4.6 Article

Phytochemical Characterization and Bioactivity Evaluation of Autumn Olive (Elaeagnus umbellataThunb.) Pseudodrupes as Potential Sources of Health-Promoting Compounds

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 10, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app10124354

关键词

berry fruit; antioxidant activity; anthocyanins; HPLC fingerprint; underrated species; multipurpose tree

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellataThunb.) is a deciduous shrub tree widely distributed in Asia and Southern Europe and grown as ornamental species. It is locally used for human consumption, as relevant medical value is attributed to the berries. Information about its composition, especially concerning the characterization of bioactive and health-promoting compounds, is limited. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the main bioactive compounds and nutraceutical proprieties of autumn olive fruits, via high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) fingerprint and spectrophotometric analysis, in order to strengthen the knowledge about this underrated species and promote potential applications as a food supplement. Concerning nutraceutical traits, total polyphenolic content (325.366 +/- 13.019 mg of gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE)/100 of fresh weight (g FW)) and total anthocyanin content (194.992 +/- 0.817 mg of cyanidin-3-O-glucoside (mg C3G)/100 g FW) recorded considerable values. The phytochemical fingerprint revealed the presence 23 bioactive compounds. Polyphenols (65.56%) were the largest class, followed by monoterpenes (27.40%) and vitamin C (7.04%). Anthocyanins were the most represented compounds among polyphenols (71.9%). The antioxidant capacity (20.031 +/- 1.214 mmol Fe2+/kg) was similar to that recorded for other small fruits with proven health-promoting properties. The present work underlined the potential ofE. umbellataas a source of health-promoting bioactive compounds. Further studies should deepen the knowledge of nutraceutical aspects, which turned out to be interesting.

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