Effects of shear emulsifying/ball milling/autoclave modification on structure, physicochemical properties, phenolic compounds, and antioxidant capacity of lotus () leaves dietary fiber.

Hui Zheng, Yan Sun, Tao Zheng, Yiqiong Zeng, Liping Fu, Tingting Zhou, Fan Jia, Yao Xu, Kai He, Yong Yang
Author Information
  1. Hui Zheng: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  2. Yan Sun: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  3. Tao Zheng: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  4. Yiqiong Zeng: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  5. Liping Fu: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  6. Tingting Zhou: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  7. Fan Jia: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  8. Yao Xu: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
  9. Kai He: School of Pharmaceutical Science, Hunan University of Medicine, Huaihua, China.
  10. Yong Yang: College of Pharmacy, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.

Abstract

Lotus ) leaves are rich in polyphenols and dietary fiber, which have the potential as a high-quality fiber material in functional food. However, lotus leaves exhibit dense structure and poor taste, it is vital to develop appropriate modification methods to improve the properties of lotus leaves dietary fiber. In this study, the effects of three modification methods with shear emulsifying (SE), ball milling (BM), and autoclave treatment (AT) on structure, physicochemical properties, phenolic compounds, and antioxidant capacity of lotus leave dietary fiber (LDF) were evaluated. SEM indicated that there were significant differences in the microstructure of modified LDFs. FT-IR spectra and X-ray diffraction pattern of modified LDFs revealed similar shapes, while the peak intensity and crystalline region changed by modification. SE showed the greatest effect on crystallization index. SE-LDF had the highest water holding capacity, water swelling capacity, and bound phenolic content in LDFs, which increased by 15.69, 12.02, and 31.81%, respectively, compared with the unmodified LDF. BM exhibited the most dramatic effect on particle size. BM-LDF had the highest free phenolic and total phenolic contents in LDFs, which increased by 32.20 and 29.05% respectively, compared with the unmodified LDF. Phenolic compounds in LDFs were mainly free phenolic, and modifications altered the concents of flavonoids. The BM-LDF and SE-LDF exhibited higher antioxidant capacity than that of AT-LDF. Overall, SE-LDF showed better physical properties, and BM-LDF showed better bioactive components. SE and BM were considered to be appropriate modification methods to enhance the properties of LDF with their own advantages.

Keywords

References

  1. Molecules. 2018 Feb 08;23(2): [PMID: 29419760]
  2. Food Funct. 2022 Mar 7;13(5):2710-2728 [PMID: 35170607]
  3. Food Chem. 2020 May 1;311:125873 [PMID: 31780221]
  4. Food Res Int. 2020 Oct;136:109348 [PMID: 32846539]
  5. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018 Dec;120(Pt B):1461-1467 [PMID: 30261253]
  6. Foods. 2021 Jul 09;10(7): [PMID: 34359469]
  7. Food Chem. 2019 Jul 15;286:522-529 [PMID: 30827642]
  8. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020 Jul;19(4):2222-2255 [PMID: 33337081]
  9. Food Chem. 2018 Aug 15;257:135-142 [PMID: 29622189]
  10. Food Chem. 2021 Nov 15;362:130135 [PMID: 34077856]
  11. Food Sci Technol Int. 2019 Jun;25(4):282-294 [PMID: 30551720]
  12. Food Chem. 2016 Mar 1;194:237-46 [PMID: 26471550]
  13. Carbohydr Polym. 2022 Oct 15;294:119764 [PMID: 35868746]
  14. Food Chem. 2015 Oct 15;185:90-8 [PMID: 25952845]
  15. Biol Res. 2021 Mar 2;54(1):7 [PMID: 33653412]
  16. Front Nutr. 2022 Jun 28;9:922496 [PMID: 35836591]
  17. Food Chem. 2021 Mar 1;339:127879 [PMID: 32877814]
  18. Biomed Res Int. 2022 May 9;2022:6770135 [PMID: 35586809]
  19. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2016 Mar;71(1):1-12 [PMID: 26847187]
  20. Food Res Int. 2021 Sep;147:110565 [PMID: 34399541]
  21. Food Chem. 2015 Jul 15;179:270-7 [PMID: 25722165]
  22. Front Nutr. 2022 Jan 28;8:820672 [PMID: 35155531]
  23. Food Sci Biotechnol. 2018 Feb 24;27(4):1015-1022 [PMID: 30263830]
  24. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2022 Jan;21(1):371-415 [PMID: 34941013]
  25. Cell Host Microbe. 2018 Jun 13;23(6):705-715 [PMID: 29902436]
  26. J Food Sci. 2020 Sep;85(9):2783-2791 [PMID: 32776549]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0phenolicfiberpropertiesleavesdietarylotusmodificationcapacityLDFscompoundsLDFstructuremethodsshearSEBMphysicochemicalantioxidantshowedSE-LDFBM-LDFappropriateemulsifyingballmillingmodifiedeffecthighestwaterincreasedrespectivelycomparedunmodifiedexhibitedfreebetterLotusrichpolyphenolspotentialhigh-qualitymaterialfunctionalfoodHoweverexhibitdensepoortastevitaldevelopimprovestudyeffectsthreeautoclavetreatmentATleaveevaluatedSEMindicatedsignificantdifferencesmicrostructureFT-IRspectraX-raydiffractionpatternrevealedsimilarshapespeakintensitycrystallineregionchangedgreatestcrystallizationindexholdingswellingboundcontent156912023181%dramaticparticlesizetotalcontents32202905%PhenolicmainlymodificationsalteredconcentsflavonoidshigherAT-LDFOverallphysicalbioactivecomponentsconsideredenhanceadvantagesEffectsemulsifying/ballmilling/autoclaveNelumbo

Similar Articles

Cited By