4.7 Article

Total Phenolics, Flavonoids, and Antioxidant Activity of Sage (Salvia officinalis L.) Plants as Affected by Different Drying Methods

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 806-817

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11947-012-0877-7

关键词

Salvia officinalis L; Drying; Microwave; Far-infrared; Phenolics; Flavonoids; Antioxidant activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current study, we determined the effects of seven drying methods on total phenolics, flavonoids, individual phenolics, and antioxidant activity of the methanol extract of Salvia officinalis L. As compared with total phenolic content (TPC) of fresh plants, results showed that the highest TPC was recorded in plants dried by microwave (MW) at a power of 800 W/30 g of fresh plant and was 4.2 times higher than that of fresh plants whereas the lowest content was found in the case of plants dried by far-infrared (FIR) at 45 A degrees C. The analysis of the different extracts by RP-HPLC showed a predominance of phenolic acids particularly in fresh plants and those dried by MW (600 W/30 g of fresh plant) whereas flavonoids predominate in the case of plants dried by FIR (65 A degrees C). The assessment of the radical scavenging activity (RSA) against the stable radical 1,1-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) showed an increase in the scavenging effect particularly in MW (800 W/30 g of fresh plant) dried plants with an IC50 = 13.49 mu g ml(-1) (IC50 is the concentration required to cause 50 % DPPH inhibition). The complementary assessment of the RSA using the beta-carotene/linoleic acid system showed an increase of this activity for all extracts and particularly for the extract derived from MW (600 W/30 g of fresh plant) dried plants as compared to fresh ones. Finally, all the plant extracts showed moderate reducing power as assessed by the ferric-reducing antioxidant potential. These results suggested that MW drying could be applied to retain phenolic contents and to enhance antioxidant activity of sage plant materials.

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