4.1 Article

Untargeted Chemometrics Evaluation of the Effect of Juicing Technique on Phytochemical Profiles and Antioxidant Activities in Common Vegetables

期刊

ACS FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 1, 期 1, 页码 77-87

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsfoodscitech.0c00013

关键词

blending; high-speed centrifugal juicing; low-speed juicing; UHPLC-QTOF-MS; phytochemical profile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized UHPLC-QTOF-MS and metabolomics approaches to investigate the effects of different processing techniques on 19 vegetables, identifying 85 different metabolites and potential markers that differentiate the techniques. Antioxidant activities varied significantly between juices produced by different techniques and vegetable varieties, with kale juice produced by a low-speed juicer showing the highest levels of total phenolics and DPPH value.
This study used ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography combined with ion-trap time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-QTOF-MS) and complementary metabolomics approaches to investigate the effects of three processing techniques (blending, high-speed centrifugal juicing, and low-speed juicing) on the phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activities of 19 vegetables, including kale and beets. UHPLC-QTOF-MS combined with chemometric sparse partial least-squares discriminant analysis and heat map approaches identified 85 different metabolites. Kaempferol, quercetin glycosides, and amino acid-attached betaxanthins were identified as potential markers that differentiate the processing techniques, with higher relative abundances in kale juices produced in a low-speed juicer, followed by beet juices produced in a high-speed centrifugal juicer. The antioxidant activities were significantly different in juices produced by the three processing techniques and in different vegetable varieties, with the green kale juice produced by the low-speed juicer having the highest level of total phenolics (1201.31 mu g/g of gallic acid equivalents) and DPPH value (1235.53 mu g/g of ascorbic acid equivalents).

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

4.1
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