4.7 Article

Nutrients and bioactive compounds in popular and indigenous durian (Durio zibethinus murr.)

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 193, Issue -, Pages 181-186

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.02.107

Keywords

Durian; Food composition; Nutrient; Fatty acid; Bioactive compound

Funding

  1. National Research Council of Thailand - Thailand
  2. Mahidol University - Thailand

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study identified nutrients, fatty acids, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activities of two popular varieties (Mon-thong, Cha-ni) and two indigenous varieties (Kra-dum and Kob-ta-kam) of durian. Each of variety was collected from 3 gardens in Nonthaburi province, Thailand. At optimal ripeness, the edible part was separated, homogenised or freeze dried, as fresh or dry samples for further analysis using standard methods. All durian varieties contained a considerable amount of dietary fibre (7.5-9.1 g/100 g dry matter, DM) and high amounts of carbohydrate and sugar (62.9-70.7 g and 47.9-56.4 g/100 g DM respectively). Cha-ni, Kra-dum and Kob-ta-kam varieties had monounsaturated (MUFA) (6.1-7.8 g/100 g DM) > saturated (SFA) (4.2-5.7 g/100 g DM) > polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) (0.8-1.5 g/100 g DM), whereas the Mon-thong variety had SFA > MUFA > PUFA (5.1, 4.0, 1.1 g/100 g DM, respectively). The Kob-ta-kam variety showed greater potential for health benefits in terms of carotenoids and beta-carotene (2248 mu g and 1202 mu g/100 g DM respectively). Phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity were not significantly different among each variety, though the Cha-ni variety had the lowest. This study provides data on nutrients, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activities of indigenous and popular durian varieties that could be used for consumer education as well as for incorporation into the food composition databases. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available