4.6 Article

Proximate composition, phenolic acids, and flavonoids characterization of commercial and wild nopal (Opuntia spp.)

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 525-532

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2009.12.003

关键词

Cactus pear; Flavonoids; High plateau; Nopal; Nopalitos; Prickly pear; Phenolic acids; Phytochemicals; Protein profiles; Wild Opuntias; Arid zone plant resources; Biodiversity; Food analysis; Food composition

资金

  1. FOMIX-GTO [GTO-2006-C01-31809]
  2. CONACyT-Mexico [MsSc 204171, mix-204171]
  3. IPICyT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proximate composition, phenolic acid, and flavonoid characterization of two commercial and eight wild Opuntia spp., as well two processed products, were analyzed. Commercial varieties were obtained from a local market; wild varieties were collected from the Central and High Plateau zones of Mexico, and Opuntia tablets were purchased at a natural commodities store. Spines from fresh cladodes were removed and clean cladodes were freeze-dried and milled to obtain nopal powder. Differences in proximate composition were determined: wild nopal blanco collected from the High Plateau had the highest protein content, while tapon-II had the highest fiber content. Nopal tablets had low protein and carbohydrate content but had the highest ash content. The wild morado, tempranillo, blanco, and cristalino varieties had the highest total phenolic acid content, while the commercial varieties had the highest total fiavonoid contents. Very low amounts of flavonoids were found in nopal tablets. LC-MS/MS was used to identify six phenolic acids (gallic, coumaric, 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic, 4-hydroxybenzoic, ferulic, and salicylic acid), and only tapon-II contained all six. The five flavonoids (iso-quercitrin, isorhamnetin-3-O-glucoside, nicotiflorin, rutin, and narcissin) were found in all varieties; nicotiflorin was predominant, followed by narcissin. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据