冷榨果汁与离心果汁:果汁产量、物理化学和植物化学特性的比较

Gökçen Baykuş, S. Unluturk
{"title":"冷榨果汁与离心果汁:果汁产量、物理化学和植物化学特性的比较","authors":"Gökçen Baykuş, S. Unluturk","doi":"10.37256/fse.5120243849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, a juice beverage was prepared from pineapple, green apple, and kiwifruit using cold press and centrifugal juice extraction methods. In the first stage, the most preferred beverage formulation (60% pineapple, 35% green apple, and 5% kiwifruit) was selected according to the acceptance index (AI) calculated based on sensory analysis scores. Next, the performance of home-type cold-pressed juicers (CPJ) and centrifugal juicers (CDJ) was compared, considering the physical, chemical, and phytochemical properties of the mixed beverage. It has been determined that the juice yield performance of the cold pressing technique is better than the centrifuge method. For example, the juice yield of pineapple obtained by a cold press juicer (92%) was found to be higher than the centrifugal extraction method (47%). Although the pH of CDJ and CPJ beverages were similar, the total soluble solids content (°Brix), the color parameters (a*, b*, L*), the browning index (BI), and the turbidity of both beverages were significantly different. While the browning index (BI), L*, and b* values of the CPJ beverage were higher, the a* value was lower than that of the CDJ beverage. Additionally, the CPJ juice mixture was more turbid and phase separation was not observed as in the CDJ beverage. This study revealed that juices obtained by both squeezing methods contained comparable total phenolic content (TPC). For example, the amount of TPC for CPJ and CDJ was 867.25 ± 0.01 mg GAE/L and 922 ± 0.01 mg GAE/L, respectively. Furthermore, the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity of both beverages was not significantly different. It was concluded that the physical properties of juices extracted by CPJ were more satisfactory than those of CDJ. However, more studies are needed to compare the data obtained on the antioxidant activity and TPC amount of fruit juices using different measurement methods.","PeriodicalId":513460,"journal":{"name":"Food Science and Engineering","volume":"221 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cold Pressed vs. Centrifugal Juice: Comparison in Terms of the Juice Yield, Physicochemical and Phytochemical Properties\",\"authors\":\"Gökçen Baykuş, S. Unluturk\",\"doi\":\"10.37256/fse.5120243849\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, a juice beverage was prepared from pineapple, green apple, and kiwifruit using cold press and centrifugal juice extraction methods. In the first stage, the most preferred beverage formulation (60% pineapple, 35% green apple, and 5% kiwifruit) was selected according to the acceptance index (AI) calculated based on sensory analysis scores. Next, the performance of home-type cold-pressed juicers (CPJ) and centrifugal juicers (CDJ) was compared, considering the physical, chemical, and phytochemical properties of the mixed beverage. It has been determined that the juice yield performance of the cold pressing technique is better than the centrifuge method. For example, the juice yield of pineapple obtained by a cold press juicer (92%) was found to be higher than the centrifugal extraction method (47%). Although the pH of CDJ and CPJ beverages were similar, the total soluble solids content (°Brix), the color parameters (a*, b*, L*), the browning index (BI), and the turbidity of both beverages were significantly different. While the browning index (BI), L*, and b* values of the CPJ beverage were higher, the a* value was lower than that of the CDJ beverage. Additionally, the CPJ juice mixture was more turbid and phase separation was not observed as in the CDJ beverage. This study revealed that juices obtained by both squeezing methods contained comparable total phenolic content (TPC). For example, the amount of TPC for CPJ and CDJ was 867.25 ± 0.01 mg GAE/L and 922 ± 0.01 mg GAE/L, respectively. Furthermore, the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity of both beverages was not significantly different. It was concluded that the physical properties of juices extracted by CPJ were more satisfactory than those of CDJ. However, more studies are needed to compare the data obtained on the antioxidant activity and TPC amount of fruit juices using different measurement methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":513460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Science and Engineering\",\"volume\":\"221 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Science and Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37256/fse.5120243849\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Science and Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37256/fse.5120243849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究采用冷压和离心榨汁法,从菠萝、青苹果和猕猴桃中制备果汁饮料。在第一阶段,根据感官分析得分计算出的接受指数(AI),选出了最受欢迎的饮料配方(60%菠萝、35%青苹果和 5%猕猴桃)。接着,考虑到混合饮料的物理、化学和植物化学特性,比较了家用冷压榨汁机(CPJ)和离心榨汁机(CDJ)的性能。结果表明,冷榨技术的果汁产量性能优于离心法。例如,冷压榨汁机获得的菠萝汁产量(92%)高于离心萃取法(47%)。虽然 CDJ 和 CPJ 饮料的 pH 值相似,但两种饮料的总可溶性固形物含量 (°Brix)、颜色参数(a*、b*、L*)、褐变指数 (BI) 和浑浊度却明显不同。虽然 CPJ 饮料的褐变指数(BI)、L* 和 b* 值较高,但 a* 值低于 CDJ 饮料。此外,与 CDJ 饮料相比,CPJ 果汁混合物更加浑浊,没有观察到相分离现象。这项研究表明,两种榨汁方法获得的果汁中总酚类物质含量(TPC)相当。例如,CPJ 和 CDJ 的总酚含量分别为 867.25 ± 0.01 毫克 GAE/L 和 922 ± 0.01 毫克 GAE/L。此外,两种饮料的 1,1-二苯基-2-苦基肼(DPPH)自由基清除活性也无显著差异。结论是,用 CPJ 榨出的果汁的物理性质比用 CDJ 榨出的果汁更令人满意。不过,还需要进行更多的研究,以比较采用不同测量方法获得的果汁抗氧化活性和 TPC 含量数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cold Pressed vs. Centrifugal Juice: Comparison in Terms of the Juice Yield, Physicochemical and Phytochemical Properties
In this study, a juice beverage was prepared from pineapple, green apple, and kiwifruit using cold press and centrifugal juice extraction methods. In the first stage, the most preferred beverage formulation (60% pineapple, 35% green apple, and 5% kiwifruit) was selected according to the acceptance index (AI) calculated based on sensory analysis scores. Next, the performance of home-type cold-pressed juicers (CPJ) and centrifugal juicers (CDJ) was compared, considering the physical, chemical, and phytochemical properties of the mixed beverage. It has been determined that the juice yield performance of the cold pressing technique is better than the centrifuge method. For example, the juice yield of pineapple obtained by a cold press juicer (92%) was found to be higher than the centrifugal extraction method (47%). Although the pH of CDJ and CPJ beverages were similar, the total soluble solids content (°Brix), the color parameters (a*, b*, L*), the browning index (BI), and the turbidity of both beverages were significantly different. While the browning index (BI), L*, and b* values of the CPJ beverage were higher, the a* value was lower than that of the CDJ beverage. Additionally, the CPJ juice mixture was more turbid and phase separation was not observed as in the CDJ beverage. This study revealed that juices obtained by both squeezing methods contained comparable total phenolic content (TPC). For example, the amount of TPC for CPJ and CDJ was 867.25 ± 0.01 mg GAE/L and 922 ± 0.01 mg GAE/L, respectively. Furthermore, the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging activity of both beverages was not significantly different. It was concluded that the physical properties of juices extracted by CPJ were more satisfactory than those of CDJ. However, more studies are needed to compare the data obtained on the antioxidant activity and TPC amount of fruit juices using different measurement methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Food Safety Practices among Vendors in State Secondary Schools in Ibadan Metropolis, Oyo State Microplastic Contamination in Food Processing: Role of Packaging Materials Immunomodulatory Potential of Coridius nepalensis on Cyclophosphamide Induced Mice: Most Desired Edible Insect among Ethnic People of Arunachal Pradesh, India Quality Attributes of Wheat and Aerial Yam Composite Flours and Evaluation of Biscuits from the Flours Optimization of Fruit Juice Preservation Utilizing Chitosan and Chitosan Nanoparticle: A Central Composite Design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1