| Title |
Evaluation of antioxidant capacity of 13 plant extracts by three different methods: cluster analyses applied for selection of the natural extracts with higher antioxidant capacity to replace synthetic antioxidant in lamb burgers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-015-1994-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. P. P. Fernandes, M. A. Trindade, F. G. Tonin, C. G. Lima, S. M. P. Pugine, P. E. S. Munekata, J. M. Lorenzo, M. P. de Melo |
| Abstract |
The aims of this study were: to evaluate the total equivalent antioxidant capacities (TEAC) and phenolic contents of 13 plants extracts; to select the most promising extracts regarding reducing activity using cluster analysis multivariate statistical technique; and to analyse evaluate sensory acceptance of lamb burgers produced with the most promising natural antioxidants replacing sodium erythorbate. Plant extracts were evaluated regarding TEAC by DPPH(•) and FRAP methods, and total phenolics contents by Folin-Ciocalteau assay. The TEAC values ranged from 0.50 to 9.06 g trolox/100 g dry weight (dw) and from 43.6 to 472.32 μmol trolox/g dw for DPPH(•) and FRAP methods, respectively, and the total phenolic contents from 5.98 to 74.01 mg GAE/g dw. Extracts from Origanum vulgare, Melissa officinalis, Origanum majorana L. and Rosmarinus officinalis were grouped as the ones with higher antioxidant capacities by cluster analysis. All burgers produced with each one of these four plant extracts or with sodium erythorbate showed no differences (P > 0.05) regarding consumers' sensory acceptance. In conclusion, it is possible to replace sodium erythorbate in lamb burgers by any of the four natural extracts selected without compromising sensory acceptance of this meat product. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 293 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 11% |
| Researcher | 28 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 45 | 15% |
| Unknown | 101 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 52 | 18% |
| Chemistry | 21 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 19 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 6% |
| Engineering | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 45 | 15% |
| Unknown | 125 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 April 2016.
All research outputs
#4,186,864
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#187
of 1,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,454
of 266,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#13
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 266,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.