4.7 Article

Effect of processing conditions on characteristics of dehydrated bee-pollen and correlation between quality parameters

Journal

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue -, Pages 808-815

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.09.014

Keywords

Dehydration methods; Bee products; Nutritional value; Biological properties; Microbiological quality

Funding

  1. State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2011/51741-5]
  2. National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) [304067/2013-0]
  3. [2011/11746-8]
  4. [2013/23179-6]
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [11/11746-8] Funding Source: FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to compare the physical, chemical and biological parameters and the microbiological quality of bee-pollen samples treated with different dehydration processes and to correlate the results. The samples came mainly from Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae) and Eupatorium (Asteraceae) plants. The dehydration conditions of the samples influenced the L*a*b* colour parameters and the biological value. Unlike the protein and lipid content, the glucose and fructose content were unaffected. The vitamin E content (27.2 +/- 0.3 mu g/g 27.5 +/- 0.4 mu g/g) in oven-dehydrated samples with forced air circulation was significantly lower (P < 0.05) compared with lyophilized samples (37.5 +/- 0.2 g/100 g, 53.7 +/- 3.9 g/100 g). Overall, the results were inconclusive for vitamin B complex, minerals and microbiological indicators. There was a positive correlation between the colour parameters L* and b* and the total phenolic content, as well as between phenolic content and the antioxidant and antimicrobial capacity. The data indicate that lyophilization might be a viable alternative to the current process, resulting in dehydrated bee-pollen with higher biological activity. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available