Table 3. Phenolic characterization and antioxidant capacity of six selected commercial fruit wines.
| Fruit wine |
γ(total phenolics as GAE) mg/L |
γ(total anthocyanins) mg/L |
Antioxidant capacity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS as TE/(mmol/L) | FRAP/(mmol/L of Fe(II)) | |||
| Blackberry | (1424.6±15.0)b | (23.2±0.6)a | (11.48±0.03)d | (33.75±0.08)c |
| Cherry | (2647.7±3.2)d | (174.1±1.2)c | (12.04±0.10)d | (37.34±0.25)d |
| Raspberry | (1840.0±10.3)c | (160.6±0.6)b | (9.94±0.19)c | (36.61±0.21)d |
| Blackcurrant | (3086.4±19.3)e | (430.1±5.6)d | (11.69±0.04)d | (60.63±0.08)e |
| Strawberry | (670.5±0.6)a | – | (5.31±0.24)b | (7.21±0.40)b |
| Apple | (644.6±2.6)a | – | (4.04±0.53)a | (5.59±0.05)a |
Data are expressed as mean value of two repetitions±standard deviation for each selected sample of fruit wine. ANOVA was used to compare the data; different letters indicate significant differences between six selected fruit wines (Tukey’s test, p<0.05). GAE=gallic acid equivalent, TE=Trolox equivalent, ABTS=2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) radical cation assay, FRAP=ferric reducing antioxidant power