| Title |
Genesis and development of DPPH method of antioxidant assay
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-011-0251-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sagar B. Kedare, R. P. Singh |
| Abstract |
α, α-diphenyl-β-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging method offers the first approach for evaluating the antioxidant potential of a compound, an extract or other biological sources. This is the simplest method, wherein the prospective compound or extract is mixed with DPPH solution and absorbance is recorded after a defined period. However, with the advancement and sophistication in instrumental techniques, the method has undergone various modifications to suit the requirements, even though the basic approach remains same in all of them. This article presents a critical review on various developments to the DPPH method. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Thailand | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3,914 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 4 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Mexico | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 3896 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 751 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 444 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 364 | 9% |
| Researcher | 213 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 128 | 3% |
| Other | 448 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1566 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 529 | 14% |
| Chemistry | 446 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 339 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 322 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 124 | 3% |
| Other | 449 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1705 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 16 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,733,601
of 23,106,934 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#143
of 1,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,160
of 107,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#13
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,106,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 107,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.