| Literature DB >> 32566185 |
Dan Luo1, Tai-Hua Mu1, Hongnan Sun1, Jingwang Chen1.
Abstract
For the development of a sweet potato leaf powder (SPLP)-based beverage, we investigated the effects of blanching methods on SPLP quality (including color, nutritional and functional compositions and antioxidant activity), and the effects of particle size and stabilizers on suspension stability of final product. The total polyphenol and antioxidant activity of SPLP of uncut group were 1.69 and 1.91 times those of cut group, respectively, and the indices of nutritional quality of copper, manganese and vitamin E of uncut group were significantly greater than cut group. The ultrafine SPLP-produced lowest gravitational sedimentation ratio (49%), indicating it had greatest suspension stability. The optimized formula of SPLP-based beverage was as follows: ultrafine SPLP of uncut group was mixed with 2.5% (w/w, powder basis) xanthan gum, 1% calcium lactate, 2% ascorbic acid, 12% maltodextrin, 20% xylitol, and 0.9% apple essence. The final product had high nutritional value along with consumer-acceptable flavor and texture.Entities:
Keywords: blanching; index of nutritional quality; particle size; suspension stability; sweet potato leaves
Year: 2020 PMID: 32566185 PMCID: PMC7300073 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Factors and levels for the formulation test (% w/w, powder basis)
| Factors | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xylitol | Ascorbic acid | Apple essence | Maltodextrin | |
| 1 | 10 | 2 | 0.6 | 8 |
| 2 | 20 | 4 | 0.9 | 10 |
| 3 | 30 | 6 | 1.2 | 12 |
The effect of different blanching method on the color, proximate composition and gross energy, mineral, vitamin, total polyphenol content (TPC), and antioxidant activity of sweet potato leaf powder
| Treatment | Control group | Cut group | Uncut group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Color | |||
|
| 43.25 ± 0.45a | 41.14 ± 0.34b | 40.83 ± 0.63b |
|
| −10.20 ± 0.13a | −8.66 ± 0.12b | −8.33 ± 0.16b |
|
| 17.50 ± 0.18a | 15.42 ± 0.21b | 14.83 ± 0.24c |
| Δ | 52.50 ± 0.41b | 54.16 ± 0.30a | 54.38 ± 0.59a |
| Proximate composition and gross energy (g/100 g DW) | |||
| Moisture | 6.22 ± 0.00b | 6.66 ± 0.00a | 5.74 ± 0.04c |
| Crude protein | 30.05 ± 0.15a | 29.55 ± 0.15a | 29.85 ± 0.25a |
| Crude fat | 4.12 ± 0.01a | 3.96 ± 0.01c | 4.04 ± 0.02b |
| Carbohydrate | 14.30 ± 0.00b | 9.20 ± 0.00c | 17.50 ± 0.00a |
| Crude fiber | 35.00 ± 0.00b | 40.40 ± 0.00a | 32.80 ± 0.00c |
| Soluble fiber | 7.26 ± 0.10c | 9.69 ± 0.10a | 8.78 ± 0.01b |
| Insoluble fiber | 27.68 ± 0.16b | 30.73 ± 0.16a | 24.05 ± 0.09c |
| Ash | 10.41 ± 0.01a | 10.08 ± 0.01c | 10.18 ± 0.01b |
| Gross energy | 1,184.00 ± 0.00b | 1,131.00 ± 0.00c | 1,214.00 ± 0.00a |
| Mineral (mg/100 g DW) | |||
| Na | 47.36 ± 0.01c | 101.35 ± 0.01a | 90.11 ± 2.89b |
| P | 384.10 ± 3.00a | 387.40 ± 3.00a | 378.00 ± 2.80a |
| Ca | 916.30 ± 4.90b | 994.95 ± 4.90a | 911.70 ± 5.70b |
| K | 4,803.50 ± 20.50a | 2,851.50 ± 20.50b | 2,543.50 ± 10.50c |
| Mg | 258.40 ± 0.70a | 194.15 ± 0.70c | 215.75 ± 8.05b |
| Fe | 12.54 ± 0.10a | 10.08 ± 0.10b | 8.33 ± 0.39c |
| Zn | 2.65 ± 0.01a | 1.71 ± 0.01c | 2.06 ± 0.07b |
| Cu | 1.19 ± 0.00a | 1.05 ± 0.00b | 1.20 ± 0.02a |
| Mn | 16.95 ± 0.04a | 8.98 ± 0.04c | 10.59 ± 0.36b |
| Se | 5.37 ± 0.15b | 5.16 ± 0.15b | 6.52 ± 0.30a |
| Pb | N.D. (<0.04) | N.D. (<0.04) | N.D. (<0.04) |
| As | 0.16 ± 0.01b | 0.23 ± 0.01a | 0.21 ± 0.00a |
| Hg | N.D. ( <0.010) | N.D. (<0.010) | N.D. (<0.010) |
| Vitamin (mg/100 g DW) | |||
| Vitamin C | 77.69 ± 0.96a | 75.64 ± 0.96a | 70.32 ± 0.08b |
| Vitamin B1 | N.D. (<0.12) | N.D. (<0.12) | N.D. (<0.12) |
| Vitamin B2 | 1.02 ± 0.01b | 1.03 ± 0.01b | 1.11 ± 0.00a |
| Vitamin B3 | 0.55 ± 0.00a | 0.56 ± 0.00a | 0.57 ± 0.02a |
| β‐carotene | 82.10 ± 1.60c | 126.50 ± 1.60a | 121.5 ± 5.00b |
| Vitamin E | 8.00 ± 0.16c | 14.70 ± 0.16b | 18.90 ± 0.30a |
| Folic acid | 56.43 ± 0.66a | 54.03 ± 0.66a | 56.36 ± 0.82a |
| TPC (g CAE/100 g DW) | 6.42 ± 0.05A | 2.90 ± 0.10B | 4.91 ± 0.20C |
| Antioxidant activity (g TE/100 g DW) | 14.76 ± 0.09a | 6.10 ± 0.08c | 11.66 ± 0.09b |
Data are means ± SD (n ≥ 2). Values within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < .05).
Moisture content was expressed in g/100 g DW.
Gross energy was expressed in kJ/100 g DW.
Se content and Folic acid content were expressed in μg/100 g DW.
N.D. means the content of minerals and vitamin B1 were not detected in sweet potato leaves powder.
The effect of different blanching method on the amino acid of sweet potato leaf powder (g/100 g, DW)
| Treatment | Control group | Cut group | Uncut group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essential and semi‐essential amino acids (EAA) | |||
| Isoleucine | 1.04 ± 0.00b | 1.15 ± 0.00a | 1.08 ± 0.03b |
| Histidine | 0.58 ± 0.00c | 0.60 ± 0.00a | 0.59 ± 0.00b |
| Methionine | 0.19 ± 0.01a | 0.15 ± 0.01b | 0.12 ± 0.01c |
| Valine | 1.31 ± 0.01b | 1.43 ± 0.01a | 1.38 ± 0.03a |
| Leucine | 2.06 ± 0.00c | 2.23 ± 0.00a | 2.16 ± 0.02b |
| Phenylalanine | 1.37 ± 0.01b | 1.46 ± 0.01a | 1.46 ± 0.03a |
| Threonine | 1.15 ± 0.01b | 1.22 ± 0.01a | 1.21 ± 0.01a |
| Lysine | 1.78 ± 0.00b | 1.90 ± 0.00a | 1.89 ± 0.01a |
| Non‐essential amino acids (NEAA) | |||
| Aspartic acid | 2.80 ± 0.00b | 2.75 ± 0.00c | 2.86 ± 0.02a |
| Serine | 1.08 ± 0.01b | 1.15 ± 0.01a | 1.17 ± 0.01a |
| Glutamic acid | 3.16 ± 0.03a | 3.22 ± 0.03a | 3.15 ± 0.02a |
| Proline | 1.24 ± 0.01b | 1.30 ± 0.01a | 1.16 ± 0.03b |
| Glycine | 1.33 ± 0.01b | 1.41 ± 0.01a | 1.39 ± 0.01b |
| Alanine | 1.46 ± 0.00b | 1.53 ± 0.00a | 1.50 ± 0.02a |
| Tyrosine | 0.80 ± 0.01b | 0.85 ± 0.01c | 0.92 ± 0.01a |
| Arginine | 1.38 ± 0.00b | 1.49 ± 0.00a | 1.48 ± 0.02a |
| Nutritional quality | |||
| Total amino acids(TAA) | 22.69 | 23.80 | 23.49 |
| Total essential amino acids (TEAA) | 9.46 | 10.35 | 9.88 |
| TEAA/TAA (%) | 41.70 | 42.55 | 42.04 |
| Total acidic amino acids (TAAA) | 5.96 | 5.97 | 6.01 |
| TAAA/TAA (%) | 26.27 | 23.08 | 25.59 |
| Total basic amino acids (TBAA) | 3.74 | 3.99 | 3.96 |
| TBAA/TAA (%) | 16.49 | 16.76 | 16.86 |
Data are means ± SD (n ≥ 2). Values within rows with different letters are significantly different (p < .05).
The particle size distribution of sweet potato leaf powder
| Treatment | D[3,2] (μm) | D[4,3] (μm) | D10 (μm) | D50 (μm) | D90 (μm) | Span |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80‐Mesh | 47.95 ± 0.43a | 154.39 ± 0.89a | 17.62 ± 0.38e | 129.27 ± 0.86a | 415.94 ± 3.36a | 3.08 ± 0.41b |
| 100‐Mesh | 25.02 ± 0.26b | 96.68 ± 1.18b | 11.58 ± 0.52d | 68.39 ± 0.93b | 222.71 ± 2.56b | 3.09 ± 0.37b |
| 200‐Mesh | 21.57 ± 0.24b | 76.84 ± 0.65c | 8.15 ± 0.38c | 53.54 ± 0.38c | 176.83 ± 1.66c | 3.15 ± 0.24c |
| Ultrafine powder | 16.01 ± 0.12c | 41.03 ± 0.17d | 4.99 ± 0.09a | 30.22 ± 0.12d | 86.58 ± 0.41e | 2.69 ± 0.16a |
| Commercial barley leaf powder | 12.26 ± 0.21c | 48.72 ± 3.23d | 7.16 ± 1.69b | 32.93 ± 0.90d | 113.6 ± 9.19d | 3.23 ± 1.41c |
Data are means ± SD (n ≥ 2). Values within columns with different letters are significantly different (p < .05).
FIGURE 1The effect of different particle size and stabilizer on the stability of sweet potato leaf powder suspension. (a) The effect of different particle size on the gravitational sedimentation ratio of sweet potato leaf powder suspension. (b) The effect of different particle size on the sensory phenomenon of sweet potato leaf powder suspension. (c) The effect of different stabilizer on the gravitational sedimentation ratio of sweet potato leaf powder suspension. (d) The effect of different stabilizer on the sensory phenomenon of sweet potato leaf powder suspension. Note: In the (b), from left to right were represented ultrafine powder, 200‐Mesh, 100‐Mesh, and 80‐Mesh, respectively. In the (d), from left to right were represented Xanthan gum, Arabic gum, Guar gum, HPMC, CMC, Sodium alginate, and Konjac gum, respectively
Orthogonal test result of flavor agent
| No. | A (Xylitol) | B (Ascorbic acid) | C (Apple essence) | D (Maltodextrin) | Color | Smell | Texture | Taste | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 (10) | 1 (2) | 1 (0.6) | 1 (8) | 23.2 | 14.5 | 11.5 | 14.2 | 63.4 ± 3.80d |
| 2 | 1 | 2 (4) | 2 (0.9) | 2 (10) | 22.5 | 15.3 | 16.7 | 21.5 | 76.0 ± 3.69b |
| 3 | 1 | 3 (6) | 3 (1.2) | 3 (12) | 13.2 | 6.8 | 13.2 | 18.9 | 52.1 ± 2.57e |
| 4 | 2 (20) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 29.6 | 18.6 | 18.5 | 26.4 | 93.1 ± 2.09a |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 25.5 | 14.2 | 13.4 | 14.7 | 67.8 ± 2.05c |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 14.2 | 16.5 | 12.1 | 13.5 | 56.3 ± 7.19e |
| 7 | 3 (30) | 1 | 3 | 2 | 23.5 | 15.2 | 13.7 | 22.5 | 74.9 ± 5.67b |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 24.2 | 15.4 | 11.4 | 23.5 | 74.5 ± 2.29b |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5.7 | 10.3 | 12.5 | 8.0 | 36.5 ± 2.87f |
| K1 | 63.8 | 77.1 | 64.7 | 55.9 | |||||
| K2 | 72.4 | 72.8 | 68.5 | 69.1 | |||||
| K3 | 62.0 | 48.3 | 64.9 | 73.2 | |||||
| R | 10.4 | 28.8 | 3.8 | 17.3 |
K was represented the average value of each levels of factors.
R was represented the range value of each factor.
Data are means ± SD (n ≥ 2). Values within columns with different letters are significantly different (p < .05).