4.6 Article

The influence of short, medium, and long duration common dehydration methods on total protein, nutrients, vitamins, and carotenoids of rosehip fruit (Rosa canina L.)

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105631

关键词

Rosa canina L.; Drying; Nutrients; Vitamins; Carotenoids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on the various drying methods for rosehip fruits and found that microwave drying at 500 and 700 W was the most effective in maintaining the fruit's quality parameters and saving time.
This study focused on the change in the quality parameters of rosehip fruits by different drying methods selected in a broad spectrum ranging from very long to concise duration. While natural and convective drying methods had a very long duration, with 9360 and 1080 min, respectively, microwave drying at 100 W had a relatively long duration, with 364 min. Microwave drying at 300 and 500 W represented medium-duration drying methods with 162 and 77 min; however, 700 and 1000 W were referred to as short-duration drying methods with 45 and 21 min. Among the drying methods, the highest concentrations of K, Mg, Na, Fe, total protein, ascorbic acid, niacin, and pantothenic acid were obtained with 10730, 1867, 446, 27.5, 53596, 10590, 63.1, and 35.1 mg/kg at 500 W, defined as a short duration method. For P, Ca, Cu, Mn, Zn, thiamin, pyridoxine, beta-carotene, tocopherol, lycopene, lutein, and zeaxanthin, 700 W, that is the concise duration technique, was the closest drying method to fresh samples with 1382, 6480, 4.19, 76.3, 8.09, 0.78, 75.3, 238, 278, 60.1, and 17.5 mg/kg, respectively. Unlike short-duration methods, natural drying, convective drying at 50 degrees C, and microwave drying at 100 W caused extreme decreases for all biochemical parameters. Consequently, microwave drying at 500 and 700 W was highly convenient for maintaining the quality parameters at the maximum level and saving time in drying the rose hips, which took a short time to harvest.

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