| Title |
Impact of different post-harvest processing methods on the chemical compositions of peony root
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Natural Medicines, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11418-018-1214-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shu Zhu, Aimi Shirakawa, Yanhong Shi, Xiaoli Yu, Takayuki Tamura, Naotoshi Shibahara, Kayo Yoshimatsu, Katsuko Komatsu |
| Abstract |
The impact of key processing steps such as boiling, peeling, drying and storing on chemical compositions and morphologic features of the produced peony root was investigated in detail by applying 15 processing methods to fresh roots of Paeonia lactiflora and then monitoring contents of eight main components, as well as internal root color. The results showed that low temperature (4 °C) storage of fresh roots for approximately 1 month after harvest resulted in slightly increased and stable content of paeoniflorin, which might be due to suppression of enzymatic degradation. This storage also prevented roots from discoloring, facilitating production of favorable bright color roots. Boiling process triggered decomposition of polygalloylglucoses, thereby leading to a significant increase in contents of pentagalloylglucose and gallic acid. Peeling process resulted in a decrease of albiflorin and catechin contents. As a result, an optimized and practicable processing method ensuring high contents of the main active components in the produced root was developed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 1 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 50% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 25% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 July 2019.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Natural Medicines
#284
of 533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,050
of 327,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Natural Medicines
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 533 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,997 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.