Effects of Different Processing Methods on the Antioxidant Activity of 6 Cultivars of Foxtail Millet
Table 2
(a) The antioxidant activity of 6 cultivars of foxtail millet with different treatment measured by the FRAP and DPPH methods. (b) The antioxidant activity of 6 cultivars of foxtail millet with different treatment measured by the ABTS and ORAC methods. (c) Antioxidant potency composite index of 6 cultivars of foxtail millet with different treatment.
(a)
Foxtail millet
FRAP
DPPH
Whole
Dehulled
Steamed
Cooked
Whole
Dehulled
Steamed
Cooked
Longg12
20.06 ± 0.03
6.59 ± 0.09
3.92 ± 0.23
5.11 ± 0.13
4.63 ± 0.06
2.34 ± 0.11
1.50 ± 0.02
1.77 ± 0.03
Jigu31
26.94 ± 0.61
7.16 ± 0.14
4.11 ± 0.19
4.89 ± 0.21
4.74 ± 0.06
3.14 ± 0.15
1.37 ± 0.02
1.70 ± 0.05
Yugu01
16.60 ± 0.62
7.75 ± 0.17
4.09 ± 0.09
4.57 ± 0.04
4.38 ± 0.02
4.02 ± 0.11
0.93 ± 0.03
2.03 ± 0.01
Jinggu21
20.48 ± 1.61
5.79 ± 0.08
3.80 ± 0.06
4.19 ± 0.23
4.60 ± 0.10
3.34 ± 0.08
1.75 ± 0.05
2.07 ± 0.04
Jingfen02
18.38 ± 1.23
6.43 ± 0.18
3.02 ± 0.20
3.92 ± 0.25
4.45 ± 0.08
3.32 ± 0.01
1.15 ± 0.04
1.41 ± 0.04
Fenghonggu
19.87 ± 0.32
5.13 ± 0.18
3.98 ± 0.33
4.87 ± 0.29
4.58 ± 0.25
2.74 ± 0.02
2.04 ± 0.05
2.39 ± 0.03
The results were expressed as μmol Trolox equivalents/g dry weight (μmol TE/g DW). Values are means ± SD of three determinations. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences within different processing methods of the same cultivar (). The different uppercase letters indicate significant differences within different cultivars with the same treatment ().
(b)
Foxtail millet
ABTS
ORAC
Whole
Dehulled
Steamed
Cooked
Whole
Dehulled
Steamed
Cooked
Longg12
47.79 ± 3.46
11.34 ± 0.28
4.34 ± 0.28
6.56 ± 0.19
465.1 ± 39.88
136.8 ± 3.26
193.5 ± 17.47
144.4 ± 0.47
Jigu31
59.92 ± 0.04
14.41 ± 0.31
4.93 ± 0.22
6.67 ± 0.12
624.1 ± 2.79
123.0 ± 0.77
133.7 ± 0.72
102.5 ± 6.62
Yugu01
41.76 ± 3.14
15.24 ± 0.36
5.45 ± 0.04
3.69 ± 0.29
537.5 ± 34.89
182.2 ± 40.21
202.1 ± 2.35
101.0 ± 4.26
Jinggu21
48.12 ± 2.41
9.53 ± 0.06
6.33 ± 0.38
6.37 ± 0.24
486.0 ± 33.98
90.68 ± 2.73
128.6 ± 10.76
113.1 ± 2.84
Jingfen02
45.04 ± 2.81
11.88 ± 0.79
5.01 ± 0.06
4.29 ± 0.21
423.0 ± 30.67
111.6 ± 6.54
111.4 ± 0.58
91.0 ± 6.55
Fenghonggu
44.43 ± 1.11
10.30 ± 0.07
7.10 ± 0.42
8.61 ± 0.55
414.6 ± 20.59
71.6 ± 1.77
103.0 ± 2.21
82.7 ± 0.55
The results were expressed as μmol Trolox equivalents/g dry weight (μmol TE/g DW). Values are means ± SD of three determinations. The different lowercase letters indicate significant differences within different processing methods of the same cultivar (). The different uppercase letters indicate significant differences within different cultivars with the same treatment ().
