| Title |
Quality of pomegranate pomace as affected by drying method
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-017-3022-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marina Cano-Lamadrid, Krzysztof Lech, Ángel Calín-Sánchez, Ema Carina Rosas-Burgos, Adam Figiel, Aneta Wojdyło, Malwina Wasilewska, Ángel A. Carbonell-Barrachina |
| Abstract |
During the industrial manufacturing of pomegranate juice, large amounts of pomace are produced. The aim of this work was to find the effective method to dry pomegranate pomace to open new commercial applications for this co-product. The effects of three drying methods: (i) convective drying (CD) at 50, 60, and 70 °C; (ii) vacuum microwave drying (VMD) at 240, 360, and 480 W, and (iii) a combined method (CPD-VMFD); convective pre-drying (60 °C) followed by vacuum microwave finish drying (360 W), on drying kinetics and quality of PomP (pomegranate pomace obtained after preparing pomegranate juice by squeezing only arils) were evaluated. The shortest treatments were VMD at 240 and 360 W (52 and 33 min, respectively); besides, these treatments led to interesting values of the green-red coordinate,a*, (12.2 and 4.1, respectively), total phenolic content (4.0 and 4.1 mg eq gallic acid g-1 dry weight, respectively), and antioxidant activity (30.8 and 29.0 µmol g-1 dry weight, respectively). On the other hand, this study demonstrated that this co-product is a rich source of punicic acid (average value = 66.4%), being a good opportunity for the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical industries. Moreover, no significant changes in the fatty acid profile was observed as affected by the drying treatments, and no off-flavors were generated by any of the drying methods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 34% |
| Engineering | 4 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,584,037
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#510
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,871
of 443,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#12
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.