Content uploaded by Arif Atak
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arif Atak on Jan 15, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY AND PHENOLIC CONTENT OF SEED,
SKIN AND PULP PARTS OF 22 GRAPE (VITIS VINIFERA L.)
CULTIVARS (4 COMMON AND 18 REGISTERED OR CANDIDATE
FOR REGISTRATION)
YUSUF YILMAZ1,5, ZEKIYE GÖKSEL2, S. SEÇIL ERDOG
˘AN2, AYSUN ÖZTÜRK2, ARIF ATAK3and
CENGIZ ÖZER4
1Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Istiklal Campus, Burdur 15100, Turkey
Departments of 2Food Technology and 3Viticulture, Atatürk Central Horticultural Research Institute, Yalova, Turkey
4Department of Viticulture, Tekirdag˘ Viticulture Research Institute, Tekirdag˘ , Turkey
5Corresponding author.
TEL: 90-248-2132722;
FAX: 90-248-2132704;
EMAIL: yilmaz4yusuf@yahoo.com
Received for Publication January 27, 2014
Accepted for Publication September 12, 2014
doi:10.1111/jfpp.12399
ABSTRACT
Total phenolic contents and antioxidant activities of pulp, seed and skin of 22
grape varieties (7 white and 15 red) grown in the Marmara region of Turkey were
determined (common, registered or candidate cultivars). The total phenolic con-
tents of grape pulp, seed and skin parts ranged from 9.26 to 62.29, from 162.29 to
326.18 and from 96.61 to 167.42 mg gallic acid equivalents/100 g fresh weight,
respectively. Seasonal changes were noticeable in the total phenolic contents and
antioxidant activities of different grape parts. The antioxidant activity of grape
seeds of registered or candidate cultivars was the highest, followed by skins and
pulps. The antioxidant activities of grape skins were higher in red varieties than in
white varieties. The results indicated that registered and candidate red or white
grape cultivars may have high amounts of phenolics and possess a superior anti-
oxidant activity in comparison to popular cultivars, such as Bilecik I
˙rikarası,
Hamburg Misketi, Alfons and Isabella.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
Grapes are an important commercial commodity because they can be consumed
fresh or processed into many food products such as juice, jams, raisins and wine.
Chemical properties of grapevines are one of the most important factors that
determine the industrial use of grape berries. A great deal of diverse phenolic
compounds is located in the skins, pulp and seeds of grapes. The antioxidant
activity of different parts of grapes has been studied in popular and hybrid variet-
ies; however, studies should also be continued on hybrid varieties to determine
better grape berries with high antioxidant activity and phenolic content. Berries
with better quality in terms of antioxidant activity may present great potential for
the food industry as well as health-conscious consumers.
INTRODUCTION
Grape (Vitis vinifera) is one of the world’s largest fruit crops
with an annual production of more than 60 million metric
tons, and 80% of this production is used in wine produc-
tion (FAOSTAT 2012). The skins and seeds of grapes are a
rich source of phenolic substances (Katalinic et al. 2010;
Santos et al. 2011). Total phenolic compounds in grapes
depend on various factors such as the variety and maturity
level of grapes as well as viticulture practices. Plant scientists
have been working on the modification of these factors to
produce varieties superior in their antioxidant capacity
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation ISSN 1745-4549
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1
(Kalkan et al. 2002). Knowledge of the total phenolic con-
tents and antioxidant activity of hybrid or less used grape
cultivars can be used to improve nutritional properties of
grape through breeding.
Grapes contain a large amount of diverse phenolic com-
pounds in skins, pulp and seeds. Many of these compounds
may show beneficial biological activity related to their anti-
oxidant properties (Revilla and Ryan 2000). Flavonoids are
mainly localized in the skins of the berry, whereas the
flavan-3-ols (catechins and proanthocyanidins) are present
both in the skins and in the seeds (Rodriguez-Montealegre
et al. 2006). However, the composition and concentration of
phenolics in grapes may vary with variety, species, viticul-
tural and environmental factors such as soil conditions,
climate and crop load (Yang et al. 2009).
The interest on the natural antioxidants with plant origin
has recently increased because natural antioxidants derived
from plants, especially phenolics such as quercetin,
carnosol, thymol, catechin and morin, are of considerable
interest as dietary supplements or food preservatives.
Phenolics may exhibit anticarcinogenic effects by inhibiting
all stages of chemical carcinogenesis, initiation, promotion
and progression, as well as formation of carcinogens
from dietary precursors (Kim et al. 2006). Studying
the polyphenols and total antioxidant activities (DPPH
[2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl], ABTS [2,2-azino-bis(3-
ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)diammonium salt]
and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assays) of
four wine grapes and four table grapes, Du et al. (2012)
reported that the phenolic content of berries was signifi-
cantly correlated with the antioxidant capacity of wines.
In this present study, total phenolic contents and antioxi-
dant activities of different parts (pulp, seed and skin) of 7
white and 15 red grape cultivars were determined. In addi-
tion to common grape varieties, hybrid varieties were used
to determine the potential candidate cultivars superior for
grape processing industry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
All chemicals were of analytical grade, unless otherwise
stated. Solvents used in the antioxidant assays were of
HPLC-grade. Gallic acid, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl
(DPPH) and 2,4,6-tripyridyl-s-triazine (TPTZ) were pur-
chased from Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland), whereas iron(III)
chloride hexahydrate (FeCl3·6H2O) and sodium carbonate
were from Riedel-de Haen (Seelze, Germany). Folin–
Ciocalteu reagent and 2,2-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-
6-sulfonic acid)diammonium salt (ABTS) were purchased
from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Trolox (6-hydroxy-
2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid) was obtain-
ed from Sigma (St. Louis, MO).
Hybrid grape varieties (Table 1) were obtained from
either the Atatürk Central Horticultural Research Institute
(ACHRI) in Yalova, Turkey or the Tekirdag˘ Viticulture
Research Institute (TVRI) in Tekirdag˘, Turkey. Popular
grape varieties (Table 1) were grown in the Marmara region,
northwest of Turkey. Grapes were grown in the plots of
these two institutions. The fresh berry samples were har-
vested from the 22 different cultivars between the end-
August to the mid-September, 2008 and 2009. Sugar levels
ranged from 25.3 to 30.4° Brix at harvest. The plants were
grown at the ACHRI research site, Yalova, Turkey (latitude
40°39′N/longitude 29°17′E) and at the TVRI site, Tekirdag,
Turkey (latitude 40°58′N/longitude 27°28′E).
Methods
Handling and Preparation. Grape samples of ca. 2 kg
for each cultivar were harvested manually from different
TABLE 1. THE LIST OF GRAPE CULTIVARS AND THEIR SOURCES
Skin color
Grape
cultivar/Hybrid Source/Explanation
White 130/1 Candidate cultivars of the ACHRI
Hybridization Breeding Project
(cross-check stage) selected for
registration
85/1
86/1
53/1
FX1-10 Candidate cultivars of the TVRI
Disease Resistance Breeding
Project selected for registration
FX1-1
BX1-166
Red Uslu Registered new cultivars of the
ACHRITekirdag˘ Seedless
Yalova Misketi
Trakya I
˙lkeren Registered new cultivars of the TVRI
2/B-56
26/D-3 Candidate cultivar of the TVRI
Seedless Breeding Project selected
for registration
83/1 Candidate cultivar of the ACHRI
Hybridization Breeding Project
(cross-check stage) selected for
registration
95/3 Candidate cultivars of the ACHRI
Hybridization Breeding Project
(adaptation stage) selected for
registration
91/3
BX2-149 Candidate cultivars of the TVRI
Disease Resistance Breeding
Project selected for registration
KXP-10
Bilecik I
˙rikarası Widely grown regional varieties
Hamburg Misketi
Alfons
Isabella
ACHRI, Atatürk Central Horticultural Research Institute; TVRI, Tekirdag˘
Viticulture Research Institute.
ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES Y. YILMAZ ET AL.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.2
plants, and bunch of grapes were brought to the laboratory
immediately. Seeds, skins and pulp parts were carefully
separated manually. Each part was divided into two equal
parts, representing replicates. Seeds were partially dried at
45C for 4 h in a convection oven (Memmert UN110, Nurn-
berg, Germany) in order to facilitate the grinding process.
Pulp and skin parts were frozen at −24C until analysis. Par-
tially dried seeds were ground by a coffee grinder (Bosch,
MKM 6000, Istanbul, Turkey), whereas pulp or skin parts
were chopped by a blender immediately after thawing.
Analyses were performed in duplicate within a month.
Moisture contents of (fresh and partially dried) grape seeds
were determined gravimetrically according to the AOAC
method (1990) to express the results of analytical experi-
ments in fresh weight basis.
Solvent Extraction. Methanol extraction was used to
extract the phenolic constituents from different parts of
grapes (Kallithraka et al. 1995). A portion of pulp, skin or
dried seed powder (3 g) was mixed with 25 mL of metha-
nol. The mixture was homogenized with a homogenizer
(Silverson, Buckinghamshire, U.K.) for 2 min at room tem-
perature, and the mixture was allowed to stand for 16 h at
4C in the dark. Then, the sample was centrifuged for 20 min
at 16,000 ×g. Clear supernatants were collected with glass
Pasteur pipettes and poured into amber vials. This extrac-
tion procedure was repeated twice for the residue at the cen-
trifuge bottle. Pooled supernatants were kept at −24C until
analyses.
Total Phenolic Contents. Total phenolic contents of
grape seed, skin and pulp extracts were determined by the
Folin–Ciocalteu method (Singleton and Rossi 1965). Gallic
acid was used as a standard. The absorbance was measured
at 725 nm; UV-vis spectrophotometer (2J1-0003 model,
U-29000 HITACHI Instruments, Tokyo, Japan) was used to
determine the total phenolic contents of extracts in terms of
gallic acid equivalents (GAE mg/100 g fresh weight [FW]).
Antioxidant Activity Assays. The FRAP, DPPH and
ABTS assay procedures described by Thaipong et al. (2006)
were used to determine the antioxidant activities of grape
pulp, skin and seed extracts. For FRAP assay, absorbance of
ferrous tripyridyltriazine complex was measured at 593 nm
with the spectrophotometer. For DPPH assay, the absor-
bance readings of extracts were taken at 515 nm wavelength.
The linear standard curves used in both FRAP and DPPH
assays were between 10 and 50 μM Trolox. The absorbance
values were measured at 734 nm wavelength for ABTS assay,
and the linear standard curve was between 5 and 25 μM
Trolox. The antioxidant activities of grape pulp, skin and
seed extracts were expressed in μmol TE/100 g FW.
Statistical Analysis. Data were analyzed using the Statis-
tical Analysis System software (SAS Institute 2002). PROC
GLM was used to determine significant differences among
the means. The PDGLM800 macro created by Saxton
(2000) was used to develop letters for the means that were
significantly different.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Total Phenolic Contents
The total phenolic contents of different parts of grapes are
shown in Table 2. The results (mean value and standard
deviation) obtained for the pulp, skins and seeds of the
white and red grape varieties were expressed in mg GAE/
100 g FW in Table 2.
The total phenolic contents of the pulps of grape varieties
were lower than those of seeds and skins. Among the pulps
of the white varieties, the highest content (about 60 mg
GAE/100 g FW) was found in 86/1 variety in the harvest
year of 2008, which is a candidate cultivar of the ACHRI
Hybridization Breeding Project selected for registration.
Seasonal changes in the total phenolic contents of the pulps
of grapes were noticeable (Table 2). In the harvest year of
2009, the pulps of 130/1 (seedless) contained the highest
amount of total phenolics, about 54.5 mg GAE/100 g FW.
Among the red varieties, the total phenolic contents of the
pulps of Hamburg Misketi in 2008 and 2009 were about 75
and 96 mg GAE/100 g FW, respectively, and these were the
highest among the pulps of red varieties.
The highest total phenolic contents were determined in
the seeds of grape varieties. Seasonal changes were notice-
able in the total phenolic contents of seeds, and the seeds in
the harvest year of 2008 had higher total phenolic contents
than those in 2009. Among the white varieties, the lowest
total phenolic content was determined in the seeds of 53/1
(candidate cultivar of the ACHRI Project) in 2008 (about
168 mg GAE/100 g). The total phenolic contents of FX1-10,
FX1-1 and BX1-166 varieties were about 270, 260 and
257 mg GAE/100 g FW, respectively. These varieties are can-
didate cultivars of the TVRI Disease Resistance Breeding
Project but plants were unable to produce grapes in
the consecutive harvest season. Among the red varieties, the
seeds of Hamburg Misketi, a widely grown variety in the
region, were noticeably high in the total phenolic contents
(Table 2). Harvest season had an influence on the total phe-
nolic contents of grape seeds. The seeds of Yalova Misketi, a
registered new cultivar of the ACHRI, had similar total phe-
nolic content as the seeds of Hamburg Misketi in 2009.
The skins of grapes are another good source of total phe-
nolics next to the seeds. In general, the skins of the white
varieties had a similar total phenolic content in 2008,
Y. YILMAZ ET AL.ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 3
ranging from about 97 to 133 mg GAE/100 g. Among the
red varieties, the skins of KXP-10 (candidate cultivar of the
TVRI Project) had the highest total phenolic content
(167.42 mg GAE/100 g) in 2008 (P<0.05). Isabella variety
had a total phenolic content of 151.46 mg GAE/100 g in
grape skins, the second highest next to KXP-10. For the
skins of red varieties in 2009, similar total phenolic con-
tents, ranging from 125.35 to 148.68 mg GAE/100 g, were
found.
A large amount of different phenolic compounds are
present in the skin, pulp and seeds of grapes (Mulero et al.
2010). The phenolic composition of grapes and different
grape parts depends on multiple factors, including climate,
degree of ripeness, berry size, grapevine variety and viticul-
ture practices (Rodriguez-Montealegre et al. 2006). The
contribution of grape juice, pulp, skin and seeds to the total
phenolic contents of grape berries were reported to be 5, 1,
30 and 64%, respectively (Singleton 1982). In a study, the
amount of extractable phenolics in grape pulps was found
to be less than 10% and two-thirds of the rest were reported
to be found in seeds, whereas one-third was in skins (Kara
et al. 2003). Singleton and Esau (1969) reported that while
the total phenolic content of grape seeds of the Californian
V. vinifera white varieties was 4,000 mg GAE/kg FW, red
varieties had 5,500 mg GAE/kg FW on average. The authors
stated that total phenolic content of the seeds of Cabernet
Franc was the highest, whereas that of Chardonnay was the
lowest. In a recent study, total phenolic contents of seeds for
Cabernet Franc and Pinot Noir varieties were reported to be
4,246 and 3,968 mg GAE/kg FW, respectively (Yang et al.
2009). In another study, total phenolic contents of white
and red grape varieties were found 875 ±362 and
1,851 ±1,089 GAE mg/kg FW, respectively (Katalinic et al.
2010). Studying the total phenolic content of grape seeds
from 11 red varieties including Merlot, Alfons, Hamburg
Misketi, Ada Karasi, Okuzgozu and Bogazkere, Bozan et al.
(2008) reported that the total phenolic content of grape
seeds ranged from 79.2 to 154.6 mg GAE/g seed on dry
basis. In a study by Xu et al. (2010), the seeds of Cabernet
Sauvignon were reported to have the highest total phenolic
content (about 100 mg GAE/g dry matter) among the seeds
of 18 grape cultivars (Oriental and North American Vitis
species/hybrids, and V. vinifera). In this present study, the
total phenolic contents of Hamburg Misketi and Alfons
seeds were about 105 mg GAE/g dry weight and were found
to be similar.
Based on the total phenolic content data from the harvest
season of 2008, white varieties of BX1-166, FX1-10 and
FX1-1, candidate cultivars of the TVRI Disease Resistance
Breeding Project, may have a good potential for further
breeding project to obtain superior cultivars with a high
phenolic content. Phenolics in grapes are known to play a
TABLE 2. TOTAL PHENOLIC CONTENTS (MG GAE/100 G FW) OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF GRAPES HARVESTED IN TWO DIFFERENT SEASONS
Skin
color Cultivar
Pulp Seed Skin
2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
White 130/1 (seedless) 10.73 ±3.40rs 54.52 ±11.77cd – – 102.22 ±5.60pq 114.88 ±9.24mn
85/1 18.31 ±4.31m–r 35.84 ±7.79g–i 211.54 ±4.0i166.19 ±8.85mn 104.02 ±7.27o–q 108.30 ±1.83n–p
86/1 59.98 ±12.09c23.91 ±2.49j–n 233.05 ±19.66h171.10 ±9.54l–n 103.65 ±3.89o–q 140.28 ±6.22e–h
53/1 12.84 ±3.85p–s 37.06 ±3.76gh 168.27 ±6.38l–n 172.77 ±12.15l–n 128.15 ±3.87jk 97.52 ±6.79q
FX1-10 20.41 ±7.09l–q na 270.57 ±19.08c–e na 126.78 ±2.00jk na
FX1-1 18.52 ±5.08m–r na 260.22 ±20.87d–f na 96.61 ±5.87qna
BX1-166 42.72 ±14.02e–g na 257.03 ±24.16e–g na 132.95 ±1.81h–j na
Red Uslu 62.29 ±5.26c50.67 ±2.38de 193.25 ±0.96i–k 167.51 ±6.76l–n 118.95 ±3.18lm 136.94 ±5.41f–i
2/B-56 (seedless) 26.73 ±4.31j–m 36.81 ±4.40gh – – 144.46 ±4.19b–f 140.23 ±7.98e–h
26/D-3 (seedless) 9.26 ±4.04s37.31 ±2.90gh – – 121.09 ±3.58k–m 132.79 ±6.28h–j
Yalova Misketi 37.46 ±9.43gh 29.27 ±2.98h–k 265.99 ±9.80c–e 205.56 ±21.48i136.54 ±8.80g–i 148.68 ±1.16bc
Tekirdag˘ Seedless 17.05 ±1.06n–s 37.41 ±2.53gh – – 99.24 ±4.08q140.58 ±6.37d–h
Trakya I
˙lkeren 23.78 ±4.37k–n 27.04 ±4.45i–m 283.09 ±15.21bc 179.39 ±12.15k–m 136.29 ±0.93g–i 148.33 ±6.61b–d
83/1 44.41 ±8.37e–g 46.47 ±9.66d–f 238.02 ±7.0h199.03 ±27.46ij 121.67 ±1.16k–m 142.01 ±6.76c–g
95/3 16.84 ±5.26n–s 37.97 ±0.61f–h 238.48 ±19.12gh 185.21 ±11.92j–l 114.57 ±7.76mn 139.42 ±6.82e–i
Bilecik I
˙rikarası 20.84 ±2.32k–p 36.81 ±5.31gh 238.22 ±12.02gh 160.83 ±6.18mn 108.86 ±4.23n–p 145.24 ±0.79b–e
Hamburg Misketi 75.34 ±2.53b96.41 ±3.38a326.18 ±1.17a195.84 ±1.70i–k 127.17 ±1.51jk 143.01 ±5.46c–g
Alfons 11.81 ±3.55q–s 72.68 ±8.90b275.02 ±7.69c–e 167.96 ±10.16l–n 110.31 ±5.26no 145.95 ±6.21b–e
Isabella 26.31 ±3.85j–m 32.56 ±3.59h–j 282.68 ±11.01mn 164.57 ±7.01mn 151.46 ±3.05b125.35 ±5.59j–l
91/3 10.52 ±1.54rs 29.67 ±3.44h–l 241.42 ±10.61f–h 155.66 ±8.71n132.25 ±2.62ij 141.04 ±6.70c–g
BX2-149 13.68 ±3.79o–s 62.31 ±13.65c278.54 ±14.96b–d 162.29 ±9.40mn 125.44 ±4.00j–l 138.92 ±5.01e–i
KXP-10 21.67 ±7.82k–o 47.89 ±1.23de 295.42 ±11.44b169.38 ±16.27l–n 167.42 ±12.93a143.57 ±4.78c–g
Note: Means followed by different superscripts within the columns of each grape part were significantly different at α=0.05.
na, not available, no grapes were available in plants for the respective season.
ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES Y. YILMAZ ET AL.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.4
beneficial role as a natural resistance source in fungal infec-
tions (Stein and Blaich 1985; Jeandet et al. 1995; Adrian
et al. 1997; Breuil et al. 1998). However, phytochemical
properties, total phenolic and anthocyanin contents, and
antioxidant capacity of grapes depend on various factors
such as grape variety, cultivation, climate and soil condi-
tions, maturity levels and viticultural practices (Morris and
Cawthon 1982; Bravdo et al. 1985; Matthews and Anderson
1988; Iland 1989; Nadal and Arola 1995; De La Hera-Orts
et al. 2005; Özden and Vardin 2009). In a study, Lorrain
et al. (2011) showed that vintage and maturity stage as well
as grape variety may influence both the amount and the
composition of phenolics in grape seeds and skins. The
composition of phenolics in grapes varies according to
the species cultivar as well as within the different fractions
(juice of peel flesh seeds), growing conditions, agronomic
practices, postharvest storage and processing conditions
(Poudel et al. 2008). Climatic data of the experiment in the
province of Yalova revealed that the average temperature
dropped from 16.2C in 2008 to 15.2C in 2009, whereas
annual rainfall decreased to 522 from 806 mm. Therefore,
the climate in 2008 was hotter and drier than the climate in
2009. Seasonal differences in total soluble solids, acidity and
phenolic contents of different grape parts can be also attrib-
uted to the climatic changes from 2008 to 2009.
Antioxidant Activity of Different Parts
of Grapes
Biological systems contain a multiplicity of antioxidant
systems, and complex interactions including synergistic or
antagonistic reactions occur in the food matrices. There is
no universal single assay, which accurately reflects all the
antioxidants in a complex system. The use of the combined
assays, at least two complementary methods to evaluate the
antioxidant capacity in vitro, should give a better approach
to the in vivo situation (Lutz et al. 2011). There are many
different antioxidants present in fruits, and it is very diffi-
cult to measure each antioxidant component separately.
Therefore, several methods have been developed to evaluate
the total antioxidant activity of fruits or other plants and
animal tissues. Among them, FRAP, ABTS and DPPH are
the representative methods frequently used in various inves-
tigations (Guo et al. 2003). The FRAP values of skin, pulp
and seed fractions of 22 grape fruits are presented in Table 3
on the basis of μmol Trolox equivalent (TE)/100 g FW. In
parallel to the total phenolic content data, seeds were the
highest in antioxidant activity followed by skins. Pulp frac-
tions of grape varieties showed the lowest antioxidant activ-
ity determined by the FRAP assay (Table 3).
The BX1-166 white candidate cultivar of the TVRI
Disease Resistance Breeding Project indicated a superior
antioxidant activity in its pulp and seed fractions in 2008,
even though berries were not available in the next year.
Among the white varieties, the pulp of this cultivar had an
antioxidant activity value of 285.63 μmol TE/100 g FW in
2008. The following year, the FRAP values of pulp fractions
reduced. In general, the pulps of red varieties had higher
FRAP values than white varieties. Among the red varieties
in 2008, the pulps of Hamburg Misketi had an antioxidant
activity of 297.46 μmol TE/100 g FW, which was statistically
similar to that of 2/B-56 (290.83 μmol TE/100 g FW)
(P>0.05). In 2009, the FRAP values of pulp fractions were
reduced, with the exception of Alfons, a widely grown
regional variety.
Among the white varieties, the highest antioxidant activ-
ity (130 mmol TE/100 g FW) was in the seeds of the BX1-
166 variety in 2008. For this season, the FRAP values of the
seeds of Yalova Misketi and Hamburg Misketi were about
111 and 115 mmol TE/100 g FW, both of which were sig-
nificantly higher than those of other red varieties (P<0.05).
In 2009, the seeds of Yalova Misketi had a FRAP value about
101 mmol TE/100 g FW, and this was the highest in this
season (P<0.05). In the season of 2009, the FRAP values of
red grape seeds were reduced. Nonetheless, seeds of grapes
showed superior antioxidant activity compared to their
pulps or skins.
Next to the seeds, the skins of grapes are the second good
source of antioxidant constituents (Table 3). The skins
of Trakya I
˙lkeren variety had the highest FRAP value
(13.6 mmol TE/100 g FW) (P<0.05), which was followed
by 83/1 (11.5 mmol TE/100 g FW) and Alfons (11.7 mmol
TE/100 g FW).
The antioxidant activities of different fractions of 22
grape varieties determined by the DPPH method are shown
in Table 4. Seasonal changes in the DPPH values of skin,
pulp and seed fractions were highly noticeable. The antioxi-
dant activities of pulp and skin fractions in 2009 were
higher than those in 2008, whereas the antioxidant activities
of seeds were mostly lower in 2009 than in 2008 (Table 4).
The pulp of 53/1 variety had about 0.70 mmol TE/100 g FW
in 2009, the highest among the varieties studied in 2008 and
2009 (P<0.05). Among the red varieties, the pulp of Alfons
had the highest DPPH value in 2009 (0.67 mmol TE/100 g
FW) (P<0.05).
The seeds of Hamburg Misketi, a widely grown regional
red variety, had the highest DPPH value in 2008 (2.84 mmol
TE/100 g FW) (P<0.05). Following this variety,the seeds of
Trakya Ilkeren, a registered new cultivar of the TVRI, had a
DPPH value of 2.58 mmol TE/100 g FW, the second highest
(P<0.05). Having a DPPH value of about 2.33 mmol
TE/100 g FW, the seeds of the candidate cultivars of the
TVRI Disease Resistance Breeding Project BX2-149 and
KXP-10 varieties were found to be similar (P>0.05) in
2008. This study also indicated a great influence of seasonal
Y. YILMAZ ET AL.ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 5
TABLE 3. ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY (DETERMINED BY THE FRAP METHOD) OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF GRAPES HARVESTED IN TWO DIFFERENT SEASONS (µmol TE/100 G FW)
Skin
color Cultivar
Pulp Seed Skin
2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
White 130/1 (seedless) 153.80 ±19.28ef 87.01 ±11.70l–n – – 5,099.87 ±105.83ij 4,125.00 ±274.99lm
85/1 117.33 ±14.08i–k 47.02 ±7.40p–s 9,655.02 ±1,410r88,047.41 ±743e–g 4,153.45 ±756.63lm 2,738.51 ±160.85t–v
86/1 145.81 ±9.33fg 24.51 ±2.07s96,948.11 ±11,407c–e 79,196.83 ±3,428g–j 10,391.15 ±681.13c1,845.69 ±136.02x–z
53/1 103.91 ±0.79j–l 40.39 ±6.26rs 67,369.37 ±5,197l–n 75,406.13 ±9,336i–l 5,413.55 ±345.77hi 2,594.82 ±263.36u–w
FX1-10 133.20 ±13.49f–i na 93,745.74 ±15,012c–f na 3,556.51 ±756.89n–p na
FX1-1 119.77 ±19.22h–k na 98,588.21 ±3,835cd na 4,550.17 ±176.28kl na
BX1-166 285.63 ±44.35ab na 130,059.57 ±8,825ana 5,602.63 ±257.35gh na
Red Uslu 174.63 ±31.49de 97.85 ±7.88kl 12,856.56 ±712.72r62,192.53 ±3,242.2m–p 5,517.65 ±81.29g–i 1,722.13 ±35.81yz
2/B-56 (seedless) 290.83 ±8.55ab 46.10 ±4.26p–s – – 3,168.23 ±243.92p–t 3,399.43 ±76.03o–r
26/D-3 (seedless) 132.60 ±8.75f–i 56.77 ±6.05p–r – – 4,023.87 ±61.44mn 2,154.22 ±330.56w–y
Yalova Misketi 147.54 ±15.63e–g 45.94 ±6.01p–s 111,283.43 ±12,908b100,870.70 ±1,675c7,899.44 ±574.34d3,385.20 ±422.79o–r
Tekirdag˘ Seedless 142.68 ±13.21f–h 60.05 ±8.37o–r – – 2,558.65 ±49.83u–w 1,513.08 ±192.48z
Trakya I
˙lkeren 271.05 ±19.12b47.79 ±5.6p–s 98,916.98 ±8,967cd 84,857.75 ±2,372f–h 13,588.36 ±247.36a3,212.64 ±76.02o–s
83/1 193.38 ±21.12cd 52.03 ±5.44p–r 84,770.12 ±7,147f–i 80,303.16 ±4,360g–j 11,523.03 ±275.76b2,286.06 ±99.94v–x
95/3 120.31 ±16.21g–k 70.11 ±7.41m–p 71,460.50 ±5,899j–m 62,652.30 ±2,382m–o 8,198.43 ±146.56z1,571.98 ±137.7z
Bilecik I
˙rikarası 105.30 ±11.64j–l 87.80 ±13.55l–n 57,288.81 ±1,036op 36,299.33 ±3,959q3,412.19 ±66.31o–q 1,510.20 ±184.98z
Hamburg Misketi 297.46 ±45.05a89.17 ±3.94lm 114,830.80 ±13,615b63,614.943 ±535m–o 6,681.75 ±307.34f2,945.54 ±83.92r–u
Alfons 85.28 ±1.73l–o 150.86 ±16.60ef 75,750.32 ±7,236h–l 61,057.47 ±8,477n–p 11,688.04 ±138.15b3,006.70 ±481.12q–u
Isabella 205.53 ±29.70c58.78 ±3.25p–r 40,859.81 ±6,111q15,525.860 ±1,349r3,651.96 ±204.69no 5,655.17 ±360.82gh
91/3 123.13 ±20.13g–j 42.56 ±6.19q–s 69,701.64 ±2,554k–n 63,033.04 ±2,349m–o 10,452.71 ±434.55s–v 2,747.99 ±103.63s–v
BX2-149 96.54 ±36.12n–q 64.38 ±8.66n–q 52,960.93 ±2,684p43,392.24 ±1,745q5,906.73 ±30.67g4,807.47 ±814.46jk
KXP-10 171.51 ±14.36de 82.49 ±8.65l–o 89,860.35 ±6,574d–f 77,616.38 ±11,385h–k 7,401.02 ±467.16e2,149.43 ±304.56w–y
Note: Means followed by different superscripts within the columns of each grape part were significantly different at α=0.05.
na, not available, no grapes were available in plants for the respective season.
ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES Y. YILMAZ ET AL.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.6
changes on the antioxidant activity of different grape
fractions.
In terms of skin fractions of grape varieties, red varieties
of Yalova Misketi, 2/B-56 and Hamburg Misketi had a statis-
tically similar DPPH value of about 1.7 mmol TE/100 g FW,
the second highest (P>0.05). The skins of 53/1, a candidate
cultivar of the ACHRI Hybridization Breeding Project
selected for registration, had also a similar antioxidant
activity to the skins of these red varieties (P>0.05).
The ABTS values of skin, pulp and seed fractions of 22
grape fruits are summarized in Table 5. Similar to the results
of other antioxidant assays, seed fractions had the highest
value, followed by skin and pulp fractions. The antioxidant
activities of different grape fractions were highly influenced
by the harvest season.
The ABTS values of pulp fractions were reduced in the
harvest season of 2009, where differences in the antioxidant
activities of pulps among white and red varieties were insig-
nificant (P>0.05). The white BX1-166 candidate cultivar
had the highest ABTS value in its pulps (0.24 mmol
TE/100 g FW). Among the seeds of 22 grape varieties,
Hamburg Misketi had the highest ABTS value (3.3 mmol
TE/100 g FW) (P<0.05), followed by Trakya Ilkeren (about
3.0 mmol TE/100 g FW) and Alfons (2.9 mmol TE/100 g
FW). The ABTS values of skin fractions in 2009 had a
pattern similar to their respective pulps. That is, insignifi-
cant differences were found among the ABTS values of skin
fractions in 2009 (P>0.05). The ABTS value of the skins in
the white FX1-10 candidate variety was the highest in 2008
(0.57 mmol TE/100 g FW) (P<0.05).
The results indicated that the seeds of registered and can-
didate grape cultivars are the best source of antioxidants,
followed by skins and then pulps of grapes. In a study,
Anastasiadi et al. (2010) reported that regardless of the
assay method, grape seeds have the best antioxidant activity.
Grapes with darker skins had higher antioxidant activity
than those with lighter skins. The pulp fractions had low
antioxidant activity, regardless of whether the grape was red
or white. These results were in good agreement with reports
showing that skin contains higher phenolics than flesh
(Rodriguez-Montealegre et al. 2006; Lutz et al. 2011; Santos
et al. 2011). Grape skins are a good source of phenolics and
have a high antioxidant capacity (Lutz et al. 2011). Studying
the antioxidant activity of grape skins, Katalinic et al. (2010)
reported that the grape skin extracts should be effectively
used as reductants, chelators and free radical scavengers in
homogeneous systems and in emulsion.
The phenolic content and antioxidant activity of different
grape varieties have been studied widely in the literature.
Studying the phytochemical profiles and antioxidant
TABLE 4. ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY (DETERMINED BY THE DPPH METHOD) OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF GRAPES HARVESTED IN TWO DIFFERENT
SEASONS (µmol TE/100 G FW)
Skin
color Cultivar
Pulp Seed Skin
2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
White 130/1 (seedless) 130.87 ±4.08no 561.94 ±0.86cd – – 906.60 ±7.79v1,721.66 ±11.61de
85/1 95.82 ±0.54q–t 341.86 ±6.06ij 1,741.91 ±7.96n–p 1,779.85 ±0.99m978.82 ±2.47r1,670.54 ±12.28g
86/1 161.76 ±2.91mn 232.97 ±14.53l1,889.53 ±6.69k1,652.34 ±6.98r848.95 ±6.43w1,592.12 ±3.16i
53/1 87.91 ±2.14r–v 704.46 ±3.84a1,565.14 ±10.88s1,826.93 ±50.82l1,222.87 ±2.09k1,752.13 ±8.64a
FX1-10 90.91 ±1.73r–u na 2,360.63 ±6.75dna 1,161.24 ±8.00mna
FX1-1 96.63 ±3.49r–t na 2,196.33 ±0.88gna 913.28 ±5.04uv na
BX1-166 130.27 ±12.75n–q na 2,264.12 ±12.11fna 1,161.83 ±6.93mna
Red Uslu 173.47 ±13.77m586.19 ±51.28c1,688.12 ±3.31q1,756.31 ±6.98n933.97 ±2.73t1,627.36 ±17.09h
2/B-56 (seedless) 65.20 ±5.04t–w 367.85 ±2.60hi – – 1,262.06 ±3.28j1,744.62 ±1.73ab
26/D-3 (seedless) 110.98 ±9.54o–r 548.07 ±38.32d– – 1,048.17 ±3.81p1,710.82 ±5.00ef
Yalova Misketi 98.17 ±0.72p–s 510.81 ±8.25e2,197.01 ±10.10g1,778.31 ±0.88m963.03 ±4.49s1,754.15 ±2.23a
Tekirdag˘ Seedless 56.66 ±1.93w431.96 ±38.86f– – 1,020.82 ±4.09q1,738.84 ±2.15bc
Trakya I
˙lkeren 130.14 ±24.33n–p 393.84 ±4.33gh 2,576.81 ±4.46b1,758.05 ±11.87n956.06 ±5.13s1,735.95 ±3.74bc
83/1 153.39 ±12.72mn 347.06 ±2.59ij 2,124.02 ±15.77i1,567.86 ±11.22s1,094.63 ±3.51n1,590.97 ±3.61i
95/3 98.53 ±3.63o–s 348.78 ±11.26ij 2,269.36 ±11.99f1,754.15 ±2.60no 923.97 ±8.59h1,626.35 ±20.42h
Bilecik I
˙rikarası 72.28 ±7.05s–w 425.90 ±1.73fg 2,130.29 ±7.31i1,751.55 ±6.63n–p 955.85 ±20.90s1,737.25 ±7.92bc
Hamburg Misketi 56.87 ±2.75vw 286.41 ±14.72k2,840.87 ±2.28a1,781.01 ±1.00m1,063.40 ±4.06o1,742.88 ±1.73ab
Alfons 96.18 ±1.27q–t 668.07 ±21.56b2,511.96 ±6.68c1,738.12 ±7.92op 776.55 ±6.43x1,705.63 ±19.73f
Isabella 116.79 ±5.99o–r 330.59 ±32.37j2,148.63 ±8.44h1,735.95 ±6.78op 1,183.745 ±5.68l1,729.45 ±6.22cd
91/3 50.75 ±8.65w285.53 ±46.43k1,995.35 ±9.90j1,692.63 ±6.00q1,061.69 ±4.04o1,678.77 ±9.17g
BX2-149 58.45 ±5.97u–w 345.32 ±14.04ij 2,323.19 ±21.03e1,745.92 ±2.95n–p 1,083.12 ±5.51n1,734.22 ±1.73b–d
KXP-10 130.33 ±1.27n–q 654.64 ±70.78b2,335.81 ±6.95e1,734.22 ±6.16p1,047.06 ±18.81p1,665.87 ±0.88g
Note: Means followed by different superscripts within the columns of each grape part were significantly different at α=0.05.
na, not available, no grapes were available in plants for the respective season.
Y. YILMAZ ET AL.ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 7
activities of wine grapes, Yang et al. (2009) reported that the
total phenolic content of red grapes, except Baco Noir, was
higher than that of white varieties. Hogan et al. (2009)
reported the antioxidant properties of Norton (Vitis
aestivalis) and Cabernet Franc (V. vinifera) wine grapes,
whereas Breksa et al. (2010) reported the antioxidant activ-
ity and phenolic content of 16 raisin grape (V. vinifera L.)
cultivars and selections. The antioxidant activity and phe-
nolic composition of organic and conventional grapes and
wines were determined by Mulero et al. (2010). The results
of our study are in good agreement with previous studies
on the polyphenolic composition of grape seeds of our cul-
tivars (Rodriguez-Montealegre et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2009;
Anastasiadi et al. 2010; Breksa et al. 2010; Mulero et al.
2010; Lutz et al. 2011).
In a study by Katalinic et al. (2010), the antioxidant
activities for the skin extracts of seven red and seven white
grape varieties were determined by DPPH, FRAP, Fe2+-
chelating ability and β-carotene bleaching assays. In the
DPPH method, the antioxidant activity for grape skin
extracts of red varieties ranged from 58 to 139 mg GAE/L,
whereas it was from 53 to 291 for white varieties. The differ-
ence in the antioxidant activities of skin extracts between
red and white varieties was found to be statistically insig-
nificant. In the FRAP method, the authors reported the
ranges of 2.68–16.4 mM TE for red varieties and 1.48–
5.79 mM TE for white varieties, and the difference was sta-
tistically significant.
CONCLUSION
The results indicated that with a few exceptions, red grape
varieties generally had higher total phenolic contents and
antioxidant activity values than white varieties in all parts of
grapes studied. The total phenolic content and antioxidant
activity of registered new red grape cultivars of the ACHRI
and TVRI such as Uslu, Yalova Misketi, Trakya Ilkeren and
2/B-56 were comparable to those of popular varieties such
as Bilecik Irikarasi, Hamburg Misketi, Alfons and Isabella.
Similar results were also obtained for the candidate cultivars
of the ACHRI Hybridization Breeding Project and the TVRI
Disease Resistance Breeding Project. In conclusion, the
results of the antioxidant activity assays indicate that hybrid
grape cultivars studied in this research may have a great
potential to be exploited by the grape processing industry.
Further studies focused on the chemical, biochemical and
pharmacological properties of the components in the differ-
ent parts of these registered and candidate cultivars are
needed to clarify the beneficial effects of these cultivars on
human health.
TABLE 5. ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY (DETERMINED BY THE ABTS METHOD) OF DIFFERENT PARTS OF GRAPES HARVESTED IN TWO DIFFERENT
SEASONS (µmol TE/100 G FW)
Skin
color Cultivar
Pulp Seed Skin
2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
White 130/1 (seedless) 149.47 ±23.26f47.91 ±0.10j– – 170.44 ±24.30k475.66 ±1.21b
85/1 86.13 ±4.15hi 47.40 ±0.29j938.83 ±64.16o2,017.54 ±1.19i184.67 ±14.75k482.09 ±0.79b
86/1 104.07 ±12.06g47.63 ±0.21j1,094.43 ±128.92n2,192.30 ±2.58h176.07 ±11.63k475.87 ±0.47b
53/1 87.37 ±5.47hi 47.36 ±0.11j688.60 ±109.87qr 1,788.99 ±0.56k273.22 ±4.72ef 482.92 ±1.61b
FX1-10 87.09 ±6.52hi na 932.76 ±132.17ona 568.19 ±21.65ana
FX1-1 87.51 ±7.72hi na 995.54 ±50.19ona 175.70 ±13.33kna
BX1-166 236.83 ±37.66ana 1,155.67 ±53.09mn na 329.61 ±42.34cna
Red Uslu 187.84 ±26.26cd 48.05 ±0.06j716.02 ±88.87q1,921.79 ±0.98j212.84 ±20.27ij 478.37 ±0.27b
2/B-56 (seedless) 107.93 ±9.50g47.50 ±0.21j– – 246.54 ±14.76gh 476.52 ±0.68b
26/D-3 (seedless) 154.53 ±22.87ef 47.78 ±0.05j– – 312.96 ±42.73cd 477.16 ±0.31b
Yalova Misketi 80.05 ±1.11i47.78 ±0.02j1,340.91 ±85.49l2,550.26 ±0.35ef 216.03 ±34.01i488.44 ±0.73b
Tekirdag˘ Seedless 91.10 ±2.76g–i 47.54 ±0.11j– – 212.07 ±13.27ij 487.81 ±0.44b
Trakya I
˙lkeren 148.23 ±12.67f47.75 ±0.02j1,228.18 ±67.94m2,990.84 ±0.53b298.65 ±36.25d477.05 ±0.34b
83/1 250.44 ±2.49a47.67 ±0.05j1,094.60 ±68.56n2,463.06 ±0.91f333.72 ±19.45c474.04 ±1.00b
95/3 99.39 ±0.02gh 47.51 ±0.04j990.68 ±64.59o2,622.66 ±1.17e252.88 ±11.74fg 482.71 ±0.57b
Bilecik I
˙rikarası 152.67 ±23.62f47.44 ±0.28j817.23 ±143.23p2,468.71 ±2.51f192.85 ±11.79jk 475.97 ±0.59b
Hamburg Misketi 199.29 ±3.25bc 48.04 ±0.04j1,378.34 ±45.21l3,302.86 ±0.77a228.64 ±16.91hi 486.99 ±1.46b
Alfons 81.30 ±0.94i48.29 ±0.02j943.92 ±73.92o2,885.00 ±3.31c334.58 ±15.39c475.91 ±2.12b
Isabella 171.69 ±29.83de 47.57 ±0.19j547.19 ±86.65s2,463.84 ±1.63f241.15 ±8.64gh 478.08 ±0.66b
91/3 93.86 ±5.52g–i 47.37 ±0.06j831.94 ±19.40p2,313.73 ±1.45g290.15 ±20.66de 486.34 ±0.40b
BX2-149 213.92 ±18.92b47.34 ±0.02j613.78 ±110.25rs 2,752.81 ±0.54d255.02 ±7.58fg 474.41 ±0.47b
KXP-10 215.71 ±21.11b48.24 ±0.13j1,152.39 ±55.67mn 2,736.73 ±2.24d297.78 ±36.81d476.04 ±0.20b
Note: Means followed by different superscripts within the columns of each grape part were significantly different at α=0.05.
na, not available, no grapes were available in plants for the respective season.
ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES Y. YILMAZ ET AL.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.8
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was financially supported by the General
Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies of the
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, the Republic of
Turkey with the project number of TAGEM/GY/07/03/01/
124.
REFERENCES
ADRIAN, M., JEANDET, P., VENEAU, J., WESTON, L.A. and
BESSIS, R. 1997. Biological activity of resveratrol, a stilbenic
compound from grapevines, against Botrytis cinerea, the
causal agent for gray mold. J. Chem. Ecol. 23, 1689–1702.
ANASTASIADI, M., PRATSINIS, H., KLETSAS, D.,
SKALTSOUNIS, A. and HAROUTOUNIAN, S.A. 2010.
Bioactive non-coloured polyphenols content of grapes, wines
and vinification by-products: Evaluation of the antioxidant
activities of their extracts. Food Res. Int. 43, 805–813.
AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Ed.,
Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
BOZAN, B., TOSUN, G. and OZCAN, D. 2008. Study of
polyphenol content in the seeds of red grape (Vitis vinifera L.)
varieties cultivated in Turkey and their antiradical activity.
Food Chem. 109, 426–430.
BRAVDO, B.A., HEPNER, Y., LOIGNER, C., COHEN, S. and
TABACMAN, H. 1985. Effect of irrigation and crop level on
growth, yield, and wine quality of Cabernet Sauvignon. Am. J.
Enol. Vitic. 36, 132–139.
BREKSA, A.P., III, TAKEOKA, G.R., HIDALGO, M.B.,
VILCHES, A., VASSE, J. and RAMMING, D.W. 2010.
Antioxidant activity and phenolic content of 16 raisin grape
(Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars and selections. Food Chem. 121,
740–745.
BREUIL, A.C., ADRIAN, M., PIRIO, N., MEUNIER, P., BESSIS,
R. and JEANDET, P. 1998. Metabolism of stilbene
phytoalexins by Botrytis cinerea: 1. Characterization of
a resveratrol dehydrodimer. Tetrahedron Lett. 39,
537–540.
DE LA HERA-ORTS, M.L., MARTINEZ-CUTILLAS, A.,
LOPEZ-ROCA, J.M. and GOMEZ-PLAZA, E. 2005. Effect of
moderate irrigation on grape composition during ripening.
Span. J. Agric. Res. 3, 352–361.
DU, B., HE, B.-J., SHI, P.-B., LI, F.-Y., LI, J. and ZHU, F.M. 2012.
Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of wine grapes and
table grapes. J. Med. Plant Res. 6, 3381–3387.
FAOSTAT. 2012. FAO Statistical Database. http://www.fao.org
(accessed August 11, 2012).
GUO, C., YANG, J., WEI, J., LI, Y., XU, J. and JIANG, Y. 2003.
Antioxidant activities of peel, pulp and seed fractions of
common fruits as determined by FRAP assay. Nutr. Res. 23,
1719–1726.
HOGAN, S., ZHANG, L., LI, J., ZOECKLEIN, B. and ZHOU, K.
2009. Antioxidant properties and bioactive components of
Norton (Vitis aestivalis) and Cabernet Franc (Vitis vinifera)
wine grapes. LWT – Food Sci. Technol. 42, 1269–1274.
ILAND, P. 1989. Grape berry composition-the influence of
environmental and viticultural factors. Aust. Grapegrower
Winemaker 302, 13–15.
JEANDET, P., BESSIS, R., MAUME, B.F., MEUNIER, P.,
PEYRON, D. and TROLLAT, P. 1995. Effect of enological
practices on the resveratrol isomer content of wine. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 43, 316–319.
KALKAN, H., KILINÇ, E. and ÖZSÖZ, M. 2002. S¸araplarda Bazı
Fenolik Asitlerinin Electrokimyasal Dedectörlü HPLC Sistemi
ile Belirlenmesi, Türkiye V. Bag˘cılık ve S¸arapçılık
Sempozyumu, 5- 9 Ekim, 559–565, Nevs¸ehir, Turkey.
KALLITHRAKA, S., GARCIA-VIGUERA, C., BRIDLE, P. and
BAKKER, J. 1995. Survey of solvents for the extraction of
grape seed phenolics. Phytochem. Anal. 6, 265–267.
KARA, F., BOZ, Y. and UYSAL, T. 2003. Tekirdag˘Kos¸ullarında
Bazı Siyah S¸ araplık Üzüm Çes¸itlerinin Teknolojik Olum
Safhasında Fenolik Maddelerin Deg˘is¸imi, Project Code:
TAGEM/GT/01/11/3.2/054, Tekirdag Viticulture Research
Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, General
Directorate of Agricultural Research, Turkey.
KATALINIC, V., SMOLE MOZINA, S., SKROZA, D.,
GENERALIC, I., ABRAMOVIC, H., MILOŠ, M.,
LJUBENKOV, I., PISKERNIK, S., PEZO, I., TERPINC, P. et al.
2010. Polyphenolic profile, antioxidant properties and
antimicrobial activity of grape skin extracts of 14 Vitis vinifera
varieties grown in Dalmatia (Croatia). Food Chem. 119,
715–723.
KIM, S.-Y., JEONG, S.-M., PARK, W.-P., NAM, K.C., AHN, D.U.
and LEE, S.-C. 2006. Effect of heating conditions of grape
seeds on the antioxidant activity of grape seed extracts.
Food Chem. 97, 472–479.
LORRAIN, B., CHIRA, K. and TEISSEDRE, P.-L. 2011. Phenolic
composition of Merlot and Cabernet–Sauvignon grapes from
Bordeaux vineyard for the 2009-vintage: Comparison to 2006,
2007 and 2008 vintages. Food Chem. 126, 1991–1999.
LUTZ, M., JORQUERA, K., CANCINO, B., RUBY, R. and
HENRIQUEZ, C. 2011. Phenolics and antioxidant capacity of
table grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars grown in Chile. J. Food
Sci. 76, C1088–C1093.
MATTHEWS, M.A. and ANDERSON, M.M. 1988. Fruit
ripening in Vitis vinifera L: Responses to seasonal water
deficits. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 39, 313–320.
MORRIS, J.R. and CAWTHON, D.L. 1982. Effect of irrigation,
fruit load, and potassium fertilization on yield, quality, and
petiole analysis of Concord (Vitis vinifera L.) grapes. Am. J.
Enol. Vitic. 33, 145–148.
MULERO, J., PARDO, F. and ZAFFRILLA, P. 2010. Antioxidant
activity and phenolic composition of organic and
conventional grapes and wines. J. Food Compost. Anal. 23,
569–574.
NADAL, M. and AROLA, L. 1995. Effects of limited irrigation
on the composition of must and wine of Cabernet Sauvignon
under semi-arid conditions. Vitis 34, 151–154.
Y. YILMAZ ET AL.ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 9
ÖZDEN, M. and VARDIN, H. 2009. Quality and phytochemical
properties of some grapevine cultivars grown in S¸ anlıurfa
conditions. J. Faculty Agric. Harran Univ. 13, 21–27.
POUDEL, P.R., TAMURA, H., KATAOKA, I. and MOCHIOKA,
R. 2008. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of
skins and seeds of five wild grapes and two hybrids native to
Japan. J. Food Compost. Anal. 21, 622–625.
REVILLA, E. and RYAN, J.-M. 2000. Analysis of several phenolic
compounds with potential antioxidant properties in grape
extracts and wines by high-performance liquid
chromatography–photodiode array detection without sample
preparation. J. Chromatogr., A 881, 461–469.
RODRIGUEZ-MONTEALEGRE, R., ROMERO PECES, R.,
CHACON VOZMEDIANO, J.L., MARTINEZ GASCUENA, J.
and GARCIA ROMERO, E. 2006. Phenolic compounds in
skins and seeds of ten grape Vitis vinifera varieties grown
in a warm climate. J. Food Compost. Anal. 19, 687–693.
SANTOS, L.P., MORAIS, D.R., SOUZA, N.E., COTTICA, S.M.,
BOROSKI, M. and VISENTAINER, J.V. 2011. Phenolic
compounds and fatty acids in different parts of
Vitis labrusca and V. vinifera grapes. Food Res. Int. 44,
1414–1418.
SAXTON, A. 2000. PDGLM800® Macro. The University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
SAS INSTITUTE. 2002. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 9.00,
SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
SINGLETON, V.L. 1982. Grape and wine phenolics; background
and prospects. University of California, Davis Grape and
Wine Centennial Symposium Proceedings.
SINGLETON, V.L. and ESAU, P. 1969. Phenolic Substances in
Grapes and Wine, and their Significance, Advances in Food
Research Series (Suppl. 1) pp. 1–282, Academic Press,
New York, NY.
SINGLETON, V.L. and ROSSI, J.A., JR. 1965. Colorimetry of
total phenolics with phosphomolybdic–phosphotungstic acid
reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 16, 144–158.
STEIN, U. and BLAICH, R. 1985. Investigations on the
production of stilbenes and susceptibility to Botrytis of Vitis
spp. Vitis 24, 75–87.
THAIPONG, K., BOONPRAKOB, U., CROSBY, K.,
CISNEROS-ZEVALLOS, L. and HAWKINS BYRNE, D. 2006.
Comparison of ABTS, DPPH, FRAP, and ORAC assays for
estimating antioxidant activity from guava fruit extracts.
J. Food Compost. Anal. 19, 669–675.
XU, C.M., ZHANG, Y.L., CAO, L. and LU, J. 2010. Phenolic
compounds and antioxidant properties of different grape
cultivars grown in China. Food Chem. 119, 1557–1565.
YANG, J., MARTINSON, T.E. and LIU, R.H. 2009.
Phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activities of wine
grapes. Food Chem. 116, 332–339.
ANTIOXIDANT ACTIVITY OF GRAPES Y. YILMAZ ET AL.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation •• (2014) ••–•• © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.10
