4.7 Article

LC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS-based assessment of the bioactive compounds in fresh and fermented caper (Capparis spinosa) buds and berries

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 337, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127959

关键词

Capparis spinosa; Caper; Phenolic compounds; Fermentation; LC-MS/MS

资金

  1. Adana Alparslan Turkes Science and Technology University Research Found [LTP-18332008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to compare the bioactive compounds and quality parameters of fresh and fermented caper buds and berries, finding that the phenolic content and antioxidant capacity were higher in fresh and fermented buds than in berries. The amounts of isorhamnetin, quercetin, and kaempferol increased in fermented samples, while total phenolics and antioxidant properties were better preserved in dry-salted samples compared to brined samples.
The main objective of this study was to compare bioactive compounds and other important quality parameters of fresh and fermented caper buds and berries. Fresh samples were fermented using dry-salted and brined techniques. The higher phenolic content was determined in the fresh (1843.71 mg/100 g DW) and fermented buds (1198.54-1539.49 mg/100 g DW) rather than the berries (29.72-40.75 mg/100 g DW). Quercetin-3-O-rutinoside, kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside, and quercetin-O-galloly-O-hexoside were the principal phenolic components in fresh and fermented buds while quercetin-3-O-rutinoside in fresh and fermented berries. The amounts of isorhamnetin, quercetin, and kaempferol increased in fermented buds and berries compared to fresh samples. Similarly, antioxidant capacity of buds was found to be markedly higher than berries. As for sugar compounds, it was found that fructose in buds (1.56-3.23 g/100 g DW) and glucose in berries (1.96-6.38 g/100 g DW) had the highest amount. When total phenolics and antioxidant properties were evaluated, it was observed that they were better preserved in the dry-salted samples than the brined samples.

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