Acta Chimica Slovaca (ACS) publishes papers on fundamental and applied aspects of chemistry, biochemistry, chemical technology, chemical engineering and process control, biotechnology and food technology. Welcome are also topics which include chemical aspects of materials, physical chemistry and chemical physics, analytical chemistry, macromolecular chemistry and biomedical engineering.

Buckwheat cultivars — phenolic compounds profiles and antioxidant properties

Anna Mikulajová *, Dominika Šedivá, Eva Hybenová, Silvia Mošovská

Department of Nutrition and Food Quality Assessment, Institute of Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology, Slovak University of Technology, Radlinského 9, Bratislava, 812 37, Slovak Republic

E-mail: *

Abstract: Common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) and tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum) cultivars originating in different world countries were investigated and compared for their quantitative and qualitative abundance of phenolics and flavonoids. Moreover, the antioxidant properties were tested using two different methods. The total phenolic and total flavonoid content ranged from 0.897 to 4.226 mg GAE g–1 dw and from 0.238 to 4.626 mg rutin g–1 dw, respectively. Flavonoids — rutin, quercetin, and hydroxybenzoic acids — gallic, protocatechuic, vanillic and syringic were identified and quantified. Rutin was the most abundant flavonoid and protocatechuic acid was the most abundant phenolic acid in evaluated cultivars. All cultivars showed significant antiradical properties, but their chelating activity was weak. The German cultivar of tartary buckwheat Lifago had significantly higher phenolic content and better antioxidant properties than other cultivars. The content of rutin was 24 times higher and free radicals scavenging activity about 70 % higher than the average value of other cultivars.

Keywords: buckwheat, cultivars, flavonoids, phenolic acids, antioxidant activity

Full paper in Portable Document Format: acs_0252.pdf

Acta Chimica Slovaca, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2016, pp. 124—129, DOI: 10.1515/acs-2016-0021