Author(s)

Newshan Behrangi¹, Hossein Ghafoori², Zeinab Farahmand³, Elham Mohammad Khani³, Mohammad Hossein Sanati^3,4*

¹Faculty of Basic Sciences and Advanced Technologies in Biology, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran.
²Department of Biology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran.
³Iranian Biological Resource Center, Tehran, Iran.
⁴National Institute of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Tehran, Iran.

Cornelian cherry and Prunus cerasus with red pigments possess precious source of flavonoids and phenolic acids which have various applications in treatment of various health problems. This study is conducted to compare different methods of extraction (shaking incubator, soxhelet, ultrasonic) were applied in order to identify the best method which shows the highest rate of antioxidant capacity by DPPH and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) methods and total phenolic compounds via Folin-Ciocalteu procedure, p-coumaric acid content of fruits were evaluated by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). As a result, cornelian cherry with 1313.13 mg/Kg average TPC score exhibits higher total phenolic content than Prunus cerasus with 1270 mg/Kg. It’s notice worthy that there was a slight difference among antioxidant activity in two fruits. Consequently, DPPH revealed nearly stronger antioxidant activity for Prunus cerasus while cornelian cherry had a little more potent antioxidant activity according to FRAP Test. p-coumaric acid content was almost twice in Prunus cerasus (10.8 mg/ml) than cornelian cherry (5.6 mg/ml). In addition, both shaking incubator and ultrasonic extraction procedures were more efficient than soxhelet in two fruits.

Cornelian Cherry, Prunus cerasus, p-Coumaric Acid, Total Phenolic Content, Antioxidant Activity

Behrangi, N. , Ghafoori, H. , Farahmand, Z. , Khani, E. and Sanati, M. (2015) Comparison among Cornelian Cherry and Prunus cerasus According to Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity by Three Various Methods of Extraction. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 6, 1166-1173. doi: 10.4236/fns.2015.612122.