4.2 Article

Water-soluble polysaccharides from Opuntia stricta Haw. fruit peels: recovery, identification and evaluation of their antioxidant activities

期刊

INTERNATIONAL AGROPHYSICS
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 299-306

出版社

POLISH ACAD SCIENCES, INST AGROPHYSICS
DOI: 10.1515/intag-2015-0035

关键词

Opuntia stricta Haw. peels; polysaccharide extraction; water-soluble polysaccharides; antioxidant activity

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Tunisia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Opuntia stricta Haw. is considered as one of the most common cactus plant growing in Tunisia. Extracting valuable compounds from its fruit peel, considered as by-product, is drawing more and more attention, making it on the verge of commercialization. Water-soluble polysaccharides were extracted from Opuntia stricta Haw. peels, and their chemical composition assessed using thin layer chromatography. The antioxidant activities of the extracted polysaccharides were assessed using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl free radical scavenging activity, total antioxidant activity and reducing power capacity. The extraction yield of water-soluble polysaccharides was 7.53 +/- 0.86%. The chemical composition revealed the presence of rhamnose, arabinose, glucose, mannose, galactose and galacturonic acid. The infra-red spectroscopic analysis showed a similar structure to that of Opuntia ficus-indica polysaccharide peels. Additionally, the extracted polysaccharides exhibited high antioxidant activities. In fact, the free radical scavenging activity (half inhibition concentration = 6.5 mg ml(-1) with 94.9% inhibition at 50 mg ml(-1)), the total antioxidant activity (100 mu g ascorbic acid equivalent at 50 mg polysaccharides) and the reducing power capacity (absorbance 700 nm = 0.7 at 50 mg ml(-1)), appeared to be interesting compared to natural and synthetic antioxidants. Therefore, water-soluble polysaccharides from Opuntia stricta Haw. fruit peels could be a natural alternative to replace synthetic antioxidants.

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

4.2
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