Extraction and in vitro antioxidant capacity evaluation of phenolic compounds from pigmented aromatic rice (Oryzae sativa L.) cultivars
The aroma generating volatile components profile and in vitro antioxidant capacities of different aromatic rice cultivars was determined by GC–MS analysis and in terms of DPPH scavenging activity, lipid peroxidation inhibition, phosphomolybdenum reduction and reducing power assay. The total phenolic content including both free and bound forms in the analyzed aromatic rice cultivars, Mushki budgi (1.62 mg GAE/g), Mushki kandi (1.63 mg GAE/g) and Kamad (1.60 mg GAE/g) were found double the amount as compared to non-aromatic Koshkari (0.86 mg GAE/g) cultivar. The aromatic rice cultivars had also shown higher total flavonoid content and antioxidant activity than non-aromatic rice cultivar (Koshkari). The GC–MS results indicated 21-aromatic compounds present in sufficient quantities in aromatic cultivars and some of them were unique to these cultivars. Among the compounds identified, aldehydes were found in higher quantity followed by alkanes, ketones and esters. Among the aromatic rice cultivars, Mushki budgi and Mushki kandi were found possessing higher quantity of flavoring components such as benzaldehyde, a carcinostatic agent. The cultivars Mushki budgi and Mushki kandi indicated positive correlation of TPC, TFC and the in vitro antioxidant components largely, while the less aromatic Kamad, correlate with only two components viz DPPH and lipid peroxidation.
KeywordsAntioxidant property Aromatic rice Aromatic compounds GC–MS Phenolic compounds
Gallic acid equivalents
Total flavonoid contents
Total phenolic contents
Total anthocyanin contents
Thiobarbituric acid- reactive species
2,2 Diphenyl 1 picryl hydrazyl hydrate
Jammu & Kashmir
The authors are highly thank full for the rice breeding station Khudwani, (SKAUST) for providing traditional aromatic paddy cultivars in order to reveal the desirable bioactive components from these cultivars and their excellent antioxidative properties. Authors are also thankful to SLIET, Longowal, for providing TEQIP-II fellowship for research help.
Funding was provided by MHRD, India.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.S.M. Sultan, S. Rao, L. Venkata, Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 4, 467–476 (2013)Google Scholar
- 10.N.S. Rani, M.K. Pandey, G.S.V. Prasad, I. Sudharshan, Indian J. Crop Sci. 1, 29–41 (2006)Google Scholar
- 11.V.A. Eric, A.D. Dennis, Modern Physical Organic Chemistry (University Science Books, Sausalito, 2006). ISBN 978-1-891389-31-3Google Scholar
- 18.R.A. Khan, M.R. Khan, S. Sahreen, M. Ahmed, Chem. Cent. J. 6, 1–11 (2012).,Google Scholar
- 19.J.A. Badmus, T.O. Adedosu, J.O. Fatoki, V.A. Adegbite, O.A. Adaramoye, O.A. Odunola, Acta Pol. Pharm. 68, 23–29 (2011)Google Scholar
- 20.E.A. Hudson, P.A. Dinh, T. Kokubun, MSA. Simmonds, A. Gescher, Biomark. Prev. 9, 1163–1170 (2000)Google Scholar
- 30.R.R. Scheline, Pharmacol. Rev. 25, 451–532 (1973)Google Scholar
- 32.U. Shazia, Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 6, 97–100 (2013)Google Scholar
- 36.Fenaroli, Fenaroli’s Handbook of Flavor Ingredients, 5th edn., vol II. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2005)Google Scholar
- 43.R.S. Phatak, A.S. Hendre, J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2, 32–35 (2014)Google Scholar
- 50.H. Kosugi, T. Kato, K. Kikugawa, J. Sci. Food Agric. 85, 1715–1724 (1987)Google Scholar
- 51.O.O. Onyema, E.O. Farombi, G.O. Emerole, A.L. Ukoha, G.O. Onyeze, Indian J. Biochem. Biophys. 43, 20–24 (2006)Google Scholar
- 55.C.C. Grimm, E.T. Champagne, K. Oktsuba, Flavor, fragrance, and odor analysis (Marcel Dekker, New York, 2002), pp. 229–248Google Scholar
- 56.C.C. Grimm, E.T. Champagne, S.W. Lloyd, M. Easson, B. Condon, A. McClung, Cereal Chern. 88(3), 271–277 (2011)Google Scholar