| Literature DB >> 33171729 |
Daniela Amidžić Klarić1, Ilija Klarić2, Ana Mornar1, Natalija Velić3, Darko Velić3.
Abstract
Blackberry wine is a natural source of bioactive phenolic compounds that have profound antioxidant potential. The objectives of the present research were to assess the phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of blackberry wines (BW), and to use the chemometric analysis to differentiate among the two groups of samples, i.e., conventional and organic. Fifteen BW samples were analyzed for their total polyphenol index, total polyphenols, total flavonoids, total tannins, total monomeric anthocyanins and antioxidant activity by the appropriate spectrophotometric methods. The concentrations of individual phenolic acids (gallic acid, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid and cinnamic acid) and trans-resveratrol were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. A comparison between the two groups of investigated BW samples revealed a statistically significant difference in the concentration of caffeic acid and p-coumaric acid, both being higher in the organic BW samples. Furthermore, the results showed a series of statistically highly significant relationships between the analyzed constituents (caffeic acid and p-coumaric acid). The antioxidant activity of the investigated wines was proportional to the concentrations of bioactive phytochemicals.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant activity; blackberries cultivation methods; blackberry wine; phenolic compounds
Year: 2020 PMID: 33171729 PMCID: PMC7694964 DOI: 10.3390/foods9111623
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Chromatogram of blackberry wine sample (CBW4) recorded at 313 nm for phenolic acids and trans-resveratrol.
HPLC method validation parameters for the determination of six individual phenolic compounds in blackberry wine.
| Parameter | Gallic Acid | Chlorogenic Acid | Caffeic Acid | Cinnamic Acid | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tR [min] | 9.67 | 37.81 | 39.45 | 52.61 | 99.20 | 89.33 |
| λmax [nm] | 272.3 | 328.2 | 325.4 | 311.1 | 280.3 | 307.2 |
| λquant [nm] | 280 | 323 | 323 | 313 | 280 | 280 |
| Calibration | 1–40 | 0.25–10 | 0.50–20 | 0.50–20 | 0.50–20 | 0.50–20 |
| Calibration line | y = 1.0764x − 0.2043 | y = 0.9439x − 0.1605 | y = 1.9619x − 0.1292 | y = 2.9848x − 0.0560 | y = 3.2168x − 0.0040 | y = 1.7736x − 0.2210 |
| Correlation | 0.9998 | 0.9990 | 0.9990 | 0.9991 | 0.9994 | 0.9996 |
| LOD [mg/L] | 0.071 | 0.064 | 0.096 | 0.038 | 0.046 | 0.135 |
| LOQ [mg/L] | 0.235 | 0.213 | 0.165 | 0.084 | 0.101 | 0.450 |
| Intra-day precision | 0.64 | 1.27 | 1.38 | 1.51 | 0.92 | 1.12 |
| Intra-day precision | 0.69 | 1.47 | 1.60 | 1.60 | - | 1.89 |
tR—retention time; λmax—wavelength of maximum absorbance of the compound; λquant—wavelength for the quantitative analyses of the compound; LOD—limit of detection; LOQ—limit of quantitation; RSD—relative standard deviation; BW—blackberry wine.
Descriptive statistical analysis of polyphenol content and antioxidant activity in conventional and organic BW samples.
| Parameter | All Samples | Conventional Group | Organic Group | ANOVA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | RSD (%) | Mean ± SD | Median | Range of | Interquartile | Mean ± SD | Median | Range of | Interquartile |
|
| |
| TPI | 33.1–89.5 | 0.01–0.83 | 55.9 ± 14.0 | 56.2 | 33.1–75.2 | 47.8–68.0 | 69.3 ± 14.1 | 73.0 | 44.4–89.5 | 59.3–78.0 | 3.3849 | 0.0887 |
| TPH (mg/L) | 868–2581 | 0.02–9.26 | 1772 ± 469 | 1965 | 868–2202 | 1455–2075 | 2136 ± 466 | 2206 | 1280–2581 | 1838–2541 | 2.2599 | 0.1567 |
| Total tannins (mg/L) | 197–1158 | – 1 | 538 ± 325 | 491 | 202–1128 | 307–804 | 583 ± 300 | 534 | 197–1158 | 362–756 | 0.0779 | 0.7845 |
| Nontannins (mg/L) | 666–2117 | 0.05-5.70 | 1234 ± 307 | 1271 | 666–1568 | 1074–1474 | 1404 ± 347 | 1437 | 666–2117 | 1348–1751 | 3.4938 | 0.0843 |
| Total flavonoids (mg/L) | 161–774 | – 1 | 405 ± 247 | 287 | 161–774 | 187–699 | 491 ± 114 | 497 | 307–685 | 412–563 | 0.7745 | 0.3948 |
| Nonflavonoids (mg/L) | 681–2037 | 0.05–5.27 | 1367 ± 387 | 1452 | 681–1804 | 1168–1804 | 1645 ± 415 | 1696 | 842–2037 | 1450–2008 | 1.7871 | 0.2042 |
| ACY (mg/L) | 5.07–217 | 0.41–5.46 | 76.2 ± 87.4 | 24.2 | 5.34–217 | 7.11–168 | 53.5 ± 29.5 | 49.7 | 5.07–97.9 | 33.6–79.6 | 0.4825 | 0.4995 |
| Gallic acid (mg/L) | 23.7–118 | 0.10–4.84 | 59.7 ± 40.7 | 31.4 | 23.7–116 | 26.5–101.2 | 77.9 ± 26.5 | 72.4 | 49.9–118 | 52.2–104 | 1.0816 | 0.3173 |
| Chlorogenic acid (mg/L) | 1.23–8.32 | 0.34–2.93 | 3.46 ± 1.31 | 3.14 | 1.67–5.15 | 2.23–4.96 | 3.59 ± 2.09 | 3.21 | 1.23-8.32 | 2.47–3.93 | 0.0209 | 0.8872 |
| Caffeic acid (mg/L) | 1.25–5.05 | 0.07–3.63 | 2.21 ± 0.84 | 2.05 | 1.25–3.33 | 1.47–3.08 | 3.73 ± 1.22 | 4.09 | 1.40–5.05 | 2.84–4.75 | 7.6597 | 0.0159 |
| 0.331–4.06 | 0.22–4.41 | 0.814 ± 0.426 | 0.660 | 0.331–1.21 | 0.361–1.21 | 2.40 ± 1.23 | 2.39 | 0.881–4.06 | 1.25–3.41 | 10.3478 | 0.0067 | |
| 0.415–4.00 | 0.24–4.93 | 1.30 ± 0.75 | 1.32 | 0.415–2.55 | 0.666–1.82 | 1.73 ± 1.10 | 1.51 | 0.722–4.00 | 0.859–2.28 | 0.7566 | 0.4002 | |
| Cinnamic acid | <LOD (0.046 mg/L) | |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
| DPPH (mg/L) | 4.39–6.69 | 0.19–8.67 | 5.43 ± 0.65 | 5.62 | 4.53–6.27 | 4.57–5.84 | 5.20 ± 0.80 | 4.91 | 4.39–6.69 | 4.67–5.92 | 0.3713 | 0.5528 |
| ABTS (mg/L) | 1.23–7.77 | 0.45–7.98 | 4.95 ± 1.60 | 5.38 | 2.81–7.00 | 2.82–5.95 | 4.05 ± 2.15 | 4.20 | 1.23–7.77 | 2.19–5.46 | 0.8224 | 0.3809 |
| RPA 2 | 0.44–1.36 | 0.02–5.69 | 0.61 ± 0.33 | 0.46 | 0.45–1.36 | 0.44–0.56 | 0.51 ± 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.44–0.57 | 0.46–0.54 | 0.7961 | 0.3885 |
| MoT (mg/L) | 2.99–9.87 | 0.03–7.44 | 5.95 ± 2.13 | 5.60 | 3.79–9.87 | 3.80–7.10 | 5.25 ± 2.37 | 4.71 | 2.99–9.39 | 3.10–7.09 | 0.3637 | 0.5569 |
Cinnamic acid was below the LOD value. No significant differences were found between the triplicates for all determinations. LOD—limit of detection; TPI—total polyphenol index; TPH—total polyphenolic compounds; ACY—total monomeric anthocyanins; DPPH—IC50% values for DPPH method; ABTS—IC50% values for ABTS method; RPA—Reducing power assay; MoT—Molybdenum test; 1 The values were calculated from Equation: Total tannins = TPH—Nontannins; Total flavonoids = TPH—Nonflavonoid. 2 RPA of the samples was evaluated at a concentration of total polyphenols (40 mg/L).
Statistically significant correlations (p < 0.01) between the analyzed parameters and compounds of blackberry wines.
| Parameter |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non–flavonoids | TPI | 0.9486 | |
| Non–flavonoids | TPH | 0.9281 | |
| TPH | TPI | 0.8961 | |
| Non–tannins | TPI | 0.8851 | |
| Non–flavonoids | Nontannins | 0.8707 | |
| Non–tannins | TPH | 0.7890 | |
| TPI | 0.7702 | ||
| Non–tannins | 0.7655 | ||
| Caffeic acid | 0.7580 | ||
| Caffeic acid | Non–tannins | 0.7567 | |
| Total flavonoids | Total tannins | 0.7493 | |
| DPPH | TPI | −0.7443 | |
| MoT | Total tannins | 0.7423 | |
| DPPH | Non–flavonoids | −0.7110 | |
| ABTS | Non–tannins | −0.7077 | |
| Caffeic acid | Gallic acid | 0.7060 | |
TPI—total polyphenol index; TPH—total polyphenolic compounds; DPPH—DPPH method; ABTS—ABTS method; MoT—Molybdenum test
Figure 2The reductive capacity of the tested conventional (CBW) (a) and organic (OBW) (b) group BW samples estimated by the RPA method (A 700nm—absorbance at 700 nm).
Figure 3GDA models of polyphenolic content and antioxidant activity for the investigated conventional (CBW) and organic (OBW) group BW samples presented as squared Mahalanobis distances for each group; dotted lines separate predicted groups, and the triangles (OBW) and circles (CBW) represent the original membership to a group; (a) GDA1 (b) GDA2 and (c) GDA3.