4.7 Article

Biologically active compounds from white and black mustard grains: An optimization study for recovery and identification of phenolic antioxidants

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 294-300

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.04.059

关键词

Mustard grain; Antioxidant properties; Statistical mixture design; Identification

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development - Brazil (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior -Brazil (CAPES) [23038.000795/2018-61, 001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work aimed to determine the best solvent mixture for extraction of antioxidant compounds from two varieties of mustard grains (white - Sinapsis alba and black - Brassica nigra) using a simplex centroid mixture design. For this, the experiments were performed using pure, binary or ternary solvent mixtures containing water, acetone and methanol. All extracts were analyzed for total phenolic compounds (TPC), DPPH- and ABTS-radical scavenging activities. The binary mixture of water and acetone, in equal proportions, was the best solvent combination to obtain an extract with higher TPC content and antioxidant properties. The extraction of antioxidant compounds with water/acetone resulted in increases of 23-folds for TPC, 48-folds for ABTS and 25-folds for DPPH compared to pure acetone. For black mustard, the extract obtained with this solvent combination was 19-, 31- and 27-folds higher than that produced with pure acetone for TPC, ABTS and DPPH, respectively. Additionally, the bioactive compounds from the mustard extracts were identified by UHPLC-MS/MS, as follows: 3,4-di-hydroxybenzoic acid, ferulic acid and sinapic acid in white mustard and 3,4-di-hydroxybenzoic acid, ferulic acid, sinapic acid and rutin in black mustard. This work reported for the first time an optimization study for recovery of phenolic compounds from mustard grains in order to obtain extracts with better antioxidant properties.

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