4.6 Article

Enhanced antioxidant and antityrosinase activities of longan fruit pericarp by ultra-high-pressure-assisted extraction

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2009.02.033

关键词

Antioxidant; Antityrosinase; Ultra-high-pressure-assisted extraction; Phenolic compounds; Dimocarpus longan Lour

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30425040, 30700557]
  2. International Foundation of Science [F/4451-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The health benefits of fruits acting against chronic diseases are ascribed to their antioxidant activities which are mainly responsible due to the presence of phenolic compounds. The use of ultra-high-pressure-assisted extraction (UHPE) has shown great advantages for the extraction of these phenolic compounds from longan fruit pericarp (LFP). Studies were carried out to investigate the effects of UHPE at pressures of 200, 300, 400 and 500 MPa on total phenolic contents, extraction yield, antioxidant and antityrosinase activities from LFP. The antioxidant activities of these extracts were analyzed, using various antioxidant models like 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity, total antioxidant capacity and superoxide anion radical scavenging activity. Extract from ultra-Vigil-pressure-assisted extraction at 500 MPa (UHPE-500) showed the highest antioxidant activities of all the tested models. In addition, it also showed moderate tyrosinase inhibitory activity. Three phenolic acids, namely gallic acid, ellagic acid, and corilagin were identified and quantified by HPLC. Corilagin content was the highest compared to other phenolic acids identified. UHPE-500 obtained the higher phenolic acid contents compared to other high pressure processing and conventional extractions (CE). Compared with CE. UHPE-500 exhibited good extraction effectiveness in terms of higher extraction yields with high phenolic contents and also with higher antioxidant and antityrosinase activities. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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