4.7 Article

Valorization of Prickly Pear Peel Residues (Opuntia ficus-indica) Using Solid-State Fermentation

期刊

FOODS
卷 12, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods12234213

关键词

hydrolyzable tannins; condensed tannins; Aspergillus sp.; Box-Hunter and Hunter design; biological activities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prickly pear peel residues can be used in solid-state fermentation to obtain bioactive compounds, and factors such as temperature, inoculum, and humidity affect the release and accumulation of tannins. The fermented extracts showed higher antioxidant and antimicrobial activity.
Prickly pear peel (Opuntia ficus-indica) residues can be used as a substrate in solid-state fermentation to obtain bioactive compounds. The kinetic growth of some Aspergillus strains was evaluated. A Box-Hunter and Hunter design to evaluate the independent factors was used. These factors were temperature (C-degrees), inoculum (spores/g), humidity (%), pH, NaNO3 (g/L), MgSO4 (g/L), KCl (g/L), and KH2PO4 (g/L). The response factors were the amount of hydrolyzable and condensed tannins. The antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of fermentation extracts was evaluated. Aspergillus niger strains GH1 and HT3 were the best for accumulating tannins. The humidity, inoculum, and temperature affect the release of hydrolyzable and condensed tannins. Treatment 13 (low values for temperature, inoculum, NaNO3, MgSO4; and high values for humidity, pH, KCl, KH2PO4) resulted in 32.9 mg/g of condensed tannins being obtained; while treatment 16 (high values for all the factors evaluated) resulted in 3.5 mg/g of hydrolyzable tannins being obtained. In addition, the fermented extracts showed higher antioxidant activity compared to the unfermented extracts. Treatments 13 and 16 showed low inhibition of E. coli, Alternaria sp., and Botrytis spp. The solid-state fermentation process involving prickly pear peel residues favors the accumulation of condensed and hydrolyzable tannins, with antioxidant and antifungal activity.

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