4.7 Article

Characterisation of Aronia powders obtained by different drying processes

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 141, 期 3, 页码 2858-2863

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.05.103

关键词

Aronia; Drying; Powder; Processing; Low-temperature drying; High-temperature drying; Polyphenolic compounds; Antioxidant capacity

资金

  1. REFRESH project (Unlocking the potential of the Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research for strengthening integration with the European Research Area and regional development)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nowadays, food industry is facing challenges connected with the preservation of the highest possible quality of fruit products obtained after processing. Attention has been drawn to Aronia fruits due to numerous health promoting properties of their products. However, processing of Aronia, like other berries, leads to difficulties that stem from the preparation process, as well as changes in the composition of bioactive compounds. Consequently, in this study, Aronia commercial juice was subjected to different drying techniques: spray drying, freeze drying and vacuum drying with the temperature range of 40-80 degrees C. All powders obtained had a high content of total polyphenols. Powders gained by spray drying had the highest values which corresponded to a high content of total flavonoids, total monomeric anthocyanins, cyaniding-3-glucoside and total proanthocyanidins. Analysis of the results exhibited a correlation between selected bioactive compounds and their antioxidant capacity. In conclusion, drying techniques have an impact on selected quality parameters, and different drying techniques cause changes in the content of bioactives analysed. Spray drying can be recommended for preservation of bioactives in Aronia products. Powder quality depends mainly on the process applied and parameters chosen. Therefore, Aronia powders production should be adapted to the requirements and design of the final product. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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