| Literature DB >> 35087858 |
María D Raigón1, María D García-Martínez1, Octavian P Chiriac2.
Abstract
The loss of genetic diversity due to the replacement of local tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) varieties by improved cultivars has been mitigated in many cases by the good work of organic farmers in maintaining local agricultural biodiversity. In parallel to these initiatives, in recent years, consumers have developed an increasing awareness of both food-related health, environmental issues, and food demand to recover the flavors of the past. In the case of tomatoes, these attributes (nutritional, organoleptic, social, and environmental) are closely related to organic production using local varieties. "Malacara" tomato is an example of a local variety. Coming from Sierra de Cádiz, it is a varietal type called "Cuelga" ("for hanging," because the tomato trusses are hung from beams in the farmhouses). Cultivated and harvested in the open air during the summer months, these tomatoes are commercialized and consumed in the winter. Historically, this variety has enabled the fresh consumption of tomatoes during the winter, without the need to force cultivation. It is highly appreciated in the local cuisine and is the basis for sauces figuring in typical dishes. Its characteristic traits are small, pallid fruits, and long shelf life. The main objective of this work has been to typify two Malacara tomato cultivars (red and yellow color) grown under organic farming conditions, through the characterization of morphological, nutritional, and volatile parameters. The main differences are due to morphological parameters (fruit weight and color of the exocarp and endocarp). Other characteristics such as the content of ash, fiber, moisture, the concentration of iron, magnesium, and calcium, and content of lycopene are different between both cultivars. This study provides information on the nutritional and aromatic composition of two Malacara tomato cultivars, differentiated by their color and grown under organic farming conditions. The results add value to the native horticultural heritage and can aid in the selection of tomato varieties suitable for a sustainable production system and to produce tomatoes with high nutritional value and rich in aroma.Entities:
Keywords: biodiversity; flavors of the past; for hanging; red exocarp; yellow exocarp
Year: 2022 PMID: 35087858 PMCID: PMC8786908 DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.810812
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Nutr ISSN: 2296-861X
Figure 1Red and yellow type of tomatoes cv. Malacara.
Morphological parameters for the two types of Malacara tomatoes (mean ± SD, n = 30 and p-value).
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Fruit weight (g) | 30.77 ± 10.18 | 53.23 ± 16.69 | 0.0000 |
| Fruit width (mm) | 38.35 ± 4.99 | 45.55 ± 4.84 | 0.0000 |
| Fruit length (mm) | 35.17 ± 3.65 | 42.04 ± 5.25 | 0.0000 |
| L* exocarp | 70.86 ± 2.05 | 63.57 ± 2.17 | 0.0000 |
| a* exocarp | 0.80 ± 0.50 | 15.11 ± 1.79 | 0.0000 |
| b* exocarp | 27.20 ± 2.36 | 15.68 ± 1.66 | 0.0000 |
| C exocarp | 27.21 ± 2.34 | 21.83 ± 1.95 | 0.0000 |
| He exocarp | 0.03 ± 0.02 | 0.77 ± 0.07 | 0.0000 |
| CI exocarp | 0.44 ± 0.32 | 15.32 ± 2.28 | 0.0000 |
| L* mesocarp and endocarp | 67.95 ± 2.65 | 59.01 ± 2.02 | 0.0000 |
| a* mesocarp and endocarp | 0.93 ± 0.64 | 14.98 ± 2.34 | 0.0000 |
| b* mesocarp and endocarp | 26.63 ± 3.08 | 16.87 ± 1.75 | 0.0000 |
| C mesocarp and endocarp | 26.65 ± 3.06 | 22.61 ± 2.44 | 0.0000 |
| H mesocarp and endocarp | 0.04 ± 0.03 | 0.72 ± 0.07 | 0.0000 |
| CI mesocarp and endocarp | 0.53 ± 0.41 | 15.13 ± 2.28 | 0.0000 |
Nutritional fraction and individual mineral content (100 g of fresh fruits) for the two types of Malacara tomatoes (mean ± SD, n = 3 and p-value).
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Total energy (kcal) | 45.96 ± 5.05 | 35.74 ± 1.80 | 0.0299 |
| Moisture (g) | 85.65 ± 1.15 | 89.26 ± 0.54 | 0.0081 |
| Protein (g) | 1.33 ± 0.18 | 1.20 ± 0.15 | 0.3951 |
| Total fat (g) | 0.22 ± 0.05 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 0.3530 |
| Fiber (g) | 1.84 ± 0.13 | 1.03 ± 0.03 | 0.0005 |
| Carbohydrates (g) | 9.65 ± 0.98 | 7.16 ± 0.35 | 0.0144 |
| Calcium (mg) | 16.05 ± 0.49 | 13.01 ± 0.74 | 0.0041 |
| Copper (mg) | 0.108 ± 0.015 | 0.117 ± 0.008 | 0.5185 |
| Iron (mg) | 0.459 ± 0.027 | 0.339 ± 0.060 | 0.0349 |
| Magnesium (mg) | 31.41 ± 3.48 | 24.43 ± 1.48 | 0.0330 |
| Phosphorus (mg) | 27.04 ± 1.72 | 27.80 ± 2.49 | 0.6932 |
| Potassium (mg) | 833.59 ± 116.32 | 768.74 ± 23.13 | 0.3972 |
| Sodium (mg) | 55.68 ± 16.31 | 52.02 ± 13.73 | 0.7807 |
| Zinc (mg) | 0.351 ± 0.012 | 0.342 ± 0.030 | 0.6530 |
Fruit traits related to tomato flavor and other bioactive characters for the two types of Malacara tomatoes (mean ± SD, n = 3 and p-value).
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| pH | 4.20 ± 0.10 | 4.14 ± 0.110 | 0.5018 |
| Soluble solids content (°Brix) | 6.20 ± 0.20 | 5.87 ± 0.23 | 0.1318 |
| Total sugar content (g 100 g−1 fw) | 4.24 ± 0.57 | 4.25 ± 1.15 | 0.9865 |
| Total acidity (g citric 100 g−1 fw) | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 0.45 ± 0.06 | 0.7060 |
| Taste index | 1.153 ± 0.05 | 1.111 ± 0.05 | 0.3477 |
| Lycopene (μg 100 g−1 fw) | 34.92 ± 6.93 | 5512.22 ± 1046.29 | 0.0008 |
| β-carotene (μg 100 g−1 fw) | 533.85 ± 118.25 | 585.74 ± 125.58 | 0.6305 |
| Total carotenoids (mg 100 g−1 fw) | 0.44 ± 0.09 | 9.35 ± 1.81 | 0.0010 |
| Vitamin C (mg 100 g−1 fw) | 353.33 ± 7.02 | 403.33 ± 40.50 | 0.1029 |
| Antioxidant capacity (AOT μmol ET 100 g−1 fw) | 1238.87 ± 9.49 | 1284.86 ± 12.40 | 0.0070 |
| Total phenolic content (mg EAG 100 g−1 fw) | 55.60 ± 6.83 | 61.22 ± 17.91 | 0.6385 |
List of volatile compounds names, retention index (RI), identification method (RS, reference commercial standard; MS, comparison of the mass spectrum with NIST library and bibliographic data), aroma, mean ± SD, n = 3 and p-value, for the two types of Malacara tomatoes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Alcohols | 2-phenylethanol | 1,136 | RS | Floral, sweet, honey | 489,694 ± 246,807 | 575,642 ± 238,376 | 0.6868 |
| Aldehydes | (E)-2-pentenal | 718 | MS | Green, tomato, orange | 252,609 ± 297,412 | 46,941 ± 27,394.7 | 0.2989 |
| Hexanal | 806 | RS | Green, fresh, fatty, fruity | 1.57E6 ± 1.29E6 | 1.41E6 ± 595,659 | 0.8562 | |
| (E)-2-hexenal | 814 | MS | Green, sweet, bitter, fruity | 764,938 | Not detected | – | |
| (Z)-2-heptenal | 913 | MS | Sweet, green, slightly fatty | 512,567 ± 90,361 | 361,269 ± 44,734.7 | 0.0601 | |
| Benzaldehyde | 982 | MS | Bitter almond-like | 490,981 ± 265,934 | 313,506 ± 46,386.9 | 0.4397 | |
| (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal | 921 | MS | Sweet, creamy, fatty, citrus | 255,776 ± 33,903.6 | 271,685 ± 38,853.4 | 0.6583 | |
| 2-phenylacetaldehyde | 1,081 | MS | Green, sweet, floral | 648,893 ± 309,124 | 423,507 ± 89,267 | 0.2918 | |
| Nonanal | 1,104 | RS | Aldehydic, waxy, rose | 785,860 ± 310,322 | 804,128 ± 200,381 | 0.9359 | |
| Decanal | 1,204 | RS | Aldehydic, sweet, waxy | 372,449 ± 271,639 | 98,519.7 ± 18,316.5 | 0.1563 | |
| (E,E)-2,4-decadienal | 1,220 | MS | Fatty, sweet, fresh | 1.31E6 ± 864,940 | 595,208 ± 91,270.2 | 0.2257 | |
| Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons | Styrene | 883 | MS | Almond | 213,567 ± 60,656 | 104,270 ± 53,238.7 | 0.0789 |
| α-methylnaphthalene | 1,345 | MS | Green musty | 123,585 ± 49,054.7 | 81,914.5 ± 27,784.3 | 0.3677 | |
| Biphenyl | 1,367 | MS | Bergamot, cinnamon | 143,821 ± 91,346.7 | 70,658 ± 43,686.8 | 0.2789 | |
| Esters | Methyl octanoate | 1,083 | MS | Green, fruity, waxy, citrus | 155,334.33 | Not detected | – |
| Isopentyl 3-methylbutanoate | 1,054 | MS | Fruity, sweet, green | 286,361.5 | Not detected | – | |
| Methyl dihydrojasmonate | 1,657 | MS | Floral, citrus | 177,300 | Not detected | – | |
| Furans | 2-pentylfuran | 1,040 | RS | Fruity, green, earthy | 2.31E6 ± 750,558 | 2.54E6 ± 740,288 | 0.7284 |
| Ketones and methylketones | 1-octen-3-one | 943 | MS | Earthy, fungal, green, oily | 260,005 ± 26,349.7 | 248,907 ± 151,929 | 0.9068 |
| acetophenone | 1,029 | RS | Floral, sweet, pungent | 58,117.3 ± 7,932.4 | 64,646 ± 41,419.5 | 0.7916 | |
| Monoterpenes | α-thujene | 902 | MS | Herbal | 55,256.67 | Not detected | – |
| p-cymene | 1,042 | MS | Sweet, soft, fresh, lemon | 5.59E6 ± 813,109 | 3.06E6 ± 1.46E6 | 0.0591 | |
| Limonene | 1,018 | RS | Citrus, herbal, terpenic | 1.56E6 ± 182,424 | 726,484 ± 355,297 | 0.0220 | |
| β-ocimene | 958 | RS | Floral, sweet, herbal, warm | 517,027 ± 50,384 | 182,952 ± 77,229.3 | 0.0033 | |
| γ-terpinene | 998 | MS | Citric, fatty, terpenic | 4.38E6 ± 523,156 | 2.46E6 ± 250,811 | 0.0104 | |
| Perillene | 1,125 | MS | Flowery, citrus-like | Not detected | 570,774 | – | |
| Terpenes | Carvone | 1,190 | MS | Spearmint | 70,377.33 | Not detected | – |
| Camphor | 1,121 | MS | Hot Turkish spices | 130,320 ± 33,954.6 | 121,242 ± 93,096.3 | 0.9088 | |
| Carotenoids | 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one | 938 | MS | Lemon-grass | 161,207 ± 29,513.3 | 1.01E7 ± 998,980 | 0.0001 |
| β-cyclocitral | 1,204 | MS | Tropical, herbal, sweet | Not detected | 167,245.33 | – | |
| Neral (β-citral) | 1,174 | MS | Lemon | Not detected | 186,223.33 | – | |
| Geranial (α-citral) | 1,174 | MS | Lemon | Not detected | 816,193.33 | – | |
| Geranylacetone | 1,424 | RS | Tropical, floral, fresh | not detected | 418,298 | – | |
| Phenol derivatives | Guaiacol | 1,090 | MS | Phenolic, spicy, vanilla | Not detected | 694755 | - |
| Methyl salicylate | 1,281 | RS | Minty, sweet, camphor | 408,744 ± 212,970 | 2.18E6 ± 1.04E6 | 0.0438 | |
| Eugenol | 1,392 | MS | Nutmeg, cinnamon | Not detected | 195,951.33 | – | |
| Nitrogen and sulfur compounds | 2-isobutylthiazole | 1,067 | MS | Woody, tomato-leaf notes | 6.06E7 ± 1.99E7 | 2.22E7 ± 7.85E6 | 0.0359 |
| Benzothiazole | 1,208 | MS | Meaty, cooked, beefy | 150,945 ± 59,548 | 88,841.7 ± 33,318.5 | 0.1901 | |
| Pentane, 1-nitro | 900 | MS | Algae | 7.83E6 ± 1.89E6 | 1.96E6 ± 503,511 | 0.0065 | |
| Benzyl nitrile | 1,138 | MS | Bitter almonds, spicy, floral | 433,907 ± 52,391.4 | 224,000 ± 58,611.4 | 0.0098 | |
| Oxygenated benzene derivatives | Estragole | 1,172 | MS | Anise | 1.79E6 ± 717,612 | 1.01E6 ± 673,743 | 0.2430 |
| Anethole | 1,190 | MS | Anise | 1.27E6 ± 591,754 | 804,140 ± 490,141 | 0.3488 | |
Figure 2Pearson linear correlations between the traits (nutritional and volatile) studied for the data obtained in the two Malacara tomatoes (yellow and red cv). A positive trend between each pair of variables (red color), a negative trend between each pair of variables (blue color), and no relationship between each pair of variables (green color). The strongest positive/negative relationships are displayed with the greatest intensity of color.