4.7 Article

Extraction and characterization of cell wall polysaccharides from cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon var. Stevens) pomace

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 267, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118212

关键词

Cranberry pomace; Sequential extraction; Cell wall polysaccharides; Pectic polysaccharides

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation [36708]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, cell wall polysaccharides were extracted from Stevens cranberry pomace, revealing a high content of pectic polysaccharides including homogalacturonan, arabinan, and galactan. Various extracts showed differences in composition, with CH extract having the highest yield and mainly consisting of homogalacturonan. Additionally, high molecular weight polysaccharides were identified in all extracts.
Cranberries of Stevens variety, mainly used for juice production, were processed into pomace, from which alcohol insoluble solids (AIS) were obtained. The cell wall polysaccharides were sequentially extracted from AIS, and characterized in terms of monosaccharide profile, sugar linkage and molecular weight distribution. Pectic polysaccharides represented more than 90% of the carbohydrates contained in hot buffer (HA), chelating agents (CH) and diluted alkali (DA) extracts. HA extract contained homogalacturonan with 75% being methyl esterified, and pectic arabinan with traces of pectic galactan, type II arabinogalactan and 1,4-beta-glucan. CH extract, recovered with the highest yield (11.0% w/w), was composed mainly of homogalacturonan. DA extract included homogalacturonan with 2% methyl esterification, abundant arabinan and galactans and traces of 1,4-beta-glucan. Glucomannan, xylan and xyloglucan represented 66% of the carbohydrates present in the last concentrated alkali extract (CA), the rest being pectic arabinan and galactan. High molecular weight polysaccharides (>10(2) kDa) were identified in all extracts.

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