Variability of antioxidant properties, catechins, caffeine, L-theanine and other amino acids in different plant parts of Azorean Camellia sinensis
Current Research in Food Science, ISSN: 2665-9271, Vol: 3, Page: 227-234
2020
- 44Citations
- 94Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations44
- Citation Indexes42
- 42
- CrossRef9
- Policy Citations2
- 2
- Captures94
- Readers94
- 94
Review Description
During Camellia sinensis tea processing, manufacturers usually remove the internodes, which are classified as waste. This study presents the first determination of plant part contribution, particularly internodes, to green tea quality, in order to find the best blend to maximize impact on human health. Catechins, caffeine and free amino acid (FAA) profiles were determined by RP-HPLC/DAD, total phenolics (TPC) and total flavonoids (TFC) by Folin-Ciocalteu and colorimetric methodologies, respectively, and antioxidant activities by free radical-scavenging activity (FRSA), ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and ferrous ion-chelating (FIC) methods. Individual esterified catechins content decreased as follows: epicatechin-3-gallate > epigallocatechin-3-gallate ≫ gallocatecin-3-gallate, and epicatechin derivatives content ranged from 63.91 to 91.22% of total catechins. Caffeine content was higher in internodes. L-theanine, histidine, asparagine, phenylalanine, glutamic acid and methionine were the major FAAs, and internodes contained the highest amounts of L-theanine and histidine (17 and 13.73 mg/g of sample, respectively). TPC ranged from 201.51 to 265.48 mg gallic acid equivalents/g dry extract (DE) and TFC ranged from 23.84 to 72.02 mg rutin equivalents/g DE. Internodes presented the lowest FRSA (EC 50 = 6.10–13.50 μg/mL), FRAP (EC 50 = 5.70–11.40 μg/mL) and FIC activity (36.96–79.21%). Bud presented the highest FRSA and FRAP, and bud+1st+2 nd leaves + internodes the highest FIC activity. The results revealed the potential contribution of the internodes to green tea quality and, consequently, to human health.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665927120300319; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2020.07.004; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85093538979&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33426532; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2665927120300319; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2020.07.004
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know