4.7 Article

Degradation kinetic modeling of bioactive compounds and enzyme activity in wheat germ during stabilization

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 153, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112501

关键词

Activation energy; Activation enthalpy; Kinetic modeling; Thermal treatment; Wheat germ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that heat treatment at 120 degrees Celsius for 20 minutes was the best processing condition to stabilize raw wheat germ and preserve its valuable bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity. The models developed in this study may be useful for designing different heat treatment conditions.
The stability of alpha-tocopherol (alpha-toco), total phenolic content (TPC), antioxidant capacity (DPPH and ABTS center dot+ radical scavenging capacity assays), activity of lipase (LA) and lipoxygenase (LOX) were investigated during stabilization of raw wheat germ with an industrial convection oven at different temperatures (120, 130, 140, 150 and 160 degrees C) and times (0, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min). Degradation kinetics were best fitted by first-order reaction models for all measured parameters with high R2 and low root mean square (RMSE) values, except ABTSassay which was modeled accurately with the second-order model. The temperature dependence of rate constants for all degradation kinetic parameters were calculated according to the Arrhenius, Eyring-Polanyi, and Ball models. Following the Arrhenius and Eyring models, activation energy (Ea) ranged from 20.69 to 55.04 kJ mol- 1, activation enthalpy (Delta H*) ranged from 20.44 to 51.61 kJ mol-1 whereas the activation entropy (Delta S*) varied between -179.313 and -213.447 J mol-1K-1 for the stabilized germ, respectively. It can be concluded that heat treatment at 120 degrees C for 20 min was the best processing conditions to stabilize the raw germ to preserve its valuable bioactive compounds, antioxidant activity and the models can be useful to design different heat treatment conditions.

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