Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Mar 8;12(6):1225.
doi: 10.3390/plants12061225.

Relationship between Total Antioxidant Capacity, Cannabinoids and Terpenoids in Hops and Cannabis

Philip Wiredu Addo  1 , Zohreh Poudineh  1 , Michelle Shearer  2 , Nichole Taylor  2 , Sarah MacPherson  1 , Vijaya Raghavan  1 , Valérie Orsat  1 , Mark Lefsrud  1
Affiliations

Relationship between Total Antioxidant Capacity, Cannabinoids and Terpenoids in Hops and Cannabis

Philip Wiredu Addo et al. Plants (Basel). .

Abstract

Efficient determination of antioxidant activity in medicinal plants may provide added value to extracts. The effects of postharvest pre-freezing and drying [microwave-assisted hot air (MAHD) and freeze drying] on hops and cannabis were evaluated to determine the relationship between antioxidant activity and secondary metabolites. The 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazine (DPPH) reduction and ferric reducing ability of power (FRAP) assays were assessed for suitability in estimating the antioxidant activity of extracted hops and cannabis inflorescences and correlation with cannabinoid and terpene content. Antioxidant activity in extracts obtained from fresh, undried samples amounted to 3.6 Trolox equivalent antioxidant activity (TEAC) (M) dry matter-1 and 2.32 FRAP (M) dry matter-1 for hops, in addition to 2.29 TEAC (M) dry matter-1 and 0.25 FRAP (M) dry matter-1 for cannabis. Pre-freezing significantly increased antioxidant values by 13% (DPPH) and 29.9% (FRAP) for hops, and by 7.7% (DPPH) and 19.4% (FRAP) for cannabis. ANOVA analyses showed a significant (p < 0.05) increase in total THC (24.2) and THCA (27.2) concentrations (g 100 g dry matter-1) in pre-frozen, undried samples compared to fresh, undried samples. Freeze-drying and MAHD significantly (p < 0.05) reduced antioxidant activity in hops by 79% and 80.2% [DPPH], respectively and 70.1% and 70.4% [FRAP], respectively, when compared to antioxidant activity in extracts obtained from pre-frozen, undried hops. DPPH assay showed that both freeze-drying and MAHD significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the antioxidant activity of cannabis by 60.5% compared to the pre-frozen samples although, there was no significant (p < 0.05) reduction in the antioxidant activity using the FRAP method. Greater THC content was measured in MAHD-samples when compared to fresh, undried (64.7%) and pre-frozen, undried (57%), likely because of decarboxylation. Both drying systems showed a significant loss in total terpene concentration, yet freeze-drying has a higher metabolite retention compared to MAHD. These results may prove useful for future experiments investigating antioxidant activity and added value to cannabis and hops.

Keywords: Cannabis sativa; DPPH; FRAP; Humulus lupulus; antioxidants; drying.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Reaction underlying the (A) DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) and (B) FRAP (ferric 2,4,6-tri(2-pyridyl)-s-triazine) antioxidant assays.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Calibration curves used for (A) DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazine) reduction and (B) FRAP (reduction of Fe3+ to Fe2+) assays in the presence of different Trolox concentrations.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Total antioxidant activity in extracts from hops (Humulus lupulus) and cannabis (Cannabis sativa) inflorescences using the DPPH (A,B) and FRAP (C,D) assays. Bars with the same letter are not significantly (p < 0.05) different. DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazine; FRAP: Ferric reducing antioxidant power; TEAC: Trolox equivalent antioxidant activity.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Concentration of cannabinoids in pre-frozen undried, microwave-assisted hot air dried, and freeze dried-cannabis (C. sativa) biomass. Bars with the same letter are not significantly (p < 0.05) different.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Concentration of terpenes in cannabis in fresh undried, pre-frozen undried, microwave-assisted hot air dried, and freeze-dried cannabis (C. sativa) biomass. Bars with the same letter are not significantly (p < 0.05) different.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Concentration of terpenes in hops in fresh undried, pre-frozen undried, microwave-assisted hot air dried, and freeze-dried hops (H. lupulus) biomass. Bars with the same letter are not significantly (p < 0.05) different.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kovalchuk I., Pellino M., Rigault P., Van Velzen R., Ebersbach J., Ashnest J., Mau M., Schranz M., Alcorn J., Laprairie R. The genomics of cannabis and its close relatives. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2020;71:713–739. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-081519-040203. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ren M., Tang Z., Wu X., Spengler R., Jiang H., Yang Y., Boivin N. The origins of cannabis smoking: Chemical residue evidence from the first millennium BCE in the Pamirs. [(accessed on 22 December 2022)];Sci. Adv. 2019 5:eaaw1391. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw1391. Available online: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/6/eaaw1391. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gülck T., Møller B.L. Phytocannabinoids: Origins and biosynthesis. Trends Plant Sci. 2020;25:985–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2020.05.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gabriel L.M., Méndez Rodríguez D., Hendrix S., Escalona Arranz J.C., Fung Boix Y., Pacheco A.O., García Díaz J., Morris-Quevedo H.J., Ferrer Dubois A., Aleman E.I. Antioxidants in plants: A valorization potential emphasizing the need for the conservation of plant biodiversity in Cuba. Antioxidants. 2020;9:48. doi: 10.3390/antiox9111048. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cuma Z., Beyza O.S.S. The importance of antioxidants and place in today’s scientific and technological studies. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019;56:4757–4774. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03952-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources