Research Article

Received: 26 May 2019 Revised: 29 July 2019 Accepted article published: 6 August 2019 Published online in Wiley Online Library:

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.9968

Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity

in sweet potato after heat treatment
Min Young Kim,a Byong Won Lee,a Hyeong-Un Lee,b Yu Young Lee,a
Mi Hyang Kim,a Jin Young Lee,a Byoung Kyu Lee,a Koan Sik Wooc*
and Hyun-Joo Kima*
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability of heat treatment with a soaking solvent to increase soluble phenolic compounds due to the liberation
or breakdown of the cell matrix has been investigated in various plants. This study investigated the changes in phenolic
compounds and antioxidant activities of 12 sweet potato cultivars after heat treatment with distilled water or prethanol A.
RESULTS: The highest total polyphenol content (134.67 mg gallic acid equivalents/g extract residue) and flavonoid content
(65.43 mg catechin equivalents/g extract residue) was observed in the ‘Jami’ (JM) cultivar after heat treatment with prethanol
A. Higher polyphenol and flavonoid content was generally observed in the purple sweet potato cultivars. Salicylic acid was
the major phenolic acid, followed by protocatechuic acid or chlorogenic acid in almost all untreated sweet potato cultivars.
The salicylic acid, vanillic acid, gallic acid, and caffeic acid content of the sweet potatoes increased after the heat treatment,
whereas the protocatechuic acid and chlorogenic acid content decreased. The highest 1,1-Diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and
2,2-azinobis(3-ethyl benzothiazoline)-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) radical scavenging activity levels were observed in the JM cultivar
subjected to heat treatment with prethanol A (48.15 and 80.00 mg TE/g extract residue, respectively).
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that heat treatment with a soaking solvent is an efficient method to enhance the antioxidant
characteristics of Korean sweet potato cultivars.
© 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: sweet potato; heat treatment; polyphenol; phenolic acid; radical scavenging activity

INTRODUCTION processing increases the biological activities of various foods, due

Sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam] is the fifth largest food
crop worldwide, after maize, wheat, rice, and potato. Sweet potato
is rich in many nutritional components, such as starch, protein,
dietary fiber, phenolics, vitamins, and minerals, but has a low fat
content.1 The bioactive compounds in sweet potato roots, such
as phenolics (e.g., chlorogenic, caffeic, and dicaffeoylquinic acids),
carotenoids, polysaccharides, and peptides, have generated inter-
est in the field of human nutrition and have renewed the inter-
est of researchers in the agro-food sector.2 These compounds are
directly responsible for a variety of potential health-promoting
effects exerted by sweet potato roots, including antioxidant,
immunomodulatory, anticancer / antitumor, antimicrobial, antiul-
cer, antidiabetic, antiobesity, and hepatoprotective activities.3–6
Applications of sweet potato have also diversified considerably,
and many researchers have focused on the effects of different
drying and cooking methods on the nutritional composition and
physicochemical properties of sweet potato.1 For example, Tang
et al.,7 compared the effects of different thermal treatments, such
as steaming, roasting, and boiling, on the antioxidant activity of
sweet potatoes. Wang and Kays8 analyzed the effects of baking,
boiling, and microwave treatment on volatile compounds in sweet
potatoes.
Thermal processing is commonly used to ensure the safety and
extend the shelf life of foods packaged in glass jars by provid-
ing commercial sterility.9 Many studies have shown that thermal
to chemical changes that occur during the heat treatment.10–13 In
particular, heat treatment with a soaking solvent, such as ethanol,
has been investigated, given its ability to increase soluble pheno-
lic compounds efficaciously due to breakdown of the cell matrix in
various plants.14
Although heat treatment has been suggested as an efficient
way to increase functional compounds in food materials, and
soaking solvent such as ethanol effectively elute soluble phenolic
compounds, this study is the first to examine the combined effects
of heat treatment with a soaking solvent in various Korean sweet
potato cultivars. The objectives of this study were to investigate
the changes in phenolic compounds and antioxidant activities of
different sweet potato cultivars induced by heat treatment with
∗ Correspondence to: KS Woo, Research Policy Bureau, Rural Development
Administration, Jeonju 55365, Republic of Korea. E-mail: wooks@korea.kr; or
H-J Kim, Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop
Science, Rural Development Administration, Suwon, Gyeonggi 16429, Republic
of Korea. E-mail: tlrtod@korea.kr
a Department of Central Area Crop Science, National Institute of Crop Science,
Rural Development Administration, Suwon, Republic of Korea
b Bioenergy Crop Research Institute, National Institute of Crop Science, Rural
Development Administration, Muan, Republic of Korea
c Research Policy Bureau, Rural Development Administration, Jeonju, Republic of
Korea

J Sci Food Agric (2019) www.soci.org © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

 www.soci.org
water or prethanol A, and to assess more effectively their potential
as sources of functional food for the food industry.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample preparation and extraction
We used the sweet potato cultivars Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam cv.
Yulmi (YM), cv. Jinyulmi (JYM), cv. Jinhongmi (JHM), cv. Hogammi
(HGM), cv. Pungwonmi (PWM), cv. Shinhwangmi (SHM), cv. Juh-
wangmi (JHWM), cv. Jami (JM), cv. Danjami (DJM), cv. Sinjami
(SJM), cv. Yeonjami (YJM), and Beniharuka (BHK). The sweet potato
cultivars were grown at the National Institute of Crop Science,
Rural Development Administration, Muan, South Korea, during the
2017 growing season and stored at 13 ± 1 ∘ C (90% ± 2% humid-
ity). The sweet potato cultivars were washed and cut to 5 × 5 mm.
Each sample was extracted according to the method described by
Hwang et al.,10 Kim et al.,11 and Lee et al.12 Fifty gram samples of cut
sweet potatoes were placed in a pressurized container and sealed
tightly. A 100 mL aliquot of distilled water or 95% prethanol A was
added to the pressurized container as an auxiliary solvent. The
pressurized container with the sweet potatoes was heat treated
in an autoclave (MaXrerile-60; Daihan Scientific Co., Ltd, Wonju,
Gangwon, Republic of Korea). Samples were heated to 120 ∘ C for
2 h. The heat-treated sweet potatoes were put into a 1000 mL
flask. After the addition of 500 mL 80% (v/v) alcohol-water solu-
tion, the flask was homogenized for 20 min using a homogenizer
(HG-15A; Daihan Scientific Co., Ltd), and sonicated at room tem-
perature (25 ∘ C) for 30 min in an ultrasonic bath (frequency, 40 kHz;
power, 265 W; WUC-A10H; Daihan Scientific Co., Ltd). The sample
flask was placed in a shaker (WiseCube WIS-RL010; Daihan Scien-
tific Co., Ltd) and extracted for 24 h at room temperature (25 ∘ C).
This process was repeated three times. The three extracts were
combined and filtered through Adventec no. 2 paper (Toyo Roshi
Kaisha, Tokyo, Japan) to remove debris. The filtrates were evap-
orated by rotary evaporation (N-1000; Eyela, Tokyo, Japan) and
freeze dried (LP-10; Ilshinbiobase Co., Ltd, Seoul, South Korea).
The extracts were stored at −20 ∘ C for subsequent analysis. Each
extract was dissolved in 80% ethanol, and the samples were used
for analysis.
Determination of phenolic compounds
Total polyphenol levels were measured using the Folin–Ciocalteu
method.15 Standards or extracts (10 μL) were mixed with 200 μL
sodium carbonate solution (2% w/v) and 10 μL Folin–Ciocalteu
reagent (50% v/v; Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA). The mix-
tures were incubated for 30 min at room temperature, and
absorption was measured at 750 nm. Results were expressed
as milligrams gallic acid (Sigma-Aldrich) equivalents per gram
extract residue (GAE/g ER). To measure total flavonoid levels,
standards or extracts (50 μL) were mixed with 200 μL water and
15 μL NaNO2 (5%, w/v). After 5 min, 30 μL AlCl3 ·6H2 O (10%, w/v)
was added and the incubation was continued for another 6 min.
The reactions were terminated by adding 1 M NaOH (100 μL),
and the absorbance at 510 nm was measured.15 The results were
expressed as milligrams catechin (Sigma-Aldrich) equivalents
per gram extract residue (CE/g ER). All extracts were analyzed
in triplicate.
Quantification of phenolic acid compounds
The phenolic acid composition of each extract was determined
by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), as described
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry
MY Kim et al.
by Kim et al.16 We used an ODS column (5 μm, 4.6 × 250 mm;
Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Gradient elution
was performed with solvent A (water with 0.1% (v/v) acetic
acid) and solvent B (acetonitrile with 0.1% (v/v) acetic acid).
The gradient program was as follows: 0–2 min, 92%–90% A in
B (gradient); 2–27 min, 90%–70% A in B (gradient); 27–50 min,
70%–10% A in B (gradient); 50–51 min, 10%–0% A in B (gradi-
ent); 51–60 min, 0% A in B (isocratic); and 60–70 min, 0%–92%
A in B (gradient). The flow rate was 1 mL min−1 , and the injec-
tion volume was 20 μL. The ultraviolet detector was set to 280 nm.
A phenolic acid standard mixture containing 4-hydroxybenzoic
acid, vanillic acid, rutin, protocatechuic acid, myricetin, quercetin,
kaempferol, gallic acid, syringic acid, trans-3-hydroxy cinnamic
acid, 2-hydroxy cinnamic acid, naringin, naringenin, chlorogenic
acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, sinapinic acid,
and salicylic acid (Sigma-Aldrich) was prepared in HPLC-grade
methanol (J. T. Baker, Phillipsburg, NJ, USA). The phenolic acid
concentrations were determined by reference to standard curves
obtained by injecting different concentrations of standards into
the HPLC system. Peaks were verified by adding standards to
the samples, and all peak areas were calculated by reference to
those of the standard peaks. Total phenolic acid content was
calculated by summing the levels of the individual phenolic
compounds.
Measurement of DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activities
1,1-Diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and 2,2-azinobis(3-ethyl
benzothiazoline)-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) radical-scavenging activ-
ities were measured as described by Woo et al.15 An 800 μL
aliquot of a 0.2 mmol L−1 DPPH (1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl;
Sigma-Aldrich) methanolic solution was mixed with 200 μL of
each sample, shaken vigorously, and left to stand for 30 min in
darkness; absorbance was then measured at 515 nm. The ABTS
cationic radicals were generated by adding ABTS (Sigma-Aldrich)
to a concentration of 7 mmol L−1 in a 2.45-mmol L−1 potassium
persulfate solution, and the mixture was held overnight in the
dark at room temperature. The radical solution was diluted with
methanol to give an absorbance of 1.4–1.5 at 735 nm (molar
extinction coefficient, 𝜀 = 3.6 × 104 mol−1 cm−1 ). The diluted ABTS
radical solution (1 mL) was added to 50 mL of each extract, a trolox
standard solution, or distilled water. After 30 min, the absorbance
values were measured spectrophotometrically at 735 nm (Multi-
skan GO Microplate Spectrophotometer; Thermo Fisher Scientific,
Waltham, MA, USA). Both scavenging activities were expressed
as the trolox-equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC); thus, mg
TE/100 g extract residue (ER).
Ferric-reducing antioxidant power assay
The method described by Benzie and Strain17 was used
with modifications. The ferric-reducing antioxidant power
(FRAP) reagent was prepared freshly daily by adding 2.5 mL
2,4,6-tri(2-pyridyl)-s-triazine solution (10 mmol L−1 in 40 mmol L−1
HCl), 2.5 mL ferric chloride hexahydrate solution (20 mmol L−1 ),
and 25 mL acetate buffer (300 mmol L−1 , pH 3.6). The result-
ing mixture was held at 37 ∘ C. Briefly, 30 μL of the sample was
pipetted in a cuvette, and 1 mL FRAP reagent was added. The
contents were mixed with a pipette. After a 10 min reaction,
absorbance was measured at 593 nm. A standard curve was
generated using 100 μL of various ferrous sulfate heptahydrate
solutions (0.1–1 mmol L−1 ). Results are presented as mmol L−1 Fe2+
equivalents.
J Sci Food Agric (2019)
Phenolic compounds in heat-treated sweet potato www.soci.org

Figure 1. Total polyphenol content of sweet potato with cultivars and different heat treatment conditions. 1) YM: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam cv. Yulmi, JYM:
cv. Jinyulmi, JHM: cv. Jinhongmi, HGM: cv. Hogammi, PWM: cv. Pungwonmi, SHM: cv. Shinhwangmi, JHWM: cv. Juhwangmi, JM: cv. Jami, DJM: cv. Danjami,
SJM: cv. Sinjami, YJM: cv. Yeonjami, and BHK: cv. Beniharuka.

Figure 2. Total flavonoid content of sweet potato with cultivars and different heat treatment conditions. 1) YM: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam cv. Yulmi, JYM:
cv. Jinyulmi, JHM: cv. Jinhongmi, HGM: cv. Hogammi, PWM: cv. Pungwonmi, SHM: cv. Shinhwangmi, JHWM: cv. Juhwangmi, JM: cv. Jami, DJM: cv. Danjami,
SJM: cv. Sinjami, YJM: cv. Yeonjami, and BHK: cv. Beniharuka.

Statistical analysis and 34.43–134.67 mg GAE/g extract residue (ER), respectively.

All data are expressed as means ± standard deviations. Significant
differences among treatments were determined by one-way anal-
ysis of variance using Duncan’s multiple range test, with SAS ver.
9.2 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The significance level
was set to 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Levels of phenolic compounds under the heat treatment
condition
Phenolic compounds are the major antioxidants found in fruits,
vegetables, and grains.18 We therefore measured polypheno-
lic levels and their antioxidant contributions. Figure 1 shows
the polyphenolic levels in sweet potato according to cultivar
and heat treatment condition. The total polyphenol content of
untreated sweet potato, sweet potato subjected to heat treat-
ment with distilled water, and sweet potato subjected to heat
treatment with prethanol A was 13.70–72.41, 19.01–129.55,
The highest total polyphenol content in untreated sweet potato
(72.41 mg GAE/g ER) was observed in the ‘Jami’ (JM) cultivar, and
this content was generally higher in the purple sweet potato
cultivars (JM, DJM, SJM, and YJM) than in the yellow and orange
sweet potato cultivars. In addition, heat treatment with prethanol
A, relative to treatment with distilled water, yielded higher total
polyphenol content in all cultivars. The highest total polyphe-
nol content of sweet potato subjected to heat treatment with
prethanol A was observed in the purple cultivars JM, DJM,
SJM, and YJM (134.64, 92.90, 134.67, and 95.78 mg GAE/g ER,
respectively). However, the maximum rate of increase (353.86%)
generated by the heat treatment with prethanol A was observed
in the yellow HGM cultivar.
The total flavonoid content of the different sweet potato cul-
tivars according to heat treatments with distilled water and
prethanol A is shown in Fig. 2. Significant differences were
observed among sweet potato cultivars and heat treatment
conditions, and heat treatment with prethanol A enhanced the

J Sci Food Agric (2019) © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

 www.soci.org
cultivars’ total flavonoid contents. Sweet potato subjected to
heat treatment with distilled water and prethanol A had a total
flavonoid content of 2.44–54.39 and 5.37–65.43 mg CE/g ER,
respectively, which were higher than that of untreated sweet
potato (0.70 flavonoid 29.78 mg CE/g ER). The highest total
flavonoid content in untreated sweet potato (29.78 mg CE/g ER)
was measured in DJM. The total polyphenol content was similar
among the cultivars and heat treatment conditions (Fig. 1). In
other words, the flavonoid content in JM, DJM, and YJM increased
from 12.93, 29.78, 22.65, and 13.76 mg CE/g ER, respectively, in
raw sweet potato to 54.39, 41.81, 25.16, and 33.67 mg CE/g ER,
respectively, after heat treatment with distilled water. In addition,
the highest total polyphenol content in sweet potato treated with
heat and prethanol A was observed in the purple cultivars JM,
DJM, SJM, and YJM (65.43, 54.59, 44.21, and 43.32 mg GAE/g ER,
respectively).
These results are in close agreement with those reported by
Song et al.,19 who observed high polyphenol and flavonoid con-
tent in purple sweet potatoes, including ‘Jami’ and ‘Sinjami’,
among 32 sweet potato cultivars. Huang et al.,20 reported that
thermal processing, such as steaming, can damage the cell struc-
ture of sweet potato, resulting in the extraction of phenolic
compounds. This effect could be due to the softening or disrup-
tion of plant cell walls and destruction of the complex phenolics
during thermal treatment.20 In this study, we postulated that heat
treatment with a soaking solvent (distilled water or prethanol A)
could also cause the breakdown of complex components, such
as polyphenolic compounds, of sweet potato. Some individual
phenolic substances are more easily released and react with
Folin–Ciocalteu reagent.21
Levels of individual phenolics in sweet potato under the heat
treatment condition
Phenolic acids are an abundant form of phenolic compound
in various food crops22 and are thought to combat oxidative
stress in humans by maintaining a balance between oxidants and
antioxidants.23 Changes in the phenolic acid profiles of sweet
potato according to cultivar and heat treatment condition are
shown in Table 1. The profile revealed the presence of eight phe-
nolic acids – 4-hydroxy benzoic acid, vanillic acid, protocatechuic
acid, gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, 𝜌-coumaric acid, and
salicylic acid – among the 19 acids comprising the standard (STD;
280 nm). Total phenolic acid content changed in accordance with
the cultivar and heat treatment condition. The highest amount was
detected in untreated sweet potato (717.73 μg g−1 ER), followed by
sweet potato treated with heat and distilled water (purple JM cul-
tivar; 796.86 μg g−1 ER), and sweet potato treated with heat and
prethanol A (659.89 μg g−1 ER). The total phenolic acid content of
the JYN, Jinhongmi (JHM), JHWM, JM, SJM, YJM, and Beniharuka
(BHK) sweet potato cultivars increased significantly from 36.77 to
40.27, 5.38 to 28.33, 93.97 to 152.93, 717.73 to 796.86, 545.13 to
691.40, 359.34 to 441.38, and 43.88 to 70.90 μg g−1 ER, respectively,
after heat treatment with distilled water. However, the total pheno-
lic acid content of sweet potato subjected to heat treatment with
prethanol A decreased, except for those of the YM, JHM, YJM, and
SJM cultivars. The total phenolic acid content of JYM, HGM, PWM,
SHM, JWM, JM, DJM, BHK decreased from 36.77 to 20.23, 51.61 to
31.40, 107.05 to 54.76, 94.01 to 32.76, 93.97 to 75.89, 717.73 to
659.89, 626.15 to 326.25, 43.88 to 29.88.
Interestingly, total phenolic acid content in the JHM cultivar
increased from 5.38 to 109.30 μg g−1 ER, and polyphenol and
flavonoid content showed similar responses to the treatment.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry
MY Kim et al.
The individual phenolic compound profiles of sweet potato
according to cultivar and heat treatment condition were also
monitored. The content of these eight phenolic acids differed
significantly among the 12 sweet potato cultivars. Salicylic acid
was the major phenolic acid (41.35%–66.28% of total phe-
nolics) in untreated sweet potato, followed by protocatechuic
acid (11.06%–23.92% of total phenolics) or chlorogenic acid
(11.67%–25.47% of total phenolics), in almost all cultivars, except
JHM and HGM. Salicylic acid content in the untreated YM, JYN,
JHM, HGM, Pungwonmi (PWM), cv. Shinhwangmi (SHM), JHWM,
JM, DJM, SJM, YJM, and BHK cultivars were 11.59, 22.60, not
detected (ND), 11.34, 56.54, 53.24, 52.73, 399.83, 331.23, 361.30,
197.88, and 23.53 μg g−1 ER, respectively.
Salicylic acid and protocatechuic acid are lipophilic mono-
hydroxy benzoic acid and dihydroxybenzoic acid respectively,
which are phenolic acids that occur in various plants.24
These hydroxybenzoic acids are acylated with anthocyanin.
3,5-Diglucoside derivatives from cyanidin and peonidin acy-
lated with p-hydroxybenzoic acid, ferulic acid, and caffeic acid,
respectively, are found in the highest amounts in purple-fleshed
sweet potato roots; these compounds possess strong antioxidant
and 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging
activities.25 Chlorogenic acid is the caffeoylquinic acid derivative
present in the highest amounts in different sweet potato varieties.
Chlorogenic acid is capable of preventing hydroxyl radical forma-
tion, scavenging free radicals, and eliminating oxidative activity, in
addition to exerting antimutagenic and anticarcinogenic effects
in vitro and in vivo.26 The main phenolic acids include salicylic
acid, protocatechuic acid, and chlorogenic acid, which are gen-
erally more abundant in purple sweet potato cultivars (JM, DJM,
SJM, and YJM) than in yellow and orange cultivars. According
to previous studies, total phenolics, individual phenolic acids
(e.g., chlorogenic, caffeic, and dicaffeoylquinic acids), and total
anthocyanins are highly concentrated in purple sweet potato
varieties compared with yellow, white, red, and orange sweet
potato varieties.27,28
The influences of the heat treatments with distilled water
and prethanol A on individual phenolic acid compositions are
presented in Table 1. Among the major phenolic acids, sali-
cylic acid content increased significantly from 11.34–399.83 to
15.28–525.97 μg g−1 ER, whereas protocatechuic acid and chloro-
genic acid content decreased, after heat treatment with distilled
water. However, the content of vanillic acid, gallic acid, and caf-
feic acid, which are minor phenolic acids in untreated sweet
potato, increased from 0.84–4.82, ND, and 1.41–17.84 μg g−1
ER to 1.36–48.50, 1.95–5.28, and 3.28–14.06 μg g−1 ER, respec-
tively, after heat treatment with distilled water. Gallic acid was
not detected in any untreated cultivar, whereas it was detected
after heat treatment with prethanol A. The gallic acid content
of the heat-treated sweet potato cultivars YM, JYM, JHM, HGM,
PWM, SHM, JHWM, JM, DJM, SJM, YJM, and BHK was 30.61, 12.79,
10.33, 21.07, 5.74, 21.95, 10.41, 24.49, 18.72, 22.44, 12.78 and
11.57 μg g−1 ER, respectively. Based on the total polyphenol and
flavonoid results, heat treatment with a soaking solvent (dis-
tilled water or prethanol A) may have caused the breakdown
of complex components of sweet potato. Some individual phe-
nolic acids, such as vanillic acid, gallic acid, and caffeic acid, are
more easily released.21 These variations in individual phenolic
acid content in sweet potato according to the cultivar and heat
treatment condition are thought to affect antioxidant character-
istics, including ABTS and DPPH radical scavenging activities, as
well as FRAP.
J Sci Food Agric (2019)
Phenolic compounds in heat-treated sweet potato www.soci.org

Table 1. Phenolic acid content1 of sweet potato with cultivars and different heat treatment conditions
4-Hydroxy Proto-
benzoic Vanillic catechuic Gallic Chlorogenic Caffeic 𝜌-Coumaric Salicylic
Treatment Cultivar2 acid acid acid acid acid acid acid acid Total

Non-treatment YM 1.41 –3 3.10 – 7.14 4.30 0.49 11.59 28.03JB4

JYM 0.52 – 5.23 – 5.99 2.03 0.39 22.60 36.77iB
JHM 2.53 – – – – 2.85 – – 5.38kC
HGM 1.88 1.27 9.25 – 9.16 17.84 0.87 11.34 51.61gA
PWM 1.42 – 25.05 – 20.17 1.41 2.47 56.54 107.05eA
SHM 1.18 – 20.85 – 15.48 3.26 – 53.24 94.01fA
JHWM 2.08 0.84 18.80 – 15.01 4.51 – 52.73 93.97fB
JM 1.87 4.07 147.92 – 138.95 4.28 20.80 399.83 717.73aB
DJM 5.95 4.21 149.78 – 126.63 5.82 2.53 331.23 626.15bA
SJM 14.36 4.82 79.08 – 63.62 3.53 18.43 361.30 545.13cB
YJM 3.67 3.04 74.72 – 69.03 3.78 7.21 197.88 359.34dC
BHK 1.16 – 5.35 – 7.41 5.11 1.32 23.53 43.88hB
Heat treatment YM – 1.65 1.91 3.71 4.51 3.65 – 13.64 29.06jB
with water
JYM – 1.75 2.80 2.53 4.22 3.28 – 25.69 40.27iA
JHM – 1.36 1.70 2.12 3.98 3.89 – 15.28 28.33jB
HGM – 0.86 – 4.02 2.58 3.65 – 6.05 17.16kC
PWM 0.63 4.24 10.04 2.14 10.04 3.92 – 78.82 109.82fA
SHM – 2.18 4.07 4.29 4.57 7.53 – 32.75 55.38hB
JHWM – 6.16 12.95 1.95 13.00 8.31 – 110.56 152.93eA
JM 0.64 48.50 64.02 5.28 79.94 14.06 7.06 577.36 796.86aA
DJM 0.71 27.42 54.35 3.64 48.11 11.61 1.47 456.30 603.62cB
SJM 0.58 36.00 56.18 4.23 51.36 11.86 5.22 525.97 691.40bA
YJM 1.50 31.50 40.57 3.67 48.45 10.30 2.57 302.82 441.38dA
BHK 0.46 4.65 4.86 2.72 9.54 7.93 – 40.73 70.90gA
Heat treatment YM 1.56 – – 30.61 4.70 6.22 – – 43.10hA
with prethanol
A
JYM 1.39 – – 12.79 3.22 2.83 – – 20.23kC
JHM 1.02 3.88 7.61 10.33 9.25 7.06 – 70.14 109.30eA
HGM 1.23 0.77 – 21.07 2.65 5.68 – – 31.40ijB
PWM 0.86 3.24 2.90 5.74 12.31 2.05 – 27.67 54.76gB
SHM 0.95 1.30 – 21.95 4.11 4.45 – – 32.76iC
JHWM 1.59 3.90 3.41 10.41 14.06 7.38 – 35.15 75.89fC
JM 2.30 32.14 43.13 24.49 115.72 6.38 15.47 420.26 659.89aC
DJM 2.04 15.28 20.38 18.72 53.50 5.33 2.30 208.69 326.25dC
SJM 1.86 27.85 38.71 22.44 69.53 3.85 8.45 388.86 561.56bB
YJM 3.61 25.12 28.71 12.78 63.37 5.61 5.34 270.32 414.86cB
BHK 1.09 1.84 – 11.57 5.75 9.15 – – 29.38jC

1 μg g−1 extract residue.

2 YM: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam cv. Yulmi, JYM: cv. Jinyulmi, JHM: cv. Jinhongmi, HGM: cv. Hogammi, PWM: cv. Pungwonmi, SHM: cv. Shinhwangmi, JHWM: cv. Juhwangmi,
JM: cv. Jami, DJM: cv. Danjami, SJM: cv. Sinjami, YJM: cv. Yeonjami, and BHK: cv. Beniharuka.
3 Not detected.
4 All values are expressed as the means of triplicate determinations. Any means in the cultivar (a–k) and heat treatment condition (A–C) followed by the same letter are not

significantly different by Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.05).

Antioxidant activities of sweet potato under the heat
treatment condition
The effects of cultivar and heat treatment condition on the DPPH
and ABTS radical scavenging activities of the sweet potato culti-
vars are presented in Figs 3 and 4. The DPPH and ABTS radicals
are used widely to evaluate the free radical-scavenging activi-
ties of hydrogen-donating and chain-breaking antioxidants in
many plant extracts.29 The DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging
activities of untreated sweet potato cultivar ranged from 1.91 to
36.29 mg TE/g ER and from 17.77 to 62.20 mg TE/g ER, respectively.
The DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activities were highest
in JM (36.29 and 62.20 mg TE/g ER, respectively), followed by
SJM, DJM, and YJM, and were generally higher in the purple
sweet potato cultivars than in the white and yellow cultivars.
The effects of heat treatment on antioxidant activities varied
depending on whether water or prethanol A was used. The DPPH
radical scavenging activity of untreated sweet potato samples
increased from 1.91–36.29 mg TE/g ER to 4.99–40.58 mg TE/g
ER and 9.41–48.15 mg TE/g ER after heat treatment with water
and prethanol A, respectively. ABTS radical scavenging activity of

J Sci Food Agric (2019) © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

 www.soci.org MY Kim et al.

Figure 3. DPPH radical scavenging activity of sweet potato with cultivars and different heat treatment conditions. 1) YM: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam cv.
Yulmi, JYM: cv. Jinyulmi, JHM: cv. Jinhongmi, HGM: cv. Hogammi, PWM: cv. Pungwonmi, SHM: cv. Shinhwangmi, JHWM: cv. Juhwangmi, JM: cv. Jami, DJM:
cv. Danjami, SJM: cv. Sinjami, YJM: cv. Yeonjami, and BHK: cv. Beniharuka.

Figure 4. ABTS radical scavenging activity of sweet potato with cultivars and different heat treatment conditions. 1) YM: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam cv.
Yulmi, JYM: cv. Jinyulmi, JHM: cv. Jinhongmi, HGM: cv. Hogammi, PWM: cv. Pungwonmi, SHM: cv. Shinhwangmi, JHWM: cv. Juhwangmi, JM: cv. Jami, DJM:
cv. Danjami, SJM: cv. Sinjami, YJM: cv. Yeonjami, and BHK: cv. Beniharuka.

untreated sweet potato increased from 17.77–62.20 mg TE/g ER
to 20.64–68.00 mg TE/g ER and 20.68–80.00 mg TE/g ER, respec-
tively. The highest DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activity
levels were observed in the JM cultivar treated with heat and
prethanol A (48.15 and 80.00 mg TE/g ER, respectively), which
contained high concentrations of total phenols, flavonoids, and
some individual phenolic acids.
Changes in FRAP in sweet potato by cultivar and heat treatment
condition are shown in Fig. 5. The FRAP assay depends on the
reduction of ferric 2,4,6-tripyridyl-s-triazine(TPTZ) (Fe (III)-TPTZ) to
ferrous TPTZ (Fe (II)-TPTZ) by a reductant (antioxidant or other
reducing agent) at a low pH.17 Fe (II)-TPTZ has an intense blue
color and can be monitored at 593 nm. The FRAP values of
untreated sweet potato, sweet potato treated with heat and dis-
tilled water, and sweet potato treated with heat and prethanol A
were 8.55–28.57, 9.85–36.72, and 10.28–33.43 mmol L−1 g−1 ER,
respectively. The differences in FRAP according to cultivar were
more significant than the effect of heat treatment with distilled
water or prethanol A. The FRAP values for YM, JYM, JHM, HGM,
PWM, SHM, JHWM, JM, DJM, SJM, YJM, and BHK were 9.18, 9.97,
8.55, 11.65, 13.81, 13.00, 12.88, 28.58, 25.78, 27.55, 19.25, and
10.32 mmol L−1 g−1 ER, respectively.
Padda and Picha30 reported similar results and showed that the
purple-fleshed genotype has the highest total phenolic content
and antioxidant activity. The combined presence of phenolic acids
and acetylated anthocyanins in purple sweet potato cultivars may
have contributed to this high antioxidant activity.31 Many stud-
ies have involved the measurement of antioxidant activities after
heat treatment; heated products exhibit elevated chain-breaking
and oxygen-scavenging activities.32 Previous studies have shown
that the increase in antioxidant activity due to thermal processing
might be due to disruption of the cell wall and liberation of antiox-
idant compounds from insoluble portions, such as in garlic14 and
tomato.33 In this study, we confirmed that the purple sweet potato
cultivars had strong antioxidant activities and that heat treatment
with distilled water or prethanol A improved this characteristic,
indicating that enhanced liberation of phenolic compounds may
positively impact antioxidant activities.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric (2019)

Phenolic compounds in heat-treated sweet potato www.soci.org

Figure 5. Ferric reducing antioxidant power of sweet potato with cultivars and different heat treatment conditions. 1) YM: Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam cv.
Yulmi, JYM: cv. Jinyulmi, JHM: cv. Jinhongmi, HGM: cv. Hogammi, PWM: cv. Pungwonmi, SHM: cv. Shinhwangmi, JHWM: cv. Juhwangmi, JM: cv. Jami, DJM:
cv. Danjami, SJM: cv. Sinjami, YJM: cv. Yeonjami, and BHK: cv. Beniharuka.

A to enhance the functionality of various sweet potato cultivars.

Table 2. Correlation coefficients among total polyphenol (TPC),
flavonoid content (TFC), total phenolic acid content (TPAC) and antiox- Total polyphenol, flavonoid, and phenolic acid content was gen-
idant activity of sweet potato cultivars with cultivar and heat treat- erally higher in untreated purple sweet potato cultivars (JM, DJM,
ment conditions SJM, and YJM) than in yellow and orange sweet potato cultivars. In
addition, the high antioxidant activity of purple sweet potato cul-
Factor TFC TPAC DPPH ABTS FRAP
tivars (JM, DJM, SJM, and YJM) was related to the total polyphenol,
TPC 0.8762*** 0.7734*** 0.9140*** 0.8929*** 0.8494*** flavonoid, and phenolic acid content. The total polyphenol and
TFC 1.0000 0.7890*** 0.8673*** 0.8231*** 0.8453*** flavonoid content of the sweet potato cultivars increased signifi-
TPAC – 1.0000 0.8984*** 0.8895*** 0.9795*** cantly after the heat treatment, with the largest increase observed
DPPH – – 1.0000 0.9545*** 0.9441*** after the heat treatment with prethanol A. These increases in phe-
ABTS – – – 1.0000 0.9221*** nolic compounds positively impacted antioxidant activities. The
highest ABTS and DPPH radical-scavenging activity levels were
Significant at *** P < 0.001. observed in the JM cultivar after heat treatment with prethanol
A. We conclude that heat treatment with soaking solvent (dis-
tilled water or prethanol A) could cause the breakdown of com-
Correlation analysis plex components of sweet potato. Some individual phenolic sub-
The results of the analysis of correlation among the total polyphe- stances are more easily released and impact physiological activ-
nol content (TPC), total flavonoid content (TFC), total pheno- ities. It has been suggested that heat treatment with soaking sol-
lic acid content (TPAC), and antioxidant activity of sweet potato vent (prethanol A) is an efficient way of increasing the free phenolic
according to cultivar and heat treatment condition are shown in compounds in various sweet potato cultivars and promotes the
Table 2. DPPH radical scavenging activity was correlated strongly utilization of bound or conjugated phenolic compounds in sweet
with TPC (0.9140*** ), TFC (0.8673*** ), and TPAC (0.8984*** ). The ABTS potato. These results may be used to improve the functional char-
radical scavenging activity was also correlated strongly with TPC acteristics of various sweet potato cultivars by heat treatment with
(0.8929*** ), TFC (0.8231*** ), and TPAC (0.8895*** ). Ferric-reducing a soaking solvent.
antioxidant power was correlated strongly with TPC (0.8494*** ),
TFC (0.8453*** ), and TPAC (0.9795*** ). The high antioxidant activity
levels of the purple sweet potato cultivars (JM, DJM, SJM, and YJM) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
were related to TPC, TFC, and TPAC. The antioxidant activities of This work was carried out with the support of the Cooperative
various sweet potato cultivars were also enhanced with increas- Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Devel-
ing TPC, TFC, and TPAC by heat treatment with a soaking solvent. opment (Project No. PJ01196303) Rural Development Administra-
In particular, heat treatment with prethanol A clearly enhanced tion, Republic of Korea.
the antioxidant activities of various sweet potato cultivars, with
increases in TPC, TFC, and TPAC.
REFERENCE
1 Hou F, Mu T, Ma M and Blecker C, Optimization of processing tech-
nology using response surface methodology and physicochemical
CONCLUSION properties of roasted sweet potato. Food Chem 278:136–143 (2019).
The ability of heat treatment with a soaking solvent to increase 2 Ogutu FO and Mu TH, Ultrasonic degradation of sweet potato pectin
and its antioxidant activity. Ultrason Sonochem 38:726–734 (2017).
soluble phenolic compounds due to the liberation or breakdown 3 Ayeleso TB, Ramachela K and Mukwevho E, A review of therapeutic
of the cell matrix has been investigated in various plants. In this potentials of sweet potato: pharmacological activities and influence
study we used heat treatments with distilled water and prethanol of the cultivar. Trop J Pharm Res 15:2751–2761 (2016).

J Sci Food Agric (2019) © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

 www.soci.org
4 Hermes D, Dudek DN, Maria MD, Horta LP, Lima EN and Fatima A, In
vivo wound healing and antiulcer properties of white sweet potato
(Ipomoea batatas). J Adv Res 4:411–415 (2013).
5 Kim OK, Nam DE, Yoon HG, Baek SJ, Jun W and Lee J, Immunomod-
ulatory and antioxidant effects of purple sweet potato extract in
LP-BM5 murine leukemia virus-induced murine acquired immune
deficiency syndrome. J Med Food 18:882–889 (2015).
6 Shen Y, Sun H, Zeng H, Prinyawiwatukul W, Xu W and Xu Z, Increases in
phenolic, fatty acid, and phytosterol contents and anticancer activi-
ties of sweet potato after fermentation by Lactobacillus acidophilus.
J Agric Food Chem 66:2735–2741 (2018).
7 Tang Y, Cai W and Xu B, Profiles of phenolics, carotenoids and antiox-
idative capacities of thermal processed white, yellow, orange and
purple sweet potatoes grown in Guilin, China. Food Sci. Hum Well-
ness 4:123–132 (2015).
8 Wang Yand Kays SJ, Effect of cooking method on the aroma con-
stituents of sweet potatoes [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]. J Food Qual
24:67–78 (2001).
9 Ramamoorthi L, Lee Y and Brewer S, Effect of food matrix and heat
treatment on the rheological properties of salmon-based baby
food. J Food Eng 95:432–437 (2009).
10 Hwang IG, Kim HY, Lee SH, Hwang CR, Oh SH, Woo KS et al., Isolation
and identification of an antioxidant substance from heated onion
(Allium cepa L.). J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 40:470–474 (2011).
11 Kim HY, Woo KS, Hwang IG, Lee YR and Jeong HS, Effects of heat
treatments on the antioxidant activities of fruits and vegetables.
Korean J Food Sci Technol 40:166–170 (2008).
12 Lee YR, Hwang IG, Woo KS, Kim DJ, Hong JT and Jeong HS, Antioxida-
tive activities of the ethyl acetate fraction from heated onion (Allium
cepa). Food Sci Biotechnol 16:1041–1045 (2007).
13 Woo KS, Hwang IH, Kim TM, Kim DJ, Hong JT and Jeong HS, Changes
in the antioxidant activity of onion (Allium cepa) extracts with heat
treatment. Food Sci Biotechnol 16:828–831 (2007).
14 Kwon OC, Woo KS, Kim TM, Kim DJ, Hong JT and Jeong HS, Physic-
ochemical characteristics of garlic (Allium sativum L.) on the high
temperature and pressure treatment. Korean J Food Sci Technol
38:331–336 (2006).
15 Woo KS, Ko JY and Jeong HS, Effect of milling time on antioxidant com-
pounds and activities of methanol extracts of sorghum [Sorghum
bicolor (L.) Moench]. Food Sci Biotechnol 23:1741–1746 (2014).
16 Kim MY, Jang GY, Lee Y, Li M, Ji YM, Yoon N et al., Free and bound form
bioactive compound profiles in germinated black soybean (Glycine
max L.). Food Sci Biotechnol 25:1551–1559 (2016).
17 Benzie IF and Strain JJ, The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP)
as a measure of “antioxidant power”: the FRAP assay. Anal Biochem
239:70–76 (1996).
18 Velioglu YS, Mazza G, Gao L and Oomah BD, Antioxidant activity and
total phenolics in selected fruits, vegetables, and grain products.
J Agric Food Chem 46:4113–4117 (1998).
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry
MY Kim et al.
19 Song J, Chung MN, Kim JT, Chi HY and Son JR, Quality characteristics
and antioxidative activities in various cultivars of sweet potato.
Korean J Crop Sci 50:141–146 (2005).
20 Huang YC, Chang YH and Shao YY, Effects of genotype and treatment
on the antioxidant activity of sweet potato in Taiwan. Food Chem
98:529–538 (2006).
21 Turkmen N, Sari F and Velioglu YS, The effect of cooking methods on
total phenolics and antioxidant activity of selected green vegeta-
bles. Food Chem 93:713–718 (2005).
22 Mattila P, Pihlava JM and Hellström J, Contents of phenolic acids,
alkyland alkenylresorcinols, and avenanthramides in commercial
grain products. J Agric Food Chem 53:8290–8295 (2005).
23 Temple NJ, Antioxidants and disease: more questions than answers.
Nutr Res 20:449–459 (2000).
24 Kaushik P, Andujar I, Vilanova S, Plazas M, Gramazio P, Herraiz FJ et al.,
Breeding vegetables with increased content in bioactive phenolic
acids. Molecules 20:18464–18481 (2015).
25 Zhao JG, Yan QQ, Xue RY, Zhang J and Zhang YQ, Isolation and
identification of colourless caffeoyl compounds in purple sweet
potato by HPLCDAD–ESI/MS and their antioxidant activities. Food
Chem 161:22–26 (2015).
26 Feng Y, Lu Y, Bowman LL, Qian Y, Castranova V and Ding M, Inhibition
of activator protein-1, NF-𝜅B, and MAPKs and induction of phase
2 detoxifying enzyme activity by chlorogenic acid. J Biol Chem
280:27888–27895 (2005).
27 Grace MH, Yousef GG, Gustafson SJ, Truong VD, Yencho GC and Lila MA,
Phytochemical changes in phenolics, anthocyanins, ascorbic acid,
and carotenoids associated with sweet potato storage and impacts
on bioactive properties. Food Chem 145:717–724 (2014).
28 Ji H, Zhang H, Li H and Li Y, Analysis on the nutrition composition and
antioxidant activity of different types of sweet potato cultivars. Food
Nutr Sci 6:161–167 (2015).
29 Netzel M, Strass G, Bitsch I, Könitz R, Christmann M and Bitsch R, Effect
of grape processing on selected antioxidant phenolics in red wine.
J Food Eng 56:223–228 (2003).
30 Padda MS and Picha DH, Quantification of phenolic acids and antiox-
idant activity in sweet potato genotypes. Sci Hortic 119:17–20
(2008).
31 Oki T, Masuda M, Furuta S, Nishiba Y, Terahara N and Suda I,
Involvement of anthocyanins and other phenolic compounds
in radical-scavenging activity of purple-fleshed sweet potato
cultivars. J Food Sci 67:1752–1756 (2002).
32 Jeong SM, Kim SY, Kim DR, Jo SC, Nam KC, Ahn DU et al., Effect of heat
treatment on the antioxidant activity of extracts from citrus peels.
J Agric Food Chem 52:3389–3393 (2004).
33 Dewanto V, Wu X, Adom KK and Liu RH, Thermal processing enhances
the nutritional value of tomatoes by increasing total antioxidant
activity. J Agric Food Chem 50:3010–3014 (2002).
J Sci Food Agric (2019)