Table 2.
Antioxidant Capacity of Selected Chokeberry Cultivars Measured by Different Complementary Assays
| Chokeberry cultivar | ABTS(μmol Trolox equivalents/g FW) | FRAP (μmol Fe2+/g FW) | CUPRAC (μmol Trolox equivalents/g FW) | ORAC (μmol Trolox equivalents/g FW) | HPS (μmol Trolox equivalents/g FW) | WA* | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. prunifolia | 167.6±6.2a | 300.2±10.6a | 232.3±14.2a | 42.3±2.0a | 65.0±2.6a | 1.16 | 1 |
| A. melanocarpa cultivar | |||||||
| Viking | 171.7±6.8a | 206.2±9.4b | 158.8±8.3c | 41.7±1.2a | 61.9±1.9a | 0.99 | 2 |
| Aron | 95.9±7.3b | 185±8.6b | 177.8±9.6b | 35.3±1.7b | 53.3±1.5b | 0.83 | 3 |
| Average capacity | 145.1 | 230.5 | 189.6 | 39.8 | 60.1 | ||
Data are means±SD.
abc
Means with different letters in the same column have a statistically significant difference at P≤.05.
*
For weighted average (WA) calculation, see Results and Discussion.
ABTS, 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid; CUPRAC, cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant potential; HPS, H2O2 scavenging potential; ORAC, oxygen radical absorbance capacity.