4.7 Article

Influence of Different Non-thermal Processing on Guava, Orange, and Tangerine Juices and the Food Matrix Effects

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 1662-1672

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11947-021-02663-6

关键词

Emerging technologies; Antioxidant capacity; Bioactive compounds; Food composition; Chemometrics

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brazil (CAPES) [001]
  2. FUNCAP
  3. CNPq through the National Institute of Science and Technology for Tropical Fruit-INCT-FT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the impact of non-thermal technologies on bioactive compounds, antioxidant capacity, and enzymes in fruit juices. Guava juice was more susceptible to ozone and ultrasound processing, while orange juice showed reduced bioactive compounds after ozone treatment. Different fruits responded differently to the treatments, highlighting the influence of food matrix on non-thermal processing.
The present study evaluated the influence of non-thermal technologies (ultrasound and ozone) on the content of the bioactive compounds, in vitro antioxidant capacity, and deteriorative enzymes (peroxidase and polyphenoloxidase) in fruit juices. Multivariate statistical analysis revealed that guava juice was more susceptible to ozone and ultrasound processing due to the increase of phenolics, vitamin C, and antioxidant capacity (ABTS). The ozone processing was deleterious in orange juice, reducing the content of bioactive compounds. Ultrasound processing enhanced the bioactive compounds in tangerine and guava juice. Higher amounts of phenolics in orange juice presented good correlation to the ozone processing, which was followed by more elevated amounts of vitamin C in guava, orange, and mostly tangerine. The softer ultrasound processing contributed to raise the vitamin C content (mainly in guava and orange). The results highlighted that the food matrix influences the non-thermal processing due to their different compositions.

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