4.7 Article

Storage Stability of Microencapsulated Cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus) Phenolics

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 56, 期 23, 页码 11251-11261

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf801868h

关键词

Cloudberry phenolics; ellagitannins; microencapsulation; storage stability; glass transition; water sorption; antioxidant activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cloudberries (Rubus chamaemorus) contain phenolics (mainly ellagitannins), which have recently been related to many valuable bioactivity properties. In general, phenolics are known to react readily with various components, which may create an obstacle in producing stable functional components for food and pharmaceutical purposes. In this study, the aim was to improve the storage stability of cloudberry phenolic extract by microencapsulation. The phenolic-rich cloudberry extract was encapsulated in maltodextrins DE5-8 and DE18.5 by freeze-drying. Water sorption properties and glass transition temperatures (T-g) of microcapsules and maltodextrins were determined. Microcapsules together with unencapsulated cloudberry extract were stored at different relative vapor pressures (0, 33, and 66% RVP) at 25 degrees C for 64 days, and storage stability was evaluated by analyzing phenolic content and antioxidant activity. Compared to maltodextrin DE18.5, maltodextrin DE5-8 had not only higher encapsulation yield and efficiency but also offered better protection for phenolics during storage. Without encapsulation the storage stability of cloudberry phenolics was weaker with higher storage RVP. Microencapsulation improved the storage stability of cloudberry phenolics. The physical state of microcapsules did not have a significant role in the stability of cloudberry phenolics because phenolic losses were observed also in amorphous glassy materials. The antioxidant activity of the microencapsulated cloudberry extract remained the same or even improved slightly during storage, which may be related to the changes in phenolic profiles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据