(Luận văn) effect of maturity stage and harvest location on chemical compositon and antioxidant capacity of extracts from different parts of musa balbisiana colla fruit

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE NGO THI HUYEN TRANG lu an va n EFFECT OF MATURITY STAGE AND HARVEST ie gh tn to LOCATION ON CHEMICAL COMPOSITON AND p ANTIOXIDANT CAPACITY OF EXTRACTS FROM w oa nl DIFFERENT PARTS OF d MUSA BALBISIANA COLLA FRUIT ll u nf va an lu : Food Science and Technology Student code : 24180560 Supervisor : Dr Lai Thi Ngoc Ha oi m Major z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY PRESS - 2017 n va ac th si DECLARATION I hereby declare that the work being presented to this dissertation entitled “Effect of maturity stage and harvest location on chemical composition and antioxidant capacity of different parts of Musa balbisiana Colla” is an authentic record of my work carried out There is no material that has been accepted for the award of any other degrees or diploma in any educational institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis lu an Hanoi, May 10th, 2017 va n Master candidate ie gh tn to p Ngo Thi Huyen Trang d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th i si ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS At the time of conducting this final dissertation, I sincerely thank for the enthusiastic help of all those who near or far, have helped me to finish my thesis Firstly, I would like to thank my Professor Yvan Larondelle for welcoming me participate topic This has been a good opportunity for learning new knowledge and achieving new experiences Especially, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Lai Thi Ngoc Ha who encouraged; guided and supported me from the initial to the final level enabled me to develop an understanding of the scientific working methods It was an honor to have had the benefit of my experience lu an n va gh tn to Secondly, I would like to thanks to Prof Marie-Louis Scippo, University of Liege (Ulg) and Prof Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, who have developed coordination project on “Master in Food Technology, safety and quality management (FTSQM)” that supported by Academie de Recherche et d’Enseignement superieur- Commission de la Cooperation au Deverlopment (ARESCCD) p ie My thoughts then go to all the members of B215 laboratory team, student group of Dr Lai Thi Ngoc Ha helped me carryout all my experiences Thank you for this friendliness, good humor and mutual support nl w d oa Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and encouragement during these years of study lu an Hanoi, May 10th, 2017 ll u nf va Master candidate oi m z at nh Ngo Thi Huyen Trang z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th ii si CONTENTS Declaration i Acknowledgements ii Contents iii List of tables v List of figures vi Part I Introduction lu 1.1 Start of art 1.2 Objectives 1.2.1 General objective 1.2.2 Specific objective an Part II Literature review n va Characteristics and classification 2.1.1 Characteristics tn to 2.1 Distribution 2.1.3 Nutritious compositon and bioactive compounds p ie gh 2.1.2 Phenolic compounds nl w 2.2 Uses of “chuoi hot” in Vietnam 2.1.4 Classification 2.2.2 Biological activity of phenolic compound 12 2.2.3 Polyphenol content of some food and vegetable 16 2.2.4 Transformation of some physiochemical properties, polyphenol content and d oa 2.2.1 u nf va an lu ll antioxidant capacity of fruit during ripening 18 m oi Part III Meterials and methods 20 Sample and chemical 20 3.1.1 Sample collection and prepairation 20 3.1.2 Chemicals 21 3.2 Method 22 3.2.1 Determination total dry matter 22 3.2.2 Determination stiffness 22 3.2.3 Determination sugar profiles 22 3.2.4 Determination total polyphenol content and antioxidant capacity 24 z at nh 3.1 z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th iii si 3.2.5 Determination of piceatannol content 25 3.2.6 Statistical analysis 27 Part IV Results and discussions 28 4.1 Effects of the maturity stage and harvest location on physical-chemical parameters 28 lu 4.1.1 The ratio of each part in “chuoi hot” 28 4.1.2 Hardness of fruit 29 4.1.3 Changing of sugar content of banana pulp harvest in locations 30 4.2 Effect of maturity stage to total polyphenol content of“chuoi hot” 32 4.3 Effect of maturity stage to antioxidant capacity in each part of “chuoi hot” 36 4.4 Piceatannol content of seed in maturity stage 38 an Part V Conclusion and recommendation 41 n va Conclusion 41 5.2 Recommendation 41 tn to 5.1 gh References 42 p ie Appendices 46 d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th iv si LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 : Characters used in the clasiffication of banana though a taxonomic scorecard Table 2.2: Nutritious composition in banana flesh Table 2.3: Total phenolic of some fruits and vegetables 17 Table 2.4: Antioxidant capacity of fruit in Florida 18 Table 3.1 : Mobile phases gradient 26 lu an n va p ie gh tn to d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th v si LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Acronym Abbreviations GAE: Galic acid equivalent TTP: Total phenolic Fw: Fresh weight Dw: Dry weight DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl TE: Trolox equivalent lu an n va p ie gh tn to d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th vi si LIST OF FIGURES Figure Trees, branch fruit and seeds of “ chuoi hot” Figure 2.2 Some products from “chuoi hot” Figure 2.3 Classification and structure of major phenolic compound 10 Figure 2.4 Structure of Piceatannol and Resveratrol 12 Figure 3.1 Five maturity stages of “chuoi hot” 20 Figure 3.2 All part of “chuoi hot” 21 Figure 3.3 Stiffness machine 22 Figure 3.4 Chromatography of glucose and fructose at concentrationof 0.5% 23 lu an Figure 3.5 Standard curves of glucose and fructose 23 n va Figure 3.6 Gallic standard curve 24 tn to Figure 3.7 Trolox standard curve 25 p ie gh Figure 3.8 Chromotogaphy of piceatannol standard at concentration of 100 µg/ml 26 Figure 3.9 Piceatannol standard curve 26 oa nl w Figure 4.1 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on the propotion of different part 28 d Figure 4.2 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on pulp hardness 30 an lu u nf va Figure 4.3 Sugar ptofile of “chuoi hot pulp at 5th matyrity” 31 ll Figure 4.4 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on sugar content 31 oi m z at nh Figure 4.5 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on total phenolic content of peel 33 z Figure 4.6 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on total phenolic content of pulp 34 gm @ m co l Figure 4.7 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on total phenolic content of seed 35 an Lu Figure 4.8 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on antioxidant capacity of peel 36 n va ac th vii si Figure 4.9 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on antioxidant capacity of pulp 37 Figure 4.10 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on antioxidant capacity of seed 38 Figure 4.11 Chromotography of pulp(A), peel (B), seed (C) of “chuoi hot” harvetsed in Namdinh at 1st maturity stage 39 Figure 4.12 Impact of the maturity stage of the “chuoi hot” fruit harvested in Namdinh and Yenbai on piceatannol content of seed 40 lu an n va p ie gh tn to d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th viii si THESIS ABSTRACT lu an n va p ie gh tn to “Chuoi hot” (Musa babisiana Colla) has been utilized in Vietnamsese traditional medicine for a long time Every part of it is used for curing deseases such as stones disease, bladder stones, delirium, flu diease and so on The purpose of this work were to determine effect of maturity stage and harvest location on physical- chemical properties, hardness, sugar content and total phenolic content, antioxidant capacity in maturity stages (gree, green more than yellow, yellow and gree end, yellow and yellow with brown sports) of different parts between two harvested location Quantification of sugar profile was performed by HPLC using a Shimadzu system Total phenolic was measured by using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent with gallic acid as the standard, whereas antioxidant capacity was measured using DPPH method Interestingly, the amount of total phenolic content and DPPH of different parts in Nam Dinh dramaticly decrease between the 1st and the 5th maturity stage 'Chuoi hot' harvested in Yen Bai had diferent tendency of change in total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of feel, pulp and seed Among different parts of 'chuoi hot', seed had the highest total phenolic content, at 59.33 ± 14.7 (mg GAE/g DW), followed by pulp, at 21.73 ± 16.48 (mg GAE/g DW) and the peel had the lowest one, at 18.8 ± 9.56 (mg GAE/g DW) These results, together with our recent discovery amount of piceatannol, a stilbene with potent biological activities, highlight the potential of “chuoi hot”, an under-utilised plant species from South–East Asia, as a new source of health promoting phenolic compounds d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th ix si province ND YB N 15 15 Mean 19.736 17.864 Grouping A A Means that not share a letter are significantly different Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence lu stage an N 6 6 Mean 32.977 21.249 16.064 13.605 10.107 Grouping A B B C B C C n va gh tn to Means that not share a letter are significantly different p ie Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence d oa an lu N 3 3 3 3 3 Mean 34.580 30.685 21.821 20.676 19.006 15.900 13.122 11.309 11.270 8.944 ll u nf va Grouping A A B A B C A B C B C B C C C C C oi m stage 1 2 4 5 nl w province YB ND ND YB ND ND YB YB ND YB z at nh Means that not share a letter are significantly different z @ General Linear Model: PPT pulp versus province, stage Values ND, YB 1, 2, 3, 4, m co Levels l Type fixed fixed gm Factor province stage an Lu n va ac th 56 si Analysis of Variance for PPT pulp, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F province 3914.17 3914.17 3914.17 163.49 stage 959.63 959.63 239.91 10.02 province*stage 2527.01 2527.01 631.75 26.39 Error 20 478.83 478.83 23.94 Total 29 7879.64 S = 4.89302 R-Sq = 93.92% P 0.000 0.000 0.000 R-Sq(adj) = 91.19% Unusual Observations for PPT pulp lu an Obs 25 PPT pulp 44.6321 Fit 30.0227 SE Fit 2.8250 Residual 14.6094 St Resid 3.66 R n va gh tn to R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual p ie Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence N 15 15 Mean 33.152 10.307 d oa nl w province YB ND Grouping A B lu u nf va an Means that not share a letter are significantly different ll Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence oi m l gm Grouping A A B B C C C @ Mean 29.629 27.224 19.279 17.125 15.393 z N 6 6 z at nh stage m co Means that not share a letter are significantly different an Lu n va ac th 57 si Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence province YB YB YB YB ND YB ND ND ND ND stage 1 N 3 3 3 3 3 Mean 52.508 45.575 30.023 26.200 19.331 11.456 8.872 8.534 8.050 6.750 Grouping A A B B B C C C C C C lu Means that not share a letter are significantly different an n va tn to General Linear Model: PPT seed versus province, stage Type fixed fixed p ie gh Factor province stage Levels Values ND, YB 1, 2, 3, 4, w d oa nl Analysis of Variance for PPT seed, using Adjusted SS for Tests DF 4 20 29 Seq SS 1639.26 170.41 3253.37 1200.73 6263.76 Adj SS 1639.26 170.41 3253.37 1200.73 ll u nf va an lu Adj MS 1639.26 42.60 813.34 60.04 F 27.30 0.71 13.55 P 0.000 0.595 0.000 oi m Source province stage province*stage Error Total R-Sq = 80.83% z at nh S = 7.74832 R-Sq(adj) = 72.20% gm @ PPT seed Fit SE Fit Residual 67.4611 54.5356 4.4735 12.9255 58.4735 71.1682 4.4735 -12.6948 84.4053 71.1682 4.4735 13.2371 St Resid 2.04 R -2.01 R 2.09 R m co l Obs 16 26 27 z Unusual Observations for PPT seed an Lu n va ac th 58 si R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence province YB ND N 15 15 Mean 66.72 51.94 Grouping A B Means that not share a letter are significantly different lu Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence an n va N 6 6 Mean 62.36 61.62 59.03 57.59 56.03 Grouping A A A A A p ie gh tn to stage d oa nl w Means that not share a letter are significantly different oi Grouping A A B A B A B A B C A B C B C D B C D C D D z at nh z l gm @ Mean 80.40 71.17 70.19 65.86 61.63 61.60 54.54 49.33 40.89 37.66 m N 3 3 3 3 3 ll stage 2 u nf province YB YB ND YB YB ND YB ND ND ND va an lu Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence m co Means that not share a letter are significantly different an Lu n va ac th 59 si Results for: Worksheet General Linear Model: DPPH peel versus province, stage Factor province stage Type fixed fixed Levels Values ND, YB 1, 2, 3, 4, Analysis of Variance for DPPH peel, using Adjusted SS for Tests lu Source province stage province*stage Error Total an DF 4 20 29 Seq SS 481 109160 521 33769 143931 Adj SS 481 109160 521 33769 Adj MS 481 27290 130 1688 F 0.29 16.16 0.08 P 0.599 0.000 0.988 n va R-Sq = 76.54% R-Sq(adj) = 65.98% gh tn to S = 41.0906 p ie Unusual Observations for DPPH peel DPPH peel Fit SE Fit Residual 130.290 230.386 23.724 -100.096 247.076 161.351 23.724 85.725 St Resid -2.98 R 2.56 R d oa nl w Obs 17 19 u nf va an lu R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual ll Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence Mean 134.92 126.91 Grouping A A z at nh N 15 15 oi m province ND YB z Means that not share a letter are significantly different l gm @ m co Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence N Mean 233.45 an Lu stage Grouping A n va ac th 60 si 6 6 157.68 115.48 84.96 62.98 B B C C C Means that not share a letter are significantly different Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence lu an n va stage 1 2 3 4 5 N 3 3 3 3 3 Mean 236.50 230.39 161.35 154.01 123.34 107.63 92.00 77.92 68.73 57.24 Grouping A A A B A B A B B B B B B ie gh tn to province ND YB YB ND ND YB ND YB ND YB p Means that not share a letter are significantly different nl w Type fixed fixed Levels Values ND, YB 1, 2, 3, 4, u nf va an lu Factor province stage d oa General Linear Model: DPPH pulp versus province, stage ll Analysis of Variance for DPPH pulp, using Adjusted SS for Tests oi m Adj MS 493 5896 23603 1562 F 0.32 3.77 15.11 P 0.581 0.019 0.000 S = 39.5279 R-Sq = 79.13% m co l gm Adj SS 493 23583 94413 31249 @ Seq SS 493 23583 94413 31249 149739 z DF 4 20 29 z at nh Source province stage province*stage Error Total R-Sq(adj) = 69.74% an Lu Unusual Observations for DPPH pulp n va ac th 61 si Obs 19 30 DPPH pulp 148.940 210.882 Fit 228.798 134.248 SE Fit 22.821 22.821 Residual -79.858 76.634 St Resid -2.47 R 2.37 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence province YB ND N 15 15 Mean 187.61 179.51 Grouping A A lu an Means that not share a letter are significantly different n va gh tn to Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence p ie Mean 221.76 196.33 190.34 171.94 137.44 Grouping A A B A B A B B nl w d N 6 6 oa stage lu u nf va an Means that not share a letter are significantly different ll Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence oi m Grouping A A A B A B C B C B C B C B C B C C m co l gm an Lu Mean 289.90 286.27 228.80 197.98 163.85 157.25 145.89 140.63 134.25 90.77 @ N 3 3 3 3 3 z stage 4 5 z at nh province ND YB YB YB ND ND ND ND YB YB n va ac th 62 si Means that not share a letter are significantly different General Linear Model: DPPH seed versus province, stage Factor province stage Type fixed fixed Levels Values ND, YB 1, 2, 3, 4, Analysis of Variance for DPPH seed, using Adjusted SS for Tests lu Source province stage province*stage Error Total an n va DF 4 20 29 Seq SS 526.5 2610.9 23478.7 8057.2 34673.4 Adj SS 526.5 2610.9 23478.7 8057.2 Adj MS 526.5 652.7 5869.7 402.9 F 1.31 1.62 14.57 P 0.266 0.208 0.000 tn to R-Sq = 76.76% R-Sq(adj) = 66.31% p ie gh S = 20.0714 DPPH seed Fit SE Fit 132.870 166.400 11.588 160.162 193.834 11.588 d oa Residual -33.530 -33.672 St Resid -2.05 R -2.05 R an lu Obs 14 17 nl w Unusual Observations for DPPH seed ll u nf va R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual oi m Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence Grouping A A gm @ Mean 220.4 212.0 z N 15 15 z at nh province YB ND m co l Means that not share a letter are significantly different an Lu Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence n va ac th 63 si stage N 6 6 Mean 230.9 222.6 213.5 208.6 205.5 Grouping A A A A A Means that not share a letter are significantly different Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence lu an n va stage 3 p ie gh tn to province ND YB ND YB YB YB ND YB ND ND N 3 3 3 3 3 Mean 267.9 250.8 236.9 230.3 218.9 208.2 208.2 193.8 180.7 166.4 Grouping A A B A B C A B C A B C D B C D B C D B C D C D D d oa nl w Means that not share a letter are significantly different Levels Values ND, YB 1, 2, 3, 4, ll u nf Type fixed fixed va Factor province stage an lu General Linear Model: Piceatannol versus province, stage oi m z at nh Analysis of Variance for Piceatannol, using Adjusted SS for Tests z Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P province 0.076924 0.076924 0.076924 29.52 0.000 stage 0.006202 0.006202 0.001550 0.59 0.670 province*stage4 0.004477 0.004477 0.001119 0.43 0.786 Error 20 0.052116 0.052116 0.002606 Total 29 0.139719 m co l gm @ R-Sq = 62.70% R-Sq(adj) = 45.91% an Lu S = 0.0510471 n va ac th 64 si Unusual Observations for Piceatannol Obs Piceatannol 0.337824 Fit 0.218959 SE Fit 0.029472 Residual 0.118865 St Resid 2.85 R R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence lu province ND YB N 15 15 Mean 0.18744 0.08617 Grouping A B an n va Means that not share a letter are significantly different ie gh tn to Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence p Mean 0.15739 0.14949 0.13191 0.12592 0.11930 Grouping A A A A A nl w d an lu N 6 6 oa stage ll u nf va Means that not share a letter are significantly different oi m Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence Grouping A A A A A A A A A A m co l gm an Lu Mean 0.21896 0.21492 0.17683 0.17593 0.15057 0.09583 0.08802 0.08699 0.08407 0.07592 @ N 3 3 3 3 3 z stage 5 z at nh province ND ND ND ND ND YB YB YB YB YB n va ac th 65 si Means that not share a letter are significantly different General Linear Model: TTP versus Part, stage Factor Part stage Type fixed fixed Levels Values peel, pulp, Seed 1, 2, 3, 4, Analysis of Variance for TTP, using Adjusted SS for Tests lu Source Part stage Part*stage Error Total an DF 75 89 Seq SS 30645.6 1078.5 1953.8 13760.2 47438.1 Adj SS 30645.6 1078.5 1953.8 13760.2 Adj MS 15322.8 269.6 244.2 183.5 F 83.52 1.47 1.33 P 0.000 0.220 0.241 n va R-Sq = 70.99% R-Sq(adj) = 65.58% gh tn to S = 13.5451 p ie Unusual Observations for TTP d oa nl w Fit 59.0319 29.6288 29.6288 19.2785 56.0311 59.0319 SE Fit 5.5298 5.5298 5.5298 5.5298 5.5298 5.5298 Residual -27.4219 25.5028 25.5028 25.3536 28.3742 27.2743 St Resid -2.22 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.29 2.21 R R R R R R u nf va an lu TTP 31.6100 55.1316 55.1316 44.6321 84.4053 86.3062 Obs 44 53 54 55 87 90 ll R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual oi m z at nh Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence Grouping A B B m co l gm Mean 59.33 21.73 18.80 @ N 30 30 30 z Part Seed pulp peel Means that not share a letter are significantly different an Lu n va ac th 66 si Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence stage N 18 18 18 18 18 Mean 36.91 36.70 34.43 29.64 28.75 Grouping A A A A A Means that not share a letter are significantly different lu Grouping Information Using Tukey Method and 95.0% Confidence an n va p ie gh tn to d oa nl N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Grouping A A A B A B A B C B C D C D D D D D D D D D lu Mean 62.36 61.62 59.03 57.59 56.03 32.98 29.63 27.22 21.25 19.28 17.12 16.06 15.39 13.60 10.11 u nf va an stage 2 5 w Part Seed Seed Seed Seed Seed peel pulp pulp peel pulp pulp peel pulp peel peel ll Means that not share a letter are significantly different oi m z at nh Variable z mean 12.8 11.589 9.424 8.429 7.975 40.42 37.23 34 30.62 % peel ND SD 0.532 0.877 0.793 1.251 1.344 2.85 2.89 1.85 4.84 an Lu % peel YB m co l gm @ Stage n va ac th 67 si % pulpND % pulp YB lu an % Seed ND n va gh tn to p ie % seed YB d oa nl w Hardness ND u nf va an lu ll Hardness YB oi m z at nh z TTP peel ND 7.35 1.633 1.153 0.657 1.487 2.04 6.53 3.77 5.35 5.51 4.98 1.86 1.8 0.95 1.53 0.726 9.33 6.58 6.35 8.82 12.06 0.76 0.58 0.49 0.241 0.199 1.235 0.559 0.0756 0.066 0.0416 1.122 2.62 2.8 1.567 4.51 13.61 8.47 0.811 2.11 3.16 1.78 0.16 an Lu TTP pulp ND m co TTP peel YB 31.28 70.475 71.162 76.598 77.313 80.1 40.57 43.37 46.04 42.38 43.42 16.72 17.25 13.977 14.258 11.925 19.01 19.4 19.96 27 25.3 9.318 1.92 1.356 1.139 0.489 10.306 2.702 1.49 1.0604 0.3978 30.685 21.82 19.01 15.9 11.27 34.58 20.68 13.122 11.31 8.94 19.33 8.87 l gm @ 5 5 5 5 n va ac th 68 si TTP pulp YB TTP seed ND lu an n va p ie gh tn to TTP seed YB DPPH peel ND d oa nl w an lu ll u nf va DPPH peel YB oi m z at nh DPPH pulp ND z DPPH pulp YB m co 1.85 0.61 0.78 2.82 3.7 4.55 12.65 5.43 2.21 10.57 2.14 3.85 6.56 11.29 7.33 6.61 12.97 5.33 29 22.3 6.79 10.32 29.7 87.3 74.6 16.75 25.6 19.7 17.7 17.19 3.83 17.21 4.34 9.09 69.2 61 36.2 69.1 11.03 17.3 16.04 16.88 31.1 an Lu DPPH seed ND 6.75 8.53 8.05 11.46 45.58 52.51 30.02 26.2 70.19 61.6 49.33 40.89 37.66 54.54 61.63 65.86 71.17 80.4 236.5 154 123.34 92 68.7 230.4 161.4 107.63 77.9 57.2 289.9 163.85 157.25 145.89 140.63 90.77 228.8 286.3 198 134.2 267.92 236.9 208.16 180.73 166.4 l gm @ 5 5 5 5 n va ac th 69 si 5 DPPH Seed YB Piceatannol ND lu an Piceatannol YB 193.8 31.3 208.2 19.5 218.9 14.91 230.3 21.3 250.77 7.87 0.219 0.1035 0.1759 0.06 0.1768 0.0631 0.21492 0.00822 0.1506 0.04 0.0958 0.0571 0.0759 0.0332 0.087 0.0305 0.0841 0.0192 0.088 0.0211 n va p ie gh tn to d oa nl w ll u nf va an lu oi m z at nh z m co l gm @ an Lu n va ac th 70 si