4.7 Article

Comparative study of commercially available cocoa products in terms of their bioactive composition

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 42, 期 5-6, 页码 707-716

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.02.018

关键词

Antioxidant capacity; Cocoa products; Composition; Methylxanthines; Polyphenols

资金

  1. Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, Republic of Croatia [058 3470]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent trends in food marketing suggest that cocoa products, besides being favourite sweets among consumers, also present multiple-benefit foodstuffs, which are becoming objects of increased scientific research, mainly because of their interesting phytochemical composition. UV/VIS spectrophotometric and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC-PDA) methods were applied in order to compare the composition of polyphenols and methylxanthines in commercial cocoa products affected by different extraction solvents. Antioxidant capacity of water and methanol extracts was evaluated using DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl). ABTS (2,2-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) and FRAP (ferric reducing/antioxidant power) assays. The obtained results confirmed that the content of polyphenols and methylxanthines, as well as the antioxidant capacity of cocoa products depend on the content of their cocoa solids. Among the tested cocoa products, the highest content of bioactive compounds (polyphenols and methylxanthines) was determined in extracts of cocoa products with the highest content of cocoa solids (cocoa liquor, cocoa powder and dark chocolate with 88% cocoa solids), while the lowest content was determined in milk chocolate and cocoa bar extracts. The most abundant phenolic compound in cocoa extracts was (-)-epicatechin, while the most abundant methylxanthine was theobromine. In comparison with water, 70% methanol demonstrated higher efficiency for the extraction of the studied bioactive compounds from cocoa products, (c) 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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