Effect of processing on quality attributes and phenolic profile of quince dried bar snack

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable processing can often alter and damage antioxidants. Phenolic compounds, which are major antioxidants in these products, can suffer dissociation and changes in their concentration. Quince is an excellent source of antioxidants, with health-improving potential for consumers. The phenolic profile (by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry) and quality attributes (pH, soluble solids, acidity, water activity) were determined for processed quince products (fresh fruit puree, cooked puree and dried bars), in addition to the effect of puree cooking time (5, 10, 15 and 20 min). RESULTS: Soluble solids in purees averaged 14.4 ∘ Brix and increased to 75 ∘ Brix in bars, as did titratable acidity, reaching 1.5 g malic acid kg −1 fresh weight after 20 min of cooking at 120 ∘ C. Quercetin, p-coumaric acid and trans-cinnamic acid were predominant in fresh fruit puree. Thermal processing significantly increased the concentration of p-coumaric acid, trans-cinnamic acid, apigenin and quercetin, and decreased gallic acid. This increase was 242%, on average, for all of them when comparing fresh fruit puree with bars on a fresh weight basis, demonstrating their concentration throughout the dehydration process during bar production. CONCLUSION: Although a minimum puree cooking time of 5 min was sufficient to obtain the highest concentration of most phenolics, p-coumaric acid showed a higher concentration after 20 min of cooking. Ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) phenolic profilingFresh and cooked fruit puree (350 mg each), as well as bar samples, were weighed and ground into a fine powder in a mortar and pestle using 5 mL of a 75% methanol solution and then mixed with 100 μL (60 μg mL −1 ) of internal standard Luteolin (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA). The solution was centrifuged J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 2556-2564

Agronomical traits, phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity in raw and cooked potato tubers growing under saline conditions

“…The significant influence of the interaction V × CM in coumaric acid concentration suggest that variation observed after cooking is dependent on variety. The increase of coumaric acid in Alaska tubers after boiling may be explained by the fact that it was released from its conjugated form after boiling; this in part agrees with previous study results where authors noticed that thermal processing significantly increased the concentration of coumaric acid . The TCC differed depending on salinity level and varieties and they were conserved after boiling.…”

“…The increase of coumaric acid in Alaska tubers after boiling may be explained by the fact that it was released from its conjugated form after boiling; this in part agrees with previous study results where authors noticed that thermal processing significantly increased the concentration of coumaric acid. 47 The TCC differed depending on salinity level and varieties and they were conserved after boiling. In this line, Tang et al 48 have reported that carotenoid are isoprenoid compounds that cannot dissolve in water.…”

Physicochemical Properties of Red Beetroot and Quince Fruit Extracts Instant Beverage Powder: Effect of Drying Method and Maltodextrin Concentration

“…Shokry [39] reported that the drying process increased the phenolic content of red beetroot powders. Torres et al [40] reported a 33% increase in the phenolic content of quince pulp after cooking. According to the research, the thermal hydrolyzation during thermal processing is attributed to an elevation in quercetin content of cooked quince [40].…”

Potential antioxidant effect of fruit peels for human use from northern Peru, compared by 5 different methods

“…Melo (Ismail et al, 2009;Isabelle et al, 2010;Morais et al, 2015;Ibrahim & El-Masry, 2016;Stafusa et al, 2018;Muzykiewicz et al, 2018), Cy. Oblonga (Silva et al, 2002;Magalhaes et al, 2009;Legua et al, 2013;Wojdylo et al, 2013;Szychowski et al, 2014;Kabir et al, 2015;Teleszko & Wojdylo, 2015;Umar et al, 2015;Stojanovic et al, 2017;Baroni et al, 2018;Torres et al, 2018;Sut et al, 2019), H. megalanthus (Torres-Grisales et al, 2017), M. domestica (Sun et al, 2002;Valavanidis et al, 2009;Vieira et al, 2009;Hassimotto et al, 2009;Isabelle et al, 2010;Karaman et al, 2013;Teleszko & Wojdylo, 2015;Lutz et al, 2015;Wang et al, 2015a;Raudone et al, 2017;Inal et al, 2017;Navarro et al, 2018), O. ficus-indica (Chirinos et al, 2013;Andreu et al, 2018;Zeghad et al, 2019;Aruwa et al, 2019;García -Cayuela et al, 2019), Pa. edulis (Vasco et al, 2008;Ismail et al, 2009;Stangeland et al, 2009;Zeraik & Yariwake, 2010;…”