Table 2.
Antioxidant activity | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Packed | Carton | Plastic | Aluminum (normal atmosphere) | Aluminum (modified atmosphere) | |
Soup | |||||
Lipid peroxidationa | Vegetable | 50.0 ± 0.8a | 49.0 ± 1.8b | 57.4 ± 3.8b* | 48.8 ± 5.1a |
Meat | 74.2 ± 6.1b | 78.4 ± 1.2c | 78.8 ± 2.1c | 72.2 ± 5.5b | |
Chicken | 47.5 ± 2.8a | 41.3 ± 2.8a | 47.8 ± 2.7a | 42.3 ± 4.7a | |
Fish | 44.5 ± 0.6a | 43.9 ± 1.3a | 45.4 ± 3.7a | 43.0 ± 0.9a | |
Deoxyribosea | Vegetable | 93.1 ± 0.5b | 91.8 ± 0.7b | 93.1 ± 0.9b | 93.6 ± 0.1b |
Meat | 89.2 ± 1.1a | 88.5 ± 1.2a | 89.0 ± 0.5a | 89.6 ± 0.7a | |
Chicken | 92.0 ± 0.2b | 92.9 ± 0.9b | 92.2 ± 0.6b | 92.5 ± 0.6b | |
Fish | 92.3 ± 0.4b | 93.1 ± 0.2b | 92.6 ± 0.5b | 92.3 ± 0.2b | |
ABTS radical scavenging expressed as TEAC valueb | Vegetable | 6.9 ± 0.3a | 7.0 ± 0.2b | 8.3 ± 0.2c* | 6.5 ± 0.5a |
Meat | 7.3 ± 0.2a | 6.2 ± 0.4a* | 7.3 ± 0.3b | 7.4 ± 0.4b | |
Chicken | 6.9 ± 0.3a | 6.7 ± 0.4ab | 5.9 ± 0.5a | 7.5 ± 0.4b* | |
Fish | 8.0 ± 0.4b | 6.5 ± 0.4ab* | 8.0 ± 0.5bc | 7.8 ± 0.2b | |
Rancimat Testc | Vegetable | 0.98 ± 0.02ab | 0.99 ± 0.02b | 0.97 ± 0.03ab | 0.98 ± 0.01b |
Meat | 0.95 ± 0.01a | 0.97 ± 0.01a* | 0.95 ± 0.02a | 0.95 ± 0.01a | |
Chicken | 0.97 ± 0.00ab | 0.99 ± 0.02b | 1.00 ± 0.01bc* | 0.96 ± 0.02ab | |
Fish | 1.01 ± 0.04b | 1.02 ± 0.01c | 1.02 ± 0.01c | 0.98 ± 0.01b |
All determinations were performed in triplicate and values shown are mean ± standard deviation. Statistical differences was analysed by ANOVA (p < 0.05). Different letters indicate significant differences among soups by Multiple Range Test
*Statistical differences was analyzed by ANOVA (p < 0.05). Effect of packaging on each flavoured soup
aValues expressed as percent inhibition
bTEAC is the micromolar concentration of Trolox solution showing the equivalent antioxidant capacity of the particular substance at 24 h
cValues expressed as protection factor PF = induction time sample sunflower oil / sunflower oil induction time