| Literature DB >> 36076894 |
Chaochao Liu1, Hongjian Wan2, Youxin Yang3, Qingjing Ye2, Guozhi Zhou2, Xiaorong Wang4, Golam Jalal Ahammed5,6, Yuan Cheng2.
Abstract
Chili pepper is an important vegetable and spice crop with high post-harvest deteriorations in terms of commercial and nutritional quality. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are eco-friendly light sources with various light spectra that have been demonstrated to improve the shelf-life of various vegetables by manipulating light quality; however, little is known about their effects on the post-harvest nutritional quality of chili peppers. This study investigated the effects of different LED lightings on the post-harvest firmness and nutritional quality of chili peppers. We found that red and blue light could increase the content of capsaicinoids, whereas white and red light could increase the essential and aromatic amino acid (AA) content in pepper. Nonetheless, the influence of light treatments on AA contents and compositions depends strongly on the pepper genotype, which was reflected by total AA content, single AA content, essential AA ratio, delicious AA ratio, etc., that change under different light treatments. Additionally, light affected fruit firmness and the content of nutrients such as chlorophyll, vitamin C, and total carotenoids, to varying degrees, depending on pepper genotypes. Thus, our findings indicate that LED-light irradiation is an efficient and promising strategy for preserving or improving the post-harvest commercial and nutritional quality of pepper fruit.Entities:
Keywords: LED irradiation; amino acid composition; capsaicin; pepper; post-harvest quality
Year: 2022 PMID: 36076894 PMCID: PMC9455159 DOI: 10.3390/foods11172712
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Phenotypic characteristics of three pepper cultivars used in this study.
| Cultivar | Plant Height | Canopy Width | Fruit Length | Fruit Diameter | Fruit No. Plant−1 | Single Fruit Weight | Fruit Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hangjiao-2 | 56.3 ± 2.2 b | 72.0 ± 4.6 b | 119.6 ± 3.5 b | 22.4 ± 1.1 a | 55.5 ± 1.9 b | 18.5 ± 1.2 b | 1014.8 ± 27.9 a |
| Xinxiang-2 | 67.8 ± 2.5 a | 76.3 ± 3.3 a | 134.6 ± 3.2 a | 21.2 ± 1.0 b | 44.8 ± 5.1 a | 20.8 ± 1.0 c | 924.6 ± 163.6 a |
| P1622 | 44.8 ± 2.8 c | 71.8 ± 1.7 b | 88.9 ± 4.4 c | 11.4 ± 0.2 c | 106.5 ± 8.3 c | 5.2 ± 0.6 a | 559.3 ± 92.4 b |
Note: The results are shown as the mean ± SE for quintuplicate samples. Means denoted by the same letter were not significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Effect of light quality on the amino acid composition and content (g kg−1) in fruits of three pepper cultivars.
| Hangjiao-2 | Xinxiang-2 | P1622 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dark | White | Red | Blue | Dark | White | Red | Blue | Dark | White | Red | Blue | |
| T | 37.0 | 40.6 | 54.3 | 52.1 | 37.2 | 35.0 | 33.8 | 38.8 | 36.4 | 31.6 | 32.4 | 32.8 |
| A | 14.8 | 17.8 | 22.3 | 21.4 | 14.9 | 14.7 | 14.3 | 15.5 | 13.9 | 12.7 | 13.0 | 12.6 |
| B | 22.3 | 22.8 | 31.9 | 30.8 | 22.3 | 20.3 | 19.5 | 23.3 | 22.5 | 18.9 | 19.4 | 20.2 |
| C | 3.1 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 3.6 |
| D | 7.1 | 6.8 | 11.1 | 10.8 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.0 | 8.2 | 8.0 | 6.4 | 6.7 | 7.2 |
| E | 6.9 | 8.1 | 10.5 | 9.9 | 7.0 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.3 | 6.9 | 6.0 | 6.3 | 6.0 |
| F | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.7 | 5.6 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.4 |
| A/T% | 39.84 | 43.78 | 41.14 | 40.96 | 39.97 | 41.97 | 42.26 | 39.90 | 38.30 | 40.07 | 40.20 | 38.51 |
| B/T% | 60.16 | 56.22 | 58.86 | 59.04 | 60.03 | 58.03 | 57.74 | 60.10 | 61.70 | 59.93 | 59.80 | 61.49 |
| C/T% | 8.50 | 8.04 | 8.66 | 8.66 | 8.99 | 8.44 | 8.09 | 9.17 | 10.36 | 9.56 | 8.54 | 10.81 |
| D/T% | 19.27 | 16.68 | 20.45 | 20.73 | 21.50 | 18.79 | 17.75 | 21.21 | 21.95 | 20.16 | 20.81 | 21.94 |
| E/T% | 18.68 | 19.89 | 19.43 | 18.93 | 18.86 | 18.64 | 19.20 | 18.78 | 18.99 | 19.02 | 19.41 | 18.18 |
| F/T% | 10.72 | 12.26 | 10.54 | 10.83 | 10.75 | 11.63 | 11.64 | 10.81 | 10.10 | 11.00 | 10.99 | 10.44 |
Note: T, Total amino acid; A, Essential amino acid; B, Non-essential amino acid; C, Children essential amino acid; D, Monosodium glutamate-like amino acid; E, Sweet amino acid; F, Aromatic amino acid. The results are shown as the mean ± SE of triplicate samples. Means denoted by the same letter did not differ significantly at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Effect of light quality on the essential amino acid score of three pepper cultivars.
| Essential Amino Acids | Amino Acid | Hangjiao-2 | Xinxiang-2 | P1622 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dark | White | Red | Blue | Dark | White | Red | Blue | Dark | White | Red | Blue | ||
| Thr | 2.30 | 5.34 | 5.29 | 5.50 | 5.35 | 5.20 | 5.31 | 5.55 | 5.19 | 5.09 | 5.04 | 5.33 | 4.90 |
| Val | 3.90 | 5.68 | 5.92 | 5.36 | 5.42 | 5.29 | 5.48 | 5.38 | 5.12 | 4.96 | 5.22 | 5.37 | 5.05 |
| Ile | 3.00 | 4.28 | 4.39 | 4.23 | 4.29 | 4.13 | 4.45 | 4.44 | 4.07 | 3.82 | 4.18 | 4.16 | 4.23 |
| Leu | 5.90 | 10.36 | 11.31 | 10.44 | 10.54 | 10.26 | 10.87 | 11.12 | 10.29 | 9.80 | 10.43 | 10.19 | 9.84 |
| Lys | 4.50 | 7.72 | 8.34 | 7.77 | 7.86 | 7.46 | 7.71 | 7.25 | 7.50 | 7.20 | 7.46 | 7.61 | 7.25 |
| Met + Cys | 2.20 | 1.78 | 1.66 | 1.96 | 1.57 | 1.79 | 1.86 | 1.89 | 1.89 | 1.98 | 1.79 | 1.60 | 1.61 |
| Phe + Tyr | 3.80 | 11.09 | 12.26 | 10.54 | 10.83 | 10.75 | 11.63 | 11.64 | 10.81 | 10.10 | 11.00 | 10.99 | 10.44 |
*, Amino acid composition of an “ideal” protein as published by FAO/WHO/UNU [20]; Amino acids are represented by the 3-letter abbreviation code. The results are shown as the mean ± SE of triplicate samples. Means denoted by the same letter did not differ significantly at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 1Effect of light quality on capsaicin (A), dihydrocapsaicin (B), and capsaicinoid (C) content in pepper fruits of three cultivars. Results are shown as mean ± SE of triplicate samples. Means denoted by the same letter were not significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 2Effect of light quality on fruit firmness. Results are shown as mean ± SE of twelve samples. Means denoted by the same letter were not significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 3Effect of light quality on chlorophyll content (A), total carotenoid content (B), vitamin C content (C), and soluble protein content (D). Results are shown as mean ± SE of triplicate samples. Means denoted by the same letter were not significantly different at p < 0.05 according to Tukey’s test.