4.5 Article

Impact of harvest times on the quality characteristics of oils recovered from different safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) cultivars sown in spring and autumn

期刊

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 242, 期 3, 页码 371-381

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-015-2547-2

关键词

Sowing date; Fatty acid; Oil content; Oil stability; Radical scavenging activity

资金

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [TOVAG 108 O 855]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was carried out to investigate the impact of harvest time (HT) and sowing time (ST) on the oil content, fatty acid composition, physicochemical properties, antiradical potential and oxidative stability of oils recovered from different safflower cultivars. In this work, three safflower cultivars (cv. Yenice, cv. Din double dagger er and cv. Remzibey-05) were grown in spring and autumn and harvested at three different times (2 weeks after flowering, 4 weeks after flowering and at maturity). Examined parameters of safflower seeds and oil samples from different cultivars varied according to cultivar, ST and HT. Moisture content was higher in the seeds from autumn sowing than spring sowing. The highest oil content (25.8 %) was recorded for Din double dagger er cultivar. The main four fatty acids (palmitic, stearic, oleic and linoleic) accounted for about 99 % of total fatty acids. The peroxide value PV (0.72 meqO(2)/kg) of oil from autumn sowing was higher than the PV (0.46 meqO(2)/kg) from spring sowing. Rancimat value of seed oil from Remzibey-05 (6.38 h) cultivar was the highest followed by Yenice (5.08 h) and Din double dagger er (5.41 h) cultivars. The radical scavenging activity (76.8 %) of the oils from spring sowing was higher than the radical scavenging activity (73.0 %) of the oils from autumn sowing. The findings showed that the oxidative stability of oils from autumn sowing was stronger than that of oils from spring sowing. In addition, delaying HT has decreased oxidative stability of oils.

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

4.5
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