Food Chemistry 266 (2018) 435–440

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Chemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodchem

Antioxidant capacity of mango fruit (Mangifera indica). An electrochemical T

study as an approach to the spectrophotometric methods
⁎
Jorge Hoyos-Arbeláeza, Lucas Blandón-Naranjoa, Mario Vázqueza, José Contreras-Calderónb,
a
Interdisciplinary Group for Molecular Studies (GIEM), Chemistry Institute, Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, University of Antioquia, Street 67 No. 53-108,
Medellín, Colombia
b
BIOALI Research Group, Food Department, Faculty of Pharmaceutical and Food Sciences, University of Antioquia, Street 67 No. 53-108, Medellín, Colombia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The antioxidant capacity in mango (pulp, peel, and seed) was measured using spectrophotometric and elec-
Mango trochemical methods in order to make traditional methods comparable with electrochemical ones, using re-
Antioxidant capacity ference standards Gallic Acid and Trolox. ABTS, DPPH, Total polyphenols, and electrochemical index were
Differential pulse voltammetry evaluated. In order to present the electrochemical results in a more comparable way, the voltammetric charge
Voltammetric charge
(using Differential pulse voltammetry) was used. Spectrophotometric methods allowed to determine the dif-
Electrochemical index
ference in contents of metabolites with antioxidant capacity, except in peel and seed, while the electrochemical
method separated the three extracts and is not affected by interferences. Spectrophotometric methods present a
good correlation with electrochemical methods, using the same reference standards, therefore, a better com-
parison between methods is possible.

1. Introduction sample pretreatment (Hoyos-Arbeláez, Vázquez, & Contreras-Calderón,

The determination of the antioxidant capacity in fruits, vegetables,
and beverages for their potential application as functional foods that
complement the normal diet is an analysis of interest for the food in-
dustry (Bigliardi & Galati, 2013; Pradeep & Guha, 2011). Antioxidant
capacity is usually determined using methods based on synthetic radical
capture and spectrophotometric monitoring (UV–Visible) (Alam, Bristi,
& Rafiquzzaman, 2013; Huang, Boxin, & Prior, 2005; Oroian &
Escriche, 2015). These methods are characterized by the use of un-
friendly reagents with the environment, the need to perform a pre-
treatment to the samples, and long reaction times.
Another disadvantage that must be taken into account, is the in-
terference of substances that can reduce the chromogenic compounds,
which leads to an overestimation of the antioxidant capacity that can
affect the results (Escarpa, 2012; Oliveira-Neto et al., 2016; Singleton,
Orthofer, & Lamuela-Raventós, 1999). Likewise, in food matrices there
may be substances that absorb in the same wavelength range at which
the spectrophotometric experiment is carried out, affecting the accu-
racy of methods such as total phenols (Escarpa, 2012; Lino et al., 2014;
Souza, Calegari, Zarbin, Marcolino-Júnior, & Bergamini, 2011). In
contrast, the use of electrochemical techniques as an indication of the
total reducing power of the sample, allows for quicker, simpler mea-
surements without the use of expensive reagents and with reduced
2017; Lino et al., 2014).
The electrochemical index (EI) concept was first proposed by the
Escarpa group (Blasco, González, & Escarpa, 2004; Escarpa, 2012), by
taking into account the voltammetric parameters: the anodic peak po-
tential (Epa) and the anodic peak current (Ipa) independently. Thus,
since the lower is the potential (thermodynamic parameter), the higher
is the electron donor ability; likewise, the higher is the peak current
(kinetic and concentration parameter), the higher is the electron
transfer rate and/or the number of electroactive species (Makhotkina &
Kilmartin, 2009). The determination of the EI is based on measuring the
current and potential of each anodic peak in a differential pulse vol-
tammetry, and perform a summation of the i/E ratio using the following
equation:
Ipa1 Ipa2 Ipan
EI = + + ⋯+
Epa1 Epa2 Epan (1)
Where Ipa1 is the anodic current of peak 1, and Epa1 is the anodic
potential of the same peak. Results are expressed as µA/mV.
The method is advantageous in colored samples by not involving
spectrophotometric measurements. However, considering that the EI
requires the use of a punctual value of current, it does not contemplate
the total amount of oxidizable species that are present in a sample,
nevertheless, the voltammetric charge is produced by all the oxidizable

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jose.contrerasc@udea.edu.co (J. Contreras-Calderón).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.06.044
Received 31 March 2018; Received in revised form 5 June 2018; Accepted 9 June 2018
0308-8146/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Hoyos-Arbeláez et al.
species at the experimental conditions (Bard & Faulkner, 2001). It is
also important to consider that the electrochemical method involves the
analysis of the response of species that are electrochemically active
under the experimental conditions: electrode material, supporting
electrolyte, pH.
The EI is usually used as a comparison tool between large amounts
of samples, e.g., wines (Lino et al., 2014), coffee (Oliveira-Neto et al.,
2016), and red fruits extracts (de Macêdo et al., 2017), but there is no a
direct comparison between the samples and selected standards like is
done in the spectrophotometric assays.
As the subject of study, mango fruit (Mangifera indica L. cv. Hilacha)
was chosen. This fruit is recognized as a source of vitamins (Ascorbic
acid, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and beta-carotene), and for its anti-
oxidant properties, related to the presence of polyphenols in different
parts of the fruit (pulp, peel, seed) and tree (Ajila & Prasada Rao, 2013;
Asif et al., 2016; Ribeiro & Schieber, 2010; Serna-Cock, García-
Gonzales, & Torres-León, 2016; Shah, Patel, Patel, & Parmar, 2010;
Torres-León et al., 2016). In Colombia, mango is an important con-
sumption fruit. In 2016, 262,493 tonnes of mango were produced, used
for human consumption and industrial processing (Agriculture, 2016),
a process in which only the pulp (45%–50% of the fruit) is used, gen-
erating around 131,247 tonnes of waste including shell, seed, and pulp
attached to both (Mejía Giraldo, Martínez Correa, Betancourt Gutiérrez,
& Castrillón Castaño, 2007). Taking into account the great biodiversity
that Colombia presents, the availability of edible fruits is very broad. In
this case, mango was selected as a study model for the available in-
formation on its antioxidant properties.
The electrochemical technique has been slightly used in fruits
(Baldeón et al., 2015; Piovesan, Jost, & Spinelli, 2015) and little or
nothing has been done in mango, which facilitates the analysis of this
type of raw materials that are being more analyzed due to the tendency
of healthy eating (Bigliardi & Galati, 2013; Vasilescu & Marty, 2016),
and therefore it can provide important information that allows for the
valorization of the by-products of fruit processing (a possible use a raw
material for food, cosmetic, or pharmaceutical industries). The main
contribution of this work lies in the extension of spectrophotometric
assays’ methodology into the electrochemical method using the vol-
tammetric charge instead of the i/E ratio.
It is possible to apply the same analytical approach used in the
spectrophotometric determination of antioxidant capacity in the elec-
trochemical methods with the intention of homogenizing the data
presentation to facilitate the parallelization or correlation between
different methods.
In this work, the objective was to determine EI of mango pulp, peel,
and seed extract in order to evaluate if the results obtained by this
technique are comparable to those obtained with the usual spectro-
photometrical methods.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Chemical reagents
2.2′-Azino-bis(3-ethylbenzenothiazoline6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS), 6-
Hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox), 1,1-
diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Folin-Ciocalteu reagent was purchased from Merck, Gallic Acid (GA)
and potassium peroxodisulphate were PANREAC, sodium carbonate,
acetic acid, boric acid, phosphoric acid, methanol, acetone, and other
reagents used were analytical grade.
2.2. Fruit samples
Mango fruits (Mangifera indica L. cv. Hilacha) at eating ripeness
were purchased in a local market, rinsed with tap water. 50 mango
units were randomly taken and the pulp, the peel, and the seed were
separated for each one. The resulting fractions for each part of the
436
Food Chemistry 266 (2018) 435–440
mango were manually combined and homogenized and subjected to
drying processes. Pulp and peel samples were lyophilized (LABCONCO,
FreeZone 6 Plus, at 0.140 mBar, −85 °C for 72 h) for conservation
purposes. Seed samples (endocarp and kernel) were dried at 65 °C
overnight and triturated using an Oster blender. The dry samples were
stored in a desiccator protected from light until extraction was carried
out.
2.3. Extract preparation
The different extracts (pulp, peel, and seed) were obtained using the
method described by Contreras-Calderón, Calderón-Jaimes, Guerra-
Hernández, and García-Villanova (2011) with slight modifications. 1 g
of each sample was placed in a capped centrifuge tube and 8 mL of
acidic methanol–water (50:50, v/v pH 2) were added, after which the
tube was vortexed for 1 min at normal atmosphere (Vortex V1 plus,
BOECO) and sonicated (Ultrasound ELMA E30H) for 15 min at room
temperature. The tube was then centrifuged at 6000 RPM (Hettchin
Zentrifugen, EBA 20) for 15 min and the supernatant was recovered.
This procedure was repeated 3 times. After that, 8 mL of acetone-water
(70:30) was added to the residue, followed by stirring, sonication, and
centrifugation. This procedure was also repeated 3 times. The super-
natants were combined and transferred to a 50 mL volumetric flask, and
milli-Q water was added to make the final volume 50 mL. The extracts
were stored at −20 °C.
2.4. ABTS assay
The ABTS assay was performed following Re et al. (1999). 100 μL of
the test sample, diluted 1:10, 1:60, and 1:90 for pulp, peel, and seed
extract respectively with milli-Q water, or Trolox standard was mixed
with 1 mL of ABTS+% solution and incubated at 30 °C/30 min. Absor-
bance readings at 730 nm (UV/VIS-Genesys 10S). Aqueous solutions of
Trolox concentrations (between 0 and 200 µM) were used for calibra-
tion. Results were expressed as micromoles of Trolox equivalents (TEs)
per gram of dry weight (μmol of TEs/g DW).
2.5. DPPH assay
The DPPH assay was performed following Alam et al. (2013) with a
slight modification. 100 μL of the test sample was mixed with 500 μL of
methanol and 200 μL of DPPH solution (0.5 mM) and kept for 30 min at
room temperature in the dark. Absorbance readings at 517 nm were
taken (UV/VIS-Genesys 10S). Aqueous solutions of Trolox concentra-
tions (between 0 and 500 µM) were used for calibration. Results were
expressed as μmol of TEs/g DW.
2.6. Total phenolics (TP)
The total phenolic content was determined using the
Folin–Ciocalteau assay (Contreras-Calderón et al., 2016) with a slight
modification. 20 μL of the test sample, diluted 1:2 for peel and seed
extract with milli-Q water, or Gallic Acid (GA) standard was mixed with
1580 μL of water, 100 μL Folin–Ciocalteu reagent and 300 μL of 20%
sodium carbonate solution. The mixture was stirred and kept for 60 min
at room temperature in the dark. The absorbance was measured at
725 nm against the blank (UV/VIS-Genesys 10S). Aqueous solutions of
GA (between 0 and 500 ppm) were used for calibration. Results were
expressed as mg of GA equivalents (GAEs) per g of dry weight (mg of
GAEs/g DW).
2.7. Electrochemical method
The electrochemical experiments were carried out using an Autolab
PGSTAT 101 potentiostat controlled by Nova 1.11 software (Metrohm,
The Netherlands). A conventional three-electrode configuration cell
J. Hoyos-Arbeláez et al.
was used, which includes a glassy carbon electrode (GCE) as the
working electrode, an Ag|AgCl|KClsat as a reference electrode, and a Pt
wire as counter electrode. Differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) was
used to calculate the EI for each sample.
GCEs were mechanically polished using alumina powder (1 µm,
0.3 µm, and 0.05 µm) for 1 min each, and then were rinsed with
abundant deionized water to eliminate any alumina residue. Finally,
the electrode was activated by cyclic voltammetry between −0.3 V and
1.0 V (vs Ag/AgCl) until a steady response was obtained. The scan rate
used was 100 mV.s−1, in Britton-Robinson buffer (BRB) 0.04 M at pH 5.
For electrochemical experiments, the extracts were diluted in BRB
in order to reach the proportion 2:3 (extract:buffer) mL (Lino et al.,
2014).
To the obtained voltammograms, the baseline was corrected using
the “moving average” algorithm available in the Nova 1.11 software.
After baseline was corrected, determination of the voltammetric charge
(Q) was carried out.
The Trolox and GA voltammograms were obtained doing small
additions of a standard solution of known concentration to a cell con-
taining BRB 0.04 M at pH 5, and then recalculating the concentration in
the measurement cell.
2.8. Statistical analysis
All antioxidants spectrophotometric assays were carried 10 times
for each extract, the electrochemical assays were carried 6 times for
each extract. Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation
(SD). To determine the correlation between the antioxidant capacity
methods and the electrochemical method, Pearson's correlation coeffi-
cients were calculated. All analyses were performed using Statgraphics®
Centurion XVI, (Statpoint Technologies, Inc., USA).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Spectrophotometric determination of antioxidant capacity
Table 1 shows the results of antioxidant capacity obtained by the
different spectrophotometric techniques. It can be observed that for all
methods, there is a clear trend in which the seed extract is the one with
the highest antioxidant capacity, followed by the extract of the peel and
pulp respectively. A possible explanation for this trend would have to
consider the total phenol content in each extract, but this would not
explain the observed behavior between seed and peel. It is known that
the mango peel contains colored pigments that can interfere with the
measurement, leading to an overestimation (Ajila, Bhat, & Prasada Rao,
2007; Serna-Cock et al., 2016). Likewise, the Folin method is based on a
very generic reduction reaction, which means that a large number of
substances of a non-phenolic nature can interfere in this test, resulting
in high concentrations (Prior, Wu, & Schaich, 2005). The presence of
polyphenols, but also of other types of metabolites, which have radical
scavenging capacity and electrochemical activity, must be taken into
account in each part, e.g. in mango seed, the presence of a wide variety
of bioactive compounds has been reported including phenolic acids
(among which is Pentagalloylglucose), terpenoids, and mineral anti-
oxidants (Ribeiro & Schieber, 2010; Torres-León et al., 2016, 2017). In
Table 1
Antioxidant capacity (ABTS and DPPH), TP for all the extracts.
Extract ABTS (µmol TEs/ DPPH (µmol TEs/ Total Phenols
g DW) g DW) (mg GAEs/g DW)
Pulp 33.87 ± 0.56a 65.77 ± 2.56a 0.39 ± 0.02a
Peel 516.79 ± 6.85b 551.57 ± 3.05b 4.59 ± 0.17b
Seed 726.42 ± 14.42c 773.72 ± 7.92c 4.59 ± 0.16b
Mean value ± standard deviation of dry weight; n = 10. a, b, c means there
are statistically significatively differences between values in the same column.
437
Food Chemistry 266 (2018) 435–440
the peel has been reported the presence of ferulic acid, syringic acid,
rutin, among other (Ajila & Prasada Rao, 2013; Asif et al., 2016; Serna-
Cock et al., 2016). While in the pulp these same types of compounds
have been reported in addition to carotenoid compounds and ascorbic
acid, so the difference observed could be associated with the con-
centration of the metabolites in seed, peel, and pulp (Corrales-Bernal,
Maldonado, Urango, Franco, & Rojano, 2014; Ribeiro & Schieber,
2010).
The values for antioxidant capacity obtained in this work are in the
range comparable with other studies reported for the same matrixes
(varieties Haden, Tommy Atkins, Palmer, Ubá, and sugar mango) of
study that obtained 0.09–2.08 mg GAE/g for pulp (Corrales-Bernal
et al., 2014; Ribeiro & Schieber, 2010; Rocha Ribeiro, Queiroz, Lopes
Ribeiro de Queiroz, Campos, & Pinheiro Sant’Ana, 2007). However, are
different from those that report values of 82.54 mg GAE/g for mango
seed (Torres-León et al., 2016), and 54.6 mg GAE/g for mango peel
(Serna-Cock et al., 2016) possibly due to the variability in the con-
centration of metabolites in fruits that is affected by factors such as
climate, fertilizer, among others (Bindi, Fibbi, & Miglietta, 2001;
Hathout Bassim & Pecket, 1975) or that the extraction methods were
not the same, the reported methods include microwave-assisted ex-
traction, supercritical fluid extraction, and a mixture of methanol:
water (60:40; v/v).
3.2. Electrochemical method
Fig. 1 shows the differential pulse voltammograms obtained for the
different extracts. In them, two main oxidation peaks can be observed
for all the extracts (0.445 and 0.550 V), which may be due to the oxi-
dation of the catechol group present in many of the polyphenols found
in the matrices studied. In this regard, it is interesting to consider the
signal of a polyphenol used as a reference, Gallic Acid, which under the
conditions studied presents a typical signal at 0.450 V (see Fig. 2A).
This does not imply that it is the only functional group present in the
studied matrix that can be oxidized at such potential. Another aspect to
consider is that a synergistic effect may be present between the meta-
bolites in the extract (terpenoids, mineral antioxidants) which can be
also responsible for the observed signals, hindering the particular as-
signment of each of the peaks. The antioxidant capacity of an extract is
not given by the sum of the antioxidant capacities of each of its com-
ponents. The compounds interact with each other, producing sy-
nergistic or inhibitory effects (Kuskoski, Asuero, Troncoso, Mancini-
Fig. 1. Differential pulse voltammograms for pulp, peel, and seed extracts in
BRB pH 5 and conditions, potential range −0.3 to 1.0 V, ΔEs = 5 mV, mod-
ulation amplitude = 25 mV, modulation time = 50 ms, and interval
time = 0.5 s.
J. Hoyos-Arbeláez et al. Food Chemistry 266 (2018) 435–440

Fig. 2. A) DPV for Gallic Acid solutions of different concentrations. Inset: calibration curve (Charge vs concentration). B) DPV for Trolox solutions of different
concentrations. Inset: calibration curve (Charge vs concentration).

Filho, & Fett, 2005). Table 2

When antioxidant capacity is analyzed using electrochemical tech- Voltammetric charge for all the extracts expressed in equivalent units.
niques, the obtained results will not be completely comparable with the Extract Q (µC) Q (µmol TEs/g of DW) Q (mg GAE/g DW)
results obtained with the spectrophotometric methods because the re-
actions that occur in the last ones occur in a homogeneous phase where Pulp 0.192 ± 0.003a 17.04 ± 1.51a 2.37 ± 0.27a
Peel 0.273 ± 0.009a 29.66 ± 6.89b 3.70 ± 0.79b
molecules that can reduce the synthetic radicals used in these methods,
Seed 0.606 ± 0.005b 54.38 ± 2.76c 6.52 ± 0.32c
but these molecules do not necessarily have the same behavior upon the
surface of the electrode (heterogeneous phase) or they cannot oxidize Mean value ± standard deviation of dry weight; n = 6. a, b, c means there are
under the conditions in which the electrochemical analysis was carried statistically significatively differences between values in the same column.
out.
Considering the above, EI was determined using Eq. (1) and values As observed in the obtained results, in terms of statistically sig-
of 4.56, 5.75, and 8.56 µA/mV were obtained for pulp, peel, and seed nificant differences, they follow the same trend as the spectro-
respectively. After statistical analysis, EI values for pulp and peel photometric methods. The use of voltammetric charge expressed in
showed no statistically significant differences although they retain the Trolox and GA equivalent units, even separates the statistical groups of
trend obtained in spectrophotometric methods. As observed, because of pulp and peel, i.e. using the voltammetric charge, there are statistically
the EI units, it is not possible to analyze together or compare with the significant differences between pulp and peel.
spectrophotometric results. The Q values presented in equivalent units of Trolox and GA allow
Taking into consideration previous works that have used the vol- to analyze the behavior of the samples (extracts) in comparative terms
tammetric charge in the determination of antioxidant capacity of how they would behave electrochemically with respect to the stan-
(Ferreira, Greco, Delarmelina, & Weber, 2015; Medeiros, Rocha-Filho, dards used, that is, for the case of the pulp, the extract has a charge
& Fatibello-Filho, 2010; Piljac-Žegarac, Valek, Stipčević, & Martinez, value equivalent to the value of the charge that would have a solution
2010), the variation of this parameter was analyzed instead of the of 31.69 mg/kg of GA (equivalent to 2.37 mg of GAE/g DW in the dry
electrochemical index, and as in the spectrophotometric methods, they sample) or a solution of 241.0 μM of Trolox (equivalent to
were compared with reference standards. Trolox and GA were chosen as 17.04 μmol TE/g DW in the dry sample).
standards for this purpose. Souza et al. (2011) performed a calibration Table 3 shows the Pearson correlations for each pair of variables,
curve of GA by the method of addition of standard obtaining a good indicating that the electrochemical method has a statistically significant
linearity. However, there are no reports of calibration curves by an (p < 0.01) correlation with all the spectrophotometric methods eval-
electrochemical method for Trolox. uated in this study. Comparing the result of the correlation between Q
Fig. 2A and B show the differential pulse voltammograms obtained and spectrophotometric assays and EI with the spectrophotometric
for solutions of GA and Trolox, respectively, of different concentration,
in which, for GA, the typical oxidation signals of this compound due to
Table 3
electrochemical formation of o-quinone from the catechol group pre-
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between spectrophotometric and electro-
sent in its structure are observed (Abdel-Hamid & Newair, 2011; chemical methods.
Panizza & Cerisola, 2009). And for the case of the Trolox, a signal
Q TE Q GAE ABTS DPPH T. Phenols EI
corresponding to the oxidation of the phenol group present in its
structure is observed (Kotani, Odagiri, Takamura, & Kusu, 2008). The Q 0.9316a 0.9451a 0.8523a 0.8610a 0.6932b 0.9658a
Trolox and GA’s voltammetric charge response used for preparing the Q TE 0.9959a 0.9281a 0.9354a 0.8083a 0.9463a
calibration curve can be observed in the insets of Fig. 2. As observed, Q GAE 0.9285a 0.9350a 0.8217c 0.9626a
satisfactory correlation’s coefficients (R2) are obtained (0.9941 and ABTS 0.9993a 0.9457a 0.8920a
DPPH 0.9464a 0.8996a
0.9924 for Trolox and GA respectively). T. Phenols 0.7936c
Using the calibration curves presented in Fig. 2A and B, the charge
a
value is calculated in equivalent units of Trolox and GA in order to Significant at p < 0.001.
b
unify units and facilitate comparison, as far as possible, with other Significant at p < 0.002.
c
methods. The obtained information is presented in Table 2. Significant at p < 0.01.

438
J. Hoyos-Arbeláez et al.
methods, we notice that the electrochemical method using the vol-
tammetric charge expressed in equivalent units has greater coefficients
than the EI method. This could be due to the fact that voltammetric
charge considers the contribution of all the faradaic processes occurring
in the analysis window, while the EI, as presented in the definition, only
considers the maximum current and the potential of the peaks present
in the voltammogram. The good correlation between the methods may
be due to the similarity in the mechanism by which the reaction is
given, the spectrophotometric methods studied are classified as single
electron transfer (SET) (Alam et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2005), while
the oxidation of the catechol group and oxidizable metallic species
(which are responsible for the main processes observed in the voltam-
mograms) involves the transfer of electrons and protons (Timbola, De
Souza, Giacomelli, & Spinelli, 2006). Although it should be noted that
this comparison is between methods involving reactions in homo-
geneous phase (spectrophotometric) with a method that involves a re-
action in heterogeneous phase (electrochemical). The last one can be
influenced by the nature of the electrode material, reaction mechanism,
pH, etc.
4. Conclusions
The antioxidant capacity of the mango varies according to the part
of the fruit that was analyzed, being the greater capacity in the seed and
the smaller capacity in the pulp. When comparing the different methods
of determination of antioxidant capacity, it is verified that with the
electrochemical method the same trend is obtained and the correlation
was significant with all spectrophotometric methods.
It is important to consider that all methods, both spectro-
photometric and electrochemical, measure or evaluate different as-
pects, although similarities between them, trends, and behaviors can be
discussed.
Although the measurement of the total voltammetric charge is not a
selective determination, it gives an idea of all the oxidizable species on
the surface of the electrode under these conditions.
The similarity obtained in the studies confirms the electrochemical
method as a suitable complement to determine the antioxidant capa-
city, and its usefulness, being a method less expensive, simple, and
faster, to analyze food matrices.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that have no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by the Committee for Development of
Research – CODI University of Antioquia, Colombia [Project number
CPT-1233]; the Administrative Department of Science, Technology, and
Innovation – Colciencias, Colombia [Convocatoria 727 de 2015] and
Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento para la Ciencia, la Tecnología y la
Innovación “Francisco José de Caldas”.
Acknowledgments
JHA and MVV would like to thank the Committee for the
Development of Research-CODI-University of Antioquia for the support
of the project CPT-1233.
JHA and LBN would like to thank the Departamento Administrativo
de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación – COLCIENCIAS for the doctoral
scholarship and Fondo Nacional de financiamiento para la Ciencia, la
tecnología y la innovación “Francisco José de Caldas” for the financial
support.
439
Food Chemistry 266 (2018) 435–440
References
Abdel-Hamid, R., & Newair, E. F. (2011). Electrochemical behavior of antioxidants: I.
Mechanistic study on electrochemical oxidation of gallic acid in aqueous solutions at
glassy-carbon electrode. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 657(1–2), 107–112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelechem.2011.03.030.
Agriculture, D. of. (2016). Producción nacional por producto - Mango. Retrieved May 23,
2018, from http://www.agronet.gov.co/estadistica/Paginas/default.aspx.
Ajila, C. M., Bhat, S. G., & Prasada Rao, U. J. S. (2007). Valuable components of raw and
ripe peels from two Indian mango varieties. Food Chemistry, 102(4), 1006–1011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.06.036.
Ajila, C. M., & Prasada Rao, U. J. S. (2013). Mango peel dietary fibre: Composition and
associated bound phenolics. Journal of Functional Foods, 5(1), 444–450. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jff.2012.11.017.
Alam, M. N., Bristi, N. J., & Rafiquzzaman, M. (2013). Review on in vivo and in vitro
methods evaluation of antioxidant activity. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 21(2),
143–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2012.05.002.
Asif, A., Farooq, U., Akram, K., Hayat, Z., Shafi, A., Sarfraz, F., ... Aftab, S. (2016).
Therapeutic potentials of bioactive compounds from mango fruit wastes. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 53, 102–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.05.
004.
Baldeón, E. O., Alcañiz, M., Masot, R., Fuentes, E. M., Barat, J. M., & Grau, R. (2015).
Voltammetry pulse array developed to determine the antioxidant activity of ca-
mu–camu (Myrciaria dubia (H.B.K.) McVaug) and tumbo (Passiflora mollisima
(Kunth) L.H. Bailey) juices employing voltammetric electronic tongues. Food Control,
54, 181–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.01.044.
Bard, A. J., & Faulkner, L. R. (2001). Electrochemical methods. Fundamentals and applica-
tions(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley-VCH. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
381373-2.00056-9.
Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2013). Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of
functional foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 31(2), 118–129. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.03.006.
Bindi, M., Fibbi, L., & Miglietta, F. (2001). Free air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) of grapevine
(Vitis vinifera L.): II. Growth and quality of grape and wine in response to elevated
CO2 concentrations. European Journal of Agronomy, 14(2), 145–155. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00093-9.
Blasco, A. J., González, M. C., & Escarpa, A. (2004). Electrochemical approach for dis-
criminating and measuring predominant flavonoids and phenolic acids using differ-
ential pulse voltammetry: Towards an electrochemical index of natural antioxidants.
Analytica Chimica Acta, 511(1), 71–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2004.01.
038.
Contreras-Calderón, J., Calderón-Jaimes, L., Guerra-Hernández, E., & García-Villanova, B.
(2011). Antioxidant capacity, phenolic content and vitamin C in pulp, peel, and seed
from 24 exotic fruits from Colombia. Food Research International, 44(7), 2047–2053.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.11.003.
Contreras-Calderón, J., Mejía-Díaz, D., Martínez-Castaño, M., Bedoya-Ramírez, D., López-
Rojas, N., Gómez-Narváez, F., ... Vega-Castro, O. (2016). Evaluation of antioxidant
capacity in coffees marketed in Colombia: Relationship with the extent of non-en-
zymatic browning. Food Chemistry, 209, 162–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2016.04.038.
Corrales-Bernal, A., Maldonado, M. E., Urango, L. A., Franco, M. C., & Rojano, B. A.
(2014). Mango de azúcar (Mangifera indica), variedad de Colombia: características
antioxidantes, nutricionales y sensoriales. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, 41(3),
312–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-75182014000300013.
de Macêdo, I. Y. L., Garcia, L. F., Oliveira Neto, J. R., de Siqueira Leite, K. C., Ferreira, V.
S., Ghedini, P. C., & de Souza Gil, E. (2017). Electroanalytical tools for antioxidant
evaluation of red fruits dry extracts. Food Chemistry, 217, 326–331. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.08.082.
Escarpa, A. (2012). Food electroanalysis: Sense and simplicity. The Chemical Record,
12(1), 72–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tcr.201100033.
Ferreira, R de Q., Greco, S. J., Delarmelina, M., & Weber, K. C. (2015). Electrochemical
quantification of the structure/antioxidant activity relationship of flavonoids.
Electrochimica Acta, 163, 161–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2015.02.
164.
Hathout Bassim, T. A., & Pecket, R. C. (1975). The effect of membrane stabilizers on
phytochrome-controlled anthocyanin biosynthesis in Brassica oleracea.
Phytochemistry, 14(3), 731–733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0031-9422(75)83023-8.
Hoyos-Arbeláez, J., Vázquez, M., & Contreras-Calderón, J. (2017). Electrochemical
methods as a tool for determining the antioxidant capacity of food and beverages: A
review. Food Chemistry, 221, 1371–1381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.
2016.11.017.
Huang, D., Boxin, O. U., & Prior, R. L. (2005). The chemistry behind antioxidant capacity
assays. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(6), 1841–1856. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1021/jf030723c.
Kotani, A., Odagiri, M., Takamura, K., & Kusu, F. (2008). Voltammetric behavior of trolox
in the presence of amino acid in unbuffered dimethylsulfoxide. Journal of
Electroanalytical Chemistry, 624(1–2), 323–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jelechem.2008.07.016.
Kuskoski, E. M., Asuero, A. G., Troncoso, A. M., Mancini-Filho, J., & Fett, R. (2005).
Aplicación de diversos métodos químicos para determinar actividad antioxidante en
pulpa de frutos. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, 25(4), 726–732. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1590/S0101-20612005000400016.
Lino, F. M. A., De Sá, L. Z., Torres, I. M. S., Rocha, M. L., Dinis, T. C. P., Ghedini, P. C., ...
Gil, E. S. (2014). Voltammetric and spectrometric determination of antioxidant ca-
pacity of selected wines. Electrochimica Acta, 128, 25–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
J. Hoyos-Arbeláez et al.
j.electacta.2013.08.109.
Makhotkina, O., & Kilmartin, P. A. (2009). Uncovering the influence of antioxidants on
polyphenol oxidation in wines using an electrochemical method: Cyclic voltammetry.
Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 633(1), 165–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jelechem.2009.05.007.
Medeiros, R. A., Rocha-Filho, R. C., & Fatibello-Filho, O. (2010). Simultaneous voltam-
metric determination of phenolic antioxidants in food using a boron-doped diamond
electrode. Food Chemistry, 123(3), 886–891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.
2010.05.010.
Mejía Giraldo, L. F., Martínez Correa, H. A., Betancourt Gutiérrez, J. E., & Castrillón
Castaño, C. E. (2007). Usage of the common mango agroindustrial waste (Mangifera
indica L.) in the distraction of fermentables sugars. Retrieved from Ingeniería y
Ciencia, 3(6), 41–62. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=zbh
&AN=32518410&lang=es&site=ehost-live.
Oliveira-Neto, J. R., Rezende, S. G., de Fátima Reis, C., Benjamin, S. R., Rocha, M. L., & de
Souza Gil, E. (2016). Electrochemical behavior and determination of major phenolic
antioxidants in selected coffee samples. Food Chemistry, 190, 506–512. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.05.104.
Oroian, M., & Escriche, I. (2015). Antioxidants: Characterization, natural sources, ex-
traction, and analysis. Food Research International, 74, 10–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.foodres.2015.04.018.
Panizza, M., & Cerisola, G. (2009). Electrochemical degradation of gallic acid on a BDD
anode. Chemosphere, 77(8), 1060–1064. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.
2009.09.007.
Piljac-Žegarac, J., Valek, L., Stipčević, T., & Martinez, S. (2010). Electrochemical de-
termination of antioxidant capacity of fruit tea infusions. Food Chemistry, 121(3),
820–825. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.12.090.
Piovesan, J. V., Jost, C. L., & Spinelli, A. (2015). Electroanalytical determination of total
phenolic compounds by square-wave voltammetry using a poly(vinylpyrrolidone)-
modified carbon-paste electrode. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 216, 192–197.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2015.04.031.
Pradeep, S. R., & Guha, M. (2011). Effect of processing methods on the nutraceutical and
antioxidant properties of little millet (Panicum sumatrense) extracts. Food Chemistry,
126(4), 1643–1647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.12.047.
Prior, R. L., Wu, X., & Schaich, K. (2005). Standardized methods for the determination of
antioxidant capacity and phenolics in foods and dietary supplements. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53(10), 4290–4302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
jf0502698.
440
Food Chemistry 266 (2018) 435–440
Re, R., Pellegrini, N., Proteggente, A., Pannala, A., Yang, M., & Rice-Evans, C. (1999).
Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay.
Free Radical Biology and Medicine, 26(9–10), 1231–1237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0891-5849(98)00315-3.
Ribeiro, S. M. R., & Schieber, A. (2010). Bioactive compounds in mango (Mangifera indica
L.). Bioactive foods in promoting health: Fruits and vegetableshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-374628-3.00034-7.
Rocha Ribeiro, S. M., Queiroz, J. H., Lopes Ribeiro de Queiroz, M. E., Campos, F. M., &
Pinheiro Sant’Ana, H. M. (2007). Antioxidant in Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Pulp.
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 62(1), 13–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11130-
006-0035-3.
Serna-Cock, L., García-Gonzales, E., & Torres-León, C. (2016). Agro-industrial potential of
the mango peel based on its nutritional and functional properties. Food Reviews
International, 32(4), 364–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2015.1094815.
Shah, K. A., Patel, M. B., Patel, R. J., & Parmar, P. K. (2010). Mangifera Indica (Mango).
Pharmacognosy Reviews, 4(7), 42–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-7847.65325.
Singleton, V. L., Orthofer, R., & Lamuela-Raventós, R. M. (1999). Analysis of total phenols
and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of folin-ciocalteu reagent.
Methods in Enzymology, 299(1974), 152–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0076-
6879(99)99017-1.
Souza, L. P., Calegari, F., Zarbin, A. J. G., Marcolino-Júnior, L. H., & Bergamini, M. F.
(2011). Voltammetric determination of the antioxidant capacity in wine samples
using a carbon nanotube modified electrode. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 59(14), 7620–7625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf2005589.
Timbola, A. K., De Souza, C. D., Giacomelli, C., & Spinelli, A. (2006). Electrochemical
oxidation of quercetin in hydro-alcoholic solution. Journal of the Brazilian Chemical
Society, 17(1), 139–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-50532006000100020.
Torres-León, C., Rojas, R., Contreras-Esquivel, J. C., Serna-Cock, L., Belmares-Cerda, R. E.,
& Aguilar, C. N. (2016). Mango seed: Functional and nutritional properties. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 55, 109–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.06.
009.
Torres-León, C., Ventura-Sobrevilla, J., Serna-Cock, L., Ascacio-Valdés, J. A., Contreras-
Esquivel, J., & Aguilar, C. N. (2017). Pentagalloylglucose (PGG): A valuable phenolic
compound with functional properties. Journal of Functional Foods, 37, 176–189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2017.07.045.
Vasilescu, A., & Marty, J.-L. (2016). Electrochemical aptasensors for the assessment of
food quality and safety. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 79, 2–4. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.trac.2015.11.024.