Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 1330-9862 original scientific paper
(FTB-2060)
Polyphenol, Anthocyanin and Resveratrol Mass Fractions
and Antioxidant Properties of Cranberry Cultivars
Eulalia J. Borowska
1
*, Barbara Mazur
1
, Renata GadzalVa Kopciuch
2
and BoguslVaw Buszewski
2
1
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Chair of Food Plant Chemistry and Processing,
Plac Cieszyn´ski 1, PL-10-957 Olsztyn-Kortowo, Poland
2
Chair of Environmental Chemistry and Bioanalytics, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Gagarina 7,
PL-87-100 Torun´, Poland
Received: February 20, 2008
Accepted: July 28, 2008
Summary
The study involved an evaluation of five cranberry cultivars grown in Poland: Ben
Lear, Pilgrim, Stevens, Early Richard and Bergman. The reference sample comprised wild-
-grown common cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccus). The mass fractions of total phenolic com-
pounds, anthocyanins and resveratrol (HPLC-DAD), as well as the antioxidant properties
(DPPH
·
,
·
OH and ABTS
+
radical scavenging capacity) were determined. Statistically signifi-
cant differences (p<0.05) were reported as regards the mass fractions of polyphenols and
anthocyanins in the fruit of the analysed cultivars. The highest polyphenol mass fraction
was determined in Ben Lear (374.2 mg per 100 g of fresh mass), while Early Richard was
the richest source of anthocyanins (77.1 mg per 100 g of fresh mass). The fruit of common
cranberry contained the highest quantities of resveratr ol (712.3 ng/g of fresh mass), and its
mass fraction in the investigated cultivars ranged from 533.4 (cv. Stevens) to 598.2 ng/g of
fresh mass (Ben Lear). Common cranberry was also marked by the highest ABTS
+
scaveng
-
ing capacity. Stevens and Pilgrim were characterised by a strong capability to scavenge
DPPH
·
and
·
OH free radicals. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were observed in
respect of the free radical scavenging capacity of most investigated cranberry cultivars.
Key words: cranberry, polyphenols, anthocyanins, resveratr ol, antioxidant properties, DPPH
·
,
·
OH and ABTS
+
scavenging activity
Introduction
In botanical terms, cranberry is a wild, evergreen
dwarf shrub of the family Ericaceae which grows in
marshy coniferous forests and bogs. Common cranberry
(Vaccinium oxycoccus) and the similar looking small cran
-
berry (Oxycoccos microcarpus) are evergreen dwarf shrubs
with small, narrow leaves and red edible fruit (1,2).
American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) is a major
commercial crop in eastern Canada and north-eastern
USA, mainly in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon,
Washington and Wisconsin (3). Due to its documented
medicinal properties, cranberry fruit has become a popu
-
lar farming product in other countries, including Po
-
land, where until now, cranberry has been farmed com
-
mercially only in the central parts of the country (2).
Cranberry fruit is a rich source of bioactive compo
-
nents with a broad spectrum of activities. It is particu
-
larly known for its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and
antimicrobial properties, which inhibit the growth of
pathogenic bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Helicobacter
pylori and other pathogens (3–5). For many years, cran
-
berry juice has been a popular folk remedy used espe
-
56
E.J. BOROWSKA et al.: Polyphenols, Anthocyanins and Resveratrol in Cranberry, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 47 (1) 56–61 (2009)
*Corresponding author; Fax: ++48 89 5233 466; E-mail: eulalia.borowska@uwm.edu.pl
cially in North America in the treatment of urinary tract
infections in women and digestive tract ailments. The
anticancer properties of cranberry made it a popular diet
component in the prevention of neoplastic diseases (6,7).
Flavonoids, anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, pheno
-
lic acids and vitamin C are cranberry fruit compounds
which are marked by high biological activity (8–10). Re
-
cent research points to the particularly high biological
activity of resveratrol (5,11–13). It is believed that resve
-
ratrol is produced by plants in response to stress caused
by the environmental pollution, UV radiation, bacterial
and fungal infections (14). The presence of resveratrol in
cranberry and other berry fruits of the genus Vaccinium,
such as myrtle whortleberry, red whortleberry, and red
currant, has been documented in the work of, among
others, Häkkinen et al. (15), Ehala et al. (16), and Riman
-
do and Barney (17). According to Lyons et al. (18), resve
-
ratrol mass fraction in berry fruit is determined largely
by the farming region. The above mentioned researchers
did not find resveratrol in highbush blueberries in Brit
-
ish Columbia. Resveratrol may have a beneficial effect
on the circulatory system by inhibiting lipid peroxida
-
tion (LDL), preventing blood platelet aggregation and
expanding blood vessels (10,19). The above mentioned
properties are largely the result of antioxidant activity of
resveratrol, its ability to neutralise free radicals and in-
duce the production of enzymes responsible for the
detoxication of xenobiotics, e.g. quinone reductase. Due
to a broad spectrum of properties, resveratrol can be
classified as a multi-functional compound (12,14,20 ).
Synergism may be an important feature of the biological
activity of polyphenols: synergistic interactions between
wine polyphenols, quercetin and resveratrol were found
to decrease the inducible nitric oxide synthesis activity
in the cell culture system (21,22).
The broad spectrum of biological activities mani-
fested by cranberry fruit prompted the initiation of a
study determining whether the Polish climate offers a
favourable environment for farming cranberry varieties,
which are popularly grown in other geographic regions.
The evaluation criteria adopted in this study include the
content of total phenolic compounds, anthocyanins and
resveratrol as well as the antioxidant properties of cran
-
berry fruit. The reference sample comprised wild cran
-
berry fruit.
Materials and Methods
Fruit
The investigated material comprised five American
cranberry cultivars: Pilgrim, Ben Lear, Stevens, Early Ri
-
chard and Bergman, grown on the Experimental Whortle
-
berry Farm of the Department of Pomology at the War
-
saw University of Life Sciences. Common cranberry was
harvested in forests of the Olsztyn area. In Poland, cran
-
berry is grown in wet peaty places with high atmosphe
-
ric moisture, under moderate climate conditions. Farm
-
-grown and wild cranberry fruit were harvested in October
2006. The fruit was frozen and cold-stored (Caravell
0601) at a temperature of –25 °C for 5 to 6 weeks prior
to analyses.
Chemicals and standards
Cyanidin-3-glucoside was obtained from Polyphe
-
nols Laboratories AS (Sandnes, Norway). The set, com
-
prising a phosphate buffer, chromogen (metmyoglobin,
ABTS), substrate (hydrogen peroxide) and the standard
(Trolox), was purchased from the Randox Laboratories
Ltd., UK. Solvents for HPLC (LabScan, Dublin, Ireland)
and redistilled water (Mili-Q, Milipore, El Passo, TX,
USA) were employed for the conditioning of the extrac
-
tive column, analyte elution and the chromatographic
analysis (mobile phases). Folin–Ciocalteu reagent and
other chemicals were from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany).
Trolox, resveratrol, gallic acid standard and DPPH (2,2’
-
-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) were purchased from Sigma
-
-Aldrich Fluka Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA). All other che
-
micals were of analytical grade and from ABCHEM (Po
-
land).
Sample preparation
Six samples (10 g) for each of the six cranberry cul
-
tivars: wild, Ben Lear, Bergman, Early Richard, Pilgrim
and Stevens, were thawed at room temperature (20 °C)
for 15 min and were crushed with the use of an Ultra
Turrax homogenizer (IKA Works do Brasie Ltd., Ger-
many). The disintegrated samples were extracted three
times with 80 mL of methanol solution containing 0.1 %
hydrochloric acid. The extract was centrifuged (4000 rpm,
15 min) and the clear supernatant was collected. Metha-
nolic extracts were concentrated under reduced pressure
at 40 °C for the determination of total phenolic com-
pounds, total anthocyanins and DPPH
·
,
·
OH and ABTS
+
free radical scavenging capacity. The crushed fruit sam-
ples were extracted with the use of an ethanol and wa-
ter mixture (20:80, by volume) to determine resveratrol
mass fraction. Extraction took place within 30 min in an
ultrasound bath (InterSonic IS-5.5, Beverage Processing
Machinery, Olsztyn, Poland) at 60 °C (23).
Determination of total phenolic compounds
Folin-Cioccalteu reagent was used to determine to
-
tal phenolic compounds (23). A volume of 1 mL of cran
-
berry extract, diluted 5–6 times with methanol (to obtain
absorbance within the range of the prepared calibration
curve), was mixed with 0.5 mL of Folin-Ciocalteu re
-
agent previously diluted with distilled water (1:2). A
volume of 1.5 mL of 20 % sodium carbonate solution
was added to the mixture, shaken thoroughly and di
-
luted to 10 mL by adding distilled water. The mixture
was let to stand for 90 min and the blue colour formed
was measured at 765 nm with a spectrophotometer (UV/
VIS Spectrometer UNICAM, UK). Gallic acid was used
as a standard for the calibration curve. The concentra
-
tions of gallic acid in the solution from which the curve
was prepared were 0, 50, 100, 150, 250 and 500 mg/L.
The total mass fraction of phenolic compounds was cal
-
culated and expressed as gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/
(mg/100 g).
Determination of anthocyanin mass fraction
Total anthocyanins were determined as described by
Wrolstad (24) and expressed as cyanidin-3-glucoside,
which is the dominant anthocyanin in cranberry. The
57
E.J. BOROWSKA et al.: Polyphenols, Anthocyanins and Resveratrol in Cranberry, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 47 (1) 56–61 (2009)
prepared extract was sampled in the required quantity
in 10-mL measuring flasks, and was supplemented with
80 % methanol solution. A volume of 1 mL was sam
-
pled, 4 mL of buffer with pH=1 (120 mL of 0.2 mol/L of
KCl and 390 mL of 0.2 mol/L of HCl) were added, and
absorbance was measured at a wavelength of 502 nm
(for cyanidin-3-glucoside) against the buffer with pH=1
as the reagent sample. The resulting value should be
within the 0.4–0.6 range. Absorbance was measured also
at 700 nm to eliminate disturbances. Successive
read-outs were taken at the wavelengths of 502 and 700
nm for the samples prepared in the above manner, but
the buffer with pH=1 was replaced with a buffer with
pH=4.5 (450 mL of 1 M sodium acetate, 220 mL of 1 M
HCl and 330 mL of distilled water). The measurement
was compared with the blank sample comprising a
buffer with pH=4.5. Anthocyanin mass fraction was ex
-
pressed as the equivalent of cyanidin-3-glucoside.
Determination of resveratrol
The solid-phase extraction of trans-resveratrol was
carried out on Bakerbond Speedisk
®
DVB cartridges
(200 mg) purchased from J.T. Baker (Deventer, Holland)
and preconditioned by washing with 5 mL of methanol
and 5 mL of water. After passing the sample (5 mL)
through the cartridge, subsequent washing steps were
performed using 5 and 10 mL of deionized water. The
cartridge was then dried for 15 min by a constant flow
of nitrogen. The absorbed resveratrol was eluted with
2´2.5 mL of methanol.
Analyses were taken using an HP1100 liquid chro-
matograph (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany)
equipped with a diode array detector and an autosam-
pler. Detection was carried out by monitoring absorbance
signals at 306 nm. The separations were performed on
an ACE C18 column (150´4 mm i.d., d
p
=3 mm). The
analyses were performed at 40 °C and the flow rate was
0.6 mL/min. Solvent A was acetonitrile and solvent B
was a mixture of water/acetic acid/acetonitrile (87:3:10
% by volume). Elution employed a linear gradient from
5 to 25 % solvent A for 25 min, then 5 % for 5 min, held
for 20 min to wash the column and followed by a return
to the initial conditions (5 % solvent A) for 10 min. Ali
-
quots were filtered through a 0.2-mm Nylon Millipore
chromatographic filter and injected into the chromato
-
graph. Injection volume was 20 m L(25). Identification
was achieved by comparing t
r
(retention time) and the
absorption spectra obtained for the eluted peak with
those obtained for the standards.
For quantification, an external standard calibration
curve was plotted, ranging from 0.50 to 10.02 mg/L of
trans-resveratrol. The square regression coefficient of an
-
alytical curve was near unit (R
2
=0.9999). The limit of de
-
tection (LOD) and the limit of quantification (LOQ) were
determined based on the detector’s signal-to-noise (S/N)
ratio. The standard deviation of the S/N was calculated
and multiplied by a factor of 3, then this value was add
-
ed to the average of the S/N to obtain the LOD. LOQ
was defined as 10 S/N. At 306 nm, the LOD and LOQ
for trans-resveratrol were 0.2 and 0.75 mg/mL, respec
-
tively, from the current calibration curve.
Determination of DPPH
·
scavenging activity
The 2,2’-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical (DPPH
·
)
scavenging activity was determined by the procedure
described by Brand-Williams et al. (26). A volume of 0.1
mL of the investigated extract was sampled, 3.9 mL of
0.25 % DPPH methanol solution were added, and ab
-
sorbance was measured at a wavelength of 515 nm with
the use of a spectrophotometer (UV/VIS Spectrometer
UNICAM, UK) until constant values were obtained. A
blank was prepared for each sample using methanol in
-
stead of the DPPH solution. The content of the residual
DPPH
·
was calculated for every antioxidant concentra
-
tion in the investigated samples in line with the follow
-
ing formula:
Residual DPPH
·
=(A
sample
/A
control
)´100 /1/
A curve illustrating the dependency between the
content of the residual DPPH
·
and the mass of the sam
-
ple (mg of fruit) was plotted to determine the EC
50
coef
-
ficient. This coefficient determines the mass of fruit (mg)
which is required to reduce the initial synthetic concen
-
tration of DPPH
·
in the reaction by 50 %. The obtained
results were expressed as mmol of Trolox per g of fruit
fresh mass. The calibration curve was constructed by pre
-
paring different concentrations of Trolox (0–30 mmol/L),
handled as the investigated samples.
Determination of
·
OH radical inhibition
The scavenging of the hydroxyl radical (
·
OH) was
measured by the deoxyribose method (27). A volume of
0.1 mL of the investigated extract was sampled and the
following reagents were added in the indicated order:
0.69 mL of phosphate buffer containing 2.5 mM deoxy-
ribose, 0.1 mL of ammonium iron sulphate containing
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 0.1 mL of ascor-
bic acid solution and 10 mL of hydrogen peroxide solu
-
tion. The mixture was incubated in a water bath for 10
min at 37 °C. After incubation, 1 mL of 2.8 % trichloro-
acetic acid and 0.5 mL of thiobarbituric acid were add
-
ed. The mixture was heated in a boiling water bath for 8
min, then it was cooled and absorbance was measured
at 532 nm with a spectrophotometer (UV/ VIS Spectrom
-
eter UNICAM, UK). The reagent sample containing dis
-
tilled water instead of the investigated extract was pre
-
pared simultaneously. The obtained results were expressed
as mmol of Trolox per g of fresh mass. The calibration
curve was prepared by measuring the absorbance of the
samples that had an adequate standard substance con
-
centration. Trolox 2.5 mM was prepared in 5 mM phos
-
phate buffered saline (PBS), pH=7.4, to be used as a
stock standard.
Determination of ABTS
+
free radical
scavenging capacity
The analysis was performed with the use of a set
supplied by Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK, comprising a
phosphate buffer, chromogen (metmyoglobin, ABTS),
substrate (hydrogen peroxide) and the standard (Trolox).
Solutions containing 1 mg of total phenolic compounds
per mL of methanol were prepared for the determina
-
tion of total antioxidant activity (TAA). The reagent,
standard and proper samples were prepared. A volume
58
E.J. BOROWSKA et al.: Polyphenols, Anthocyanins and Resveratrol in Cranberry, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 47 (1) 56–61 (2009)
of 0.2 mL of the analysed phenolic compound solution
and 1 mL of chromogen were added to the investigated
sample and the first absorbance measurement was per
-
formed. Then, 0.02 mL of deionised water and 0.02 mL
of the standard solution were added to the reagent and
to the standard sample, respectively, and absorbance
measurement was carried out. After that, 0.2 mL of the
substrate were added to all the samples and incubated
at 37 °C. Absorbance was measured again at 734 nm
and the read-out was taken within 6 min. TAA was ex
-
pressed as mmol of Trolox per g of fresh mass.
Statistical analyses
All analyses were performed in six replications, re
-
jecting two extreme values (N=4). Tables 1 and 2 contain
the mean values. The significance of differences between
the mean values was estimated by Duncan’s test. Statis
-
tical analysis was performed at a significance level of
p<0.05. The correlation analysis was conducted using
Statistica v. 8.0 software.
Results and Discussion
Polyphenol, anthocyanin and resveratrol mass
fractions in the fruit of different cranberry cultivars
The mass fractions of total phenolic compounds in
the fruit of five investigated American cranberry culti
-
vars ranged from 192.1 in cv. Pilgrim to 374.2 mg per
100 g of fresh mass in cv. Ben Lear expressed as GAE
(Table 1). In the reference sample of wild-grown com
-
mon cranberry fruit, polyphenol mass fraction reached
288.5 mg per 100 g of fresh mass. Statistically significant
differences (p<0.05) were reported in the mass fraction
of polyphenols of all the studied varieties, including com
-
mon cranberry (Table 1). Wang and Stretch (28) recorded
smaller quantities of polyphenols in a study investigat
-
ing several cranberry varieties grown at the Rutgers Blue
-
berry and Cranberry Research Center in Chatsworth
(NJ, USA). These authors found that the mass fraction of
total phenols expressed as gallic acid equivalent in Pil-
grim, Stevens and Ben Lear cultivars was lower, i.e. 120.0,
126.0 and 137.5 mg per 100 g of fresh mass, respectively.
Polyphenol mass fractions similar to those determined
in the present study in different cranberry varieties were
reported by Kalt et al. (29) and Borowska et al. (9). Ac-
cording to these authors, the average polyphenol mass
fraction of cranberry fruit was 2010 mg per 100 g of dry
mass.
The investigated cranberry fruit also differed with
regard to anthocyanin mass fraction (Table 1). The fruit
of the five investigated cultivars was characterised by a
higher anthocyanin mass fraction, compared to common
cranberry. The highest anthocyanin mass fraction of 77.1
mg per 100 g of fresh mass was reported for Early Rich
-
ard, while the lowest mass fraction of 52.1 mg per 100 g
of fresh mass was observed in Ben Lear. The anthocya
-
nin mass fraction of the reference sample of wild cran
-
berry fruit was lower, 43.4 mg per 100 g of fresh mass.
According to Wang and Stretch (28), American cran
-
berry fruit is marked by even more pronounced differ
-
ences in anthocyanin mass fraction, ranging from 19.8 to
65.6 mg per 100 g of fresh mass. The above mentioned
authors studied fresh cranberry fruit of Ben Lear, Pil
-
grim and Stevens cultivars grown at the Rutgers Blue
-
berry and Cranberry Research Center in Chatsworth
(NJ, USA) and found that their anthocyanin mass frac
-
tion reached 25.0, 20.7 and 22.8 mg per 100 g of fresh
mass, respectively. The anthocyanin mass fraction of
cranberry fruit studied by Kalt et al. (29) was deter
-
mined at 3.1 mg/g of dry mass. The results obtained in
this study and the results reported by other authors in
-
dicate that in addition to genetic factors, the mass frac
-
tion of phenolic compounds in cranberry fruit is also
significantly affected by the applied cultivation technol
-
ogy. Similarly to polyphenols, the differences in antho
-
cyanin mass fraction in all the cranberry varieties inves
-
59
E.J. BOROWSKA et al.: Polyphenols, Anthocyanins and Resveratrol in Cranberry, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 47 (1) 56–61 (2009)
Table 1. Mass fractions of phenols, anthocyanins and resvera
-
trol in the cranberries
Cranberry
cultivars
w(phenol)* w(anthocyanin)** w(resveratrol)
mg/100 g
fresh mass
mg/100 g
fresh mass
ng/g
fresh mass
Wild
cranberry
(288.5±0.1)
d
(43.3±0.1)
a
(712.3±0.1)
a
Ben Lear
(374.7±0.1)
b
(51.9±0.1)
e
(598.2±0.3)
b
Bergman
(292.1±0.1)
c
(73.0±0.2)
b
(552.8±0.3)
c
Early
Richard
(328.8±0.2)
a
(77.2±0.2)
a
(536.4±0.3)
d
Pilgrim
(192.1±0.1)
e
(59.9±0.2)
c
(537.2±0.2)
d
Stevens
(293.9±0.1)
c
(54.6±0.2)
d
(533.4±0.1)
e
Results are mean values±SD (N=6), p<0.05; values in the same
column followed by the same letter (a–e) are not statistically
different (p<0.05) as measured by Duncan’s test
*expressed as gallic acid equivalent
**expressed as cyanidin-3-glucoside equivalent
Table 2. DPPH
·
,
·
OH and ABTS
+
radical scavenging capacity of
cranberry fruit
Cranberry
cultivars
DPPH
· ·
OH ABTS
+
mmol TE per g
of fresh mass
mmol TE per g
of fresh mass
mmol TE per g
of fresh mass
Wild
cranberry
(36.9±0.1)
e
(0.9±0.0)
c
(16.4±1.2)
a
Ben Lear
(33.9±0.1)
f
(0.8±0.1)
d
(13.0±1.2)
d
Bergman
(42.1±0.1)
c
(0.8±0.0)
d
(13.1±1.2)
d
Early
Richard
(41.8±0.2)
d
(1.0±0.0)
b
(14.6±1.4)
c
Pilgrim
(66.0±0.1)
b
(0.9±0.1)
c
(9.3±1.2)
e
Stevens
(68.8±0.1)
a
(1.1±0.0)
a
(15.4±1.3)
b
Results are mean values±SD (N=3), p<0.05; values in the same
column followed by the same letter (a–f) are not statistically
different (p<0.05) as measured by Duncan’s test
TE – Trolox equivalent
EC
50 –
product mass required to reduce the DPPH
·
radical by 50
%; the measurement was conducted with the use of a DPPH
solution at a concentration equivalent to 0.025 g/L methanol
(the studied reaction mixture contained 0.1 mL of the investiga
-
ted sample and 3.9 mL of DPPH solution)
tigated in this study, including common cranberry, were
statistically significant at p<0.05.
Due to the important role played by resveratrol, as
postulated by many authors (11,14,20), its mass fraction
was determined by HPLC in this study. It was demon
-
strated that all of the investigated cranberry cultivars
contained less resveratrol than wild cranberry fruit,
whose resveratrol mass fraction was estimated at 712.3
ng/g of fresh mass.
In the group of the studied cranberry cultivars, high
resveratrol mass fraction of 598.2 ng/g of fresh mass
was reported for Ben Lear (Table 1, Fig. 1). In terms of
dry mass, the above mentioned results are indicative of
resveratrol mass fraction of 5.846 and 4.460 mg/g. The
differences in the resveratrol mass fraction of the five in
-
vestigated cranberry cultivars were not statistically sig
-
nificant at p<0.05. Statistically significant differences
(p<0.05) were observed between the analyzed cultivars
and the wild cranberry. It should be noted that the in
-
vestigated cranberry varieties are marked by a high
resveratrol mass fraction, which is comparable to that of
lingonberry (5.80 mg/g of the dry sample) and grapes
(6.50 mg/g of the dry sample), as demonstrated by Ri
-
mando et al. (30).
Antioxidant properties of different cranberry cultivars
According to numerous researchers, phenolic com
-
pounds, their content and qualitative composition are
largely responsible for the antioxidant properties of fruit
(31,32). In the current study, the antioxidant properties
of cranberry were determined in view of the DPPH
·
,
·
OH and ABTS
+
radical scavenging capacity of fruit meth
-
anol extracts (Table 2). The obtained results, expressed
in terms of Trolox equivalent (TE), indicate that cranberry
fruit, regardless of cultivar, is characterised by the high
-
est DPPH
·
scavenging capacity within the range of 33.87–
68.83 mmol of TE per g of fresh mass. The lowest scav
-
enging capacity, within the range of 0.8–1.04 mmol of TE
per g of fresh mass, was reported in respect of OH radi
-
cals. High scavenging capacity of all three types of free
radicals (DPPH
·
,
·
OH and ABTS
+
) was attributed to cv.
Stevens, followed by cv. Pilgrim. Cultivar Bergman was
marked by lower antioxidant activity. The highest ABTS
+
radical scavenging capacity of 16.42 mmol of TE per g of
fresh mass was reported for the comparatively analysed
common cranberry. The differences in the antioxidant
activity of the investigated samples were statistically
significant at p<0.05 with two exceptions.
The results of this study were compared with those
obtained by Wang and Stretch (28), who determined the
antioxidant properties of cranberry grown at the Rutgers
Blueberry and Cranberry Research Center in Chats
-
worth (NJ, USA) by the ORAC method. In the group of
10 analysed cranberry varieties, Stevens, Pilgrim and
Ben Lear were characterised by mean ORAC values of
9.1, 8.2 and 10.1 mmol of TE per g of fresh mass, respec
-
tively. During an earlier research investigating five cran
-
berry cultivars, Wang and Jiao (4) had concluded that cv.
Ben Lear had an average scavenging capacity of active
oxygen species (O
2
·–
, H
2
O
2
,
·
OH and O
2
). According to
Kalt et al. (29), the DPPH
·
scavenging capacity of the
studied cranberry varieties reached 92.9 TE per g of dry
mass. The free radical scavenging capacity of other berry
fruit species, such as cowberry, black currant and bil
-
berry, was two- to threefold higher.
Conclusions
The results of the study indicate that the fruit of the
analysed cranberry cultivars grown in Poland differs
with regard to polyphenol, anthocyanin and resveratrol
mass fractions as well as antioxidant properties. In most
cases, statistically significant differences at p<0.05 were
reported. Despite the observed variations, the mass frac-
tions of the analysed bioactive compounds in the inves-
tigated cultivars and their antioxidant properties were
comparable to the results quoted by other authors. The
highest mass fraction of total phenolic compounds, in-
cluding resveratrol, was recorded in the fruit of Ben
Lear, while Early Richard was the richest source of an
-
thocyanins. As regards the antioxidant activity of partic
-
ular cranberry cultivars, the highest scavenging capacity
was observed in respect of DPPH
·
radicals. Cultivars Ste
-
vens and Pilgrim were marked by high scavenging ca
-
pacity of all the analysed free radicals – DPPH
·
,
·
OH and
ABTS
+
.
Acknowledgements
This work was partly supported by the University
of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (Program 528-0709-
808).
References
1. K. Pliszka, Large cranberry, Dzialkowiec, 1 (2003) 28–29 (in
Polish).
2. K. Smolarz, Cranberry propagation, Szkolkarstwo, 6 (2005)
12–14 (in Polish).
3. D.A. Vattem, R. Ghaedian, K. Shetty, Enhancing health be
-
nefits of berries through phenolic antioxidant enrichment:
Focus on cranberry, Asia. Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 14 (2005) 120–
130.
4. S.Y. Wang, H. Jiao, Scavenging capacity of berry crops on
superoxide radicals, hydrogen peroxide, hydroxyl radicals,
and singlet oxygen, J. Agric. Food Chem. 48 (2000) 5677–
5684.
60
E.J. BOROWSKA et al.: Polyphenols, Anthocyanins and Resveratrol in Cranberry, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 47 (1) 56–61 (2009)
Fig. 1. HPLC-DAD chromatograms recorded at 306 nm of (a)
trans-resveratrol standard solution at the concentration of 0.5
mg/mL, (b) the solid phase extracted wild cranberry and (c) Berg
-
man cranberry samples. Chromatographic conditions are descri
-
bed in the text
5. Y.T. Lin, Y.I. Kwon, R.G. Labbe, K. Shetty, Inhibition of He
-
licobacter pylori and associated urease by oregano and cran
-
berry phytochemical synergies, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71
(2005) 8558–8564.
6. N.S. Seeram, L.S. Adams, Y. Zhang, R. Lee, D. Sand, H.S.
Sheuller, D. Heber, Blackberry, black raspberry, blueberry,
cranberry, red raspberry, and strawberry extracts inhibit
growth and stimulate apoptosis of human cancer cells in
vitro, J. Agric. Food Chem. 54 (2006) 9329–9339.
7. C.C. Neto, Cranberry and its phytochemicals: A review of
in vitro anticancer studies, J. Nutr. (Suppl. 1), 137 (2007)
186–193.
8. A.G. Marwan, C.W. Nagel, Characterization of cranberry
benzoates and their antimicrobial properties, J. Food Sci. 51
(1986) 1069–1070.
9. E.J. Borowska, A. Szajdek, J. Borowski, Antioxidant pro
-
perties of fruits, vegetables and their products, Fruit Pro
-
cess. 1 (2005) 38–43.
10. M. Barbaste, B. Berke, M. Dumas, S. Soulet, J.C. Delaunay,
C. Castagnino, V. Arnaudinaud, C. Cheze, J. Vercauteren,
Dietary antioxidants, peroxidation and cardiovascular risks,
J. Nutr. Health Aging, 6 (2002) 209–223.
11. M.H. Aziz, R. Kumar, N. Ahmad, Cancer chemopreven
-
tion by resveratrol: In vitro and in vivo studies and the un
-
derlying mechanisms, Int. J. Oncol. 23 (2003) 17–28.
12. B.B. Aggarwal, A. Bhardwaj, R.S. Aggarwal, N.P. Steram,
S. Shishodia, Y. Takada, Role of resveratrol in prevention
and therapy of cancer: Preclinical and clinical studies, An
-
ticancer Res. 24 (2004) 2783–2840.
13. D.A. Vattem, Y.T. Lin, R. Ghaedian, K. Shetty, Cranberry
synergies for dietary management of Helicobacter pylori in-
fections, Process Biochem. 40 (2004) 1583–1592.
14. L. Frémont, Biological effects of resveratrol, Life Sci. 66
(2000) 663–673.
15. S. Häkkinen, M. Heinonen, S. Kärenlampi, J. Mykkänen, J.
Ruuskanen, R. Törrönen, Screening of selected flavonoids
and phenolic acids in 19 berries – A cohort study, Food Res.
Int. 32 (1999) 345–353.
16. S. Ehala, M. Vaher, M. Kaljurand, Characterization of phe-
nolic profiles of Northern European berries by capillary elec
-
trophoresis and determination of their antioxidant activity,
J. Agric. Food Chem. 53 (2005) 6484–6490.
17. A.M. Rimando, D.L. Barney, Resveratrol and naturally oc
-
curring analogues in Vaccinium species, Acta Hortic. 6
(2005)
137–143.
18. M.M. Lyons, C. Yu, R.B. Toma, S.Y. Cho, W. Reiboldt, J.
Lee, R.B. van Breemen, Resveratrol in raw and baked blue
-
berries and bilberries, J. Agric. Food Chem. 51 (2003) 5867–
5870.
19. M.G.L. Hertog, E.J.M. Feskens, P.C.H. Hollman, M.B. Ka
-
tan, D. Kromhout, Dietary antioxidant flavonoids and risk
of coronary heart disease: The Zutphen Elderly Study, Lan
-
cet, 342 (1993) 1007–1011.
20. L. Bujanda, M. García-Barcina, V. Gutiérrez-de Juan, J. Bi
-
daurrazaga, M. Fernández de Luco, M. Gutiérrez-Stampa,
M. Larzabal, E. Hijona, C. Sarasqueta, M. Echenique-Eli
-
zondo, J.I. Arenas, Effect of resveratrol on alcohol-induced
mortality and liver lesions in mice, BMC Gastroenterol. 6
(2006) 35.
21. M.A. Carbonneau, C.I. Léger, B. Descomps, F. Michel, L.
Monnier, Improvement in the antioxidant status of plasma
and low-density lipoprotein in subjects receiving a red wine
phenolics mixture, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 75 (1998) 235–240.
22. M.M.Y. Chan, J.A. Mattiacci, H.S. Hwang, A. Shah, D. Fong,
Synergy between ethanol and grape polyphenols, querce
-
tin, and resveratrol, in the inhibition of the inducible nitric
oxide synthase pathway, Biochem. Pharmacol. 60 (2000) 1539–
1548.
23. V.L. Singleton, J.A. Rossi Jr., Colorimetry of total phenolics
with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents, Am.
J. Enol. Vitic. 16 (1965) 144–158.
24. R.E. Wrolstad, Color and pigment analyses in fruits pro
-
ducts, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, Vol. 624, Ore
-
gon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA (1976).
25. A.I. Romero-Pérez, R.M. Lamuela-Raventós, C. Andrés-La
-
cueva, M.C. de la Torre-Boronat, Method for the quantita
-
tive extraction of resveratrol and piceid isomers in grape
berry skins. Effect of powdery mildew on the stilbene con
-
tent, J. Agric. Food Chem. 49 (2001) 210–215.
26. W. Brand-Williams, M.E. Cuvelier, C. Berset, Use of free
radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity, LWT-Food
Sci. Technol. 28 (1995) 25–30.
27. Y.H. Chu, C.L. Chang, H.F. Hsu, Flavonoid content of se-
veral vegetables and their antioxidant activity, J. Sci. Food
Agric. 80 (2000) 561–566.
28. S.Y. Wang, A.W. Stretch, Antioxidant capacity in cranberry
is influenced by cultivar and storage temperature, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 49 (2001) 969–974.
29. W. Kalt, C.F. Forney, A. Martin, R.L. Prior, Antioxidant ca-
pacity, vitamin C, phenolics and anthocyanins after fresh
storage of small fruits, J. Agric. Food Chem. 47 (1999) 4638–
4644.
30. A.M. Rimando, W. Kalt, J.B. Magee, J. Dewey, J.R. Ballin
-
gton, Resveratrol, pterostilbene, and piceatannol in Vacci
-
nium berries, J. Agric. Food Chem. 52 (2004) 4713–4719.
31. H. Wang, G. Cao, R.L. Prior, Oxygen radical absorbing ca
-
pacity of anthocyanins, J. Agric. Food Chem. 45 (1997) 304–
309.
32. M.K. Ehlenfeldt, R.L. Prior, Oxygen radical absorbance ca
-
pacity (ORAC) and phenolic and anthocyanin concentra
-
tions in fruit and leaf tissues of highbush blueberry, J.
Agric. Food Chem. 49 (2001) 2222–2227.
61
E.J. BOROWSKA et al.: Polyphenols, Anthocyanins and Resveratrol in Cranberry, Food Technol. Biotechnol. 47 (1) 56–61 (2009)
