| Title |
Physicochemical, Functional and Antioxidant Properties of Tropical Fruits Co-products
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11130-016-0531-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Miriam Mabel Selani, Andreia Bianchini, Wajira S. Ratnayake, Rolando A. Flores, Adna Prado Massarioli, Severino Matias de Alencar, Solange Guidolin Canniatti Brazaca |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to determine the physicochemical, functional and antioxidant properties of mango (MAC), pineapple (PAC) and passion fruit (PFC) co-products in order to evaluate them as ingredients for food application. Proximate composition showed low fat content (0.95-5.64 g/100 g), and high levels of dietary fiber. In pineapple and passion fruit co-products, dietary fiber represented more than 50 % of the sample. Low pH, water activity, along with high acidity indicated that these co-products would not be easily susceptible to deterioration as food ingredients. Pineapple and passion fruit co-products had significant (p < 0.05) water holding capacity (4.96 and 4.31 g water/g sample, respectively), however oil holding capacity was low (1.59-1.85 g oil/g sample) for the three matrices studied. Regarding the phenolic content, values ranged from 3.78 to 4.67 mg gallic acid equivalent/g, with MAC showing the highest content. Through high performance liquid chromatography analysis, six compounds were identified and quantified (gallic acid, p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, caffeic acid, epicatechin, and mangiferin) in the fruit co-products. As observed for the phenolic content, the highest antioxidant activity (p < 0.05) was found in MAC when measured by both DPPH and ABTS methods. The results indicated that the fruit co-products under evaluation could be used as functional ingredient to provide dietary fiber and natural antioxidants to food products. |
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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 39 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 25 | 24% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 7 | 7% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 42 | 40% |
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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,447,592
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#536
of 702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,407
of 326,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 326,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.