| Literature DB >> 32823808 |
Gabriela Viana da Silva1, Bruna Aparecida Souza Machado2, Walkia Polliana de Oliveira1, Camilla Fernanda Godinho da Silva1, Cedenir Pereira de Quadros3, Janice Izabel Druzian1, Ederlan de Souza Ferreira1, Marcelo Andrés Umsza-Guez4.
Abstract
The effects of the drying process using the conventional oven and freeze-drying on the thermogravimetric profile, proximate composition, color parameters, individual bioactive compounds, and antioxidant activity in the grape residue (skin) were evaluated. Twenty individual phenolic compounds were identified, where a variation in concentration was observed for flavonols, stilbenes, phenolic acids, flavonoids, procyanidins, and particularly anthocyanins (malvidin-3,5-di-O-glucoside of 253.2-536.9 mg/kg) due to the drying process. Drying in a conventional oven caused a decrease of 23% of the total polyphenols. The skin of the BRS magna grape has a high concentration of total phenolic content of 489.5-148.3 mg.GAE/100 g, total anthocyanin content of 124.9-260.1 mg.CE/100 g, and total flavonoid content of 12.7-26.0 mg.QE/100 g. The results of free radical scavenging activity (1.26-4.91 μg/mL, as EC50) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (82.93-184.10 μmol/g of skin as equivalent to Fe2SO4) indicate high antioxidant activity, independently of the drying process applied. It was concluded that, if the application is directed to anthocyanin compounds, the use of lyophilization is recommended. On the other hand, if the interest is in bioactive compounds that exert antioxidant activity, conventional oven-drying can be used.Entities:
Keywords: Vitis vinifera; agro-food waste; conventional oven; freeze-drying; polyphenols
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32823808 PMCID: PMC7466153 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25163701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Proximate composition of dehydrated BRS magna grape skin residue using conventional oven-drying and freeze-drying methods.
| Parameters | Method Applied ‡ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh Peel | Oven-Drying | Freeze-Drying | ||
| Protein | 7.0 ± 0.2 | 7.0 ± 0.8 | 7.2 ± 1.2 | 0.098 |
| Ash | 6.6 ± 0.2 | 6.4 ± 0.5 | 5.1 ± 0.6 | 0.058 |
| Total lipids | 2.9 ± 0.4 | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 3.3 ± 0.2 | 0.054 |
| Total Carbohydrate † | 83.5 ± 0.8 | 83.8 ± 0.6 | 84.5 ± 0.9 | 0.063 |
| Crude fiber | 35.4 ± 2.0 | 38.0 ± 3.6 | 41.6 ± 1.8 | 0.082 |
‡ The values of mean ± standard deviation (SD) correspond to averages from three samples. † Defined by the difference between 100 and the sum of the percentages of other components, as shown in the Section 3.
Figure 1Thermogravimetric curve (TG) analysis (a) and for derivative weight dTG (b) of dehydrated samples of BRS magna grape skin residue using conventional oven-drying and freeze-drying methods. The profiles shown as blue, red, and black lines represent the fresh skin, conventional oven-drying, and freeze-drying processes, respectively.
Effect of the drying process using conventional oven-drying and the freeze-drying considering lightness (L*), hue angle (H°), and chromaticity (C*) parameters of the BRS magna grape skin residue.
| Parameters | Method Applied ‡ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh Peel | Oven-Drying | Freeze-Drying | ||
|
| 32.8 ± 0.6 c | 34.9 ± 0.1 b | 39.3 ± 0.2 a | <0.001 |
|
| 7.0 ± 0.5 c | 7.6 ± 0.1 b | 10.7 ± 0.1 a | <0.001 |
|
| 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.420 |
‡ The values of mean ± standard deviation (SD) correspond to averages from three samples. Different letters on the same line indicate significant differences between the values (p < 0.05).
Effect of the drying method using the conventional oven-drying and freeze-drying processes in 27 individual phenolic compounds of the BRS magna grape skin residue.
| Phenolic Compounds | Method Applied ‡ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh Peel | Oven-Drying | Freeze-Drying | ||
|
| ||||
| Cyanidin-3,5-di- | 27.9 ± 4.1 a | 11.8 ± 0.1 b | 34.0 ± 3.7 a | <0.001 |
| Malvidin-3,5-di- | 536.9 ± 11.3 b | 253.2 ± 5.5 c | 848.3 ± 6.7 a | <0.001 |
| Pelargonidin-3- | 23.5 ± 1.7 a | 14.0 ± 0.6 b | 13.1 ± 1.0 b | <0.001 |
| Delfinidin-3- | 76.6 ± 2.9 b | 37.1 ± 0.6 c | 115.9 ± 4.0 a | <0.001 |
| Cyanidin-3- | 35.7 ± 5.8 b | 13.1 ± 0.1 c | 59.3 ± 6.6 a | <0.001 |
| Malvidin-3- | 35.7 ± 4.1 a | 16.2 ± 1.2 b | 13.5 ± 1.6 b | <0.001 |
| Peonidina-3- | 2.6 ± 0.1 a | 0.0 ± 0.0 c | 1.5 ± 0.2 b | <0.001 |
| Petunidin-3- | 45.3 ± 1.2 a | 28.4 ± 1.2 b | 25.5 ± 2.3 b | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Kaempferol-3- | 13.1 ± 0.1 a | 7.9 ± 0.1 b | 4.1 ± 0.2 c | <0.001 |
| Rutin | 18.3 ± 0.1 a | 13.1 ± 0.1 b | 5.6 ± 0.5 c | <0.001 |
| Isorhamnetin-3- | 15.7 ± 1.7 a | 10.0 ± 0.6 b | 7.6 ± 0.8 b | <0.001 |
| Myricetin | 0.0 ± 0.0 c | 11.8 ± 0.1a | 4.1 ± 0.2 b | <0.001 |
| 7.8 ± 0.1 a | 5.2 ± 0.1 b | 1.3 ± 0.1 c | <0.001 | |
| Quercetin-3-β-d-glucoside | 99.3 ± 7.0 b | 138.4 ± 3.2 a | 17.2 ± 2.1 c | <0.001 |
|
| ||||
| Gallic acid | 30.5 ± 2.3 a | 22.7 ± 1.5 b | 15.3 ± 2.7 c | <0.001 |
| Caftaric acid | 32.2 ± 1.2 b | 86.0 ± 0.6 a | 24.6 ± 2.6 c | <0.001 |
| Caffeic acid | 1.6 ± 0.1 b | 2.4 ± 0.1 a | 1.6 ± 0.2 b | <0.001 |
| Ferulic acid | 18.3 ± 0.1 a | 10.5 ± 0.1 b | 5.9 ± 0.2 c | <0.001 |
| Chlorogenic acid | 20.1 ± 1.2 a | 20.0 ± 0.6 a | 7.8 ± 0.8 b | <0.001 |
| 33.1 ± 4.6 a | 30.6 ± 1.5 a | 15.5 ± 1.4 b | <0.001 | |
|
| ||||
| (–)-Epicatechin | 17.4 ± 1.2 b | 22.7 ± 1.5 a | 4.3 ± 0.4 c | <0.001 |
| (–)-Epicatechin gallate | 68.8 ± 4.6 a | 48.5 ± 1.7 b | 35.8 ± 3.1 c | <0.001 |
| (–)-Epigalatocatechin gallate | 68.8 ± 6.4 a | 44.5 ± 0.9 b | 22.7 ± 0.5 c | <0.001 |
| (+)-Catechin | 30.5 ± 2.3 a | 26.6 ± 0.6 ab | 24.6 ± 2.7 b | 0.034 |
|
| ||||
| Procyanidin A2 | 20.9 ± 0.1 a | 15.7 ± 0.1 b | 5.9 ± 0.2 c | <0.001 |
| Procyanidin B1 | 36.6 ± 5.2 b | 62.9 ± 2.6 a | 13.8 ± 2.0 c | <0.001 |
| Procyanidin B2 | 20.0 ± 2.3 b | 77.7 ± 4.9 a | 20.0 ± 2.6 b | <0.001 |
| Total compounds | 1337.2 ± 71.1 a | 1031.0 ± 29.2 b | 1351.5 ± 49.2 a | <0.001 |
‡ The values of mean ± standard deviation (SD) correspond to averages from three replicates. Different letters on the same line indicate significant differences between the values (p < 0.05).
Effect of the drying method using conventional oven-drying and freeze-dryingprocesses in the total phenolic, total flavonoid, total anthocyanin, and antioxidant activity of the BRS magna grape skin residue.
| Parameters | Method Applied ‡ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh Peel | Oven-Drying | Freeze-Drying | ||
| Total phenolic (mg.GAE/100 g) | 489.5 ± 1.8 a | 149.9 ± 1.4 b | 148.3 ± 0.9 b | <0.001 |
| Total anthocyanin (mg.CE/100 g) | 124.9 ± 2.7 c | 150.7 ± 0.9 b | 260.1 ± 4.6 a | <0.001 |
| Total flavonoids (mg.QE/100 g) | 2.6 ± 0.1 a | 1.8 ± 0.1 b | 1.3 ± 0.1 c | <0.001 |
| DPPH (EC50 in μg/mL) | 1.3 ± 0.2 c | 3.8 ± 0.1 b | 5.0 ± 0.1 a | <0.001 |
| FRAP (μmol.Fe2+/g) | 184.1 ± 8.9 a | 163.5 ± 10.9 a | 82.9 ± 9.3 b | <0.001 |
‡ The values of mean ± standard deviation (SD) correspond to averages from three samples. Different letters on the same line indicate significant differences between the values (p < 0.05). DPPH, free radical-scavenging activity; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power.
Figure 2Correlations between: luminosity and TAC (a), luminosity and TFC (b), chromaticity and TAC (c) and chromaticity and TFC (d). The values of mean ± standard deviation (SD) correspond to averages from three samples.
Figure 3Correlation: between TPC and the DPPH radical scavenging assay (a); and between TPC and FRAP assay (b). The values of mean ± standard deviation (SD) correspond to averages from three samples.