| Literature DB >> 34770809 |
Rodrigo Rodrigues1, Denise Bilibio2, Manuel S V Plata-Oviedo3, Edimir A Pereira1, Marina L Mitterer-Daltoé1, Ellen C Perin1, Solange T Carpes1.
Abstract
The residue from commercial propolis extraction may have significant antioxidant power in food technology. However, among the challenges for using the propolis co-product as an inhibitor of lipid oxidation (LO) in baked goods is maintaining its bioactive compounds. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the propolis co-product extracts' capability to reduce LO in starch biscuit formulated with canola oil and stored for 45 days at 25 °C. Two co-product extracts were prepared: microencapsulated propolis co-product (MECP) (with maltodextrin) and lyophilized propolis co-product (LFCP), which were subjected to analysis of their total phenolic content and antioxidant activity (AA). Relevant antioxidant activity was observed using the methods of analysis employed. The spray-drying microencapsulation process showed an efficiency of 63%. The LO in the biscuits was determined by the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) test and fatty acid composition by gas chromatography analysis. Palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoelaidic, linoleic, and α-linolenic acids were found in biscuits at constant concentrations throughout the storage period. In addition, there was a reduction in malondialdehyde values with the addition of both propolis co-product extracts. Therefore, the propolis co-product extracts could be utilized as a natural antioxidant to reduce lipid oxidation in fatty starch biscuit.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant of lipid oxidation; ethanolic extract of propolis co-product; fatty acids; polvilho biscuit; spray drying
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34770809 PMCID: PMC8587645 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26216400
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Microencapsulated extract of the propolis co-product. Magnifications: (A): 800×; (B): 1000×.
Total phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity.
| Parameters | LFCP | MECP |
|---|---|---|
| TPC (mg GAE g−1) | 199.78 ± 0.28 | 69.28 ± 0.33 |
| DPPH (μmol Trolox g−1) | 496.28 ± 0.00 | 47.02 ± 0.00 * |
| ABTS (μmol Trolox g−1) | 5041.81 ± 0.00 | 485.92 ± 0.01 * |
| FRAP (μmol Fe2+ g−1) | 3796.28 ± 0.00 | 386.69 ± 0.01 * |
TPC: total phenolic compounds; GAE: gallic acid equivalent; LFCP: lyophilized propolis co-product; MECP: microencapsulated propolis co-product. * represents significant difference by the t test (≤0.05).
Figure 2Average values of TBARS (mg of MDA Kg−1) in starch biscuit formulation during storage time. MDA: malonaldehyde; F1: starch biscuit control (no added antioxidant); F2: starch biscuit with butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); F3: starch biscuit added microencapsulated propolis co-product (MECP); F4: starch biscuit added lyophilized propolis co-product (LFCP). NS: there are no statistical differences (p > 0.05) by the Tukey test between the formulations in the respective storage time. Different lower-case letters above the formulation column represent statistical differences (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test for the formulation over the storage time.
Figure 3% Total lipids for the four starch biscuit formulations during storage time. F1: starch biscuit control (no added antioxidant); F2: starch biscuit added butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); F3: starch biscuit added microencapsulated propolis co-product (MECP); F4: starch biscuit added lyophilized propolis co-product (LFCP). NS: there are no statistical differences (p > 0.05) by the Tukey test between the formulations in the respective storage time. Different lower-case letters above the formulation column represent statistical differences (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test for the formulation over the storage time.
Figure 4Fatty acids identified in starch biscuit formulation during storage time. (A) palmitic acid, (B) stearic acid, (C) oleic acid, (D): linoelaidic acid; (E) linoleic acid and (F) α-linolenic acid. F1: starch biscuit control (no added antioxidant); F2: starch biscuit added butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); F3: starch biscuit added microencapsulated propolis co-product (MECP); F4: starch biscuit added lyophilized propolis co-product (LFCP). NS: there are no statistical differences (p > 0.05) by the Tukey test between the formulations in the respective storage times. Different capital letters above a column of information represent statistical differences (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test between the formulations in the respective storage times. Different lower-case letters above the column of the information column represent statistical differences (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test for the formation during the storage time.
Figure 5Fatty acids of starch biscuit formulation during storage. (A) Total FA: fatty acids; (B) SFA: saturated fatty acids; (C) MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; (D) PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids; (E) PUFA/SFA. F1: starch biscuit control (no added antioxidant); F2: starch biscuit added butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); F3: starch biscuit added microencapsulated propolis co-product (MECP); F4: starch biscuit added lyophilized propolis co-product (LFCP). NS: there is no statistical difference (p > 0.05) by the Tukey test between the formulations in the respective storage time. Different capital letters above a column represent statistical difference (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test between the formulations in the respective storage time. Different lower-case letters above the column represent statistical difference (p < 0.05) by the Tukey test for the different storage time.