| Literature DB >> 31963304 |
Raúl González-Domínguez1,2, Ana Sayago1,2, Ikram Akhatou1,2, Ángeles Fernández-Recamales1,2.
Abstract
The chemical composition of foods is tightly regulated by multiple genotypic and agronomic factors, which can thus serve as potential descriptors for traceability and authentication purposes. In the present work, we performed a multi-chemical characterization of strawberry fruits from five varieties (Aromas, Camarosa, Diamante, Medina, and Ventana) grown in two cultivation systems (open/closed soilless systems) during two consecutive campaigns with different climatic conditions (rainfall and temperature). For this purpose, we analyzed multiple components closely related to the sensory and health characteristics of strawberry, including sugars, organic acids, phenolic compounds, and essential and non-essential mineral elements, and various complementary statistical approaches were applied for selecting chemical descriptors of cultivar and agronomic conditions. Anthocyanins, phenolic acids, sucrose, and malic acid were found to be the most discriminant variables among cultivars, while climatic conditions and the cultivation system were behind changes in polyphenol contents. These results thus demonstrate the utility of combining multi-chemical profiling approaches with advanced chemometric tools in food traceability research.Entities:
Keywords: cultivar; cultivation system; mineral elements; organic acids; phenolic compounds; strawberry; sugars; traceability
Year: 2020 PMID: 31963304 PMCID: PMC7023155 DOI: 10.3390/foods9010096
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Concentrations (expressed as the mean ± standard deviation) of sugars (g kg−1), organic acids (g kg−1), phenolic compounds (mg kg−1), and mineral elements (mg kg−1) in each strawberry cultivar, and p values obtained by ANOVA.
| Compounds | Aromas | Camarosa | Diamante | Medina | Ventana | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| sucrose | 6.9 ± 4.8 | 14.1 ± 2.3 | 9.2 ± 1.7 | 6.7 ± 3.4 | 10.0 ± 3.1 | 0.0003 |
| glucose | 11.9 ± 4.4 | 11.7 ± 3.2 | 12.4 ± 3.0 | 12.3 ± 3.9 | 14.6 ± 3.9 | 0.4836 |
| fructose | 11.6 ± 4.1 | 11.0 ± 2.8 | 11.5 ± 2.4 | 11.4 ± 3.8 | 13.3 ± 3.4 | 0.6800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ascorbic acid | 0.1 ± 0.04 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.02 | 0.2 ± 0.08 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.4145 |
| citric acid | 5.1 ± 2.0 | 6.3 ± 0.8 | 5.3 ± 1.1 | 4.7 ± 1.4 | 5.3 ± 0.8 | 0.1937 |
| tartaric acid | 0.08 ± 0.08 | 0.1 ± 0.04 | 0.2 ± 0.06 | 0.07 ± 0.09 | 0.2 ± 0.07 | 0.0959 |
| malic acid | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 2.4 ± 0.4 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.0871 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pelargonidin derivative 1 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.4 | 0.0750 |
| cyanidin 3-glucoside | 6.4 ± 1.6 | 4.0 ± 0.8 | 3.0 ± 1.1 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.6 | 0.0000 |
| pelargonidin 3-glucoside | 120.9 ± 17.7 | 117.2 ± 29.9 | 72.4 ± 3.3 | 102.7 ± 30.9 | 86.1 ± 22.2 | 0.0003 |
| pelargonidin 3-rutinoside | 7.4 ± 1.6 | 15.8 ± 5.1 | 5.2 ± 1.0 | 6.2 ± 0.7 | 6.7 ± 2.5 | 0.0000 |
| pelargonidin derivative 2 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.09 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.8180 |
| pelargonidin acetate | 3.0 ± 0.4 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.8 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 0.0000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| p-hydroxybenzoic acid | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.9 | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.5 ± 0.03 | 0.0139 |
| caffeic acid | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 0.0001 |
| p-coumaric acid | 7.8 ± 1.7 | 6.6 ± 3.1 | 4.2 ± 2.2 | 5.8 ± 1.3 | 19.3 ± 6.1 | 0.0000 |
| ferulic acid | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.2 ± 0.07 | 0.2 ± 0.02 | 0.1 ± 0.04 | 0.4 ± 0.08 | 0.0078 |
| ellagic acid | 39.3 ± 10.3 | 35.8 ± 10.5 | 54.3 ± 23.8 | 45.8 ± 22.3 | 63.4 ± 25.9 | 0.1295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| quercetin | 1.4 ± 0.08 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.0249 |
| Kaempferol O-glucoside | 23.0 ± 7.2 | 29.5 ± 10.3 | 18.3 ± 6.0 | 21.2 ± 9.5 | 30.3 ± 8.3 | 0.0262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| P | 224.3 ± 35.6 | 251.6 ± 11.3 | 196.2 ± 29.5 | 219.2 ± 21.8 | 218.5 ± 16.4 | 0.0025 |
| Ba | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.06 | 0.4 ± 0.06 | 0.4 ± 0.02 | 0.4 ± 0.04 | 0.9586 |
| Ca | 210.7 ± 24.1 | 244.2 ± 35.4 | 156.4 ± 20.1 | 195.4 ± 33.2 | 235.2 ± 28.6 | 0.9732 |
| Cr | 0.1 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.2 ± 0.03 | 0.9932 |
| Cu | 4.6 ± 1.9 | 4.8 ± 1.1 | 4.8 ± 1.4 | 4.9 ± 1.4 | 5.4 ± 1.3 | 0.9915 |
| Fe | 7.8 ± 1.2 | 7.6 ± 1.1 | 5.8 ± 1.6 | 8.7 ± 1.1 | 7.5 ± 1.9 | 0.9723 |
| K | 2843.5 ± 287.6 | 2788.2 ± 357.4 | 2098.1 ± 210.2 | 2844.8 ± 351.9 | 3597.9 ± 443.5 | 0.9263 |
| Mg | 226.7 ± 26.9 | 179.3 ± 26.0 | 142.5 ± 20.1 | 167.5 ± 23.7 | 222.6 ± 30.7 | 0.9526 |
| Mn | 8.8 ± 1.9 | 6.9 ± 1.0 | 5.9 ± 1.9 | 6.8 ± 1.1 | 9.9 ± 1.1 | 0.9394 |
| Na | 189.1 ± 28.9 | 116.0 ± 23.7 | 98.3 ± 21.5 | 88.9 ± 17.4 | 126.2 ± 16.1 | 0.9000 |
| Ni | 0.3 ± 0.06 | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.3 ± 0.07 | 0.3 ± 0.03 | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.9890 |
| Sr | 6.0 ± 1.0 | 3.6 ± 1.7 | 3.1 ± 1.5 | 4.8 ± 1.8 | 5.6 ± 1.7 | 0.8802 |
| Zn | 3.2 ± 0.9 | 7.5 ± 0.8 | 3.74 ± 0.49 | 3.47 ± 0.33 | 4.26 ± 0.30 | 0.5551 |
ANOVA, One-way analysis of variance.
Figure 1Principal component analysis (PCA) score plots showing the projection of strawberry samples in the plane defined by the following principal components: (A) PC1 vs. PC2, separation of samples according to the campaign; (B) PC2 vs. PC4, separation of samples according to the cultivar.
Figure 2Results obtained from supervised chemometric modeling. (A) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores plot showing the distribution of samples in the plane defined by the two first principal components using the cultivar as the categorical variable; (B) Soft independent model class analogy (SIMCA) Coomans plots for the classification of strawberry samples according to the cultivar: “Aromas” vs. ”Camarosa”; (C) Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) scores plot showing the distribution of samples in the plane defined by the two first principal components using the cultivar as the categorical variable; (D) PLS-DA scores plot showing the distribution of samples in the plane defined by the two first principal components using the cultivation system as the categorical variable.