See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262012694

Flavonoid composition and antioxidant activities of Chinese local pummelo

(Citrus grandis Osbeck.) varieties

Article  in  Food Chemistry · October 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.04.001 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

109 1,085

5 authors, including:

Wanpeng Xi Bining Jiao

Southwest University Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
70 PUBLICATIONS   2,408 CITATIONS    87 PUBLICATIONS   2,151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zhiqin Zhou
Southwest University, Chongqing, China
83 PUBLICATIONS   2,469 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

evolution View project

Natural Science Foundation Project of CQ View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bining Jiao on 28 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Chemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchem

Flavonoid composition and antioxidant activities of Chinese local

pummelo (Citrus grandis Osbeck.) varieties
Wanpeng Xi a,c,1, Bo Fang a,1, Qiyang Zhao b, Bining Jiao b,⇑, Zhiqin Zhou a,c,⇑
a
College of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Southwest University, Chongqing 400716, China
b
Citrus Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Chongqing 400712, China
c
Key Laboratory of Horticulture Science for Southern Mountainous Regions, Ministry of Education, Chongqing 400715, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: China is one of the most important diversity centres of the genus Citrus L. and is particularly rich in
Received 11 December 2013 pummelo germplasm. In this study, the flavonoids in the peels and pulps of 28 Chinese local pummelos
Received in revised form 31 March 2014 and four grapefruits were determined by optimised Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC),
Accepted 1 April 2014
and their antioxidant capacities were evaluated using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radicals (DPPH),
Available online 12 April 2014
ferric reducing/antioxidant power (FRAP) and superoxide anion methods. We found that naringin was
the predominant flavonoid in pummelo, while naringin and neohesperidin were the predominant flavo-
Keywords:
noids in grapefruit. The fruit peels of Citrus paradisi cvs. Rio Red and Cocktail had the highest contents of
Pummelo
Grapefruit
naringin (9871.69 mg/kg FW) and neohesperidin (7011.15 mg/kg FW), respectively. Overall, C. paradisi
Flavonoids cvs. Cocktail, Rio Red and Changshanhuyou, Citrus grandis cvs. 28-19, Chandler, and Hongxinyou con-
UPLC tained more flavonoids and exhibited higher antioxidant capacities and are potentially good sources of
Antioxidant activity phytochemicals and natural antioxidants.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Flavonoids are the most common group of polyphenols in
plants and provide powerful protection against many chronic
diseases including cardiovascular diseases (Yamada et al., 2011),
diabetes (Oboh & Ademosun, 2011) and cancer (Du & Chen,
2010), possibly due to their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory
activities. Citrus is one of the most important fruit crops in the
world, and they are abundant in flavonoids. Flavanones are the
most abundant citrus flavonoids and are present in glycoside and
aglycone forms (Peterson et al., 2006). Previous studies have
focused on the quantification of flavonoid compounds and the anti-
oxidant capacity of citrus fruits such as lime, grapefruit, sweet
orange, lemon, tangerine (Abad-Garcia, Garmon-Lobato, Berrueta,
Gallo, & Vicente, 2012; Goulas & Manganaris, 2012; Kelebek,
Canbas, & Selli, 2008), pummelo, sour orange (Tripoli, Guardia,
Giammanco, Majo, & Giammanco, 2007) and mandarin (Zhang
et al., 2014). However, only a few studies have sought to determine
the flavonoid compounds and antioxidant activity of different local
pummelo varieties, especially those native to China.
⇑ Corresponding authors. Tel./fax: +86 23 68349046 (B. Jiao). Address: College of
Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Southwest University, Chongqing 400716,
China. Tel.: +86 23 68250229; fax: +86 23 68251274 (Z. Zhou).
E-mail addresses: bljiao@tom.com (B. Jiao), zqzhou2013@swu.edu.cn (Z. Zhou).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work.
China is the most important center of origin for the genus Citrus
L., and many important citrus species or varieties originated there.
As one of the most commonly cultivated species, pummelo (Citrus
grandis Osbeck.) was suggested to originate from southern China,
and it is widely cultivated in China. There are also many local pum-
melo genotypes in China. In the past decades, different pummelo
genotypes have been described, such as pummelo cultivars grown
in Thailand (Pichaiyongvongdee & Haruenkit, 2009b), Chinese
pummelo varieties including C. grandis cvs. Shatianyu, Guanximi-
you, Yuhuanyou, Cuixiangtianyou and Chinese grapefruit varieties
such as C. paradisi cv. Changshanhuyou (Zhang, Duan, Zang, Huang,
& Liu, 2011). Thus far, researchers have investigated the genetic
mapping of the pummelo, the expressed sequence tag – simple
sequence repeats (EST – SSR) marker genetic mapping of the local
Chinese pummelo (Chai, Biswas, Yi, Guo, & Deng, 2013), the genetic
diversity of pummelos by simple sequences repeat (SRR) (Liu, Liu,
Wu, & Sun, 2006) and germplasm identification by sequence-
related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) markers (Chen, Guo,
Huang, Xu, & Lin, 2012). Until now, however, the flavonoid com-
pounds and antioxidant activity of Chinese local pummelo and
grapefruit varieties have yet to be studied.
The aim of this study was to determine the content and compo-
sition of flavonoid compounds in 28 local pummelos and four
grapefruit varieties by an optimised UPLC method and to evaluate
their antioxidant capacities.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.04.001
0308-8146/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238 231

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Chemicals
Naringin, hesperidin, eriocitrin, neohesperidin, naringenin, hes-
peretin, narirutin, didymin, sinensetin, nobiletin and tangeretin
were obtained from Sigma (St. Louis, MO, USA). 2,2-diphenyl-1-
picrylhydrazyl radicals (DPPH), 2,4,6-tris (2-pyridyl)-S-triazine
(TPTZ), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetic acid and acetonitrile
were obtained from Fluka (St. Louis, MO, USA). All of the other
reagents were analytical grade and were purchased from Sinop-
harm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China).
2.2. Fruit materials
Twenty-eight pummelo (C. grandis Osbeck.) and four grapefruit
(C. paradisi Macf.) varieties were grown at the National Citrus
Germplasm Repository, Citrus Research Institute of Chinese Acad-
emy of Agricultural Sciences, Chongqing, China (Table 1). Fruits
were harvested at the commercial maturity stage based on exter-
nal colour and size uniformity. After harvest, pummelo and grape-
fruit fruits were divided into peel (flavedo and albedo), pulp
(segment epidermis and juice vesicle) and seed. The peel and pulp
were ground into homogenate using a squeezer (Philips HR2024,
Zhuhai, China). The powders were stored at 80 °C until analysis.
2.3. Titratable acidity and soluble solids content determination
Titratable acidity (TA) and soluble solids content (SSC) were
determined according to the method described by Ramful,
Tarnus, Aruoma, Bourdon, and Bahorun (2011). Fruit peel or pulp
was homogenised in a Waring blender and filtered using muslin
cloth. 10 mL of the juice obtained was diluted to 100 mL with dis-
tilled water and transferred into a 250 mL beaker which was
placed over a magnetic stirrer to provide a continuous stirring of
the sample solution. A pH meter probe was then immersed into
the solution and 0.1 N NaOH was added until the pH of the sample
exceeded 8.1. TA was expressed in g citric acid 100 mL 1 pulp juice.
Juice was extracted from the citrus fruits manually using a citrus
squeezer and then filtered using muslin cloth. Pulp juice was
dropped on a digital refractometer (Atago PR-101R, Tokyo, Japan)
and the value was read. The temperature of the sample at the time
of measurement was also recorded. The degree (°) Brix of the juice
was then calculated and temperature correction applied. All deter-
minations were performed in triplicates.
2.4. Extraction of phenolic compounds
Extraction of flavonoids was conducted as described by Nogata,
Sakamoto, Shiratsuchi, Ishii, Yano, and Ohta (2006) with some
modification. 1 g of sample was extracted using 10 mL of methanol
in 50 mL screw-top tubes. The extract was sonicated for 30 min,
and kept at ambient temperature for 12 h, then centrifugation at
8000g for 10 min at 4 °C and the extract was decanted, the residue
was extracted twice following the same procedure. The combined
extracts adjusted to 30 mL and were filtered with 13 mm polytet-
rafluoroethylene (PTFE) and 0.22 lm filters from Waters (Milfords,
MA, USA) prior to UPLC injection.
2.5. UPLC analysis of flavonoids
The flavonoids were determined with a Waters Ultra Perfor-
mance Liquid Chromatographic Acquity system (UPLC) (Milford,
MA, USA) equipped with a 2996 PDA detector, an autosampler

Table 1
Pummelo and grapefruit varieties used in the present study and their quality index values of pulps.

Number Repository number Cultivars Abbreviation SSC (%)a TA (%)b,c

1 LG0040 C.grandis cv. Wentan WE 9.24 ± 0.07 1.39 ± 0.06
2 LG0006 C.grandis cv. Liangpingyou Li 8.93 ± 0.13 0.25 ± 0.05
3 LG0010 C.grandis cv. Huayingshanyou HU 11.11 ± 0.08 0.88 ± 0.09
4 LG0045 C.grandis cv. Hongxinyou HO 9.58 ± 0.15 0.88 ± 0.06
5 LG0166 C.grandis cv. Meiweishatianyou MW 11.83 ± 0.12 0.93 ± 0.11
6 LG0234 C.grandis cv. Gaopuyou GP 9.03 ± 0.04 0.93 ± 0.03
7 LG0004 C.grandis cv. Shatianyou SH 10.92 ± 0.22 0.21 ± 0.03
8 LG0026 C.grandis cv. Wanbaiyou WA 11.04 ± 0.11 0.67 ± 0.08
9 LG0002 C.grandis cv. Dayongjuhuaxin DA 9.22 ± 0.05 0.79 ± 0.03
10 C.grandis cv. 24-14 24-14 10.75 ± 0.06 0.93 ± 0.08
11 C.grandis cv. 14-13 14-13 10.67 ± 0.04 0.93 ± 0.06
12 LG0071 C.grandis cv. Chandler CH 9.63 ± 0.12 0.88 ± 0.06
13 LG0268 C.grandis cv. Dongfengzao DO 12.47 ± 0.04 0.93 ± 0.03
14 LG0069 C.grandis cv. Zaoshuyou ZA 10.93 ± 0.07 0.93 ± 0.05
15 LG0015 C.grandis cv. Zuoshiyou ZU 9.48 ± 0.08 0.30 ± 0.04
16 LG0017 C.grandis cv. Qiyou QI 8.72 ± 0.04 0.93 ± 0.05
17 LG0038 C.grandis cv. Guanximiyou GX 9.03 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.06
18 LG0241 C.grandis cv. Menglunzao ME 8.04 ± 0.07 1.27 ± 0.05
19 LG0188 C.grandis cv. Tongxianyou TO 12.20 ± 0.02 1.25 ± 0.05
20 LG0011 C.grandis cv. Liboyou LB 11.32 ± 0.04 0.94 ± 0.06
21 LG0016 C.grandis cv.Linnanshatiaoyou LN 9.69 ± 0.09 0.25 ± 0.06
22 LG0001 C.grandis cv. Sijipao SI 7.13 ± 0.04 1.01 ± 0.09
23 LG0021 C.grandis cv. Jintanglvyou JI 7.02 ± 0.03 0.73 ± 0.08
24 LG0046 C.grandis cv. Shishengyou SS 10.75 ± 0.02 0.93 ± 0.06
25 LG0164 C.grandis cv. Guanxiangyou GA 8.63 ± 0.03 1.88 ± 0.06
26 C.grandis cv. 28-19 28-19 7.02 ± 0.04 1.25 ± 0.07
27 LG0028 C.grandis cv. Anjiangxiangyou AN 11.04 ± 0.15 0.97 ± 0.03
28 LG0019 C.grandis cv. Guokuiyou GU 8.41 ± 0.02 1.33 ± 0.05
29 LG0120 C.paradisi cv. Aolunbulangke AO 10.22 ± 0.08 0.85 ± 0.06
30 LG0245 C.paradisi cv. Cocktail CO 11.89 ± 0.09 0.73 ± 0.04
31 LG0248 C.paradisi cv. Rio Red RR 10.03 ± 0.03 1.56 ± 0.06
32 LG0181 C.paradisi cv Changshanhuyou YB 9.68 ± 0.05 1.11 ± 0.03
a
SSC, soluble solid content.
b
TA, titratable acidity.
c
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation of triplicate samples.
232 W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238
cooler, a binary solvent delivery module, version 4.1 firmware, a
degassing system, a column heater and an Acquity UPLC BEH C18
column (2.1 mm  100 mm, 1.7 lm particle size) (Waters, Milford,
MA, USA). The system was operated by Waters Empower software
from Waters Corporation. A two-solvent gradient mobile phase
system consisting of water with 0.2% acetic acid (A) and methanol
(B) was used. The gradient program was as follows: 0–5 min, 90–
70% A; 5–10 min, 70–20% A; 10–15 min, 20% A; and 15–16 min,
20–90% A. The flow rate was 0.3 mL/min; the autosampler was
cooled to 5 °C; the column temperature was 35 °C; and 3 lL of
sample was injected into the Waters Acquity UPLC system. Flava-
nones (naringin, hesperidin, eriocitrin, neohesperidin, naringenin,
hesperetin, narirutin and didymin) and polymethoxylated flavones
(sinensetin, nobiletin and tangeretin) were detected at wave-
lengths of 283 nm and 330 nm, respectively. The flavonoids were
identified by comparing their retention time and the spectral char-
acteristics of peaks with those of standards and quantified based
on the peak area of the sample and the corresponding standard.
2.6. UPLC method validation
Validation of the UPLC was based on sensibility, accuracy, and
precision. The sensibility of the method was determined by the
limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantification (LOQ). The
LOD was measured as the lowest amount of the analyte that could
be detected that produced a significant response peak and was cal-
culated as three times the SD of the background noise. The LOQ
was measured as the smallest amount of analyte that could be
quantified, and it was calculated as 10 times the SD of the back-
ground noise. Accuracy was evaluated by spiking 11 standards at
four concentrations (0, 90%, 100% and 110% of the expected value)
into matrix of the citrus fruit extracts, and the recovery rate (the
percentage of added analyte recovered from a citrus fruit extract
matrix) was used as the index of accuracy and calculated by the
following formula: Recovery (%) = 100  (amount found – original
amount)/amount added. Precision was expressed as the relative
standard deviation (RSD) of all determinations. Twenty replicates
of citrus fruit extracts were injected into the UPLC system.
2.7. Antioxidant activity assays
The antioxidant activity was evaluated with DPPH, FRAP and
superoxide anion radical-scavenging assays in this study. The
DPPH assay was performed according to the method described
by Barreca, Bellocco, Caristi, Leuzzi, and Gattuso (2011). An aliquot
of each sample (50 lL) was mixed with 63 lM of DPPH in metha-
nol to a final volume of 4.0 mL. After 25 min, the absorbance was
detected at wavelength of 517 nm. The inhibition percentage of
radical scavenging activity was the DPPH value. The FRAP assay
was carried out following the method of Jang, Chang, Chang, and
Hsu (2010). A 20 lL aliquot of the fruit extract was mixed with
1.8 mL of FRAP reagent and 1.8 mL deionised water. After 30 min,
the absorbance was detected at wavelength of 593 nm. Aqueous
solutions of 0–5 mM ferrous sulphate heptahydrate were used
for calibration and reducing power was expressed as mM. The
superoxide anion radical-scavenging activity was determined
according to the method described by Barreca, Bellocco, Caristi,
Leuzzi, and Gattuso (2010). The reaction mixture was incubated
at 25 °C for 5 min, and the absorbance at 560 nm was measured
against blank samples and the inhibition percentage of superoxide
anion scavenging activity was calculated. All absorbance values
were determined by using a Microplate spectrophotometer
(Benchmark Plus, Biorad, Hercules, CA). All tests were run in tripli-
cate and the results expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD).
2.8. Statistical analysis
All data are expressed as the means ± standard deviation of
three replicates. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS
v19.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Significant differences
among the samples were calculated using one-way ANOVA fol-
lowed by Duncan’s multiple-range test at the 5% level (p 6 0.05).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Titratable acidity and soluble solids content
The TA and SSC of the citrus pulp juices are shown in Table 1.
The TA of all fruits tested ranged 0.25–1.88%. The juice of C. grandis
cv. Guanximiyou was the most acidic with a TA value of 1.88%
whilst the juice of C. grandis cv. Gaopuyou was the least acidic with
a TA value of 0.21%. The TA values of C .grandis cvs. Wentan, Men-
glunzao, Tongxianyou, Sijipao, 28-19, Guokuiyou, C. paradisi cvs.
Rio Red and Changshanhuyou were more than 1%, the fruit pulps
of other cultivars were characterised by low TA (<1%). The SSC of
the citrus pulps is expressed in terms of °Brix. The SSC of mature
fruits ranged 7.02–12.47%. C. grandis cv. Dongfengzao was charac-
terised by the highest SSC value (13.19%) followed by the Tongx-
ianyou (12.20%). C. grandis cvs. Meiweishatianyou, Shatianyou,
Wanbaiyou, 24-14, Tongxianyou, Liboyou, Shishengyou, and C.
paradisi cvs. Aolunbulangke, Cocktail and Rio Red had °Brix greater
than 10%. The lowest SSC value was found in C. grandis cv.
Jintanglvyou and 28-19 with a °Brix of 7.02%.
3.2. UPLC method validation results
The linearity of the UPLC method was assessed by 11 calibration
standards in duplicate over the nominal concentration range
(Table 2). A seven-point concentration calibration curve was linear
and reproducible for 11 standards, and all correlation coefficients
exceeded 0.998.
The LOD and LOQ values obtained showed a wide range of sen-
sitivity among different analytes (Table 2). The LODs ranged from
0.05 to 0.13 lg/mL for all standards. The LOQs varied between
0.05 lg/mL and 0.46 lg/mL. The sensitivity of the method repre-
sents a significant improvement for most of the analytes when
compared to be published HPLC methods by Xu et al. (2007),
who reported a LOD of 1.5–5 mg/L and a LOQ of 3.9–15.6 mg/L. It
was also more sensitive than the results of Medina-Remón et al.
(2011). This method is a good alternative to conventional HPLC
in terms of improved resolution and sensitivity.
To further validate the method, four different concentrations of
the 11 standards were added to the matrix of the peel and pulp
extracts to evaluate the recovery and precision of measurement
of the samples (Table 2). The recovery rate values were between
90.2% and 103.2% in peel extracts and between 93.7% and
103.53% in pulp extracts for all standards. These values are similar
to those reported by Spáčil, Nováková, and Solich (2008).The preci-
sion of the method met the acceptance criteria. The RSD (%) ranged
from 3.25% to 13.71% for peel extracts and 3.66% to 12.17% for pulp
extracts, and were below 15% at each tested concentration level for
precision. These values were acceptable for the low, medium and
high concentration levels.
Eleven flavonoids from the Chinese local pummelo tested were
separated in 12 min. The chromatograms for the flavonoid stan-
dard solution are shown in Fig. S1. The peak for eight flavanones
reached maximum absorption at 283 nm, while three polymeth-
oxylated flavones peaked at 330 nm. The analysis duration of the
UPLC system was 2.5- to 5-fold shorter than that of a conventional
HPLC system. This method was faster and had greater sensibility
 W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238 233

Table 2
Validation parameters of investigated compounds.

Liner range Slope ± SDa y-Intercept ± SD Correlation LODb LOQc Recovery Precision (RSDd) (%)
(mg/l) coefficients (R2) (lg mL) (lg mL) (error) (%)
Peel Pulp Peel Pulp
Eriocitrin 1–50 13899 ± 229 459.0 ± 19.82 0.9996 0.05 0.29 103.20 103.53 3.25 5.57
Narirutin 1–100 15747 ± 328 236.8 ± 8.96 0.9995 0.12 0.13 99.35 97.82 7.72 5.08
Naringin 1–100 13898 ± 432 429.3 ± 17.66 0.9996 0.11 0.24 96.97 100.70 5.99 4.49
Hesperidin 1–100 13688 ± 687 1175 ± 102.4 0.9989 0.08 0.12 94.10 96.33 5.98 6.90
Neohesperidin 1–50 16086 ± 534 36.52 ± 2.48 0.9996 0.06 0.28 97.66 96.92 6.33 6.83
Didymin 1–50 13757 ± 763 294.0 ± 9.38 0.9999 0.05 0.07 102.14 100.03 9.11 5.55
Naringenin 1–30 30898 ± 295 658.8 ± 41.9 0.9989 0.13 0.46 94.67 96.83 12.42 3.66
Hesperetin 1–30 26897 ± 309 239.5 ± 13.67 0.9999 0.11 0.17 94.87 94.73 13.71 12.17
Sinensetin 1–20 36971 ± 447 103.2 ± 8.2 0.9998 0.04 0.22 98.13 97.03 9.59 7.78
Nobiletin 1–20 38966 ± 2319 627.7 ± 24.31 0.9989 0.05 0.05 90.20 96.87 8.56 5.50
Tangeretin 1–30 46795 ± 79 939.6 ± 43.55 0.9983 0.07 0.23 96.47 93.70 4.82 7.39
a
SD, standard deviation.
b
LOD, limit of detection.
c
LOQ, limit of quantification.
d
RSD, relative standard deviation.

than that with conventional HPLC (Spáčil et al., 2008). These
results proved that UPLC is an advanced form of liquid chromatog-
raphy (LC) in which mobile phase delivery systems operating at
high pressures and narrow-bore columns packed with very small
particles (1.7 lm) are used.
3.3. Flavonoid contents
In the present study, a total of 11 flavonoids were identified
from the peels and pulps of the pummelo and grapefruit varieties
studied, including eight flavanones and three polymethoxylated
flavone (PMF) compounds (Table 3 and Table 4). We found that
the variations in flavonoid components and contents were largely
the same for the different varieties studied (Fig. 1), which was
similar to the recent result obtained by our group for the wild
mandarin fruit (Zhang et al., 2014). The conclusion that flavonoids
are genetically controlled was further confirmed by the present
result.
Flavanones were the major flavonoids of the local pummelos
and grapefruits tested, and naringin was the predominant flava-
none, followed by neohesperidin and narirutin. The naringin con-
tents varied from 2186.47 to 9871.69 mg/kg FW in peels and
from 734.61 to 4166.19 mg/kg FW in pulps. ‘Rio Red’ had the high-
est naringin content. The peels of Aolunbulangke, Cocktail, Rio Red,
Changshanhuyou, Hongxinyou, Dayongjuhuaxin, Linnanshatiao-
you, Shishengyou, and Anjiangxiangyou, are rich in naringin
(>6000 mg/kg FW). The Cocktail peel had the highest content of
neohesperidin. Much higher naringin and neohesperidin contents
were found in grapefruit compared to pummelos (p < 0.05). The
neohesperidin contents of Cocktail and Changshanhuyou were
78–609 times higher than other pummelo varieties tested in the
study. Aolunbulangke had the highest narirutin content
(2344.20 ± 144.20 mg/kg FW), and the narirutin contents of the
four grapefruit varieties were 186–377 times higher than other
pummelo varieties tested in the study. Hesperidin was only
detected in Liangpingyou, Huayingshanyou, Wentan, Menglunzao,
24-14, Cocktail, Rio Red and Changshanhuyou. Didymin was only
detected in Huayingshanyou, Anjiangxiangyou, Hongxinyou, Men-
glunzao, Cocktail, Rio Red and Changshanhuyou. Hesperetin was
only detected in Huayingshanyou, Cocktail, Rio Red and
Changshanhuyou.
Previous study showed that sweet orange is characterised by an
abundance of hesperidin, didymin and narirutin (Ooghe, Ooghe,
Detavernier, & Huyghebaert, 1994), while hesperidin was the
dominant flavonoid in mandarin (Zhang et al., 2014). In general,
pummelo and grapefruit have a distinct flavanone profile. Naringin
was the predominant flavanone in pummelo varieties, whereas
naringin and neohesperidin were the principal flavanones in
grapefruit (Zhang et al., 2011), which our results confirmed.
Pichaiyongvongdee and Haruenkit (2009a) reported that the
naringin contents for the methanol extraction of Thai pummelo
varied from 2483.96 to 28,508.01 ppm FW in peels and from
242.63 to 4369.50 ppm FW in pulp. Naringin contents for DMSO/
MeOH (1:1, v/v) extraction of mandarin varieties varied from 2.6
to 34.4 mg/100 g, respectively, whereas orange varieties showed
values from 8.8 to 28.7 mg/100 g (Cano, Medina, & Bermejo,
2008). In the present study, significantly lower naringin contents
in the majority of pummelo varieties tested were found compared
to grapefruits (p < 0.05), but Girennavar, Jayaprakasha, Jifon, and
Patil (2008) found that pummelo had 1.5–2.3 times more naringin
than seven hybrid grapefruits, which might be due to a difference
in varieties. In this study, we found that the hesperidin contents for
MeOH extraction of Meiweishatianyou and 24–14 were 12.25 mg/
kg FW and 94.41 mg/kg FW, whereas Cano et al. (2008) reported
hesperidin contents for DMSO/MeOH (1:1, v/v) extraction of man-
darin and orange were 13.2–60.6 mg/100 g FW and 48.1–
104.7 mg/100 g FW, respectively. Hesperidin contents for dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) extraction of lemon was 1.25 g/100 g dry weight
(DW) in peel and 0.28 g/100 g DW in pulp, respectively (Del Rı´o
et al., 2004). In the present study, the content of narirutin in the
four grapefruit varieties ranged from 674.91 to 2344.2 mg/kg FW
in peel and 321.89 to 651.81 mg/kg FW in pulp, respectively, while
Cano et al. (2008) found that the narirutin contents for DMSO/
MeOH (1:1, v/v) extraction of mandarin and orange was 27.6 mg/
100 g FW and 17.1 mg/100 g FW in pulp, respectively. These
results showed that the four grapefruit varieties tested in this
study are good sources of narirutin.
Among the three PMFs identified in the studied varieties, nobi-
letin and tangeretin were the most abundant PMFs (Table 3 and
Table 4). The nobiletin and tangeretin contents of pummelo varie-
ties studied ranged from nd to 43.71 mg/kg FW in peels and nd to
22.18 mg/kg FW in pulps. The nobiletin content of grapefruit
genotypes Cocktail, Rio Red and Changshanhuyou were 5.18–
97.13 times higher than those of the studied pummelos. Addition-
ally, a much higher tangeretin content was also found in Cocktail,
Rio Red and Changshanhuyou. The highest content of nobiletin was
found in the Rio Red peel, while the highest content of tangeretin
was found in the Changshanhuyou pulp. Sun et al. (2013) found
that tangeretin was only detected in C. grandis cv. Foyou, while
nobiletin and tangeretin were only detected in C. paradise cv.
 234
Table 3
Flavonoid concentrations (mg/kg FWa)b in the peels of 28 pummelo and four grapefruit varieties.

Cultivars Flavanones Polymethoxylated flavones

Eriocitrin Narirutin Naringin Hesperidin Neohesperidin Didymin Naringenin Hesperetin Sinensetin Nobiletin Tangeretin
WE 16.78 ± 1.67f 12.20 ± 0.96h 4923.79 ± 121.83g ndc 25.20 ± 1.50h nd 5.32 ± 0.09fg nd nd 3.04 ± 0.07c 5.88 ± 1.10cd
Li 17.69 ± 0.90f 20.21 ± 2.21f 3667.78 ± 67.50j nd 24.67 ± 1.01h nd 2.32 ± 0.07g nd nd 0.45 ± 0.02c 2.96 ± 0.05d
HU 13.27 ± 0.72g nd 2480.57 ± 44.92m nd 27.72 ± 2.43h 7.74 ± 0.91e 560.11 ± 23.50b 5.59 ± 0.43c nd 2.07 ± 0.04c 8.14 ± 0.91c
HO 32.54 ± 2.21d 17.10 ± 2.21fg 7652.44 ± 110.56b nd 16.99 ± 0.92i nd nd nd nd 1.22 ± 0.02c 7.15 ± 1.20cd
MW 20.57 ± 3.56e 21.74 ± 1.74f 3380.06 ± 76.29k 94.41 ± 13.35c 62.95 ± 10.73d nd nd nd nd nd nd
GP 13.55 ± 1.69g 9.20 ± 1.01h 2863.46 ± 65.63l nd 52.56 ± 5.13e nd 9.65 ± 0.07fg nd nd 3.77 ± 0.87c 5.62 ± 0.65cd
SH 6.99 ± 0.78i 12.34 ± 1.20h 3421.66 ± 121.98j nd 43.55 ± 3.32f nd 5.21 ± 0.04fg nd nd 0.93 ± 0.02c 8.47 ± 0.91c
WA 17.24 ± 2.76f 39.76 ± 4.45e 3569.77 ± 109.54j nd 13.57 ± 1.44i nd nd nd nd 2.32 ± 0.21c nd

W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238

DA nd 4.41 ± 0.86h 6834.54 ± 231.72d nd 6.64 ± 0.43j nd 7.13 ± 0.71fg nd nd nd 2.32 ± 0.05d
24-14 16.35 ± 1.47f nd 4926.77 ± 135.51g 12.35 ± 1.65e 11.53 ± 0.87i nd nd nd nd nd 5.23 ± 0.43cd
14-13 8.31 ± 0.73h nd 2455.75 ± 69.54m nd 12.56 ± 1.32i nd nd nd nd nd nd
CH nd 23.76 ± 1.54f 4588.61 ± 218.27i nd 21.93 ± 1.90h nd 12.55 ± 0.92f nd nd nd nd
DO 11.13 ± 2.18gh nd 3216.13 ± 132.82k nd nd nd 23.89 ± 1.95e nd nd nd 1.21 ± 0.07d
ZA 9.51 ± 1.52h nd 4332.67 ± 321.50i nd 25.62 ± 2.61h nd 33.35 ± 4.72d nd nd nd 5.13 ± 0.32cd
ZU nd 13.48 ± 1.11h 3134.21 ± 123.84k nd 11.52 ± 1.12i nd 19.79 ± 0.78e nd nd nd 1.22 ± 0.06d
QI 18.56 ± 3.97f nd 3768.43 ± 74.56j nd 22.91 ± 1.98h nd 11.45 ± 0.66f nd nd nd nd
GX 13.62 ± 2.14g nd 2339.86 ± 131.05m nd nd nd 18.96 ± 1.40e nd nd nd 12.25 ± 0.6b
ME 21.54 ± 1.93e nd 4788.36 ± 167.91hi nd 13.35 ± 0.98i nd 9.85 ± 0.80fg nd nd nd 2.11 ± 0.04d
TO 12.72 ± 1.20g 13.23 ± 1.32h 7121.54 ± 210.76 c nd 42.46 ± 3.54f nd nd nd nd nd 13.55 ± 0.9b
LB 32.27 ± 2.82d nd 6772.57 ± 327.65d nd 33.43 ± 3.10g nd nd nd nd nd 8.86 ± 0.07c
LN 12.33 ± 1.93g nd 4781.54 ± 210.69hi nd 41.22 ± 1.94f nd 11.56 ± 1.41f nd nd nd 6.69 ± 0.03cd
SI 23.65 ± 2.56e nd 3124.79 ± 110.70 k nd 25.43 ± 2.65h nd nd nd nd nd nd
JI nd nd 3756.43 ± 79.39j nd 34.78 ± 3.65g nd 2.21 ± 0.03g nd nd nd 2.93 ± 0.09
SS nd nd 7839.07 ± 176.34b nd 23.77 ± 3.25h nd 8.51 ± 0.06fg nd nd nd nd
GA nd nd 2186.47 ± 45.78n nd 45.27 ± 5.56f nd 7.72 ± 0.32fg nd nd nd 4.99 ± 0.02d
28-19 21.43 ± 1.19e nd 5366.56 ± 209.40f nd 76.54 ± 6.87d nd 4.31 ± 0.11fg nd nd 2.15 ± 0.02c 4.48 ± 0.04d
AN 12.43 ± 0.76g 5.54 ± 0.43h 7321.55 ± 189.65c nd 43.29 ± 1.98f 44.64 ± 3.67c nd nd nd nd nd
GU 47.55 ± 3.66c 3.34 ± 0.28h 5897.14 ± 213.56e nd 21.22 ± 2.70h nd 19.54 ± 0.98e nd nd nd nd
AO 9.45 ± 0.84h 2344.20 ± 144.20a 9788.58 ± 375.34a nd 12.54 ± 0.90i nd 12.88 ± 0.52f nd nd 4.22 ± 0.03c nd
CO 54.46 ± 6.57b 942.55 ± 78.76c 6543.48 ± 236.87d 995.17 ± 45.43a 7011.15 ± 120.87a 21.51 ± 1.96d 137.89 ± 12.43c 59.47 ± 3.70b nd 23.54 ± 1.9b 30.21 ± 2.90a
RR 22.66 ± 3.92e 1789.34 ± 93.96b 9871.69 ± 122.90 a 44.61 ± 2.76d 96.23 ± 4.65c 142.55 ± 9.82b 781.19 ± 45.69a 99.70 ± 4.32a nd 43.71 ± 3.2a 11.30 ± 0.93bc
YB 76.38 ± 12.13a 674.91 ± 45.53d 6599.10 ± 344.10d 673.99 ± 27.83b 6712.93 ± 156.87b 212.55 ± 11.36a 23.91 ± 2.87e nd nd 21.89 ± 0.9b 34.75 ± 2.92a

nd, Not detectable.

a
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation of triplicate samples.
b
Different superscripts between columns represent significant differences between samples (p < 0.05).
Table 4
Flavonoid concentrations (mg/kg FWa)b in the pulps of 28 pummelo and four grapefruit varieties.

Cultivars Flavanone Polymethoxylated flavones

Eriocitrin Narirutin Naringin Hesperidin Neohesperidin Didymin Naringenin Hesperetin Sinensetin Nobiletin Tangeretin
WE 9.12 ± 1.21f 6.84 ± 0.63f 2431.77 ± 122.47d 26.28 ± 3.43c 16.49 ± 0.98h nd 2.89 ± 0.04h nd nd nd nd
LI 12.40 ± 0.93e 4.25 ± 0.04f 1159.12 ± 67.80i 11.39 ± 1.09d 16.35 ± 1.87h nd nd nd nd nd nd
HU 5.60 ± 0.31g 1.73 ± 0.06g 973.93 ± 56.91j 0.80 ± 0.02e 1.93 ± 0.05j 5.53 ± 0.56d 348.30 ± 22.90a 3.55 ± 0.04 nd nd nd
HO 12.56 ± 1.51e nd 2386.05 ± 67.39d nd 19.81 ± 1.43 gh 1.82 ± 0.22 e 2.76 ± 0.02 h nd nd nd nd
MW 8.49 ± 0.92 f nd 2308.93 ± 88.90 d 29.91 ± 1.54c 24.06 ± 2.37f 1.32 ± 0.35e nd nd nd nd nd
GP 6.65 ± 0.40g 7.43 ± 0.78f 1356.34 ± 76.38h nd 32.43 ± 3.82e nd 4.43 ± 0.08g nd nd nd 4.33 ± 0.05e
SH nd 7.81 ± 1.12f 2151.65 ± 122.43e nd 19.28 ± 1.70gh nd nd nd nd nd nd
WA 14.10 ± 2.14d 13.55 ± 2.28e 1276.52 ± 89.54h nd 9.43 ± 0.65hi nd 6.45 ± 0.06fg nd nd 3.66 ± 1.98c nd

W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238

DA nd nd 3122.32 ± 54.67b nd 7.53 ± 0.34i nd 7.56 ± 1.01fg nd nd 0.81 ± 0.02d 1.21 ± 0.01f
24-14 9.41 ± 0.95f nd 2175.30 ± 118.73e 13.51 ± 0.78d 14.28 ± 0.77h nd 5.77 ± 0.01g nd nd 0.76 ± 0.12d nd
14-13 nd 7.12 ± 0.75f 1442.91 ± 45.82gh nd nd nd 1.23 ± 0.08h nd nd nd nd
CH nd 11.32 ± 1.24e 4011.31 ± 146.83a nd 12.65 ± 0.40h nd 9.44 ± 0.04ef nd nd 2.43 ± 0.31d nd
DO 8.12 ± 1.01f nd 971.23 ± 56.30j nd nd nd 13.55 ± 0.97e nd nd 1.20 ± 0.04d nd
ZA 12.32 ± 0.77e nd 1583.76 ± 77.16g nd 30.72 ± 2.65e nd 21.20 ± 2.54d nd nd nd 3.11 ± 0.04ef
ZU 9.81 ± 0.58f 9.33 ± 0.76ef 1348.58 ± 98.10h nd 13.30 ± 0.72h nd 12.91 ± 1.10e nd nd 1.99 ± 0.06c nd
QI 21.70 ± 3.46b nd 1095.31 ± 76.53i nd 19.50 ± 0.99gh nd 9.92 ± 0.54ef nd nd 2.13 ± 0.02d nd
GX nd nd 891.58 ± 34.63j nd nd nd 17.43 ± 1.83d nd nd 3.43 ± 0.09c 9.30 ± 0.06d
ME 12.46 ± 1.60e nd 2348.45 ± 121.74d nd 9.16 ± 0.82hi nd nd nd nd 1.23 ± 0.04c nd
TO 8.73 ± 0.36f 12.63 ± 0.67e 2109.70 ± 160.87e nd 21.33 ± 2.55f nd 10.30 ± 1.13e nd nd nd nd
LB 23.69 ± 3.36b nd 1965.39 ± 65.87f nd 12.62 ± 1.32h nd nd nd nd 4.31 ± 0.02c nd
LN 16.71 ± 2.65c nd 1387.40 ± 55.29h nd 38.64 ± 3.61d nd nd nd nd 2.77 ± 0.06d 5.26 ± 0.07e
SI 9.44 ± 1.03f nd 992.12 ± 76.56j nd 10.81 ± 0.78hi nd 10.62 ± 1.09e nd nd 1.18 ± 0.07c nd
JI nd 5.11 ± 0.08f 1277.90 ± 101.65h nd 22.82 ± 2.44fg nd nd nd nd nd nd
SS nd 4.60 ± 0.14gf 2376.18 ± 132.72d nd 10.43 ± 0.L91hi nd nd nd nd nd nd
GA nd nd 734.61 ± 55.80k nd 11.98 ± 1.09hi nd 12.58 ± 1.02e nd nd 1.65 ± 0.15c nd
28-19 12.66 ± 0.95e 2.37 ± 0.05g 2374.10 ± 210.34d nd 44.71 ± 1.54d nd nd nd nd nd 5.43 ± 0.01e
AN nd nd 3126.19 ± 128.09b nd 25.61 ± 0.93f 22.82 ± 3.21b nd nd nd nd 3.40 ± 0.19ef
GU 43.33 ± 7.83a nd 1769.42 ± 23.77f nd 12.43 ± 0.07hi nd 10.44 ± 0.92ef nd nd 2.11 ± 0.67c nd
AO nd 445.76 ± 23.74b 3109.70 ± 89.56b nd 2.71 ± 0.02 j nd 8.17 ± 0.83f nd nd nd nd
CO 12.32 ± 1.31e 379.10 ± 23.78c 2784.21 ± 87.32c 338.1 ± 21.90a 2679.11 ± 68.09b 10.21 ± 1.91c 78.37 ± 5.58c 31.76 ± 0.98b nd 10.21 ± 0.88b 18.46 ± 0.96c
RR 10.21 ± 0.90f 651.81 ± 58.60a 4166.19 ± 67.34a 21.10 ± 2.45c 87.93 ± 6.65c 121.80 ± 6.34a 331.82 ± 35.80b 45.11 ± 1.65a nd 11.32 ± 1.10b 23.20 ± 1.21b
YB 43.56 ± 5.57a 321.87 ± 21.82d 2803.71 ± 45.20c 299.61 ± 32.83b 3121.72 ± 44.98a 127.09 ± 8.08a 18.41 ± 0.91d 23.11 ± 0.83c nd 22.18 ± 1.84a 44.21 ± 3.98a

nd, Not detectable.

a
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation of triplicate samples.
b
Different superscripts between columns represent significant differences between samples (p < 0.05).

235
236 W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238

12000 WE
A LI
HU
HO
MW
8000 GP
SH
WA

The levels of flavonoids (mg/g DW)

DA
24-14
4000 14-13
CH
DO
ZA
ZU
0 QI
B GX
ME
TO
LB
8000 LN
SI
JI
SS
GA
4000 28-19
AN
GU
AO
CO
0 RR
YB
N t in

sp n
in

D in

ne tin

N tin
N rin

in

ng in

in
in n
he idi

i
H ing

id

Ta ilet

et
N ym
iru

e
t

ge
ci

eo per

er

r
ns

er
pe

ob
id
ar
io

ar
Er

es

es
ar

Si
H
N

The flavonoid compounds

Fig. 1. Variations pattern of flavonoid in the peels and pulps of 28 local pummelo and four grapefruit varieties.

Huyou. In this study, we noted that nobiletin and tangeretin were
the predominant PMFs in tested pummelos.
Higher levels of flavonoids were found in the grapefruits tested
than in pummelos tested, and five of 11 flavonoids (eriocitrin, nari-
rutin, naringin, neohesperidin, didymin and naringenin) were
detected in most of the pummelo fruits, while 10 of 11 (excepting
sinensetin) were detected in grapefruits (Cocktail and Rio Red) in
this study, suggesting that the grapefruit was richer than the pum-
melo in flavonoids.
It has been proven that flavonoids are not equally distributed in
the different parts of citrus fruits. Jang et al. (2010) reported that
the essential oil from the Buntan peel had higher flavonoid con-
tents than those of extracts of fruit pulp with different solvents.
Yusof, Ghazali, and King (1990) also found that the peels were
richer in flavonoids than the pulp. The flavonoid content in the dif-
ferent parts of fruits ranked as follows: peel > pulp > juice (Nogata
et al., 2006). In the present study, the flavonoid levels in peels were
1–3 times higher than those in pulp. For instance, the naringin con-
tent in the Huayingshanyou peel was 2.54 times higher than in its
pulp. The neohesperidin content in Cocktail peel was 2.61 times
higher than in its pulp (Table 3 and Table 4). In contrast, the
contents of nobiletin and tangeretin in Changshanhuyou peel were
significantly lower than in its pulp (p < 0.05).
3.4. Antioxidant capacity
The DPPH assay is widely used in plant biochemistry to evaluate
the abilities of plant constituents to scavenge free radicals. The
DPPH radical can be reduced by reactions with antioxidants that
can donate hydrogen (Kumaran & Joel Karunakaran, 2007). The
DPPH values of the pummelos and grapefruits varied from
35.93% to 55.53% in peels and from 29.31% to 58.13% in pulps
(Table 5). The Hongxinyou peel and Cocktail pulp had the highest
DPPH values. The 24-14 peel and Liangpingyou pulp had the lowest
DPPH values. The grapefruits generally had higher DPPH values
than pummelos. The majority of pummelo and grapefruit peels
had a higher DPPH value than their pulps, which was similar to
observations reported by Jang et al. (2010), who reported that
the antioxidant properties of the Buntan pummelo peel were sig-
nificantly higher than those of it pulp using the DPPH method.
The FRAP assay is usually used to measure the capacity of the
sample to reduce the ferric complex to the ferrous form
(Contreras-Calderón, Calderón-Jaimes, Guerra-Hernández, &
García-Villanova, 2011). The FRAP values of the pummelos and
grapefruits varied from 0.87 to 1.70 mM in peels and from 0.90
to 1.76 mM in pulps. Shatianyou peel and Cocktail pulp had the
highest FRAP values, while Shatianyou peel and Dayongjuhuaxin
pulp had the lowest FRAP value (Table 5). The grapefruits had a sig-
nificantly higher FRAP value than the majority of the pummelos.
Similar to the DPPH results, the majority of pummelo peels had
higher FRAP values than their pulps, which was in accord with
the results obtained by Jang et al. (2010).
The superoxide anion assay is commonly used to evaluate the
superoxide anion radical-scavenging ability of plant extracts
(Beauchamp & Fridovich, 1971; Jia, Tang, & Wu, 1999). The super-
oxide values of the pummelos and grapefruits varied from 36.83%
to 50.31% in peels and from 25.75% to 44.80% in pulp (Table 5).
Guanximiyou peel and C. grandis cv. Qiyou pulp had the highest
superoxide values, while Shishengyou peel and Shatianyou pulp
had the lowest superoxide values. Except for Dongfengzao and
Sijipao, all tested peels had higher superoxide values than their
pulps.
 W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238 237

Table 5
a,b,c
Antioxidant capacities of peels and pulps in 28 pummelo and four grapefruit varieties .

Cultivars Peel Pulp

DPPH (%) FRAP (mM) Superoxide (%) Anion APC Rank DPPH (%) FRAP (mM) Superoxide (%) Anion APC Rank
WE 45.70 ± 5.24d 1.46 ± 0.12b 43.51 ± 2.56cd 87.91 10 35.79 ± 2.49f 1.20 ± 0.09d 31.70 ± 3.43f 66.84 28
Li 43.22 ± 3.36e 1.29 ± 0.09c 37.54 ± 1.33e 78.72 21 29.31 ± 3.21h 0.97 ± 0.08e 33.73 ± 2.89e 60.28 30
HU 52.71 ± 2.44b 1.50 ± 0.10b 42.10 ± 4.70d 91.90 5 41.55 ± 4.41d 1.08 ± 0.09d 30.55 ± 1.90f 67.01 26
HO 55.53 ± 5.68a 1.23 ± 0.07d 40.17 ± 4.21de 86.81 13 48.53 ± 5.23b 1.12 ± 0.15d 38.29 ± 3.83c 77.53 14
MW 44.41 ± 4.00d 0.92 ± 0.04f 35.46 ± 2.30f 70.56 31 42.13 ± 3.60d 1.02 ± 0.11e 33.86 ± 1.65e 68.67 24
GP 38.55 ± 3.14g 1.19 ± 0.21d 38.76 ± 3.44e 74.80 25 40.11 ± 3.64d 1.07 ± 0.05e 37.54 ± 2.55c 71.20 17
SH 40.51 ± 5.29fg 1.70 ± 0.16a 43.70 ± 4.12c 89.72 8 37.23 ± 2.65e 1.00 ± 0.07e 25.75 ± 2.87g 59.45 31
WA 37.53 ± 1.73gh 1.22 ± 0.08d 41.21 ± 4.13d 76.55 22 35.59 ± 4.82f 1.20 ± 0.09d 33.71 ± 1.87e 68.22 25
DA 42.51 ± 2.83ef 1.30 ± 0.03ef 43.22 ± 2.55c 82.59 19 38.56 ± 3.21de 0.90 ± 0.05f 40.31 ± 5.76bc 69.15 21
24-14 35.93 ± 5.06h 1.03 ± 0.12e 40.10 ± 5.13de 71.00 30 36.35 ± 2.55e 1.10 ± 0.12e 36.48 ± 4.24d 68.82 23
14-13 39.47 ± 4.56g 1.55 ± 0.08b 41.33 ± 3.21d 84.39 15 41.25 ± 3.54d 1.43 ± 0.17c 39.00 ± 2.14bc 79.76 11
CH 51.21 ± 1.92b 1.21 ± 0.03d 46.29 ± 4.90b 88.23 9 45.99 ± 4.67c 1.30 ± 0.07d 43.39 ± 3.80ab 83.28 5
DO 44.70 ± 4.79d 1.39 ± 0.11c 42.54 ± 3.87d 85.21 14 43.18 ± 5.12d 1.24 ± 0.10d 42.90 ± 4.34b 80.17 9
ZA 38.75 ± 4.12g 1.10 ± 0.07e 39.23 ± 3.22d 73.47 27 40.21 ± 3.21d 1.28 ± 0.04d 35.66 ± 2.63d 73.83 15
ZU 40.07 ± 5.11f 1.25 ± 0.13d 41.83 ± 4.65d 79.12 20 42.58 ± 4.65d 1.22 ± 0.07d 42.38 ± 3.77b 79.06 12
QI 52.30 ± 6.15ab 1.49 ± 0.15b 45.24 ± 5.83bc 93.71 3 48.49 ± 5.41b 1.43 ± 0.13c 44.80 ± 3.81a 88.22 3
GX 48.70 ± 6.59c 1.55 ± 0.06b 50.31 ± 2.60a 96.40 2 47.34 ± 4.90bc 1.10 ± 0.10e 42.86 ± 2.90b 79.87 10
ME 44.10 ± 3.55de 0.95 ± 0.07f 41.96 ± 4.33d 75.65 24 40.19 ± 3.76d 1.02 ± 0.09e 38.55 ± 1.54c 71.05 18
TO 39.40 ± 4.00f 1.20 ± 0.15d 40.15 ± 4.64de 76.51 23 35.39 ± 2.63f 0.97 ± 0.08e 39.72 ± 3.66 bc 68.22 25
LB 50.14 ± 3.67b 1.03 ± 0.03e 44.70 ± 3.89c 82.85 17 45.35 ± 4.43c 0.90 ± 0.07f 41.37 ± 5.89b 73.83 15
LN 45.39 ± 2.92d 1.55 ± 0.08b 40.20 ± 5.24de 87.13 11 42.12 ± 2.87d 1.50 ± 0.14b 39.57 ± 3.73bc 82.00 6
SI 38.93 ± 4.00f 1.10 ± 0.12e 39.25 ± 3.61d 73.59 26 36.79 ± 1.76f 0.93 ± 0.06f 40.75 ± 3.71bc 69.03 22
JI 47.21 ± 2.89cd 1.49 ± 0.15b 44.80 ± 3.55c 90.34 7 49.25 ± 5.76b 1.55 ± 0.14b 39.74 ± 2.75bc 87.17 4
SS 39.55 ± 4.77f 0.87 ± 0.02 g 36.83 ± 2.87f 67.63 32 39.10 ± 2.65d 1.02 ± 0.06e 33.80 ± 1.99e 66.89 27
GA 45.77 ± 4.40d 1.24 ± 0.17c 43.90 ± 4.76cd 83.84 16 41.67 ± 3.23d 1.30 ± 0.04d 44.10 ± 4.37a 81.33 7
28–19 49.33 ± 5.52bc 1.51 ± 0.02b 44.68 ± 3.80c 91.93 4 50.86 ± 4.77b 1.56 ± 0.19b 40.19 ± 3.77bc 88.61 2
AN 39.33 ± 2.20f 1.02 ± 0.03f 40.19 ± 5.82de 72.91 28 32.15 ± 2.55gh 1.21 ± 0.09d 38.15 ± 3.79c 69.74 20
GU 44.78 ± 4.02de 1.41 ± 0.04b 38.55 ± 3.41e 82.78 18 41.19 ± 2.89d 1.10 ± 0.04e 35.55 ± 2.83d 70.90 19
AO 37.22 ± 2.10gh 1.00 ± 0.10f 40.13 ± 2.99d 71.20 29 35.21 ± 1.80f 0.93 ± 0.05e 38.17 ± 1.88c 66.20 29
CO 51.51 ± 5.26b 1.65 ± 0.13a 45.50 ± 4.68b 96.62 1 58.13 ± 4.67a 1.76 ± 0.09a 38.73 ± 2.89c 95.48 1
RR 45.53 ± 5.01d 1.67 ± 0.09a 42.30 ± 3.76d 91.12 6 41.32 ± 3.30d 1.55 ± 0.10 b 37.54 ± 3.10c 80.98 8
YB 39.24 ± 3.72f 1.51 ± 0.10b 46.10 ± 4.70b 86.89 12 38.75 ± 4.12de 1.58 ± 0.18 b 35.50 ± 4.85d 78.56 13
a
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation of triplicate samples.
b
Different superscripts between columns represent significant differences between samples (p < 0.05).
c
Antioxidant index score = [(sample score/best score)  100].

Given that the three methods used above gave different
antioxidant capacities for the same varieties, an overall antioxidant
potency composite (APC) index was calculated for each variety
using the method described by Seeram et al. (2008). The APC index
showed obvious variations ranging from 67.63 to 96.62 in the
studied peels and 59.45 to 88.61 in the studied pulps (Table 5).
Cocktail had the highest APC index. Overall, Cocktail, 28-19, Rio
Red, Chandler, Jintanglvyou, Changshanhuyou, Hongxinyou,
Guanximiyou and Linnanshatiaoyou exhibited the highest
antioxidant capacities.
4. Conclusion
The flavonoid composition and antioxidant capacities of the
peels and pulps of 28 Chinese local pummelos and four grapefruits
are reported for the first time. We found that naringin was the pre-
dominant flavonoid in the pummelo varieties tested, ranging from
2186.47 to 9871.69 mg/kg FW, and Rio Red peel had the highest
naringin content (9871.69 ± 122.90 mg/kg FW). Naringin and neo-
hesperidin were the predominant flavonoids in grapefruits, and the
content of neohesperidin ranged from nd to 7011.15 mg/kg FW.
The highest value was found in the peel of Cocktail fruit
(7011.15 ± 120.87 mg/kg FW). Cocktail and Changshanhuyou were
rich in neohesperidin, while Aolunbulangke, Cocktail, Rio Red and
Changshanhuyou were rich in narirutin. We also noted that the
antioxidant potency composite (APC) index varied from 59.45 to
96.62 in the varieties studied, and the highest value was observed
in Cocktail. In the varieities tested, Cocktail, 28-19, Rio Red, Chan-
dler, Changshanhuyou, and Hongxinyou contained more flavonoids
and exhibited higher antioxidant capacities than the other varie-
ties. Our findings provide useful information for future study and
utilisation of pummelo and grapefruit germplasmin China and
abroad.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 31171930), the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (XDJK2013A014,
XDJK2014A014), the Program for Chongqing Innovation Team of
University (KJTD201333), the ‘111’ Project (B12006), the National
Key Technology R&D Program (No. 2007BAD47B07) and China
Agriculture Research System (No. CARS-27).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.
04.001.
References
Abad-Garcia, B., Garmon-Lobato, S., Berrueta, L. A., Gallo, B., & Vicente, F. (2012). On
line characterization of 58 phenolic compounds in Citrus fruit juices from
Spanish cultivars by high-performance liquid chromatography with
photodiode-array detection coupled to electrospray ionization triple
quadrupole mass spectrometry. Talanta, 99, 213–224.
Barreca, D., Bellocco, E., Caristi, C., Leuzzi, U., & Gattuso, G. (2010). Flavonoid
composition and antioxidant activity of juices from Chinotto (Citrus  myrtifolia
Raf.) fruits at different ripening stages. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 58(5), 3031–3036.
238 W. Xi et al. / Food Chemistry 161 (2014) 230–238
Barreca, D., Bellocco, E., Caristi, C., Leuzzi, U., & Gattuso, G. (2011). Elucidation of the
flavonoid and furocoumarin composition and radical-scavenging activity of
green and ripe chinotto (Citrus myrtifolia Raf.) fruit tissues, leaves and seeds.
Food Chemistry, 129(4), 1504–1512.
Beauchamp, C., & Fridovich, I. (1971). Superoxide dismutase: Improved assays and
an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. Analytical Biochemistry, 44(1), 276–287.
Cano, A., Medina, A., & Bermejo, A. (2008). Bioactive compounds in different citrus
varieties. Discrimination among cultivars. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis, 21(5), 377–381.
Chai, L. L., Biswas, M. K., Yi, H. L., Guo, W. W., & Deng, X. X. (2013). Transferability,
polymorphism and effectiveness for genetic mapping of the pummeloo (Citrus
grandis Osbeck) EST-SSR markers. Scientia Horticulturae, 155, 85–91.
Chen, W., Guo, X. Z., Huang, P. H., Xu, W. R., & Lin, S. S. (2012). Genetic diversity
analysis and identification of pummeloo (Citrus maxima (Burm.) Merr.)
germplasms in southern Zhejiang province (in Chinese). Journal of Plant
Genetic Resources, 13(4), 643–646.
Contreras-Calderón, J., Calderón-Jaimes, L., Guerra-Hernández, E., & García-
Villanova, B. (2011). Antioxidant capacity, phenolic content and vitamin C in
pulp, peel and seed from 24 exotic fruits from Colombia. Food Research
International, 44(7), 2047–2053.
Del Rı́o, J. A., Fuster, M. D., Gómez, P., Porras, I., Garcı´a-Lidón, A., & Ortuño, A. (2004).
Citrus limon: A source of flavonoids of pharmaceutical interest. Food Chemistry,
84(3), 457–461.
Du, Q. Z., & Chen, H. (2010). The methoxyflavones in Citrus reticulata Blanco cv.
ponkan and their antiproliferative activity against cancer cells. Food Chemistry,
119(2), 567–572.
Girennavar, B., Jayaprakasha, G. K., Jifon, J., & Patil, B. (2008). Variation of bioactive
furocoumarins and flavonoids in different varieties of grapefruits and pummelo.
European Food Research and Technology, 226(6), 1269–1275.
Goulas, V., & Manganaris, G. A. (2012). Exploring the phytochemical content and the
antioxidant potential of Citrus fruits grown in Cyprus. Food Chemistry, 131(1),
39–47.
Jang, H. D., Chang, K. S., Chang, T. C., & Hsu, C. L. (2010). Antioxidant potentials of
buntan pumelo (Citrus grandis Osbeck) and its ethanolic and acetified
fermentation products. Food Chemistry, 118(3), 554–558.
Jia, Z. S., Tang, M. C., & Wu, J. M. (1999). The determination of flavonoid contents in
mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chemistry,
64(4), 555–559.
Kelebek, H., Canbas, A., & Selli, S. (2008). Determination of phenolic composition
and antioxidant capacity of blood orange juices obtained from cvs. Moro and
Sanguinello (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) grown in Turkey. Food Chemistry, 107(4),
1710–1716.
Kumaran, A., & Joel Karunakaran, R. (2007). In vitro antioxidant activities of
methanol extracts of five Phyllanthus species from India. LWT – Food Science and
Technology, 40(2), 344–352.
Liu, Y., Liu, D. C., Wu, B., & Sun, Z. H. (2006). Genetic diversity of pummeloo (Citrus
grandis Osbeck) and its relatives based on simple sequence repeat markers.
Chinese Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology, 3(2), 119–126.
Medina-Remón, A., Tulipani, S., Rotchés-Ribalta, M., Mata-Bilbao, M. D. L., Andres-
Lacueva, C., & Lamuela-Raventos, R. M. (2011). A fast method coupling ultrahigh
performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection for flavonoid
quantification in citrus fruit extracts. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
59(12), 6353–6359.
View publication stats
Nogata, Y., Sakamoto, K., Shiratsuchi, H., Ishii, T., Yano, M., & Ohta, H. (2006).
Flavonoid composition of fruit tissues of citrus species. Bioscience, Biotechnology,
and Biochemistry, 70(1), 178–192.
Oboh, G., & Ademosun, A. O. (2011). Phenolic extracts from grapefruit peels (Citrus
paradisi) inhibit key enzymes linked with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.
Journal of Food Biochemistry, 35(6), 1703–1709.
Ooghe, W. C., Ooghe, S. J., Detavernier, C. l. M., & Huyghebaert, A. (1994).
Characterization of orange juice (Citrus sinensis) by flavanone glycosides.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 42(10), 2183–2190.
Peterson, J. J., FWyer, J. T., Beecher, G. R., Bhagwat, S. A., Gebhardt, S. E., Haytowitz,
D. B., & Holden, J. M. (2006). Flavanones in oranges, tangerines (mandarins),
tangors, and tangelos: A compilation and review of the data from the analytical
literature. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 19, S66–S73.
Pichaiyongvongdee, S., & Haruenkit, R. (2009b). Investigation of limonoids,
flavanones, total polyphenol content and antioxidant activity in seven thai
pummelo cultivars. Witthayāsān Kasētsārt: Kasetsart Journal. Natural Sciences.
Sākhā thammācht, 43(3), 458.
Pichaiyongvongdee, S., & Haruenkit, R. (2009a). Comparative studies of limonin and
naringin distribution in different parts of pummelo [Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck]
cultivars grown in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science), 43, 28–36.
Ramful, D., Tarnus, E., Aruoma, O. I., Bourdon, E., & Bahorun, T. (2011). Polyphenol
composition, vitamin C content and antioxidant capacity of Mauritian citrus
fruit pulps. Food Research International, 44(7), 2088–2099.
Seeram, N. P., Aviram, M., Zhang, Y., Henning, S. M., Feng, L., Dreher, M., & Heber, D.
(2008). Comparison of antioxidant potency of commonly consumed
polyphenol-rich beverages in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 56(4), 1415–1422.
Spáčil, Z., Nováková, L., & Solich, P. (2008). Analysis of phenolic compounds by high
performance liquid chromatography and ultra performance liquid
chromatography. Talanta, 76(1), 189–199.
Sun, Y. J., Qiao, L. P., Shen, Y., Jiang, P., Chen, J. C., & Ye, X. Q. (2013). Phytochemical
profile and antioxidant activity of physiological drop of citrus fruits. Journal of
Food Science, 78(1), C37–C42.
Tripoli, E., Guardia, M. L., Giammanco, S., Majo, D. D., & Giammanco, M. (2007).
Citrus flavonoids: Molecular structure, biological activity and nutritional
properties: A review. Food Chemistry, 104(2), 466–479.
Xu, F., Liu, Y., Zhang, Z., Song, R., Yang, C., & Tian, Y. (2007). Simultaneous SPE-LC
determination of three flavonoid glycosides of naringin, neohesperidin and
hesperidin in Da-Cheng-Qi decoction. Chromatographia, 66(9–10), 763–766.
Yamada, T., Hayasaka, S., Shibata, Y., Ojima, T., Saegusa, T., Gotoh, T., Ishikawa, S.,
Nakamura, Y., Kayaba, K., & Jichi (2011). Frequency of citrus fruit intake is
associated with the incidence of cardiovascular disease: The Jichi Medical
School cohort study. Journal of Epidemiology/Japan Epidemiological Association,
21(3), 169–175.
Yusof, S., Ghazali, H. M., & King, G. S. (1990). Naringin content in local citrus fruits.
Food Chemistry, 37(2), 113–121.
Zhang, M. X., Duan, C. Q., Zang, Y. Y., Huang, Z. W., & Liu, G. J. (2011). The flavonoid
composition of flavedo and juice from the pummelo cultivar (Citrus grandis (L.)
Osbeck) and the grapefruit cultivar (Citrus paradisi) from China. Food Chemistry,
129(4), 1530–1536.
Zhang, Y. M., Sun, Y. J., Xi, W. P., Shen, Y., Qiao, L. P., Zhong, L. Z., Ye, X. Q., & Zhou, Z.
Q. (2014). Phenolic compositions and antioxidant capacities of Chinese wild
mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) fruits. Food Chemistry, 674–680.