4.7 Article

Usability of soapwort and horse chestnut saponin extracts as foaming agents in foam mat drying of pomegranate juice

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.10770

关键词

foam mat drying; saponin; foaming properties; stabilization; pomegranate powder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study determined that the saponin-rich extracts can be used as a foaming agent at very low concentrations, producing high-quality products. Optimum conditions for foaming and stabilization were found to be 0.4% of soapwort extract, 0.03% of carboxymethyl cellulose, and 3 minutes of whipping time.
BACKGROUND This study evaluated the usability of saponin-rich extracts (soapwort and horse chestnut) as a foaming agent for foam mat drying of pomegranate juice. RESULTS According to the foaming and stabilization studies, the optimum conditions were determined as 0.4% of soapwort extract, 0.03% of carboxymethyl cellulose as a stabilizer, and 3 min of whipping time. The foams produced using these conditions were dried at different spreading thicknesses and drying temperatures. The results showed that the thicker spreading thicknesses provided a higher antioxidant activity. On the other hand, drying temperature had a significant effect on all measured parameters except moisture content and water activity. The higher drying temperature caused a greater colour change and a lower content of total phenolics, total monomeric anthocyanins, cyanidin-3-glucoside, and delphinidin-3-glucoside. On the other hand, a higher content of ascorbic acid and better antioxidant activity was determined in the samples dried at 70 degrees C. CONCLUSION According to the results obtained, spreading thickness of 2 mm and drying temperature of 70 degrees C were suggested for pomegranate juice powder production by foam mat drying. Overall, it was demonstrated that saponin-rich extracts are a good foaming agent alternative that provides foaming at very low concentrations and a product with high quality. (c) 2020 Society of Chemical Industry

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