4.4 Article

Wild vegetables of the Mediterranean area as valuable sources of bioactive compounds

期刊

GENETIC RESOURCES AND CROP EVOLUTION
卷 59, 期 3, 页码 431-443

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10722-011-9693-6

关键词

Bioactive compounds; Neglected and underutilized wild species; Nutritional value; Organic acids; Vitamin C

资金

  1. ERDF (European Regional Development Fund)
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science [CGL2006-09546/BOS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The intake of traditionally consumed wild edible species is nowadays receiving renewed attention, due to the recognition of their potential benefits for human health. This paper represents a contribution to the knowledge of the chemical composition of different wild and under-utilized vegetables of the Mediterranean area, concerning their organic acid profile and the distribution of ascorbic and dehydroascorbic acids as vitamin C activity. Fifteen species, belonging to ten botanical families, were selected, analyzing two samples of each one from two different localities of Central Spain. Each species showed a specific organic acids fingerprint. Citric acid was 90% of total organic acids in Tamus communis; malic acid was the major one in Humulus lupulus, Taraxacum obovatum and Cichorium intybus, and oxalic acid was the main organic acid in Beta maritima, Papaver rhoeas, Silybum marianum, Foeniculum vulgare, Rumex pulcher, Silene vulgaris, Scolymus hispanicus, Rumex papillaris and Bryonia dioica. The distribution of ascorbic and dehydroascorbic acid was highly variable. Mean values for total vitamin C ranged between 1.5 and 79.4 mg/100 g. Tamus communis, R. pulcher, S. vulgaris and B. dioica, showed the highest content of AA, and together with F. vulgare and H. lupulus, the highest total vitamin C content. These results can be useful to complete food composition databases with the inclusion of wild vegetables from the Mediterranean area, contributing to enhance the diversity of the diet as well as its nutritional quality.

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

4.4
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