Table 3.

Contents of the studied phenolic compounds in Thai local wine samples (n = 3)

Wine sample	Phenolic compound (mg L−1)a
	GAL	PRO	p-HYD	VAN	CAF	SYR	p-COU	FER
Mao (Antidesma acidum Retz.)	35.4 ± 1.4	4.2 ± 0.2	0.40 ± 0.03	0.50 ± 0.01	0.20 ± 0.01	0.50 ± 0.01	1.70 ± 0.02	1.00 ± 0.05
Blackgalingales (Kaempferia parviflora Wall. ex Baker)	7.8 ± 0.2	0.70 ± 0.02	0.40 ± 0.02	0.60 ± 0.01	0.20 ± 0.01	0.60 ± 0.01	0.300 ± 0.002	0.20 ± 0.02
Jambolan (Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels)	172.4 ± 1.4	1.8 ± 0.11	2.40 ± 0.18	4.8 ± 0.4	0.20 ± 0.01	0.400 ± 0.007	0.50 ± 0.01	0.60 ± 0.04
Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.)	0.40 ± 0.03	1.50 ± 0.08	1.30 ± 0.04	26.6 ± 1.3	ND	1.60 ± 0.04	0.5 ± 1.9	0.200 ± 0.006
Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.)	2.3 ± 0.1	1.40 ± 0.12	1.00 ± 0.08	0.60 ± 0.05	0.30 ± 0.02	0.50 ± 0.02	0.20 ± 0.01	0.30 ± 0.01
Grape (Vitis vinifera L.)	4.20 ± 0.03	1.40 ± 0.01	0.500 ± 0.005	1.00 ± 0.07	0.300 ± 0.005	0.70 ± 0.02	0.300 ± 0.005	0.300 ± 0.001
Bel fruit (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa ex Roxb.)	0.50 ± 0.03	0.20 ± 0.05	0.80 ± 0.04	0.100 ± 0.001	0.100 ± 0.007	0.200 ± 0.003	0.200 ± 0.004	0.300 ± 0.006
Makampom (Phyllanthus emblica L.)	3.4 ± 0.1	99.1 ± 1.5	8.8 ± 0.5	20.2 ± 1.3	1.0 ± 0.08	1.70 ± 0.08	7.40 ± 0.34	1.80 ± 0.14
Found range (mg L−1)	0.40–172.4	0.20–99.1	0.40–8.8	0.100–26.6	ND–1.0	0.200–1.7	0.20–7.4	0.200–1.8

^aData expressed as mean±standard deviation (SD) of triplicate analyses (n = 3)

ND not detected