4.7 Article

Enhancing antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of carnosic acid in rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) extract by complexation with cyclic glucans

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 299, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125119

关键词

ABTS radical scavenging activity; Cycloamylose; beta-Cyclodextrin; Highly branched cyclic dextrin; Inclusion complex; Maltodextrin; Natural preservatives

资金

  1. Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (IPET) through the High Value-added Food Technology Development Program [315065-3]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) of South Korea
  3. National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Korea [2017R1D1A1B03035054]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1D1A1B03035054] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Of all the active compounds in rosemary extract, carnosic acid (CaA) has the most potent antimicrobial and antioxidant activity; however, its low solubility limits its applications. We developed complexing systems using cycloamylose (CA), branched dextrin (BD), and beta-cyclodextrin (beta CD) to improve the solubility of CaA and compared it to the use of maltodextrin (MD). The complexes formed with CA, BD, beta CD, and MD improved the water solubility of CaA by as much as 2.8-fold, 2.1-fold, 1.75-fold, and 2.06-fold, respectively. The antioxidant capacity of CaA in aqueous solutions was also enhanced in the complexes due to the increased water solubility. Interestingly, the antimicrobial activity was improved more dramatically upon complexation with CA (7.27-fold) compared to the improvement when complexed with BD (4.82-fold), beta CD (2.87-fold), and MD (3.83-fold). This may be due to the improvement of the antimicrobial potential of the functional groups of CaA by complexation with flexible cyclic glucans.

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