4.7 Article

Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Properties of Powders Obtained from Different Plum Juice Formulations

Journal

Publisher

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/ijms18010176

Keywords

Prunus domestica L.; juice; drying technologies; powders; polyphenolics; antioxidant capacity; L-ascorbic acid; hydroxymethylfurfural

Funding

  1. National Science Centre [2014/12/S/NZ9/00754]
  2. Futurafarm

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Among popular crops, plum (Prunus domestica L.) has received special attention due to its health-promoting properties. The seasonality of this fruit makes it impossible to consume it throughout the year, so new products in a powder form may offer an alternative to fresh consumption and may be used as high-quality natural food ingredients. A 100% plum (cultivar Valor) juice was mixed with three different concentrations of maltodextrin or subjected to sugars removal by amberlite-XAD column, and dried using the freeze, spray, and vacuum (40, 60, and 80 degrees C) drying techniques. The identification and quantification of phenolic acids, flavonols, and anthocyanins in plum powders was performed by LC-MS QTof and UPLC-PDA, respectively. L-ascorbic acid, hydroxymethylfurfural, and antioxidant capacity were measured by the Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) ABTS and ferric reducing antioxidant potential (FRAP) methods in order to compare the influence of the drying methods on product quality. The results indicated that the profile of polyphenolic compounds in the plum juice powders significantly differed from the whole plum powders. The drying of a sugar free plum extract resulted in higher content of polyphenolic compounds, L-ascorbic acid and antioxidant capacity, but lower content of hydroxymethylfurfural, regardless of drying method applied. Thus, the formulation of plum juice before drying and the drying method should be carefully selected in order to obtain high-quality powders.

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