Comparison of antioxidant capacity assays with chemometric methods

Anita Rácz, Nóra Papp, Emöke Balogh, Marietta Fodor, K. Heberger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Seven antioxidant capacity assays were compared and evaluated (ranked and grouped) using several statistical methods. The aim of the research was to compare the results of different antioxidant capacity assays and choose preferably one (or two) method(s), which could reproduce on its own the consensus results of all of the others. The two datasets (berries and sour cherries) gave quite similar results. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis could point out the methods that are most similar and best connected to each other. Not only are the groupings of the methods novel in this study but also the application of sum of ranking differences (SRD) and the generalized pair correlation method (GPCM) to compare and rank the various antioxidant capacity assays independently. In the case of berry samples, ferric ion reducing antioxidant power assay (FRAP) was the most successful as demonstrated by the results of SRD and GPCM. Moreover, GPCM (with conditional exact Fisher's test and probability weighted ordering) could distinguish between 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl free radical scavenging (DPPH) and lipid soluble antioxidant capacity (ACL) methods, which was not revealed by the SRD procedure. In the case of sour cherry samples the total polyphenolic content (TPC) was the most appropriate method and FRAP was the second to replace all the other assays. GPCM could differentiate between FRAP and trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) methods. The suggested techniques were FRAP and TPC for both datasets to replace all the others, whereas the ACL and water soluble antioxidant capacity (ACW) techniques give extremely distant results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4216-4224
Number of pages9
JournalAnalytical Methods
Volume7
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 21 2015

Fingerprint

Antioxidants
Assays
Correlation methods
Ions
Scavenging
Cluster analysis
Free radicals
Principal component analysis
Lipids
Free Radicals
Statistical methods
Water

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Engineering(all)
  • Chemical Engineering(all)

Cite this

Comparison of antioxidant capacity assays with chemometric methods. / Rácz, Anita; Papp, Nóra; Balogh, Emöke; Fodor, Marietta; Heberger, K.

In: Analytical Methods, Vol. 7, No. 10, 21.05.2015, p. 4216-4224.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rácz, Anita ; Papp, Nóra ; Balogh, Emöke ; Fodor, Marietta ; Heberger, K. / Comparison of antioxidant capacity assays with chemometric methods. In: Analytical Methods. 2015 ; Vol. 7, No. 10. pp. 4216-4224.
@article{7ac4ec0966974265bbf4da443c041623,
title = "Comparison of antioxidant capacity assays with chemometric methods",
abstract = "Seven antioxidant capacity assays were compared and evaluated (ranked and grouped) using several statistical methods. The aim of the research was to compare the results of different antioxidant capacity assays and choose preferably one (or two) method(s), which could reproduce on its own the consensus results of all of the others. The two datasets (berries and sour cherries) gave quite similar results. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis could point out the methods that are most similar and best connected to each other. Not only are the groupings of the methods novel in this study but also the application of sum of ranking differences (SRD) and the generalized pair correlation method (GPCM) to compare and rank the various antioxidant capacity assays independently. In the case of berry samples, ferric ion reducing antioxidant power assay (FRAP) was the most successful as demonstrated by the results of SRD and GPCM. Moreover, GPCM (with conditional exact Fisher's test and probability weighted ordering) could distinguish between 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl free radical scavenging (DPPH) and lipid soluble antioxidant capacity (ACL) methods, which was not revealed by the SRD procedure. In the case of sour cherry samples the total polyphenolic content (TPC) was the most appropriate method and FRAP was the second to replace all the other assays. GPCM could differentiate between FRAP and trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) methods. The suggested techniques were FRAP and TPC for both datasets to replace all the others, whereas the ACL and water soluble antioxidant capacity (ACW) techniques give extremely distant results.",
author = "Anita R{\'a}cz and N{\'o}ra Papp and Em{\"o}ke Balogh and Marietta Fodor and K. Heberger",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1039/c5ay00330j",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "4216--4224",
journal = "Analytical Methods",
issn = "1759-9660",
publisher = "Royal Society of Chemistry",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of antioxidant capacity assays with chemometric methods

AU - Rácz, Anita

AU - Papp, Nóra

AU - Balogh, Emöke

AU - Fodor, Marietta

AU - Heberger, K.

PY - 2015/5/21

Y1 - 2015/5/21

N2 - Seven antioxidant capacity assays were compared and evaluated (ranked and grouped) using several statistical methods. The aim of the research was to compare the results of different antioxidant capacity assays and choose preferably one (or two) method(s), which could reproduce on its own the consensus results of all of the others. The two datasets (berries and sour cherries) gave quite similar results. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis could point out the methods that are most similar and best connected to each other. Not only are the groupings of the methods novel in this study but also the application of sum of ranking differences (SRD) and the generalized pair correlation method (GPCM) to compare and rank the various antioxidant capacity assays independently. In the case of berry samples, ferric ion reducing antioxidant power assay (FRAP) was the most successful as demonstrated by the results of SRD and GPCM. Moreover, GPCM (with conditional exact Fisher's test and probability weighted ordering) could distinguish between 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl free radical scavenging (DPPH) and lipid soluble antioxidant capacity (ACL) methods, which was not revealed by the SRD procedure. In the case of sour cherry samples the total polyphenolic content (TPC) was the most appropriate method and FRAP was the second to replace all the other assays. GPCM could differentiate between FRAP and trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) methods. The suggested techniques were FRAP and TPC for both datasets to replace all the others, whereas the ACL and water soluble antioxidant capacity (ACW) techniques give extremely distant results.

AB - Seven antioxidant capacity assays were compared and evaluated (ranked and grouped) using several statistical methods. The aim of the research was to compare the results of different antioxidant capacity assays and choose preferably one (or two) method(s), which could reproduce on its own the consensus results of all of the others. The two datasets (berries and sour cherries) gave quite similar results. Cluster analysis and principal component analysis could point out the methods that are most similar and best connected to each other. Not only are the groupings of the methods novel in this study but also the application of sum of ranking differences (SRD) and the generalized pair correlation method (GPCM) to compare and rank the various antioxidant capacity assays independently. In the case of berry samples, ferric ion reducing antioxidant power assay (FRAP) was the most successful as demonstrated by the results of SRD and GPCM. Moreover, GPCM (with conditional exact Fisher's test and probability weighted ordering) could distinguish between 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl free radical scavenging (DPPH) and lipid soluble antioxidant capacity (ACL) methods, which was not revealed by the SRD procedure. In the case of sour cherry samples the total polyphenolic content (TPC) was the most appropriate method and FRAP was the second to replace all the other assays. GPCM could differentiate between FRAP and trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) methods. The suggested techniques were FRAP and TPC for both datasets to replace all the others, whereas the ACL and water soluble antioxidant capacity (ACW) techniques give extremely distant results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929308750&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929308750&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1039/c5ay00330j

DO - 10.1039/c5ay00330j

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 4216

EP - 4224

JO - Analytical Methods

JF - Analytical Methods

SN - 1759-9660

IS - 10

ER -