| Literature DB >> 27229852 |
Rebogile R Mphahlele1, Olaniyi A Fawole1,2, Nokwanda P Makunga3, Umezuruike L Opara4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of pomegranate peel is highly associated with its rich phenolic concentration. Series of drying methods are recommended since bioactive compounds are highly sensitive to thermal degradation. The study was conducted to evaluate the effects of drying on the bioactive compounds, antioxidant as well as antibacterial and antityrosinase activities of pomegranate peel.Entities:
Keywords: Freeze drying; Oven drying; Rutin; Total phenolics; Vitamin C
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27229852 PMCID: PMC4881059 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-016-1132-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Residual moisture using freeze and oven drying methods
| Drying method | Drying time (h) | Residual moisture (kg water/kg dry matter) |
|---|---|---|
| Freeze dried | 16 | 0.087 ± 0.002b |
| 40 °C | 22 | 0.093 ± 0.002a |
| 50 °C | 17 | 0.094 ± 0.002a |
| 60 °C | 12 | 0.096 ± 0.004a |
Means in the same column with different letter(s) (a-b) differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range tests
Pomegranate peel colour attributes after drying
| Drying method | Colour attributes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| a* | C |
| Δ | |
| Fresh peel | 51.01 ± 1.67b | 28.85 ± 1.70a | 35.14 ± 1.60a | 34.61 ± 2.05b | – |
| Freeze dried | 61.46 ± 1.59a | 23.33 ± 1.28b | 29.99 ± 0.86b | 38.85 ± 2.18ab | 17.77 ± 1.07b |
| 40 °C | 41.51 ± 1.09c | 24.33 ± 1.01b | 33.13 ± 0.77a | 42.32 ± 1.70a | 18.72 ± 1.14ab |
| 50 °C | 39.29 ± 1.37c | 25.24 ± 0.88b | 33.25 ± 0.78a | 39.82 ± 1.76ab | 23.10 ± 2.42a |
| 60 °C | 42.04 ± 0.92c | 25.24 ± 1.16b | 35.08 ± 0.66a | 43.78 ± 1.90a | 16.82 ± 2.00b |
Means in the same column with different letter(s) (a-b) differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range tests. L* = lightness/darkness; a* = redness/greenness; C* = chroma; h° = hue angle; ΔE = total colour difference
Individual phenolic and flavonoid concentration in fresh and dried pomegranate peel
| Drying method | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Punicalin (mg CE/kg DM) | Rutin | p-Coumaric | +Catechin (mg/kg DM) | -Epicatechin | Hesperidin | |
| Freeze dried | 708.38 ± 48.86b | 4666.03 ± 311.70a | nd | 674.51 ± 21.30a | 70.56 ± 0.22a | 16.45 ± 1.65a |
| 40 °C | 768.11 ± 1.67b | 2135.00 ± 0.00c | nd | 377.26 ± 22.05c | 28.93 ± 1.55c | 5.07 ± 0.02b |
| 50 °C | 672.98 ± 26.93b | nd | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 340.64 ± 21.06c | 31.95 ± 3.37bc | 4.59 ± 0.54b |
| 60 °C | 888.04 ± 57.57a | 3401.36 ± 0.00b | 0.57 ± 0.52 | 443.41 ± 0.30b | 34.74 ± 0.11b | 1.77 ± 0.54c |
Mean in column with different letter(s) (a-c) differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test. nd not detected. (n = 3). Means ± SE presented
Fig. 1Effects of drying methods on concentrations of total phenolic (a), total tannins (b) and total flavonoid (c) of pomegranate peel. Bars with same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05; Duncan’s multiple range test). Data represent the Mean ± SE (n = 3)
Fig. 2Effects of drying methods on RSA (a), FRAP (b) and vitamin C concentration (c) of pomegranate peel. Bars with same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05; Duncan’s multiple range test). Data represent the Mean ± SE (n = 3). RSA radical scavenging activity, FRAP ferric reducing antioxidant power, Vit C Vitamin C
Antibacterial activity (MIC, mg/ml) of dried pomegranate peel extracts using two different drying methods
| Treatment | Gram negative | Gram positive | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Freeze dried | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| 40 °C | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 |
| 50 °C | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| 60 °C | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| Streptomycin (mg/ml) | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Effective inhibition concentration (EC50) of fresh and dried fruit peel extracts against tyrosinase
| Treatment | Monophenolase | Diphenolase |
|---|---|---|
| (IC50 mg/ml) | ||
| Freeze dried | 107.73 ± 10.08a | 86.93 ± 15.23ab |
| 40 °C | 45.07 ± 6.05b | 119.79 ± 20.23a |
| 50 °C | 22.95 ± 1.53c | 74.05 ± 10.27ab |
| 60 °C | 64.27 ± 10.35b | 62.09 ± 2.98b |
| Arbutin (mg/ml) | 44.00 ± 5.56b | 14.99 ± 2.52c |
Mean in column with different letter(s) (a-c) differ significantly (P < 0.05) according to Duncan’s multiple range test. IC50 (mg/ml), concentration for inhibitory 50 % of tyrosinase. Data represent the Mean ± SE (n = 3)
Fig. 3Principal component analysis of the first two factors (F1 and F2) based on colour attributes and bioactive compounds of pomegranate peel cv. Wonderful obtained from different drying methods. TCD total colour difference, TF total flavonoid, TP total phenolic, TT total tannin, RSA radical scavenging activity, Vit C Vitamin C, FRAP ferric reducing antioxidant power. L* lightness, C* chroma, H° hue angle, a* redness, RMC residual moisture content (dry basis %), MC moisture content (wet basis %)
Factor loadings, eigenvalue, cumulative variance (%) and score for the first two principal (F1–F2) components based on pomegranate peel from two different drying methods
| Loadings | F1 | F2 |
|---|---|---|
| Catechin | 0.864 | 0.487 |
| Epicatechin | 0.930 | 0.363 |
| Punicalin | −0.543 | 0.653 |
| Hesperedin | 0.999 | 0.033 |
| RSA | −0.649 | 0.760 |
| Vit C | −0.300 | −0.511 |
| TF | 0.983 | 0.182 |
| TP | 0.964 | 0.264 |
| TT | 1.000 | 0.014 |
| FRAP | 0.875 | 0.165 |
| Rutin | 0.564 | 0.652 |
| p-coumaric | −0.715 | 0.457 |
| Lightness ( | 0.945 | 0.315 |
| Chroma (C*) | −0.984 | 0.174 |
| Hue angle (h°) | −0.791 | 0.303 |
| Redness (a*) | −0.930 | 0.053 |
| TCD | −0.551 | 0.821 |
| MCwb | −0.969 | 0.236 |
| RMC | −0.994 | −0.114 |
| Scores | ||
| Freeze dried | 6.147 | 0.816 |
| 40 °C | −1.067 | −2.055 |
| 50 °C | −1.511 | −1.356 |
| 60 °C | −3.569 | 2.595 |
RSA radical scavenging activity, Vit C Vitamin C, TF total flavonoid, TP total phenolic, TT total tannin, FRAP ferric reducing antioxidant power, TCD total color difference, MC moisture content (wet basis), RMC residual moisture content