4.4 Article

Tunisian Pistachio Hull Extracts: Phytochemical Content, Antioxidant Activity, and Foodborne Pathogen Inhibition

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD QUALITY
卷 2021, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9953545

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to differentiate pistachio hulls from different Tunisian origins using multivariate analysis to analyze their phytochemicals, antioxidant, and antibacterial activities. Significant differences were found among the populations in terms of phytochemical content and biological activities. The aqueous pistachio hull extract was demonstrated to be effective in controlling L. monocytogenes and S. enterica by suppressing bacterial growth.
The present study aimed to discriminate pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) hulls belonging to three different Tunisian geographical origins and extracted separately by hexane, acetone, acetonitrile, and water in terms of phytochemicals and antioxidant and antibacterial activities using multivariate analysis. Significant differences (P<0.05) in the phytochemical content, antioxidant, and antifoodborne bacterial activities were detected among the pistachio hulls populations. Pearson correlation, principal component analysis (PCA), hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), and heat map were used to distinguish the relationship between the different regions on the basis of the biological activities. It was found that the twelve (4 extracts x 3 geographical sources) pistachio hulls extracts could be classified geographically into four distinct groups. To explore the mode of action of the aqueous pistachio hull extract against L. monocytogenes and S. enterica, polymyxin acriflavine lithium chloride ceftazidime aesculin mannitol (PALCAM) and xylose lysine deoxycholate (XLD) broth media were artificially contaminated at 10(4) CFU/mL. Using linear and general linear models, aqueous pistachio hull extract was demonstrated to control the two dominant food-borne pathogens by suppressing the bacterial growth.

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

4.4
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