| Literature DB >> 30995729 |
Emanuela Monteiro Coelho1, Marcelo Eduardo Alves Olinda de Souza2, Luiz Claudio Corrêa3, Arão Cardoso Viana4, Luciana Cavalcanti de Azevêdo5, Marcos Dos Santos Lima6.
Abstract
The present work had the objective of producing liqueurs from mango peels (varieties "Haden" and "Tommy Atkins") by processes of alcoholic maceration and maceration with pectinase, as well as to evaluate bioactive compounds by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to diode array detection and fluorescence-detection (RP-HPLC/DAD/FD) and in vitro antioxidant activity (AOX), for by-product potential reuse. Alcoholic maceration in wine ethanol (65% v/v) produced liqueurs with higher phytochemical and AOX content. Maceration with pectinase resulted in liqueurs with higher quercetin-3-O-glucopyranoside content. In relation to mango varieties, Haden liqueurs presented higher bioactive content than Tommy Atkins liqueurs. The liqueurs presented high antioxidant activity. The main bioactive compounds found were flavanols (epicatechin-gallate, epigallocatechin-gallate), flavonols (quercetin-3-O-glucopyranoside and rutin), and phenolic acids (gallic acid, o-coumaric acid, and syringic acid). The present study showed that the production of liqueur enabled the recovering of an important part of the bioactive content of mango peels, suggesting an alternative for the recovery of antioxidant substances from this by-product.Entities:
Keywords: HPLC; pectinase; phenolic compounds
Year: 2019 PMID: 30995729 PMCID: PMC6523795 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8040102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Physicochemical analysis and color by CIE L*a*b* system of mango peel liqueurs produced by different methods of maceration.
| Liqueurs | Tommy Atkins | Haden | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maceration Treatments | Alcoholic | Pectinase | Alcoholic | Pectinase |
| pH | 4.85 ± 0.08 b | 3.61 ± 0.02 d | 5.01 ± 0.06 a | 3.94 ± 0.05 c |
| Titratable acidity (g L−1) | 1.0 ± 0.0 b | 4.4 ± 0.0 a | 1.1 ± 0.0 b | 4.6 ± 0.0 a |
| Total sugars % | 14.9 ± 0.1 a | 15.0 ± 0.1 a | 15.0 ± 0.1 a | 15.0 ± 0.2 a |
| Alcoholic strength % ( | 18.2 ± 0.3 a | 18.0 ± 0.2 a | 17.9 ± 0.3 a | 18.0 ± 0.2 a |
| Colour | ||||
| L* | 59 ± 1 c | 62 ± 1 b | 55 ± 1 d | 70 ± 2 a |
| a* | 8.2 ± 0.2 a | 6.1 ± 0.2 b | 8.6 ± 0.1 a | 1.2 ± 0.1 c |
| b* | 80.7 ± 0.9 a | 71.5 ± 0.7 b | 63.3 ± 0.2 c | 37.3 ± 0.8 d |
a–d Means followed by the same letters in the same lines do not differ by Tukey test at 5% probability of error.
Bioactive compounds profile (µg 100 mL−1) of mango peel liqueurs produced by different methods of maceration.
| Liqueurs | Tommy Atkins | Haden | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maceration Treatments | Pectinase | Alcoholic | Pectinase | Alcoholic |
| FLAVANOLS | ||||
| (+)-Catechin | 12.0 ± 0.1 c | 141.3 ± 2.3 a | 16.0 ± 0.0 b | 8.0 ± 0.1 d |
| (−)-Epicatechin | 22.0 ± 0.3 a | 14.0 ± 0.2 c | 13.3 ± 1.1 c | 20.0 ± 0.3 b |
| (−)-Epicatechin gallate | 406.7 ± 0.0 b | 776.7 ± 12.2 a | 266.2 ± 17.4 c | 718.7 ± 15.1 a |
| (−)-Epigallocatechin gallate | 64 ± 0 c | 141.7 ±17.5 a,b | 174 ± 14 a | 134 ± 2 b |
| Procyanidin A2 | 36.7 ± 1.1 b | 78 ± 2 a | 22.0 ± 0.0 c | 14.0 ± 0.8 d |
| Procyanidin B1 | 40 ± 0 c | 88 ± 1 a | 29.3 ± 1.1 d | 80 ± 1 b |
| Procyanidin B2 | ND | 8.7 ± 1.1 a | 4.0 ± 0.1 b | 10.0 ± 0.1 a |
| Total Flavanols quantification | 581 ± 9 | 1254 ± 26 | 541 ± 30 | 950 ± 67 |
| FLAVONOLS | ||||
| Kaempferol 3-glucoside | 23.3 ± 1.1 c | 30.7 ± 2.3 b,c | 41.3 ± 9.2 a,b | 46.0 ± 0.1 a |
| Myricetin | 6.7 ± 1.1 c | 13.3 ± 1.1 b | 17.3 ± 2.3 a | 8.0 ± 0.1 c |
| Isorhamnetin | 11.3 ± 1.1 b | 24.0 ± 4.0 a | 20.7 ± 6.4 a,b | 30.7 ± 1.1 a |
| Rutin | 42.0 ± 0.2 b | 39.3 ± 1.1 b | 14 ± 2 c | 58.0 ± 0.1 a |
| Quercetin 3-glucoside | 14.0 ± 0.0 b | 6.0 ± 0.1 c | 22.0 ± 0.1 a | 6.0 ± 0.1 c |
| Quercetin-3- | 343.3 ± 1.1 a | 14.0 ± 3.5 c | 348.7 ± 18.6 a | 42.7 ± 1.1 b |
| Total Flavonols quantification | 4401 ± 2 | 127 ± 5 | 464 ± 14 | 191 ± 1 |
| STILBENE | ||||
| 4.0 ± 0.3 a | ND | 2.0 ± 0.2 b | 2.0 ± 0.1 b | |
| PHENOLIC ACIDS | ||||
| Gallic acid | 18.0 ± 8.3 d | 2271 ± 12 b | 1225.3 ± 12.8 c | 7512 ± 28 a |
| Cinnamic acid | 8.0 ± 0.1 c | 45.3 ± 9.4 b | 79.3 ± 2.3 a | 4.7 ± 1.1 c |
| 2.0 ± 0.1 b | 72 ± 4 a | 4.0 ± 0.3 b | 4.0 ± 0.1 b | |
| 20.0 ± 0.2 c | 114 ± 6 b | 306.0 ± 14.4 a | 21.3 ± 1.1 c | |
| Benzoic acid | ND | ND | ND | 1777.3 ± 7.6 a |
| Syringic acid | 96.0 ± 3.5 b | 391.3 ± 21.4 a | ND | 90 ± 2 b |
| Total phenolics acids quantification | 145 ± 9 | 2530 ± 45 | 1615 ± 29 | 9269 ± 2 |
| Total phenolics quantification by HPLC | 1167 ± 6 | 4303 ± 31 | 2622 ± 25 | 10523 ± 129 |
| Total Phenolics § | 38,758 ± 133 b | 64,787 ± 170 a | 63,479 ± 116 a | 70,564 ± 186 a |
a–d Means followed by the same letters in the same lines do not differ by Tukey test at 5% probability of error. § Total phenolics measured with Folin–Ciocateau method expressed as equivalent to gallic acid mg L−1.
Figure 1Antioxidant activity in vitro of mango peel liquors obtained by different methods. Legend: had = Haden mango peel liqueur by alcoholic maceration, HDP = Haden mango peel liqueur by maceration with pectinase, TAA = Tommy Atkins mango peel liqueur by alcoholic maceration, TAP = Tommy Atkins mango peel liqueur by maceration with pectinase. Averaged bars followed by equal letters do not differ from each other by the Tukey test at 5% error probability.
Figure 2Principal component analysis between the phytochemical profile and antioxidant activity of mango liqueurs obtained by different methods. Legend: had = Haden mango peel liqueur by alcoholic maceration, HDP = Haden mango peel liqueur by maceration with pectinase, TAA = Tommy Atkins mango peel liqueur by alcoholic maceration, TAP = Tommy Atkins mango peel liqueur by maceration with pectinase.