| Literature DB >> 29348752 |
Mingyue Xu1, Guifang Tian1, Chengying Zhao1, Aftab Ahmad2, Huijuan Zhang1, Jinfeng Bi1, Hang Xiao3,4, Jinkai Zheng1.
Abstract
To establish the most convenient and effective method to dry tangerine peels, different methods (sun drying, hot-air drying, freeze drying, vacuum drying, and medium- and short-wave infrared drying) were exploited. Our results indicated that medium- and short-wave infrared drying was the best method to preserve nutraceutical components; for example, vitamin C was raised to 6.77 mg/g (D.W.) from 3.39 mg/g (sun drying). Moreover, the drying time can be shortened above 96% compared with sun drying. Importantly, the efficiency of DPPH radical scavenging was enhanced from 26.66% to 55.92%. These findings would provide a reliable and time-saving methodology to produce high-quality dried tangerine peels.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29348752 PMCID: PMC5734003 DOI: 10.1155/2017/6254793
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Figure 1Flowchart of extracting of total phenolics, total flavonoids, hesperidin, synephrine, and vitamin C.
Figure 2Drying curves and drying rate curves of tangerine peels dried by hot-air drying (a, d), vacuum drying (b, e), and medium- and short-wave infrared radiation drying (c, f).
Effect of different drying methods on main compositions of tangerine peels.
| Drying conditions | Soluble solid | Reducing sugar | Total sugar | Crude fiber | Titratable acid | Ash content | Minerals (ppm) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na | Mg | K | Ca | Fe | Mn | Cu | Zn | Se | |||||||
| F | 14.0 ± 0.28d | 725 ± 4.10a | 753 ± 41.04a | 12.8 ± 0.6a | 0.875 ± 0.064a | 2.88 ± 0.016a | 250 | 1904 | 6713 | 11016 | 22.8 | 20.2 | 1.23 | 14.3 | 0.014 |
| SD | 41.1 ± 1.41c | 489 ± 8.96b | 325 ± 26.01d | 10.8 ± 0.1b | 0.355 ± 0.049c | 2.74 ± 0.000c | 59.3 | 996 | 7204 | 5418 | 30.2 | 15.9 | 1.81 | 6.10 | 0.016 |
| FD | 51.1 ± 1.41a | 542 ± 47.84b | 553 ± 9.92b | 11.1 ± 0.1b | 0.670 ± 0.028b | 2.79 ± 0.001b | 58.4 | 805 | 9605 | 3934 | 14.1 | 6.09 | 2.07 | 8.77 | 0.009 |
| HAD, 80°C | 45.3 ± 0.94bc | 489 ± 94.63b | 474 ± 4.87c | 11.0 ± 0.0b | 0.820 ± 0.028a | 2.57 ± 0.012d | 53.4 | 908 | 8325 | 3602 | 15.3 | 7.11 | 1.95 | 7.32 | 0.000 |
| VD, 80°C | 45.9 ± 2.83b | 497 ± 85.36b | 454 ± 8.60c | 10.5 ± 0.0b | 0.695 ± 0.049b | 2.87 ± 0.017a | 73.2 | 973 | 8076 | 4913 | 15.5 | 16.7 | 1.82 | 6.55 | 0.010 |
| IRD, 80°C | 54.2 ± 2.83a | 545 ± 51.44b | 496 ± 14.26c | 11.1 ± 0.5b | 0.835 ± 0.021a | 2.82 ± 0.033b | 91.6 | 795 | 9452 | 3936 | 15.9 | 13.5 | 2.09 | 6.57 | 0.000 |
Results are mean ± SD. Different letters in the same column indicate that values are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Figure 3The content variation of total flavonoids content and total phenolics content in tangerine peels dried by different drying methods.
Figure 4The content variation of hesperidin (a), synephrine (b), and vitamin C (c) in tangerine peels dried by different drying methods.
Figure 5Effect of different methods on the antioxidant activity of tangerine peels: ABTS, DPPH (a), and FRAP (b).