4.6 Article

Characterisation and valorisation of the bark of Myrcia eximia DC. trees from the Amazon rainforest as a source of phenolic compounds

期刊

HOLZFORSCHUNG
卷 74, 期 10, 页码 989-998

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/hf-2019-0294

关键词

bark characterisation; condensed tannins; natural antioxidant; phenolic compounds; structural analysis

资金

  1. Research Support Foundation of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  3. Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bark of the tree species Myrcia eximia DC., which occurs in secondary forests in the Brazilian Amazon, is described for the first time. The aim was to provide a broad knowledge of its composition, to add value, and to direct uses to the bark of this species based on its polyphenolic content and antioxidant capacity. The bark is formed by conducting phloem, nonconducting phloem, and rhytidome. In addition, dead phloem occurs between the periderms. The average chemical composition of the bark was 45.6% total extractives, 1.4% suberin, 1.7% ash, and 21.1% lignin. The ethanol-water extract had a high content of flavonoids and condensed tannins [300.8 and 877.3 mg catechin equivalents (CE) g(-1) of the extract, respectively]. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used to quantify the presence of rutin, quercetin, and gallic, ferulic, and o-coumaric acids. The bark extract showed strong 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl hydrate (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity, which was superior to that of the commercial antioxidant butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), with an IC50 of 85.2 mu g mL(-1). Based on these results, it is evident that the bark of M. eximia from the Brazilian Amazon rainforest is a new and potential natural source of phenolic compounds and antioxidants, and its extracts can be used in the food and pharmaceutical industry and in various condensed tannin-based products.

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