2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.11.165
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of free phenolic acids and antioxidant activity of methanolic extracts obtained from fruits and leaves of Chenopodium album

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
46
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
46
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In the seventh week, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between the control and BHA treated samples. This was unexpected because BHA has been reported to be a potent synthetic antioxidant (Mariod et al, 2012;Laghari et al, 2011). There was no significant difference among all levels of Moringa and salt treated samples in the seventh week.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In the seventh week, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between the control and BHA treated samples. This was unexpected because BHA has been reported to be a potent synthetic antioxidant (Mariod et al, 2012;Laghari et al, 2011). There was no significant difference among all levels of Moringa and salt treated samples in the seventh week.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The mobile phase was water containing 2% acetic acid (A) and methanol (B). The composition gradient was 5% of B to 2 min, when it was changed to obtain 25%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 100% B at 10,20,30,40,50, and 80 min, respectively, following the method described by Laghari et al (2011) with slight modifications. The extracts were analyzed at a concentration of 0.150 mg/ mL.…”
Section: Analysis Of Phenolic Compoundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Qualitative and quantitative analyses of phenolics and flavonoids compounds by HPLC-DAD Reverse phase chromatographic analyses were carried out under gradient conditions using C 18 column (4.6 mm Â250 mm) packed with 5 lm diameter particles; the mobile phase was water containing 2% acetic acid (A) and methanol (B), and the composition gradient was: 5% of B until 2 min and changed to obtain 25%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% and 100% B at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 80 min, respectively, following the method described by Laghari et al (2011) with slight modifications. The hydroalcoholic extract of the C. campestris was analysed, dissolved in ethanol at a concentration of 5 mg/mL.…”
Section: Chemical Profilementioning
confidence: 99%