Comparative Bio-Active Compounds Determination and In Vitro Antioxidant Properties of Newly Developed Soy Mixed Wheat Flour and Traditional Wheat Flour

Figures & data

TABLE 1 Spectrophotmetric determination of the phytochemicals of both SMWF and TWF extracts (n = 3)

Parameters	Reference standard	Linear equation of Reference standard where x is absorbance and y is concentration	R^2 value	Quantity in mg/100 gm fresh flour (n = 3)
				SMWF	TWF
Total phenolics	Gallic acid	y = 142.0x – 0.034	0.999	59.74 ± 0.46	18.84 ± 0.27**
Total flavonoid	Catechin	y = 355.2.0x – 7.167	0.994	26.48 ± 0.48	14.97 ± 0.81*
Total tannin	Tannic acid	y = 193.9x – 0.562	0.998	7.03 ± 0.46	3.04 ± 0.10*
Totalproanthocyanidins	Catechin	y = 2060x + 6.315	0.987	12.41 ± 1.36	Absent

*Mean is significant at p < 0.01; **mean is significant at p < 0.001.

TABLE 2 Contents of polyphenolic compounds in the methanol extract of the SMWF (n = 5)

Name of phenolics compounds	Content in mg/100 dry extract
(+)-Catechin	9.20 ± 0.06
Vanillic acid	11.31 ± 0.13
Caffeic acid	9.72 ± 0.10
(−)-Epicatechin	166.42 ± 2.47
p-Coumaric acid	3.35 ± 0.16
Rutin	39.44 ± 1.38
Ellagic acid	727.18 ± 2.66

TABLE 3 Determination of total antioxidant capacity in phosphomolyb-denum method and FRAP assay

Parameters	Regression equation and R^2 value of standard compunds	Quantitative value
		Soy mixed wheat flour	Traditional wheat flour
Phosphomolyb-denum method	y = 126.0x + 10.26, where x is absorbance and y is ascorbic acid content in microgram, R^2 = 0.999	433.35 ± 2.15 mg AAE/100 gm fresh product	311.38 ± 1.14* mg AAE/100 gm fresh product
FRAP assay	y = 0.029x, where x is absorbance and y is gallic acid content in micro mole, R^2 = 0.999	218.93 ± 1.58 µM GAE/100 gm fresh product	94.25 ± 0.90* µM GAE/100 gm fresh product
	y = 0.508x – 0.038, where x is absorbance and y is ascorbic acid content in micro mole, R^2 = 0.991	2.43 ± 0.03 mM AAE/100 gm fresh product	0.88 ± 0.01* mM AAE/100 gm fresh product

*Indicate the p < 0.001 when compared soy mixed wheat flour and traditional wheat flour.

FIGURE 1 (a) Comparative IC 50 analysis of SMWF and TWF in free radical (DPPH, ABTS and DMPD) scavenging assay; (b) Comparative IC 50 analysis of SMWF and TWF in metal chelating activity (p < 0.001); (c) Comparative EC₅₀ analysis of SMWF and TWF in reductive capacity (p < 0.001); (d) Comparative IC₅₀ analysis of SMWF and TWF in super oxide scavenging activity (p < 0.001).