英文文献-一种生产水果发酵饮料的方法

ORIGINALARTICLEProductionofStarFruitAlcoholicFermentedBeverageFla´viadePaulaValim1•ElizamaAguiar-Oliveira2•ElianaSetsukoKamimura3•VanessaDiasAlves1•RafaelResendeMaldonado1,4Received:19January2016/Accepted:18May2016/Publishedonline:28May2016AssociationofMicrobiologistsofIndia2016AbstractStarfruit(Averrhoacarambola)isanutritioustropicalfruit.Theaimofthisstudywastoevaluatetheproductionofastarfruitalcoholicfermentedbeverageutilizingalyophilizedcommercialyeast(Saccharomycescerevisiae).Thestudywasconductedutilizinga23centralcompositedesignandthebestconditionsfortheproductionwere:initialsolublesolidsbetween23.8and25Brix(g100g-1),initialpHbetween4.8and5.0andinitialcon-centrationofyeastbetween1.6and2.5gL-1.Theseconditionsyieldedafermenteddrinkwithanalcoholcontentof11.15GL(L100L-1),pHof4.13–4.22,finalyeastconcentrationof89gL-1andfermentedyieldfrom82to94%.Thefermenteddrinkalsopresentedlowlevelsoftotalandvolatileacidities.KeywordsStarfruitFruitwineFactorialdesignSaccharomycescerevisiaeIntroductionThealcoholicfermentationoffruitcanbeusedfortheproductionofalcoholicdrinksanditiscommonlyrealizedbyyeastsuchastheSaccharomycescerevisiae[1,2].Insuchprocessoccurstheproductionofethanolandcarbondioxide,whichareobtainedbytheanaerobicconversionofthesugarsnaturallycontainedinthefruitoraddedtoit.AccordingtotheBrazilianlegislation[3],wineisadrinkwithalcoholcontentfrom4to14GL(L100L-1)at20C,producedfromthealcoholicfermentationofhealthy,ripeandfreshgrapes.Theterm‘‘fruitwine’’isappliedtoalcoholicfermenteddrinksproducedfromfruitsotherthangrapes.Anyfruitwithreasonableamountsoffer-mentablesugarscanbeutilizedasmustfortheproductionofwine.Theusageofdifferentfruitsmayleadtotheobtain-mentofdrinkswithdifferentflavors.Therefore,manyexoticfruitshavebeenutilizedintheproductionofwine.Carambolaorstarfruit(Averrhoacarambola)isatropicalfruitoriginallyfromIndonesiaandIndia,beingverypopularinSouth-easternAsia,SouthPacificandsomeregionsofEasternAsia.ThecarambolatreeisgrowninothercountriesoutfromAsia,suchasColombia,Guiana,DominicanRepublic,BrazilandtheUSA[4].Thestarfruitchemicalcharacteristicsdependonclimaticfactors,thetypeofsoilutilizedforcultivation,thefruitripenesslevel,etc.Almeidaetal.[5]characterizedripestarfruitfromnorth-easternBrazilandobtainedaveragevaluesofsolublesolidsandpHof8.0Brixand3.7,respectively.Starfruitisrichinvitamins,oxalicacid,polyphenols,dietaryfiber,volatilecompounds,etc.Suchtraitsallowinnumerableusagesforthefruit,aswellasprovidingbenefitsforthehealthoftheconsumers[6,7].TheaimofthisstudywastoevaluatetheproductionofastarfruitalcoholicfermenteddrinkincorporatingthefruitElectronicsupplementarymaterialTheonlineversionofthisarticle(doi:10.1007/s12088-016-0601-9)containssupplementarymaterial,whichisavailabletoauthorizedusers.&RafaelResendeMaldonadoratafta@yahoo.com.br1MunicipalCollegeProfessorFrancoMontoro(CMPFM),R.dosEstudantes,s.n.,MogiGuac¸u,SP13.843-971,Brazil2MultidisciplinaryInstituteonHealth(IMS),FederalUniversityofBahia(UFBA),campusAnı´sioTeixeira(CAT),R.RiodeContas,58,Vito´riadaConquista,Bahia45.029-094,Brazil3FacultyofZootecnicandFoodEngineering(FZEA),UniversityofSa˜oPaulo(USP),Av.DuquedeCaxias,225,13.635-900Pirassununga,Sa˜oPaulo,Brazil4TechnicalCollegeofCampinas(COTUCA),UniversityofCampinas(UNICAMP),R.JorgeFigueiredoCorreˆa,735,Pq.Taquaral,Campinas,Sa˜oPaulo13.087-261,Brazil123IndianJMicrobiol(Oct–Dec2016)56(4):476–481DOI10.1007/s12088-016-0601-9traitsinthewine.Theeffectsoftheinitialconcentrationofyeast(S.cerevisiae),initialpHandinitialsugarconcen-trationwereevaluatedutilizinga23centralcompositedesignwherebythefermentationkineticsdataandthephysico-chemicalcharacteristicsoftheproductwereanalyzed.MaterialsandMethodsPreparationoftheStarFruitPulpandMustForthestarfruitpulppreparationwasselectedripefruitswithgoodappearance,smellandtexture.TheywereboughtatalocalsupermarketintheregionofCampinas-SP,Brazil,inMarch2014.Thestarfruitswerecleaned,cutandblitzedinablenderuntilapulpconsistencywasachieved.There-after,thepulpwasfilteredwithbemeansofacottoncloth,inordertoremovetheinsolublesolidsandthenpasteurizedat80Cfor5min.Thepasteurizedpulpwastransferredtoplasticflaskswhichwereclosedandleftcoolingtoroomtemperatureandthenfrozenandstoredat-18Ctothemomenttheywereutilizedonthemustpreparation.Inordertopreparethemustforthefermentation,thestarfruitpulpwasthawedatroomtemperature(*25C)andmixedwithsaccharosetoadjusttheconcentrationofsol-ublesolidsindicatedonTable1(varyingbetween19and25Brix).Thereafter,calciumcarbonatewasaddedtoeachtesttoadjustthepH,alsoregardingthevaluesindicatedonTable1(rangingbetween4.0and5.0).AlcoholicFermentationThemustobtainedwasthenutilizedforthealcoholicfer-mentation.AlyophilizedcommercialyeastS.cerevisiae(FermentaisLessaffeGroup)wasutilized.Thelyophi-lizedyeastwasrehydratedwithasmallportionofmustandthereafteraddedtothetotalmustvolume(1.0L).Allfer-mentationswereconductedatroomtemperature(*25C),withoutagitationinglassflaskscoveredwithplasticfilm,inwhichsmallorificesweremadetofacilitatetheelimi-nationofthecarbondioxideproducedduringthefermen-tationprocess.Eachfermentationlasted9daysandthesolublesolidsconsumptionofthemust,aswellasitspH,weremeasureddaily.Bytheendofthefermentation,thealcoholiccontentandtheyeastconcentrationwerealsomeasured.Thetotal,fixedandvolatileaciditieswerealsoanalyzedforeachwineobtained.FactorialDesignThestudyofthestarfruitalcoholicfermentationbyS.cerevisiaewasconductedutilizingacentralcompositerotatabledesignwith23factorialpoints?6starpoints?3centralpoints,totaling17tests[8]withindependentvari-ables:solublesolidsconcentration(SS)(19a25Brix),initialpH(4.0–5.0)andinitialyeastconcentration(IY)(1.0a4.0gL).Theeffectsofthesethreevariablesonthefer-mentationprocessresponses(alcoholiccontent(AC),finalpH,volumetricfermentedyield(VFY)andfinalyeastconcentration(FY))aswellasonthefinalproduct(total,fixedandvolatileacidities)wereevaluated.TheresultsobtainedwereanalyzedbymeansofthesoftwareStatistica8.0(Statsoft)andthefactorialdesignmatrixisshownonTable1.AnalyticalMethodsThepHwasmeasureddirectlywithabenchpHmeter(BelEngineering,W3Bmodel).Thesolublesolids(S)(Brix=g100g-1)weredeterminedwithaportablerefractometer(Instrutemp,modelITREF25).FromtheSvalues,andknowingthestoichiometryratioofsugarconsumption/ethanolproduction(1:4molofsac-charosepermolofethanol)itwaspossibletoestimatethealcoholcontentasthefunctionofthefermentationtime.Attheendofeachfermentationasamplewascollectedtomeasurethealcoholcontent(GL=L100L-1)inanAlcolyzerequipment(AntonPaar).Theconversionfac-tors:fermentablesugarsintobiomass(YX/S=dX/-dS),fermentablesugarintoalcohol(YP/S=dP/-dS)andbio-massintoalcohol(YP/X=dP/dX)werealsocalculatedconsidering(-dS:gL-1)thefermentablesugarcon-sumption,(dX:gL-1)thecellgrowth,and(dP:gL-1)thealcoholproduction.Thefixedandtotalacidities(meqL-1)weremeasuredusingtitrimetricmethodsaccordingtoAdolfoLutzInstitute[9];thevolatileaciditywascalcu-latedbythedifferencebetweentotalandfixedacidities.ResultsandDiscussionTheresponsesobtainedfromthecentralcompositerotat-abledesignappliedfortheproductionofstarfruitalcoholicfermentedbyS.cerevisiaecanbeobservedinTable1.Fromtheseresults,theanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)(OnlineResource1)wasperformedforeachresponseandsecondordermodelswereevaluatedtoexplaintheprocess.ConsideringtheANOVAresultsforthealcoholcontent(OnlineResource1),itwaspossibletoobtainasignificantandpredictivecodifiedmodelwith94%confidence(p=0.06),representedbyEq.1,whereOHisthealcoholcontent(GL),Sistheinitialsolublesolidsconcentration(Brix),PistheinitialpHandYistheinitialyeastcon-centration(gL-1).TheresultingsurfaceresponsesandcontourlinescanbeobservedontheOnlineResource2.IndianJMicrobiol(Oct–Dec2016)56(4):476–481477123TheanalysisofthisfigureshowsthatthebestresultsfortheAC,after9daysoffermentation,wereobtainedfromthehighestsolublesolidsconcentrations,thehighestpHandtheinitialyeastconcentrationlevelsbetween-1(1.6gL-1)and?1(3.4gL-1).Theseconditions,pre-dictedbythemodel,canbeverifiedinTable1,whereinthehighestalcoholcontentwereobtainedintrials4,8,10and12,whichresultedinvaluesfrom10.45to11.15GL.Theresultsobtainedinthisstudywerebetterthanotherscitedintheliterature,whichalsousedstarfruitasasubstrateforalcoholicfermentation.Napahdeetal.[10]obtainedonly0.2GLofalcoholafter21daysoffermentation,whileSibounnavongetal.[11]obtained8.3GL(average)after2weeks.Inotherstudy,BridgebassieandBadrieobtainedasimilaralcoholcontent(from10.25to11.50GL)after4weeksoffermentationusingstarfruitmustpretreatedwithdifferentconcentrationsofpectolaseandusingdif-ferentyeaststrains[12].Thebestconditions(trials4,8,10and12)wereselectedfortheanalysisoftheirconsumptionofsolublesolidsandtheethanolproductionduringthefermentationtime.TheobtainedkineticprofilescanbeseeninFig.1.Thecon-sumptionofsolublesolidsandtheethanolproductionshowedsimilarprofilesfortheselectedassays,indicatingnosignificantdifferenceamongthechosenconditions.Itwasalsopossibletoseethatafter5daysoffermentationtherewasatrendforstabilization(Fig.1),withlowsugarconsumptionandlittleethanolproduction.OH¼10:01þ0:61SðÞ0:05S2þ0:34PðÞ0:05S2þ0:34PðÞ0:05P2þ0:02YðÞ0:42Y2þ0:44SðÞPðÞ0:26SðÞYðÞþ0:22PðÞYðÞð1ÞRegardingtothefinalpHofthestarfruitalcoholicfermented,itwasnotpossibletoobtainapredictivemodel(p\0.10)torepresenttheprocess(OnlineResource1).ByobservingTable1,however,itwaspossibletonoticethattheaveragefinalpHvalue,consideringthe17trials,was4.05andtheinitialvaluewas4.50,thisreductionisagoodindicatorforthefermentationprocessbecauseitindicatesthatmostofthesubstratewasusedforethanolproductionandcellulargrowthandtherewaslittleformationofacid.Excessiveproductionofacidsmayindicatemicrobialcontaminationbyaceticbacteria,excessoxygeninthefermentationmediumorexcessivefermentationtime.BridgebassieandBadrie[12]obtainedalowerfinalpHofabout3.1instarfruitwine,buttheseauthorsappliedapretreatmentinthemustusing1%ofcitricacidbeforethefermentation.Similarly,forthevolumetricfermentedyield,thecor-relationwiththeindependentvariableswasverylow(R2=0.24)andthus,noneofthestudiedvariableshadaTable1Kineticparametersforstarfruitalcoholicfermentationatroomtemperatureafter9daysoffermentationRunsSS(Brix)pHYeast(gL-1)Alcohol(GL)FinalpHYield(%v/v)Finalyeast(gL-1)120.2(-1)4.2(-1)1.6(-1)9.063.7485.4783.94223.8(?1)4.2(-1)1.6(-1)9.763.7785.0054.58320.2(-1)4.8(?1)1.6(-1)8.364.2390.0065.22423.8(?1)4.8(?1)1.6(-1)11.154.2294.0089.66520.2(-1)4.2(-1)3.4(?1)8.363.8285.5088.14623.8(?1)4.2(-1)3.4(?1)8.363.8790.1074.54720.2(-1)4.8(?1)3.4(?1)9.064.2491.5063.85823.8(?1)4.8(?1)3.4(?1)10.454.2190.8070.74919.0(-1.68)4.5(0)2.5(0)9.064.1178.6091.731025.0(?1.68)4.5(0)2.5(0)11.154.1381.7489.841122.0(0)4.0(-1.68)2.5(0)9.763.9483.33131.811222.0(0)5.0(?1.68)2.5(0)10.454.1975.76167.081322.0(0)4.5(0)1.0(-1.68)8.364.0583.33144.861422.0(0)4.5(0)4.0(?1.68)9.764.0082.69121.881522.0(0)4.5(0)2.5(0)9.764.3587.78190.801622.0(0)4.5(0)2.5(0)10.454.0075.30213.071722.0(0)4.5(0)2.5(0)9.764.1077.69190.89Centralcompositerotatabledesign23?6starpoints?3centralpointsforthestarfruitalcoholicfermentationbyS.cerevisiaeafter9daysatroomtemperature(*25C)withoutagitation.Independentvariablesare:thesolublesolidconcentration(S)(Brix=g100g-1),initialpHandinitialyeastconcentration(Yeast)(gL-1).Responsevariablesare:thefinalalcoholcontent(Alcohol)(GL=L100L-1),finalpH,volumetricfermentationyield(Yield)(%v/v)andfinalyeastconcentration(FinalYeast)(gL-1)Codifiedvaluesarepresentedinparenthesis478IndianJMicrobiol(Oct–Dec2016)56(4):476–481123significantinfluenceonthisresponse(OnlineResource1).Consideringthe17trials(Table1),theaveragevolumetricfermentedyieldwas84.6±5.6%(L100L-1).Volumevariationsinsimilarprocessesarecommonandcanoccurduetotheconsumptionofmusttoproducegas(carbondioxide)duringthefermentation.Regardingtocellgrowth,i.e.,thefinalyeastconcen-tration,theANOVA(OnlineResource1)provedthatitwaspossibletoobtainastatisticallysignificantandpredictivemodelat93%ofconfidence(p=0.07).ThecompletecodifiedmodelobtainedisrepresentedbyEq.2whereFYisthefinalyeastconcentration(gL-1),Sisthesolublesolidconcentration(Brix),PistheinitialpH,Yistheinitialyeastconcentration(gL-1).TheresultingsurfaceresponseandthecontourcurvescanbeobservedontheOnlineResource3,inwhichitappearsthatthefinalcon-centrationofyeast(FY)wasthehighestintheconditionsclosetothecentralpoints.However,whenitcomestoalcoholicfermentationprocess,thebestconditionforcellgrowthisnotnecessarilythebestconditionforethanolproduction.ReddyandReddy[13]evaluatedtheeffectofdifferentparametersovertheS.cerevisiaegrowthinmangomustanditwasobservedagreatinfluenceoftemperature;at25andat30Ctheyobtainedthehighestcellpopulationswithin6and8daysoffermentation,respectively,withanethanolproduction70%smallerat25Cthanat30C(41.3gL-1day-1).FY¼201:321:08SðÞ48:35S2þ3:48PðÞ27:56P22:55YðÞ33:25Y2þ9:28SðÞPðÞ0:22SðÞYðÞ5:56PðÞYðÞð2ÞTheconversionfactorswerealsocalculatedforeachtrial(OnlineResource4).TheANOVAwasalsoobtained(datanotpresented),butitwasnotpossibletoobtainsecondordermodelstoexplaineachoftheconversionfactorswithareasonablelevelofconfidence.Theresults(OnlineResource4)indicatethatthehighestvaluesofYX/SandYP/Swereobtainedintrial12,however,thehighestvalueofYP/Xwasobtainedintrial2.Itconfirmsthepre-viouslymentionedsuggestionthatagreatermicrobialgrowthdoesnotnecessarilyresultinagreaterethanolproduction.Confrontingthethreeconversionfactorsandthetwomodelsobtained(forOHandFY),thebestcon-ditionsfortheproductionofstarfruitalcoholicfermented(aimingthehighestalcoholcontent)werethoseinwhichconditionswherethesubstratewasbetterusedforcon-versionintoproductthancellgrowth.Theseconditionscorrespondtotrials4and10whichpresentedthehighestinitialconcentrationsofsolublesolids(23.8–25.0Brix),thehighestinitialpH(4.8–5.0)andinitialconcentrationsofyeastintheintermediatelevel(1.6–2.5gL-1).Regardingtotheaciditylevels(OnlineResource4),theobtainedvalueswerealsoevaluatedbyANOVA(datanotpresented)butnoneofthethreeresponsesthereweresig-nificantlycorrelationswiththeindependentvariablesoftheprocess.Thismeansthatunderallconditionsevaluatedtheresultingacidityvalueswereverysimilartoeachother,afactthatisinagreementwiththeanalysisforthefinalpHofthefermentation,whichhadthesamebehavior.Thecompositionoftheacidityofstarfruitalcoholicfermented(OnlineResource4)suggeststhatmostofitisrelatedtothefixedacidity(89%)andasmallpart(11%)tothevolatileacidity.Thisisanexcellentresult,sinceexcessivevolatileaciditymayindicatemicrobialcontaminationorexcessofoxygeninbothproductionandstorageoffermenteddrink.PaulandSahu[14]obtainedstarfruitalcoholicfermentedwithatitratableacidityofaround119meqL-1and,despiteofalltheothersimilarparametersobtained,thisvalueisalmost2.5timeshigherthantheaveragevalueobtainedinourstudy(48.8meqL-1).Fig.1aSolublesolids(Brix=g100g-1)consumptionandbproductionofalcohol(GL=L100L-1)instarfruitalcoholicfermentationbyS.cerevisiaeasafunctionofthefermentationtime.Theconditionsfortheconcentrationofsolublesolids(Brix)/pH/concentrationofyeast(gL-1)were:23.8/4.8/1.6(trial4);23.8/4.8/3.4(trial8);25.0/4.5/2.5(trial10);and22.0/5.0/2.5(trial12).Theexperimentswereconductedatroomtemperature(*25C)withoutagitation,for9days.LineswereusedtoconnectthepointsandguidetheeyesIndianJMicrobiol(Oct–Dec2016)56(4):476–481479123Brazilianlaw,forinstance,specifiessomequalitystan-dardsforgrapewines[3],butitdoesnotspecifyanystan-dardforwinesfromotherfruits.Comparingwiththecurrentlegislation,starfruitwineobtainedshowedanaveragetotalacidityof48.8±7.7meqL-1similartotheminimumestablishedbyBrazilianlaw(55meqL-1);howevervola-tileaciditywasmuchlower,5.4±2.0meqL-1,thanthemaximumestablished(20meqL-1)indicatinglowlevelsofaceticacid,orlowoxidationofethanol.Thevolatileandtotalaciditiesofjabuticaba(Myrciariajaboticaba)winesdeterminedbydaSilvaetal.[15],werehigherthanthoseobtainedinourstudy,withvaluesabove185and17meqL-1,respectively.Otherstudyconductedfortheproductionofwatermelon(Citrulluslanatusvar.Lanatus)alcoholicfermented[16]ledtosimilarresultstothoseobtainedwithstarfruitfer-mentedfor:pH(4.1),finalconcentrationofSS(6.6Brix),alcoholcontent(10GL),fermentedyield(94%)andYP/S(0.67).Howeverthefinalbiomassconcentration(20gL-1)andYX/S(0.14)werelowerandthefermenta-tiontime(48h)wasreducedcomparingtothoseobtainedwithstarfruitwine.Theseresultsindicatethatthealco-holicfermentationwithstarfruitwaspredominantlyanaerobic,withgoodethanolproduction.Awinemadefromjackfruit(Artocarpusheterophyllus)[17]storedfor11monthspresentedahigheralcoholcontent(13GL)andahighertotalacidity(100meqL-1),butthevolatileaciditywasverysimilartothestarfruitwine(6meqL-1).Usingasimilarinitialconcentrationofyeast(1.65gL-1),Andradeetal.[18].hadaslightlymoreacidicwine(pH=3.51)fromstrawberry(Fragariaana-nassa)andsimilaralcoholcontent(9.62GL)after30daysoffermentation,withsolublesolidsconsumptionvaryingfrom27to9Brix.Forthisproduct,theauthorsobservedthattheconsumptionofsolublesolidsweremoreintenseinthefirst10days.Tamarind(Tamarindusindica)andsoursop(Annonamuricata)werealsoobjectsofstudy[19]fortheproductionofalcoholicdrinks,resultinginalcohollevelsof8.1and6.3GL,respectively.StarfruitwasappliedbyPaulandSahu[14]anditwasobtainedanalcoholicfermenteddrinkwithsimilaralcoholcontentof12.15GL,howevertheseauthorsobtainedhighertitrableacidity(0.76%w/w),lowerpH(3.94),lowertotalsolublesolidconcentration(4.6Brix)andtheyusedaninoculumstepwhichaddedmoretimetotheprocess.ConclusionAttheinitialconditionsof:23–25Brix;pH=4.8–5.0and1.6–2.5gL-1ofyeastconcentration,itwaspossibletoobtainafermenteddrink,fromstarfruit,with:analcoholcontentof11.15GL,pHfrom4.13to4.22,afinalyeastconcentrationof89gL-1,volumetricfermentationyieldfrom82to94%(v/v),totalacidityfrom42to52meqL-1,avolatileacidityof5meqL-1andfixedaciditiesof37–47meqL-1.Theaverageconversionfactorswere:YX/S=0.79;YP/S=0.67andYP/X=1.02.Thefermentationkineticsshowedthatafter5daysoffermentation(*25C),theprocessreachedthefinalstage.Theobtaineddrinkhadsimilarcharacteristicstodrinksmadefromotherfruitsmentionedintheliteratureandthedifferencesamongtheirparametersarebasicallyduetothedifferencesinthepro-cessesandinthecompositionsofrawmaterialsused.AcknowledgmentsAuthorsaregratefultotheMunicipalCollegeProfessorFrancoMontoro(MogiGuac¸u,Sa˜oPaulo,Brazil)wherealltheexperimentswereconductedandalsototheCoordenac¸a˜odeAperfeic¸oamentodePessoaldeNı´velSuperior(CAPES,Brazil)fortheirfinancialsupport.References1.NyangaLK,NoutMJR,SmidEJ,BoekhoutT,ZwieteringMH(2013)Fermentationcharacteristicsofyeastsisolatedfromtradi-tionallyfermentedmasau(Ziziphusmauritiana)fruits.IntJFoodMicrobiol166:426–432.doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.08.0032.SantoDE,GalegoL,Gonc¸alvesT,QuintasC(2012)YeastdiversityintheMediterraneanstrawberrytree(ArbutusunedoL.)fruits’fermentations.FoodResInt47:45–50.doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2012.01.0093.BrazilianMinistryofAgriculture,LivestockandSupply(2004)Lawn10970.Ministe´riodaAgricultura,Pecua´riaeAbasteci-mento.Lein.10970,de12denovembrode2004(inPortuguese).http://www.agricultura.gov.br.Accessedon11Nov20154.WarrenO,SargentSA(2011)Carambola(AverrhoacarambolaL.).In:YahiaA(ed)PostharvestBiologyandTechnologyofTropicalandSubtropicalFruits:Ac¸aitoCitrus.WoodheadPub-lishingSeriesinFoodScience,TechnologyandNutrition,pp397–414e.doi:10.1533/9780857092762.3975.AlmeidaMB,SouzaWCO,BarrosJRA,BarrosoPA,VillarFCR(2011)Physicalandchemicalcharacterizationofstarfruits(AverroacarambolaL.)producedinPetrolina,PE,Brazil.RevSemia´ridoVisu1:116–1256.ChauC-F,ChenC-H,LinC-Y(2004)Insolublefiber-richfrac-tionsderivedfromAverrhoacarambola:hypoglycemiceffectsdeterminedbyinvitromethods.LWTFoodSciTechnol37:331–335.doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2003.10.0017.WeiS-D,ChenH,YanT,LinY-M,ZhouH-C(2014)Identifi-cationofantioxidantcomponentsandfattyacidprofilesoftheleavesandfruitsfromAverrhoacarambola.LWTFoodSciTechnol55:278–285.doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2013.08.0138.RodriguesMI,IemmaAF(2015)Experimentaldesignandopti-mization.CRCPress,BocaRaton9.InstitutoAdolfoLutz(2008)AnalyticalStandardsoftheAdolfoLutzInstitute.NormasAnalı´ticasdoInstitutoAdolfoLutz(inPortuguese),Sa˜oPaulo:IMESP.Accessedon11Nov2015.http://www.ial.sp.gov.br/10.NapahdeS,DurveA,BharatiD,ChandraN(2010)WinePro-ductionfromCarambola(Averrhoacarambola)juiceusingSac-charomycescerevisiae.A