Phytochemical and Antioxidant Profile of Pigmented and Non-Pigmented Rice Cultivars of Arunachal Pradesh, India

Figures & data

TABLE 1 Proximate composition of rice cultivars

Parameters	Lingkang taker ame (LA)	Umling ame (UA)	Pungpo taker ame (PA)
Moisture (%)	11.13 ± 0.02^a	11.01 ± 0.005^b	11.01 ± 0.005^b
Ash (%)	0.97 ± 0.01^b	1.33 ± 0.57^c	0.93 ± 0.05^a
Fat (%)	1.80 ± 0.20^b	2.60 ± 0.19 ^c	1.77 ± 0.06 ^a
Protein (%)	1.95 ± 0.02^c	0.24 ± 0.03^b	0.12 ± 0.02^a
carbohydrate (mg)	79.01 ± 0.16^b	81.37 ± 0.93^c	76.44 ± 0.59^a
Energy value (kJ)	16.34 ± 0.01^c	16.29 ± 0.01^b	16.23 ± 0. 02^a
Amylose content (%)	6.46 ± 0.025^b	11.86 ± 0.04^c	5.30 ± 0.04^a

Means with different letters in the same row indicate that there is a significant difference between samples (p ≤ 0.05) from Duncan’s multiple range test;

Values expressed as mean ± SD (n=3).

TABLE 2 Total phenolic and anthocyanin content of rice cultivars

Rice cultivars	TPC mg GAE/100 g	Anthocynanin content mg cyaniding-3-glucoside Eq/100 g
Lingkang taker ame (LA)	262.30 ± 0.2^b	11.47 ± 0.001^b
Umling ame (UA)	349.30 ± 0.1^c	12.79 ± 0.001^c
Pungpo taker ame (PA)	142.90 ± 0.1^a	1.34 ± 0.001^a

Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3);

Means with different letters in the same row indicate that there is significant difference between samples (p ≤ 0.05) from Duncan’s multiple range tests.

TABLE 3 Antioxidant activity of three rice cultivars

Concentration	Lingkang taker ame (LA)	Umling ame (UA)	Pungpo taker ame (PA)
Reducing power
20	0.04 ± 0.01^a	0.20 ± 0.02^c	0.02 ± 0.01^b
40	0.24 ± 0.002^b	0.27 ± 0.01^c	0.03 ± 0.004^a
60	0.41 ± 0.001^c	0.35 ± 0.002^b	0.05 ± 0.001^a
80	0.44 ± 0.002^c	0.39 ± 0.001^b	0.07 ± 0.01^a
100	0.75 ± 0.02^c	0.64 ± 0.03^b	0.08 ± 0.001^a
Chelating activity
20	37.31 ± 0.01^b	63.04 ± 0.01c	10.23 ± 0.02^a
40	45.35 ± 0.01^b	64.72 ± 0.02^c	20.07 ± 0.01^a
80	54.24 ± 0.02^b	67.60 ± 0.08^c	41.73 ± 0.01^a
160	63.17 ± 0.02^b	68.04 ± 0.03^c	58.58 ± 0.03^a
360	72.33 ± 0.02^b	77.53 ± 0.01^c	58.92 ± 0.2^a
DPPH scavenging activity
20	70.63 ± 0.13^b	81.97 ± 0.27^c	54.97 ± 0.15^a
40	73.32 ± 0.10^b	84.78 ± 0.13^c	59.62 ± 0.07^a
60	76.14 ± 0.04 ^b	82.36 ± 0.19^c	60.15 ± 0.15^a
80	76.76 ± 0.001^b	87.55 ± 0.1^c	63.29 ± 0.3^a
100	76.97 ± 0.15^b	88.48 ± 0.11^c	68.87 ± 0.15^a
Hydrogen peroxide scavenging activity
20	0.68 ± 0.01^b	1.38 ± 0.001^c	0.28 ± 0.01^a
40	0.74 ± 0.002^b	1.49 ± 0.003^c	0.28 ± 0.004^a
60	0.88 ± 0.003^b	1.55 ± 0.002^c	0.45 ± 0.005^a
80	0.95 ± 0.003^b	1.66 ± 0.002^c	0.51 ± 0.002^a
100	1.05 ± 0.008^b	1.88 ± 0.003^b	0.57 ± 0.002^a

Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3); Means with different letters in the same row indicate that there is significant difference between samples (p ≤ 0.05) from Duncan’s multiple range tests.

FIGURE 1 Scavenging Capacity of three rice cultivars LA, UA and PA, a) Reducing activity, b) Chelating activity, c) DPPH activity and d) Hydrogen Peroxide.

TABLE 4 Quantification of predominant phenolic acids present in three rice cultivars

Phenolic acid	Lingkang taker ame (LA) (mg/L)	Umling ame (UA) (mg/L)	Pungpo taker ame (PA) (mg/L)
Quinic acid (a)	611.46 ± 0.01^c	255.46 ± 0.01^b	133.92 ± 0.02^a
Salicylic acid (b)	44.50 ± 0.01^a	302.06 ± 0.03 ^c	231.94 ± 0.02^b
Quercetin (c)	33.27 ± 0.01	NA	NA
Apigenin (d)	0.42 ± 0.02^a	7.03 ± 0.01^b	0.49 ± 0.01^a
Gallic acid (f)	NA	0.98 ± 0.04	NA
Caffeic acid (g)	NA	NA	1.83 ± 0.02
Ferulic acid (e)	NA	17.21 ± 0.02	15.18 ± 0.01

FIGURE 2 Typical FTIR spectra of (a) LA (b) UA and (c) PA.

FIGURE 3 HPLC chromatograms of (a) LA (b) UA and (c) PA.