Effect of light emitting diode radiation on antioxidant activity of barley leaf
- 203 Downloads
Antioxidant activity of extracts of barley leaves cultivated by light emitting diode (LED) radiation such as red, far-red, blue, blue-red, green, yellow, and white light was investigated. After measuring length and weight of the leaves cultivated, barley leaves were extracted using 70% ethanol. The Hunter color value, total phenolic compounds, and 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2,2′-azinobis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salts (ABTS) radical-scavenging activities of extracts were determined. Lengths of samples cultivated by red and green light radiation were 13.7 and 13.6 cm, respectively. Hunter L* values of samples cultivated by red, far-red, and UVA radiation were 65.29, 67.55, and 67.57, respectively. The content of total phenolic compounds of samples cultivated by blue light radiation was 1.62 mg/L of sample. The DPPH radical-scavenging activities of samples cultivated by blue, green, UVA, and white light radiation were 64.28, 48.92, 55.95, and 48.72%, respectively. The ABTS radical-scavenging activity of samples cultivated by blue light radiation scored higher compared with those of samples cultivated with other LED lights. Antioxidant activities of barley leaves showed different results depending on harvest time. Application of LED radiation during re-cultivation after the first harvest showed increasing tendency on antioxidant activity of barley leaves.
Key wordsantioxidant activity barley leaf harvested time light emitting diode
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Giliberto L, Perrotta G, Pallara P, Weller JL, Fraser PD, Bramley PM, Fiore A, Tavazza M, and Giuliano G (2005) Manipulation of the blue light photoreceptor crytochrome 2 in tomato affects vegetative development, flowering time, and fruit antioxidant content. Plant Physiol 137, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Halliwell B and Gutteridge JMC (2007) In Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine, (4th ed.), Clarendon, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Kopsell DA and Kopsell DE (2008) Genetic and environmental factors affecting plant lutein/zeaxanthin. Agro Food Ind Hi-Tech 19, 44–46.Google Scholar
- Lee NY, Kim YK, Choi ID, Cho SK, Hyun JN, Choi JS, Park KH, Kim KJ, and Lee MJ (2010) Biological activity of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and barley by-product extracts. Food Sci Biotechnol 19, 795–791.Google Scholar
- Miyashita Y, Kitaya Y, Kozai Y, and Kimura T (1995) Effect of red and far-red light on the growth and morphology of potato plantlets in vitro: using light emitting diode as a light source for micropropagation. Acta Hortic 393, 189–194.Google Scholar
- Nishlyama T, Haglwara Y, Haglwara H, and Shlbamoto T (1992) Inhibitory effect of 2-O-Glycosyl isovitexin and átocopherol on genotoxic glyoxal formation in a lipid peroxidation system. Food Chem Toxicol 32, 1047–1051.Google Scholar
- Papas AM (1999) In Antioxidnat Status, Diet, Nutrition, and Health. CRC Press, Boca Laton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
- Tsormpatsidis E, Henbest RGC, Davis FJ, Battey NH, Hadley P, and Wagstaffe A (2008) UV irradiance as a major influence on growth, development and secondary products of commercial importance in Lollo Rosso Lettuce Revolution grown under polyethylene film. Environ Exp Bot 63, 232–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhao H, Dong J, Lu J, Chin J, Li Y, Shan L, Lin Y, Fan W, and Gu G (2006) Effects of extraction solvent mixtures on antioxidant activity evaluation and their extraction capacity and selectivity for free phenolic compounds in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J Agric Food Chem 54, 7277–7286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar