| Literature DB >> 31398838 |
Katalin Szabo1, Zorița Diaconeasa2, Adriana-Florinela Cătoi3, Dan Cristian Vodnar4.
Abstract
Global tomato production is currently around 180 million tons, of which more than a quarter undergoes processing. The removed peels, seeds, and vascular tissues usually end up in landfills, creating environmental pollution. In order to highlight the alternative use of these vegetal wastes, our study investigated 10 tomato varieties in terms of carotenoids content, phenolic composition, and their related antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Tomato peels extracts were screened by high performance liquid chromatography with diode-array detection (HPLC/DAD) for qualitative and quantitative analyses. The extracts were tested against six bacterial strains to determine their antimicrobial effect; the 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay was applied to estimate their antioxidant capacity. Total carotenoids content was significantly higher in Ţărănești roz, a local variety (5.31 ± 0.12 mg/100 g DW), while Mirsini, a commercial hybrid, presented significantly higher total phenolic content (155 ± 2 mg/100 g DW) compared to the mean value of all analyzed samples. The methanolic extracts of tomato peels presented acceptable antimicrobial activity against Staphilococcus aureus and Bacillus subtilis, and the mean antioxidant activity was 201 ± 44 µmol Trolox/100 g DW tomato peels. Considering that tomato peels have lycopene, β-carotene, lutein, and different phenolic compounds in their composition, tomato industrial by-products could represent a source of natural bioactive molecules with applicability in nutraceuticals and food industry.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; bioactive; carotenoids; phenolic compounds; revalorization; tomato peels
Year: 2019 PMID: 31398838 PMCID: PMC6719044 DOI: 10.3390/antiox8080292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Content of individual carotenoids of ten tomato varieties peels extracts (mg/100 g DW) ± SD.
| Sample | Carotenoids Content | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lycopene | β-Carotene | Lutein | Total Carotenoids | |
|
| 1.77 ± 0.01 | 0.43 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.04 | 2.46 ± 0.07 bc |
|
| 0.34 ± 0.05 | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.32 ± 0.02 | 1.04 ± 0.09 ab |
|
| 1.30 ± 0.03 | 0.59 ± 0.02 | 0.60 ± 0.03 | 2.48 ± 0.07 bc |
|
| 1.21 ± 0.02 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 1.95 ± 0.05 abc |
|
| 0.36 ± 0.03 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.60 ± 0.05 a |
|
| 2.80 ± 0.04 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.31 ± 0.02 | 3.33 ± 0.07 c |
|
| 1.38 ± 0.06 | 0.44 ± 0.01 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | 2.28 ± 0.07 bc |
|
| 1.85 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.58 ± 0.02 | 2.67 ± 0.04 bc |
|
| 3.70 ± 0.02 | 0.53 ± 0.01 | 1.09 ± 0.09 | 5.31 ± 0.12 d |
|
| 1.51 ± 0.03 | 0.45 ± 0.00 | 0.97 ± 0.02 | 2.93 ± 0.05 c |
| Mean | 1.62 ± 1.02 | 0.39 ± 0.14 | 0.51 ± 0.32 | 2.50 ± 1.29 |
Different letters indicate significant differences by Tukey’s test, at 5% probability.
Individual concentrations of phenolic compounds and total phenolic content of ten tomato varieties peels extracts (mg/100 g DW) ± SD.
| Sample | Content of Individual Phenolic Compounds | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QTG | Q3R | di-CQA | tri-CQA | NGC | NG | Total Phenolic Content | |
|
| 4.5 ± 0.0 | 11.9 ± 0.0 | 6.7 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.2 | 33.0 ± 0.3 | 4.6 ± 0.5 | 66 ± 1 |
|
| 4.9 ± 0.1 | 7.7 ± 0.1 | 7.5 ± 0.0 | 5.2 ± 0.1 | 6.6 ± 0.7 | 4.7 ± 0.7 | 37 ± 2 |
|
| 5.1 ± 0.1 | 10.4 ± 0.1 | 8.7 ± 0.2 | 6.5 ± 0.2 | 22.3 ± 0.7 | 7.1 ± 0.2 | 60 ± 1 |
|
| 4.2 ± 0.1 | 9.5 ± 0.1 | 6.6 ± 0.3 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 13.8 ± 0.2 | 4.7 ± 0.6 | 44 ± 1 |
|
| 5.4 ± 0.1 | 51.0 ± 0.1 | 8.9 ± 0.1 | 6.6 ± 0.2 | 70.6 ± 0.6 | 12.1 ± 0.4 | 155 ± 2 |
|
| 4.0 ± 0.1 | 6.2 ± 0.3 | 9.3 ± 0.4 | 6.4 ± 0.2 | 19.4 ± 0.9 | 4.8 ± 0.2 | 50 ± 2 |
|
| n. d. | 8.7 ± 0.7 | 5.9 ± 0.1 | 5.9 ± 0.2 | 63.4 ± 0.2 | 10.6 ± 0.4 | 94 ± 2 |
|
| n. d. | 6.4 ± 0.2 | 8.4 ± 0.6 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | 87.6 ± 1.2 | 12.9 ± 0.5 | 120 ± 3 |
|
| 5.4 ± 0.1 | 11.4 ± 0.4 | 15.7 ± 0.2 | 8.9 ± 0.1 | 9.4 ± 0.2 | 6.7 ± 0.5 | 58 ± 2 |
|
| 3.6 ± 0.0 | 26.9 ± 1.0 | 8.6 ± 0.1 | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 22.8 ± 0.9 | 7.8 ± 0.3 | 75 ± 2 |
| Mean | 4.6 ± 0.7 | 18.1 ± 14.0 | 11.0 ± 2.7 | 6.9 ± 1.2 | 34.9 ± 28.5 | 7.6 ± 3.2 | 76 ± 2 |
QTG: quercetin-triglucoside; Q3R: quercetin-3-rutinoside (or rutin,); di-CQA: 3,4-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid (or isochlorogenic acid; tri-CQA: 3,4,5-tri-caffeoylquinic acid; NGC: naringenin chalcone; NG: naringenin.
Minimum inhibitory concentration (mg tomato peels/mL) of the methanolic extracts.
| Samples | G (+) | G(−) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 10.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 5.00 | <10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 10.00 | 5.00 | <10.00 | 10.00 | <10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 10.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 5.00 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 2.50 | 2.50 | 5.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
|
| 5.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 | <10.00 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
Figure 1Antioxidant activity of tomato peels extracts by DPPH assay. Different letters indicate significant differences by Tukey’s test, at 5% probability.