4.7 Article

Effects of drying on the phenolics content and antioxidant activity of muscadine pomace

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 1649-1657

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2011.02.011

关键词

Drying technologies; Muscadines; Phenolics; Antioxidant activity; Functional foods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three drying technologies [i.e., vacuum belt drying (VBD), hot air drying (HAD), and freeze drying (FD)] were evaluated for the processing of muscadine pomace in terms of their impact on drying time requirement, moisture content (MC), water activity (a(w)), total phenolics content (TPC), and antioxidant activity (AA). Muscadine pomace discs of two thicknesses (2 and 4 mm) were dried using 16 different time-temperature combinations for VBD, 12 different time-temperature and air velocity combinations for HAD, and one treatment for FD. The TPC and AA in lyophilised samples were 583 +/- 8 and 608 +/- 16 mu mol GAE/g d.w. and 2.21 +/- 0.15 and 2.30 +/- 0.17 mmol Fe2+ E/g d.w. for the 2 and 4 mm thick discs, respectively. The VBD treatment of 60-80-100-100 degrees C for 60 min (i.e., TV2) for 2 mm thick discs showed the highest TPC value, and no significant (P>0.05) differences were observed in AA of 2 mm thick discs dried by VDB and FD. The TPC and AA for the VBD treatment of 60-80-100-100 degrees C for 90 min and HAD treatment of 70 degrees C at 0.6 m/s for 3 h for the 2 mm thick discs were not significantly (P > 0.05) different compared to freeze dried samples. For 4 mm thick samples, the TPC and M for the VBD treatments of 60-80-100-100 degrees C, 60-90-120-120 degrees C, 70-90-110-110 degrees C, 80-90-100-100 degrees C, and 90-105-120-120 degrees C for 90 min as well as 70-90-110-110 degrees C for 60 min were not significantly (P > 0.05) different compared to those for freeze dried discs. VBD is a promising drying technology, as the resultant products possessed high TPCs and were dried in less than 1/4 of the time compared with that of FD. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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