| Literature DB >> 31500205 |
Massimo Guaita1, Antonella Bosso2.
Abstract
Agro-industry byproducts can still contain large amounts of phenolic compounds, and one of the richest sources are grape skins and seeds as grape pomace, both fermented (red winemaking) and unfermented (white winemaking). The residual polyphenolic content depends on various factors such as grape variety, vintage, and winemaking technique. In this work, four red grape varieties cultivated in northern Italy were studied: Albarossa, Barbera, Nebbiolo, and Uvalino. The work was aimed at studying the polyphenolic composition of skins and seeds from fresh grapes and from the corresponding pomace after fermentative maceration, to assess the actual importance of the varietal differences when processing winemaking byproducts for the extraction of phenolic compounds. The skin and seed extracts were prepared by solvent extraction with a 50% hydroalcoholic solution. The polyphenolic composition of all extracts was determined by spectrophotometry and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC); the content and the monomer composition of condensed tannins were determined by phloroglucinolysis; the antioxidant capacity was measured with the ABTS (2,2'-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6- sulfonate)) method. The antioxidant capacity was higher for the seeds than for the skins, and it was positively correlated with the condensed tannins content. Significant differences in polyphenolic composition of fresh grape skins and seeds were observed between the different cultivars. In particular, Barbera and Albarossa skins were significantly distinguished from Nebbiolo and Uvalino skins for a higher content of anthocyanins and a lower content of vanillin-reactive flavans and condensed tannins; regarding seeds, Barbera and Albarossa had a lower content of vanillin-reactive flavans, proanthocyanidins, and condensed tannins than Nebbiolo and Uvalino. The winemaking process extracted the phenolic compounds to a different extent from skins and seeds, regardless of the cultivar. The differences between cultivars in the polyphenolic profile disappeared after fermentative maceration.Entities:
Keywords: ABTS; phloroglucinolysis; polyphenols; solvent extraction; winemaking byproducts
Year: 2019 PMID: 31500205 PMCID: PMC6770923 DOI: 10.3390/foods8090395
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Short description of the main extraction methods of polyphenols reported in the literature.
| Reference | Sample Matrix | Sample Treatment | Solvent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| [ | Skins and seeds | the intact tissues were extracted separately in covered Erlenmeyer flasks under nitrogen | acetone/water (2:1) |
| [ | Skins | frozen in liquid nitrogen and ground to a fine powder with a grinder | acetone, ethanol various % in water | |
| [ | Full berries | triturated with a conventional beater | ethanol/water (1:1), acidified at pH = 2 | |
| [ | Skins | homogenized in the presence of solvent, then centrifuged | methanol/formic acid (97:3) | |
| [ | Skins and seeds | skins: freeze-dried, mill-powdered, freezer; seeds: air-dried, mill-powdered, room temperature | methanol/water/HCl 1N (90:9.5:0.5) | |
| [ | Skins and seeds | freeze-dried, ground to a powder using liquid N2 | methanol at various % in water, then extracts are joined | |
| [ | Seeds | finely ground using an ultra-centrifugal mill, then immediately extracted | methanol/water (80:20) followed by acetone/water (75:25) | |
| [ | Grape seeds | frozen in liquid nitrogen, then ground with a pestle and a mortar in the presence of solvent | ethyl acetate, then methanol with 5% perchloric acid | |
|
| [ | Distilled pomace | air-dried at room temperature for 48 h, then crushed in a coffee grinder | continuous extraction with either ethanol 100% or water |
| [ | Seeds | sun dried and milled in coffee grinder | ethanol/water (1:1) | |
| [ | Pomace | crushed and uncrushed, with and without stems | methanol, ethyl acetate and 3% aqueous KOH | |
| [ | Pomace | dried at the ambient temperature and ground | water | |
| [ | Pressed marcs | oven dried at 60 °C and milled | ethanol containing different volumes of water (10–20–30–40–50–60%) | |
| [ | Marc | dried at 50 °C, then crushed and homogenized with the solvent | ethanol/water (80:20), acidified | |
| [ | Pressed marcs | lyophilization and powdering in liquid nitrogen | methanol/water/acetic acid (80:20:5) | |
| [ | White and red pomace | chopped into small pieces, ground with a pestle and a mortar, and solvent; the paste is again extracted with the same solvent | 0.1% HCl in methanol/acetone/water (60:30:10), water/ethanol mixtures and hydrochloric, acetic, or tartaric acid |
Phenolic composition (by spectrophotometry) of the skin and seed extracts expressed as mg/g dry weight (DW) and mg/kg grapes. Antioxidant power ((2,2’-azinobis-(3- ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonate)) (ABTS) method) of the grape skin and seed extracts, expressed as ascorbic acid equivalent in mg/g DW. Standard deviations and ANOVA results.
| Albarossa | Barbera | Nebbiolo | Uvalino | Sig 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mg/g DW | Total anthocyanins | 21.5 ± 1.0 d1 | 17.1 ± 1.0 c | 9.4 ± 0.8 a | 12.4 ± 1.6 b | *** | |
| λmax total anthocyanins (nm) | 540.8 ± 0.3 c | 540.5 ± 0.0 c | 534.2 ± 0.3 a | 537.3 ± 0.3 b | *** | ||
| Monomer anthocyanins | 13.8 ± 1.9 c | 11.4 ± 1.3 bc | 6.2 ± 0.5 a | 7.8 ± 1.5 ab | *** | ||
| λmax monomer anthocyanins (nm) | 539.7 ± 0.3 c | 539.7 ± 0.3 c | 533.2 ± 0.3 a | 536.5 ± 0.0 b | *** | ||
| Monomer/Total anthocyanins | 0.64 ± 0.06 | 0.66 ± 0.04 | 0.66 ± 0.01 | 0.63 ± 0.04 | ns | ||
| Total flavonoids | 47.5 ± 1.3 b | 31.2 ± 1.5 a | 32.5 ± 1.3 a | 33.2 ± 3.3 a | *** | ||
| Flavans react. with vanillin (V) | 7.2 ± 0.4 a | 4.3 ± 0.5 a | 20.1 ± 2.4 c | 13.5 ± 1.9 b | *** | ||
| Proanthocyanidins (P) | 24.1 ± 1.9 ab | 16.6 ± 1.5 a | 43.2 ± 4.6 c | 30.5 ± 3.7 b | *** | ||
| V/P | 0.30 ± 0.04 a | 0.26 ± 0.02 a | 0.47 ± 0.04 b | 0.44 ± 0.03 b | *** | ||
| Total polyphenols as gallic acid equivalents (GAE) | 37.5 ± 0.6 | 33.2 ± 0.8 | 36.7 ± 1.7 | 34.5 ± 2.9 | ns | ||
| ABTS (as ascorbic acid equivalent) | 43.5 ± 2.4 ab | 34.2 ± 1.5 a | 49.7 ± 4.4 b | 51.7 ± 4.9 b | *** | ||
| mg/kg grapes | Total anthocyanins | 2295 ± 109 c | 1431 ± 84 b | 578 ± 50 a | 1220 ± 159 b | *** | |
| Monomer anthocyanins | 1475 ± 203 c | 948 ± 107 b | 382 ± 32 a | 769 ± 143 b | *** | ||
| Total flavonoids | 5073 ± 137 d | 2601 ± 123 b | 2005 ± 81 a | 3262 ± 322 c | *** | ||
| Flavans react. with vanillin (V) | 773 ± 47 b | 359 ± 43 a | 1240 ± 149 c | 1327 ± 188 c | *** | ||
| Proanthocyanidins (P) | 2569 ± 205 b | 1382 ± 121 a | 2660 ± 285 b | 2995 ± 364 b | *** | ||
| Total polyphenols as GAE | 4003 ± 64 d | 2771 ± 63 b | 2260 ± 103 a | 3393 ± 287 c | *** | ||
| mg/g DW | Total flavonoids | 105.6 ± 0.7 a1 | 128.6 ± 16.1 ab | 162.8 ± 21.4 b | 158.4 ± 0.1 ab | * | |
| Flavans react. with vanillin (V) | 67.7 ± 1.3 a | 75.3 ± 6.1 a | 110.4 ± 13.2 b | 116.2 ± 0.8 b | *** | ||
| Proanthocyanidins (P) | 87.4 ± 0.8 a | 85.2 ± 3.3 a | 125.4 ± 10.9 b | 152.0 ± 2.5 c | *** | ||
| V/P | 0.77 ± 0.02 ab | 0.88 ± 0.04 c | 0.88 ± 0.03 bc | 0.76 ± 0.01 a | * | ||
| Total polyphenols as GAE | 73.7 ± 0.2 a | 83.8 ± 7.6 ab | 106.5 ± 9.0 b | 107.8 ± 0.2 b | ** | ||
| ABTS (as ascorbic acid equivalent) | 109.7 ± 6.8 a | 117.6 ± 10.5 a | 184.9 ± 7.9 b | 185.5 ± 1.3 b | *** | ||
| mg/kg grapes | Total flavonoids | 5403 ± 34 ab | 3962 ± 496 a | 8396 ± 1102 c | 6933 ± 4 bc | *** | |
| Flavans react. with vanillin (V) | 3463 ± 69 a | 2318 ± 188 a | 5692 ± 680 b | 5084 ± 36 b | *** | ||
| Proanthocyanidins (P) | 4470 ± 40 b | 2626 ± 103 a | 6467 ± 562 c | 6651 ± 111 c | *** | ||
| Total polyphenols as GAE | 3771 ± 8 b | 2581 ± 234 a | 5492 ± 465 c | 4718 ± 7 bc | *** |
1 Different letters along the line discriminate the trials significantly different from one another (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test). 2 Significance (Sig): *, **, ***, and ns represent significance at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, and not significant, respectively.
Hydroxycinnamiltartaric acids, flavonols content, and anthocyanins profile of the grape skin extracts. Content of (+)-catechin and (−)-epicatechin in the seed extracts. Standard deviations and ANOVA results.
| Albarossa | Barbera | Nebbiolo | Uvalino | Sig 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCTA (mg/kg grapes) | cis caffeyl tartatic acid | 4.93 ± 0.01 c1 | 3.67 ± 0.00 b | 2.78 ± 0.04 a | 4.45 ± 0.04 c | *** | |
| trans-caffeyl tartaric acid | 8.37 ± 0.27 b | 12.64 ± 1.06 c | 3.13 ± 0.11 a | 14.59 ± 1.57 c | *** | ||
| cis p-coumaroyl tartaric acid | 1.71 ± 0.06 b | 1.45 ± 0.06 b | 0.83 ± 0.04 a | 1.65 ± 0.26 b | *** | ||
| trans p-coumaroyl tartaric acid | 1.33 ± 0.06 ab | 2.55 ± 0.58 bc | 0.12 ± 0.00 a | 4.33 ± 1.06 c | *** | ||
| trans+cis fertaric acid | 1.16 ± 0.24 b | 0.91 ± 0.17 b | 0.14 ± 0.01 a | 1.26 0.11 b | *** | ||
| flavonols (mg/kg grapes) | Myricetin | 24.8 ± 2.7 ab | 64.2 ± 4.3 c | 20.5 ± 2.2 a | 31.6 ± 2.8 b | *** | |
| Quercetin glucuronide | 11.8 ± 1.5 ab | 16.6 ± 2.0 c | 9.6 ± 0.2 a | 14.5 ± 1.7 bc | *** | ||
| Quercetin glucoside | 17.5 ± 0.3 b | 14.6 ± 1.9 b | 5.8 ± 0.2 a | 14.3 ± 1.9 b | *** | ||
| Kaempferol gluc + glucur | 7.9 ± 1.1 a | 13.8 ± 1.6 ab | 10.4 ± 1.5 ab | 16.6 ± 4.3 b | * | ||
| monomer anthocyanins profile (% values) | Delphinidin-3-G | 17.2 ± 0.7 d | 11.2 ± 0.6 c | 4.1 ± 0.1 a | 6.9 ± 1.1 b | *** | |
| Cyanidin-3-G | 7.4 ± 0.1 c | 5.3 ± 0.4 b | 9.3 ± 0.4 d | 2.3 ± 0.2 a | *** | ||
| Petunidin-3-G | 14.8 ± 0.2 d | 13.0 ± 0.5 c | 4.1 ± 0.1 a | 6.8 ± 0.8 b | *** | ||
| Peonidin-3-G | 4.9 ± 0.1 a | 6.9 ± 0.5 b | 48.7 ± 0.1 d | 29.1 ± 1.1 c | *** | ||
| Malvidin-3-G | 34.0 ± 0.2 b | 42.5 ± 1.0 d | 23.7 ± 0.7 a | 38.5 ± 0.3 c | *** | ||
| Total acetates | 8.0 ± 0.1 b | 12.9 ± 0.6 c | 3.7 ± 0.1 a | 3.1 ± 0.2 a | *** | ||
| Total cynnamates | 13.6 ± 0.4 c | 8.2 ± 0.1 b | 6.4 ± 0.3 a | 13.2 ± 0.6 c | *** | ||
| monomer flavan-3-ols (mg/kg grapes) | (+)-Catechin | 170 ± 19 b | 168 ± 11 b | 94 ± 11 a | 130 ± 9 ab | ** | |
| (−)-Epicatechin | 247 ± 7 a | 473 ± 34 b | 349 ± 37 a | 303 ± 3 a | *** |
1 Different letters along the line discriminate the trials significantly different from one another (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test). 2 Significance: *, ** and *** represent significance at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively.
Concentration, monomer percentage composition and mean degree of polymerization of condensed tannins in the grape skins and seeds, and ANOVA results. C = (+)-catechin, EC = (−)-epicatechin, ECG = (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate, EGC = (−)-epigallocatechin.
| Albarossa | Barbera | Nebbiolo | Uvalino | Sig 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal units (%) | C | 5.50 ± 0.40 b1 | 4.73 ± 0.24 b | 3.47 ± 0.20 a | 3.57 ± 0.32 a | *** | |
| EC | 1.42 ± 0.21 c | 1.86 ± 0.15 d | 0.62 ± 0.05 a | 0.98 ± 0.06 b | *** | ||
| ECG | 0.34 ± 0.07 c | 0.18 ± 0.02 b | 0.04 ± 0.00 a | 0.09 ± 0.01 ab | *** | ||
| Extension units (%) | C | 20.13 ± 2.17 ab | 22.97 ± 0.96 b | 17.08 ± 0.49 a | 18.01 ± 0.15 a | *** | |
| EC | 58.06 ± 2.96 b | 58.83 ± 1.03 b | 48.15 ± 0.90 a | 47.87 ± 0.63 a | *** | ||
| ECG | 4.35 ± 0.20 c | 3.85 ± 0.08 b | 2.83 ± 0.09 a | 3.86 ± 0.17 b | *** | ||
| EGC | 10.20 ± 0.59 b | 7.58 ± 0.25 a | 27.79 ± 1.08 d | 25.61 ± 0.63 c | *** | ||
| Mean degree of polymerization (mDP) | 13.8 ± 0.4 a | 14.8 ± 0.8 a | 24.2 ± 1.3 c | 21.5 ± 1.3 b | *** | ||
| Total | C% | 25.6 ± 2.4 b | 27.7 ± 1.0 b | 20.6 ± 0.5 a | 21.6 ± 0.2 a | *** | |
| EC% | 74.4 ± 2.4 a | 72.3 ± 1.0 a | 79.4 ± 0.5 b | 78.4 ± 0.2 b | *** | ||
| Condensed tannins (mg/g DW) | 11.3 ± 0.9 b | 7.1 ± 0.9 a | 19.2 ± 1.0 d | 16.0 ± 0.7 c | *** | ||
| Condensed tannins (mg/kg grapes) | 1202 ± 91 b | 594 ± 71 a | 1184 ± 64 b | 1572 ± 67 c | *** | ||
| Terminal units (%) | C | 6.08 ± 0.22 a1 | 9.70 ± 0.17 c | 10.55 ± 0.33 c | 7.34 ± 0.23 b | *** | |
| EC | 8.10 ± 0.05 b | 10.60 ± 0.10 d | 8.89 ± 0.10 c | 5.74 ± 0.20 a | *** | ||
| ECG | 5.01 ± 0.14 b | 4.37 ± 0.02 a | 4.98 ± 0.12 b | 4.67 ± 0.20 ab | * | ||
| Extension units (%) | C | 14.74 ± 0.51 b | 14.75 ± 0.38 b | 11.96 ± 1.36 b | 5.62 ± 0.64 a | *** | |
| EC | 51.56 ± 0.87 b | 44.93 ± 0.01 a | 50.40 ± 0.97 b | 64.10 ± 0.16 c | *** | ||
| ECG | 14.51 ± 0.06 c | 15.64 ± 0.08 d | 13.21 ± 0.16 b | 12.53 ± 0.17 a | *** | ||
| mDP | 5.2 ± 0.1 b | 4.1 ± 0.0 a | 4.1 ± 0.1 a | 5.6 ± 0.2 b | *** | ||
| Total | C % | 20.8 ± 0.7 b | 24.4 ± 0.2 c | 22.5 ± 1.0 bc | 13.0 ± 0.4 a | *** | |
| EC % | 79.2 0.7 b | 75.5 ± 0.2 a | 77.5 ± 1.0 ab | 87.0 ± 0.4 c | *** | ||
| Condensed tannins (mg/g DW) | 53.0 ± 1.4 a | 58.4 ± 1.8 a | 73.9 ± 5.6 ab | 82.5 ± 8.9 b | * | ||
| Condensed tannins (mg/kg grapes) | 2712 ± 71 ab | 1797 ± 55 a | 3810 ± 290 c | 3612 ± 390 bc | *** | ||
1 Different letters along the line discriminate the trials significantly different from one another (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test). 2 Significance: * and *** represent significance at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.001, respectively.
Phenolic composition in mg/g (DW) of the skin and seed extracts obtained from the fermented pomace of the four studied cultivars, and ANOVA results.
| Albarossa | Barbera | Nebbiolo | Uvalino | Sig 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total anthocyanins | 3.68 ± 0.24 c1 | 1.14 ± 0.16 b | 0.19 ± 0.02 a | 0.44 ± 0.04 a | *** | |
| λmax tot. ant. (nm) | 541.0 ± 0.1 c | 539.0 ± 0.1 c | 533.0 ± 0.1 a | 536.0 ± 0.0 b | *** | |
| Monomer anthocyanins | 2.94 ± 0.47 c | 0.86 ± 0.18 b | 0.10 ± 0.01 a | 0.26 ± 0.02 ab | *** | |
| λmax mon. ant. (nm) | 540.0 ± 0.1 c | 538.0 ± 0.2 b | 534.0 ± 0.0 a | 535.0 ± 0.1 a | *** | |
| Mon/Tot anthocyanins | 0.79 ± 0.09 b | 0.75 ± 0.06 b | 0.53 ± 0.03 a | 0.58 ± 0.03 a | *** | |
| Total flavonoids | 11.96 ± 1.18 c | 6.28 ± 0.58 b | 2.55 ± 0.25 a | 3.51 ± 0.21 a | *** | |
| Flavans react. with vanillin (V) | 0.16 ± 0.07 a | 0.82 ± 0.07 c | 0.54 ± 0.17 bc | 0.48 ± 0.11 b | *** | |
| Proanthocyanidins (P) | 3.36 ± 0.41 b | 3.31 ± 0.36 b | 2.36 ± 0.30 a | 1.99 ± 0.08 a | *** | |
| V/P | 0.05 ± 0.02 a | 0.25 ± 0.02 b | 0.23 ± 0.05b | 0.24 ± 0.06 b | *** | |
| Total polyphenols as GAE | 7.64 ± 0.43 c | 6.35 ± 0.53 b | 3.45 ± 0.23 a | 4.37 ± 0.12 a | *** | |
| Total flavonoids | 6.90 ± 0.34 a | 25.91 ± 1.21 b | 9.51 ± 0.45 a | 8.61 ± 0.28 a | *** | |
| Flavans react. with vanillin (V) | 0.50 ± 0.02 a | 9.35 ± 0.76 b | 1.26 ± 0.24 a | 1.50 ± 0.34 a | *** | |
| Proanthocyanidins (P) | 1.10 ± 0.05 a | 13.72 ± 1.06 b | 2.81 ± 0.20 a | 2.75 ± 0.64 a | *** | |
| V/P | 0.44 ± 0.00 | 0.68 ± 0.00 | 0.43 ± 0.05 | 0.57 ± 0.26 | ns | |
| Total polyphenols as GAE | 7.10 ± 0.26 a | 23.75 ± 1.48 b | 9.85 ± 0.42 a | 9.52 ± 0.27 a | *** |
1 Different letters along the line discriminate the trials significantly different from one another (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test). 2 Significance: *** and ns represent significance at p ≤ 0.001 and not significant, respectively.
Concentration, monomer percentage composition and mean degree of polymerization of condensed tannins in the pomace skins, and ANOVA results. C = (+)-catechin, EC = (−)-epicatechin, ECG = (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate, EGC = (−)-epigallocatechin.
| Albarossa | Barbera | Nebbiolo | Uvalino | Sig 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal units (%) | C | 4.72 ± 0.16 a1 | 23.50 ± 0.31 b | 35.44 ± 1.34 c | 37.97 ± 0.84 d | *** | |
| EC | 6.35 ± 0.34 b | 9.20 ± 0.17 c | 5.22 ± 0.15 ab | 4.43 ± 0.82 a | *** | ||
| ECG | 2.16 ± 0.12 a | 3.22 ± 0.25 b | 3.41 ± 0.08 b | 2.05 ± 0.09 a | *** | ||
| Extension units (%) | C | 14.05 ± 0.68 a | 15.77 ± 0.56 b | 14.00 ± 0.36 a | 14.03 ± 0.85 a | * | |
| EC | 42.76 ± 0.41 c | 35.60 ± 0.64 b | 31.99 ± 0.74 a | 32.07 ± 1.12 a | *** | ||
| ECG | 24.91 ± 0.70 c | 10.35 ± 0.10 b | 6.26 ± 0.17 a | 6.38 ± 0.26 a | *** | ||
| EGC | 5.05 ± 0.07 d | 2.33 ± 0.09 a | 3.67 ± 0.10 c | 3.07 ± 0.12 b | *** | ||
| Total | C % | 18.77 ± 0.59 a | 39.28 ± 0.61 b | 49.45 ± 0.99 c | 52.00 ± 1.10 d | *** | |
| EC % | 81.23 ± 0.59 d | 60.72 ± 0.61 c | 50.55 ± 0.99 b | 48.00 ± 1.10 a | *** | ||
| mDP | 7.56 ± 0.24 c | 2.78 ± 0.05 b | 2.27 ± 0.07 a | 2.25 ± 0.07 a | *** | ||
| Condensed tannins (mg/g DW) | 0.85 ± 0.05 a | 1.35 ± 0.01 c | 1.02 ± 0.08 b | 0.95 ± 0.05 ab | *** | ||
| Terminal units (%) | C | 22.45 ± 0.77 b | 16.07 ± 0.16 a | 29.39 ± 1.17 c | 31.74 ± 0.38 c | *** | |
| EC | 18.67 ± 0.41 c | 15.36 ± 0.37 b | 14.55 ± 0.08 b | 12.13 ± 0.27 a | *** | ||
| ECG | 8.78 ± 0.15 b | 5.29 ± 0.08 a | 9.15 ± 0.08 b | 12.49 ± 0.16 c | *** | ||
| Extension units (%) | C | 15.18 ± 0.67 b | 15.36 ± 0.38 b | 9.40 ± 0.32 a | 14.98 ± 0.33 b | *** | |
| EC | 24.95 ± 0.18 a | 34.83 ± 0.17 c | 30.90 ± 0.90 b | 23.70 ± 0.54 a | *** | ||
| ECG | 9.96 ± 0.02 c | 13.08 ± 0.23 d | 6.60 ± 0.58 b | 4.95 ± 0.07 a | *** | ||
| Total | C % | 37.63 ± 0.09 b | 31.43 ± 0.22 a | 38.80 ± 1.48 b | 46.72 ± 0.05 c | *** | |
| EC % | 62.37 ± 0.09 b | 68.57 ± 0.22 c | 61.20 ± 1.48 b | 53.28 ± 0.05 a | *** | ||
| mDP | 2.00 ± 0.02 b | 2.72 ± 0.03 c | 1.88 ± 0.04 ab | 1.77 ± 0.03 a | *** | ||
| Condensed tannins (mg/g DW) | 1.31 ± 0.05 a | 10.34 ± 0.51 b | 2.23 ± 0.09 a | 2.35 ± 0.11 a | *** | ||
1 Different letters along the line discriminate the trials significantly different from one another (p < 0.05, Tukey’s test). 2 Significance: * and *** represent significance at p ≤ 0.05, and 0.001, respectively.
Figure 1Representation of the loadings (variables) and the scores (skin extracts) in the plane defined by the 1st and 2nd Principal Components (PCA). For each cultivar (blue), the suffix G represents grape extracts, P represents pomace extracts. In red are reported the chemical variables that describe the polyphenolic profile of the extracts: GAE = total polyphenols; TF = total flavonoids; TA = total anthocyanins; MA = monomer anthocyanins; V = flavans reactive with vanillin; P = proanthocyanidins; Tannins = condensed tannins (phloroglucinolysis); mDP = mean degree of polymerization; C, EC, ECG = (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin and (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate present as terminal units; CP, ECP, ECGP = (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin and (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate present as extension units; EGCP = (−)-epigallocatechin present only as extension unit; C%, EC%, ECG% = total percentages of the monomers (terminal + extension).
Figure 2Representation of the loadings (variables) and the scores (skin extracts) in the plane defined by the 1st and 3rd Principal Components (PCA). For each cultivar (blue), the suffix G represents grape extracts, P represents pomace extracts. In red are reported the chemical variables that describe the polyphenolic profile of the extracts: GAE = total polyphenols; TF = total flavonoids; TA = total anthocyanins; MA = monomer anthocyanins; V = flavans reactive with vanillin; P = proanthocyanidins; Tannins = condensed tannins (phloroglucinolysis); mDP = mean degree of polymerization; C, EC, ECG = (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin and (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate present as terminal units; CP, ECP, ECGP = (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin and (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate present as extension units; EGCP = (−)-epigallocatechin present only as extension unit; C%, EC%, ECG% = total percentages of the monomers (terminal + extension).
Figure 3Representation of the loadings (variables) and the scores (seed extracts) in the plane defined by the 1st and 2nd Principal Components (PCA). For each cultivar (blue), the suffix G represents grape extracts, P represents pomace extracts. In red are reported the chemical variables that describe the polyphenolic profile of the extracts: GAE = total polyphenols; TF = total flavonoids; TA = total anthocyanins; MA = monomer anthocyanins; V = flavans reactive with vanillin; P = proanthocyanidins; Tannins = condensed tannins (phloroglucinolysis); mDP = mean degree of polymerization; C, EC, ECG = (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin and (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate present as terminal units; CP, ECP, ECGP = (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin and (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate present as extension units; C%, EC%, ECG% = total percentages of the monomers (terminal + extension).