↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of antioxidant activities of extracts from 19 Chinese edible flowers

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of antioxidant activities of extracts from 19 Chinese edible flowers
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Youwei Zeng, Maocheng Deng, Zhencheng Lv, Yonghong Peng

Abstract

Extracts of 19 selected edible flowers were investigated for their free radical scavenging activity (FRSA), polyphenolic contents and flavonoid contents in the paper. The results showed the extracts of Paeonia suffruticosa Andr., Paeonia lactiflora Pall., and Rosa rugosa Thunb. possessed obviously stronger DPPH FRSA (94.221 ± 0.102; 93.739 ± 0.424 and 94.244 ± 0.163%, respectively), superoxide FRSA (55.818 ± 1.518; 52.142 ± 1.374 and 57.321 ± 0.608%, respectively), hydroxyl FRSA (85.872 ± 0.873; 89.307 ± 0.803 and 88.560 ± 0.277%, respectively) and polyphenolic contents (96.208 ± 0.689; 87.938 ± 1.187 and 92.164 ± 0.799 mg CE/g, respectively) that were superior or comparable to black and green teas. Polyphenolic contents did correlate well with DPPH FRSA (r = 0.943, P < 0.01), superoxide FRSA (r = 0.833, P < 0.01), and hydroxyl FRSA (r = 0.500, P < 0.05). It indicated that this potent FRSA may be attributed to its phenolic compounds. These findings showed that the tested flowers could be considered as new sources of safe natural antioxidants and preservatives of food industry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Algeria 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 37 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 30%
Chemistry 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 45 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,937,024
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#736
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,835
of 227,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#39
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.