Skip to main content
Log in

Antioxidative activity and general fruit characteristics in different traditional orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck] varieties

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Genotypic variation in some attributes related to fruit quality and total antioxidative activity (TAA) were evaluated in 16 traditional orange varieties and in the Naveline variety, nowadays the most commonly cultivated in Spain. Significant differences were found in fruit weight, soluble solid content, titratable acidity and scores for sensory analysis among orange varieties. TAA in orange juice ranged between ca. 40 and 140 mg ascorbic acid equivalent/100 g of juice depending on variety, and contributed to the TAA of the fruits’ edible tissues by more than 99.5%. TAA in orange juice correlated to ascorbic acid concentration, and was responsible for 50–82% of the TAA evaluated. According to the TAAs of the orange fruits and the sensory analysis results, Guasi, Newhall and Capuchina varieties would be the most appropriate for consumption, owing to their desirable organoleptic properties, and in order to increase the dietary intake of antioxidative compounds and their health-promoting effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Feskanich D, Ziegler RG, Michaud DS, Giovannucci EL, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Colditz GA (2000) J Natl Cancer I 92:1812–1823

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Halliwell B (1996) Annu Rev Nutr 16:33–50

    Google Scholar 

  3. Liu S, Manson JE, Lee IM, Cole SR, Hennekens CH, Willett WC, Buring JE (2000) Am J Clin Nutr 72:922–928

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Frankel EN, Meyer AS (2000) J Sci Food Agric 80:1925–1941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jia ZS, Zhou B, Yang L, Wu LM, Liu ZL (1998) J Chem Soc-Perkin Trans 2:911–915

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sánchez-Moreno C (2002) Food Sci Tech Int 8:121–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nuez F, Ruíz JJ (1999) Encuentro Internacional sobre Conservación y Utilización de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Reproval SL, Valencia, Spain

  8. MAPA (2002) Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Encuesta sobre plantaciones frutales, año 2002

  9. Kimball DA (1999) Citrus processing. A complete guide. Aspen, Gaithersburg, MD

  10. Rivera D, Obón C, Ríos S, Selma C, Méndez F, Verde A, Cano F (1998) Las variedades tradicionales de frutales de la cuenca del río Segura. Catálogo etnobotánico. Cítricos, carnosos y vides. DM Librero, Murcia Spain

  11. Amorós A, Zapata P, Pretel MT, Botella MA, Serrano M (2003) Food Sci Technol Int 9:43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cano A, Hernández-Ruíz J, García-Cánovas F, Acosta M, Arnao MB (1998) Phytochem Anal 9:196–202

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Martínez-Romero D, Guillén F, Castillo S, Valero D, Serrano M (2003) J Food Sci 68:1838–1843

    Google Scholar 

  14. Szeto YT, Tomlinson B, Benzie IFF (2002) Br J Nutr 87:55–59

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Connor AM, Luby JJ, Tong CBS, Finn CE, Hancock JF (2002) J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127:89–97

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Van der Sluis AA, Dekker M, De Jager A, Jongen WMF (2001) J Agric Food Chem 48:140–146

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wang SY, Lin H (2000) J Agric Food Chem 48:140–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leong LP, Shui G (2002) Food Chem 76:69–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gardner PT, White TAC, McPhail DB, Duthie GG (2000) Food Chem 68:471–474

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. De Pascale S, Maggio A, Fogliano V, Ambrosino P, Ritieni A (2001) J Hortic Sci Biotech 76:447–453

    Google Scholar 

  21. Silalahi J (2002) Asia Pac J Clinic Nutr 11:79–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gil MI, Tomás-Barberán FA, Hess-Pierce B, Kader AA (2002) J Agric Food Chem 50:4976–4982

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Moyer RA, Hummer KE, Finn CE, Frei B, Wrolstad RE (2002) J Agric Food Chem 50:519–525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang SY, Stretch AW (2001) J Agric Food Chem 49:969–974

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wolfe K, Wu X, Liu RH (2003) J Agric Food Chem 51:609–614

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Scalfi L, Fogliano V, Pentangelo A, Graziani G, Giordano I, Ritieni A (2000) J Agric Food Chem 48:1363–1366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Connor AM, Luby JJ, Hancock JF, Berkheimer S, Hanson EJ (2002) J Agric Food Chem 50:893–898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been funded by Generalitat Valenciana, Project GV00–136–13.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Serrano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pretel, M.T., Botella, M.A., Zapata Asunción Amorós, P.J. et al. Antioxidative activity and general fruit characteristics in different traditional orange [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck] varieties. Eur Food Res Technol 219, 474–478 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-004-0942-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-004-0942-1

Keywords

Navigation