Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 5;22(7):1114. doi: 10.3390/molecules22071114

Table 5.

Total phenolics and antioxidant properties of citrus fruit juice sacs of 35 cultivars.

Cultivars Total Phenolics DPPH FRAP ORAC CUPRAC APC Index * Rank #
AY27 6.35 ± 0.13 a 4.73 ± 0.15 bcd 13.00 ± 1.09 a 62.32 ± 7.68 bc 5.01 ± 0.27 cde 84.23 1
AY30 6.10 ± 0.20 abc 5.02 ± 0.36 abc 8.54 ± 0.37 defgh 32.26 ± 2.36 ghijk 6.04 ± 0.20 ab 70.68 8
AY31 4.75 ± 0.21 ghijk 2.09 ± 0.27 opq 7.42 ± 0.56 ghijkl 40.59 ± 2.64 efg 2.85 ± 0.16 mno 47.04 31
BZH 5.25 ± 0.13 defghij 4.29 ± 0.18 cdefgh 8.36 ± 0.43 defghij 20.35 ± 0.70 l 6.32 ± 1.08 ab 64.22 12
CR 5.84 ± 0.21 abcdef 4.54 ± 0.12 cdefg 8.27 ± 0.39 defghij 53.06 ± 4.85 cd 4.90 ± 0.20 de 70.85 7
CX 4.18 ± 0.10 k 1.66 ± 0.03 pq 4.28 ± 0.34 o 27.56 ± 1.35 ijkl 2.51 ± 0.04 no 33.60 34
DF 5.89 ± 0.04 abcde 3.74 ± 0.28 ghijk 7.07 ± 0.55 hijklm 38.83 ± 2.42 efgh 3.97 ± 0.10 fghijkl 57.01 20
GAC 6.06 ± 0.39 abcd 4.41 ± 0.18 cdefg 11.96 ± 0.53 ab 54.12 ± 4.41 cd 4.58 ± 0.20 defghi 76.58 5
GN 5.27 ± 0.05 cdefghij 3.58 ± 0.26 hijk 6.60 ± 0.28 jklmn 28.76 ± 1.54 hijkl 4.53 ± 0.51 defghij 54.09 26
GOC 5.42 ± 0.18 bcdefghi 3.80 ± 0.21 fghij 6.74 ± 0.46 ijklmn 29.49 ± 1.13 ghijkl 3.87 ± 0.23 ghijkl 53.19 28
HMR 5.27 ± 0.15 cdefghij 3.23 ± 0.08 ijkl 7.45 ± 0.61 ghijkl 28.78 ± 1.70 hijkl 4.47 ± 0.05 defghij 53.99 27
HY 5.98 ± 0.31 abcd 5.40 ± 0.21 ab 10.04 ± 0.65 cd 27.64 ± 0.39 hijkl 6.96 ± 0.09 a 77.00 4
KZJ22 5.70 ± 0.29 abcdef 1.46 ± 0.15 q 5.63 ± 0.33 mno 75.63 ± 3.81 a 2.30 ± 0.19 o 50.46 30
MBWD 4.80 ± 0.14 ghijk 4.22 ± 0.20 cdefgh 7.61 ± 0.29 ghijkl 20.15 ± 3.74 l 4.53 ± 0.19 defghij 55.98 22
MTH 5.39 ± 0.39 bcdefghi 3.58 ± 0.15 hijk 8.36 ± 0.43 defghij 35.82 ± 3.47 ghi 3.88 ± 0.27 ghijkl 57.47 19
MXG 5.02 ± 0.11 fghij 2.41 ± 0.11 mnop 7.43 ± 0.34 ghijkl 48.81 ± 3.20 de 3.17 ± 0.30 lmno 52.32 29
NG20 5.44 ± 0.03 bcdefghi 4.25 ± 0.18 cdefgh 11.9 ± 1.19 ab 26.84 ± 0.92 ijkl 4.77 ± 0.14 defg 67.43 9
NH 6.39 ± 0.42 a 4.74 ± 0.51 bcd 9.13 ± 1.08 cdefg 57.02 ± 2.10 bcd 5.87 ± 0.13 bc 78.17 3
OG 6.18 ± 0.39 ab 3.25 ± 0.15 ijkl 5.97 ± 0.81 lmno 55.16 ± 7.92 bcd 3.62 ± 0.20 jklm 56.90 21
PG 6.00 ± 0.23 abcd 4.17 ± 0.16 defgh 10.32 ± 0.46 bc 36.58 ± 1.61 ghi 4.36 ± 0.23 defghij 65.79 10
PTY 5.84 ± 0.11 abcedf 4.28 ± 0.27 cdefgh 7.57 ± 0.29 ghijkl 60.32 ± 7.35 bc 5.02 ± 0.29 cde 71.20 6
QJ 5.10 ± 0.26 efghij 4.68 ± 0.22 bcde 7.82 ± 0.14 fghijk 22.59 ± 1.15 kl 5.10 ± 0.30 cd 61.24 14
QOG 5.91 ± 0.35 abcde 2.68 ± 0.36 lmno 6.74 ± 0.12 ijklmn 48.80 ± 2.53 de 4.14 ± 0.15 efghijk 55.66 23
RN1 4.73 ± 0.42 ghijk 3.31 ± 0.15 ijkl 9.04 ± 0.21 cdefg 37.03 ± 4.50 fghi 4.15 ± 0.01 efghijk 58.97 16
SJY 4.62 ± 0.15 ijk 4.57 ± 0.09 cdef 8.44 ± 0.39 defghi 26.43 ± 4.43 ijkl 4.81 ± 0.31 def 62.18 13
SW 5.90 ± 0.42 abcde 4.01 ± 0.20 defghi 7.95 ± 0.05 efghijk 35.24 ± 0.94 ghij 4.63 ± 0.10 defghi 61.06 15
SYXX 5.49 ± 0.10 bcdefgh 3.51 ± 0.26 hijk 6.18 ± 0.24 klmn 53.77 ± 1.61 cd 3.80 ± 0.18 ijkl 58.62 17
TC 6.20 ± 0.17 ab 5.73 ± 0.62 a 9.73 ± 0.58 cde 35.38 ± 5.10 ghi 6.54 ± 0.22 ab 78.90 2
TCH 4.63 ± 0.31 hijk 2.23 ± 0.26 nopq 5.19 ± 0.51 no 24.15 ± 1.38 jkl 3.12 ± 0.20 lmno 38.90 33
WHOG 6.14 ± 0.46 ab 3.04 ± 0.03 jklm 6.29 ± 0.02 klmn 47.89 ± 1.22 def 3.84 ± 0.12 hijkl 54.98 24
WZ 4.67 ± 0.20 ghijkl 2.98 ± 0.21 klmn 5.83 ± 0.15 lmno 23.84 ± 1.42 kl 3.38 ± 0.04 klmn 44.23 32
YHY 4.83 ± 0.13 ghijk 4.61 ± 0.55 bcde 9.48 ± 1.15 cdef 27.52 ± 3.15 ijkl 4.74 ± 0.14 defgh 64.47 11
YL 5.46 ± 0.28 bcdefghi 2.97 ± 0.10 klmn 6.23 ± 0.57 klmn 65.67 ± 2.39 ab 3.29 ± 0.26 klmn 58.46 18
YXC 4.36 ± 0.11 k 2.79 ± 0.10 lmno 7.05 ± 0.43 hijklm 24.17 ± 1.26 jkl 4.54 ± 0.47 defghij 50.03 35
ZXY 4.53 ± 0.15 jk 3.90 ± 0.23 efghi 6.78 ± 0.28 hijklmn 27.78 ± 1.10 hijkl 4.35 ± 0.42 defghij 54.86 25

Results were the mean ± SD (n = 3) on a dried weight (g) of citrus basis. Total phenolics were calculated as mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g DW. Antioxidant capacities (DPPH, FRAP, ORAC and CUPRAC) were calculated as mg trolox equivalent antioxidant capacities (TEAC)/g DW. Values within each column followed by different superscript letters were significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s tests. * Antioxidant index score = [(sample score/best score) × 100], averaged for all four tests for each cultivar for the antioxidant potency composite (APC) index. # Ranked according to the APC index.