4.6 Article

A comparative study of the fatty acid profile of common fruits and fruits claimed to confer health benefits

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104657

关键词

Nutrition; Polyunsaturated fatty acids; Lipids; Odd-chain fatty acids; Long-chain fatty acids; Very long-chain fatty acids

资金

  1. Dr. P. Hakansson's Foundation, Sweden
  2. Lund University, Faculty of Science, Sweden

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the nutritional value of the fatty acid profiles of superfruits (goji berry, white mulberry, and cranberry) and common fruits (banana, apple, and strawberry). The findings suggest that cranberries and apples have the most beneficial lipid profiles, while superfruits do not show a common and beneficial lipid profile.
This study aims to verify the nutritional value of the fatty acid (FA) profile of three fruits claimed to confer health benefits (goji berry, white mulberry, and cranberry), often referred to as superfruits, over three common fruits (banana, apple, and strawberry). Nineteen different FAs, ranging in concentrations between 0.018 and 9.4 mg/g dry sample were detected. Levels of very long-chained FAs were highest in cranberries, oleic acid was most abundant in goji berries, alpha-linolenic acid showed high levels in strawberries and linoleic acid showed high levels in goji berries and white mulberries. The ratio of unsaturated to saturated FAs was highest in strawberries and goji berries, and the ratio of odd-carbon to even carbon saturated FAs was high in all common fruits, whereas among the superfruits both goji- and white mulberries showed very low ratios. Finally, the ratio of very longchain to long-chain FAs showed the highest levels in cranberries and apples. A composite measure of the FA profile suggests apples and cranberries to show the most beneficial lipid profile. However, a common and beneficial lipid profile was not found in the superfruits as compared to more common fruits.

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

4.6
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