| Literature DB >> 35205974 |
Hyeon-Woo Moon1,2, Kang-Mo Ku1,2.
Abstract
To date, the impacts of agriphotovoltaic (APV) condition on the production yield of crop have been studied; however, the effect of APV production on the sensorial quality and consumer acceptability of the produce remains unexplored. Therefore, to address this knowledge gap, we cultivated "Winter Storm" cabbage under solar panels (20.16 kW) and in open field in 2020. The weight and diameter reduction rate of fresh cabbage grown under APV condition compared to open-field conditions were 9.7% and 1.2%, respectively. The levels of glucosinolates and their hydrolysis products were not significantly different in the fresh cabbage between the two conditions. The amount of volatile organic compounds, which may affect the perception of smell, were significantly higher in the cabbage juice prepared from the ones grown in open-field conditions than in the juice prepared from cabbages grown under APV conditions (n = 3, p < 0.01). However, untrained subjects could not distinguish the difference in the quality of the 2 sets of cabbage juices in the triangle test (n = 70, p = 0.724). Regardless of the distinguishing features of color, aroma, and taste, the subjects did not have any preference between the two different cabbage juices.Entities:
Keywords: agriphotovoltaic; cabbage juice; glucosinolate; glucosinolate hydrolysis; metabolites; sensory evaluation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35205974 PMCID: PMC8870755 DOI: 10.3390/foods11040498
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1The conceptual diagram of agriphotovoltaic (APV) setup. Bi-facial photovoltaic (PV) panels generate power and crops are cultivated under the PV panels. The shading areas exist owing to sunlight blocked by PV panels.
Microclimate information under open-field and agriphotovoltaic conditions.
| Area | Mean Air Temperature | Max Air | Min Air | Mean Soil | CGDD a,b | Mean | Mean PPFD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OF | 9.2 | 32.9 | −17.3 | 12.2 | 1670.9 | 54.4 | 545.1 |
| APV | 9.0 | 32.7 | −17.1 | 11.7 | 1651.0 | 55.5 | 301.3 |
a Max—maximum; min—minimum; CGDD—cumulative growing degree days; PPFD—photosynthetic photon flux density. b GDD = (Maximum day temp. + Minimum day temp.)/2—base temperature (5 °C).
Figure 2Pictures of cabbages (A); weight and diameter of cabbages grown under open-field (OF) and agriphotovoltaic (APV) conditions (B). Each parameter was measured immediately after harvesting (n = 4). The graph has a scale bar of 10 cm; ns—non-significant.
Glucosinolates and their hydrolysis products in cabbages from open-field and agriphotovoltaic systems.
| Freeze-dried (μmol·g−1 DW) | Juice (μmol·mL−1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucosinolates | OF | APV | OF | APV |
| Glucoiberin | 2.39 ± 0.37 a | 2.19 ± 0.38 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Progoitrin | 3.15 ± 0.57 | 2.89 ± 0.68 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Glucoraphanin | 2.70 ± 0.40 | 2.53 ± 0.47 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Sinigrin | 2.91 ± 0.40 | 3.03 ± 0.60 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Gluconapin | 0.65 ± 0.07 | 0.62 ± 0.09 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Glucobrassicin | 3.54 ± 0.31 | 3.52 ± 0.56 | n.d. | n.d. |
| 4-Methoxyglucobrassicin | 0.80 ± 0.05 | 0.77 ± 0.03 | n.d. | n.d. |
| 4-Hydroxyglucobrassicin | 0.44 ± 0.05 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Neoglucobrassicin | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Gluconasturtiin | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 0.23 ± 0.03 | n.d. | n.d. |
| Total aliphatic GS | 11.82 ± 1.75 | 11.26 ± 2.12 | - | - |
| Total indolyl GS | 4.84 ± 0.37 | 4.71 ± 0.58 | - | - |
| Total GS | 16.86 ± 1.79 | 16.21 ± 2.47 | - | - |
| Freeze-dried (μg·g−1 DW) | Juice (μg·mL−1) | |||
| Glucosinolate hydrolysis | OF | APV | OF | APV |
| 1-cyano-2,3-epithiopropane | 55.81 ± 12.11 | 52.42 ± 10.47 | n.d. | n.d. |
| 1-cyano-3,4-epithiobutane | 12.84 ± 0.91 | 10.44 ± 3.46 | n.d. | n.d. |
| 3-phenylpropanenitrile | 7.05 ± 1.48 | 6.80 ± 0.74 | 0.49 ± 0.02 | 0.55 ± 0.03 *b |
| Erucin nitrile | 2.34 ± 1.00 | 2.32 ± 1.19 | 0.73 ± 0.02 * | 0.66 ± 0.03 |
| Iberverin nitrile | 1.27 ± 0.36 | 1.17 ± 0.59 | 0.44 ± 0.01 | 0.44 ± 0.02 |
| Indole-3-acetonitrile | 13.03 ± 2.22 | 14.30 ± 1.77 | 0.87 ± 0.08 | 1.00 ± 0.07 * |
| Sulforaphane nitrile | 23.30 ± 4.04 | 21.03 ± 3.49 | 0.49 ± 0.06 | 0.51 ± 0.03 |
| Iberin nitrile | n.d. | n.d. | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.33 ± 0.01 |
| Crembene | n.d. | n.d. | 0.45 ± 0.04 | 0.46 ± 0.04 |
| Goitrin | n.d. | n.d. | 0.13 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
| 4-methoxyindole-3-acetonitrile | n.d. | n.d. | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.01 |
| Total GS hydrolysis | 115.63 ± 19.78 | 108.49 ± 15.30 | 4.09 ± 0.22 | 4.23 ± 0.18 |
a The data were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 4, biological replicates, fresh cabbage; 3, technical replicates, cabbage juice). b Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences by Student t-test (p < 0.05) between OF and APV.
Figure 3Scores and loading plots from principal component analysis (PCA) of fresh cabbage (A) and cabbage juice (B) from open-field and agriphotovoltaic systems. Metaboanalyst 5.0 was used for performing PCA.
Figure 4The number (#) of people who chose one sample as different from the other samples, and total number in each group. The data was collected by triangle test of cabbage juice made of cabbage grown under OF and APV (n = 70). Set A contained 2 OF samples and 1 APV sample, while set B had 2 APV samples and 1 OF sample. Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences by chi-square test (p < 0.05) between the total and the number of correct respondents.
Attribute test of how OF sample differs from APV sample in color, scent, and taste.
| Total | Experienced d | Inexperienced | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Color | Scent | Taste | Color | Scent | Taste | Color | Scent | Taste | |
| Mean b | 5.2 ± 1.2 a | 4.5 ± 1.2 | 4.9 ± 1.4 | 5.2 ± 1.2 | 4.7 ± 1.1 | 5.1 ± 1.4 | 5.2 ± 1.2 | 4.3 ± 1.4 | 4.5 ± 1.3 |
| CI c | 4.92–5.48 | 4.19–4.78 | 4.52–5.20 | 4.78–5.56 | 4.29–5.05 | 4.60–5.56 | 4.79–5.64 | 3.82–4.78 | 4.07–5.02 |
a Attribute scores were taken from 7-point hedonic scale how strong OF sample compare to APV sample. (1 = extremely weak, 2 = very weak, 3 = moderately weak, 4 = no difference, 5 = moderately strong, 6 = very strong, and 7 = extremely strong). b The mean data were expressed with ± SD (the numbers of total, experienced, and inexperienced participants were 70, 36, and 34, respectively). c The CI indicates 95% confidence interval of mean and expressed with lower CI–upper CI. d “Experienced” indicates those participants who have ever tasted cabbage juice before the experiment, and it was asked through the questionnaire during the sensorial test.
Figure 5Volatile organic compounds (A) and color difference (ΔE*) of cabbage juice OF when compared with APV (B). Different letters indicate the following: a—furanone; b—furfural; c—2-methylpyrazine; d—2,5-dimethyl pyrazine; e—dimethyl trisulfide; f—1h-pyrrole-2-carboxaldehyde; g—s-methyl methanthiosulphonate. Asterisks (* and **) indicate significant differences in Student’s t-test (p < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively, n = 3 technical replicates) between OF and APV. ns—non-significant.
Figure 6Overall scheme of the experiment. Cabbages were cultivated in conventional open-field conditions and under an agriphotovoltaic system. When the harvest of cabbage grown in OF was 100%, cabbage grown from APV showed a yield of 90.3%. Harvested cabbages were extracted at high temperatures (boiling). Metabolomic approach was utilized for both fresh cabbage and cabbage juice, but only cabbage juice was used for sensory evaluation. Some volatile compounds concentrations were higher in OF than APV. The result of the attribute test showed consumers are aware of the difference between the samples. However, it did not affect the overall consumer preference.