Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22 (2009) 388–393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Composition and Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfca

Original Article

Antioxidant capacity and total phenolic content of Malaysian

underutilized fruits
Emmy Hainida Khairul Ikram a, Khoo Hock Eng a, Abbe Maleyki Mhd Jalil a,
Amin Ismail a,*, Salma Idris b, Azrina Azlan a, Halimatul Saadiah Mohd Nazri a,
Norzatol Akmar Mat Diton a, Ruzaidi Azli Mohd Mokhtar a
a
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Botany Division, Strategic Resource Research Center, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the antioxidant capacity (AC) and total phenolic content (TPC)
Received 1 November 2007 of selected Malaysian underutilized fruits. The 58 underutilized fruits of 32 different species from 21
Received in revised form 16 February 2009 genera were analyzed for AC and TPC. AC was measured using b-carotene bleaching, ferric reducing
Accepted 2 April 2009
antioxidant potential (FRAP) and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl (DPPH) assays, and TPC was
determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent assay. Our findings showed that the fruits from genera
Keywords: of Pometia, Averrhoa, Syzygium, Sallacca, Phyllanthus, Garcinia, Sandoricum and Maipighia had higher AC
Underutilized fruit
compared to other studied genera. Among the underutilized fruits, Sandoricum and Phyllanthus fruits
Inhibition of oxidation activity
Antioxidant activity
contained the highest TPC (>2000 mg/100 g edible portion). The correlation between AC and TPC varied.
Scavenging activity The study indicated that some of these underutilized fruits have the potential to be sources of
Total phenolic content antioxidant components.
Food analysis ß 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Food composition

1. Introduction utilized fruits are important in the Malaysian diet, especially in

Epidemiological studies have shown that there is a positive
association between intake of vegetables and fruits and reduced
cardiovascular diseases (Hu, 2003) and certain cancers (Riboli and
Norat, 2003). It is generally assumed that the main dietary
constituents contributing to these protective effects are the
antioxidant components (Agudo et al., 2007). Along with other
antioxidant components, polyphenols (e.g. flavonoids) present in
fruits and vegetables have been reported to be potential candidates
in lowering cardiovascular diseases (Huxley and Neil, 2003;
Joshipura et al., 2001). The protective effects could be due to
their properties as free radical scavengers, hydrogen-donating
compounds, singlet oxygen quenchers and/or metal ion chelators.
Generally, Malaysians consume vegetables that are relatively
abundant sources of antioxidant components with strong
potential antioxidant activities (Amin and Lee, 2005; Amin
et al., 2004, 2006). Similar to vegetables, tropical and sub-
tropical fruits such as ciku, star fruits and guava have been
reported to be rich in antioxidants (Leong and Shui, 2002).
Besides the commonly consumed local fruits, some under-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 3 8947 2435; fax: +60 3 8942 6769.
E-mail address: amin@medic.upm.edu.my (A. Ismail).
rural communities. Malaysia is one of the countries that has a
rich diversity of underutilized fruits that grow wild in the region
of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Some of the
underutilized fruits are rarely eaten, unknown and unfamiliar.
Due to the broad spectrum of their flesh and skin color, these
underutilized fruits may have potential benefits to human
health. It is important to include these fruits in health
promotion campaigns. In addition, some of these fruits have
the potential to be used and processed as food products for local
consumption. However, underutilized fruits have not received
much attention as antioxidant sources compared to commercial
fruits like guava, papaya and pineapple. This could be due to
their lack of popularity among local communities, lack of
information on nutritional compositions and physical qualities
and the lack of promotional campaigns for these fruits.
In Malaysia, many kinds of underutilized fruits are available,
such as nam-nam (Cynometra sp.), bacang (Mangifera sp.), jambu
bol (Psidium sp.), durian (Durio sp.), bidara (Ziziphus sp.), mertajam
(Leppisanthes sp.), longan (Dimorcarpus sp.), lenggeng serawak
(Pometia sp.), belimbing buloh (Averrhoa sp.), assam kelubi (Salacca
sp.), buah melaka (Phyllanthus sp.), assam gelugor (Garcinia sp.),
sentol (Sandoricum sp.), rambai Sarawak (Baccaurea sp.), remia
(Bouea sp.), pulasan (Nephelium sp.) and others. These fruits are
usually grown in orchards or fruit gardens around houses, and

0889-1575/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2009.04.001
 E.H.K. Ikram et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22 (2009) 388–393
some grow wild in the rain-forest (Rukayah, 1992). These fruits are
known by older folks to be associated with many nutritional and
medicinal properties.
There is a dearth of information on the antioxidant capacity
(AC) and antioxidant components, including total phenolic content
(TPC), of Malaysian underutilized fruits. Therefore, this work was
initiated to determine AC and TPC of selected Malaysian under-
utilized fruits. In addition, the relationship between AC and TPC
was determined.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Preparation of sample and extract
Two lines of research work consisting of 58 Malaysian
underutilized fruits of 32 different species from 21 genera were
conducted in this study. The first line of research work consisted
of 51 underutilized fruits of 26 different species from 17 genera,
while the second line of work consisted of 9 underutilized fruits
of 9 different species from 8 genera. The fruits were sampled
from different locations by the Strategic Resource Research
Centre, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development
Institute, Malaysia. The fruits were grown wild and harvested
at maturity at different time periods. Mature fruits for each
sample were transported from the Centre directly to the
analytical laboratory. The whole fruit was washed under
running tap water to remove dirt and other foreign materials
and wiped with tissue paper. The fruit was weighed for the
whole and edible portions. The edible portion was then cut into
small pieces and stored at 80 8C before lyophilization using a
bench-top freeze dryer (Virtis, Gardiner, New York). The
lyophilized fruits were ground into powder form, and kept at
20 8C prior to analysis.
Methanolic extract was prepared by mixing 1 g of the
lyophilized fruit powder with 80% methanol (v/v) at a ratio 1:4.
The mixture was placed in a conical flask (wrapped with an
aluminum foil) and agitated at 200 rpm, at 50 8C, with the aid of an
orbital shaker (Heidolph Unimax 1010, Schwabach, Germany) for
2 h. The mixture was then filtered through a filter paper (Whatman
No. 4) to obtain a clear solution. The extract was used for
determination of AC and TPC.
2.2. b-Carotene bleaching method
The inhibition activity of b-carotene oxidation by peroxide
radicals of the fruit methanolic extract was determined according
to a modified procedure, initially described by Velioglu et al.
(1998). Briefly, 1.0 mL of b-carotene solution (0.2 mg/mL chloro-
form) was pipetted into a round-bottom flask containing 20 mL
linoleic acid, 200 mL Tween 20 and 200 mL fruit extract. The
mixture was then evaporated at 30 8C for 20 min using a rotary
evaporator (Buchi Rotavor R-200, Switzerland) to remove chloro-
form. After evaporation, 50 mL of distilled water was immediately
added to the mixture. The mixture was vigorous agitated for 5 min
using an orbital shaker to form an emulsion.
Aliquots (2.0 mL) of the emulsion were transferred into different
test tubes. The mixture was then gently mixed and placed in a water
bath at 50 8C for 2 h. Absorbance of the samples was recorded at 0
and 2 h at 470 nm using a Spectronic GenesysTM 5 spectro-
photometer (Milton Roy Company, New York). All determinations
were performed in triplicate. AC was calculated as percent
of inhibition relative to control using the following equation
from Al-Saikhan et al. (1995): Antioxidant capacity (%) =
[(drcontrol–drsample)/drcontrol  100], where, drcontrol and drsample
are the degradation bleaching rates of b-carotene in reactant mixed
with fruit extracts at 0 and 2 h, respectively.
389
2.3. Total phenolic content (TPC)
The content of reducing components (expressed as TPC) was
estimated using the Folin–Ciocalteu assay according to a method
developed by Velioglu et al. (1998), with slight modification.
Briefly, 0.75 mL of 10-fold diluted Folin–Ciocalteu reagent and
100 mL of methanolic extract were placed in a test tube. The
mixture was mixed and allowed to stand at room temperature for
5 min. Then, 0.75 mL of 6% (w/v) sodium carbonate solution was
added. The mixture was homogenized and allowed to stand at
room temperature for 90 min. TPC was determined using a
Spectronic GenesisTM spectrophotometer at 725 nm. The standard
calibration curve was plotted using gallic acid at the concentra-
tions of 0.02–0.1 mg/mL. The TPC was expressed as gallic acid
equivalent (GAE) mg/100 g edible portion.
2.4. Determination of ferric reducing antioxidant potential (FRAP)
FRAP assay was performed according to the method of Benzie
and Strain (1996). The FRAP reagent was prepared by mixing
16.7 mM FeCl36H2O and 8.3 mM 2,4,6-tripyridyl-s-triazine
(TPTZ) with 250 mM acetate buffer, pH 3.6. A total of 75 mL fruit
extract and 225 mL of distilled water was added to 2.25 mL of
freshly prepared FRAP reagent in a test tube. The mixture was
incubated at 37 8C throughout the reaction. The absorbance was
read at initial and after 4 min at 593 nm using a UV–vis
spectrophotometer during the monitoring period. The antiox-
idant potential of the fruit extract was determined based on a
calibration curve plotted using FeSO47H2O at a concentration
ranging between 400 and 2000 mM.
2.5. Determination of free radical scavenging activity (DPPH)
The scavenging activity of the extract was determined based on
2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl free radical (DPPH) scavenging assay
described by Lai et al. (2001). The fruit extract (200 mL) was mixed
with 800 mL of 100 mM Tris–HCl buffer, pH 7.4. The mixture was then
added to 1.0 mL of 500 mM DPPH (previously prepared in methanol).
This was made up to the DPPH final concentration of 250 mM. The
control was performed by mixing 200 mL of methanol with 1.0 mL
DPPH. The mixture was then shaken vigorously and left to stand for
20 min at room temperature in a dark room. The absorbance was read
using a UV–vis spectrophotometer at 517 nm with methanol as the
blank. Triplicate measurements were carried out and their activity
was calculated based on the percentage of scavenged DPPH as
follows:
Scavenging activity ð%Þ ¼ ½1  ðAbsorbance of
sample at 517 nm=Absorbance of control at 517 nmÞ  100
2.6. Statistical analysis
Data were expressed as mean  standard deviation of triplicate
measurements. Data were statistically analyzed using statistical
software, SPSS version 14.0 for windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson correlation
coefficients, were determined and the significant difference was set at
p < 0.05.
3. Results and discussion
In the first line of the study, a total of 51 samples in 17 genera
underutilized fruit were analyzed for their AA and TPC using b-
carotene bleaching and Folin–Ciocalteu reagent methods, respec-
tively (Table 1). AC of the underutilized fruits ranged from 45% to
390 E.H.K. Ikram et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22 (2009) 388–393

Table 1
Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity (based on b-carotene bleaching assay) of 52 underutilized fruits from 17 genera.

Scientific name Common name Total phenolic content Antioxidant

(mg GAE/100 g edible portion) capacity (%)

Averrhoa bilimbi L. Belimbing Buloh 1261.63  31.41 91.89  0.00

Baccaurea motteyana Rambai Sarawak 1160.14  20.56 71.17  5.63
Baccaurea polyneura Jentik-Jentik 546.25  15.70 81.98  3.12
Bouea microphylla Remia 1064.68  19.40 76.58  1.56
Cynometra cauliflora Nam-Nam 1868.94  11.68 45.95  2.70
Dimorcarpus longan Isau 203.92  14.35 52.25  3.12
Durio kutejensis Durian Isu Kuning 183.07  6.23 54.05  2.70
Durio zibenthinus Durian Isu Oren 168.26  9.92 64.86  2.70

Durian Tutong 79.93  13.40 68.47  4.12

68.41  1.90 73.87  1.56
64.57  3.43 54.05  2.70

Durio sp. Durian Hutan 292.79  14.35 60.36  8.69

113.95  2.5 47.75  4.13
123.27  3.29 –

Garcinia atroviridis Assam Gelugor 68.41  0.95 72.97  2.70

Garcinia parvifolia Kundung Sarawak 95.84  3.43 79.28  7.80
Garcinia prainiana Cerapu 1668.15  11.68 91.90  0.00

Leppisanthes rubiginosa Mertajam 1110.21  38.99 54.05  2.70

1308.26  79.94 50.45  5.63

Phyllanthus emblica Buah Melaka 2664.97  115.40 81.98  5.63

Pometia sp. Lengeng Sarawak 894.61  81.19 97.30  0.00
Salacca conferta Assam Kelubi 1455.29  62.14 84.68  8.69
Syzygium jambos Jambu Mawar 555.57  28.33 90.09  3.12
Psidium guajava Jambu Susu 1394.94  81.04 63.96  7.80
Ziziphus mauritania Bidara 1321.98  4.14 57.66  8.26
Mangifera foetida Bacang Gelok 763.49  11.52 90.99  1.56
Bacang 491.94  8.55 79.28  3.12
815.61  24.26 97.30  0.00
579.71  5.29 83.78  0.00
763.50  11.52 31.53  4.13
849.63  27.06 68.47  4.12
663.10  8.55 75.68  2.70
Mangifera odorata Kuini 487.00  8.23 72.07  1.56
523.21  16.21 74.78  4.13
388.80  9.93 69.37  1.56
245.06  15.87 71.17  3.12
372.89  4.14 93.69  1.56
2664.97  115.40 81.08  2.70
291.69  13.20 72.07  4.13
268.65  2.51 66.67  3.12
229.70  12.46 79.27  3.12
906.13  28.99 73.87  1.56
433.78  10.96 62.16  2.70
549.54  14.25 81.08  0.00
Mangifera pajang Bambangan 221.47  10.71 68.47  1.56
Bambangan Masam Manis 339.97  20.58 48.65  2.70
Nephelium malaiense Mata Kucing 275.79  7.60 56.76  0.00
Nephelium ramboutan-ake Pulasan Hijau 240.67  18.50 72.07  4.13
Pulasan Hitam 433.78  12.46 74.77  1.56
Pulasan Kuning 144.67  1.65 76.58  4.13
Sandoricum macropodum Sentol Tempatan 3185.05  59.00 74.77  3.12
Sentol Bangkok 1022.99  92.70 85.59  1.56

97%. Cynometra cauliflora contained the lowest AC compared to
other studied fruits. The AC (>70%) of the studied genera was in the
order of Pometia > Averrhoa > Syzygium > Salacca > Phyllanthus >
Garcinia > Sandoricum > Baccaurea > Bouea > Nephelium (Fig. 1).
High AC was observed in the studied fruits that had sour (e.g.
Baccaurea, Garcinia, Mangifera and Pometia) and bitter tastes (e.g.
Phyllanthus and Averrhoa).
In the b-carotene bleaching assay, oxidation of linoleic acid
releases linoleic acid peroxide as free radicals that oxidize
b-carotene resulting in discoloration, thus decreasing the absor-
bance value (Talcott et al., 2000). A linear relationship was found
between the ability of the sample extract to inhibit oxidation and
antioxidant capacity. In this study, it was observed that the same
genera of fruits from different locations exhibited a variation in
antioxidant capacity. These findings agree with those of Salunkhe
and Desai (1988).
Among 17 genera of the studied fruits, Sandoricum and
Phyllanthus contained the highest TPC (>2000 mg/100 g edible
portion), while other 7 genera contained a moderately high amount
of TPC (Bouea < Leppisanthes < Averrhoa < Ziziphus < Psidium <
Salacca < Cynometra), ranging from 1000 to 2000 mg GAE/100 g
edible portion. Mangifera, Syzygium, Garcinia, Baccaurea and
Pometia fruits contained 509, 556, 611, 853, and 894 mg GAE/
100 g of TPC, respectively. The lowest values of TPC were found
for Durio, Dimorcarpus and Nephelium fruits (<500 mg/100 g)
(Table 1).
 E.H.K. Ikram et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22 (2009) 388–393 391

Fig. 1. Total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of 17 genera of underutilized fruits. Values are expressed as mean  SD of triplicate measurements.

Mango (Mangifera indica) was previously reported to have a TPC Amarowicz et al. (1993) also reported that flaxseed with the lowest
in the range of 47 mg GAE/100 g (Brunswick Labs, 2002) to 209 mg TPC had exhibited the highest AC.
GAE/100 g edible portion (Sonia et al., 2007). However, our Pearson correlations coefficient showed that among 17 studied
findings showed a higher value of TPC in Mangifera foetida, fruit genera, 5 genera showed positive correlations, while the other
Mangifera odorata and Mangifera pajang (221–2665 mg GAE/ 12 genera showed negative correlations between AC and TPC
100 g). Mahatanatawee et al. (2005) reported lower values of (Table 2). There was a high and significant correlation (p < 0.01)
TPC (159–232 mg GAE/100 g) for different species of Syzygium fruit between AC and TPC (r = 0.93). Sandoricum fruit exhibited the
compared to our findings. The presence of lypophilic compounds in highest positive correlation (r = 0.852); Ziziphus fruit showed the
the fruits may contribute to variation in TPC. Deepa et al. (2006) highest negative correlation (r = 0.997).
and George et al. (2005) reported that the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent Previous studies suggested that there was a strong correlation
method may overestimate TPC, because reducing agents, such as between AC and TPC (Deighton et al., 2000; Soong and Barlow,
ascorbic acid, may interfere with the results. However, different 2004; Dykes et al., 2005). Similar studies on AC using b-carotene
phenolic compounds have different responses in the Folin– bleaching coupled with oxidation of linoleic acids and Folin assay
Ciocalteu method (Heinonen et al., 1998; Kahkonen et al., 1999). had found a positive correlation between AC and TPC (Tsushida
Underutilized fruits that contained high TPC may not have high et al., 1994; Kaur and Kapoor, 2002). However, there are findings
AC, as shown in Fig. 1. Leppisanthes fruit had 46% of AC and indicating that AC and TPC do not correlate with each other (Sun
1869 mg GAE/100 g of TPC, while Pometia fruit had 97% of AC with and Ho, 2004; Amin and Lee, 2005; Amin et al., 2006). The
moderate amount of TPC (895 mg GAE/100 g). Similar results were molecular antioxidant response of phenolic compounds in methyl
obtained for Garcinia, Nephelium and Syzygium fruits. Our findings linoleate varies remarkably depending on their chemical structure
are in agreement with Mahatanatawee et al. (2005). Moreover, (Statue-Gracia et al., 1997). Thus, the AC of an extract cannot be
predicted on the basis of its phenolic content, but also requires
proper characterization of individual phenolic compounds. How-
Table 2
ever, there are several reasons to explain the ambiguous relation-
Relationship between antioxidant capacity and total phenolic
content. ship between AC and TPC found in published studies. The
variations may be due to a high content of reducing agents such
Genera Correlation coefficient (r)
as ascorbic acid, minerals and carotenoids in the fruits (George
Bouea 0.955 et al., 2005; Deepa et al., 2006), high protein content or genetic,
Garcinia 0.852** agronomic and environmental influences (Jagdish et al., 2007).
Pometia 0.410
There are several methodological limitations for antioxidant
Cynometra 0.352
Averrhoa 0.333
determinations, which were reported by Kaur and Kapoor (2001).
Nephelium 0.062 The most widely used methods for measuring AC are those that
Mangifera 0.072 involve the generation of radical species, where the presence of
Leppisanthes 0.148 antioxidants determines the disappearance of radicals (Cao et al.,
Durio. 0.382*
1993). It is important to use different assays, instead of relying on a
Dimorcarpus 0.596
Syzygium 0.620 single assay to assess and compare the antioxidant capacity. Thus,
Psidium 0.733 the second line of work was carried out to determine the
Phyllanthus 0.823 antioxidant activity by FRAP and DPPH assays using nine different
Baccaurea 0.839* species of underutilized fruits.
Salacca 0.887
Sandoricum 
0.923**
The FRAP value, scavenging activity and TPC of nine selected
Ziziphus 0.997* fruit species are presented in Table 3. The mean FRAP values of the
studied fruits showed Maipighia punicirolia > Flacourtia
Data were statistically analyzed using Pearson correlation
coefficient test.
rukam > Garcinia atroviridis > Psidium guajava = Carissa caran-
*
Indicates a significant difference at the level of p < 0.05. das = Ziziphus mauritiana > Pouteria campechiana > Syzygium
**
Indicates a significant difference at the level of p < 0.01. malaccense. However, the means of FRAP values were significantly
392 E.H.K. Ikram et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22 (2009) 388–393
Table 3
Comparison of FRAP, scavenging activity and total phenolic content of underutilized fruits.
Scientific name Common name FRAP value (mM)
c ecf
Maipighia punicirolia Ceri 4.34  0.25
Flacourtia rukam Rokam Manis 2.09  0.13d
Garcinia atroviridis Asam Gelugor 0.67  0.08b
Psidium guajava Jambu 0.46  0.13ab
Carissa carandas Kerandang 0.46  0.10ab
Ziziphus mauritiana Bidara 0.46  0.07ab
Pouteria campechiana Kuning Telur 0.43  0.09ab
Mangifera odorata Kuini 0.28  0.10a
Syzygium malaccense Jambu Bol 0.22  0.03a
Values are expressed as mean  SD of triplicate measurement. Superscripts with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same column.
different (p < 0.05) between M. punicirolia and other species, while
the FRAP values of M. odorata, P. campechiana, Z. mauritiana, S.
malaccense, P. guajava and C. carandas did not show any significant
difference.
For the DPPH assay, the radical scavenging activity of the
studied fruits was in the order of G. atroviridis > M. punicirolia > F.
rukam > Z. mauritiana > P. guajava > P. campechiana > M.
odorata > C. carandas > S. malaccense. No significant difference
was observed between vitamin C (as standard) and the studied
fruits (M. punicirolia, F. rukam, P. guajava, Z. mauritiana and G.
atroviridis). No significant difference was observed among P.
campechiana, Z. mauritiana, P. guajava and F. rukam.
M. punicirolia exhibited the highest TPC, followed by Z.
mauritiana, F. rukam, P. guajava, G. atroviridis, P. campechiana, C.
carandas, M. odorata and S. malaccense (Table 3). ANOVA indicated
that the means of TPC were significantly different (p < 0.05) among
the studied fruits. However, means of TPC of M. odorata and S.
malaccense did not show any significant difference. No significant
difference was found between P. guajava and G. atroviridis.
In this study, the variation of AC and TPC of the studied fruits
may be due to several reasons. The red colored fruits (M. punicirolia
and F. rukam) contained high AC and TPC. Red, purple and blue
color pigments present in the studied underutilized fruits could be
anthocyanin compounds. Wang et al. (1997) showed that colored
fruits such as grapes and cranberries contain high levels of
anthocyanidins which have high antioxidant properties. Garcia-
Alonso et al. (2004) and Velioglu et al. (1998) reported that M.
punicirolia had higher AC as compared to strawberry and raspberry.
This might be due to anthocyanins present in this fruit, which have
contributed to high AC (Kahkonen et al., 1999). Moreover, Guo et al.
(1997) reported that high AC of fruits is most probably due to high
polyphenol compounds such as phenolic acids and flavonoids.
4. Conclusions
Malaysia has a great diversity of underutilized fruits that vary in
appearance and organoleptic characteristics. There are great
variations in the AC and TPC of the studied fruits. Garcinia
prainiana, Phyllanthus emblica and Syzygium jambos have high
potential to be sources of antioxidants. The correlation results
indicated that along with phenolic compounds, other antioxidant
components such as vitamins C and E and carotenoids could also
contribute to the antioxidant capacity of underutilized fruits. There
are many factors that could influence the antioxidant components
and capacity such as varieties (cultivar/sub-species) and agro-
nomic and environmental factors (climate, soils and light
exposure).
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the Malaysian
Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) for
Scavenging activity (%) Total phenolic content (mg GAE/100 g)
81.04  0.38 107.0  0.4a
78.09  0.39bce 40.0  0.2c
86.40  2.20f 29.0  0.2d
74.62  1.19bec 31.1  0.1d
43.57  1.53a 12.0  0.0f
74.96  0.44bc 41.0  0.3c
73.32  0.72b 21.0  0.1b
45.68  11.09a 8.0  0.0e
17.01  0.32d 6.0  0.0e
collecting and providing the underutilized fruits and the Universiti
Putra Malaysia for the laboratory facilities.
References
Agudo, A., Cabrera, L., Amiano, P., Ardanaz, E., Barricarte, A., Berenguer, T., Chirlaque,
M.D., Dorronsoro, M., Jakszyn, P., Larranaga, N., Martinez, C., Navarro, C., Quiros,
J.R., Sanchez, M.J., Tormo, M.J., Gonzalez, C.A., 2007. Fruit and vegetable intakes,
dietary antioxidant nutrients, and total mortality in Spanish adults: findings
from the Spanish cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer
and Nutrition (EPIC-Spain). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 85 (6), 1634–
1642.
Al-Saikhan, M.S., Howard, L.R., Miller, J.C., 1995. Antioxidant capacity and total
phenolics in different genotypes of potato (Solanum tuberosum, L.). Journal of
Food Science 60, 341–343.
Amin, I., Zamaliah, M.M., Chin, W.F., 2004. Total antioxidant capacity and phenolic
content in selected vegetables. Food Chemistry 87, 581–586.
Amin, I., Lee, W.Y., 2005. Effect of different blanching times on antioxidant proper-
ties in selected cruciferous vegetables. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture 85, 2314–2320.
Amin, I., Norazaidah, Y., Emmy Hainida, K.I., 2006. Antioxidant capacity and phenolic
content of spinach species (Amaranthus sp.). Food Chemistry 94, 47–52.
Amarowicz, R., Janitha, W., Shahidi, F., 1993. Antioxidant capacity of ethanolic
extracts of flaxseed in a b-carotene-lineoleate model system. Journal of Food
Lipids 1 (2), 111–117.
Benzie, I.F.F., Strain, J.J., 1996. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a
measure of ‘‘antioxidant power’’: the FRAP assay. Analytical Biochemistry 239,
70–76.
Brunswick Labs, 2002. Total phenolic content-fresh fruit. Retrieved 2007-10-30
from the world wide web: http://www.townsendletter.com/May2003/Pollen-
TotalPhenolicsChart.pdf.
Cao, G., Alessio, H.M., Cutler, R.G., 1993. Oxygen-radical absorbance capacity assay
for antioxidants. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 14, 303–311.
Deepa, N., Kaur, C., Singh, B., Kapoor, H.C., 2006. Antioxidant capacity in some red
sweet pepper cultivars. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19, 572–
578.
Deighton, N., Brennen, R., Finn, C., Davies, H.V., 2000. Antioxidant properties of
domesticated and wild Rubus species. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture 80, 1307–1313.
Dykes, L., Rooney, L.W., Waniska, R.D., Rooney, W.L., 2005. Phenolic compounds and
antioxidant capacity of sorghum grains of varying genotypes. Journal of Agri-
cultural and Food Chemistry 53, 6813–6818.
Garcia-Alonso, M., Pascual-Teresa, S.D., Santos-Buelga, C., Rivas-Gonzalo, J.C.,
2004. Evaluation of the antioxidant properties of fruits. Food Chemistry 84,
13–18.
George, S., Brat, P., Alter, P., Amiot, M.J., 2005. Rapid determination of polyphenols
and vitamin C in plant-derived products. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 53 (5), 1370–1373.
Guo, C., Cao, G., Sofic, E., Prior, R.L., 1997. High performance liquid chromatography
coupled with coulometric array detection of electro active components in fruits
and vegetables: relationship to oxygen radical absorbance capacity. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 45, 1787–1796.
Heinonen, M., Lehtonen, P.J., Hopia, A., 1998. Antioxidative activity of berry and fruit
wines and liquor. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 46, 25–31.
Hu, F.B., 2003. Plant-based foods and prevention of cardiovascular disease: an
overview. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78, 544S–551S.
Huxley, R.R., Neil, H.A., 2003. The relation between dietary falvonol intake and
coronary heart disease mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 57, 904–908.
Jagdish, S., Upadhyay, A.K., Kundan, P., Anant, B., Mathura, R., 2007. Variability of
carotenes, vitamin C, E and phenolics in Brassica vegetables. Journal of Food
Composition and Analysis 20 (2), 106–112.
Joshipura, K.J., Hu, F.B., Manson, J.E., Stampfer, M.J., Rimm, E.B., Speizer, F.E., Colditz,
G., Ascherio, A., Rosner, B., Spiegelman, D., Willett, W.C., 2001. The effect of fruit
and vegetable intake on risk for coronary heart disease. Annals of Internal
Medicine 134 (12), 1106–1114.
 E.H.K. Ikram et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 22 (2009) 388–393
Kahkonen, M.P., Hopia, A.I., Vuorela, H.J., Rauha, J.P., Pihlaja, K., Kujala, T.S., Hei-
nonen, M., 1999. Antioxidant capacity of plant extracts containing phenolic
compounds. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 47, 3954–3962.
Kaur, C., Kapoor, H.C., 2001. Review: antioxidants in fruits and vegetables—the
millennium’s health. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 36,
703–725.
Kaur, C., Kapoor, H.C., 2002. Anti-oxidant and total phenolic contents of some Asian
vegetables. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 37, 153–161.
Lai, L.S., Chou, S.T., Chao, W.W., 2001. Studies on the antioxidative activities of
Hsian-tsao (Mesona procumbens Hemsl) leaf gum. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry 49, 963–968.
Leong, L.P., Shui, G., 2002. An investigation of antioxidant capacity of fruits in
Singapore markets. Food Chemistry 76, 69–75.
Mahatanatawee, K. Goodner, K., Baldwin, E., Manthey, J., Luzio, G., 2005. Total
antioxidant activity of Florida’s tropical fruits. First report for Trust Food Project
with Tropical Fruit Growers of South Florida. USDA-ARS Citrus and Subtropical
Product Laboratory, Winter Haven, FL. Available at: http://www.tropicalfruit-
growers.com/FDPs/TFAntioxidant-report.pdf. Accessed 4/2/2009.
Riboli, E., Norat, T., 2003. Epidemiologic evidence of the protective effect of fruit and
vegetables on cancer risk. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78 (3), 559S–
569S.
Rukayah, A., 1992. Buah-buahan Nadir Semenanjung Malaysia, Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
393
Salunkhe, D.K., Desai, B.B., 1988. Effect of agriculture practices, handling, processing
and storage on vegetables. In: Karmas, E., Harris, R.S. (Eds.), Nutritional Evalua-
tion of Food Processing. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Sonia, R.R., Jose, Q., de Queiroz, M.L.R., Flavia, C., Helena, P.S., 2007. Antioxidant in
Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Pulp. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 62, 13–17.
Soong, Y.Y., Barlow, P.J., 2004. Antioxidant capacity and phenolic content of selected
fruit seeds. Food Chemistry 88 (3), 411–417.
Statue-Gracia, M.T., Heinonen, M., Frankel, E.N., 1997. Antioxidant capacity of
anthocyanin in LDL and lecithin liposome systems. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry 5, 3362–3367.
Sun, T., Ho, C.H., 2004. Antioxidant activities of buckwheat extracts. Food Chemistry
90 (4), 743–749.
Talcott, S.T., Howard, L.R., Brenes, C.H., 2000. Antioxidant changes and sensory
properties of carrot puree processed with or without periderm tissue. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48, 1315–1321.
Tsushida, T., Suzuki, M., Kurogi, M., 1994. Evaluation of antioxidant capacity
extracts and determination of some active compounds. Journal of the Japanese
Society for Food Science and Technology 41, 611–618.
Velioglu, Y.S., Mazza, G., Gao, L., Oomah, B.D., 1998. Antioxidant capacity and total
phenolics in selected fruits, vegetables and grain products. Journal of Agricul-
tural and Food Chemistry 46, 4113–4117.
Wang, H., Cao, G., Prior, R.L., 1997. Oxygen radical absorbing capacity of antho-
cyanins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 45, 304–309.