4.7 Article

Effect of Roasting, Boiling, and Frying Processing on 29 Polyphenolics and Antioxidant Activity in Seeds and Shells of Sweet Chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.)

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10102192

关键词

Castanea sativa; roasting; boiling; frying; HPLC-MS/MS & nbsp; ; phenolic compounds; antioxidant activity; seeds; shells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed the effects of different processing methods on the levels of various polyphenolic compounds in chestnuts, with roasting, boiling, and frying having unique impacts on phenolic content. Additionally, it was found that the shells had higher polyphenolic content compared to the seeds, indicating higher antioxidant activity.
Sweet chestnuts (Castanea sativa Mill.) are highly prized nuts, and the consumption of fresh chestnuts is usually preceded by roasting, boiling, and frying. The aim of this work was to simultaneously analyze 29 polyphenolic compounds for the first time in raw, boiled, roasted, and fried chestnut seeds and shells using HPLC-MS/MS. Principal component analysis depending on the HPLC-MS/MS results showed that roasting, boiling, and frying affected the contents of 25 detected phenolic compounds in a unique way, of which the most notable phenolics were gallic acid, ellagic acid, and (+)-catechin. Additionally, total polyphenolic content (TPC) was measured via the Folin-Ciocalteu method, and TPC in seeds and inner and outer shells was increased in all treatments except for microwave-roasted seeds. Furthermore, the higher TPC in the inner and outer shells when compared to seeds supported their higher antioxidant activity (AOA) determined via the DPPH experiment. AOA of seeds was increased in all treatments, while the AOA of shells was higher in roasting and lower in boiling and frying treatments. The assessment of these changes is necessary so that chestnut seed consumption and the recycling of their shells as a natural source of antioxidants can be maximized.

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