages: an application of the phenol-explorer database. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58(8), 4959-4969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf100128b PMid:20302342.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf100128b
• Ramić, M., Vidović, S., Zeković, Z., Vladić, J., Cvejin, A., & Pavlić, B. (2015). Modeling and optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of polyphenolic compounds from . Aronia melanocarpa by-products from filter-tea factoryUltrasonics Sonochemistry, 23, 360-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.10.002 PMid:25454824.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2014.10.002
• Scalbert, A., Manach, C., Morand, C., Rémésy, C., & Jiménez, L. (2005). Dietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseases. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 45(4), 287-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1040869059096 PMid:16047496.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1040869059096
• Sun, Y. X., & Kennedy, J. F. (2010). Antioxidant activities of different polysaccharide conjugates (CRPs) isolated from the fruiting bodies of Chroogomphis rutilus (Schaeff.: Fr.) O. K. Miller. Carbohydrate Polymers, 82(2), 510-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.05.010
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.05.010
• Umamaheswari, M., Asokkumar, K., Sivashanmugam, A. T., Subhadradevi, V., & Ravi, T. K. (2009). In vitro xanthine oxidase inhibitory activity of the fractions of Erythrina stricta Roxb. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 124(3), 646-648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.05.018 PMid:19467311.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2009.05.018
• Vallverdú-Queralt, A., Regueiro, J., Alvarenga, J. F. R., Martinez-Huelamo, M., Leal, L., & Lamuela-Raventos, R. M. (2015). Characterization of the phenolic and antioxidant profiles of selected culinary herbs and spices: caraway, turmeric, dill, marjoram and nutmeg. Food Science and Technology, 35(1), 189-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457X.6580
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457X.6580
• Wood, J. E., Senthilmohan, S. T., & Peskin, A. V. (2002). Antioxidant activity of procyanidin-containing plant extracts at different pHs. Food Chemistry, 77(2), 155-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(01)00329-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(01)00329-6
• Yang, X., Yan, F., Huang, S., & Fu, C. (2014). Antioxidant activities of fractions from longan pericarps. Food Science and Technology, 34(2), 341-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612014005000034
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612014005000034
• Yu, J., Wang, L., Walzem, R. L., Miller, E. G., Pike, L. M., & Patil, B. S. (2005). Antioxidant activity of citrus limonoids, flavonoids, and coumarins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(6), 2009-2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf0484632 PMid:15769128.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf0484632

Data availability

Data citations

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsFAO2016FaostatRomeFAORetrieved from http://faostat.fao.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  06 May 2016
• Date of issue
  Jul-Sep 2016

History

• Received
  04 Feb 2016
• Accepted
  22 Mar 2016